Ripperologist 146 - October 2015

[mklhawley]

That isn't necessarily true. The pattern you see is prostitutes. The pattern the killer may have seen was "easy female victims" with prostitutes being the simplest victim to attain, but that doesn't necessitate any special predatory notion towards prostitutes. Many have argues against one victim or another even being on the game the night they were murdered, not that I agree with that. The idea of this pattern you suggest (and others of course) simplifies things in a way that aint necessarily so.

Mike

If the pattern was easy female victims - which I have no issues - it's still adult females. There are no boys, girls, and men. There were lots of old fart men who could have easily been victims, but were not.

My assumption certianly is the C5, but even minus one, it is still the same.

What you also need to take into account is, he attacked what makes women women, the womb. If he had time, Nichols would have experienced the same thing Chapman experienced. He cut the breasts off of Kelly. Sorry, I disagree with you and John (since he agreed with you on this).

Sadly, for your argument, there is a pattern against adult females, so have we ever seen a serial killer with a similar pattern then go for boys? I don't think so.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Also, Mike and John, your 'not necessarily' is about JtR's MO. I'm talking about JtR's offender signature. Per expert forensic scientist Brent Turvey, JtR's signature was "the mutilation of victims' abdomens and reproductive organs".

Sorry,

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Also, Mike and John, your 'not necessarily' is about JtR's MO. I'm talking about JtR's offender signature. Per expert forensic scientist Brent Turvey, JtR's signature was "the mutilation of victims' abdomens and reproductive organs".

Sorry,

Mike

yup. but I would add-and the removal/taking away of internal organs.

Nothing overtly sexual.

If he was a homosexual and or pedophile, I wonder if that added to his confusion/anger against women?

[Sleuth1888]

Look forward to reading this interesting latest edition.

[Ben]

Now. That's a post.

I appreciate your saying so, Abby.

Unfortunately, I find myself debating this subject with people whose knowledge of serial crime appears to derive from CSI Leamington Spa.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

My observation still stands, which is that you of all people have no business dismissing a suspect on the grounds that his behaviour would make him “rare” amongst serial killers, lest you be accused of hypocrisy and double standards. It is exceptionally “rare” for a serial killer to expose himself – if you’ll forgive the apt expression! – to police, press and public in the immediate aftermath of an early crime. If such behaviour is exhibited at all, it tends to occur in the wake of the last crime and often results in the capture of that serial killer. For such exposure – as a seemingly innocent witness – to be followed by another murder (in this case Chapman’s) in the same locality a few days later is rarer still, because it runs so contrary to prudent and rational behaviour of the type that we might expect from a more organised offender.

If Crossmere was the killer, it would also make him a “commuter” who ventured into the same locality, kill after kill, from a bolt-hole situated outside the murder zone, and thus “very rare” according to David Canter’s studies.

I’m not suggesting that a ripper theory suffers hugely from relying on him being a “rarity” in an already “exceptionally rare” subset of humanity; I am saying that someone like you, who subscribes to a particularly notorious example of such a theory, is in the worst position imaginable to decry other theories as weak because they too reject the premise that a proposed suspect must be shown to have engaged, at all times, in “normal” serial killer behaviour – whatever that is.

“I actually work from the presumption that I am by far the more knowledgeable of us in matters like these, so my guess is that we can safely rule out the latter suggestion.”

I was referring to actual knowledge, not just stuff you hastily Googled during the course of one of your interminable “debates”.

“They will also tell you that a killer with an identified victim group (like, for example, adult women), is unlikely to shift his interest to another group.

“They will also tell you that a shift of interest in the victim group involving a change of choice of gender is very, very rare. If it truly mirrors the killers interests, it is more or less unheard of.”

This is just psychobabble, and before you accuse me of attacking you personally, you needn’t worry, since it‘s not even your psychobabble. It’s something you think you read somewhere and are now regurgitating. What I’ve been producing are actual examples that illustrate the non-rarity of serial killers whose crimes spanned both genders and a variety of ages. If such outdated factoids as the ones you espouse were applied to known serial killer investigations - and if the offenders had not been caught - would be arguing that the Rostov Ripper was more than one person.

It is equally nonsensical to assert that a serial killer whose crimes “escalated” will never revert back to the sort of antisocial behaviour that they might have engaged in before that “escalation” happened. It’s akin to saying that a habitual car thief would never go back to merely speeding. Serial killers can, and have, engaged in minor crimes such as indecent exposure, “advanced” to the more serial crime of murder, before reverting back to indecent exposure.

“Albeit the misgivings with a number of posters who suggest that we should treat Astrakhan Man as somebody who has never existed, we actually need to treat him as a real figure as long as the opposite cannot nearly be proven.”

Albeit the misgivings with a number of posters who suggest that we should treat Crossmere as a serial killer, we actually need to treat him as an innocent witness as long as the opposite cannot nearly be proven.

Do you see what I did there, Fisherman?

Do you see, now, why it might be best not to get too involved in other suspect discussions, and confine yourself to the defense of your unpopular Crossmere theory? If you stick around here, which I hope you will, the expectation is that you will continue to score more and more own goals against your own suspect theory. Treating Astrakhan man as genuine until proven otherwise? Surely you must realise what a very silly argument that is for someone with your suspect agenda. How about we treat Crossmere as innocent “until proven otherwise”?

[Ben]

a serialist with a clearly defined and homogenous group of victims and an extremely violent methodology, suddenly (or gradually) becoming a flasher focused on a different age group in the opposite gender and inflicting no physical damage at all.

But that's such a ludicrously detailed and specific set of criteria that the chances of it applying to more than one individual will always be laughably slim. Why don't you pop over to the Tumblety threads and employ that sort of reasoning there? Why don't you say "Hey Tumbletossers! Can you find me a single example of a serial killer who had a large moustache, rode a white horse, wore faux military uniform, came from Rochester NY and was gay? No? Then Tumblety wasn't the ripper".

[Ben]

Hi John,

JtR was very consistent in respect of his MO and signature, I.e targeting prostitutes, demonstrating escalating violence, focussing on mutilations, murdering his victims by slitting their throat.

Ooh, but that’s a horribly circular argument, isn’t it?

If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then he wasn’t “very consistent in respect of his MO and signature” because his crimes included those against boys. You can’t argue that he was “very consistent” on the basis of already having ruled out any possibility of him committing later offences that bore little similarity to earlier crimes; that's the very epitome of circular reasoning. You might argue that, as far as we know, the ripper only targetted prostitutes...

It was popular, at least for a time, to consider Severin Klosowski a lead runner for the ripper mantle, and yet his string of poisonings didn’t even have a sexual dimension to them, unlike the flashings (and whatever else) that Aussie George committed. You are quite wrong, therefore, to claim that the two sets of crimes were not "behavioural and thematically consistent". Pop along to the Klosowski threads if you’re looking for an example of a suspect whose crimes bore a genuine dissimilarity with the ripper's in terms of "behaviour" and "theme".

I was able to provide several examples, straight off the top of my head, of serial killers whose crimes targeted both boys and adult females, whereas you failed to cite any sources or statistics when pooh-poohing those examples as “exceptionally rare” or “not remotely likely” or “(insert inappropriate hyperbole here)”. You didn’t even acknowledge my correction of your mistaken impression that “sexual motivated serial killers” don’t “attack both genders”, which I thought was a pity.

I have no problem with your refusal to “buy” the idea of this particular George Hutchinson as ripper – especially as I never wrote the article, and thus have nothing to “sell” – but you should at least be prepared to bring more than the misunderstood results of a googled keyword search and misappropriated psychoanalyses to the table when you do. I brought up the case of Nathaniel Code in response to your erroneous claim that sexually-motivated crimes never span both genders (I’m the only person, as far as I’m aware, ever to bring up the case here), and then a couple of posts later, you’re waxing lyrical about the case. An uncharitable soul might be tempted to conclude that you researched the case online in response to the reference I made to him on this thread.

“In fact, frankly I think it a hundred times more likely that MJK was murdered by Astrachan Man than Aussie George.”

Well “frankly” that’s just silly, in my opinion, considering that both “Astrakhan man” and its author were discredited shortly after they were first introduced to the police, but then there exists a school of thought – usually restricted to the internet/hobbyist model of serial crime research – that continues to be titillated by the prospect of the ripper as a well-dressed dandy from the upper echelons. I’m not suggesting for a moment that you’re a card-carrying member of this fraternity, but it can be a geeky old game, this "ripperology" business, and since anyone can play, it’s not unusual to encounter the odd fancier of Gentleman Jack. An identifying feature of group, I've noticed, is a pretense towards having great insight into serial crime, as well as the frequent misuse of expressions such as “MO” and “signature”

[mklhawley]

But that's such a ludicrously detailed and specific set of criteria that the chances of it applying to more than one individual will always be laughably slim. Why don't you pop over to the Tumblety threads and employ that sort of reasoning there? Why don't you say "Hey Tumbletossers! Can you find me a single example of a serial killer who had a large moustache, rode a white horse, wore faux military uniform, came from Rochester NY and was gay? No? Then Tumblety wasn't the ripper".

Hey, my ears are ringing!

[Fisherman]

Why the long posts, Ben?

It is totally implausibe that Flash George was the Ripper, on account of the totally differing types of crimes.

That is all that needs to be said.

Trying to impress upon the boards how much more read up you are on these matters than I am, is going to take a radically different background.

It would help if you could prove that Aussie Flash was ever in the East End, for example. Or London, even. But you really can´t, can you?

[John G]

Hello Ben,

I have read your last post several times, which unfortunately did seem to me to be a little incomprehensible at times. In fact, to be honest, I really am struggling to identify the salient points you were trying to make. I will therefore make an attempt to refocus the debate on to the main issues.

Firstly, a killer's signature is not, as you seem to think, determined by the age of victims he selects or the gender. No, it involved elements such as overkill, posing the victim, mutilations. It is this factor that remains broadly consistent; that's to say the ritual may not be identical at every crime scene but it remains "behavioural similar, thematically consistent."( Schlesinger, 2010).

Regarding Nathaniel Code. I had read up on this serial killer some time ago (yes, I know this may come as a shock, but other posters, apart from yourself, also have interest in serial killers apart from JtR.) The reason I referred to Code is that his signature remained remarkably consistent, despite the fact he targeted different genders and different age groups (a point I made very clear in my post to Abby, and which, for some reason, you seem to have completely ignored.)

Now are you seriously arguing that the crime signature of a flasher, who indecently assaults young boys, corresponds to a that of a mutilator like JtR? If so please site precedent? In fact it's worth noting that Keppel (2005) even rejected Coles and McKenzie as JtR murders I.e because of fundamental differences in signature.

You also seem to ignore Mike's excellent arguments in post 46, that JtR focussed on the organs of reproduction and breast areas, "what makes women women". I also argued that there was a sexual element to these crimes which, regrettably, you also failed to address.

To summarize, tilt seems to me that your argument has narrowed to the issue of age and gender, I.e you simply argue that as some serial killer's target victims of both genders, and accross all age groups, then Aussie George cannot be ruled out as JtR. However, as I've pointed out they are not signature elements so happily such arguments can be views as incidental and can be safely discarded.

I note,that you also seem to dislike the notion of posters undertaking their own research-there's a reference to "googled"in your post. Well, fortunately I am able to reassure you that, as a university graduate, I am quite capable of undertaking my own research.

By the way, I agree with you that George Chapman is a hopeless candidate for JtR, something I've stated numerous times on the message boards.

[John G]

Hi John,



Ooh, but that’s a horribly circular argument, isn’t it?

If Jack the Ripper was “Aussie George” then he wasn’t “very consistent in respect of his MO and signature” because his crimes included those against boys. You can’t argue that he was “very consistent” on the basis of already having ruled out any possibility of him committing later offences that bore little similarity to earlier crimes; that's the very epitome of circular reasoning. You might argue that, as far as we know, the ripper only targetted prostitutes...

It was popular, at least for a time, to consider Severin Klosowski a lead runner for the ripper mantle, and yet his string of poisonings didn’t even have a sexual dimension to them, unlike the flashings (and whatever else) that Aussie George committed. You are quite wrong, therefore, to claim that the two sets of crimes were not "behavioural and thematically consistent". Pop along to the Klosowski threads if you’re looking for an example of a suspect whose crimes bore a genuine dissimilarity with the ripper's in terms of "behaviour" and "theme".

I was able to provide several examples, straight off the top of my head, of serial killers whose crimes targeted both boys and adult females, whereas you failed to cite any sources or statistics when pooh-poohing those examples as “exceptionally rare” or “not remotely likely” or “(insert inappropriate hyperbole here)”. You didn’t even acknowledge my correction of your mistaken impression that “sexual motivated serial killers” don’t “attack both genders”, which I thought was a pity.

I have no problem with your refusal to “buy” the idea of this particular George Hutchinson as ripper – especially as I never wrote the article, and thus have nothing to “sell” – but you should at least be prepared to bring more than the misunderstood results of a googled keyword search and misappropriated psychoanalyses to the table when you do. I brought up the case of Nathaniel Code in response to your erroneous claim that sexually-motivated crimes never span both genders (I’m the only person, as far as I’m aware, ever to bring up the case here), and then a couple of posts later, you’re waxing lyrical about the case. An uncharitable soul might be tempted to conclude that you researched the case online in response to the reference I made to him on this thread.



Well “frankly” that’s just silly, in my opinion, considering that both “Astrakhan man” and its author were discredited shortly after they were first introduced to the police, but then there exists a school of thought – usually restricted to the internet/hobbyist model of serial crime research – that continues to be titillated by the prospect of the ripper as a well-dressed dandy from the upper echelons. I’m not suggesting for a moment that you’re a card-carrying member of this fraternity, but it can be a geeky old game, this "ripperology" business, and since anyone can play, it’s not unusual to encounter the odd fancier of Gentleman Jack. An identifying feature of group, I've noticed, is a pretense towards having great insight into serial crime, as well as the frequent misuse of expressions such as “MO” and “signature”

Hello Ben,

Just to add to my last post, you refer to the "misuse of expressions such as MO and signature." I trust you noted that in my post to Abby I cited Keppel's definition of MO and signature, i.e to avoid such confusion. Keppel is, of course, a respected criminologist with many published works on the subject; it is therefore somewhat doubtful that he would be guilty of misusing the aforementioned expressions.

[The Good Michael]

If the pattern was easy female victims - which I have no issues - it's still adult females. There are no boys, girls, and men. There were lots of old fart men who could have easily been victims, but were not.

My assumption certianly is the C5, but even minus one, it is still the same.

What you also need to take into account is, he attacked what makes women women, the womb. If he had time, Nichols would have experienced the same thing Chapman experienced. He cut the breasts off of Kelly. Sorry, I disagree with you and John (since he agreed with you on this).

Sadly, for your argument, there is a pattern against adult females, so have we ever seen a serial killer with a similar pattern then go for boys? I don't think so.

Yes as I said, a pattern for adult females, but you said "harlots". I disagreed that that was a necessity or that we could know that was a necessity. How in hell did you lump me in the 'going for boys' category?

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I think a signature is BS. If one believes that a serial killer has a signature, one can always keep it to a simple idea and then suggest that the signature was there but that there were embellishments, and when an "expert" does so, we are supposed to agree. This signature thing can be refuted in almost all serial killers and quite logically. The "experts" might also logically point the signatures out, but who's correct? Just because modern criminology has a label for something doesn't mean it's right. The MO is much more straight forward and may be seen much more easily and agreed upon....just arguing here....no point really.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

I think a signature is BS. If one believes that a serial killer has a signature, one can always keep it to a simple idea and then suggest that the signature was there but that there were embellishments, and when an "expert" does so, we are supposed to agree. This signature thing can be refuted in almost all serial killers and quite logically. The "experts" might also logically point the signatures out, but who's correct? Just because modern criminology has a label for something doesn't mean it's right. The MO is much more straight forward and may be seen much more easily and agreed upon....just arguing here....no point really.

Mike

actually Mike, its an excellent point really. Theres a lot of gray area. and its almost as much of an an art as it is a science-there are certainly no hard and fast rules like other branches of science.

There are scores of serial killers who have had boys, men, women, girls as victims, let alone ones who have employed differing MOs and evolving sigs.

To rule out candidates, like chapman and Aussie George,who otherwise have many other valid reasons to consider, but whos MO/sig/victim might differ from the WC victims, is just plain wrong headed.

To go strictly by the book on this way of thinking:

Rader couldn't have killed Mr.Ortega or his little girl
Bundy couldn't have been the one to rampage in the sorority house
kemper couldn't have killed his mother or grandparents
Shawcross couldn't have killed any males
Carl panzram couldn't have killed boys
The boston strangler couldn't have gone back to raping women
The beltway sniper couldn't have been the two black men
The original night stalker couldn't have also been the Visalia ransacker
Albert Fish couldn't have murdered those boys
The Zodiac could not have killed the cab driver
Nilsen never could have changed his MO
ETC
ETC
ETC


To try to pin down or label or quantify the extremely complicateded mind of a serial killer is futile. theyre not robots, though im starting to think some posters way of thinking on here may be.