|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 9:44 am: | 
|
There has been much discussion on this site about the possibility of more than one Jack. The theory goes that several SKs were operating in Whitechapel in 1888 and the media conflated the phenomenon into a bogeyman.
It occurred to me that if we had figures on the incidence of the SK phenomenon per thousand we might be able to examine the statistical probability of more than one SK in Whitechapel in 1888.
First I went to Wikipedia to examine the prevalence of serial killers. Not much is known and the current figures for the U.S. range from 35 to 500.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer#Prevalence
Then I typed into Google “United States Population” and got this:
United States — Population: 295,734,134
According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html
I did the math using the trusty calculator that comes with Windows and rounded to two decimal places.
295,734,134/500= 591,468.27 1 in approximately 600 thousand
295,734,134/35= 8,449,546.69 1 in approximately 8 and a half million
That’s quite a range. The next step would be to determine how many people lived in Whitechapel in 1888 and do the math.
Or if you think he came from the greater metropolitan area of London then let’s find those numbers and do the math.
I can truly say I have not taken one side or the other on this issue yet. I'm going to look for population figures for Whitechapel and go from there. Does anybody know where you might find this? |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
From http://www.leftfield-psi.net/occult/ripper.html
The total population of the East End around 1888 was nearly 900,000, and 80,00 of these souls called Whitechapel home. Mr. Booth placed these numbers into categories.
Presumably this website used Booth as their source so it should be reliable.
From: http://www.bartleby.com/208/26.html
Population of London, 1881 (census) 3,816,483
Using these figures and considering all variables:
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
As you can see, the best you can do using the U.S. figure of 35 is slightly less than half a serial killer. If you read the Wikipedia article it gives a little more weight to the 35 than to the 500.
If the US currently has 500 serial killers marching around then the rate would indicate a little more than one tenth of a serial killer in Whitechapel, and
that there would only be one and one half serial killers in the whole East End. Only if you include the entire population of London then it gets up to about 6 and one third.
I have some reservations about the number 8000 because of the misplacement of the comma. However, even if the true number is 80,000 the result is still only a fraction of a serial killer for Whitechapel. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2755
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
very interesting, so do you think this means not very likely, in fact, very unlikely?
Jenni |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Yes, based on these numbers, I would say the likelihood of 2 or more Jacks would be very slim.
Granted, the range for the U.S. is humongous, 35 to 500. But even when you look at both extremes the likelihood of 2 or more Jack's begins to look slim.
The Wikipedia article tended to discount the 500 figure somewhat and put more weight on the 35, so it begins to look more likely there was only one.
All numbers come from quick Google searches and more in depth research might yield different results. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
http://www.houseofhorrors.com/lucas.htm
Some experts believe the number of serial killers is rising. "Going back to 1960, you had about 10,000 homicides a year in the U.S., and most of these were solved and very few of them represented multiple or serial killers," notes Ressler, now a forensic consultant in Spotsylvania, Virginia. "Today we're running 25,000 homicides a year, and a significant number of those homicides are going unsolved. We're seeing a great increase in stranger killing and in many of these cases, the victims are falling to serial and multiple killers." Still, the notoriety these killers enjoy is out of proportion to their numbers. The FBI estimates there may only be dozens of serial killers operating in the U.S. Yet serial murder remains a peculiarly American phenomenon: 75% of the 160 or so repeat killers captured or identified in the past 20 years were in the U.S."1
http://www.she-dc.com/she4.html
So, being a profiler and also an advocate of public safety, I will lean on the side of caution when I guess and aim for the high side. Not being a statistician and quite frankly having no desire to become one, I will show you my very childish method of guesswork in this. Hmm....let's see. In my neck of the woods, I am aware of at least four serial killers by name that are out and about. I know they do not account for all the homicides on our area homicide list, so I think I am probably unaware of at least half a dozen more. So I have about ten just here in the Washington DC and I haven't even looked the thirty minutes drive north to Baltimore or the two hours north to Philadelphia or the two hours drive south to Richmond, a rather busy little homicide area. Even the beach areas of Ocean City, Maryland have known serial killers and the rolling farmlands and growing developments of Spotsylvania, Virginia have a serial killer in their midst and have no idea who he is.
So, with a guess of three large city areas per state and a bunch of small towns and cities that I will add up to make an equivalent of another city, I come up with four cities per state with ten serial killers each. Forty per state times fifty (we do have fifty states still, don't we?) and there we have the number of serial killers at 2000! High? Perhaps. But, remember, these are not all active at the same time, so over a decade, some may do little and some may be very busy. You can do your own math and guesswork, but the point is that serial killers are out there in numbers the police and government officials do not like to admit. Ah, statistics.......can't figure 'em out...can't make 'up that well either.
http://www.wowessays.com/dbase/af5/dtb118.shtml
Do to modern technology, particularly transportation, it is often hard to connect two seemingly separate murders. Most experts agree with Holmes and DeBurger’s estimate of victims of serial murders at 3,500 to 5,000 per year. From this the estimated number of serial killers active today is 350, or 7 per state.
http://forensic.to/webhome/venoutsos/Serial_Killer_Thesis.htm#_Toc389890878
Equally contested is the number of serial killers operating within any area at a point in time. Norris (1988) claims that 500 serial killers remain at large in the U.S. at any one time. More conservative estimates range from 30 (Starr, 1984) through 35 (Levin & Fox, 1985) to 100 (Leyton, 1986). Through the juxtaposition of the two estimates (highest number of victims and lowest number of killers), we may arrive at an average value of 200 homicides every year from each U.S. serial murderer. Although deliberately distorted, such a value does highlight the lack of consensus as to what is a fundamental statistic in the study of serial murder and serves to highlight the inadequacies of the field. In England and Wales, taking into account the much lower murder rate in the U.K. than U.S., a figure of up to 4 killers (satisfying the two victim criterion described earlier) at large may be accurate (Gresswell & Hollin, 1994).
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
This is a worthy and good effort to try and iron out a few creases, however I feel there are so many ‘wild cards’ in the pack called Jack that statistics may never be able to help us.
Just take the modern trend of police forces all over the world to credit crimes to killers in an effort to clear their books, when that killer has absolutely nothing to do with the murders, but has agreed to take them on to avoid a death sentence or similar.
This alone will slam the stats so sideways that they will never make any sense… ever.
Then there is a clear trend in the LVP - and in fact still today amongst the British police - to grab the first lunatic available, charge him with murder and then have him promptly HMP’d, so the murder is not solved but the case is very much closed.
Personally I have always felt that the fact that the murder of prostitutes actually decreased in 1888 - in comparison to years before and after - unless those murders were supposedly committed by Jack, speaks absolute volumes.
In fact it makes my ears hurt the noise is so loud.
Three would be about right for Jack.
Statistics demand that the others were committed by different individuals, each with different motives. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 228
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I doubt that Jack had an accomplice but it's almost certain that there was at least one other serial killer operating in the area at the time. Here I'm speaking of the so called "Thames Torso Slayer".
Statistics also don't take into account the cases where a serial killer "turns" an aquaintance into joining him in his crimes. These "converts" would likely have never killed anyone had they not been groomed by their mentor. Homolka would be an example here.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 714
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Hi,AP, you're right when you say that there are a lot of variables here with a great deal of opportunity for distortion by error.
However, the thing I perceived as my argument's greatest weakness may be its greatest strength, namely the broadness of the range.
When you give a range which says that a number can be anywhere from one in 600,000 to one in 8 and a half million you've got 7,400,000 worth of wiggle room.
No respected person has given a figure below 30 or above 500 (except one of my quotes above and the overall tone of hilarity calls it into question).
That means that if the true rate is one in 850,000 police error would have to inflate it by a factor of 10 to change the conclusion.
If the true rate is one in 6 million, police error would have to reduce it by a factor of 10 to change the conclusion.
There is much uncertainty about the figures, but there is also room for uncertainty without affecting the results. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1804
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Stan,
Whilst I understand your reasons behind thinking that two killers were in operation during that time I would like to ask why you think the Thames torso murderer was a serial killer?
To me it has the traits of a Gangland killing as does the Whitehall mystery and, to a lesser extent, the Pichin street torso.
There were other murders true....but another serial killer?
Cheers,
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
a gangland killing? I never heard of that theory before. Do you mind my asking what these traits would be? The nearest I have to knowing about such things is watching the Sopranos and I doubt that counts as knowledge really,
Jenni
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 185
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Diana,
Very interesting angle indeed!
There is obviously a great difference in having several murderers at large in Whitechapel, as opposed to several serial killers. This is why I think it most likely that "ripper like" murders in the (relatively short) period in question most likely was perpetrated by one killer.
I would expect the statistical numbers of actual serial killers in 1888 to be far less than modern figures. After all, the police at the time had little experience with it. I think Begg wrote that Jack ushered in a paradigm shift in terms of making the police and public aware of serial killing.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3834
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Although I find Diana's approach interesting as usual, I have to disagree with you and some of the thoughts behind these attempts.
Firstly, murders perpetrated by several different people can just explode for no real reason on some years in some areas.
Statistics are therefore very difficult to rely on, since it doesn't take such things into account.
The most important factor to consider is that murderers gets influenced by other killers, and especially in 1888 when it was not as commonplace as it is today with those kinds of crimes. The role of the media hysteria must be taken in consideration here.
If a mythical murderer is at large he is very likely to influence others, and this was also even worrying the authorities at the time, so they were well aware of the danger.
It is even possible that the Ripper himself might have been triggered off by other murders before him; many of those that are considered as "early murders" could very well be the work of someone else, but triggering him off to commit his crimes (although taking things a step further). This option can never be ruled out and has happened in several cases. And when it does, it pretty much destroys and brings all local statistics out of order.
Figures and general calculations doesn't always explain it all, unfortunately, and neither does the popular 'evolution theory' regarding a killers' method.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 715
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
My figures were based on the U.S. where the rate is thought to be much higher.
Also it is thought to be increasing over time so if we extrapolate backwards it would have been less common in 1888.
The current estimate for England is 4. Even ignoring the decrease that would come with time and the smaller population in 1888, what are the chances that with only 4 in the whole country 2 or more of them would have been operating in Whitechapel?
As to one inspiring another, I truly have come to believe that these people have some kind of neurological deficit. Once we know the nature of the deficit I think we will find that it recurs at a measurable rate.
Therefore the "followers" you posit must come not from the general population but from a very small subset of people who are born with or receive some kind of brain damage that causes this awful anomaly.
There will be a severe limit on the number of people who will be inspired to do this.
Glen, you and I have been posting and reading on this site for some years now. In spite of this exposure I have not noticed any urges to kill or dissect anyone and I doubt that you have either.
We are not a part of the subset. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 230
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Serial because they were in a series and they had very similar traits. Police at the time thought that they were slain by the same person and I tend to agree. When I said "Thames Torso", I was including all four murders where remains were found in or near the river. All had some body parts found in the Thames excepting, as far as we know, "Pinchin Street". I would think if they were gangland, we'd have seen slayings of this sort over a much wider range of time. Depending on how you define serial killer, one type of slaying doesn't totally eliminate the other anyway.
By the way, in making my points, I was not impugning Diana's work. It's interesting and worthy.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3835
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
True, Diana.
But just because a certain percent of a population may have been born with a personality that might make them more likely to commit these crimes more than others, doesn't mean that they necessarily do it.
Take psychopathy, for example, where you have a certain percentage of the population generally estimated, but not all of them commits crimes, and if they do it or not may be an effect from other external issues, like upbringing, being molested or otherwise -- occurrences that are much harder to calculate, measure and estimate.
If such a person turns to killing might be depending on the circumstances, and we know that several serial killers (or one time murderers) have done their crimes because they were influenced by others or wanted to compete with them. The press coverage do play an important role here.
We don't know in general how they are being triggered off and why. With a serial killer, or one or too very exceptional murders, in the same area, the risk of other murders to follow is increasing, rgardless of local or national statistics.
That is why copy-cats exists. Copy-cats usually is a result of original killings and it is not cetian those people would have killed otherwise.
Therefore it is reasonable to assume, that if a mythical killer much covered in a press, is haunting an area, he is also likely to influence people who might not have done it otherwise, although they may have the ability and personality.
As for serial killers, using statistics are very difficult since the number of those being at large without being known to society (as well as the number of unknown victims) are very hard to asses. We really can't know how many killers that are out there roaming a certain area. There have been attempts to come up with estimations, but that is all guess-work. You can't make statistics on elements you don't know exists.
Still, a very interesting approach and I think it is very refreshing with your attempts to think in new structures than the usual ones.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 02, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 7:48 pm: |
|
The MO of the torso killings was enough different that we may distinguish them from Jack's work. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
So you have the general populace, the vast majority of whom are not miswired to do this.
Out of that group you have a small subset who potentially could do this because they are not normal.
Out of that small group you have a smaller still group who are actually triggered by the actions of others. An even smaller group.
If I have a jar with marbles in it and I am asked to guess how many marbles are in the jar, and I can only guess one number my chances of being right are pretty slim.
But if I am allowed to give a range and I say that the jar has a range between one marble and ten million marbles, I have a pretty good chance of being right. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3836
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 8:13 pm: |
|
Well, I would say such a large range doesn't tell us that much, in my opinion.
Of course you would get a good chance of being right, because it is hell of a large range. And with such a range you just can't miss.
Once again, it is a not generally known how many unknown killers that is out there and how many percentage they really represent.
Real statistics are based on very hard facts and collected detailed information, even if they are representing a cut-out representation of a population or an occurence.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 02, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 810
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
So.... we've got statistics based upon current wild, stab in the dark guesstimates about numbers of killers not backed up with evidence, compared to a totally different location and century, not taking into account that averages are averages and that figures can (and usually do) go up or down to be smoothed out to make that average, unsupported assumptions about the torso murders, and then attempts to use all that to come to some conclusion about the Ripper case...?
I think the concept of standing on thin ice would be a bit of an understatement for what we have going on here.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Dear Dan,
You're right.
We also have a case where all the physical evidence is gone, the witnesses are dead, the forensic methods are grossly outdated and incompletely reported and many of the "facts" that are common knowledge are wrong.
The police officials who investigated had never heard of SKs and didn't know how to handle them.
The one thing we do have is a lot of contemporary written materials much of which is contradictory.
Other than that the whole thing should be fairly straightforward to solve! |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 186
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 2:19 am: |
|
All of us are right. Or perhaps wrong.
Diana, still an interesting angle, and we all know this is not going to solve anything.. But it might counterbalance slightly the trend to talk about multiple killers, no real Jack, etc.
Not that that cannot be true.
Glenn, as always, I value your point of views, and saw that one coming. I do understand that in many "modern" interpretations of the case there is a tendency to draw the conclusions you make. It might be right, it might be wrong. In such instances as here, with so few solid facts, such interpretations tend to jump from one paradigm shift to another.
In ten years time the "modern" way of thinking might be the opposite. Or not.
I'm still stubborn enough to interpret stuff my way. I know I'm not necessarily correct, but there you have it.
Dan, yes this is on very thin ice indeed. But so are also the opposite point of view IMO, if taken as gospel thruth! But you are of course correct about this not being "proper" statistics. NO statistics can prove a single incident!
Where I agree with Diana is that the percentage of serial killers per thousands of people probably was much smaller in 1880's London than modern US. So we are not talking about real statistics here, but trends. And the trends, even in a worst case scenario (number of serial killers actually happened to be the same as modern day US) still point towards the direction of a pretty slim chance that there were more than one serial killer autumn London 1888.
That is no evidence that there was not. But obviously it cannot be interpreted as evidence that there were either.
What we may say for certain is only that to suppose there was two or three serial killers at large in that very period might seem less likely than there being only one. As always, we cannot ascertain anything for sure, I am the first to admit..
However, up against that we must also see the similarities in the chain of murders. It becomes even less likely that we had more than one with similar MO and signature.
Sure, a copycat might explain that, but then there is yet another element needed to explain the known facts..
Actually the most likely victim to have NOT been a Ripper victim IMO (although I actually think she WAS) is Stride. But then again, she was certainly NO copycat murder. No mutilation!
Odds are (still IMO) that if there was indeed several killers involved in the "Ripper murders", only one was a serial killer, and anyone else was a "mere" killer, mistakenly included in the "series" by "random" similarity.
What we should be aware of, taking Diana's initial angle for what it is, is that to propose several serial killers at work certainly seem to be LESS likely than just one.
And that is it.
Unless someone can prove that serial killers were in fact all over the place in 1888!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 03, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
Hi Stan,
"I would think if they were gangland, we'd have seen slayings of this sort over a much wider range of time"
Yes, I do see your point. Not so sure about why the time period points to gangland though, just my views.
Thames Torso and Pinchin street is within that grey area for me. The Whitehall mystery is a more definite case. I find it highly improbable one person is involved in that. True, that doesnt mean it was a gangland crime but Serial Killers rarely work in pairs so the only other highly logical probability, in my eyes, is that it was Gang crime.
Again, just my views.
As for your comments re Dianas work.....I hear you and agree.
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Then there is a clear trend in the LVP - and in fact still today amongst the British police - to grab the first lunatic available, charge him with murder and then have him promptly HMP’d, so the murder is not solved but the case is very much closed.
But the police didn't follow that trend with the ripper murders. They could have had some lunatic officially charged (a year or so after MJK's murder would have been good) and closed the case to worldwide cheers of "Good show!". I don't know whether this shows admirable restraint, or whether 'ripperology' had already kicked in, with everyone favouring different suspects, so no one would ever agree which lunatic should cop it.
Hi Helge,
Actually the most likely victim to have NOT been a Ripper victim IMO (although I actually think she WAS) is Stride. But then again, she was certainly NO copycat murder. No mutilation!
Good point. The modern trend is to see MJK's murder as a domestic, committed by someone who went right over the top to make it look ripperish.
Very different from Stride's murder, where the killer didn't think to use his knife on her downstairs department quickly before fleeing, to make it look even more like the Whitechapel fiend's work.
Of course, if both were Jack's work, he just did what he felt was ok at the time - MJK indoors alone and Stride outside in Jack's idea of Clapham Junction would explain the over-and-underkill neatly enough for me.
Love,
Caz
X |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 187
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Caz,
We are in absolute agreement. Stride was killed outdoors, and that meant the situation was very precarious. Possibly the killer had already been spotted (by Schwartz), and things were going on in the Club.. Nerves..we all got them. Even Jack (although he certainly had better nerves than me!)
Then there is Diemschutz. Iugulare interruptus?
Actually it amazes me that the killer managed to do as much damage that he did in most of the outdoor killings. One interrupted deed out of a series does not seem less likely to me than the "several rippers" theory.
That MJK should have been killed by an "average" domestic killer defies my imagination. It is possible, however. Everything is possible. But that particular scenario IMO unlikely. Anyone crazy enough to spend that much time mutilating someone is of a pretty rare breed.. And why go so far when a few cuts and rips would have been sufficient?
Maybe that killer had got it wrong? Maybe he thought that was how Jack did it? Yeah. Maybe. But this is simply too much overkill. Anyone with half a brain would understand that no one, not even Jack Flash, could do that kind of mutilation on the streets without being caught.
What I'm saying is that if it was a domestic murder, the perpetrator probably must have been Jack in the first place in order to do this..
Unless there were in fact two Jacky boys. In which case the "domestic murder disguised as Jack" becomes rather irrelevant
(get it?, he would by then consider himself the "real Jack"..possibly even trying to outdo the "other one". Not that I think that is likely. Possible, but not likely. I like simplicity)
No. That killer, being Jack or not, was no ordinary killer. Most people, no, let me restate that, most killers even, would not be up to it. There is much psychology in how a person kills. And to go beyond ones normal limitation by that much simply seem improbable to me.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 03, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
The theory goes that several SKs were operating in Whitechapel in 1888
The statistics relating to SK's are interesting but, if the JTR crimes were due to a number of people, then each could hardly be a serial killer as there just werent enough victims for that surely?
The best that could be said therefore was that a number of killers were grouped as JTR?
Then the statistics would surely be different (ie. the number of people in a population being capable of murder as opposed to the number being serial killers. The former is surely higher than the latter?). If not approaching the magickal 5% of the male population who tend to be the "dominant" grouping most likely to be capable of murder?
Mr P. |
Kim
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Do you think there might be an argument for the possibility of multiple serial killers in the East End due to the general poverty and poor living conditions? What's the average number of serial killers in impoverished areas? |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
They say that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. I just can't see that this will get us anywhere. Either there were multiple Jacks or there were not. I am reminded of the story of the actuary (actuaries compile statistical tables on things such as life expectancy for the insurance industry) who was afraid to fly because he knew the odds of a bomb being on board the plane were a million to one. He eventually decided to fly but took his own bomb with him because he knew the odds of there being two bombs on board were three million to one. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Well Caz
I think they did follow that trend.
They just had to iron out a few uncomfortable creases first, and then they had a nice shirt that fitted anyone.
Case closed.
Not solved, but closed. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3843
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
"That MJK should have been killed by an "average" domestic killer defies my imagination. It is possible, however. Everything is possible. But that particular scenario IMO unlikely. Anyone crazy enough to spend that much time mutilating someone is of a pretty rare breed.. And why go so far when a few cuts and rips would have been sufficient?
Maybe that killer had got it wrong? Maybe he thought that was how Jack did it? Yeah. Maybe. But this is simply too much overkill. Anyone with half a brain would understand that no one, not even Jack Flash, could do that kind of mutilation on the streets without being caught.
What I'm saying is that if it was a domestic murder, the perpetrator probably must have been Jack in the first place in order to do this.. "
All I can say is, study some other cases of similar domestic nature, and you will find that they generally are not the works of serial killers and that your quite hardened assumptions and deductions about human nature - and what superficially ordinary spouses can do and not do - are wrong.
Unfortunately. Believe me - I wish they weren't.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 03, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 188
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
Ok, Maybe I am wrong, Glenn.
But so far you have not convinced me. When was the last time someone carved up a woman that bad in a domestic murder?
And I don't mean cutting her up with a chainsaw or whatever to dispose of the body. That has rational explanations and is not mutilation for mutilations own sake.
Sure, it might be possible that a total psycho knew Mary and did this, that it was unrelated to the ripper murders and that it was in fact a domestic murder.
That that killer was cool enough to go on with his life after this and never ever behave in a suspicious manner is even possible. That the police at the time either never suspected the man, or had him in for questioning but never suspected a thing is also possible.
The main point here (about MJK) is that for it to have been "domestic", it would have to be someone she knew. I don't think the police at the time were totally inept in these kinds of cases. Clearly they were more out of their depth when it came to serial killers, and cases where the perpetrator did not know his victim at all, or only tangentially.
Anything is possible, though.
But not necessarily likely. That is all I am saying. If I come out as having a hardened position, it is an error on my part. Everything is possible, as we clearly have not solved the case, and probably never will. I have never said I can prove my position. On the contrary I repeatedly state things like "IMO", etc. So this is in my opinion.
Glenn, could you, for the benefit of me, and the general reader, quote at least a couple of domestic cases that are similar to the MJK killing? Not just including mutilations, but really similar to the MJK killing? It would be much appreciated (and there is no irony here, clearly you have a better knowledge of these cases than I have)
On the other hand, even if such examples exist, they would not really prove anything. And I say this not because I have a hardened position. Only because, sadly, I agree with you concerning human nature.
That sounds like I give up, and agree with you. Not so. I still think that the chances are that MJK was killed by Jack. Not that any other scenario is impossible. Simply that for me, trying to asess things as objectively as I can, I still think that as we know a serial killer was on the loose at the time..that we know he mutilated, and was fixated to some degree by the sexual organs, that he had mutilated the face before, etc..that this murder was committed in relative proximity of the other victims (see, I don't even mention comfort zones this time )..that no one in MJK's circuit of friends and\or partners was seriously considered as suspects by the police at the time..etc..etc..might just indicate that this was indeed part of the series of serial killings perpetrated by this unknown killer that we call Jack the Ripper.
In my opinion this is more likely than the alternatives, and I try to explain why. There ARE alternatives, though. Maybe it WAS a domestic murder. Or maybe it WAS a random customer going haywire.
IMO those scenarios are less likely than Jack. But (much) more likely than it being an unfortunate incident concerning ball lightning or time travellers from the andromeda galaxy, I'll give you that!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 04, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 189
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
Kim asked if the general conditions in the East End could induce a situation with multiple serial killers.
This is a very relevant question. And the answer is probably yes (looking at the big picture, over time). I quote from an internet encyclopedia:
"Serial killers are specifically motivated by a variety of psychological urges, primarily power and sexual compulsion. They feel inadequate and worthless, often owing to humiliation and abuse in childhood or the pressures of poverty and low socio-economic status in adulthood"
Still, as Diana showed, this must skew the probabilities by a factor of ten to have much effect. And not everyone in the East end were poor either.
Anything is possible, though, and statistics can only be used as a guideline here IMO. But there is no compelling reason to believe there was "multiple" serial killers loose in the short period of time in question.
But that does not prove anything, of course. Only that we should be careful about invoking such potential multiple serial killers.
What could be interesting would be to look at statistics of known serial killers from the time, not only from London, but also other major cities, like Paris, New york, etc. Maybe that would yield some indications?
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 04, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3845
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Ah, but I have already mentioned several, I think it was on the MJK threads somewhere (or was it Barnett's?). I provided a list there, and some of them happened even before Jack the Ripper. I am just in the middle of moving to England, so my apartment is upside down at the moment, so forgive me if I don't pull them out of a hat here. My memory is terrible and I need my notes.
Of course you will not find an example that is TOTALLY consistent with MJK:s murder in design. Every killer has it's own way of doing things, unless you're talking of a copy-cat who deliberately TRIES to copy another murder straight off (and although I believe that is what happened in Mary Kelly's case, the killer here had very little true infrmation to go on but the newspapers, which contained a lot of errors). So what you can look at is the severe nature of the murder.
But there exists a number of mutilation killings that are just as extreme as on Mary Kelly, and most of them have been perpetrated by spouses or husbands, men that has no prior crime records.
I have researched crime history now for some years, and one thing I have learnt is that the human nature has a very dark side, that we don't want to see or want to believe. Most of us are not capable of doing those things, but unfortunately more than we think, and often those we think of last.
I don't think she was killed by a another random customer -- now, that would be a coincidence.
But judging from some of the elements in the crime, I see it as a very personal one, the depersonalisation (or dehumanisation) of the face is one such example and is quite current in personal murders.
The motives have genereally been rather plain and petty ones; jealousy, sexual frustration, hatred, obsession etc.
You must consider the context here, with papers and tabloid magazines spitting out news about the murders and rather detailed (although often exaggerated) descriptions of the mutilations of the victims, especially Eddowes. The authorities of the time, not least one of the doctors, had great fears that this would influence 'weak minds', which is also why they didn't reveal all those details at the inquests.
Mary Kelly could very well be a Ripper victim, but personally I see other options that fit better. I see it as a true example of interpersonal murders, where the victim and the murderer has a very close personal relation with each other, and I definitey hold Barnett or others in circuit (like Joe Flemming) as responsible for her murder. I can't prove it, but - although I could be wrong - it definitely doesn't work as a Ripper killing to me. But some people have become so attached to the 'Ripper's grand finale' that they can't see other options or look at the crime scene facts objectively.
If someone wanted to do a succesful copy-cat of a Ripper murder in those days, and really wanted the authorities to believe the Ripper did it, he would have to go to excess and extreme mutilations -- just cutting her throat or opening her up a bit wouldn't cut it (hmmm...); we have examples of those (Coles, Mackenzie) and it is clear that they were not as persuasive to the police and that the police were in disagreement about those. I actually don't see those as true copy-cats, but random murders that to some degree may he been influenced by the Ripper, but not as deliberate attempts to copy the Ripper. There is a clear difference.
So if you really wanted to make sure the police believed in it being a Ripper murder, you would go need to as great excess as possible, since the papers described them in that way.
We can't expect a copy-cat killer of 1888 to produce a murder with total similarity of the original serial murderer. Today we have crime shows on television, we have books showing crime scene photos etc.
But all they had in those days were the papers, the word on the street (and you know what that can sound like) and the illustrated tabloids. The facial mutilations on Eddowes, for examples, were quite exaggerated in the papers.
Therefore it is my belief that Mary Kelly's killer did what he thought a Ripper killing would look like and therefore went to complete over-excess, which is also what you could expect.
I could be wrong, and I am not trying to convince you, but many people forget the context and the time of hysteria MJK:s murder happened in, and also that there are interesting suspects in her own circuit with motives to commit the crime.
But OK, I think we're losing Diana's thread a bit here. Although the subject is connected, it is not really statistics (although it of course does illustrate some of my earlier points above).
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 190
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Glenn,
I just have to explain a couple of more points..
You seem to assume that the case of MJK was a domestic kill. I don't think it was. Mary would absolutely be a target for Jack while on the street. That she took customers with her indoors was probably not known by Jack (if indeed it was him) in advance.
And even if he knew that, I don't see that it might have discouraged him a bit. He was used to taking chances. And this was, still IMO, a scenario where he would be exposed to less danger than his outdoor killings.
Thus there is not really any indication that this could not have been the work of Jack. That it happened indoors was most likely pure chance!
This is also why we disagree. I don't see it as a domestic murder at all, while you do. So your arguments about similar domestic murders kind of bear less impact on me, because I would rather look at similar cases by serial killers.
I think it is safe to say (I hope you agree) that neither of us can be proven right as things stand.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 191
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
Glenn, my previous post crossed yours.
Well, you make a good case for your point of view.
I certainly will look into those other threads.
My main point about statistics here (to bring it somewhat back on topic) is that we cannot really talk about numbers when discussing individual cases, because we have none that are reasonably excact, and even that will prove nothing. But it still might yield a trend or indication.
Just one more point. I totally agree with you on context and hysteria. Exactly why I think the real Jack NEEDED a grande finale..
But that may be just me, of course
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3846
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Helge,
There are several indications in the Miller's Court crime scene that clearly suggests that this may not have been a Ripper murder.
That is why I started to look into the other possibilities and hold doubts about it myself.
But yes, I think it's safe to say that neither of us will be able to prove our points.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 04, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
If JTR didn't kill MJK, then it was either another SK or a domestic.
You can't really make a case for another SK. If you overcome the statistical unlikelihood of another SK operating in Whitechapel (somehow), then you've got to explain why the other SK completely abandoned his own MO and signature and adopted Jack's. It wouldn't do any good to say he was being a copycat. An SK has an emotional need to do something. With each SK the thing they need to do is different. Whoever killed MJK had a lot of time. He would not have been able to resist doing whatever he needed to do. It would have stuck out like a sour note in a symphony, something out of place, unjacklike, different.
The rest of my argument is based on statistics again so I would like to put it in a different post. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 724
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
The other issue is time. I have not pursued the numbers at this time but the police seemed to indicate that they had never seen anything like Jack before. Given that the current estimate for all of England is 4 and the general consensus that the numbers have gone up over time, what is the likelihood that two or more SK's with almost identical MO and signature would appear in Whitechapel in the space of a few months in 1888? |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3847
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
I agree, Diana.
That chance I would consider to be rather slim. At least with similar MO and signature. There were of course other serial killers in the area, although a few years from the ripper murders -- Klosowski and Cream, for example. But as you say, it is not the same MO as the Ripper.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Now as to a copycat domestic, that is more problematic. Here's a person who only kills once and then they kill someone they know, probably because of rage.
Would such a person be capable of cutting up and posing someone they had loved like that?
In such cases you are always dealing with mixed emotions -- intense hatred and rage, yes. But mingled with it also the shreds of what was once love and affection.
We know that in such instances people can and do kill the person they have loved (although in my opinion what they feel is not real love).
If they are mad enough they may even mutilate the face. But to cut someone up and pose her like that, especially if you have never killed before, if you are not inured to gore and horror, its quite a leap. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3848
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
"Would such a person be capable of cutting up and posing someone they had loved like that?"
Oh yes - believe me. You won't believe the crime scene photos I've seen from such cases, they're quite gross to look at -- much much worse than the Ripper stuff. And made by spouses.
"If they are mad enough they may even mutilate the face. But to cut someone up and pose her like that, especially if you have never killed before, if you are not inured to gore and horror, its quite a leap."
No, it is not, Diana. I used to live in the same delusion myself, but after doing some research I saw to my horror that this was wrong.
Those are old misconceptions about human behaviour, Diana. Crime history and criminology is littered with those cases. Again - unfortunately.
It is a huge mistake to think that only serial killers are capable of committing these crimes. It takes someone, of course, with a disposition different form the majority of us, but emotions, love and sexual frustration can make people in a fragile state of mind and full of rage do terrible things, unbelievable to the rest of us.
I agree on that it's not real love, though, as the one we generally think of; I would say often som kind of obsession or a need to control lay behind it.
It doesn't happen everyday and they do not belong to a large majority of criminal cases, because they are very extreme, but they do happen, and when they do they are usually very over-excessive and horrible.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 04, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
No pictures please, Glen. I don't want or need them. But when you are done moving can you give an example of this? |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 192
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Glenn,
One question. Would domestic murders in 1888 in your opinion be similar to modern ones? Surely, as I understand it, the way people think and act has been somewhat changed. Not always to the better..
Anyway. Talking about statistics.. I agree it is theoretically possible that the Millers Court murder was domestic. But some of the argument against that might be that even if you do not have two SK's operating in that scenario, you do have two killers operating in a pretty small area over a pretty short period of time that both are into such heavy mutilation. Look at Eddowes. I don't think the differences in mutilations are that huge, given the longer timeframe in which an indoor murderer might have to do his "work".
Is not this also quite a stretch to think that two such similar killers, one a SK, one a domestic, existed basically side by side in space and time?
For me the similarities have always been greater than the differences, and nothing about Millers Court excludes the Ripper IMO.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Helge
I quote my own good self on this subject - some years ago:
'But perhaps the weakest aspect of Wilson's theory that the sexual criminal is somehow a product of our new age - and in particular he means serial killers like Jack the Ripper - is that he has not taken into account the massive and rapid advances in communication systems which took place in the same period as he is writing about. This is much like a man who has got the ticket but has anyway missed the train. For the unprecedented growth of the media since the middle of the nineteenth century - pony express, telegraph, telephone, radio, television and now Internet and instant communication throughout the world by satellite - has surely played a pivotal role in the rise of sexual crime, or better said in the reporting of that sexual crime. Today we, like millions of other people all over the world, can pick up our morning newspaper or switch on the television and read or hear about a murder that has taken place minutes before on the other side of the planet.
Even the crimes of Jack the Ripper were headline news in America soon after they happened. If the crimes had taken place 400 years before it is unlikely that a person living in Portsmouth, seventy miles away from London, would have ever heard about them. Equally so the mass murderer Pedro Alonzo Lopez was able to go on a spree of rape and murder between 1978 and 1980 which accounted for 350 young girls before he was apprehended. This was because he operated in a remote area of Ecuador populated by native Indians with little or no communication network. If he had carried out the crimes in Central London in the same years there is no doubt he would have been caught a lot quicker. This is the point, the rapid rise of communication systems and the consequent rise in the establishment of and improvement in policing methods in the same period that Wilson is talking about has made life harder for the serial killer or any other type of criminal than ever before. But it has made the reporting of their crimes easier, so we know about them.
The situation, in fact, could be the exact reverse of what Wilson claims and that 500 years ago there could have been more 'sexual criminals' and crimes than there are today. A Ripper could have traveled through a country 500 years ago, or even several countries, raping and murdering and the inhabitants would have believed each murder to have been a separate unrelated event because they did not possess the means to communicate with one another that we have today. The final message of this is that we should really be writing a book about Pedro Lopez who raped and murdered 350 young girls rather than a book about an unknown who murdered less that a dozen women. The reason we are not is the massive influence of today's media. We all know of Jack the Ripper's crimes but who ever heard of Pedro Lopez? '
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 193
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
AP,
Thanks. That makes sense.
But would not that also imply that perhaps things like copycats or influenced killers really had not had time to mature in the 1880's? Surely at least that aspect of murder cases is more a result of modern communications? (those communications, one could argue, being in their infancy more or less at the time of the Ripper)
Society would probably also have a great impact on how serial killers behave. I'm sure that in the norse period (or viking age as most would say, although it is a hideously wrong term) in the scandinavian countries there were probably a lot of people that today would have turned serial killers, but at the time murdered openly, because it was "accepted" in society (not entirely without repercussions, though) Thus they were either killed by relatives of the victim, or by the law, or they were "untouchable" because of their status, and kept killing until someone got so fed up that they sent them packing!
(That happened to Eirik Bloodaxe, who was "persuaded" to settle in York, England, rather than here on Tau, where I happen to live, because he was after some time..should we say, unwanted, in Norway. The "Bloodaxe" name described the guy pretty well. Had he not been King, someone would have simply cut him down pretty early in his "career")
I'm sure most of us does not want to hear about people like Pedro Lopez. There is no mystery. Except: why? I don't think many of us want to learn that answer. And that is probably why he is not a favorite by the media either.
Those things go hand in hand. IMO.
Its human psychology I guess.
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Helge
I think it might help if you were to trawl back through the poetry thread and read my thoughts on this very subject in the 'Colony' discussion.
I had much to say about this then.
In fact I had so much to say that some of my posts got banned.
Those were the days!
Seriously though, one has to imagine that a killer like Lopez was probably the whipping boy for every unsolved murder throughout the entire region for a quarter of a century; and that crediting Lopez with the 350 murders was much easier work for a stretched law enforcement agency than actually finding out who really did kill all those children.
If you compress that situation then you have the Whitechapel Murders in 1888.
A killer cleaning the streets.
And a police force clearing their books.
I still give him three. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 232
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm not as convinced that the Miller's Court murder (and I call it that because I'm not even 100% positive that it was MJK) was the work of JTR as I am of victims 1,2&4 but I do think it was most likely done by him. One reason is because domestic killers are almost always caught and this guy wasn't.
Besides some of the other points made earlier, my other main arguments would be the facts that the murder followed the trends of the previous slayings. Firstly, when the killer had time, the mutilations became more extreme with each attack. Secondly, JTR started off killing more openly and with each slaying moved into more confinement. That is, the first murder was on an open street, then 2,3&4 were in a backyard, a passageway and a cul-de-sac, then this last killing was in a locked room. This runs counter to the usual pattern of serial killers who usually become more careless as they go through their careers. Indeed, that's one of the reasons that many are caught.
That's not to say that it couldn't have been a domestic, a copycat, another SK or some random psycho passing through town. Just my opinion.
Best wishes,
Stan
(Message edited by Sreid on August 04, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 233
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
P.S.
I don't know of any books written about the Pedro Lopez murders but the movie Cronicas, that was just released, is supposedly based on his crimes.
Goodies,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3849
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Helge,
"One question. Would domestic murders in 1888 in your opinion be similar to modern ones? Surely, as I understand it, the way people think and act has been somewhat changed. Not always to the better.. "
Well, according to what I've come across, some of these cases (and a minor few of them actually pre-dates the Ripper) doesn't look that much different from modern ones.
I believe our personal driving forces are the same throughout history; when it comes to compulsive killers (serial or domestic ones) of this nature, they seem to do what they feel like beyond boundaries of time.
But again -- killers are also influencing each other, and common sense dictates that the more influental murderers that appears through history, the more such murders will increase. Copy-cats is just one example, but the same goes for domestic murders. The more people who do this, the more they put ideas in other people's heads.
And it is in this context I believe the MJK murder should be addressed.
You say: "Is not this also quite a stretch to think that two such similar killers, one a SK, one a domestic, existed basically side by side in space and time?"
No, not at all, because that is not the issue. I believe a domestic murder like MJK:s might in fact have been influenced by the Ripper murders. So therefore they are not working side by side. The one is influenced by the other -- it is not at all certain that MJK:s killer had done what he did, if he hadn't read or heard about the Ripper's actions through the papers or the word on the street. That is my point with focusing on the media and the mass hysteria.
I am not talking about two mutilation killers operating side by side, totally independent of one another -- because frankly, I find that less likely.
If Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, I believe Mary kelly was killed in some lover's dispute and then her murderer came up with the idea - maybe in sheer desperation - to turn it into a Ripper murder the way he knew best, in order to blame it on the Ripper. He knew that the police were on the look-out for the Ripper and if another extreme mutilation case popped up at this time, he could be sure of that they would buy it.
This has been done before also in modern times but today it seldom works because of the improved tools of investigation and collecting of evidence.
"Look at Eddowes. I don't think the differences in mutilations are that huge, given the longer timeframe in which an indoor murderer might have to do his "work [...]
For me the similarities have always been greater than the differences, and nothing about Millers Court excludes the Ripper IMO."
Well, I am afraid I totally have to disagree with you. I don't find the popular view of the conditions indoors at all satisfying in order to explain the inconsistencies between the two. In the Miller's Court murder there are as I see it a lot of details that points at a killer with a rather different approach and a different type of contact with the victim.
However, I feel we might be losing Diana's subject for this thread.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 04, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3850
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Stan,
Fair enough, but you're forgetting one thing.
Yes, today those domestic murders are rather easily solved. But in 1888 they didn't have the crime investigation techniques available as they have today and to prove any killer's guilt without a strong witness or without having catched the killer red-handed, they would have little chance of solving it. They hardly could identify the victim, and today that would have been easily done by tooth cards or DNA.
As for the so called pattern,
I can't say I agree with you. Mitre Square seems to me more open and displayed than the very narrow and 'locked' features of the Annie Chapman murder in the yard.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 04, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Statistical Likelihood