Archive through February 2, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through February 2, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: How are we sure that all the victims were the work of one man?: Archive through February 2, 2000

Author: Jason Mullins Monday, 31 January 2000 - 11:53 am
Hello All This is my first post to this board, and I have a few questions. So if I come off as a newbie, it's becuase I am :) 1) How are we sure that all of the victims were killed by the same man? What im looking for is how everyone came to the conclusion that it was the work of the same man, and not a bunch of copy cat killings or a group of people. I haven't had any luck when looking for his MO either. I was also looking for the official profile done by the FBI on JTR. Thanks for the time in advance
Author: Christopher T. George Monday, 31 January 2000 - 05:58 pm
Hi, Jason: First of all, at the time of the murders, it was popularly thought that as many as eleven murders were by the same hand. This number was narrowed down to five in the report by Dr. Thomas Bond to Sir Robert Anderson--the famous "canonical five murders" of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly, about which Dr. Bond declared, "All five murders were not doubt committed by the same hand." He came to this conclusion partly because the first four women's throats appeared to have been cut the same way, i.e., "from left to right." In the fifth murder (Kelly) because of the extensive mutilation, it was not possible to determine the direction of the cut to the neck but arterial blood on the wall seemed to indicate the direction was the same. The disembowelment of four of the victims (except for Stride, where the murderer was apparently disturbed before he mutilated her) and the removal of the same organs--e.g., uterus and kidney--in several of the women are also marks of similarity. Recent authors have begun to doubt the candidacy of Elizabeth Stride since her murder took place next to a busy social club indicating that the murderer had chosen the place of murder with less care and the assault appeared to be more noisy than that on the other women which seemed to have taken place with virtually no noise. The knife used in that attack also seemed to be shorter than the long knife thought to have been used in the other murders. Some writers today count Martha Tabram's murder as a possible Ripper killing and Bob Hinton includes the attacks earlier in 1888 on Annie Millwood (25 February) and Ada Wilson (28 March). So, to answer your question, there is no clear consensus on which murders were by the same man or on the total number. I hope this has helped. Best regards Chris George, Editor Ripper Notes Casebook Productions, Inc. Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth" Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000 conference@casebook-productions.org http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm
Author: Jason Mullins Monday, 31 January 2000 - 06:16 pm
Chris - First off, let me tell you I will be at the conference, As Im not to far away :) Thank you very much for your response. It will be extremly helpful later on. What Im trying to do is build some kind of database for myself, starting from the very bottom. In order for me to label Jack as a serial killer, I need some kind of proof/evidence. Otherwise there really was no serial killing going on. I also understand the thought of a 2 or more person's of the same mental state as our Jack, working in the same area, at the same time, is very close to impossible. But I need something else to go on. So the first thing I decided to do was try to see if these women were in fact killed by the same person. Not knowing alot about serial killers (or any killers for that matter) at the moment, I have to go off hunch. Which I don't like doing :) I do plan on rectifing that by getting some good books on the subject. So it is very possible that there was no one person who did this, or is that just foolish to think? Im also on my way out to the book store to pick up some good books on Jack as well. Thanks again for your insite Jason Mullins
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 31 January 2000 - 06:20 pm
Welcome Jason What you might want to do is look at the Whitechapel murders one at a time, take them as individual crimes, starting with Emma Smith in April 1888 and go through to Frances Coles in February 1891. Dont forget to include the Torso murders within that period also. Then after studying what is known about these murders determine for yourself if their are any common details reported by witnesses, at the crime scene, or in the autopsy reports. Few, if any seriously think all the Whitechapel murders were committed by one person. So we are left with the possibility that their were 3, 4, 5 or more possible murderers. This is also unacceptable to some, so we have to come to some reasonable conclusion, find a middle ground. Few would argue that the bodies of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes bore similar mutilations, too similar to be coincidence. So, I think we can conclude that Jack had 3 victims (thought one recent poster might contest that :-)). Most would add Kelly to the three above, but as for the rest, you are on your own. Its in the eye of the beholder Jason, study the evidence, apply a little common sense and you wont be far behind us. Almost anything is debatable in this case and no-one knows everything, opinions change, along with interpretations. New bits of info come to light every so often, so you dont need to pick a suspect and defend him to the death. And double check everything you read, dont take published authors as 'the last word', you'll find even the best researchers disagree over the simplest details. Read on & have fun Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T. George Monday, 31 January 2000 - 03:32 am
Hi, Jason: I am very pleased to read that we can expect to see you at our Park Ridge shindig. It should be quite a show. If you are into rock music or rock operas, the British cast of "Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper" are planning to perform their whole show, two 45-minute acts, after the banquet for Paul Begg. The actors mean to travel on Virgin Airways across the Atlantic in costume and in character. News conferences with the cast of "Yours Truly" are planned in London before they take off and on Friday, April 7 in Park Ridge, the day before the convention. Also at the New Jersey press conference we hope that Paul Begg will talk to the reporters and tell them of the status of the "hunt" for Jack the Ripper. Now back to your query about the number of murders committed by the Whitechapel murderer. Jon Smyth is correct in indicating that some people now discount the murder of Mary Jane Kelly as one of Jack's -- even though her murder is possibly the most famous and most mysterious of the murders credited to the infamous killer. In the convention issue of "Ripper Notes" we will be publishing a controversial paper by British author Alex Chisholm titled "Done to Death." As I understand his theory, Alex actually takes the position that there was no "Jack the Ripper" as such--and that the murderer was the invention of the media. Of course, Alex is not denying that the murders occurred -- they just were not committed by the same hand. Alex's line of thought has persuaded that esteemed researcher Stewart P. Evans to doubt MJK's "canonicity" as a victim of Jack the Ripper. Personally, I think both Stewart and Alex are wrong. However, controversy and debate helps stir the pot and hopefully furthers our investigation into the crimes. I note you are looking for good books on the Ripper. The book that most of us regard as the best on the market today is "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Philip Sugden. Also "The Jack the Ripper A to Z" by Begg et al. offers an invaluable reference source. If you get and read both you will receive a good briefing in the background and history of the murders, the victims, and the chief suspects, as well as learn about a large number of side alleys which have beset the study of the murders. Good luck with your studies and keep us posted on your findings! Best regards Chris George, Editor Ripper Notes Casebook Productions, Inc. Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth" Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9, 2000 conference@casebook-productions.org http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm
Author: Jason Mullins Monday, 31 January 2000 - 07:57 pm
Hello Again Chris and Jon - Im back from the book store, with nothing more in hand. So Im going to have to go off the internet for tonight, and order some books from amazon.com :) At anyrate, Thank you for your opinions and views. I agree that I should not take anyone's opinion as fact, unless it is a well known fact(and even then question it). That is how I plan to go about this whole thing. However, I find it odd that if were no serial killings, then why in the world would there be so many books on the subject of Jack? So there must be some connection, I just need to find it. That is the first step, after that... Who knows. I haven't planed that far ahead yet :) But I plan on asking a plethera of questions, so Im glad that you guys are so quick to respond! On a side note, I spend alot of time on IRC (Efnet) had anyone started a IRC chat room for this subject? If need be I have bots and other misc. goodies that could do the job. I know there are java style chat rooms that are linked from the casebook.org main web page, But I have never seen anyone there. Just a Idea! Thansk for your help again... Jason Mullins
Author: Jason Mullins Monday, 31 January 2000 - 08:12 pm
Just as a quick repost - I did not know that Alex had this theory. It is very interesting indeed. The only way that we can say that these were the work of the same hand, is a connection between the victims, and I don't mean what the did for a living or similar, I mean in how they were unfortunetly murdered. If there is no connection, there were no serial killing, hence no Jack the Ripper(Am I following that theory correctly?). Very interesting stuff, Though I don't know how true or false any of it is, Im definetly looking forward to meeting and talking with Alex(Hi if your reading) Jason
Author: Diana Louise Comer Monday, 31 January 2000 - 09:00 pm
Was Whitechapel a place replete with murders before the "series" began? In other words, were the Whitechapel slayings just part of business as usual or were they unique? If there were few (say less than ten per year)prior to 1888 and they did not involve mutilations, I would say that these killings, or a large number of them were done by the same man.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 02:30 am
G'Day Everyone, Bruce Paley did some research into statistics: In 1887, out of 80 recorded homicides in London, none took place in the district of Whitechapel. 1602 deaths were registered in Whitechapel in 1887. These came from diseases, premature births and old age. In 1886, 68 murders were committed in London, but none in Whitechapel. Reports for 1889 and 1890, show one murder per year in Whitechapel, out of 79 and 74 (respectively), for all of London. After the death of Mary Ann Nichols, 'The Standard' reported: 'Another Horrible Murder in Whitechapel' and the 'Observer' cried 'Another Brutal Murder. After Annie Chapmans murder, the 'Pall Mall Gazette' reported: 'A Fourth Woman Foully Mutilated!' The 'Times' declared that: 'This latest crime even surpasses the others in furocity'. I hope this helps! LEANNE!
Author: Bob Hinton Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 04:02 am
Dear Jason, One of the first things to consider when trying to tie in a number of killings is the MO. If this is the same or similar then you can move on to the next stage. But it is here at the MO stage that a lot of mistakes are made. Some assume the MO refers to the type of weapon, the type of wounds etc. etc., however experience has taught us that this is false thinking. Look for the base line MO and use that. For example in the case of JTR I would say the base line MO is as follows. 1. Victims female. 2. Victims from a low profile social group. 3. Victims living in high population density areas. 4. Victims either physically weak through illness or infirmity or at a disadvantage ie drunk or asleep. 5. No witnesses. 6. Complete stealth no noise no fuss. 7. No weapon left at scene or recovered later. 8. No clues left at scene. If you are satisfied that the attacks you are interested in fall into all of the above categories then I think you can place them in the same basket unless or untill something discovered later definately excludes them. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: The Viper Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 06:52 am
To pick up on Leanne�s point, I think we have to be very careful with the statistics produced by people like Bruce Paley. We should remember that whilst there are eleven separate cases in the file known as the Whitechapel Murders, by no means all the incidents occurred in Whitechapel � however we choose to define it. Rose Mylett is one of the cases in the file, yet she died in Poplar, a good two miles away. Catherine Eddowes, one of the �canonical� victims, was killed in the City Of London, yet only a short walk from several of the other murder sites. So before we band murder statistics around, we have to decide very carefully from which geographical areas they are being drawn in order that we are comparing like with like. Elizabeth Stride was murdered in Berner Street. Ask anybody where Berner Street is and they�ll tell you �Whitechapel�. However, in reality Berner Street falls into the parish of St. George In The East, so she would not be caught in any murder statistics based purely on the parishes of Whitechapel. In 1887, Israel Lipski murdered Miriam Angel in Batty Street, the very next parallel street to Berner. According to Leanne�s summary of Paley though, �In 1887, out of 80 recorded homicides in London, none took place in the district of Whitechapel�. You can see the problem! On the wider point raised by Chris George, I�d love to see a qualified statistician armed with more reliable statistics tackle the case. Though the theory that Stride wasn�t a Ripper victim goes back to at least the 1930s, the idea has gained increased currency in recent years. Within the past decade it has become fashionable to question Kelly�s inclusion in the series and only last week David Radka, a regular contributor to these boards stated that in his opinion there were only two Ripper murders. Now, however many killings any of us choose to chalk up to the Ripper, all these crimes were terrifyingly real. Therefore the fewer crimes we attribute to one man, the more we have to put down to other people. Could we therefore have had two serial killers at work in Whitechapel? No � statistically that is a non-starter, besides which, how many of us have ever seen theorists attempt to link those murders they discard from the Ripper sequence together, (such as Tabram with Stride and Kelly)? What we are left with then is one multiple killer and a whole host of individual murderers. Whatever shortcomings Paley�s statistics may have, his point was surely that whilst violent assault may have been commonplace in the Whitechapel area, the populace was not basically murderous. Now, taking Jon�s point for example, that the only three instances with a hard link are Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, it means that in the case of 95 days we have to account additionally for three other murders; all unsolved cases; all prostitutes; all murdered in a small geographical area; all by the knife and all with throat wounds. I once discussed this point with a teacher of mathematics, armed with only the most rudimentary stats. He explained that purely on that basis, the chances of multiple murderers was way outside the usual threshold of coincidence. The more individual murderers we have, the less likely the scenario. If only a set of good statistics existed we might see the real chances of all murders being by the same hand, or by two, three, four or more people. Unless and until we can do this I don�t see the current trend towards 'revisionist history' being reversed. We all know the dangers of statistics � you can prove everything and nothing with them � but the old tried and tested means of considering various scenarios and then choosing a likely one could be applied here. Without doubt there was more than one murderer of women at work in the East End of 1888, but even without a full dataset it is safe to say that the claim that JTR didn�t exist and that he was all the creation of those rascally press hacks will not stand any mathematical scrutiny. Regards, V.
Author: Jim Leen Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 12:54 pm
Hello Everybody, As Viper states, statistics can be used in various manners to prove any viewpoints. According to your political belief, for example, unemployment is either falling or rising! So much for statistics. However, in mathematical terms, a bunching of killers in the Whitechapel area of London could be shown using Poisson Distribution. This theory first came to prominence to show the unexplained trends of Prussian cavalrymen being kicked to death by their horses! So it is safe to say that there is always some obscure branch of mathematics, and some sad pedant to point it out, to explain everything and nothing! Finally, welcome to the little circle Mr. Mullins. I personally have no doubt that we are looking for a serial killer. Whether he killed three, four, or five unfortunate women is the question. It just remains to be seen if I can remember my code now. Incidentally, have the number of contributors fallen since the new rule came into place. It does seem a fairly crude way to police the debate as I feel that certain researchers of note who, tiring of the moronical abuse heaped upon them, posted anonymously. They will definitely be excluded now. Does the campaign to go back to the old way of no password begin here? Thanking you for your consideration. Rabbi, call me Jim now, Leen
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 12:55 pm
Jason - Welcome to the Casebook. Chris, Viper, Jon, Bob and Diana have all given excellent replies, and so I skulk in their shadow to offer you some thoughts of my own. I'm glad you are a self-confessed "newbie" at all of this, so I shan't sound patronising! :-) Let us begin with "serial killer," a term you seem to be confused over. The standard lay distinction in murder is among a single killing (crime of passion, revenge, what have you), mass murder (a lot of people killed at once) or serial murder (more than one person killed separately). From this distinction alone, Jack the Ripper is certainly a serial killer, being responsible (in my opinion) for at least the deaths of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. The Whitechapel Torso killer would also be a serial murderer by this definition. The thought that all of the Ripper killings were the work of one man comes from the considerations of three sources; first, the police and medical authorities involved in the investigation. They noted the similarities in the killings (throats slit from left to right, evidence of strangulation, abdominal mutilations) and attributed this technique to one man. This is also known as "modus operandi" or "MO" (which you should be familiar with from television), and means that a killer will have a certain way of doing things that is a repetitious pattern and allows investigators to proclaim a certain murder the work of a certain killer. There are variations in MO, of course, and it is not an infallible tool, but it is sufficient for our discussion. A third source for the "one killer" school was the press. There were assaults and killings prior to the death of Polly Nichols, the most notorious being the rape and assualt on Emma Smith in April and the slaughter of Martha Tabram in August. Both of these crimes were thought revolting, but also seen as sort of one-offs; no-one believed that a crazed killer was stalking the streets until the death of Nichols. From the first, newspaper reports of her death mentioned the Smith and Tabram killings as "unsolved" crimes, and by inference, the Nichols killing was now seen as part of a pattern, even though there was very little to recommend such a theory. Each successive murder, therefore, was attributed to the "master murderer of the age." There was some thought that perhaps a gang or a secret society might be responsible for the killings, but the idea does not seem to have made much headway, even in 1888. Cases of shared obsession that results in murder (also known as "folie a deux") are rare, though they do occur. The Moors murders are a good example, as is that of the Hillside Stranglers. The Ripper might have had an accomplice, or a friend standing watch, but the surviving evidence is much too flimsy to support such a theory. Additionally, the sort of sexual serial killer that was Jack the Ripper typically works alone, and so it would be most unlikely for him to have a willing, active accomplice. But why, you ask, should the Ripper killings have not been the work of several people independently? A perfectly legitimate question, and, as you have seen, one still debated. Once you learn a little more about the Ripper killings, you will see that the similarities among Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes point to their having died at the hands of one man. Elizabeth Stride is often left out of this series, because the peculiar circumstances surrounding her death make it seem unlikely her murder was the work of the Ripper. She might have been killed by a drunk, or even by her lover, Michael Kidney. Mary Kelly is another story altogether, with the orthodox view of her being the "last" Ripper victim challenged by those who make a case for her dying either at the hands of George Hutchinson or her lover Joseph Barnett. You will find Alex Chisholm's debate on Mary Kelly in the book "Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer" by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey. There has been criticism levelled at this essay, as it smacks of a desperate attempt to salvage the book's proposal of Francis Tumblety as the Ripper when he might very well have been in jail when Kelly was murdered. Yet the point Alex is raising is important. There certainly was more than one killer roaming the East End in the Autumn of 1888 - the Torso murders alone prove this - and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Kelly was killed by her lover, who then mutilated her body in an attempt to make it appear the Ripper had killed her. Because the press printed long, gruesome details of each murder and the extended coroner's inquests which discussed the mutilations inflicted on each poor victim, it is argued, Barnett had an idea of what he needed to do to throw suspicion away from himself and on to the Ripper. I think this theory raises more questions than it answers, but both here and in the case of Stride you will at least have some basis for thinking of the "Ripper" killings as the work of more than one man. The "multiple killers" theory is taken to its extreme extent in Peter Turnbull's 1996 book "The Killer Who Never Was," where it is argued that all of the killings were the work of separate murderers - and, as Viper has shown - such a theory is not only untenable, it is mathemaically impossible (note: Turnbull's book is now out of print, but he repeats his theory in a short essay in "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper," ISBN 1-85487-537-X). With regards to the FBI profile of the Ripper, this was featured in the programme "The Secret Identity of JTR," which was later released by Blockbuster Video. You may be able to find a copy from them, or perhaps ask at our "Trading Post" for a copy. You can also read the salient points of the profile in the "Jack the Ripper A-Z" by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner. I do not know if the full profile has ever appeared in a Ripper book. I would caution you, however, about placing too great a reliance on psychological profiling to help you come closer to the Ripper. Even the FBI has only claimed an approximatly 75% accuracy rate with profiling, and much of their success stems from obvious facts concerning behaviour and intelligence. Profiling is a tool, but I think that retroactively applying it to a 112 year old murder case is a wasted enterprise. There is no longer any surviving scene-of-crime evidence, and what primary sources there are can often be wildly misinterpreted, even by people seeking honestly after the truth. Profiling might be good in a modern case if it gives you new ideas or helps confirm ones you already have, but to blindly draw up a "standard" sexual killer profile and then weed out any Ripper suspect who does not fit its criteria is nonsensical. (guilty admission: much of the above paragraph is lifted from Stewart Evans' interview in "Ripper Notes" No. 3. But, if one must steal, why not from the best?) With regards to a chat room, the Casebook has its own, and Casebook Productions also has one at http://venus.beseen.com/chat/rooms/a/432561/ Stop in either sometime. And last - read carefully, digest slowly, and don't be afraid to ask questions. But remember - don't believe everything a book tells you, don't believe everything we tell you and certainly don't close your mind to alternate explanations. Ignorance is understandable. Willful ignorance is inexcusable. I hope you enjoy your time here, and I look forward to meeting you at the Conference. Regards, Christopher-Michael
Author: Thomas Ind Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 04:13 pm
Jason. If it reached the news in the US a doctor in the UK was found guilty of 15 murders yesterday. However, the police are already attributing 150 murders to him calling him the largest serial killer in the UK ever. JTR, if he was a he, and if he was one etc etc etc has been 'found guilty' of five but one is disputed by some (Stride). Another is possible (Tabram) as are others but less probable. However, looking back at other serial killers - I bet there are one or 2 that we have never even considered. That is why it is such a fascinating subject.
Author: Leanne Perry Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 06:35 pm
G'Day All, Jason, On Febuary, 1888: Annie Millwood was STABBED in the legs, by an unkown man and dies the next month. On March 28, 1888: Ada Wilson was STABBED twice in the throat by a robber and recovered. On April 3, 1888: Emma Smith was assaulted and raped with a blunt instrument and dies the next day. 3 months go by with no murders or attempts! On August 7, 1888: Martha Tabram was STABBED 39 times. On August 31, 1888: Mary Ann Nichols was MUTILATED. Her throat was SLICED from ear to ear, down to the vertebrae. Her abdomen was SLICED with a MODERATELY SHARP, LONG BLADED KNIFE. On September 8, 1888: Annie Chapman was MUTILATED. Her throat was SLICED, through to the spine. Her abdomen was laid open and her intestines had been severed and lifted out. Her uterus and 2 thirds of her bladder had been removed. Her killer used a SHARP, THIN, NARROW BLADE, at least 6-8 inches long. On September 30, 1888: Elizabeth Stride was found with her throat SLICED, from left to right. The cut was 6 inches long and divided her windpipe. Also on September 30, 1888: Catherine Eddowes was found MUTILATED. Her throat had been SLICED and the cut was 6-7 inches long and severed her larynx. Her abdomen was laid open. Her left kidney was absent and so was her womb. Her face was cut over the nose, eyelids, and cheek. All injuries were perfomed by a SHARP POINTED KNIFE. On November 9, 1888: Mary Jane Kelly was terribly MUTILATED. Her face was SLICED in all directions. Her nose, cheeks, eyebrows and ears were partly removed. Her throat was SLICED. Her breasts were removed and her heart was missing. About me mentioning statistics 'produced by people like Bruce Paley', In Paleys book: 'The Simple Truth', there's a copy of the 'Death Statistics for Whitechapel for 1887', showing that there wasn't a single 'Homicide, Murder or Manslaughter' recorded under 'Causes of Death'. He gives the source for these statistics as 'Tower Hamlets Library'. LEANNE!
Author: David M. Radka Tuesday, 01 February 2000 - 10:28 pm
Although all the posters responding to Jason above have written well, I must fall on my face to kiss the feet of Viper and C-M. If only I were not born a natural screwball, I too might aspire to the solidness and evenness of their expressions above. Go well, my friends, and a dram of the 18 year-old Glenlivet to you! David
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 04:26 am
Dear Leanne, You have listed the main characteristics of the wounds and the possible weapon used very well, but to what end? Are you suggesting that because certain victims were stabbed and others sliced they were not done by the same person? If so may I add a word of caution. Many mistakes have been made in the past costing many lives because the authorities failed to link different attacks to the same person because the weapon or the way in which it was used differed from victim to victim. Let me give some examples. The Yorkshire Rippers victims were bludgeoned first with a gravel filled sock, then with a brick in a sock and finally with a ball pein hammer. He used various weapons to stab and slash ranging from a Philips screwdriver to pieces of glass. Two of his first victims (who were bludgeoned) actually survived and gave the police a perfect photofit picture of Sutcliffe. These were totally ignored because a, they weren't killed and b, the weapons were different. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) first of all used a knife to stab his victims and later progressed to a .44 magnum pistol. Because his first victims survived the knife attacks they were not linked into the series either. De Salvo (The Boston Strangler) switched all over the place. He killed, didn't kill, strangled, clubbed, throttled etc etc. It took the police a very long time to realise the same man was responsible for all the attacks. In all three cases the authorities overlooked the fact that serial killers often start with a learning process, finding out which method of murder suits them, then they refine it until satisfied. Berkowitz for instance even after he decided to use a pistol experimented with different methods of holding the weapon until he found one (a semi Weaver) that suited him. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Guy Hatton Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 05:05 am
Bob - Actually, the "rock in the sock" attack in Bradford in 1969 was a disappointment to Sutcliffe, as the sock fell apart, releasing the brick before he was able to hit his chosen target with it. Also, the "best" photofit was provided by Marilyn Moore, who was attacked with a hammer, at a time when a "series" of killings by one man had already been perceived. Despite this, she was largely ignored because her description of the attacker's car was confused, and appeared not to fit the evidence from previous attacks. However, your point about the "learning curve" involved,and the development of MO, choice of weapon, etc. is well made. Leanne - The point about Paley's statistics is not that anyone is accusing him of falsifying or failing to give his source, but that he is being very selective as regards geographical area. The point has been made here very recently that the crimes we think of as "The Whitechapel Murders" actually occurred within an area much wider than "Whitechapel" as it was defined for the purposes of statistics - Stride in St. George's in the East, Kelly in Spitalfields, for example. Hence not all of the canonical victims would appear as homicides in the Whitechapel statistics for 1888! Although the point that 1888 was an unusually murderous year may be valid, the situation is not necessarily as clear-cut as Paley would have us believe. All the best Guy
Author: Leanne Perry Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 06:34 am
G'day Lady (if you're still there) and Gentlemans, I'm just suggesting reasons why the police/press and public at the time, thought that 5 murders may have been the work of the same man. I thought that the term 'serial killer', applied to a killer who killed more than once, with no apparent motive. ie didn't care who he killed. Another fact that links the five murders, is the mornings that they occured on: Annnie Millwood - Saturday, Ada Wilson - Wednesday, Martha Tabram - Tuesday, POLLY NICHOLLS - FRIDAY, ANNIE CHAPMAN - SATURDAY, STRIDE & EDDOWES - SUNDAY, MARY KELLY - FRIDAY, Rose Mylett - Thursday, Ellen Bury - Tuesday. Food for thought? LEANNE!
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 09:37 am
Leanne - Serial killers can certainly have a motive; in fact, I believe it was our friend Bob Hinton who noted that there is no such thing as a completely motiveless murder; somewhere, even if buried in the unconscious, there is a reason. My definition of "serial killer" to Jason was of necessity simplified, but broadly accurate. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, for instance, certainly did not care who they killed (they once murdered a policeman after he had given them directions), but they also killed for reasons - robbery, vengeance, the sheer thrill of it - and, because they killed more than one person, fall under my lay definition of serial killers. The difference I was making for his benefit was between John Wayne Gacy and Marc Lepine - or, to choose a present horror, Dr Harold Shipman, whom, it appears, is the textbook example of a serial killer. Somewhere in the past, we have discussed Joseph Loane's statistical report and compared it to Paley. Paley certainly did a service by fighting against the standard portrayal of Whitechapel as teeming with unprovoked murder and brutality (pace AP Wolf), but he tends to leave the impression that 1888 was a freak year in terms of violence and that the years ahead and behind were placid. This is true in a larger sense (those years didn't have Jack), but not entirely accurate and liable to be misinterpreted (pace Peter Turnbull). Rabbi - the Viper shows that we can still post pseudonymously; perhaps it's just the long, cold winter dragging down people's energy? David - thank you for the compliment; better than I deserve, I think, but cheers to you, as well. CMD