Body-count inflation?

[Sam Flynn]

From a Stride thread...Im not trying to lessen the JtR body count.That got me thinking, Mike.

I sometimes wonder whether, deep down, there might be a desire to keep Jack's body-count up at all costs, if only out of a desire to paint him as an even bigger SOB than he already was?

Views welcome.

[Celesta]

I've wondered about this, too, Sam, but then you have people minimizing, as in lessening, his body count, as well. So it seems the pendulum swings both directions. I think it depends, partly, on the personality of the person doing the assessing, and, also, whether they genuinely believe there's evidence to support their figures.

[perrymason]

Im pleased that something I wrote inspired your thinking Gareth...I think if we could give you better data that noggin of yours could find a way through it.

The Contemporary Authorities and todays Ripper authors and publishers are greatly advantaged by a larger count I believe.

Bad enough to have no evidence to use at all, but with the flurry of similar deaths that Fall, a madman with no logical path of progression killing whomever he gets his hands on is an extremely hard man to find. The residents might understand that. But if the Canonicals were actually 2 or 3 men, how would it look to say we now have 3 killers on the loose without one shred of evidence to follow? Plus the men who killed the other women. All East Enders...like the ones that got clubbed in Trafalgar Square. The more killings that could be attributed to a single genius-killer, the less inept the police would appear. I mean c'mon.....less than a single square mile for all 5, and not once did they nab anyone worthwhile? I saw the word "cunning" ,many times in contemporary opinions by Police. Creating a legend to lessen the sting of a sleuth that defeated them?

The modern rationale for maintaining that is obvious. Commerce. A man who kills a woman or two is hardly...JACK the RIPPER....and JACK....still sells. Whats in their favour is the fact that it is unlikely that we will ever sort the whole mess out anyway.....so perpetuate, regurgitate, and postulate....but only about the man that has sold papers, magazines and books for 120 years.


Best regards Sam,....and hi Celesta...nice to see ya.

[perrymason]

Sam, one quick non thread related question for that noggin of yours, a thought I had today....BSM is a thug that does work for the Club sometimes...maybe muscle work. He knows some bad things they have been up to...maybe including murder. And on the fateful night, he happens to kill some smart mouth street whore in the Clubs yard, Maybe he is turned down trying to get in the side door even.

So he leaves pissed off, and on his way home goes by an entrance to some model dwellings where Jews lived....and since he is likely a gentile by his yelling "Lipski", likely yelling a jewish slur rather than anyones name at the site....and he stops there, and writes what amounts to " Yeah, now Im the bad guy, but the Juewes/Juwes are blameless?"

Later on that evening Jack is heading past that same area, headed East, he sees the writing, smirks, and drops the apron piece he has been wiping his hands with to say" I hear ya brother."

Just think on it if you would.

Cheers mate.

[Mitch Rowe]

MacNaghton dont seem to be trying to do that. He is firm on the C5 and I believe rightly so.

[Monty]

Oooh Mitch, dont let Stewart Evans see that, it MacNaghten!

Seriously, his list, based on Bonds breakdown, is accepted as the Cannon and differs from Anderson who includes Tabram. However, I personally feel theres only 3 victims that can be attributed to Jack. Thats not to say there werent others, just that the evidence is inconclusive.

[Ally]

As I said in the podcast on Elizabeth Stride, some people are loathe to even consider taking Stride out of the equation because it lessens the "coolness factor" of Jack. The Double event, the daring, the dash, etc. So yes, I think there are some who want to maintain Jack the Myth regardless of what Jack the Truth is.

If I were a on a jury and had to come down on the side unequivocally one way or the other on Elizabeth, I would have to find not guilty. There are too many areas of reasonable doubt for me.

[Uncle Jack]

I do not believe Stride was a Ripper victim and haven't for quite a while. For me, there are just too much differences from the other 4 canons. You have the lack of strangulation, the fact that a small knife was used, the others had the throats cut twice whilst Stride was only cut once. There is then the sighting of an obvious domestic situation, making it likely that Stride was a victim of a domestic murder. Add to this the lack of mutilations, accepted by many as "Jack was interupted" when it has been suggested that he would have had time to do them. As Ally says, there are too many doubts and I think it is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that Stride was murdered by the Ripper.

[sdreid]

When we catch a serial killer, it is almost never found out that they killed less than was thought. Much more often it's discovered that they killed others that police had no idea they were responsible for.

[Mitch Rowe]

Thats right Stan..
Thats why I never use differences to try to exlude victims. I use similarities to try to include them. But Im very carefull about that. I wont say Tabram is a victim because I cant find anything I feel is solid enough to say that. But on the other hand I wont ever exlude her or any of the others including the torso murders.

[Celesta]

When we catch a serial killer, it is almost never found out that they killed less than was thought. Much more often it's discovered that they killed others that police had no idea they were responsible for.

True, Stan. You're knowledgeable about these guys. This is the reason people continue to look for other victims. He had to start somewhere. He may have started with Martha, but isn't it reasonable to think there was something else before her, if not outright murder. There was possibly something after MJK, if he was still alive and free. The question would be where and who.

[Fisherman]

Ally writes:

"As I said in the podcast on Elizabeth Stride, some people are loathe to even consider taking Stride out of the equation because it lessens the "coolness factor" of Jack. The Double event, the daring, the dash, etc. So yes, I think there are some who want to maintain Jack the Myth regardless of what Jack the Truth is.
If I were a on a jury and had to come down on the side unequivocally one way or the other on Elizabeth, I would have to find not guilty. There are too many areas of reasonable doubt for me."

Well put, Ally! In fact, I would not change a word in that post, had I found my signature under it.

My own guess is that Jack had five victims, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. But I will admit that what Monty says, that only three of them - and that would be Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - display such likenesses inbetween them, that they leave us with little choice but to recognize them as Ripper victims.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[sdreid]

Hi Cel,

Yes, it's my suspicion that he killed more either before, during or after and that the victim(s) may not be on any of our radar screens.

[Uncle Jack]

It seems fair to assume that Jack could have killed other woman before and after the main 5 canons, including woman who were not prostitutes and also include murders that didn't just occur in or very near Whitechapel, because it is plausable that he could have killed in other parts of London and even other parts of the UK. We have to look for any unsolved murders and cases where the accused seems to be not guilty. One case that immedietly comes to mind is that of Catherine Mellows, who was murdered in East Dulwich in 1886, by having her throat cut twice. Maybe it would be advisable to look into murders from 1886 onwards, especially ones involving similar injuries to that of later victims.

Kind regards,

Adam

[Celesta]

We have to look for any unsolved murders and cases where the accused seems to be not guilty. One case that immedietly comes to mind is that of Catherine Mellows, who was murdered in East Dulwich in 1886, by having her throat cut twice. Maybe it would be advisable to look into murders from 1886 onwards, especially ones involving similar injuries to that of later victims.

Kind regards,

Adam

Hi Adam,

These are my thoughts, too. I've come across a few things. Failed attempts, too, should be considered, although I think they would be hard, if not impossibe, to research very far.

Best, C

[Uncle Jack]

Hi Adam,

I've come across a few things.

Hi Celesta. I would be interested to see what you have found so far. I am currently in the process of writing a book and my aim is to include details of some murders/attempted murders that had a ripper style to them. I have quite a few so far and believe it is possible that the Ripper may have been responsable.

Kind regards,

Adam

[Fisherman]

To me, the smoke that rose from Geroge Yard on the 7:th of August 1888, was smoke coming from a starting gun.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Oooh Mitch, dont let Stewart Evans see that, it MacNaghten!

Not only that, Monty.
It's actually Macnaghten, with a small 'm'.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I sometimes wonder whether, deep down, there might be a desire to keep Jack's body-count up at all costs, if only out of a desire to paint him as an even bigger SOB than he already was?

Views welcome.

Of course there is.
To add all kinds of murders to a serial killer's tally is tempting but in some cases misleading. Personally, I continue to be amazed at the attempts to include victims like Emma Smith and Martha Tabram.

In Sweden we've had a couple of examples where serial killers have been investigated for other murders than those already attributed to them, only to find that they didn't do any of them.

We must also consider the possibility, that the activity of a serial killer also spurs and inspires other murders, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the number of murders grow in such a context.

I have no doubt that the Ripper might have committed other offenses before Nichols, but I don't think they necessarily must have included murder.

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

" I continue to be amazed at the attempts to include victims like Emma Smith and Martha Tabram."

Yes, yes, yes, Glenn ... and no, no, no!

Anyways, Glenn, it´s good to hear your voice again. And I second your opinion that the Ripper may well have had a criminal file containing miscellaneous stuff - not necessarily murder, or even violence.

The best, Friend!

Fisherman

[Celesta]

Hi Adam,

Just names really, Adam, which lead nowhere, as yet. Mostly from the Old Bailey. Pretty much along the lines of what we were talking about last week with Joseph Carlin. Everybody's trawling the Old B. There's one where a group of young males was indicted for sexual assault on 3 young girls in their early teens. Ref. # t18871024-1049. Off the top of my head, seems like only one was actually convicted. I'll take another look at it. It made me think of Emma Smith's 19 year old. There are several accts of indecent assault on young females by grown men. I was also keeping an eye out for arson, breaking and entering with some violence associated. Any of those activities that proto-serial killers delight in.

[Uncle Jack]

I have been trawling through the old Bailey records again Celesta and came across an interesting character that came to my attention, despite not living within the East End. I'll have to dig out the details. He was known to have a violent temper, a hatred towards women and was, lets say, not all there. People who knew him said he used to go out some nights carrying "a parcel or package in his hand". He was put on trial for the murder of his wife. He killed her by cutting her throat... Definately one worth looking into more.

Kind regards,

Adam

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sounds interesting, Adam.
Keep us up to date about further developments. Although I am sure of that the Ripper never will be identified with 100% proof, it is interesting to look along these lines nevertheless.
And of course, although it is my belief that the killer would have had some knowledge of the area, that doesn't necessarily mean that he acually lived there at the time of the murders.

All the best

[Dan Norder]

I really don't think there's a really body count inflation in the field (well, except in books by authors like Cornwell and Marriott, who seem to want to add every murder around the world for decades or more, including solved ones, to the Ripper's count). Quite the contrary, I think most people are lean far too heavily on the minimalist side and just don't take into account how incredibly small of a geographic area most of the Whitechapel murders took place in, and how infrequent murders of that typer took place in general, let alone in an area of that size with such similar features over the space of only a couple of years. I think Macnaghten's Five should really be considered a minimum. That's certainly not an attempt to make Jack more dramatic, it's just following what we know about actual serial killers. You can't seriously make any reasoned judgments about what Jack would or would not have done unless you know about what other similar serial killers have done and how they operate. As Stan said, when serial killers are caught there are almost invariably more victims that were murdered by the same person. That's just reality.

And, seriously, I don't know how many times I have to say it (of course saying it multiple times won't convince those people who have already made up their minds), but if you were to drop the list to three (not that there's a good reason to), the three victims with the most important features in common are Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Nichols is a rather minor mutilation murder compared to the other three.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

IAnd, seriously, I don't know how many times I have to say it (of course saying it multiple times won't convince those people who have already made up their minds), but if you were to drop the list to three (not that there's a good reason to), the three victims with the most important features in common are Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Nichols is a rather minor mutilation murder compared to the other three.

And it doesn't become more credible regardless of how many more times you say it, because it will still be complete nonsense.

The level of mutilation is not the key but where the focus on the mutilations lie. Nichols may not have been as severely mutilated as Chapman, Eddowes or Kelly, but the target zones on her body as well as the modus operandi of the killer and his approach is in total similarity on what we find on Chapman and Eddowes.
Therefore suggesting that Nichols shouldn't be in the Canonical Three is probably the worst analysis I have ever heard in the Ripper context.

But again, you have been told this several times but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

[perrymason]

Hello again,

I think Monty is on the right track with 3 victims that seem to be linked by more than just the type of women and the weapon used. Mary Ann Nichols was mutilated, her abdomen. Annie was mutilated, her abdomen with organ removal, and Kate was mutilated, her abdomen with organ removal and superfluous wounds.....all post mortem. There is progression yet continuity. That continuity is broken with Liz, and again with Mary Kelly...two victims who to this day are questioned more than any other as Canonicals.

I would think it would be very likely that any other miscreant with a propensity for violence and blood might be inspired by the success of Jack, and perhaps try their own hand at it. Alice McKenzie comes to mind, for one.

A few things that the proponents of at least 5 victims disregard....One is that he was 100% successful killing and escaping scott free before November 9th, there was no reason to move to more secluded surroundings indoors, in fact why would he change a thing he has done so "cleanly"...and when the actions taken in that room are very unlike what has transpired before...starting with Marys defensive wounds, you have to wonder if her killer was emulating Jack, without the sequencing or the passion for taking abdominal organs with him that he has excised.

Using a knife to kill was hardly Jacks own unique style, it was what he did after that makes him "The Ripper".

In the case of Liz Stride, no ripping....and in the case of Mary Kelly, not knowing when to stop Ripping. There are partial acts that are unlike any Ripper crime...peeling the flesh entirely off one leg... to the knee joint, and only doing the inside of the opposite thigh for example. That is a perfect example of the many time wasting cuts in Room 13 that when complete, offered him what?......the satisfaction of peeling one thigh? The great release he got from putting a breast under her head? ps on this point,.....I did read once that Mary may have had a birthmark on her upper right thigh...which makes the damage done very interesting, if true. It would be a way to remove part of her identity...like her face, and her soul...in the form of a heart.

The man in room 13 was utterly lost. JtR was anything but....he went to work the minute they were lying down legs akimbo...and he left when he had what he wanted. Maybe he was disturbed at some sites, and it curbed some cutting.....but there is no evidence that he sought to strip thighs of flesh....and its more likely that "close call" was in Mitre Square, rather than Dutfields Yard.

Best regards all.

[Uncle Jack]

And it doesn't become more credible regardless of how many more times you say it, because it will still be complete nonsense.

The level of mutilation is not the key but where the focus on the mutilations lie. Nichols may not have been as severely mutilated as Chapman, Eddowes or Kelly, but the target zones on her body as well as the modus operandi of the killer and his approach is in total similarity on what we find on Chapman and Eddowes.
Therefore suggesting that Nichols shouldn't be in the Canonical Three is probably the worst analysis I have ever heard in the Ripper context.

But again, you have been told this several times but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

I completely agree with you Glenn. The focus of the mutilations were the genitals, abdomen etc. To suggest that someone isn't a victim because the mutilations / wounds are not exactly the same as previous murders seems very closed minded. If a Ripper victim had her abdomen cut open and another victim had her abdomen stabbed, is it fair to rule out the second victim as a Ripper victim simply because he didn't "rip" her abdomen and instead stabbed it? The most important factor was that the abdomen was targeted. There are many serial killers who changed their style of murder from one killing to the next. What makes Jack so different. You made many good points above Glenn.

Best regards,

Adam

[Dan Norder]

The level of mutilation is not the key but where the focus on the mutilations lie.

First off, level of mutilation certainly is key. I don't know where you came up with the idea that it's not, but the experts on the topic say otherwise. Second off, the focus of the mutilations in the Mary Kelly case have more in common with the Eddowes and Chapman murders than the ones in Nichols case. Eddowes and Kelly both had facial mutilations. All three had organs removed. All three had organs taken. All three had their abdomens totally opened up. Nichols doesn't have any of that, and anything Nichols has Kelly also has, but moreso. You can't get much more clear cut than that.

TBut again, you have been told this several times but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

I just follow what the experts on the criminology have to say, and what has been proven in other real world serial killer cases. I'm not particularly concerned about the opinions of people who don't have any sort of background or knowledge on the topic, or even basic common sense for that matter.

[Dan Norder]

I completely agree with you Glenn. The focus of the mutilations were the genitals, abdomen etc. To suggest that someone isn't a victim because the mutilations / wounds are not exactly the same as previous murders seems very closed minded.

Hi Adam,

It sounds like you were confused about what the people posting to this thread have said. Glenn does, in fact, declare that Mary Kelly and Martha Tabram were not Ripper victims because they weren't exactly the same as other murders. And, yes, he is very closed minded about it.

[Veritas]

I aggree with you. I think that Jack killed 6 (I am including Tabram) and possibly more.

[Ally]

While it may be true that serial killers generally have a higher body count than is generally attributed to them, it does not logically follow therefore that all people fitting their victim profile belongs to them. With the absence of any abdominal mutilation to Stride, some doubt as to her inclusion must remain. Even if Jack were interrupted, knowing the times it took him to complete the other murders and mutilations, I can't possibly imagine he didn't have enough time to do a little abdominal mutilation if indeed he was Jack. Which means he didn't choose to do it. He had the time. It takes all of 2 seconds to stab someone in the stomach twice.

[Jon Guy]

I sometimes wonder whether, deep down, there might be a desire to keep Jack's body-count up at all costs, if only out of a desire to paint him as an even bigger SOB than he already was?

Hi Sam

I`m pretty sure that the most students of the W.M. case would have the same body count, give or take one or two, as by the same hand.


Although there are some who argue a case for Tabram and McKenzie, I am one, I do believe that we are all sitting comfortably with only three or four definates.

There are more people who feel the need to demystify "Jack" and his kill rate, rather than add to the tally.

[Jon Guy]

Even if Jack were interrupted, knowing the times it took him to complete the other murders and mutilations, I can't possibly imagine he didn't have enough time to do a little abdominal mutilation if indeed he was Jack. Which means he didn't choose to do it. He had the time. It takes all of 2 seconds to stab someone in the stomach twice.

Hello Ally

He may not have had the time for the mutilations, as we know he always pushed the clothing up, or would cut it away to expose the abdominal region.

[Fisherman]

"There are more people who feel the need to demystify "Jack" and his kill rate, rather than add to the tally"

...and then there´s me, subtracting one, and adding another!

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Second off, the focus of the mutilations in the Mary Kelly case have more in common with the Eddowes and Chapman murders than the ones in Nichols case. Eddowes and Kelly both had facial mutilations. All three had organs removed. All three had organs taken. All three had their abdomens totally opened up. Nichols doesn't have any of that, and anything Nichols has Kelly also has, but moreso. You can't get much more clear cut than that.

That's absolute rubbish and extremely bad analysis.
We've been over this several times, and it's total insanity to state that Polly Nichols shouldn't be among the three just because she didn't have any organs removed. The focus on the abdominal mutilations on Nichols is exactly the same as on Chapman and Eddowes, with a clear direction towards the genital area and lower abdominal area. And then we have the severe throat cut.
The only difference is that the abdominal mutilations were not as severe as in the other two, but if Nichols was the first mutilation victim that is perfectly understandable. And that would of course also explain the lack of organs being taken. Besides that there seems to be a clear attempt to open her up even if he didn't succeed.

Your ridiculous attempt to include the facial mutilations as one of the Rippers' 'key elements' is erronous to say the least, since we don't see any of that in the case of Annie Chapman.
Now you're probably going to say that the facial mutilations is an expansion of his signature, but of course that won't do if you're not prepared to accept that there also is an expansion from Nichols to Chapman, in other words that Nichols was the first trial and error case and therefore wasn't opened up as severly as the others (unless the killer was disturbed by Cross).

Again, to base any supposition about the Ripper's key elements partly on the facial mutilations is totally ludicrous since they are not apparent on Chapman. They may be expansions, but they are certainly not key elements - those are instead the focus on the lower abdominal area and the deep throat cut.

As for Kelly, she was pretty much hacked and slaughtered all over, so to even attempt to create any Ripper key elements in there is even more ridiculous since she is pretty much a case of pick-and-chose, as practically every part of her body was mutilated by the knife. The only real element that combines her with the others was the extensive troat cut. But the mutilations as such have in fact very little in common with the other Ripper victims. Nor was the womb taken as in the case of Eddowes and Chapman.

I don't know what 'experts' you refer to, but I don't think I have read that many theories that supports your silly and rather illogical deductions.
The only thing that fills me with joy is that you actually don't work within law enforcement yourself.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

While it may be true that serial killers generally have a higher body count than is generally attributed to them, it does not logically follow therefore that all people fitting their victim profile belongs to them. With the absence of any abdominal mutilation to Stride, some doubt as to her inclusion must remain. Even if Jack were interrupted, knowing the times it took him to complete the other murders and mutilations, I can't possibly imagine he didn't have enough time to do a little abdominal mutilation if indeed he was Jack. Which means he didn't choose to do it. He had the time. It takes all of 2 seconds to stab someone in the stomach twice.

Hear, hear!
Finally some common sense on this thread.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

If a Ripper victim had her abdomen cut open and another victim had her abdomen stabbed, is it fair to rule out the second victim as a Ripper victim simply because he didn't "rip" her abdomen and instead stabbed it? The most important factor was that the abdomen was targeted. There are many serial killers who changed their style of murder from one killing to the next.

Hi Adam,
Thank you, but as Dan Norder implies, I think I may disappoint you, because in my view I feel we can only be certain of three victims to attribute to the Ripper, and I definitely rule out Tabram (one of the reasons being that she was a victim of fierce stabbing and not ripping up). There was no attempt to open her up, plus that the focus on Tabram's wounds was more scattered over the breasts, the neck and the stomach (in other words, no clear defined direction towards the genital area). Nor was her throat cut. But of course there are other reasons as well.

But I agree with you, that the Ripper's main target area was the genital area. Another one is, I feel, was the throats cut since there were so deep and severe that went beyond what was necessary for practical reasons.

All the best

[Mitch Rowe]

I can't possibly imagine he didn't have enough time to do a little abdominal mutilation if indeed he was Jack.

I can. JTR and Liz are walking into the yard. Diemschutz pulls in. Jack kills Liz and runs away.

Compared to what happened to Annie... Pollys the odd one out. We know he started the mutilations but abruptly ended. What happened? Looks to me like Jack is ready to run any time he feels like it.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Mitch,

That pretty much is depending on when one assumes that Liz Stride as murdered. It is, in fact, quite possible that she wasn't killed just prior to Diemshcutz arrival.
Although she must have been killed less than ten minutes before 1 am (due to the blood still being liquid), it's not a 'fact' that she was murdered right before 1 am. Ad if she wasn't, then there would have been plenty of time for the killer to open her up and cut her throat in an equally severe manner is in the other cases.

All the best

[Mitch Rowe]

Yes its not a fact but a possibility. Wich makes it imaginable.

[Uncle Jack]

Hi Adam,
Thank you, but as Dan Norder implies, I think I may disappoint you, because in my view I feel we can only be certain of three victims to attribute to the Ripper, and I definitely rule out Tabram (one of the reasons being that she was a victim of fierce stabbing and not ripping up). There was no attempt to open her up, plus that the focus on Tabram's wounds was more scattered over the breasts, the neck and the stomach (in other words, no clear defined direction towards the genital area). Nor was her throat cut. But of course there are other reasons as well.

But I agree with you, that the Ripper's main target area was the genital area. Another one is, I feel, was the throats cut since there were so deep and severe that went beyond what was necessary for practical reasons.

All the best

Completely understand Glenn. Just me reading your post the wrong way. Ha ha. We will probably disagree as to the number of victims that Jack murdered but there are certain things we can agree on, as you mentioned above. I've always had the view that the Ripper did intend to murder Tabram in a similar way to the later victims. I theorised that Jack first strangled Tabram, rendering her unconcious. Then, lifting her skirts, he was about to do his thing when she, unexpectantly, came around and began to panic. In a panic of his own, he just started to stab in a frenzied attack, to keep her quiet, worried her screams and cries of murder would have alerted people. Just a theory, which obviously cannot be proven, but one I have considered for a while now.

Best regards,

Adam

[Ms. Fade]

I do not believe Stride was a Ripper victim and haven't for quite a while. For me, there are just too much differences from the other 4 canons. You have the lack of strangulation, the fact that a small knife was used, the others had the throats cut twice whilst Stride was only cut once. There is then the sighting of an obvious domestic situation, making it likely that Stride was a victim of a domestic murder. Add to this the lack of mutilations, accepted by many as "Jack was interupted" when it has been suggested that he would have had time to do them. As Ally says, there are too many doubts and I think it is highly unlikely, in my opinion, that Stride was murdered by the Ripper.

I agree with you entirely. I have long thought that the 'Double Event' didn't happen and that Stride was the victim of domestic violence, I'm just not convinced she was a Ripper victim. There are far too many holes in the account of what happened that night.

As for the question asked by the thread....

It's highly possible that there were other victims, but the inflation of the body count (to the extent of possibly even inventing victims in the case of Fairy Fay) seem to me to be 'glamourising' the evil of JtR, and because we don't know how many he killed or who he was it makes it all that more mysterious. Really and truly, it doesn't matter how many or how few women he murdered - he was a murderer, pure and simple, and, as such, a sick and twisted individual, and his victims (how ever many of them there were) deserve more respect than some of the serial killer groupie/conspiracy theory types in this world give them.

Rant over!

Ms.F

[Fisherman]

Uncle Jack writes:

"I theorised that Jack first strangled Tabram, rendering her unconcious. Then, lifting her skirts, he was about to do his thing when she, unexpectantly, came around and began to panic. In a panic of his own, he just started to stab in a frenzied attack, to keep her quiet, worried her screams and cries of murder would have alerted people. "

So why did he swop weapons when piercing the chestbone, Uncle Jack? Any ideas?

The best!
Fisherman

[Uncle Jack]

Hi Fisherman.

Good question. I know it was stated that a different weapon, possibly a bayonet, was used to inflict one of the other wounds but I think, as far as I am aware, that it has now been suggested that the wound assumed to have been inflicted by the "second" weapon could have been brought on by the same weapon but appeared different due to the fleshy area where the stabbing occured. Some have speculated that the bayonet wound would have been the first wound inflicted on the body, thus giving it the different appearence. I would suggest, based on this, that two weapons were not used and that all the stabs were inflicted by a strong bladed knife. Killeen suggested that the weapon that inflicted 38 of the 39 would not have been strong enough to have broken the sternum but I think in a fit of rage, a knife or daggar could have inflicted the wound. When in a rage, and while such adrenaline is being pumped through the body, we are capable of things that would not seem possible under normal circumstances. It was also suggested by the Home Office that a bayonet wasn't used.

Best regards,

Adam

[Fisherman]

I think you are wrong, Uncle Jack.

To suggest two weapons was a bold thing to do, on behalf of Killeen. It took a lot to state this, and thus we are not dealing with small differences.

The 37 stabs could have been made by a pen-knife, was what was said, and pondering the fact that the stabs delivered by this apparently quite narrow and thin blade still reached and pierced the liver, spleen and lungs of a substantially fat woman, it is pretty obvious that this blade sunk in to depths that displayed its full width.

The stab through the sternum, though, was made by a sturdy dagger or a bayonet, and the difference will have been blatant. Remember that Killen would have gone through all possibilities to fit that stab in with the others, since it must have been very controversial and highly improbable that two blades were used. The fact that he opted for this with such certainty anyhow urges us to accept that this was the case. There is no way around that, I feel.

The best, Uncle Jack! And a good nights sleep to you - I´m off to bed, since it is getting late here in Sweden!

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I think its more likely with two offenders in collaboration, each with their own weapon, rather than one offender with two weapons.

In any case I would urge people to read the very illuminating article about the Tabram murder in the latest Ripperologist. A lot of common sense there.

All the best

[Uncle Jack]

Personally, I think its more likely with two offenders in collaboration, each with their own weapon, rather than one offender with two weapons.

Hi Glenn.

Do you think then that if, for arguments sake, Martha was a Ripper victim, it would suggest two Rippers rather than one, working together? Or do you think it more plausable that there were two non Ripper killers involved in her murder, and if so, what do you think would be their motive?

Best regards,

Adam

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Adam,

I don't want to turn this into another Tabram thread and no doubt much that can be said about Tabram has been said before. But I certainly don't see Tabram as a Ripper victim; if there were two offenders, then they were non-Ripper connected. Most likely she was killed by one or two customers, probably one or two soldiers since PC Barrett came across a soldier standing at the corner of Wentworth Street-George Yard at the right time for the murder to occur, and where the solider siad that 'his mate had gone off with a girl".
As in many attacks on prostitutes, the motives could be numerous: dispute over money, she could have made fun of him sexually etc. Mayeb she tried to steal from him (we know some of the women tried this stunt).
Sometimes no real motive is needed, only some kind of psychotic episode. Since she and some soliders also had been bar-hopping it is also quite likely that at least Tabram was quite drunk, possibly even her client and when people are drunk a lot can happen. Let's not forget that prostitution is one of the most dangerous trades and that these women (and men) on a regular basis comes across people that might not be "all there".

As for the Ripper crimes, I do not believe there were two offenders working in tandem as a duo.

All the best

[Uncle Jack]

Getting back on topic, I find myself adding more to Jack's list, not so because of a way to dramatise his evilness more but because I believe he would have carried on (if he hadn't died/been locked up/rendered unable after MJK) and I tend to not dismiss victims because their murders are slightly different from the C4. I tend not to base my judgements on Macnaghton's word. But I think their are arguments for both sides and this debate will certainly rage on for many years to come I suspect.

Best regards to all,

Adam

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And none of us will most likely ever know the real truth anyway.
It is of course a fact that it is impossible to establish the number of victims in a 120 year old serial killer case, where the killer is unidentified.

Personally, I am of the opinion the Ripper didn't commit that many mutilation murders in London, and my view is that he started with Nichols and finished with Eddowes. If this is true, then that means he committed three murders with a regular time pattern and within a time period of one month and then for some reason stopped or continued elsewhere. I don't believe that he was responsible for either McKenzie or Coles. Mary Kelly is, as we've seen, a matter of debate.
To automatically take for granted that he would have continued if didn't die or got locked up is a false and dangerous assumption, since we know of serial killers who have stopped or committed only a small number of murders during a very long time span. The old myth that serial killers don't stop on their own needs to be revised; it may be true in many cases but it shouldn't be taken as a rule.

All the best

[Moriarty]

And none of us will most likely ever know the real truth anyway.
It is of course a fact that it is impossible to establish the number of victims in a 120 year old serial killer case, where the killer is unidentified.

Personally, I am of the opinion the Ripper didn't commit that many mutilation murders in London, and my view is that he started with Nichols and finished with Eddowes. If this is true, then that means he committed three murders with a regular time pattern and within a time period of one month and then for some reason stopped or continued elsewhere. I don't believe that he was responsible for either McKenzie or Coles. Mary Kelly is, as we've seen, a matter of debate.
To automatically take for granted that he would have continued if didn't die or got locked up is a false and dangerous assumption, since we know of serial killers who have stopped or committed only a small number of murders during a very long time span. The old myth that serial killers don't stop on their own needs to be revised; it may be true in many cases but it shouldn't be taken as a rule.

All the best

The claim that serial murderers continue until and unless they are killed or captured is challengeable, I agree. If, however, the Kelly murder is deemed to be canonical then it implies an accelerating deterioration of the mental state and overall psychopathy of the offender. It is surely hard to believe that this person was capable of stopping, I would submit.

This is what makes Chapman such an unlikely suspect (in my view). Not the fact that he would have altered his MO; but the fact that he would have been required to demonstrate a level of control and rationality that the slayer of Kelly would have not been capable of. Poisoners are control killers. Kelly's killer emphatically was not.

[Moriarty]

From a Stride thread...That got me thinking, Mike.

I sometimes wonder whether, deep down, there might be a desire to keep Jack's body-count up at all costs, if only out of a desire to paint him as an even bigger SOB than he already was?

Views welcome.

Yes. If we're honest we'd admit that the greater the body count the more real the fascination. I'm also sure that, deep down, we might never want to know the solution to this mystery.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The claim that serial murderers continue until and unless they are killed or captured is challengeable, I agree. If, however, the Kelly murder is deemed to be canonical then it implies an accelerating deterioration of the mental state and overall psychopathy of the offender. It is surely hard to believe that this person was capable of stopping, I would submit.

Well, I've seen mutilation murders where the victim has been more or less destroyed or hacked to pieces, and this has been done by people who've only done it that one time and never done anything similar before. Of course we can't know if they would have continued since they obviously were caught, but since they had a close personal connection with the victim it is unlikely that they would kill others. Poeple can do this kind of stuff without being serial killers or being raving lunatics (another old misconception).
Also, according to crime scene analysts like Paul Britton, the person who killed Kelly do not need to be insane (I think Macnaghten's statement about the murderer's 'mind caved in in Miller's Court' has created a lot of damage), although he performed an abnormal act. But abnormality is not the same as insanity.

But I agree with you about Chapman, and that he most liekly should be refered to as a control killer. Poisoning involves a lot of planning and also patience (if it takes a long time period for the victim to die).

All the best

[Moriarty]

Well, I've seen mutilation murders where the victim has been more or less destroyed or hacked to pieces, and this has been done by people who've only done it that one time and never done anything similar before. Of course we can't know if they would have continued since they obviously were caught, but since they had a close personal connection with the victim it is unlikely that they would kill others. Poeple can do this kind of stuff without being serial killers or being raving lunatics (another old misconception).
Also, according to crime scene analysts like Paul Britton, the person who killed Kelly do not need to be insane (I think Macnaghten's statement about the murderer's 'mind caved in in Miller's Court' has created a lot of damage), although he performed an abnormal act. But abnormality is not the same as insanity.

But I agree with you about Chapman, and that he most liekly should be refered to as a control killer. Poisoning involves a lot of planning and also patience (if it takes a long time period for the victim to die).

All the best

Hi, thanks for the reply.

I agree with you. The point about accelerated deterioration only applies if Kelly is deemed canonical. If, as is possible, it's a stand alone then I'm wrong.

[Bailey]

I'm also sure that, deep down, we might never want to know the solution to this mystery.

Damn right! Where would the fun be if we had a solution? Personally I'd like incontrovertible proof to be discovered about three days before I die...

B.

[perrymason]

When it comes to attributing murdered unfortunates without any evidence. to an unknown man or men by their pen-name,... Id really rather hear that, than perpetuating a mythological killer that defies categorization and is thought by most of the comtemporary investigators to have killed at least the 5 women described as Canonicals.

The book I'm waiting for is The Murdered Unfortunates of East London..subtitled..All the Unsolved Murders of street prostitutes from Londons East End in 1888 and 1889, ..Ripper or Rippers?

At least that would be honest, I think.

Cheers.

[Bailey]

The book I'm waiting for is The Murdered Unfortunates of East London..subtitled..All the Unsolved Murders of street prostitutes from Londons East End in 1888 and 1889, ..Ripper or Rippers?

At least that would be honest, I think.

Cheers.


Publishers would never go for such an unwieldy title. And then there would be the pedantic argument over whether they were all in fact prostitutes.

But I'd buy it :)

B.

[ianincleveland]

ive my doubts about Stride and Kelly though i think he certainly killed Nicholls,Chapman and Eddowes.The MO is remarkably similar in all those cases