Victim minimalism

[Defective Detective]

Here's a thought exercise it might be instructive to engage in, even if you accept (as I do) that all or most of the canonicals, and even some of the noncanonicals, were killed by the same hand.

What, in your view, is the fewest number of related murders in the Whitechapel set you think the evidence can be made to support? In other words, I'm challenging you all to separate out as many of the murders from each other as possible by positing as many different killers as you think plausible without overly stretching credulity.

Can a reasonable case be made that all five canonical victims, in addition to every single one of the noncanonicals, were killed by different hands? If not, what is the minimum possible number of murders one has to group together? Is it easier to make a case that none of the murders were by the same perpetrator/s or that they all were?

[GUT]

I'm a pretty staunch Canonical, but sway over adding Tabram.

MJK is probably the only one I think at times MAY have been a different hand.

[Wickerman]

What, in your view, is the fewest number of related murders in the Whitechapel set you think the evidence can be made to support?

Hi DD
Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly, all by the same hand.
Stride, is a maybe.
McKenzie, by a different hand.
Coles, by a different hand.
Tabram, by a soldier.

[Pierre]

Here's a thought exercise it might be instructive to engage in, even if you accept (as I do) that all or most of the canonicals, and even some of the noncanonicals, were killed by the same hand.

What, in your view, is the fewest number of related murders in the Whitechapel set you think the evidence can be made to support? In other words, I'm challenging you all to separate out as many of the murders from each other as possible by positing as many different killers as you think plausible without overly stretching credulity.

Can a reasonable case be made that all five canonical victims, in addition to every single one of the noncanonicals, were killed by different hands? If not, what is the minimum possible number of murders one has to group together? Is it easier to make a case that none of the murders were by the same perpetrator/s or that they all were?

Hi,

For the person I believe to have been the killer where I have some data sources:

Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, dismemberment murder in 1888, Kelly, McKenzie and the dismemberment murders in 1889.

Nichols, yes probably, but the evidence is not sufficient.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Nichols murder set a precedent, stranger-double throat cut-abdominal pm mutilations, Chapman was almost identical in all these respects, and Kates murder has some of the same characteristics although at a decreased skill and knowledge level, so I am comfortable with 2 perhaps 3 by the killer nicknamed JtR.

The Torsos I would group under 1 killer, Martha Tabram I would say was killed by a soldier/client, and Mary Kelly was killed by someone she knew intimately. So...from Martha to Mary, including the Torso, perhaps 4-5 killers active during that period.

Anyone who has investigated that area at that point in time knows that we have killers living in the immediate area. How they killed, why they killed, and who they killed define the differences.

[Elamarna]

Hi

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, certainly by same hand
Kelly 90% certainly by same hand.
Mackenzie 80% by same hand
Stride : possibly by same but percentage lower than above
Tabram: someone else in all probability, but outside chance early work of above
Coles again separate killer
torso killer none of the above

least number of killers 3
most 7

[Defective Detective]

I guess I didn't answer my own question, which is impolite of me:

I think that the smallest possible set is two - Nichols and Chapman. No matter how much I squint and tilt my head when looking at the evidence I can't help but see the same hand at work in both murders. I think they're certainly the most similar of the set, and I think the consensus is that they're the 'core' Whitechapel Murderers.

Now, I definitely believe that the man who killed those two killed others in the set, and one of the benefits of not having a preferred suspect is that I'm flexible on just which ones ought to be included. I'm actually something of a maximalist - not only Nichols and Chapman, but also Eddowes and Kelly, Mackenzie, and, going backwards, Tabram and some of the gang assaults in the area (Hames and Smith) and nonlethal assaults (Wilson and Millward) are all justifiable.

There are a few other cases that are lesser known that I look at as being possibles - I don't recall her name, but a local woman was found drowned and strangled some years back in a swamp, and the way she was subdued was rather Ripperesque. I also don't discount the Torsos entirely, though I think, if the same man responsible for the early 1870s sequence also did those in the 1880s and later (1904 etc.) that it probably wasn't the Ripper. With the Torso killings, however, I often wonder if it wasn't more a concern of organized crime, or if perhaps Torso killings aren't more of a murderous tradition in London than is sometimes let on (there being similar cases stretching far into the early nineteenth century).

I am only really skeptical of a handful of the cases - Rose Mylett and Elizabeth Stride, and I certainly can't rule the traditional Double Event scenario completely out, though I find it less likely the more I learn about the specifics of that case.

I definitely tend towards maximalism. But, for the purposes of this thread, the smallest set I can make without stretching my own credulity is two.

[Shaggyrand]

I've been thinking about this off and on all day after seeing the OP. In the spirit of the exercise, Nichols and Chapman. That's the smallest grouping I can break it down to.
5 killers. Got lazy and just lumped all non-cons together because why not?

[Sam Flynn]

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes all by the same hand.

Kelly a "strong probable".

Stride a "probably not".

Tabram "almost certainly not".

All others "no chance".

[Jeff Leahy]

Attacks showing violence towards the female genitals

Millwood.. stabbed at random in the buttocks...whites row
Smith... Yes extreme violence.,..geography at the heart of Jacks territory she walked through an area only a matter of a few hundred yards where all but Stride were possibly collected
Tabram.. Several cuts to the abdomen Jacks first attempt with his knives
Nichols..Strangled.. throat slit...cuts to abdoman
Chapman...strangled..throat slit... abdoman cut organs removed...daylight
Stride... Off Jacks patch...but on Kozminski's... personal...failed attempt
Eddows..Attacked from behind..throat cut organs removed ..dark
Kelly... took her client indoors...plenty of time
McKenzie...Attack to genitals...disturbed or failed attempt...possible victim

Theres no evidence that serial killers stick to one type of MO or murder strategy. Infact many serial killers develop and try many different types of crimes....what is important is what lays within their desires and needs..

This type of serial killer is extremely rare. There is no evidence in later years of similar types of mutilation attacks on the street so the laws of probabilty suggest these woman were all killed by a lone serial killer...

The question is who?

Yours Jeff

[Rosella]

I'm afraid I'm a staunch Canonical. I have swayed over Martha Tabram but I do think there's more likelihood of her having been murdered by a soldier or maybe two of them. There is a faint question mark IMO over Stride having met Jack, but that's only because of homicide interruptus.

So, for me, it's the five Canonicals with one killer and a No from me for Mylett, Coles and McKenzie and the Torsos.

[John Wheat]

The Canons plus Tabram. Plus Ellen Bury.

[Michael W Richards]

Theres no evidence that serial killers stick to one type of MO or murder strategy. Infact many serial killers develop and try many different types of crimes....what is important is what lays within their desires and needs..

I wonder then what value there is by comparing other serial killer cases with these cases?

I think whats critical when looking to solve any crime, including these, is discovering a motive. What we have are murders that have been assumed to have been random and without any motive other than to satisfy the killer.

Those assumptions spread across all 5 Canonical Deaths, are in my opinion, detrimental to any investigations.

[Robert St Devil]

Chapman/Stride/Eddowes - i believe the neckerchief was used during the strangulation.

Nichols seems like a pivot. Throat wound is similar with C/S/E but lower ab wounds more in line with stabbing attacks (Tabram and prior victims). Jagged cut on her left abdomen might be resembled to Eddowes' jagged cuts. Biggest problem with Nichols is the lack of evisceration. ive been trying to resolve that Nichol's killer is the same killer who is going to completely disembowel Ann Chapman little over a week later, meaning her killer had the ability to mutilate Polly just like Chapman, only he chose not to. Also, it seems like the biggest leap in a murderer's confidence throughout the case, even moreso than from Eddowes to Kelly. It has similar aspects to the Stride-Eddowes murders in that one has to consider if the same hand performed both murders, except the attacks were nine days apart instead of one hour.

Kelly? Hmm, Kelly. The ecchymosis on her neck make me think she was strangled prior to her throat being sliced. Also Jeff mentioned an aspect about Millwood that has me in question these past few days. I've read about Spanko and the London Monster, and the aspect of a buttocks fetish didnt escape my attention. I know Mary's buttocks was removed, and Eddowes was cut (I believe). I also see some of the same staging of 'accomplices' as the Stride, Chapman and Eddowes murder - the man across the street from the murder, and/or the man and the woman talking at the corner.