So who was Jack the Ripper.

[Fisa]

odd dates

thank you for the welcome to the jungle. hoping to learn and share and debate theories. some dates i came across maybe someone will make sense of them

In Germany, 1888 is known as the Year of Three Emperors. Currently, it is the year that, when written in Roman numerals, has the most digits (13). This record will not be equalled until 2388 (MMCCCLXXXVIII), or surpassed until 2888 (MMDCCCLXXXVIII).

August 7 is the 219th day of the year (220th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. There are 146 days remaining until the end of the year.
The Northern Hemisphere is considered to be halfway through its summer and the Southern Hemisphere half way through its winter on this day.

hoping not to upset anyone as an ameture with other theories i have. thank you

also on the dear boss letter the ripper uses the word 'tradename',,, in anagram it is also 'rent a dame'

hi all. in assuming the different methods of killing and stabbing in different parts and places why would the ripper have access to only one sort or type of knife and not access for more for different purposes. could that be why some debate as to why speculation to who was really a victim?

Hi Fisa.....welcome to The Jungle.

My take on why some believe certain attributed victims were not Jacks, Im one of them, is that some changes in Method, or Location, or Victim, make sense if this was a single minded kind of killer....a mad, unskilled, opportunist. It infers that the only motivations for the killer are killing and cutting.

I see only one murder that truly fits the last description, and a serious problem with the other with another victim, if there was time available to commit more atrocities. In at least two murders abdominal organs were accessed and taken, including the same one... complete, and then in partial form.

As far as knives go...there could have been different ones used, and the killer may have been right, or left handed, in certain cases.

The truth of the matter is that these 5 murders have never properly fit any idea or theory for a single killer yet. Maybe they can be.... but I dont believe that is the case myself.

I think the Jack the Ripper killings were 3 mens deeds, and maybe one or more killed others that were not assigned to Jack, but one man killed at least 2 or perhaps three of the "Canon".

Thats my guess anyway.

Best regards.

[Fisa]

1st timer onboard

hi all. in assuming the different methods of killing and stabbing in different parts and places why would the ripper have access to only one sort or type of knife and not access for more for different purposes. could that be why some debate as to why speculation to who was really a victim?

In general terms...without getting into the semantics of who killed who specifically,..Ive been thinking that if this was a local man, he must have been one that was out at night regularly. As part of his work routine likely.

I would imagine even casual dockers started getting checked out closely by some women in October, and surely after November 9th.

If he was out regularly, it would also be helpful if his attire from time to time was bloodied.

Are there any occupations that would offer this kind of existence aside from a Butcher or Slaughterman? After midnight...but before 6am.

Cheers all.

[Dan Norder]

the fact that throat was cut to that extent is probably the only reason for why I still consider it a possibility that it could have been a work of the Ripper.

If that's your only reason then you've ignored the obvious and undeniable similarities in date, time of night, geography, victimology and mutilation/signature... and if you ignore those then none of the other victims were by the Ripper either. For a thread supposedly about who the Ripper was, it's amazing how many people seem to be arguing that he didn't even exist at all.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

No sorry, I don't buy those arguments for one minute.

----

Hello Jon,

That's exactly what I meant, I just think you misinterpreted.
I belong to those who believe Kelly might not be a Ripper victim BUT the fact that throat was cut to that extent is probably the only reason for why I still consider it a possibility that it could have been a work of the Ripper. That was what my 'uncertainty' was about.

All the best

[Jon Guy]

I see it as one of the most important part of his method and that are visible with the same degree of depth (in Chapman's practically severing the head from the body), which is one of the reasons why I rule out Tabram and one of the reasons why I maintain some uncertainty about Mary Kelly being a non Ripper-victim.
All the best

Hello Glenn

Kelly also had her throat cut back to the bone, notching her vertebrae.

[Fisherman]

Hi Glenn!

You write:
"The throat cuts are excessive and very deep, and way beyond what wold be necessary in order to merely kill the victims and severe the vocal chord."

...and I think you may be missing one detail here - the fact that he may well have wished to "bleed off" the victims too. And if that is to be counted into it all, it stands to reason that the more vessels you sever, the faster the victim will "drain", so to speak.
That said, I do agree that the cuts may well have meant more than mere practicalities to our man, perhaps best shown by the nicks in the spines of a couple of the victims, like Chapman - a wish to decapitate (if that was the purpose) would point in the direction you are suggesting. But there is no reason to suggest that he must have carried a conscious wish of cutting throats with him as he set out to kill for the first time!

You bring up and dismiss Tabram, and I feel that the possibility of the Ripper not initially having set out as a throat-cutter may apply in an excellent manner here:

Martha Tabram had a wound on the lower abdomen when found, three inches long and one inch deep. It was not a stab, like all the rest of the wounds, it was obviously a cut.
That cut was situated at the very focal point for the later evinced interest of the Ripper. And when Tabram was found, there was a significant amount of blood in the area between her legs. If we allow ourselves to speculate that her killer was the Ripper, and that she was perhaps his first killing, then what we may be looking at could well be the very reason for his throat-cutting from Nichols and on. Maybe he wanted to open Tabram up at the lower abdomen, cut her, although not deep enough to open her, and was surprised by the profusion of blood coming from that wound, only to start pondering possibilities to avoid that mess next time over.
If so, there is nothing hindering us from speculating that he may have found that he actually liked it very much when he first cut a throat! It need not have been an urge on his behalf before that. Maybe it became such an urge afterwards, though!

Just a thought, Glenn - but I still advice that a cut to the lower abdomen to a woman that was killed a few weeks before Nichols should evoke interest big time!

By the bye; Hi, Frank - good to see you out and about too!

The best, all!

Fisherman

[downonwhores]

Hi

I really agree with you about the throat cutting as that really is Jack's signature. I also think that if we are going to judge a murder just by how deep a throat is cut then Francis Coles would be a Ripper victim as well by comparing her wounds to the others.
I believe that Karyo Magellan in "By Eyes and Ears" is the best book to really look at the wounds and victims and by comparing them side by side, the book certainly determines who and who is not a ripper victim better than any other book.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I believe the throat cut served as a practical cut, because it severed the vocal chord, it would kill the victim and the loss of blood from the wound in the neck would mean less on the killer when he did his thing to the torso.

I think the throat cut was more than practical, as I believe it also has to be a part of his very specific MO/signature (depending on what term one would prefer here). The throat cuts are excessive and very deep, and way beyond what wold be necessary in order to merely kill the victims and severe the vocal chord.
I see it as one of the most important part of his method and that are visible with the same degree of depth (in Chapman's practically severing the head from the body), which is one of the reasons why I rule out Tabram and one of the reasons why I maintain some uncertainty about Mary Kelly being a non Ripper-victim.

All the best

[FrankO]

Good to see you again, Fisherman.

[FrankO]

Yes, I subscribe to the "somewhere in the middle" view too, although when it came to inveigling women into private locations, it could be inferred from the Lawende and Long sightings that he was at least partially adept on that score, without needing to be especially "charming". Bizarre and grusome serials are very often committed by emotionally haphazard offenders such as Fish or Gein, but then along comes the occasional turd in the shape of Andrei Chikatilo who managed to combine horrific mutilations with an organized approach.

Hope all's well with you!

Hi Ben,

Fortunately, I see that you agree with me that the Ripper didn’t need to have been particularly ‘charming’ to get his victims to do what he wanted them to do: take him to a spot where they would have some time to ‘conduct business’ without being disturbed.

As to Chikatilo: what always struck me is that he ultimately chose children and adolescents as his victims. It seems to me that he wasn’t much of a ‘charmer’ either, if anything at all. He indeed managed to combine the bizarre and horrific with a organized approach, which kept him out of prison for far too long. I'm glad he's gone.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

" ...when the bodies two of the Ripper’s victims were discovered within 12 minutes of each other."

Twelwe minutes?

Honestly, where does this kind of stuff come from? Or does he mean twelwe minute´s walk?

The best,

Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi John,
Your description makes sense to me. I had envisaged a quite dfferent method of suffocation. However, what I do find strange is that he cut the throats as well. Was this an important part of the ritual for him? As important as the other mutilations?

Good Morning, Limehouse !!

I believe the throat cut served as a practical cut, because it severed the vocal chord, it would kill the victim and the loss of blood from the wound in the neck would mean less on the killer when he did his thing to the torso.

Regarding suffocation by hand,this may account for why Polly`s nose appears as it does in the mortuary photo.

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse

The bruises to Nichol`s face suggest that the killer stood behind her and had his right hand across the mouth and nose, his palm bruising the right side of her face and his finger nails scratched her by her left ear. I believe that due to the lack of arterial spray with Eddowes and Nichols, and the amount of blood in the abdominal cavity suggests they were unconcious and possibly dead when their throat was cut.

But, just my opinion !!

Hi John,
Your description makes sense to me. I had envisaged a quite dfferent method of suffocation. However, what I do find strange is that he cut the throats as well. Was this an important part of the ritual for him? As important as the other mutilations?