The start of the series

[Oldsen]

Hello everyone. I am new here; I finally found the courage to post something and I hope it interests someone or at least it doesn't sound too stupid.

I have been reading the messages published in these boards many times during the last months. Every topic discussed is interesting to me but there is one point about the Whitechapel murders which I haven't seen covered (althogh it probably was, some time ago) and seems very interesting to me. It is a very subtle hint implied by the theory that establishes Mary Ann Nichols as the first ripper victim.

Authors like Philip Sugden quote newspaper articles (i.e. East London Advertiser, The Star), on which it was assumed that Nichols was the third victim of the same killer. Supposing that in fact she was the first one, we would have to admit that the newspapers which considered her one in a series were unknowingly foretelling what was going to happen by sheer chance. Or perhaps, if we look for causality in it, we should consider the amazing possibility that the newspapers, with their interpretation of the separated murders as a series involuntarily stimulated the murderer of one person to make it happen.

That being said: I don't believe Mary Ann Nichols was the first victim; I'm not sure about Tabram or Millwood; I'm inclined to discard Emma Smith as a one in the series.

Best wishes from Spain*.

Pablo Manzano

* Please, excuse my English.

[Philbee]

Hi oldsen im no expert but i think i hear what you are saying ... where there murders before nicholls yes .. after of course ... Did the press link what they could find to create a better story ... of course they did This was a new era for the press ... mass circulation... increased literacy of the populace...but did that influence the toll ...you would have to ask jack
* excuse my lack of capitolisation

[Autolycus]

Which & Why?

Hi Oldsen: and welcome.

I think your point is interesting. Has anyone out there researched WHICH prior killings the Press was linking? More importantly, WHY they were making a link?

Sadly, if there is no information contained within newspaper archives, I think most people will conclude that the Press was just embellishing a story.

Regards.

[m_w_r]

Hi Oldsen -

You're confused. The press were referring to the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram as the prior murders in the sequence. Mary Ann Nicholls was therefore "third" in the sequence described by the press, although you will be aware that this is not a popular view nowadays. However, you also say that you do not think Nicholls was the first in the sequence, and are not sure about Tabram and Millwood. Who was first, then, in your view?

Hi Autolycus -

See above. The most obvious answer to your question of why the press would associate the murders of Smith, Tabram and Nicholls is that they all took place within a fairly small distance of each other, within a fairly short period of time.

Regards,

Mark

[Oldsen]

You're confused. The press were referring to the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram as the prior murders in the sequence. Mary Ann Nicholls was therefore "third" in the sequence described by the press, although you will be aware that this is not a popular view nowadays. However, you also say that you do not think Nicholls was the first in the sequence, and are not sure about Tabram and Millwood. Who was first, then, in your view?

I don't think I am. I never meant to say that I could tell which one was or wasn't the first victim. I only observed that if we adhere to the belief that Nichols was the first victim then we would have to accept what would be, in my opinion, an enormous coincidence: that the newspapers were right talking about a series of murders made by the same killer before that series actually existed.

If this amazing possibility was true, I couldn't help but wonder if the Ripper read one of those articles and was "encouraged" to make a series of what would have normally been only one murder. This last possibility is bit twisted, I know; it is pure especulation, but one that fascinates me more than most of the others.

But again, what I wanted to share was simply an abstract observation; I'm not against the thesis that defend there were only five victims or that Nichols was the first one. Not against any particular theory, really, as that is just what they are: theories. They do not offend me; those of them which are sustained by facts are all pretty interesting to me.

I hope my intention is better understood now. Thanks and best wishes.

[Blues]

A side thought...

Seeing as how Bulling's "Yours Truly" is a dead ringer for "Jack's", and his paper seemed to have some "inside" info in regards to the "series" of murders etc. - Was Bulling's (I hope I spelling that right) whereabouts at the time of the murders ever questioned? I'm sure it's not the first time anyone thought about him, but I am not privy to the answers to those questions...Little help?

Blues

[harry]

This is from an article in an overseas newspaper,printed in that paper on October 8 1888.The article was dated London,September 27,1888.It refers to a fifth murder commited in Gateshead,near Newcastle-on Tyne,which according to the article,was believed linked to the four murders referred to as the East end murders.A Superintendent Steer(the print was poor so surname may be slightly different) made this comment,"Two months since the murders began,and the villain still at large.What has become of Scotlands Yards (last two words undecipherable due to bad print).As the above statement was made after the Chapman killing,but before September 27,two month backdated would be the month of July 1888.

[Autolycus]

Contemporary Press View

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY m_w_r: "The most obvious answer to your question of why the press would associate the murders of Smith, Tabram and Nicholls is that they all took place within a fairly small distance of each other, within a fairly short period of time."

Fair enough on the timing issue, Mark. However, these boards groan with the weight of opinions of people who see the killings of Smith and Tabram as being by a different hand.

From the point of view of those living at the time, I would have thought there was even less reason to link these three to a single killer - Smith looks gang-related and the 'Two Soldiers' were in the frame for Tabram.

I'm still interested to see if the contemporary reports are implying a single killer, and if so, why. Guess it's off to the Press Reports section...

Regards.