Prove it

[Limehouse]

Hi Michael

I'm not going to write a long essay. I'll just take one of the points you mention - the age. Does anyone really think that Jack only wanted to kill and mutilate middle-aged women? So that in effect he was thinking to himself "I'll let you escape, because you're young. I'll kill you, you're old. You look like you're in your 30s - please wait a moment while I consider my options"?

That aside, Kelly's age has no bearing if like me you consider that Jack simply entered the room unaware of who or what he would find inside.

Peter Sutcliffe killed women from the age of 16 through to late forties. He also killed one of his victims inside her own flat. One of his victims was killed in a very different style from most of the rest. This is possibly because, on the night in question, he did not intentionally go out to kill but the opportunity presented itself and he could not resist. he therefore did not have his usual 'kit' with him.

All this illustrates, I think, that killers of this sort have to take opportunities as they arise. They may have a certain scenario in mind, but things do not always work out the way you planned them. For example, wasn't it raining the night Mary was killed? Maybe most of the other women did not venture out on that wet, cold night. Mary was perhaps desperate for rent money or for drink.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Only Stride and Kelly are doubted as [canonical] Ripper victims, so I'll only focus on them here.

For me, Stride being a Ripper victim going by the evidence we have indicates that she was only ever deemed canonical due to coincidence and police speculation alone. There is no proof that ties her to the Ripper at all. If she hadn't had been slewn on the same night as Eddowes then she would've almost certainly had been deemed an average knife attack of the time. Her murder is only interesting to me because she was the probable work of an altogether different killer and the 'fact' that Jack and another murderer were working (unaffiliated) on the same night is an interesting aspect to the case. As for the theory that Jack was allegedly interrupted hence the no mutilation: if you buy into that then you have to accept that Jack was allegedly interrupted the moment his blade cut her throat. It's the only explanation, if you choose to believe that Jack was her killer, that she was murdered so differently from the other canonical victims. But even then you have to ask yourself why Jack, for this one time, decided to strangle this one victim with her scarf first as opposed to his hands as he did with one or two of his other victims? Not to mention the high risk factor in the venue of that club yard. You could argue that the other areas were just as dangerous to him but they wasn't. The other venues were nowhere near as active as that club and its surrounding areas.

As for Kelly, first of all, I very highly doubt that Jack just invited himself into her room while she was asleep. That's some serious From Hell BS. I think it's a hell of a lot more likely and realistic that she had invited him in as a client herself. Regarding her age, I'll hazard a guess that Jack might've wanted to have ripped someone nearer the age of his previous victims but couldn't afford to be too picky, so worked with what he could get. I'll openly admit that it is a clichéd and somewhat 'convenient' reason for the extensive mutilations performed on Kelly but I think the reason being is that Jack had more time and more privacy to work with. That and Kelly's mutilations seem like what I'd expect to see not only in the circumstances that they occured (inside as opposed to on the streets) but also the next step to Jack's escalation; to me, if you combine those two elements you get more or less what we see in the photos of Kelly's corpse. Also, her throat wound is just as powerful and perhaps done with the same amount as ferocity as that of the other canonical victims but Stride.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head for now, but I'll probably come back and rant some more later.

[smezenen]

Hi smezenen!
I agree JTR had been at "work" for at least 3 years before the 5CVs.Same area though.Not necessarily murders.
Hope your wife is well.

she is doing much better thank you.

[Mr.Hyde]

Hi smezenen!
I agree JTR had been at "work" for at least 3 years before the 5CVs.Same area though.Not necessarily murders.
Hope your wife is well.

[smezenen]

I see good points on all sides of this discussion so I thought I would throw my 2 shillings in here. While I have doutes about Stride I think kelly was killed by the man that we refered to as Jack the Ripper. I think he may have had a partner. I think that when we look at the evidence we can count and/or discount any or all of the victims based on the criteria we decide put to the case, change the critera and you change who is included and who isnt. I see it this way the C5 are the C5 becouse the people that investigated these crimes at the time decided that of all the unsolved murders in london in and around the autum of 1888 these 5 where consideredthe most likely to have been commited by the same person or persons unknown. I think Tabrm was killed by two men and I think they where probably soldiers in holiday dresss. I think Jack killed more than just 3 or 4 or 5. I believe he was active for a few years before that autum, we just dont see his work before Nichols. Consider that he may have killed ony one victim a year in different cities or even countries for years before he goes on a blood binge. We dont connect it becouse its not as violent and the body count is under the radar so to speak.

[Sam Flynn]

One woman is found in her room in the middle of the night, while she is undressed and in bed sleeping

That is a matter of opinion, Mike - as we know of old

Her killer attacks her with a knife while she is one her right side facing the partition wall

Not much he could do about that, short of moving the bed.

She attempts to fend off the knife with her left arm and sustains several defensive cuts.

The cuts on her left arm, of which there appear to be only 4 or 5, were probably sustained after death. The only pre-mortem wounds would appear to have been a cut on her thumb and some abrasions on the back of her hand. That doesn't sound like she put up all that much of a fight: indeed, it's not impossible that she sustained them whilst doing the "window trick" and, in the gloom (whilst possibly tired and spreeish), just failed to negotiate the broken glass.

Its just what the accepted evidence says, I tried to omit slant.

And a brave try it was - but you didn't succeed in all aspects, Mike.

We can nitpick cuts and intestines, but it seems just on the face of it, if Jack didnt kill Liz, then he may have killed 3 women in almost identical fashion from start to finish, in all relevant aspects or features, in 5 weeks. Within those three can be found commonality, there is escalation and innovation, and there is demonstrated skill with a knife and some understanding of anatomy.

More slant, I'm afraid. There is little skill or anatomical understanding in the previous murders in my view - certainly no more nor no less than was necessary to "do for" Mary Kelly. There are also significant differences, if one must nit-pick specifics, between the deaths of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

In all this, you've missed the single most important point - that 4 women had their body cavities cut open and organs willfully exposed and/or removed. That sort of behaviour is quite, quite rare.

By the way, I dont think I ever suggested that any of the five murders were "almost identical", nor do I think this should be the criteria on which to judge which murders were done by the Ripper. I do not think that the murder of Kelly is any more or less similar than any of the others, (excluding Stride). In other words, I do not see that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes are any more similar to each other than say Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. However, as a series, there is an escalation (as I have always maintained)... the differences in Stride, I ascribe to her interruption by Schwartz, not Diemschutz. The character of the throat cuts alone is practically sufficient to attribute all 5 to the same killer.

Cheers.

Rob H

Hi again Rob,

First off Id like to back down from an offense/defense kind of exchange with you or anyone here...its not what I envisioned but I should have considered that...but you seem like someone with a good grasp of the cases and I feel that could characterize myself that way as far as attributes brought into the discussions. Maybe you bring more relevant life data to the table, but Im no ex-cop, Im not a doctor, Im not trained in Graphology, Forensic Crime Investigations or The Late Victorian period. And even if I do sometimes, its not that I mean to infer I know better than anyone else about unresolved issues. I know by the tone of many responses that's the case. Just so its clear on unknown issues... I am tied with everyone.

I do read ridiculous amounts on any and all topics although any criminology interests have been restricted to these cases, I have a fairly keen eye for detail, and can add and subtract pretty well.

Now...... I cant be accused of anything above nor taken any more seriously than the case I make warrants.

So....... the portion of your post that I made bold to me is where our fundamental differences are...because to me, there is remarkable if not eerie similarity with the Canonical Victims 1 and 2, and they both bear a remarkable resemblance to the 4th Canonical murder...with escalated violence that you seem to expect to see...as do I with reservations. Why the "Ripper" killed anyone is the real question, and since we cant ask it we have to rely on a secondary line of questioning...something like how did the women die? What can we say are definitive Ripper elements, and are repetitive that Fall, and within the Canonical Group.

I see 3 women that were likely approached by the killer posing as a client, they led or were led to a deserted and dark location where the killer somehow overpowers the women without appreciable noise or evident struggle, he then lays them down on their backs and first uses his knife, cuts the throats far more than needed, and then opens or lifts the clothes to access the abdomen. He then opens the abdomens, and when time or his fancy permits, he excises and takes organs from within that region. The first 2 victims, it appears by the evidence, were killed so he could obtain the uterus. In the first murder, his amateur sidewalk location choice perhaps prohibited that from happening. He kills again soon after, and kills in a backyard. The third victim in this group has facial injuries and some physical evidence taken that indicate new behaviors, but the fundamentals of the prior murders start to finish are still evident.

One woman is killed by someone who grabbed her scarf from behind, twisted it tight to cut off her air and voice, and perhaps in one swift move, turns to the left, slides a sharp knife across her throat with her body weight coming down on it as well as she falls to the ground. On her side. Her knees curled into her somewhat like a fetal position. She died like that. Untouched.

One woman is found in her room in the middle of the night, while she is undressed and in bed sleeping off a bender before Mayors Day. Her killer attacks her with a knife while she is one her right side facing the partition wall, with her head by the upper right corner, perhaps partly covered by a sheet. She attempts to fend off the knife with her left arm and sustains several defensive cuts. Once the killer has overpowered her he cuts her throat then moves her to the middle of the bed. In some unknown order he cuts off the womans breasts, empties the womens abdomen and leaves the organ contents in various places by or under her body. He removes flesh from both thighs, only the left one having the exterior facing portion intact. Her face is slashed repeatedly from many directions and is unrecognizable. She can only be identified by her hair,or ear, and eyes apparently. Her door is set to lock as the killer leaves, taking only the heart, and she is left in a room with locked windows and door.

Its just what the accepted evidence says, I tried to omit slant.

Thats not 5 murders by one man.

We can nitpick cuts and intestines, but it seems just on the face of it, if Jack didnt kill Liz, then he may have killed 3 women in almost identical fashion from start to finish, in all relevant aspects or features, in 5 weeks. Within those three can be found commonality, there is escalation and innovation, and there is demonstrated skill with a knife and some understanding of anatomy.

Best regards Robhouse.

[robhouse]

By the way, I dont think I ever sugested that any of the five murders were "almost identical", nor do I think this should be the criteria on which to judge which murders were done by the Ripper. I do not think that the murder of Kelly is any more or less similar than any of the others, (excluding Stride). In other words, I do not see that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes are any more similar to each other than say Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. However, as a series, there is an escalation (as I have always maintained)... the differences in Stride, I ascribe to her interruption by Schwartz, not Diemschutz. The character of the throat cuts alone is practically sufficient to attribute all 5 to the same killer.

Cheers.

Rob H

[robhouse]

Well, that is your interpretation. Your personal assessment of the difference between Eddowes' and kelly's facial mutilations is entirely just your personal interpretation. Eddowes face was actually quite extensively mutilated, and I think it is clear that if the killer had more time and privacy, as he did with Kelly, it would be moresow. That is why I focused on comparing the character of the wounds, as opposed to the extent of them. And yes, I admit, I selectively chose aspects of the post-mortems to highlight similarities. However, I do not see anything in your post that actually supports the argument that the 5 were not by the same killer.

The quote "Most of the canonic victims, including Martha Tabram...." is just bad writing on my part although if you had read my previous sentence that identifies the canonic 5, I think it should be clear I do not include Tabram. I should have said "Most of the canonic victims, and additionally Martha Tabram."

Rob H

Michael,

You started this post and you specifically said "What physical evidence links all 5 of these killings to one killer?" So I responded with an analysis/comparison of the wounds... which you then refuted with a lot of your subjective theories that have nothing to do with "physical evidence."

Also, I never said Tabram was one of the canonic five... I just threw her in for analysis since I think she is a likely (although debatable) Ripper victim. In my own personal opinion... and I dont really care to debate it..

RH

Hi Robhouse,

On your second point, This is your quote;

"Most of the canonic victims, including Martha Tabram....,"...

On your first point, what you did is summarize some medical findings and place your interpretation of what they mean and how you believe they then link a victim to other victims. You included the data that supports your idea and excluded data that could show it to be faulty.

I make long posts...so did you....so Im not going to point by point rebut you or add what should have been and denounce what shouldnt have been used in your argument.

You like many others discard all the data regarding the crimes excluding the things done with a knife. Things anyone with a knife could do. And you dont highlight the specific murders within the Canon that show us that Jack very likely could do things with knives that the average street thug could not. Thats why you dont see further damage on Liz.....her killer wouldnt have even known a kidney from a uterus most probably. Or where to find them.

Jack took Annies with minimal cuts.

Read your own post....

"Chapman: “uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.”

You neglected to mention that the killer has only extracted organs he takes with him prior to Mary Kelly, you neglected to mention that he takes the uterus on 2 of the 3 organ theft murders, Mary being the odd one out even though he extracted the uterus....you forgot to highlight the skill and knowledge used on some murders and the absolute absence of any skill or knowledge in others, and you compared a face that was erased to one that had cuts.

You cant say any of the murders from start to finish were almost identical unless you talk about only 3 of them...at most. And you cant say that Mary Kellys mutilations are just escalated versions of injuries made on Annie....in Annies case they were done to obtain the organ he takes. In Marys case, you can only say that they were done based on the killers whims..

Best regards Robhouse.

[Fisherman]

Each one to his own, Rob! And you are not only quite welcome to that conviction - you may even be right...!

Cheers, Rob!

Fisherman

[robhouse]

Fisherman...

You make good points here. I concur (concede). I still think Stride is a Ripper victim though. Cheers.

Rob H

[robhouse]

Michael,

You started this post and you specifically said "What physical evidence links all 5 of these killings to one killer?" So I responded with an analysis/comparison of the wounds... which you then refuted with a lot of your subjective theories that have nothing to do with "physical evidence."

Also, I never said Tabram was one of the canonic five... I just threw her in for analysis since I think she is a likely (although debatable) Ripper victim. In my own personal opinion... and I dont really care to debate it..

RH

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Rob - a very thorough listing, and quite useful.

Being a fervent Stride denier, though, I feel that I would like to take up two points. You write:

"Stride: “The right arm was over the belly”

and

"Stride: “The legs were drawn up with the feet close to the wall.”

...and you use that to tie her in with the others. But I think that should be challenged.
To begin with, when it comes to the position of the arm in the cases of Chapman and Kelly we have something that defies logic and - to some extent - gravity. Eddows´ (and Tabrams) pose is the one that seems to be what could be expected in a deed like this, with the victim flat on the back; the arms have fallen to the ground beside the body. With Chapman and Kelly, this does not hold true - one arm lies on the belly or breast area, and at least in Kellys case, it would seem that it has ended up there AFTER the eviscerations. A good case could be made for it having been placed deliberately on the stomach.
With Stride, though, we do not have that gravity-defying element, for she was lying on her left side, and so the arm would logically have ended up exactly where it was by itself - no need to believe that it was interfered with by her killer. Moreover, if the killer had been Jack, it is hard to envisage that he would start off by ritually placing her arm over the belly as she lay on her left side. How would he proceed from there? Roll her over on her back, eviscerate her, and then place the hand over the belly once again?

On the point of the legs being drawn up we have a parallel; Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly offer an obscene sight with their legs spread, and once again it can be argued that there may have been an effort on the killers behalf to shock. But in Strides case, the opposite seems to have been the case - her legs were lying on top of each other, more or less, thus hindering any voeyuristic urges on behalf of any bypassers. Plus, of course, her clothing was in order, concealing anything but the soles of her shoes. And, once again, Jack would not have started out by bending her legs at their knees and placing her legs on top of each other, only to move on to rolling her over on her back and start eviscerating afterwards, would he?

So, to be fair, I think that these two "similarities" in no way ties Stride in with the other victims, other than on a mere surface count - and that does not count at all, if you´ll excuse the pun!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Sam,

Some key and in my opinion skewed perceptions....

1. Not quite - it's the murder of a woman who put up a fight, Mike. "Putting up a fight" - if indeed she did put up much of a fight - is up to the victim, and not the murderer. One can't use variables that weren't of the killer's making to identify, or rule out, the killer himself.

2. Likewise - and similar to her age - the fact that Kelly wasn't "homeless" is down to her circumstances, and not the killer's. Again, we can't use such a variable to identify, or rule out, the murderer.

3. Now, having her body cut open and organs cut out was definitely within the gift of the killer, and it's these attributes that link her to the previous murders, and indicate that she was likely killed by the same person.

On Point 1 Sam, the ability to put up a fight at all is related to both the murderer and the victim. If Mary was stronger than the others due to her being almost half their age, then the killer may have been unable to force her compliance, as it appears he did without much resistance with 3 of the victims.

On Point 2, if Jack the Ripper targetted homeless woman, which 80% of the Canonicals seems to attest to, then your argument doesnt hold water. If the killer sought out older women on the streets without homes, then Mary is quite obviously an aberration. Why would a man like that be in a small courtyard looking for homeless, working, street whores?

On Point 3, as you demonstrate, the ONLY material evidence that even remotely suggests the Ripper in the case in Room 13 is that the killer there cut up a woman. But he cut her up without obvious intent or any focus, whereas the body cuts made on Polly and Annie... based on the men who examined them ...were made so as to access and extract abdominal organs.

Robhouse, anyone that calls Martha Tabram a Canonical is missing the entirety of evidence available from just the next two killings after her. I appreciate the thoughts and effort in the post, but no two Canonicals were killed in such a way as to clearly demonstrate the same killler, both Polly and Annie were believed killed so the man could take their uterus, and in Pollys case, we may have a legitimate interruption based on the poor choice for location, which he remedies and then completes his objectives in the 2nd kill, Liz Stride can almost be ruled out as an Interruption based on the existing professional opinions and she has no evidence that suggests she was even touched after she hit the ground, let alone was about to be cut open...Kate has all the signs including the likely "pick-up", buit some troubling circumstances makes this murder a potential "planned" murder, and there are no less than 7 policeman within range of the crime scene, with one having a window from his bedroom looking out onto it, and Mary Kelly is almost half the age of the priors, had a home, was likely in it when she meets her killer, and she has wounds that show us rage....something not seen unless the nose slice with Kate.

Most people write Jack off as a mutilator, so anyone that gets mutilated at that time becomes a potential victim. But Polly and Annie were killed so their abdomens could be cut into and organs extracted from that region. He wasnt just cutting....he was cutting with objectives.

The body cuts on Polly, Annie and Kate were to access abdominal organs. Which he takes. Please tell me how peeling flesh off her right thigh aided in her heart extraction, or how having to lift a head to place kidneys, a uterus and a breast under it is the most convenient means of removing an obstacle.

In my opinion, which is shared by few but that does include one of the foremost published experts in this field, is that Jack the Ripper, who surfaces with the death of Polly, likely killed 2 or 3 of the Canonical Group based on the evidence available. I see no just cause for further inclusions, such as Martha, Liz and Mary.

Best regards all.