There is no Jack the ripper

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

If it had been two killers involved in the C5 it would only be one serial killer not two.

Thanks

Corey!!!!!

Please Corey... how many murders does it take to be a serial killer? If it is with the same hand and same M.O ?

4? 3? 2?....8?

The Torso murderer was ONE, JTR TWO... if JTR only killed 3, but another serial killer was going at the same time, with 2... thats THREE serials..

Please Corey, semantics and wind ups are pointless.

best wishes, RESPECTFULLY,

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Actually Phil these days I tend to think Jack the Ripper was responsible for several torso murders as well as other murders that happened in Whitechapel in 1888/89......and later!
I suspect he was a true "virtuoso" as a serial killer!

[Phil Carter]

Corey,
You are quite right- ofcourse.
But its just possible that it was preferable to Anderson and co for the press to be making a massive focus on the lesser worry ie the series of murders than the Special Commission as the potential" revelations" could cause a major furore and massive damages concerning the role of The Times newspaper in publishing forged letters penned by Pigott about Parnell and some defamatory articles penned by Robert Anderson in the Times in 1887 .Robert Anderson"s other role as "Spy Master General"was possibly going to also come to light in this Special Commission. The series of murders coincided with the possibility of these revelations.Its also the case that the government had had to cave in and appoint this "Special Commission"- to look into the defamation of the character of the Irish Home Rule MP, Charles Parnell".It began its buisiness on 22nd October 1888 and by Easter 1889 two of the Government"s hired agents, Richard Pigott and double agent Frank Millen were dead,one by his own hand the other from a sudden seizure!

Norma,

Simple, precise and clear... encore!

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Phil,

If it had been two killers involved in the C5 it would only be one serial killer not two.

Thanks

[corey123]

Phil,

You must have misread the thread, we are speaking about the canonicles. Not the torso murders. Yes I do think its very VERY unlikely that there were more than two murderers involved in the C5. VERY UNLIKELY.

[Phil Carter]

It was a serial killer ,

Ok seriously it may have been multiple killers but I wouldnt say theres a good chance of it. If you look at the chance of it being a serial killer to it being multiple, the serial killer by far is higher.

Hello Corey,

Err.. There WERE multiple killers on the loose.
You have the set of Torso killings too. That is specialised for a start. That was repeated, often. Thats one serial murderer. You have the possibility of Jack killing 2, 3, 4... thats TWO serial murderers, and if Jacks, tally is only 2... and two by someone else from the C5, then, Corey, you have THREE serial killers.

still think its unlikely?

Not with the Torso murderer included it aint. And that was happening before, during and after Autumn of Terror.

So you have at LEAST two serials happening. AT LEAST.

I quote you again..

If you look at the chance of it being a serial killer to it being multiple, the serial killer by far is higher.

I have just shown you evidence to tell you it WAS HAPPENING, however the chances are...low or high. Period.

with best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

actually i thought my post was quite obvious in one regard - theres nothing which conclusively proves either way whether it was a lone killer or a series of murders by different people.

also i dont think my beliefs are that bizarre at all - its perfectly possible given the climate of the east end that this was the result of a criminal gang.

again it comes down to interpretation of evidence and facts - a great deal of which are seriously lacking with the passage of time. and its perfectly plausible that the police missed something, or even alot.

remember this was 1888, serial murder was not something which had proven methods of detection at that time, no was there any real precedent to provide valuable case studies.

scientific methods of evidence collection and analysis were years into the future despite a great deal of scientific advancement in other areas during the 19th century, especially in chemistry. as with all things, the implications of scientific achievements are often not realised for some time.

my own interpretations of the most salient facts are these:

witness descriptions of men seen with each victim around the times of the murders differ in their descriptions from one murder to the next.

i see at least three different blades being used throughout the series.

at the most basic level, we are dealing with a number of separate incidents each involving a murdered woman around the whitechapel area.

there is no real pattern in locations, other than them being outside in often public places for the most part.

the degree and type of mutilation was different in each case.

where internal organs had been removed this was a different one in most cases, and the method of extraction once an incision had been made into the body was different in each case.

judged solely upon the mortuary phoographs (which should be noted on this point), the victims did not adhere to a fixed ideal, i.e. different appearance, age, etc.

the killings seem too opportunistic to be the work of an organised serial killer.

the killer left little trace behind and had the knack of getting away from seemingly tight scrapes (i.e. in the stride murder), and didnt raise too many alarm bells amongst a densely populated area (i.e. amongst neighbours and acquaintances) as far as we are aware to suppose a disorganised killer.

for some reason he chose to kill in places where he would not have a great deal of warning if someone were coming. this of course goes along with the opportunism of the killings and suggests he may have had some sort of contingency in place in order to prevent detection, possibly an accomplice/look out.

of course i have a list far, far longer than this, but this is just to keep it short.

of course this is simply my interpretation of the evidence. i take a scientific view towards most things and this is no exception. i weigh up the probabilities of the evidence and form an opinion which is consistent with them and test my own hypothesis. of course a theory should make definite predictions also, and mine does, which i am currently testing at the moment. if it falls down, then i will have to change my theory.

its folly to simply follow the accepted knowledge if there is evidence that it is wrong. this is one reason why scientific theories are constantly tested, changed or even replaced. and even worse to jump in with inflexible, preconceived notions which do not allow room for error.

my own theory is simply one of many i have had over the years, and constantly evolves. of course there are counter-arguments to it - if nobody could find any, id be very worried indeed about the people on this site

even so it is surely a little premature to reject a theory as bizarre unless you have good reason to do so, and have at least found out what the theory involves. counter-argument is good and constructive, point blank rejection not so much.

Hello Joel,

I reject it as bizzar because you, as lynn and Mike, believe there to be over 2 killers. In my mind thats bizzar. Like David said, why dont you guys try investigating other murder series like the Yorkshire ripper as if they were unsolved, I am sure you would then return saying their were more than one murderer when infact it had been all the same killer.

yours truly

[Natalie Severn]

Mike,
If you had been John Kelly and you had learnt your partner Kate had been murdered you might have hesitated too to go straight to the police only to get your collar felt and face execution by hanging if you couldnt prove you were not the killer!
And I doubt John Kelly expected the City Police procedures to be very different from the Met. Police procedures.He was an ordinary bloke after all who probably saw all the police as "on the other side"!
Norma

[lynn cates]

joke

Hello Mike. Well put.

I think a joke will help here, especially as regards Liz.

The story is told of a brilliant English family--Mother, Father, Daughter, Son.
The mother, a successful accountant, highbrow all that sort of thing. The father, a brilliant scientist, large IQ. The daughter, preparing for Cambridge, quite sharp. The son, poor devil, a dim bulb.

One day, the son goes to the father and inquires, "Father, Father, How come I'm so dumb? How come I'm so dumb?"

"I haven't the foggiest. Why not ask your mum?"

"Mother, Mother, how come I'm so dumb? How come I'm so dumb?"

"Really, Son--I am quite busy. Ask your sister."

"Sister, Sister, how come I'm so dumb. how come I'm so dumb?"

"Can't you see I'm preparing for University? Say, isn't that the post? Why not go and collect the mail and ask him?"

"Mailman, Mailman, how come I'm so dumb? How come I'm so dumb?"

"Duh. Gee, I dun' know."

Many's the British tar (soaring souls all) who, after a last night tryst with the Mrs., returned 10 months later to realize they were proud fathers. (snicker!)

The best.
LC

Mike,
On the other hand John Kelly apparently already knew from a friend of Kate"s that she had been taken to the nick and believed she would be kept there all night.
Cheers
Norma

But not in a city jail she wouldnt Norma...if he did know she was in the slammer for D & D, he would have probably been told where she was taken as well. Which meant she would be released sometime that night when she seemed sober enough. Only the Met kept them in all night.

He doesnt seem concerned until....Tuesday is it? The woman he says he slept with almost every night and treated as if she was his wife leaves him Saturday morning....or perhaps Friday night....and he knows 2 women were killed on Sunday and Kates missing.

He almost seems afraid to come forward to me.

All the best Nats

[protohistorian]

agreed. Respectfully Dave

[DVV]

No offense taken sir. I did not take the opinion of multiple killers to be popular. When (some time ago) I looked at the victims individually, it occurred to me that the situational facts we now face could be a palimpsest of sorts. That is to say, individual killings layered atop a string of killings by the same hand. I cannot express this is the view that should be adopted, merely, the scant data does not preclude this option. As to the phenomena we call Jack, I believe that is mostly a creation of the press, who it cannot be doubted, is responsible for our studying with zeal, a series of crimes often remote to us not only geographically, but temporally. Respectfully Dave

Dave, once again agreed, but once again, it's a matter of level and "perspective".
What I'm saying is that an alternative view is only healthy to the extent that it doesn't pretend to be the doxa.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Mike,
On the other hand John Kelly apparently already knew from a friend of Kate"s that she had been taken to the nick and believed she would be kept there all night.
Cheers
Norma

[protohistorian]

Dave, none of my previous posts should make you think that I don't agree with this.
Indeed, I'm sure you don't think so.
I'm just saying we can't put everything on the same level.

Amitiés,
David

No offense taken sir. I did not take the opinion of multiple killers to be popular. When (some time ago) I looked at the victims individually, it occurred to me that the situational facts we now face could be a palimpsest of sorts. That is to say, individual killings layered atop a string of killings by the same hand. I cannot express this is the view that should be adopted, merely, the scant data does not preclude this option. As to the phenomena we call Jack, I believe that is mostly a creation of the press, who it cannot be doubted, is responsible for our studying with zeal, a series of crimes often remote to us not only geographically, but to us all temporally. Respectfully Dave

Hello Proto.

"There remains however, based on our scant data, the distinct fact that at least two victims (Stride and Kelly) had substantial connections to individuals we cannot exclude from using violence as a relationship mechanism."

Right. At least two. I wonder what kinds of people Kate knew and associated with?

The best.
LC

....as I recall Liz Stride charged Michael Kidney with assault in 1887 as well.....she didnt show for the hearing.

Barnett and Mary had a fight that supposedly breaks her window, he isn't happy with what has transpired...and he is one of 2 men that we know she saw simultaneously....perhaps even Daniel Barnett who she was seen with earlier in the week is another.

In some of these cases we have possible suspects as lovers....and in John Kelly's case, his total disregard for Kate or her whereabouts staring Sunday morning is odd.

Its for reasons like these that prematurely categorizing victims is impractical and likely error prone.

There is not enough evidence for a claim of proof...but there is suggestive evidence, and not all leads to a Canon.

Once you know you dont have to be looking for a madman who cuts some victims up more often than not, seeking different things each time, mostly outdoors....but he was probably flexible on that......then why would you?

There are far more simple mundane reasons possible and very few of the have to do with bloodlust.

Best regards Lynn, all.