Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

On the anniversary of Annies murder I thought it appropriate to raise a point that has seeming eluded many students of these crimes.

When Polly Nichols was killed the police set her file in with the Whitechapel Murder cases that were unsolved, just like Martha's, and Ada's, Emma's and Annie Millwood's. For those who have reviewed the data for those earlier murders its clear that the murder of Mary Ann was quite different from the aforementioned cases as it incorporated, for the first time, mutilations of the abdomen. The murder was bold,... on a public street, it was brutal,... based on the mutilations and the severity of the throat wounds, and it was committed on a homeless unfortunate who we know for a fact did not have her doss for that night at the time she is killed.

The second such murder, Annie's, although in a backyard and not in the street, is remarkably similar to Pollys killing, but likely due to a venue where the killer was not likely to be seen by people on the street at that hour, it was more egregious and more invasive than the first Canonical death. But the MO, the Victimology and the focus of the murderer remained consistent. Annie was a homeless unfortunate at the time of her death, without doss for her bed.

We know that these women were without funds because they said so to witnesses.

Taking that into account, and the medical opinions that suggested the same killer killed these 2 women based on the pattern, the wounds and the circumstances, its important I feel to see if the later murders matched up with these very relevant features.

What we find is that we do not know if Liz had the means for her bed that night, or whether she intended to stay with someone privately, ..we do not know whether Kate intended to solicit after being released from Bishopsgate, and we know that Mary Kelly had a room she did not need to pay for that night, and she was in it undressed when she is killed.

We know that Liz was killed in a manner that was unlike the previous victims and she showed no evidence in death that the killer intended to mutilate her abdomen,... we know that Kate has similar injuries to the first 2 women but also has facial wounds and a section of colon cut out and placed beside her. We know that Mary Kelly was taken apart...it is impossible to state with any conviction that Marys killer sought to mutilate her abdomen, and it is clearly evident that the killer did NOT take any abdominal organ, although they were cut from her. They were placed around her and under her head,...like her breasts. Mary was also much younger than the other Canonicals.

The point of the thread is simply this..... that in my opinion, and in the opinion of some other serious students, it is impossible to group the 5 women under one killers umbrella based on the above critieria. Without additional evidence the prudent approach then would be to group only Polly and Annie under a single killer, and separate them from all the prior unsolved Whitechapel attacks and murders. They warranted a new case file. One specific to their murder details.

That would suggest that one, or two, or 3 murders within the Canonical Group have been mislabeled, more that likely due to the fact that the contemporary officials had no real leads, no damning evidence and no probable suspects for any of the crimes in that file. It would also mean that any viable suspects for the first 2 murders need not have remained in London, or at large, after Annies death.

Many will say the differences in these murders are because the killer changed his stripes, he changed his objectives and finally, he changed his preference for homeless women soliciting outdoors.

I believe that is shaping the circumstantial evidence to fit a preferred answer, not following the existing evidence to a logical outcome.

I think almost anyone would agree that killers,... multiple, serial or singular, kill for reasons. Reasons known only to themselves for the most part.

Since we have victims that seem on the face of the evidence to be killed for the same reason....to allow post mortem mutilation of the abdomens, it would appear that we should pursue a single killer ONLY in those cases.

Comments?

[Rob Clack]

Ada Wilson and Annie Milward are not in the official files.

Rob

[Wickerman]

In reply to Michael's post I think it is necessary to ask, to what degree should we expect duplication across these murders.
And, by what reason can we argue with any conviction that elimination of any candidates based on the absence of duplication is justifiable?

The issue is largely subjective.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

In reply to Michael's post I think it is necessary to ask, to what degree should we expect duplication across these murders.
And, by what reason can we argue with any conviction that elimination of any candidates based on the absence of duplication is justifiable?

The issue is largely subjective.

Regards, Jon S.

Entirely agree Jon

[Fisherman]

Michael:

"it is impossible to group the 5 women under one killers umbrella based on the above critieria."

Anything but, I should say.

The criteria we must look at is the ones concerning proximitites - proximity in space, in time and in murder methodology.

The proximity in space is very large - the area in which the canonical victims were killed is a very small one, and would not cause trouble to cover for a single perpetrator. Walking from the extreme westernly case to the extreme easternly case is easily covered in an hour.

The proximity in time is also very clear - all five deeds carried out in ten weeks.

Last, but in no way least - we are dealing with evisceration killings. And evisceration killings are extremely rare. The one exception is Stride, and therefore, she remains the victim about whom questions may most viably be asked. Otherwise, the type of deed offers a very clear proximity.

Given these circumstances, the best assumption by far must be that we are dealing with a serial killer who claimed all victims with the possible exception of Stride. Theoretically, all five victims may have different killers, but practically the evidence points very much to a lone killer.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I agree that grouping the various murdered women, as Melville Macnaghten (MM) did with his "canonical five" is entirely subjective. So much information which might help us is simply not there.

We can only come to our own conclusions, state our reasoning and seek the views of others.

However, I am certainly of the view that the MM five is potentially misleading and too much effort focuses on a grouping which I find hard to defend.

I see distinct similarities and a sort of "learning curve" (if one can apply such a term to such brutal killings) from Polly, through Annie to kate eddowes, but I think Stride may well have been the victim of her lover (Kidney) and that Kelly may have been by a different hand. I detect signs of personal involvement in what was done to her. (I am open to something else having happened to Eddowes but I have not yet seen enough evidence to convince me.)

That said, I would add McKenzie as a possible additional victim - I see similarities to the Buck's Row murder and if Jack was unwell, weakened, or interrupted it might account for the botched job.

I would also suggest that in other attacks, maybe some you mention, some not yet identified, Jack would have been working up to Polly.

Smith, I am prepared to accept as a gang attack, and an unintentional murder. But there are inconsistencies in her story and she might have been trying to hide something.

Tabram I currently perceive as an attack by at least two men, maybe drunken soldiers, in savage reprisal for her trying to cheat them.

Happy to go into more details of why i take this line if others want me to do so.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

The true advantage if these killings were five one-offs is of course that we don´t have to find a reason why the killer stopped!

The best,
Fisherman

[RavenDarkendale]

I'm with Phil on the "learning curve" of the murders, and like him, I do not accept Polly as number one. There were perhaps as Phil suggests, unreported or even undiscovered women before JtR worked up to Polly.

Where we differ is on Tabram. I see 39 stab wounds as a personal overkill. The only way I could see two persons is if the soldier reported to be with Tabram stabbed her in the sternum and she managed to stagger away where she had the misfortune to run into JtR.

As many have said, it is all subjective...

[Michael W Richards]

In reply to Michael's post I think it is necessary to ask, to what degree should we expect duplication across these murders.
And, by what reason can we argue with any conviction that elimination of any candidates based on the absence of duplication is justifiable?

The issue is largely subjective.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

The way I perceive this is as follows......the style and unusual nature of the murder of Polly suggests a killer seeking to mutilate the human body. In her case, it was the midsection. In Annies case, it was the midsection. In Liz's case, there is no evidence known in existence that would lead to the same conclusion. That includes an interruption...which is pure speculation made by those who seek her inclusion. Therefore, its most probable that her killer intended to kill her only and as such she cannot be rationally considered a third victim by the same killer-midsection mutilator using the known evidence.

In Kate's case, and considering the timing if Lawende was correct, he chose also to stab, to cut a colon and to mutilate her face. Thats a departure from the style seen in C1 and C2, and these are actions are not lethal wounds nor are they access wounds. They are strictly for his pleasure not any objective, something that considering the timing seems uncharacteristic of our killer of Polly and Annie. Does it then exclude her from the shorter list I am suggesting?...no. But it adds a question mark as to whether her murder was by the same man. I suggest that almost every wound in the case of Polly and Annie was to kill, cut open and excise. Not to just cut.

In Marys case, its clear at least to me that she does not match the Victimology,....a young woman, not out on the street soliciting, not out in the dark,... it appears she is killed by a left handed man, truly ambidextrous people are as rare as abdominal mutilators in their respective categories, ...and there is no discernible focus or objective. There are malicious wounds, there are unexplainable placements of parts, and there is no evidence that would aid anyone in suggesting the killer sought to mutilate any one particular section of her body.

If youll note I am not even including circumstantial data that shows the differences, just who he chose and what and how he chose to do what he did.

I know that lots of folks believe that Mary's destruction can be explained by increasing mental illness, or the indoor venue, or a new fetish for younger women... but those possibilities are not suggested by any evidence that I know of. There is no indication that the killer of Polly and Annie sought to cut younger women or to kill indoors, nor is there indication that their killer sought to make superfluous cuts. In fact, the murder of those 2 women was arguably very efficient, almost silent, he killed without resistance and in both cases the murderer left after he achieved his objectives. Why that killer in 2 months would then become less competent with a knife and less knowledgeable about anatomy, why he would then seek to kill women indoors in their own beds after successfully achieving his apparent goals with Annie and escaping without a trace, and why he would perform cutting that is obviously incomplete, is beyond my understanding. The incomplete part I refer to is the thighs..why denude one to the knee, and just strip the inside meat from the bone on the other.

He was winning, baffling the coppers and vigilantees, he was doing what he wanted to to middle aged women who had no place indoors to hide from him. Some might say the heat had become too much for outdoor killings,....well, not likely after 5 weeks of dormancy. As it is shown in all the killings, the women who had to work the streets returned to those streets shortly after each of the murders, because they had no choice.

So his street walking targets would still be available even as the body count increased.

[lynn cates]

inverted curve?

Hello Raven. Concerning the "learning curve," why do we have mutilations described as:

1. skillful

2. skillful

3. non existent

4. unskilful

5. not possessing the technical knowledge of a horse slaughterer?

Perhaps the curve is an inverted one?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Raven. Concerning the "learning curve," why do we have mutilations described as:

1. skillful

2. skillful

3. non existent

4. unskilful

5. not possessing the technical knowledge of a horse slaughterer?

Perhaps the curve is an inverted one?

Cheers.
LC

Which does happen. Occasionally killers unspool to such a degree that the savagery overtakes skill. I don't know if that was the case here, but it's an option.

[Errata]

I think that identifying any unknown serial killer's victims is less a matter of science, and more a matter of art. There are just too many factors that can dictate apparent skill level, savagery, degree of mutilation, manner of death etc. A serial killer who thinks he is running out of time will alter his methods. Similarly if he is frenzied, feels secure, is detached, is disturbed, whatever. Basically, all we have to identify a victim pool is instinct and statistics.

What Jack the Ripper did was not new. People have been killed gruesomely since the dawn of man. It was the apparent reason that was new. That being, none at all. Polly Nichols' mutilation were almost playful. Like a young boy poking at a frog with a penknife. This kind of perceived attitude of the killer does a lot to dictate who we think is a victim. The other is statistics, or common sense. While copycats are certainly not unknown, they aren't in the end all that common. Frankly, it takes a lot more work for someone to copy Jack The Ripper than to just hit someone over the head and pretend it was a robbery. Two separate people wanting a uterus just sort of defies statistics.

Is it scientific to derive a victim pool through gut instinct and the odds? No. In fact the only reliable scientific way of doing so is forensic evidence, which they didn't have. So we don't have. I don't think anyone would claim that there is some sort of solid lock on who Jack's victims were, but we do what we can with what we have.

[Michael W Richards]

Which does happen. Occasionally killers unspool to such a degree that the savagery overtakes skill. I don't know if that was the case here, but it's an option.

Hi Errata,

The problem with that train of thought is that there are only 2 Canonical victims who have wounds that would be consistent with "savagery", the last 2...Kate and Mary. In the case of Polly and Annie we have Method, we have Skill and Knowledge, we have a focal point and we have what appears to me to be a Victim choice. Subdue to unconsciousness....deep throat cuts severing both arteries....and what medical officials deemed skillful cuts intended to open the abdomen and extract whatever he was hoping to acquire.

If you want to find anger and savagery, try Martha. But it is important to remember that few contemporary officials....particularly those with medical expertise, included her among the likely Ripper victims.

I think in cases 1 and 2, we have a cold killer....not one running hot. To me that suggests some mental illness combined with knife skills and anatomy knowledge....and we do have a suspect for those crimes that fits both categories. One that was identified by witnesses as being in the immediate area of the Hanbury murder that same morning, with blood on him, acting strangely. Lynn can enlighten you more on that person if you haven't read his article on him.

For the first 2 murders only we need to have a suspect who knows knives, who knows anatomy, and who was mentally ill. That is not required for victim 3, and excluding the mental capacity issue, the skill and knowledge aspect is not suggested with any other Canonical murder.

Meaning.....anyone with a knife and the predisposition to kill could have killed Liz, Kate, and Mary. And in all 3 cases a single killer isn't necessarily required.

Cheers

[RivkahChaya]

Personally, I think Mary Kelly's age is more important than the venue, because we have no way of knowing whether her killer knew, when he first approached her, that she had a room, and was not going to take him to a dark area of the street. Also, since the rent was in arrears, and there was no food in the room, we can presume she needed money. The landlord came by to collect rent the morning after she was killed, and she may have been expecting him.

Assuming a JTR MO of approaching women as a potential customer, then striking, that is.

There's another thing, though. Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman were both overweight. Eddowes was thin. Kelly was described as "plump" sometimes, but the photo of her, from the parts of her that aren't torn up, don't make as overweight as Nichols and Chapman, and she looks a little closer to Eddowes' build. Also, we don't really know what MJK's face looked like, nor whether she could have been lying about her age. Maybe she was really 30.

What I'm getting at is the possibility that one person killed Nichols and Chapman, and another person killed Eddowes and Kelly.

It's hard not to think of all the murders as somehow connected, but it's at least plausible that someone with fantasies, or who had killed before, in some place where there was less anonymity heard what was happening in Whitechapel, say, up through the Nichols murder, when police thought possibly one person had killed her, Smith, and Tabram, and thought Whitechapel was the place to go. Easy victims, and police distracted by too many crimes to investigate.

There are other examples of serial killers leaving a jurisdiction where they feel they may be under suspicion, or have been arrested for another crime, and want to get off the radar, and inevitably, they head to big cities. Others make a point of going into cites when they live outside them. Rodney Alcala did moved across the country (the US, which is like moving across Europe). John Wayne Gacy left Chicago, but returned after something that was a minor scandal compared to having bodies found in his basement, and Jeffrey Dahmer stayed in big cities, except when he was freeloading off his grandmother. David Berkowitz lived in Yonkers, but went into the city for victims, and Herb Baumeister lived in the suburbs, but owned a business in Indianapolis (which is a bigger city than you might think), and always picked up his victims in the city.

Another thing I think is at least worth considering, even though I think it probably isn't the case, but in the interests of "no stone unturned," and also satisfying notions of how all the murders in the summer and fall could have been connected, is to wonder about a gang who killed Smith, and maybe others. It may have been that robbery or rape as a motive, the women were wounded because they resisted, and died inevitably, but not really intentionally, if that makes sense. Could one member of the gang decided that he liked killing for the thrill? and gone on to kill more women, just for the thrill, and he could be responsible for Nichols and Chapman, and maybe others, but not Eddowes and Kelly?

If we get hung up on a progression of mutilations, then it is difficult to see any other murder after Kelly as coming from the person who killed Nichols and Chapman, but if the person who killed them didn't kill Eddowes and Kelly, he could have been a thrill killer who varied methods. I'm not going to speculate much exactly among the later victims he might have killed, but maybe he killed the torso victim who wasn't found in the Thames. Or maybe he killed Stride.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hello Raven. Concerning the "learning curve," why do we have mutilations described as:

1. skillful

2. skillful

3. non existent

4. unskilful

5. not possessing the technical knowledge of a horse slaughterer?

Perhaps the curve is an inverted one?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

The argument of skill in dissection has been argued back and forth since the very time of the murders. #4, Eddows, has been argued as skillful, because of the removal of her kidney. The sloppy stuff, face slashing, large rip in the stomach removing part of the stomach wall, could go down to killing frenzy. JtR also had very limited time to work on Eddows due to the timing of police patrols. He also would have had to work in almost pitch dark.

Escalation is the term given by criminal profilers to describe curving from minor wounds to major to, in the case of MJK, total destruction. The way the flesh was peeled from her legs in great "flaps of skin" could indicate the skill of a slaughterman, medical dissector, or hunter.

As a hunter who has cut up animals, I can tell you it takes time to perfect method. Sloppy butchering of say, a deer, will leave you with a mass of mutilated meat unfit for use as food. With smaller animals such as rabbits and squirrels, it leads to bone chips in the meat and burst gall bladders which ruin the taste. Just saying...