Canonical or not.

[FrankO]

Personally, I think the first attack we can be reasonably certain was the Rippers work took place in 1872. So I tend not to take too much interest in Wilson and Milwood - unless they were fledgling attempts to move his "office" from a bolthole to the streets, followed up on by Tabram in August.

Like I said in my previous post, Christer, the term "C5" is useful to indicate the 5 victims in one go, but beyond that, it’s anybody’s choice of who to include or exclude. I see Wilson & Millwood aspossible early Ripper victims, you see a 1872 Torso victim as an early Ripper victim. Or was that year just a slip of the finger?

(P.S. I only read your post #43 after writing the above)

[FrankO]

I tend to include Tabram, partly because her injuries, and later the mutilation murder of Mary Kelly, are very similar in nature to Robert Napper's murder of Rachel Nickell in 1992 - outdoors, 49 stab wounds - and his indoor mutilation murder of Samantha Bisset in 1993.

I had forgotten about those brutal Napper's murders, but that's a good extra reason to lean towards including Tabram, Caz!

[John Wheat]

Right you are. My bad. They shoud not have placed the digit 2 beside the digit 3 on the keyboard.

Fair enough. Just clarifying things.

Cheers John

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Abby. Yes, both had their skirts raised, revealing the Ripper's main zone of interest. But the thing - for me, anyway - with McKenzie is that she wasn't opened up and I feel that the time used to inflict the wounds that were found on her would have been enough to make one cut that would have opened her abdomen. Taken together with the points I mentioned in my previous post, I lean towards her not being a Ripper victim. But, of course, anybody has to make their own call(s) and I wouldn't be too surprised if it would ever turn out that she was.

How many of Tabram’s 39 wounds were to what you describe as the ‘main zone of interest’?

[Yabs]

My pet theory is that Tabram is a ripper victim, I know the method is different but there could be a reason for that, perhaps when Jack tried to subdue her with the intention of committing murder in the manor of the subsequent victims she drew out her own knife to defend herself, Jack managed to get it off her and attacked her with it and finished the job with his own knife and left the scene.
Complete conjecture but possible.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm of the opinion that if the C5 didn't exist and you were left with Millwood-Wilson-Tabram, and all the same suspects, Bury and his penknife would be in the hotseat for those three, certainly Wilson (see my other post about bury). So that's Millwood-Wilson-Tabram, C5, Ellen Bury (9). The use of a ligature on Mylett makes me think Bury might just have done that and been disturbed - disturbed because she was found with cash on her. Bury was a confirmed thief and I bet the last thing he did at a crime scene was empty pockets looking for cash and take jewellery (e.g. rings off fingers). Bury would have taken the cash from Mylett unless disturbed.

Your conclusions about a probable suspect aside for a sec, that illustrates the Canonical Conundrum in a nutshell. When one looks for continuity first, we see lesser numbers per killer and with different features. You can see ways to attach probables much better than a very presumptive Canonical Group.

My belief is that THE Jack the Ripper was specific in both features and methodology... if you look at each murder as an individual, not part of a series. A series is then built on like minded characteristics first, which then gives you a filter for assessing other murders for inclusion. My case in point is the murder of Elizabeth Stride being assumed to have been a Ripper victim. There is no continuity with his priors, and his whole focus as shown in those priors, is absent.

The reasons? Assumptions she was soliciting, assumptions her killer was halted mid Rip, assumptions based on geography and historical timing, assumptions that no 2 mass murderers could have co-existed in London in the Fall of 1888. The evidence should actually dictate any groupings. Setting aside that to accept the Canonical Group with Liz Stride means you have to believe in the assumptions, not the evidence.

[FrankO]

How many of Tabram’s 39 wounds were to what you describe as the ‘main zone of interest’?

OK, I shouldn't perhaps have copied 'main zone of interest' from Abby's post, but why does the interest have to be shown by (any number of) wounds, Gary? The raised skirts and a cut to the abdomen is enough for me to show interest.

[Fogelpa]

My victim list is:
* Annie Millwood - possibly
* Martha Tabram - probably
* Polly Nichols - definitely
* Annie Chapman - definitely
* Elizabeth Stride - probably
* Catherine Eddowes - definitely
* Mary Jane Kelly - probably
* Alice McKenzie - possibly

Sums it up for me. I would probably add Emma Smith as a possibly as she was a prostitute attacked in the same area as the others,her female parts horrifically damaged since she died from her injuries and also on a bank holiday. I've never really believed in her story-something doesnt add up.

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Abby. Yes, both had their skirts raised, revealing the Ripper's main zone of interest. But the thing - for me, anyway - with McKenzie is that she wasn't opened up and I feel that the time used to inflict the wounds that were found on her would have been enough to make one cut that would have opened her abdomen. Taken together with the points I mentioned in my previous post, I lean towards her not being a Ripper victim. But, of course, anybody has to make their own call(s) and I wouldn't be too surprised if it would ever turn out that she was.

MacKenzie was not opened up, no. And it can be speculated that the killer would have had the time to do so, should he wish to.

Then again, have a look at the Pinchin Street torso victim. The killer had oceans of time tyo opern her up, by the looks of things. And he certainly had cut the Rainham victim and Jackson up from pubes to ribs (and beyond).

But here, he settled for a shallow cut only, that did not open the victim up until it reached the vulva.

I find that immensely interesting.

[Fisherman]

Like I said in my previous post, Christer, the term "C5" is useful to indicate the 5 victims in one go, but beyond that, it’s anybody’s choice of who to include or exclude. I see Wilson & Millwood aspossible early Ripper victims, you see a 1872 Torso victim as an early Ripper victim. Or was that year just a slip of the finger?

(P.S. I only read your post #43 after writing the above)

It was a slip of the finget this time over, but I am sure it will be a slip of the mind on next occasion. We all do it.

I agree about the "anybodys choice", that was why I said that I personally favour the 1872 victim as a very early attack (although I meant the 1873 victim).

[FrankO]

MacKenzie was not opened up, no. And it can be speculated that the killer would have had the time to do so, should he wish to.

Then again, have a look at the Pinchin Street torso victim. The killer had oceans of time tyo opern her up, by the looks of things. And he certainly had cut the Rainham victim and Jackson up from pubes to ribs (and beyond).

But here, he settled for a shallow cut only, that did not open the victim up until it reached the vulva.

I find that immensely interesting.

I find it immensely interesting, too, but just not to a point that it's going to change my mind with regards to ascribing the torso victims to the Ripper.

[GBinOz]

But the thing - for me, anyway - with McKenzie is that she wasn't opened up and I feel that the time used to inflict the wounds that were found on her would have been enough to make one cut that would have opened her abdomen.

Hi Frank,

That is a fair point to make, but for each victim that is excluded from being a JtR victim on a difference such as this, there is a consequence of the necessity of an additional serial killer operating in the same area at the same time. So we have one for stabbing, one for envisceration, one for torsos, possibly another for interuptions etc. Do we decide on one killer using variations in his MO, or a series of killers each using their own individual MO?

Cheers, George

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank,

That is a fair point to make, but for each victim that is excluded from being a JtR victim on a difference such as this, there is a consequence of the necessity of an additional serial killer operating in the same area at the same time. So we have one for stabbing, one for envisceration, one for torsos, possibly another for interuptions etc. Do we decide on one killer using variations in his MO, or a series of killers each using their own individual MO?

Cheers, George

Plus if it WAS a series of killers each using their individual MO:s, they nevertheless succeeded in copying each other in numerous respects...

[Fisherman]

I find it immensely interesting, too, but just not to a point that it's going to change my mind with regards to ascribing the torso victims to the Ripper.

Have you seen my explanation model for it in Cutting Point? If so, what do you think about it? IŽd be interested to know.

[FrankO]

That is a fair point to make, but for each victim that is excluded from being a JtR victim on a difference such as this, there is a consequence of the necessity of an additional serial killer operating in the same area at the same time. So we have one for stabbing, one for envisceration, one for torsos, possibly another for interuptions etc. Do we decide on one killer using variations in his MO, or a series of killers each using their own individual MO?

Hi George,

Like I wrote before, I wouldn’t be too surprised if it ever turned out that she had fallen victim to the Ripper. But if not, she was killed by someone who, perhaps, wanted to make it look as if she was and he doesn’t need to have been a serial killer. As far as I’m concerned, we don’t have all separate (serial) killers for stabbing, evisceration and interruptions. The torsos is another matter, at least for me. Although they have aspects in common with the Ripper victims, to me, the 2 series are too far apart in MO and frequency to assume they were by the same hand. So, I tend to believe we had two serial killers in London in that 16 year period and I don’t think that should be something odd. Atteridgeville in South Africa, for instance, knew at least 5 serial killers in the period 1955 – 1995 with at least 2 of them active during the same period in the seventies: a man dubbed “Ironman” who clubbed 7 people to death with an iron bar and Joe “Axeman” Kgabi, who hacked 8 people to death.

Cheers,
Frank