My Introduction. Victims, Weapons and more.

[Geddy2112]

Hello. Just joined up but been reading these forums for quite a while. I first became interested in JTR when on holiday in London as a child. It was the January when Peter Sutcliffe had just been arrested. There was a 'Ripper' book in the hotel shop so I asked my mum if it was about Sutcliffe. Growing up in the North East of England after the hoax tapes was big news regarding these murders. Every Tom Dick and Harry were getting questioned or asked to listen to that tape. To my surprise the book, as explained by my mum was not about Peter but about some unknown Victorian killer who stalked the streets of London. It even had the MJK picture in if I remember correctly. Although I was only nine my mum proceeded to tell me all about it with some rather gory details, I'm okay now though... honestly.
This sort of got me gripped on the story, of course the popular theory at the time was the Royal one so that is what I grew up to believe until I started to read more about it later in life.
I apologise as these questions will have been asked and debated to death across these boards but it's my starting point on my journey here.

1) Does any evidence support ALL c5 murders were committed by the same killer? To me they were not, especially Mary Kelly. The media (films etc) have suggested some of the murders being more gruesome than they were maybe to support this idea. Nichols was not as badly mutilated as often portrayed. Was the double event an actual double event? Any evidence to support what weapon was used, was it similar on all killings?
2) Motive. This has always seemed strange to me, what about motive, we are often told nowadays how important motive is. Like I said growing up we were fed the Royal theory because of the blackmail/cover up of Eddy’s illegitimate daughter, I think that is why it endured, and it was a good story, a good motive.
3) Linked to above, any truth regarding the Masons, where the bodies arranged to suggest a Masonic ritual? (Again fed this as a kid)
4) Why did he stop? Kelly was the ring leader of the blackmail group/witness to Cook’s child etc. Did he stop because they had all been silenced, I doubt this but why did he stop?
5) Will we ever know the truth?

Again apologies for asking questions that have no doubt been answered numerous times. This is a huge forum Thanks.

[AlanG]

Hello. Just joined up but been reading these forums for quite a while. I first became interested in JTR when on holiday in London as a child. It was the January when Peter Sutcliffe had just been arrested. There was a 'Ripper' book in the hotel shop so I asked my mum if it was about Sutcliffe. Growing up in the North East of England after the hoax tapes was big news regarding these murders. Every Tom Dick and Harry were getting questioned or asked to listen to that tape. To my surprise the book, as explained by my mum was not about Peter but about some unknown Victorian killer who stalked the streets of London. It even had the MJK picture in if I remember correctly. Although I was only nine my mum proceeded to tell me all about it with some rather gory details, I'm okay now though... honestly.
This sort of got me gripped on the story, of course the popular theory at the time was the Royal one so that is what I grew up to believe until I started to read more about it later in life.
I apologise as these questions will have been asked and debated to death across these boards but it's my starting point on my journey here.

1) Does any evidence support ALL c5 murders were committed by the same killer? To me they were not, especially Mary Kelly. The media (films etc) have suggested some of the murders being more gruesome than they were maybe to support this idea. Nichols was not as badly mutilated as often portrayed. Was the double event an actual double event? Any evidence to support what weapon was used, was it similar on all killings?
2) Motive. This has always seemed strange to me, what about motive, we are often told nowadays how important motive is. Like I said growing up we were fed the Royal theory because of the blackmail/cover up of Eddy’s illegitimate daughter, I think that is why it endured, and it was a good story, a good motive.
3) Linked to above, any truth regarding the Masons, where the bodies arranged to suggest a Masonic ritual? (Again fed this as a kid)
4) Why did he stop? Kelly was the ring leader of the blackmail group/witness to Cook’s child etc. Did he stop because they had all been silenced, I doubt this but why did he stop?
5) Will we ever know the truth?

Again apologies for asking questions that have no doubt been answered numerous times. This is a huge forum Thanks.

1) Depends who you talk to...
2) ""
3)""
4)""
5)""

Welcome though. The real fun isn't knowing for sure. The fun is coming to terms with, the more you think you know about the case, slowly learning how little you actually know. (For me anyway)

[John Wheat]

Hello. Just joined up but been reading these forums for quite a while. I first became interested in JTR when on holiday in London as a child. It was the January when Peter Sutcliffe had just been arrested. There was a 'Ripper' book in the hotel shop so I asked my mum if it was about Sutcliffe. Growing up in the North East of England after the hoax tapes was big news regarding these murders. Every Tom Dick and Harry were getting questioned or asked to listen to that tape. To my surprise the book, as explained by my mum was not about Peter but about some unknown Victorian killer who stalked the streets of London. It even had the MJK picture in if I remember correctly. Although I was only nine my mum proceeded to tell me all about it with some rather gory details, I'm okay now though... honestly.
This sort of got me gripped on the story, of course the popular theory at the time was the Royal one so that is what I grew up to believe until I started to read more about it later in life.
I apologise as these questions will have been asked and debated to death across these boards but it's my starting point on my journey here.

1) Does any evidence support ALL c5 murders were committed by the same killer? To me they were not, especially Mary Kelly. The media (films etc) have suggested some of the murders being more gruesome than they were maybe to support this idea. Nichols was not as badly mutilated as often portrayed. Was the double event an actual double event? Any evidence to support what weapon was used, was it similar on all killings?
2) Motive. This has always seemed strange to me, what about motive, we are often told nowadays how important motive is. Like I said growing up we were fed the Royal theory because of the blackmail/cover up of Eddy’s illegitimate daughter, I think that is why it endured, and it was a good story, a good motive.
3) Linked to above, any truth regarding the Masons, where the bodies arranged to suggest a Masonic ritual? (Again fed this as a kid)
4) Why did he stop? Kelly was the ring leader of the blackmail group/witness to Cook’s child etc. Did he stop because they had all been silenced, I doubt this but why did he stop?
5) Will we ever know the truth?

Again apologies for asking questions that have no doubt been answered numerous times. This is a huge forum Thanks.

To Geddy 2112

I will answer all your questions in my opinion.

1. Yes although maybe Liz Stride wasn't killed by Jack.
2. Difficult to say exactly but he was a psychopath who enjoyed mutilating women.
3. No.
4. Imprisoned then hung.
5. Maybe.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

Hello. Just joined up but been reading these forums for quite a while. I first became interested in JTR when on holiday in London as a child. It was the January when Peter Sutcliffe had just been arrested. There was a 'Ripper' book in the hotel shop so I asked my mum if it was about Sutcliffe. Growing up in the North East of England after the hoax tapes was big news regarding these murders. Every Tom Dick and Harry were getting questioned or asked to listen to that tape. To my surprise the book, as explained by my mum was not about Peter but about some unknown Victorian killer who stalked the streets of London. It even had the MJK picture in if I remember correctly. Although I was only nine my mum proceeded to tell me all about it with some rather gory details, I'm okay now though... honestly.
This sort of got me gripped on the story, of course the popular theory at the time was the Royal one so that is what I grew up to believe until I started to read more about it later in life.
I apologise as these questions will have been asked and debated to death across these boards but it's my starting point on my journey here.

1) Does any evidence support ALL c5 murders were committed by the same killer? To me they were not, especially Mary Kelly. The media (films etc) have suggested some of the murders being more gruesome than they were maybe to support this idea. Nichols was not as badly mutilated as often portrayed. Was the double event an actual double event? Any evidence to support what weapon was used, was it similar on all killings?
2) Motive. This has always seemed strange to me, what about motive, we are often told nowadays how important motive is. Like I said growing up we were fed the Royal theory because of the blackmail/cover up of Eddy’s illegitimate daughter, I think that is why it endured, and it was a good story, a good motive.
3) Linked to above, any truth regarding the Masons, where the bodies arranged to suggest a Masonic ritual? (Again fed this as a kid)
4) Why did he stop? Kelly was the ring leader of the blackmail group/witness to Cook’s child etc. Did he stop because they had all been silenced, I doubt this but why did he stop?
5) Will we ever know the truth?

Again apologies for asking questions that have no doubt been answered numerous times. This is a huge forum Thanks.

Welcome

here is my take

1. Chapman and Eddowes were very gruesome. Probably killed all 5, but Stride could be by another hand, probably attacked before Nichols and possible after Kelly(Mackenzie).

2. Psychopath, exact reasons unknown.

3. None what so ever.

4. Died, possibly "locked up" first, not for the murders but due to his mental state.

5. Not beyond reasonable doubt but possibly to a degree where it is highly probably.

Cheers

Steve

[Mirandola]

Hi, Geddy. Like many people, I have very serious reservations about Elizabeth Stride being a 'Ripper' victim; on the other hand, there does seem to be something to say in favour of Martha Tabram, though that's by no means clear cut. In any case, some or all of these is the total. The weapons used were generally similar, and could have been simply ground-down carving knives. They were definitely not, according to all the contemporary evidence, clasp-knives or scalpels.
Motive is only important when you have a rational crime - ie, one where there is some practical gain for the killer, either positive (wealth, possessions) or negative (security of some kind). These crimes, in that sense, were motiveless; they are the work of a disordered psychopath.
The fanciful conspiracy theories are exactly that, and as likely as the theory that Sarah Palin is from the planet Zog.
Something stopped him; that's certain. What, nobody knows ... because ...
nobody knows who he was, and nobody ever will. There is no feasible evidence we could find at this late stage in the Ripper narrative that would satisfy every single 'Ripperologist'.

[lynn cates]

odd

Hello Geddy. Welcome to the boards.

Kate is my "odd man out." Figure out what happened to her, and the rest becomes MUCH simpler.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Geddy. Welcome to the boards.

Kate is my "odd man out." Figure out what happened to her, and the rest becomes MUCH simpler.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Kate was killed. Hope that helps.

Where have you been of late? My vocabulary is suffering without you around and all them big woids you know.

c.d.

[Errata]

Hello. Just joined up but been reading these forums for quite a while. I first became interested in JTR when on holiday in London as a child. It was the January when Peter Sutcliffe had just been arrested. There was a 'Ripper' book in the hotel shop so I asked my mum if it was about Sutcliffe. Growing up in the North East of England after the hoax tapes was big news regarding these murders. Every Tom Dick and Harry were getting questioned or asked to listen to that tape. To my surprise the book, as explained by my mum was not about Peter but about some unknown Victorian killer who stalked the streets of London. It even had the MJK picture in if I remember correctly. Although I was only nine my mum proceeded to tell me all about it with some rather gory details, I'm okay now though... honestly.
This sort of got me gripped on the story, of course the popular theory at the time was the Royal one so that is what I grew up to believe until I started to read more about it later in life.
I apologise as these questions will have been asked and debated to death across these boards but it's my starting point on my journey here.

1) Does any evidence support ALL c5 murders were committed by the same killer? To me they were not, especially Mary Kelly. The media (films etc) have suggested some of the murders being more gruesome than they were maybe to support this idea. Nichols was not as badly mutilated as often portrayed. Was the double event an actual double event? Any evidence to support what weapon was used, was it similar on all killings?
2) Motive. This has always seemed strange to me, what about motive, we are often told nowadays how important motive is. Like I said growing up we were fed the Royal theory because of the blackmail/cover up of Eddy’s illegitimate daughter, I think that is why it endured, and it was a good story, a good motive.
3) Linked to above, any truth regarding the Masons, where the bodies arranged to suggest a Masonic ritual? (Again fed this as a kid)
4) Why did he stop? Kelly was the ring leader of the blackmail group/witness to Cook’s child etc. Did he stop because they had all been silenced, I doubt this but why did he stop?
5) Will we ever know the truth?

Again apologies for asking questions that have no doubt been answered numerous times. This is a huge forum Thanks.

1: Liz Stride seems unlikely to be a Ripper victim to me, but I also think there have to be more victims somewhere on the planet for Nichols to make sense in the evolution.
2: I think he was mission oriented, less pleasure oriented although he certainly got something out of murdering and mutilating these women. I do not believe in the royal conspiracy, though that would certainly qualify as a mission oriented motive. But I think he believed he had a job to do. I think He actually knew Mary Kelly and that queers the motive a bit, but that happens.
3: Nope
4: Unknown. Hit by a bus? Lost interest? Scared the crap out of himself? Got into something else that met his needs?
5: No. I don't think anyone knew who he was. I think the only contact the police had with him was when he was buying them drinks in the pub and pressing them for information. I think he was that sort.

We've all got different answers to these questions. Some us change our answers back and forth depending on the day. Good luck with it.

[Mirandola]

Geddy, you might take a close look at the Peter Sutcliffe case with a lot of profit, as it has some very telling similarities with the Whitechapel case. Sutcliffe was an opportunistic killer who used what was to hand, slightly modified (a ball-peen hammer, sharpened chisels); he later tried to pretend he felt a 'mission to eliminate prostitutes' but this was proven beyond doubt to be an attempt to be treated as a psychological case rather than a murderer (availability was the only criterion, several of his victims were never prostitutes but were unfortunately at the wrong place at the wrong time).
Sutcliffe was plausible, as JtR would have to have been, had a number of 'friends' (though none very close) and was married (to a woman who herself was found to be schizophrenic). He was of average intelligence, though he had a much higher opinion of himself than was warranted by anything objectively measurable. He was questioned nine times by investigating officers but slipped through the net at least partly because he didn't match the Media-fired image of 'The Ripper'.
There were innumerable 'letters' to the authorities, and above all the Tape, made by John Samuel Humble, which undoubtedly set the investigation on the wrong track for two years (during which three more women were killed). Peter Sutcliffe did not write to the authorities, and neither did 'Jack the Ripper'.
This would be the kind of killer you'd be looking for, if you had an interest in who he was.

[Mirandola]

"Much of the general public’s knowledge concerning serial murder is a product of Hollywood productions. Story lines are created to heighten the interest of audiences, rather than to accurately portray serial murder. By focusing on the atrocities inflicted on victims by “deranged” offenders, the public is captivated by the criminals and their crimes. This only lends more confusion to the true dynamics of serial murder.
Law enforcement professionals are subject to the same misinformation from a different source: the use of anecdotal information. Professionals involved in serial murder cases, such as investigators, prosecutors, and pathologists may have limited exposure to serial murder. Their experience may be based upon a single murder series, and the factors in that case are extrapolated to other serial murders. As a result, certain stereotypes and misconceptions take root regarding the nature of serial murder and the characteristics of serial killers."

Behavioral Analysis Unit, National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime, 'Serial Murder, Multi-Disciplinary perspectives for Investigators', FBI 2005, pp. 2-3.

These warnings should be taken very seriously by 'Ripperologists' - they are issued by people whose professional livelihood is intimately involved with this field of research and action.

[AlanG]

1) Does any evidence support ALL c5 murders were committed by the same killer? To me they were not, especially Mary Kelly. The media (films etc) have suggested some of the murders being more gruesome than they were maybe to support this idea. Nichols was not as badly mutilated as often portrayed. Was the double event an actual double event? Any evidence to support what weapon was used, was it similar on all killings?
2) Motive. This has always seemed strange to me, what about motive, we are often told nowadays how important motive is. Like I said growing up we were fed the Royal theory because of the blackmail/cover up of Eddy’s illegitimate daughter, I think that is why it endured, and it was a good story, a good motive.
3) Linked to above, any truth regarding the Masons, where the bodies arranged to suggest a Masonic ritual? (Again fed this as a kid)
4) Why did he stop? Kelly was the ring leader of the blackmail group/witness to Cook’s child etc. Did he stop because they had all been silenced, I doubt this but why did he stop?
5) Will we ever know the truth?

In my honest opinion

1) For me, all the 5 murders were committed by the ripper. So yes I believe there was a double event. In many cases today you see build ups where killers become more violent. I accept not in every case, but I accept this theory as a real possibility.

2) In my opinion, he wasn't as we would today describe someone as 'legally insane'. I think he was very calculating and new police beats/times and planned an escape. He would of obviously kept from most members of the public his sadistic side until after the killing of MJK.

3) If you want to you can make anything fit a theory...Just look at all the suspects that have been proposed over the years, they cannot all be correct?

4) In my opinion, that is the lock to the mystery!

5) You could argue that if the Scotland yard papers were released for whatever reason or leaked then perhaps. Or if somebody came forward with some documentation passed down. I am sad to say that with recent publications, dna evidence will be looked upon with a large degree of caution. But with the X-files newly being shown I will say 'The truth is out there'

[Rosella]

Hi Geddy and welcome,

As has been said, your questions can bring a dozen answers!

To help you through the maze of information here on Casebook, I really hope that you have some books on the case like Begg, Fido and Skinner's 'The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z ? I really think the A-Z is invaluable. Personally, I also keep Philip Sugden's 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper' to hand, as a good, quite neutral source of facts on the case.

There are lots of excellent others but I think these two books are a must, really. I hope you enjoy posting on the forum!

[Abby Normal]

Hello. Just joined up but been reading these forums for quite a while. I first became interested in JTR when on holiday in London as a child. It was the January when Peter Sutcliffe had just been arrested. There was a 'Ripper' book in the hotel shop so I asked my mum if it was about Sutcliffe. Growing up in the North East of England after the hoax tapes was big news regarding these murders. Every Tom Dick and Harry were getting questioned or asked to listen to that tape. To my surprise the book, as explained by my mum was not about Peter but about some unknown Victorian killer who stalked the streets of London. It even had the MJK picture in if I remember correctly. Although I was only nine my mum proceeded to tell me all about it with some rather gory details, I'm okay now though... honestly.
This sort of got me gripped on the story, of course the popular theory at the time was the Royal one so that is what I grew up to believe until I started to read more about it later in life.
I apologise as these questions will have been asked and debated to death across these boards but it's my starting point on my journey here.

1) Does any evidence support ALL c5 murders were committed by the same killer? To me they were not, especially Mary Kelly. The media (films etc) have suggested some of the murders being more gruesome than they were maybe to support this idea. Nichols was not as badly mutilated as often portrayed. Was the double event an actual double event? Any evidence to support what weapon was used, was it similar on all killings?
2) Motive. This has always seemed strange to me, what about motive, we are often told nowadays how important motive is. Like I said growing up we were fed the Royal theory because of the blackmail/cover up of Eddy’s illegitimate daughter, I think that is why it endured, and it was a good story, a good motive.
3) Linked to above, any truth regarding the Masons, where the bodies arranged to suggest a Masonic ritual? (Again fed this as a kid)
4) Why did he stop? Kelly was the ring leader of the blackmail group/witness to Cook’s child etc. Did he stop because they had all been silenced, I doubt this but why did he stop?
5) Will we ever know the truth?

Again apologies for asking questions that have no doubt been answered numerous times. This is a huge forum Thanks.

Hi Geddy
welcome!

1. The C5 plus Martha Tabram and Alice McKenzie were ripper victims. I also think theres a good chance that the torso victims were his work.

2. Motive-like most serial killers I believe his motive was he deprived some kind of pleasure, or released some sort of urge by murdering and mutilating these women. I think that there was probably a sexual component involved.
Bottom line-he liked it.

3. only in the movies, or fiction.

4. He stopped probably because he was incarcerated or died. Howver, he may have moved away.

5. I think it still has a chance of being solved-but it will probably be along the lines of a family member, descendant etc. finding some evidence that had been squirreled away.

[Harry D]

1) Yes, the proximity, the dates of the murders (all of them were committed on a weekend or holiday), the modus operandi, and the victimology all lean towards to one killer.

2) Motives are peculiar to that individual and not easily explained, not even by the killer. I doubt he fully understood what it was that made him tick. We know that the murders weren't sadistic because his victims were all rendered unconscious and cleanly dispatched. The throat-cutting was just a means to an end for the post-mortem mutilations, and like a masturbatory fantasy the killer had to plumb new depths in order to gratify himself. We can see this from the escalating nature of the murders, beginning with abdominal mutilation, to organ removal, to multiple organ removal, to extensive butchery.

3) No, the Freemasons are just an easy target for conspiratorial fantasists.

4) Anything could have happened to him, but I have little doubt that external influences ended the murders rather than stopping of his own accord. This wasn't the type of guy who could ignore his inner-demons, as Mary Kelly's terrible remains will strongly attest to.

5) Nope - but then, would we want to?

[Yabs]

In my opinion

1. I think all 5 are the same killer and that there were possible earlier killings of less ferocity. In my opinion any differences in the Kelly murder where due to it being the only murder where Jack felt no pressure to complete his task quickly.
2. I wouldn't say he had a motive just a compulsion.
3. No I don't think so
4. There could be any number of reasons that prevented him from killing again. Maybe he was incarcerated, maybe he caught pneumonia.
5. Possibly, but unlikely. Although I do think people have a more accurate view about the Ripper now than ever before.


Very interesting reading everyone's views