My Introduction. Victims, Weapons and more.

[Robert St Devil]

1. Essential question that picques the logical mind; thus, the debate! I learned that there is no outright answer seamlessly linking 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 other than strangulation and throat-slash. Instead, i remember learning to 'group and link'. The problem forgoing the debate is what metrics to use. Ex: grouping Chapman and Eddowes by evisceration; grouping Stride and Chapman by neckerchief; linking Stride to Eddowes by Chapman.
2. He or they was/were performing an extracurricular ritual activity on prostitutes of the lowest class in a third world environment. Strength and precision were evident in the murders as were suggestions of cannibalism and compulsion. The motivation could have simply been monomania with speculations on its magnitude. In other words, did mania serve the man?
Alt. answer: why did spanko spank young maids?
3. I have my doubts since Masons, like Police, is a broad term. Its often forgotten that these are departmental organizations with tendencies to factionalize intrrnally. Implicating the Masons would be conspiratorial. However i am open to the discussion that Jack the Ripper may have had a stupid knowledge of the Masonics by 1888 standards of Freemasonry in and around London.
4. Better question is : why did the sensational murders stop? If he killed again, it was never with the same purpose or identity. Why?
5. No. It's a secret.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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.

Hello and welcome.
1- I think he killed all six, I'm including Tabram, as a "discovery item", meaning that's how he found it he enjoyed mutilating women. He might have been an "ordinary" criminal/murderer before. I also think that his murder of Mary Jane Kelly was the only time after Tabram when he was not interrupted. His only complete "work".
2- Motive was arousal/sexual. Killing the women would only ensure their "collaboration".
3- No masonic link whatsoever.
4- He might have suffered a degenerative disease, of the body and/or the mind that prevent him to continue. Or was arrested for previous crime. Or left England.
5- No. Unless some new authentic Scotland Yard files / evidence is discovered and correctly researched by the police itself (or a team that would stay away from confirmation bias)

voilà pour moi.

[Purkis]

1) yes
2) sociopathic hatred of both women and authority
3) yes
4) he was informed that it would be in his interests to quietly disappear
5) I think so

[lynn cates]

new gig

Hello CD. Thanks.

Got a new gig teaching US History. (!) Been months preparing PowerPoint lectures. Half done.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

if

Hello Errata.

"I also think there have to be more victims somewhere on the planet for Nichols to make sense in the evolution."

Yes, PROVIDED we are dealing with a serial killer.

Cheers.
LC

[Mirandola]

Keppel,Weis, Brown & Welch ("The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and Signature Analysis", Journal of Investigative Psychology Profiling,2, pp. 1-21, 2005) analysed the eleven murders of women that have been associated with 'The Ripper' and compared them against a random run of 3,359 homicide cases on the HITS database.
They profiled each of the eleven in accordance with contemporary SOC assessment procedures, using Scotland Yard Case Files, inquest reports, police records and crime scene photographs (they deliberately excluded all newspaper reports for lack of substantiation). From this, MOs and killer signatures were compiled; six of the eleven shared a very distinctive set of characteristics which were missing from or very partially present in the other five. These six constituted the 'canonical five' plus Martha Tabram. All the others were ruled out quite clearly.
The team then set the established MO/signature against their unselected killings and found not only that the 'Ripper' killings were quite distinctive as a set of characteristics, but were extremely unusual - demonstrated 'in less than one tenth of one percent of all murder cases in the HITS system'. They outline eleven characteristics which, in conjunction, are vanishingly rare among murders, and show how, although the MO develops with experience, it remains at base the same.
Now admittedly the work cannot be taken as being without flaws (many of which they point out themselves, particularly in the nature of the available evidence to work on) but it clarifies many contested areas; and in addition it argues very strongly that the police of the time - despite their many detractors - were pretty much on the ball in their analysis of the series.

[Geddy2112]

Thank you for the welcome and kind replies.

Very interesting to read. I must say it's amazing how all the theories change or are interpreted.

So if I may ask what are people's opinions on -

1) That damn kidney! I'm under the impression that the letters were fake and used a bit like Facebook of the day to upset people and cause distress. I do think the kidney though was a sinister 'joke' but I can understand why it might have been from the victim since hers was missing. I presume there was time for the 'Humble' of the day to find out about the victims wounds and send a kidney in time to Mr Lusk.

2) Something else that has always worried me about Hanbury Street, which in the main is down to not knowing the Geography. The poor victim was found butchered near the back door of number 29. On the other side of this door led a passage way to the main front street (yes?) Was there a back entrance to this property? How accessible was it? Why was she there? Did she die there or was she a dump job, were any of them or where they killed where they were found? (Obviously MJK was) (Again sorry for being brainwashed by the damn TV industry.) Thanks

[AlanG]

Thank you for the welcome and kind replies.

Very interesting to read. I must say it's amazing how all the theories change or are interpreted.

So if I may ask what are people's opinions on -

1) That damn kidney! I'm under the impression that the letters were fake and used a bit like Facebook of the day to upset people and cause distress. I do think the kidney though was a sinister 'joke' but I can understand why it might have been from the victim since hers was missing. I presume there was time for the 'Humble' of the day to find out about the victims wounds and send a kidney in time to Mr Lusk.

2) Something else that has always worried me about Hanbury Street, which in the main is down to not knowing the Geography. The poor victim was found butchered near the back door of number 29. On the other side of this door led a passage way to the main front street (yes?) Was there a back entrance to this property? How accessible was it? Why was she there? Did she die there or was she a dump job, were any of them or where they killed where they were found? (Obviously MJK was) (Again sorry for being brainwashed by the damn TV industry.) Thanks

1) The 'from hell' letter is more a realistic chance of being from jtr than the 'saucey jack' or the 'dear boss' letters. Don't forget, upon inspection of the kidney, it was found to have brights disease and matched with the way it had been cut out from Eddowes body.

2) I think she was killed there because Albert Cadosch heard a Woman say 'no' right before he heard what he thought sounded like a body falling against the fence. She was found about twenty minutes later abosolutely mutilated. Many argue if Cadosch had looked over the fence, he'd of seen the killer. Long Liz was seen a few minutes before she was found dead, struggling with a man. Bucks Row geographically is quite a long straight road. So I think Mary Ann Nichols would've been murdered where she took her last breath. Similarly Catherine Eddowes was seen 10 minutes before she died with a man at Mitre square.

[Michael W Richards]

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, and welcome.

Here is my feedback on your queries;

1. Most contemporary investigators seemed to agree on a Canonical Group of Five, however the physician who saw 4 of those 5 victims did not believe Liz Stride was killed by the same person, nor Kate Eddowes.
2. The absence of the discovery of one doesnt mean there were no motives. In the case of 3 victims you might argue that obtaining organs might be a factor.
3. No
4. The going speculation suggests he either died, left the country, or was incarcerated/institutionalized. Some investigators claim the last possibility is the case.
5. Not likely.

Good luck hunting.

[Elamarna]

Thank you for the welcome and kind replies.

Very interesting to read. I must say it's amazing how all the theories change or are interpreted.

So if I may ask what are people's opinions on -

1) That damn kidney! I'm under the impression that the letters were fake and used a bit like Facebook of the day to upset people and cause distress. I do think the kidney though was a sinister 'joke' but I can understand why it might have been from the victim since hers was missing. I presume there was time for the 'Humble' of the day to find out about the victims wounds and send a kidney in time to Mr Lusk.

2) Something else that has always worried me about Hanbury Street, which in the main is down to not knowing the Geography. The poor victim was found butchered near the back door of number 29. On the other side of this door led a passage way to the main front street (yes?) Was there a back entrance to this property? How accessible was it? Why was she there? Did she die there or was she a dump job, were any of them or where they killed where they were found? (Obviously MJK was) (Again sorry for being brainwashed by the damn TV industry.) Thanks

hi

with regards to the kidney, well I think there are two schools, those who think it could be the real thing and those who don't. it could have been supplied by a medical student, that is certain, but no one can know for sure.

Hanbury street, the only entrance to the backyard was via the front door(unless you accept jumping over the fences between buildings).

Either the killer took her there or she lead him there, one assumes for sex.

No dumping of bodies, although it has been suggested by some that Eddowes was killed in one of the houses in Mitre Square and then placed outside, but there is NO evidence to support this at all.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

Hanbury street, the only entrance to the backyard was via the front door(unless you accept jumping over the fences between buildings).

Cheers, that has always intrigued me about this particular killing. Of course my knowledge of the scene is from pictures shown here and a 3D computer recreation.
I think it's fair to assume the victim and old Jacky did not hop over the fence so they must have gone through the passage to the yard where the deed was done. I often wonder why Annie took him there, did she have connections to the property, was it often used for sex purposes? Jack would have had two chances of getting caught, going in and coming out again. Rather high risk I think. I just find it all a bit erm odd.

[AlanG]

Alot of people back then even when the ripper was killing didn't lock there doors. I have read a couple of accounts where prostitutes used to walk through houses to use the back yards for 'business'. It wouldn't suprise me even if the ripper made his escape through houses after a killing.

[John Wheat]

Alot of people back then even when the ripper was killing didn't lock there doors. I have read a couple of accounts where prostitutes used to walk through houses to use the back yards for 'business'. It wouldn't suprise me even if the ripper made his escape through houses after a killing.

To AlanG

That's the first time I've heard that. The idea of the Ripper making his escape through houses is intriguing.

Cheers John

[Mirandola]

'Number 29, Hanbury street, is a house let out to various tenants, like a great many of the houses about there. The different occupants fasten their own doors if they think proper; but as they come home at night and got out in the morning at all sorts of hours, according to their occupations, the front door is left unfastened. Anybody is free to walk through the house passage into the back yard, and it is not uncommon in all parts of London for homeless persons to creep in and sleep in passages and staircases thus left. In this very house only a short time since one of the residents says a man slept on the stairs, certainly one night, and probably more than one. Under such circumstances, of course anybody passing through the yard would attract no attention.'
Daily News, 10 September 1888

[Rosella]

Of all the 'Ripper' letters I do have more of a feeling that the 'From Hell' letter was more likely to be genuine than the others. The kidney was never proven to be Kate's of course, but it's an extremely elaborate (and nasty) practical joke to play if it wasn't her's. It had been preserved in spirits of wine of course. As with so much of this case, the evidence is ambiguous.

Davis, the carman who discovered Annie's body, stated that the doors to no 29 were never locked during the time he'd lived there and intimated that they couldn't be locked. I believe the killer probably left by the front door after killing Annie.