Analysis of the Rippers MO

[Aethelwulf]

Different MO doesn't rule Jack the ripper out.

This is an offence that involved a desire to attack the genitalia which makes Jack a viable suspect.

TB

You know B, I will agree with you on this. Would a highly perverted attack like this in April 1888 by JtR alone or in a group rule him out for the crimes later in the year? No.

[Abby Normal]

Different MO doesn't rule Jack the ripper out.

This is an offence that involved a desire to attack the genitalia which makes Jack a viable suspect.

TB

Just barely. Too many differences for me. Plus the fact it was a group attack, and jack worked alone. Plus post mortem types almost exclusively work alone too.

[The Baron]

Agreed, different MO entirely. Blunt force trauma to the genitalia, death by peritonitis, no knife and clean kill followed by mutilation.

Different MO doesn't rule Jack the ripper out.

This is an offence that involved a desire to attack the genitalia which makes Jack a viable suspect.

TB

[Abby Normal]

Agreed, different MO entirely. Blunt force trauma to the genitalia, death by peritonitis, no knife and clean kill followed by mutilation. Tabram/Turner a possible - right location; if not the soldier, right time; evidence for subdual by strangulation; knife with overkill; only lacking the clean kill of the throat cut for me (although clearly a clean and quiet kill given witness statements)

yup. the only caveat i would add to your post is.. "if not the soldier". The ripper could have been the soldier, they are not mutually exclusive.

[kjab3112]

Emma Smith. But probably not a ripper victim.

Agreed, different MO entirely. Blunt force trauma to the genitalia, death by peritonitis, no knife and clean kill followed by mutilation. Tabram/Turner a possible - right location; if not the soldier, right time; evidence for subdual by strangulation; knife with overkill; only lacking the clean kill of the throat cut for me (although clearly a clean and quiet kill given witness statements)

[Aethelwulf]

Would a copy cat go to the same lengths in terms of minor details/similarities to other victims i.e. lifting the skirts etc. as mentioned by Abby Normal ?

This isn't something highly idiosyncratic that nobody else is likely to try though. A misogynist gets a woman into a dark and wants to assault her, inevitably lifts her skirt. The fact the she was only scratched with fingernails should weigh far more heavily against than the skirts is in favour.

My best guess would be that someone with a similar but less developed desire to attack and mutilate waited until after the fuss had died down well into 1889 and had a go himself.

[Abby Normal]

There were press reports right after the murder that thought Nichols was victim #3. On of the earlier victims was Tabram, who seems likely to me. I forget the other.

Emma Smith. But probably not a ripper victim.

[Abby Normal]

Would a copy cat go to the same lengths in terms of minor details/similarities to other victims i.e. lifting the skirts etc. as mentioned by Abby Normal ?

and copy cat murders are the stuff of Hollywood. It rarely happens in real life, if at all.

[Losmandris]

In the case of MacKenzie, it might be a copycat.

Would a copy cat go to the same lengths in terms of minor details/similarities to other victims i.e. lifting the skirts etc. as mentioned by Abby Normal ?

[Losmandris]

There were press reports right after the murder that thought Nichols was victim #3. On of the earlier victims was Tabram, who seems likely to me. I forget the other.

This certainly makes sense to me!

[Fiver]

Very good point. I think its these details, that clinches it. Something only the same killer would do!

In the case of MacKenzie, it might be a copycat.

[Fiver]

For me I just cannot see Nichols as victim number one.

There were press reports right after the murder that thought Nichols was victim #3. On of the earlier victims was Tabram, who seems likely to me. I forget the other.

[Losmandris]

I'll go with sir Melville Macnaghten that the Whitechapel murderer was responsible for ""5 victim's and 5 victim's only.""

I very much doubt Tabram was a jtr victim' for obvious reason surrounding all the circumstances with her murder.

I think too many myths including MM's opinion have clouded views on Tabram. If this happened in the modern era I am sure she would be considered a victim. Though not sure if she was the first? A lot of Serial killers committed murders before the victim usually considered number one. Often when new evidence comes to light or in modern times DNA evidence.

For me I just cannot see Nichols as victim number one.

[Losmandris]

Hi Los
remember both tabram and mackenzie both had their skirts hiked up, like the rest. Thats kind of the final straw for me. Im at like 80% for both.

Very good point. I think its these details, that clinches it. Something only the same killer would do!

[FISHY1118]

I certainly agree with the report in terms of including Martha Tabram. I am about 90% sure she was a victim. I don't think Coles was but constantly waiver over McKenzie. on her I'm 50/50.

I'll go with sir Melville Macnaghten that the Whitechapel murderer was responsible for ""5 victim's and 5 victim's only.""

I very much doubt Tabram was a jtr victim' for obvious reason surrounding all the circumstances with her murder.