The strange and horrible case of Ruth Jenkins

[Fisherman]

When you bait the hook as you did Fisherman, by using details from individual murders and culling them under one mans work, its difficult to play along. You've cited details from individual murders, not just the details from a murder we can safely say was committed by the character who was known as The Ripper, Annie Chapmans. Yes the flaps are there, and the intestines over the shoulder, and the missing organs...but in that murder there was no facial marking...only in Kate and Marys murders, no organs placed under the head...as in Mary's murder, and no mention of items placed about the body or the fact that this Ripper fellow cuts throats deeply twice.


So the above example wouldn't lead a true investigator to anyone, let alone 2 characters who engaged in very different activities.

If Ruth Jenkins murder had the attributes of Annie Chapmans murder, then you have a storyline. Throwing acts into the mix that we cannot say with any certainty represent what we had learned about the killer to that point in time doesn't help.

On this point Ill say that for anyone to compare The Torso Acts with the Rippers act the samples should be from any Torso murder and Annie Chapmans murder, the ONLY one of the Five that is certainly a murder that virtually everyone attributes to this Ripper fellow.

Thanks for chiming in, Michael!

[emlodik]

Let me just say from the outset that there never was any Ruth Jenkins - she is a figment of my over-excited fantasy, designed to enable us to discuss the perceived differences between the Ripper and the Torso killer.

So here goes!

Ruth Jenkins was a typical East End woman, 36 years old, married and living in a small flat with her husband and two young boys in Mile End Road. On the night of October 14, 1888, she quarelled with her husband, and he threw her out at 1.30 AM. Mrs Jenkins then set off for a friends lodgings in Edward Street (having said this to her husband as she left), but she never made it there. She was instead found at around 2 AM in a doorway in nearby Ducket Street, horribly murdered and disfigured.

She had had her abdomen ripped open from ribcage to pubes, and the intestines had been cut loose and thrown to the side. The abdominal wall had been cut largely away in three panes, flung beside the body in a pool of blood. After this, the assailant had cut out her uterus, which was found under her neck. The liver had also been cut out and was nowhere to be seen - apparently, the killer had run off with it. The immediate cause of death was a fierce cut to the neck, leaving a gaping wound - in effect, all of the major vessels had been severed by the cut, that had nearly taken the poor womanīs head off. The face had suffered damage too, the nosetip, the ears and the flesh on the forehead having been cut away and left by the poor creatures side.

Not a sound had been heard of the deed by the people living in Ducket Street, although there were those who professed to having slept with their windows open. There were no marks of any kind of the body apart from the cuts and a few bruises around the chin of the victim. The mystery is therefore a total one.

Now, lets hear what you think of this deed. Everybody is encouraged to chime in and give their view. Is there any propable culprit that jumps to mind?

Which bid would we go for on the Jenkins murder?

The Ripper, who we know cut his victims bellies like this, who we know took out uteri, who we know took out non-sexual organs too, who we know cut away faces or parts of them, who we know cut away abdominal walls in sections and who we know cut necks, almost decapitating people?

The Torso killer, who we know cut his victims bellies like this, who we know took out at least one uterus, who we know took out non-sexual organs too, who we know cut away faces or parts of them, who we know cut away abdominal walls in sections and who we know cut necks, so as to decapitate people?

Or somebody else?

Who would you favour - and exactly why?

Letīs hear what you have to say! How do we solve the Ruth Jenkins murder? Ducket Street, by the way, was exactly as far removed from Bucks Row as Mitre Square was, but to the east.

Once we have your answers, we will move on and change a few parameters. I hope you will all join in - this should be interesting!

My money's on the husband. He probably cut her neck during a heated argument and then mutilated the body to take the scent off himself after reading the reports of the Ripper and Torso murders in the local papers.

[Ginger]

Never the Torso Killer. Either the Ripper, or a copycat. The Torso Killer had some private place where he cut his victims up. The Ripper was comfortable doing that in a doorway, or an ill-lit corner of a yard.

[drstrange169]

>>You forgot to explain how you reached your stance.<<

Pretty much as Zena has already described.

[007]

Monkey Business

The fact that this idea was actually in swing - although instead favouring an orangutan - says a lot about the contemporary overall understanding of the kind of killer we are dealing with.

Babboon/orangutan... in swing...

Bwahahahaha!! That's awesome, Christer!

[Michael W Richards]

Let me just say from the outset that there never was any Ruth Jenkins - she is a figment of my over-excited fantasy, designed to enable us to discuss the perceived differences between the Ripper and the Torso killer.

So here goes!

Ruth Jenkins was a typical East End woman, 36 years old, married and living in a small flat with her husband and two young boys in Mile End Road. On the night of October 14, 1888, she quarelled with her husband, and he threw her out at 1.30 AM. Mrs Jenkins then set off for a friends lodgings in Edward Street (having said this to her husband as she left), but she never made it there. She was instead found at around 2 AM in a doorway in nearby Ducket Street, horribly murdered and disfigured.

She had had her abdomen ripped open from ribcage to pubes, and the intestines had been cut loose and thrown to the side. The abdominal wall had been cut largely away in three panes, flung beside the body in a pool of blood. After this, the assailant had cut out her uterus, which was found under her neck. The liver had also been cut out and was nowhere to be seen - apparently, the killer had run off with it. The immediate cause of death was a fierce cut to the neck, leaving a gaping wound - in effect, all of the major vessels had been severed by the cut, that had nearly taken the poor womanīs head off. The face had suffered damage too, the nosetip, the ears and the flesh on the forehead having been cut away and left by the poor creatures side.

Not a sound had been heard of the deed by the people living in Ducket Street, although there were those who professed to having slept with their windows open. There were no marks of any kind of the body apart from the cuts and a few bruises around the chin of the victim. The mystery is therefore a total one.

When you bait the hook as you did Fisherman, by using details from individual murders and culling them under one mans work, its difficult to play along. You've cited details from individual murders, not just the details from a murder we can safely say was committed by the character who was known as The Ripper, Annie Chapmans. Yes the flaps are there, and the intestines over the shoulder, and the missing organs...but in that murder there was no facial marking...only in Kate and Marys murders, no organs placed under the head...as in Mary's murder, and no mention of items placed about the body or the fact that this Ripper fellow cuts throats deeply twice.


So the above example wouldn't lead a true investigator to anyone, let alone 2 characters who engaged in very different activities.

If Ruth Jenkins murder had the attributes of Annie Chapmans murder, then you have a storyline. Throwing acts into the mix that we cannot say with any certainty represent what we had learned about the killer to that point in time doesn't help.

On this point Ill say that for anyone to compare The Torso Acts with the Rippers act the samples should be from any Torso murder and Annie Chapmans murder, the ONLY one of the Five that is certainly a murder that virtually everyone attributes to this Ripper fellow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ever considered chimps? They are very territorial and intelligent creatures, supposedly four times as strong as humans. And they have a nasty tendency to tear their enemies to shreds.

Just saying.

I know. I remember a TV show a few years ago that catalogued some horrendous injuries committed by chimps.

Cheetah always looked so friendly

[Abby Normal]

Back to the drawing board for me then

good guess though. even Poe thought it was possible. hehe

[Fisherman]

Back to the drawing board for me then

Ever considered chimps? They are very territorial and intelligent creatures, supposedly four times as strong as humans. And they have a nasty tendency to tear their enemies to shreds.

Just saying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nope. Sorry about that.

Back to the drawing board for me then

[Fisherman]

So, not a baboon then?

Nope. Sorry about that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that this idea was actually in swing - although instead favouring an orangutan - says a lot about the contemporary overall understanding of the kind of killer we are dealing with.

So, not a baboon then?

[Fisherman]

I think that she was killed by an escaped Baboon

The fact that this idea was actually in swing - although instead favouring an orangutan - says a lot about the contemporary overall understanding of the kind of killer we are dealing with.

[Fisherman]

Copycat killer.

You forgot to explain how you reached your stance.

[Fisherman]

Definitely not the Torso Killer because she has all her limbs and head still attached. (Well, unless TK and JtR were one and the same. )

Possibly the Ripper.

The 14th is a little off his schedule, which was usually around the beginning or the tail end of the month.

But October 14, 1888, was on a Sunday, so it fits the weekend schedule, timewise. 2 a.m is a little on the early side, but not far from the double event times, which were on a weekend.

The cutting seems to fit the Ripper's style, but the report doesn't say she was posed (skirts raised, legs spread, etc.).

The report doesn't mention that she was a prostitute. So unless that's what the argument with her husband was about (either she'd been soliciting and he disapproved OR he wanted her to solicit and she refused), she doesn't fit the profile of the Ripper's other victims in that regard.

Age 36 is a tad younger than most of the other victims, who I believe were in their 40s. (Then there's outlier Kelly, but that hasn't happened yet at this point.) Mrs. Jenkins may well have looked older than her actual age.

(I'm saying all this off the top of my head, so I hope I didn't goof up any details. I did look up what day of the week October 14, 1888, was on.)

Okay, thanks for that! Surrounding circumstances differ from the Ripper, but the damage is in line, thatīs what you are saying.