The strange and horrible case of Ruth Jenkins

[Zena]

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.

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.)

[drstrange169]

Copycat killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that she was killed by an escaped Baboon

[Fisherman]

Fish, are you making the point that it could have been her husband? The mutilations sound like Kelly and some believe that that murder exhibited signs of being personal (probably Barnett.)

No, I am all for the suggestion that Ruth Jenkins fell prey to the Ripper - who was married to another woman, by the way!
Given the character of the damage, and although there are some difference no matter which of the C5 we compare Jenkins to, I would regard it as a certainty that the Ripper was responsible.

But I am intetested in hearing any differing views - and what lies behind that reasoning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Why, then, did the torso killer not parcel up every piece and throw them in the Thames? He wrapped some of the pieces in their own clothing. Or possibly weigh them down so they would sink and never be found? Why risk depositing the Pinchin torso in the time the PC made a pass of the arch the first time and his next go around? Why not parcel her up and throw her in the Thames? The Whitehall dump spot was very difficult to reach with high hoardings, a locked gate (a select few knew the trick to get in it) and a maze of dark passages to reach it. The Thames was yards away from the vault, yet he chose to put her in a difficult area to reach in an active construction site.

If you consider Mary Kelly part of the Rippers canon, she was killed indoors and the killers attempt to disarticulate her neck was noted by Dr. Phillips to be very similar to the Pinchin torso. The killer couldn't very well take her head, legs, etc out the door with him in her case. The torso killer obviously had a place to dismember without the worry (at least for a short period of time) of being caught. He had time to cut and parcel and choose the safest time to go out in the streets to dispose of the parts.

Hi Jerry,

I don't have an answer for that one. Why indeed? Could it speak of more than one killer ?(unlikely I accept.)
The Whitehall one is an interesting one as you say. The effort required to place the body there shows definate purpose. Not a casual disposal. I've wondered in the past whether the killer was one of the men working there and he thought that he was getting one over on the police by dumping it 'under their feet'. It would explain how he got access but nothing else really. There nothing to back it up.
As I said to Abby on the other thread I'm definately not saying that Jack and TK couldn't have been one and the same, I could be wrong, but it's just the differences that I feel are important and they are the sticking point for me (at this point in time at least )

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

Fish, are you making the point that it could have been her husband? The mutilations sound like Kelly and some believe that that murder exhibited signs of being personal (probably Barnett.)

[Fisherman]

the ripper-obviously

Okay, thanks for that, Abby!

[Abby Normal]

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!

the ripper-obviously

[Fisherman]

Anyone else want to have a go at solving the Ruth Jenkins murder...?

[Fisherman]

We could both be accused of 'selecting' the most valid aspect of the case but I feel that the way the ripper's victims were posed was a vital part of his reason for doing what he did. It helps point toward his motivation. As the TK's is different I see a different killer.

Again, how could the torso killer pose his victims when they were in pieces? The question lacks relevance, unless we convert it to the question whether the torso killer must have been as interested in posing his victims as Jack was, and therefore would have abstained from dismembering them and dumping them.

It must be added that once you DO dismember and dump, you can choose to do so in order for the parts never to be found (consistent with defensive dismembering) or if you do it in order to be able to float the parts down the Thames to be found, to be able to place them in the Scotland Yard building etcetera. I would argue that the Torso killer did just about everything he could possibly do to get attention for his deeds - just like the Ripper did. But dismembered pieces can not be posed ā la the Ripper victims, Herlock. It is impossible.
What would you have the torso man do to qualify for a comparison, once he had cut the bodies up? Place them in the London streets, houses and parks for shock value? He did that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if poor Ruth had been shot in the temple and dumped, would you still go "no removal of limbs - not the torso man, probably the Ripper"?

Is it not true to say that the damage done is the ground for how we must reason?

And if Jack had cut up Eddowes in pieces and carried her to the Thames and dumped her, would you feel that it must have been a work of the Torso killer?

We could both be accused of 'selecting' the most valid aspect of the case but I feel that the way the ripper's victims were posed was a vital part of his reason for doing what he did. It helps point toward his motivation. As the TK's is different I see a different killer.

[jerryd]

I base my opinion on the final outcome. I see the TK's distribution of body parts or dumping of torso's as the thing that strikes me as the differentiating factor. For me it's the 'deal breaker.'
I genuinely feel that the way Jack left his victims was a vital part of his reason for doing what he did. As that aspect is absent from the torso murders I can't see them as the same person Whatever any similarities in knifework.

Hi Herlock,

Why, then, did the torso killer not parcel up every piece and throw them in the Thames? He wrapped some of the pieces in their own clothing. Or possibly weigh them down so they would sink and never be found? Why risk depositing the Pinchin torso in the time the PC made a pass of the arch the first time and his next go around? Why not parcel her up and throw her in the Thames? The Whitehall dump spot was very difficult to reach with high hoardings, a locked gate (a select few knew the trick to get in it) and a maze of dark passages to reach it. The Thames was yards away from the vault, yet he chose to put her in a difficult area to reach in an active construction site.

If you consider Mary Kelly part of the Rippers canon, she was killed indoors and the killers attempt to disarticulate her neck was noted by Dr. Phillips to be very similar to the Pinchin torso. The killer couldn't very well take her head, legs, etc out the door with him in her case. The torso killer obviously had a place to dismember without the worry (at least for a short period of time) of being caught. He had time to cut and parcel and choose the safest time to go out in the streets to dispose of the parts.

[Fisherman]

I base my opinion on the final outcome. I see the TK's distribution of body parts or dumping of torso's as the thing that strikes me as the differentiating factor. For me it's the 'deal breaker.'
I genuinely feel that the way Jack left his victims was a vital part of his reason for doing what he did. As that aspect is absent from the torso murders I can't see them as the same person no matter the similarities in knifework.

But if poor Ruth had been shot in the temple and dumped, would you still go "no removal of limbs - not the torso man, probably the Ripper"?

Is it not true to say that the damage done is the ground for how we must reason?

And if Jack had cut up Eddowes in pieces and carried her to the Thames and dumped her, would you feel that it must have been a work of the Torso killer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I base my opinion on the final outcome. I see the TK's distribution of body parts or dumping of torso's as the thing that strikes me as the differentiating factor. For me it's the 'deal breaker.'
I genuinely feel that the way Jack left his victims was a vital part of his reason for doing what he did. As that aspect is absent from the torso murders I can't see them as the same person Whatever any similarities in knifework.

[Fisherman]

Head cut off-no.
Arms and legs cut off-no.
Body parts wrapped up-no.
Body parts distributed in various locations-no.
Any effort made to hide body part-no.

Ripper likely- TK no.

Thanks for that, Herlock! I hope more posters will follow your lead and give their views! Once they do, we will move on and see what happens!

I note that you make your call not on account of what we can see in the way of damage, but instead on account of what is not present. That is a bit unexpected, but I take it that your opting for the Ripper is based on the damage described and not on the damage not inflicted? Would that be a correct assessment?