Did Jack kill more than three?

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"...really in your mind do you think this is most likely what happened?"

I won´t take up your time by stating that this is so, Abby. I have elaborated on this numerous times before, and if you search the threads you will be able to lay your hands on it, and in it you will find that I freely admit that this scenario is quite a coincidental one.
Then again, it is a scenario that manages to explain and account for many things that leaves other scenarios clutching at straws. In fact, it responds to all the questions that we normally find hard to answer in Tabram´s case. That is why I like it - whenever I find a jigsaw puzzle with all the bits and pieces present and fitting, I tend to take a very active interest in such a thing.

The one stance I find dangerous here is the if-it-seems-unlikely-it-cannot-have-happened stance. This is not true: it seems unlikely that people will win on the national lottery twice, but the newspaper archives are full of them.
Putting it otherwise, if a hunter is accidentally shot, and there are only a dog and another hunter in place who could possibly have been responsible, then it is extremely unlikely that the dog did the shooting. On the other hand, in my newspaper archive, I have a clipping where this very thing happened. And if the improbability of it has us ruling it out before we examine things, we will always be at a loss to understand what really happened. In the case with the dog, there were tracks in the snow that showed that the dog was the only one that had been in contact with the weapon that killed the hunter, and that is how one must look on things - we first look at the tracks in the snow, and then we deduct.

In Tabram´s case, there are also tracks in the snow for us to read. One such track is that there are seemingly 37 unfocused wounds and two potentially extremely focused wounds, one of them being a cut to the lower abdomen. This compellingly suggests two cutters with different intents and agendas. It would be nice if there was something that seemingly corroborated it, would it not? And lo and behold - it seems the doctor who examined the victim tells us that there were not only two types of wounds involved, but also two differing types of blades! And, believe it or not, the grouping of 37 frenzied wounds seems to correspond to one blade type, whereas the two focused wounds both may have been inflicted with the other type!

At this stage, Abby, I think that those who yell "Far too coincidental!" when they hear my suggestion, may need to realize that when they say that there would just have been the one blade involved, they are not only looking away from Killeens adamant assertion, but also from something that would be very coincidental if it was NOT true!

In conclusion, I´m quite fine with people telling me that my scenario is an extremely coincidental one. I am, in fact, the first to agree. But as long as it holds answers to questions that have not been adequately answered in the past, I will merrily keep on exploring it.

I hope this answers your question, Abby!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
yes it did-thanks. My opinion is that if 2 blades involved then the greater probability is that they were carried by the same man. perhaps the 37 frenzied stabbing wounds were done first and after the killer cooled off a bit, his morbid curiosity kicked in and he then did the other more focused, "exploratory" wounds.

I will say that your response and the example you used has made me rethink and i rescind my previous statement of your scenario "teetering on the brink of impossibility". Anthing is possible, i suppose, and if you have any other thoughts that would contribute to your theory in the future i would love to hear them.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Red hills road,is the only link you need,that and the fact that it was the crown versus Samuel White.So obviously it was not Red hills road,Wyoming,USA,nor Red hills road,Sth Australia.

It is not 'My cases'.They are there for anyone to peruse,but have a little faith.Believe in me.The cases were real.

I do not need to post pages of irrevelent case material.I have taken and posted,in my way, the part that I consider of interest.I am satisfied with the comparison.

[Fisherman]

Well, Harry, it seems I shall have to go without the information, then, since I get no hits using the combination Red Hills Road and Samuel White. Thus I am not in any position to comment on how relevant (or irrelevant) the material is in a comparison with the Tabram killing. If you will only post that you have seen it, and that you are satisfied that it shows that Killeen could have been wrong, then so be it. The only thing that I will add is that no mater how detailed the case details from Red Hills Road are (or are not), I find it hard to see how a comparison can be made with the Tabram case, since we have no measurings at all relating to the wounds inflicted on her.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"perhaps the 37 frenzied stabbing wounds were done first and after the killer cooled off a bit, his morbid curiosity kicked in and he then did the other more focused, "exploratory" wounds."

That is a viable suggestion, of course. But why change blades in such a case? Plus, of course, the normal thing that follows when a frenzied stabber cools off, is to get the hell out of there.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
You should get plenty of hits for 'Red hill road",and if you apply the fact it was 'Crown vSamuel White' there should be no difficulty in deciding where the killing took place.(I have marched along there in my army days).Then apply for the court records.
There is nothing for me to add,but if you want extra to what I have posted,good luck in your search.

[harry]

Should have been 'Red hills road',as posted previously.

[Lechmere]

I think there were the canonical five plus Tabram, McKenzie and the Pinchin Street torso which makes 8
The odds on more than one culprit in such a limited time frame and such a limited areas with such a similar type of victim and similar types of attacks are infinitesimal. The nuances of the exact differences in the attacks and the exact different types of location are in my opinion secondary considerations. How likely would it be for the murderer to commit each crime in exactly the same way – it just wouldn’t have happened that way.
Furthermore it is exceptionally unlikely that the Ripper could have killed Polly Nichols in such an efficient manner without any preliminaries (e.g. Millward, Wilson and/or Tabram).
I think it’s more a case of showing why similar looking murders or attacks in that vicinity and in that general period are not Ripper murders or attacks.
So:
Annie Millward – a possible early botched attack, but I think far too little is known about the case, including where it happened to form any judgment.
Ada Wilson – another possible early botched attack. She was attacked in her home in Maidman’s Street, just off Mile End Road. This is some way east of the Ripper’s traditional stamping ground and you would expect any experiments to be more in his home territory. Unsure of this one.
Emma Smith – gang attack. Not Ripper.
Annie Farmer – no aspect of this case ads up to a Ripper attack.
Rose Mylett – probably not a murder, relatively far from immediate area of other murders, if it was a murder it was strangulation by a cord. Not Ripper.
Frances Coles – this one could be a Ripper murder, but on balance I don’t think it was as it was slightly out the area, slightly out the time period, there was a different method employed, and a likely other suspect.
I am inclined against the other torso murders being Ripper cases as besides Pinchin Street there is nothing to connect them at all.
The torso killings imply another murderer operating in London which surely makes it even more likely that the Ripper is responsible for the non canonical attacks listed above. How likely is it that three people were murdering?
(P.S. I can’t find the Red Hills Road case either)

[FrankO]

Hi Lechmere,

Annie Millward – a possible early botched attack, but I think far too little is known about the case, including where it happened to form any judgment.

Annie Millwood was attacked in White's Row, just south of Dorset Street.

Ada Wilson – another possible early botched attack. She was attacked in her home in Maidman’s Street, just off Mile End Road. This is some way east of the Ripper’s traditional stamping ground and you would expect any experiments to be more in his home territory. Unsure of this one.

It is interesting to see that, like Nichols, who was the first 'sure' Ripper victim, she was attacked in a street very close to Mile End/Whitechapel Road and that Nichols herself was killed relatively far from the others.

All the best,
Frank

[TomTomKent]

Just a side note, but the most convincing argument for an additional murder was suspect specific. I think it may have been David Cohen who was the suspect, and I believe the idea was that while he was a workhouse on first arrival to the country there was a murder near by with simaler (but not identical) MO to the canonical five. Unfortunately it was a long time ago I heard the story (on a radio show I think. Possibly a murder after midnight tape, but I would not bet money on it). Mind you at the time there was some factor which made me think it was a tentative leap, but I haven't a foggiest what it was now.

Sorry, probably just wasted a post here.

[Lechmere]

I was following Mark Ripper’s identification of the victim being Annie Milward!
She lived in White’s Row but no one knows where she was attacked.
Quite a few were attacked on or just off the Whitechapel High Street, Whitechapel Road, Mile End Road axis – Wilson, Smith, Tabram, McKenzie, Nichols. At a guess almost 2 miles from one end to the other.
Inevitably many people’s assessment of what is and what isn’t a potential Ripper victim will be skewed if they have a culprit in mind as this will influence locations and timings.
In my opinion the London ones which I would find difficult to fit in to any likely or credible Ripper scenario are Smith, Farmer, Mylett and the torso’s (except Pinchin Street).

[ditlew]

So I would argue the C5, and also add a few earlier attacks, including Tabram.

Currently I second this. C5 plus Tabram.

Best Regards,
Ditlev

[Phil H]

Reviving this thread with a question?

"Hanbury Street was quiet, but someone had already opened the door to the yard once that morning, and the next-door neighbour was also up and about. I would think under those circumstances, risk of interruption must be quite high....There is, though, no way that the risk will compare to that of killing outside a lively club, with clubbers coming and going. The backyard of Hanbury street was a sleepy such at that time - the yard most certainly was anything but it.

It was pondering this traditional view of the Chapman killing that caused me to question the assumptions about timings on this murder. Indeed, I think I may have been inspired by a dissertation here on Casebook.

A murder in daylight, in a backyard with no exit, should tell us something. Either "Jack" knew this locale and how to evade captaure if required, or he was as the quote above suggests particularly open to risk-taking.

There is, however, another option - that Mrs Long was wrong and Cadosche's testimony - while accurate - was not what it seemed.

If "Jack" killed Chapman earlier, when it was still dark, it reduces the risks and is consistent with the timing of the Nichols and Eddowes murders, both of which occured when it was dark and in ill-lit places.

If Cadosche heard a "No!" and a bump - could this have been Richardson or someone else (unknown) discovering the body. I seem to recall that the dissertation I referred to earlier questioned Richardson's testimony.

My question is - has this issue been taken any further and what are the views of other Casebook contributors on what I see as a quite crucial point?

Are you convinced by the inquest testimony and does the high risk taker/daylight murder scenario convince you? Or do you think a different interpretation is called for?

Thanks

Phil

[Wickerman]

...Are you convinced by the inquest testimony and does the high risk taker/daylight murder scenario convince you? Or do you think a different interpretation is called for?

Phil.
Whether we are able to use inquest testimony or witness statements, we should always question everything.
Police investigating procedures were not as thorough then as now. Medical standards & techniques, although better than what had gone before, are still inferior to what we know also today.
You do right to raise questions, so long as such questions are based on something realistic, not just "what-ifs".

One example might be that today we know the onset of rigor mortis can be accelerated by stress.
A person could have died later than thought because the onset of Rigor is accelerated due to the victim suffering extreme stress at the time of her attack.
I know this is the opposite of your suggestion above, but I just offer this as one example.

In the 19th century medical means for estimating time of death was pretty rudimentry compared with today.
If I'm not mistaken the 19th century physician had three principal means to estimate Time of Death, Body Cooling (Algor Mortis), Death Stiffening (Rigor Mortis), and Lividity (Livor Mortis).
We still use these same measurements today, but we are more exact and can couple them with several more means of measurment.

Question everything.

Regards, Jon S.

[FrancoLoco]

In the 19th century medical means for estimating time of death was pretty rudimentry compared with today.
If I'm not mistaken the 19th century physician had three principal means to estimate Time of Death, Body Cooling (Algor Mortis), Death Stiffening (Rigor Mortis), and Lividity (Livor Mortis).
We still use these same measurements today, but we are more exact and can couple them with several more means of measurment.

And Dr. Phillips himself, while stating that she had been dead two hours or more, also gave a caveat according to the inquest report: "...but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood."