Did Jack kill more than three?

[Mitch Rowe]

I think it help if people will read some of the trials that happened around the time to gain an understanding of what exactly Police were about at that time.
As an example in the Mary Pearcy trial I read on the Old Bailey the other day. There was overwhelming witness testimony and blood evidence that Mary had transported the bodies in the Pram. Even so one the the investigators(Maybe even Bond himself)obtained an exact copy of the Pram and made sure it was possible to push it down a narrow hallway as Police supected Mary had done. In addition the investigator mad sure the pram was even able to hold the weight of the two bodies without collapsing.

It seems to me Police were confirming their theory so that Defense could introduce no nasty surprises.

I think that in light of investigating techniques that Police have shown in the Mary Pearcy case we can reasonably assume that Police checked out alternative theories such as Domestic Killing if for no reason other than to cover their ***** in case a Trial ever came to light.

[Barksey]

Hello all

Glenn: I'm not sure that the Brown murder is a very helpful comparison: the wife stated openly that Mr Brown was going to kill her, and he was caught almost immediately after cutting her throat; Mr Brown had a reason for being in the area (aside from throat-slitting), unlike Kidney. It's possible that it was a domestic, but Kidney doesn't appear in any of the listed sightings of men in Berner St that night; the chance seems quite high that he wasnt there to be seen. The 'wound' itself is very similar to the killings of the serial - there was some mud on the right side, suggesting that she had been laying flat at some point, and the cut descends as it travels, as does Eddowes'. As it remains possible that it was the serial known as JtR, I think it should be included as worthy of investigation.

Michael: as to Kelly's age and appearance - all cats look grey in the dark. I doubt that he cared much, and without a birth certificate, how would he know the massive difference in ages (not half their age, more like three-quarters)? The women's faces seem pretty unlined to me, so perhaps the only requirement was the extreme poverty which meant that they had to offer sex to survive. The reports don't mention breakfast supplies or money, so Kelly would certainly have to go out sooner or later in order to feed herself. She may have had a room, but she had almost nothing besides; she may have been younger than the others, but she certainly wasnt much better off than they.

I think there are enough basic similarities in both victims for inclusion in the canon. A killer certainly took the lives of three other women; Stride and Kelly were each killed by an unknown man. So they're both in my canon .

Take Care
Jen

[Mitch Rowe]

That is totally correct, Sam, although I stand by the notion that Kidney has to be treated as the prime suspect if the Ripper didn't do it. But of course that doesn't exclude others.

But again, all that has been debated on other threads.

All the best

Glenn,
And I think Police did that. When Eddowes apron piece was found on the street it wasnt just assumed it came from Eddowes. Although Im sure it seemed obvious at the time. It was in fact examined and matched to the apron Eddowes was wearing.
This shows me that although Police could have easily jumped to conclusions they didnt. They made sure that what they assumed was a piece of Eddowes apron was in fact just that.

Im reasonably assured they did that sort of checking out before assuming conclusively that Stride or MJK were in fact Ripper Murders.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No, we can not, Mitch,

You miss the whole context. The Mary Pearce case was not linked to the Ripper, and the whole Ripper investigation was weighed down by immense pressure from the national and international newspapers not to mention the fat that radical forces used the murders as political ammunition. It was a massive investigation of a completely different nature than the Mary Pearce case.

Heck, even modern police investigations screw up and make hasty decisions, not to mention committing serious errors. At least in the Pearce case we have reasonable information about what they did do, but we shouldn't expect the police of 1888 to handle the murders without wrong judgmenets or errors, especially with the very difficult context and work situation taken in consideration.

All the best

[Mitch Rowe]

No, we can not, Mitch,

You miss the whole context. The Mary Pearce case was not linked to the Ripper, and the whole Ripper investigation was weighed down by immense pressure from the national and international newspapers not to mention the fat that radical forces used the murders as political ammunition. It was a massive investigation of a completely different nature than the Mary Pearce case.

Heck, even modern police investigations screw up and make hasty decisions, not to mention committing serious errors. At least in the Pearce case we have reasonable information about what they did do, but we shouldn't expect the police of 1888 to handle the murders without wrong judgmenets or errors, especially with the very difficult context and work situation taken in consideration.

All the best

Well...If they didnt Glenn. Then you may be in luck. There may be evidence to support your theories that Police may have turned a blind eye to at the time.

Uncover it and I may begin to change my mind.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Mitch,

Glenn,
And I think Police did that. When Eddowes apron piece was found on the street it wasnt just assumed it came from Eddowes. Although Im sure it seemed obvious at the time. It was in fact examined and matched to the apron Eddowes was wearing.
This shows me that although Police could have easily jumped to conclusions they didnt. They made sure that what they assumed was a piece of Eddowes apron was in fact just that.

You know as well as anyone that all that has been debated to death on the Stride threads already. I am not going to go over those points again for the up-tenth time on yet another. Especially not the tedious point about Kidney 'being a prime suspect' by the police. You know my position on this.

Comparing a piece of apron to an apron on a murder victim isn't really rocket science - I would expect them to be able to do that much, at least, and thankfully they did.

But there is no reason whatsoever to 'assume' that they covered other angles of the murders sufficiently, considering the vast pressure they were subjected to in order to 'catch Jack the Ripper'. This was not the ordinary murder case but a serial killer case - a context of which they had no prior experience - with great political and social implications - under such circumstances wrong judgements and erronous decisions are often made, even by modern police forces under less difficult circumstances.

Im reasonably assured they did that sort of checking out before assuming conclusively that Stride or MJK were in fact Ripper Murders.

Yes, your confidence in a police force from 1888 is touching.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well...If they didnt Glenn. Then you may be in luck. There may be evidence to support your theories that Police may have turned a blind eye to at the time.

Uncover it and I may begin to change my mind.

Mitch,

In my experience there is nothing I could ever write to change your mind simply because you have already made your mind up.

All the best

[Mitch Rowe]

Mitch,

In my experience there is nothing I could ever write to change your mind simply because you have already made your mind up.

All the best

Glenn,
That is an incorrect statement. Mind is never 100% made up. As an example.
I do not feel as if there is any significant chance in H*** that JTR was a Woman. Yet I will follow any "leads" I feel may be significant in that direction and I will even speculate to the point of wild outlandish theories just so I can be satisfied that Im covering all Bases.

Ther is only one thing in all of this that I have come to 100% assurety on. And thats that the same person who killed AC also killed MJK!

That is it..And most likely that is all there ever will be. Im perfectly willing to consider any theory as long as I feel a person has presented credible evidence for that theory. Not speculation. Not typical Profiling evidence.

And concerning Profiling I want to get something straight. I do take Profiling seriously. But I know that it is only a guess about what the killer might have been or who he.she/they were. Somewhat more of an educated guess but any and/or all points made in a Profile can be wrong and totally off base.

So...If you feel my mind is closed on some matters then I say you are incorrect unless Im not able to see myself correctly in the mirror.

But my mind is pretty much closed on one matter. And I have previously stated that.

[Vigilantee]

>Those are exactly the kind of erronous misconceptions that have clouded the discussions about the Mary Kelly case continously.
As has been said repeatedly on other threads, such domestic mutilation murders are not at very unusual - in fact, more people than we expect are 'psychologically capable' of more bizarre stuff than we realize, as several such crimes reveal.

That might br true for contemporary times, when mental illness has run out of control, but its absurd to say its true for the 19th cent. Certainly in Britain. Though you can trace these kinds of psycho killings in eastern europe in the early 19th century gradually moving across Europe and arriving in Britain slightly before Jack's time. But the magnitude of the kelly crime was unheard of when it happened. Of course its not only this that makes kelly a definite.

>I have seen several many crime scene photos from domestic killings that are of the same magnitued as the Kelly murder and some that are even worse, perpetrated by people who have no prior criminal record and who certainly aren't any master criminals - only husbands or boyfriends who snaps during a >psychotic episode or a fit of rage, jealousy.

I don't doubt it.

>To be frank, the crime scene photo from Miller's Court more accurately fits those I've seen from domestic mutilation murders rather than the works of serial killers - such very excessive mutilations can often be a result of personal emotional connection between perpetrator and victim, not the oppsoite, as many seems to think. We've had many such cases in Sweden >and Scandinavia.

I dont think Jack is a 'serial killer' in the modern sense, i.e. a paranoid schizoprenic, theres little to indicate this. I think he's a sociopath with some kind of degenerative mental illness involving rage and aggression. Though in many ways his killings are quite merciful. In this respect I see him as similar to today's rage killers, so this is exactly what I would expect.

>In your defense, I was equally naive in my perception about what seemingly ordinary people are able to do and not do before I sat down and started to study 'interpersonal' crimes and domestic homicide. Again, for English literature on the subject I recommed in this case former NYPD investigator >Vernon J Geberth's manual Practical Homicide Investigation.

Yes, but this mainly applies to the degenerate society of our age with its widespread sociopathy and social and psychological breakdowns. Although times were economically bad and early industrialism was reaking social havoc in Victorian England there was still enough of a community to prevent widespread dangers of this kind. It was only with increased immigration that this became an issue.

>No offense, but I also have to protest against your view on the Stride murder as an 'expert' killing. Sure the killer managed to arrive and leave without being seen but the murder as such was certainly no expert murder and the wound in the throat made with less determination and skill than those on the other victims. Yes, it was deep enough on one side, but deep throat cuts were not unusual in Victorian London. On the same night as the double event - the same night (speaking of coincidences) - the gardener John Brown cut the throat of his wife Sarah and stabbed her in a rage of >delirium and jealousy in their home in Westminster.

Well yes, it was a poor job compared to the others, but as you say he was undetected and no cries were heard, so pretty good.

>However, I agree that the 'coincidence' of the Eddowes murder discovered 45 minutes later the same night is a valid argument for including Stride in the series and in my view the only appealing aspect. That said, too many question marks remain during that murder in order to 'canonize' her or say >anything with certainty.

Yes and both near social clubs. Seems overwealmingly likely to me. I don't think we need to worry too much about certainty, no ones going to get hung



>That said, we will never know if the Kelly or Stride murder were Ripper killings or not, and they could very well be. But several circumstances surrounding them surely - in my view - must allow them to remain open to debate and not belong to a canon.
>

Sure, if u are looking for certainty. I'm merely operating on scientific lines that everything is a working hypothesis and nothing ever proven or certain.
Ultimately the only criminal evidence is to catch someone in the act
So my current conclusions from the evidence I have now is that the canon of five stands. If I see more evidence or existing evidence is undermined I may change my view...

[Doctor X]

Vigilantee, do me a favor. Pretend that { is a [.

Then use: {quote}Jane, you ignorant slut you!{/quote}

It makes it easier to see what be you and what be . . . be . . . not you.

That might br true for contemporary times, when mental illness has run out of control, . . .

I am unaware that it is "out of control." One has to remember that better diagnosis and treatment skews data.

I dont think Jack is a 'serial killer' in the modern sense, i.e. a paranoid schizoprenic, . . .

I am unaware of modern serial killers being paranoid schizophrenic. Bundy, Gacy, BTK, Green River, Dion did not demonstrate a failure to perceive reality.

In this respect I see him as similar to today's rage killers, so this is exactly what I would expect.

Rage killers tend to be less merciful or concerned about such things--killing out of rage. Unless I am missing something.

Yes, but this mainly applies to the degenerate society of our age with its widespread sociopathy and social and psychological breakdowns.

Uh . . . what? And Whitechapel was Shangri-La? I do not think you can read such onto the case.

--J.D.

[perrymason]

I believe one crucial aspect of the average human beings view of themselves taints their ability to see a key issue with objectivity....a very large portion of us are capable of acts that many would consider horrible,... even ourselves. I think of the guy in the movie Saw who decides to cut off his foot, which being a doctor he knows will likely kill him, in a futile gesture to save his wife and child. Im quite sure he would have sawed the others guys off in a second if it would accomplish that.

Is he a monster, being capable of such a savage act?

Its all about what drives the men that killed the street "unfortunates", its not about only one man in the area being capable and willing to kill whores with knives while they worked, the Canon is approximately half of the murders of street whores investigated during that period.

So I think temper your opinions on what "horrible" really means, isnt what a Butcher does daily kind of "horrible"...but yet he only does it because you buy the meat......and recognize that its on record that we are looking for more than one man for whore murders in 1888/89 anyway.

Best regards all.

[Vigilantee]

do me a favor. ......

It makes it easier to see what be you and what be . . . be . . . not you.

Ok was trying to work out how :P

I am unaware that it is "out of control." One has to remember that better diagnosis and treatment skews data.

I'd say psychiatry is still very much in the dark. I'm with Foucault on the idea theres no such thing as 'madness', its a merely a biased umberella term.
Too often 'eccentrics' or 'outsiders' are labelled 'mad' and the 'socially disfunctional' not, if they can still hold down a job on the production line.
It would be embarrassing for Capitalism to admit how many disfunctional people it creates today. But thats a whole nother subject beyond our scope here Tis all I meant by 'out of control'. lots of people are on the edge today....

I am unaware of modern serial killers being paranoid schizophrenic. Bundy, Gacy, BTK, Green River, Dion did not demonstrate a failure to perceive reality.

Well quite a few are. But I realised that was an over generalisation as soon as I'd written it. Basically though sane people are incapable of killing in cold blood (armies develop a range of techniques to distort this), so any cold blooded killer is a psycho by definition. What I should say was that Jack wasnt really the same as any of these. Even after they caught him he behaved differently (hint)

Rage killers tend to be less merciful or concerned about such things--killing out of rage. Unless I am missing something.

Well put it this way, most serial killers are sadists I would suggest, Jack wasnt he seemed to need to kill and mutilate, but he went out of his way to ensure the victims didnt suffer too much, probably a nice guy really in a weird twisted sort of way. Makes me wonder if he was even a proper sociopath! Rage killings are often personal, so yes cruel, but Jack's rage seems impersonal and general. Some form of brain damage? I think its a mistake to get too inductive about stereotypical killers (black swans and all that).

Uh . . . what? And Whitechapel was Shangri-La? I do not think you can read such onto the case.

Not at all. But these kind of crimes are related to alienation, and increase with the breakdown of community, or in areas were displaced people gather with no community support. If some toff had his throat slashed by one of the dispossessed or someone in the community was being robbed or extorted, that fits the kind of criminal background of that society. But these are the crimes of someone detached from his victims, not a community rooted criminal.

[Vigilantee]

Well you run the risk of promoting a very 'right wing' view of human nature then, which is largely delusional. I note though all youre actually saying is that people will do anything to survive which is very true. But there are no
sane survival factors involved here, apart from survival of sanity perhaps.

And anyone who doesnt think the crimes are 'horrible' really has to be sick in the head.

I believe one crucial aspect of the average human beings view of themselves taints their ability to see a key issue with objectivity....a very large portion of us are capable of acts that many would consider horrible,... even ourselves. I think of the guy in the movie Saw who decides to cut off his foot, which being a doctor he knows will likely kill him, in a futile gesture to save his wife and child. Im quite sure he would have sawed the others guys off in a second if it would accomplish that.

Is he a monster, being capable of such a savage act?

Its all about what drives the men that killed the street "unfortunates", its not about only one man in the area being capable and willing to kill whores with knives while they worked, the Canon is approximately half of the murders of street whores investigated during that period.

So I think temper your opinions on what "horrible" really means, isnt what a Butcher does daily kind of "horrible"...but yet he only does it because you buy the meat......and recognize that its on record that we are looking for more than one man for whore murders in 1888/89 anyway.

Best regards all.

[Doctor X]

I'd say psychiatry is still very much in the dark. I'm with Foucault. . . .

What does he know about psychiatry?

. . . the idea theres no such thing as 'madness', its a merely a biased umberella term.

First stated by Satz, and it was wrong then as it is now.

Basically though sane people are incapable of killing in cold blood. . . .

Wrong.

(armies develop a range of techniques to distort this), so any cold blooded killer is a psycho by definition.

No he is not. Some are. Some are not.

Well put it this way, most serial killers are sadists I would suggest, . . .

There are some that would disagree with you on that; however, I will note that that does not make them "paranoid schizophrenics."

You then provide a lot of speculations which, frankly, are just that.

--J.D.

[Barksey]

What does he know about psychiatry?

"Madness and Civilization", first published in French 1961 . Although Vigi is interpreting Foucault's theory of insanity a bit too liberally Foucault's main focus of attack is knowledge and metanarrative. Postmodernists, eh

First stated by Satz, and it was wrong then as it is now.

Yeah, it was a close thing tho...Szasz published 1960, Foucault the year after I also think that some of the things Szasz said needed saying at the time, much like Laing's work on the subject.


I would certainly agree with you that there's no indication that killers are paranoid schizophrenics. I don't think they have webbed feet or polydactyly either

Jen