Final killing -planned ?

[Gordon]

FYI, Octav: a minor addendum to what I said earlier. I just refreshed my memory, and no, Martha Tabram didn’t have a private room either, just as I thought. She had shared one with Henry Turner, whose name she took, but that wouldn’t have offered a venue for her to take clients. Anyway they ran out of money and left the place owing rent, and like all the other victims except Mary, she was sleeping in rooming houses in the weeks prior to her murder.

[Michael W Richards]

Do you think JTR final killing (Mary Kelly) was planned ? Did the other victims have access to rooms for sex ? Or did JTR plan outside killings - and then decide his final one would be indoors?
Although , it seems odd that he stopped when he experienced his ultimate kill -and would have further needed to satisfy his bloodlust further ?

I believe that the so called final of the Five was committed by someone known well to Mary, and I also think Wideawake likely had a role to play in the murder. I also believe that when you look at the first 2 murders, which I believe are the most representative of the killer who earned this Ripper nickname, he shows a preference for picking up street women desperate enough to trust him and more obvious in the case of the latter, he kills them so he can do further damage.

The reason I bring these points up again is that the last murder in the "series" is unlike previous Ripper attributable murders in many ways. Some choose to imagine that now that he has a room he can really go nuts cutting the victim up, some others like me see the lack of intention and focus that was present in Annies mutilations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed by 2 different men must be a millions to one and with no sensible reason to make us think otherwise. And then another for Kelly? How many deranged maniacs were on the loose at the same time and operating in such a tiny area? I’d say there’s more chance of Kelly being killed by Bigfoot.

[Gordon]

Herlock, I can’t resist adding an amused remark to what you said.

There’s another thread somewhere that someone commented on recently, where the OP asked “How many killers were there really?” Counting Clay Pipe Alice, Emma Smith and the rest, four torso murders, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all? I should really be posting this on that thread, except that I can’t find it again right now.

Well, the hypothetical answer is “as many killers as there were murders!”--a different killer for each one. But seriously, that’s ridiculous considering the similarities among the acknowledged Ripper series at least, and the unlikelihood of so many deranged maniacs all happening to operate at the same time.

Of course, there are always arguments for excluding a victim from the Ripper series--Liz Stride especially, Mary Kelly too, debating Martha Tabram and so on. However, that’s looking at it backwards: that’s to say, starting with the assumption of a set of Ripper victims that others have taken for granted, and arguing who ought to be excluded as well as who ought to be added. The OP I referred to (whoever he or she was) at least asked the right question: “How do we postulate a series in the first place?” And my answer is that we start from “first principles.” We look for a pattern of similarity. Or possibly more than one pattern, since there could indeed be more than one killer.

Obviously we start with the most similar, and try to build outwards from there. Are other killings similar enough to be likely additions to the series? Not that we can be sure; it’s all a matter of probabilities, after all; but some probabilities are greater than others.

So where would we start with the Ripper series? Well, I’m one hundred percent in agreement with you that the place to start is with the murders of Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes. These above all are “more similar” than any of the other murders, the two “anchor points” of the entire series. After that I’d add Polly Nichols as an “obvious” third, taking into account the coincidence of timing beside other factors, just a week before Annie Chapman’s murder.

After that it’s all up for grabs, to one degree or another. Yet by and large I can never recall anyone disputing that Polly, Annie and Kate were all “Ripper victims.”

Except for one lady here some years ago whose name I can’t recall, who believed that Kate Eddowes was not part of the series.

On what grounds? Not that her murder was “different.” The sole thing “different” about Kate’s murder was that it was “just over the border” in the City of London, not in Whitechapel. A pure accident of geography, and that’s all. But the lady in question believed that Kate’s murder was done by another hand from Annie’s, not because they were “different,” but for the opposite reason: because they were similar! Specifically, she believed for some reason that Kate’s had to be a “copycat” killing!

It’s enough to make anyone throw up their hands in despair. But the punchline of this joke? I don’t believe there were as many murderers as there were murders. But there are certainly as many theories as there are theorists!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Philadelphia Times, December 3 1888

[Herlock Sholmes]

Philadelphia Times, December 3 1888

Conspiracy theorists existed in Victorian England too then.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I can’t resist adding an amused remark to what you said.

There’s another thread somewhere that someone commented on recently, where the OP asked “How many killers were there really?” Counting Clay Pipe Alice, Emma Smith and the rest, four torso murders, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all? I should really be posting this on that thread, except that I can’t find it again right now.

Well, the hypothetical answer is “as many killers as there were murders!”--a different killer for each one. But seriously, that’s ridiculous considering the similarities among the acknowledged Ripper series at least, and the unlikelihood of so many deranged maniacs all happening to operate at the same time.

Of course, there are always arguments for excluding a victim from the Ripper series--Liz Stride especially, Mary Kelly too, debating Martha Tabram and so on. However, that’s looking at it backwards: that’s to say, starting with the assumption of a set of Ripper victims that others have taken for granted, and arguing who ought to be excluded as well as who ought to be added. The OP I referred to (whoever he or she was) at least asked the right question: “How do we postulate a series in the first place?” And my answer is that we start from “first principles.” We look for a pattern of similarity. Or possibly more than one pattern, since there could indeed be more than one killer.

Obviously we start with the most similar, and try to build outwards from there. Are other killings similar enough to be likely additions to the series? Not that we can be sure; it’s all a matter of probabilities, after all; but some probabilities are greater than others.

So where would we start with the Ripper series? Well, I’m one hundred percent in agreement with you that the place to start is with the murders of Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes. These above all are “more similar” than any of the other murders, the two “anchor points” of the entire series. After that I’d add Polly Nichols as an “obvious” third, taking into account the coincidence of timing beside other factors, just a week before Annie Chapman’s murder.

After that it’s all up for grabs, to one degree or another. Yet by and large I can never recall anyone disputing that Polly, Annie and Kate were all “Ripper victims.”

Except for one lady here some years ago whose name I can’t recall, who believed that Kate Eddowes was not part of the series.

On what grounds? Not that her murder was “different.” The sole thing “different” about Kate’s murder was that it was “just over the border” in the City of London, not in Whitechapel. A pure accident of geography, and that’s all. But the lady in question believed that Kate’s murder was done by another hand from Annie’s, not because they were “different,” but for the opposite reason: because they were similar! Specifically, she believed for some reason that Kate’s had to be a “copycat” killing!

It’s enough to make anyone throw up their hands in despair. But the punchline of this joke? I don’t believe there were as many murderers as there were murders. But there are certainly as many theories as there are theorists!

I can’t dispute any of that Gordon. Stride of course might not have been a victim but the possibility exists that Tabram and Mackenzie were so we’re into interpretation territory as ever. The sheer horror of the Kelly murder, coming just after the horror of the Eddowes murder makes it close to impossible for me to believe them the acts of two perpetrators.

I think that we can sometimes overthink the mutilations (or nitpick) and talk about different depths of neck wounds and angles of incision etc as a method of differentiating to suggest different killers. Differences can occur due to outside influences as we know. How, for example, do we know that the killer wasn’t ambidextrous? How do we know that he didn’t damage his knife during one murder and so have to use another for the next? How do we know that the killer didn’t gain an injury which affected his actions? How do we know the extent to which each individual struggled and which victim might have been stronger than the other and so hamper the killer more? After all, the killer wasn’t working knife in one hand, serial killer mutilation instruction booklet in the other. I can’t envisage a modern police investigation doing anything but, at the very least, consider Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as victims of the same hand. With Stride as a likely possibility. Yes, the Kelly murder was a different level of horror, but we have a very obvious and very plausible possible explanation for this in the fact that, unusually for women in her position, she had her own room.

No 100%’s as ever though Gordon

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Conspiracy theorists existed in Victorian England too then.

Although the term 'conspiracy theory' didn't have the emotional connotations that is does today

[Herlock Sholmes]

Although the term 'conspiracy theory' didn't have the emotional connotations that is does today

Probably because they weren’t so rife then.

[Michael W Richards]

I think the 30,00 ft view is sometimes needed to fully explore the problems with assigning more than 1 kill to an unknown killer. For one, how good is the data? For another, are there environmental issues, political or economic, that might have influence on what we are seeing. The 30,000 foot view shows a desperately overcrowded East End, Socialist ideals being pushed forward, you have extreme poverty and nothing like whats now available in terms of supports. You have known criminals, suspected criminals and Terrorists and Anarchists actively carry on their agendas. Youve got spies, double agents, a public hearing into the possibility Irish self rule factions are within parliament, and all the senior officers dealing with espionage, national security and Counter Intelligence are assigned to these murders. These streetwalker murders.

From 30, 000 Im sure youd agree that there is a lot of possible problems with that scenario, including reasons to silence people.

This is why the possibility of conspiracy or story fabrication is a reality. No matter how disparagingly people use the Conspiracy terminology, its a viable storyline. How many different stories, different views, different storylines do these detectives provide us with? How can they not have shared the same information and proceeded to similar if not matching conclusions? Do we know we have a suspect interview in a Seaside Home, do we have assurances that all of the information from those investigations is available, are we remaining cognizant of the fact that no 2 murders have ever been unanimously and conclusively linked by a single killer. The unknowns remain unknown, and therefore premature assumptions about a head count by killer are an exercise in futility. There is only speculation that forms a Canonical Group, thats should be the pivot point for all storylines. Evidence first.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is no evidence for a conspiracy. Do we think for a second that when the police are investigating murders with very obvious links, whether in the Victorian Era or in modern times, they would think “well we have to consider the possibility of a conspiracy because there are some discontented people around?” No, they would see women of the same class, all with their throats cut and with mutilations (apart from one but they see a plausible reason for this) all within a very small area over the space of less than 3 months. This absolutely screams “one killer” about as loudly as it gets.

There’s conflicting evidence in the Chapman murder so why no conspiracy there? To propose a conspiracy/cover up solid evidence is required and not just a few discrepancies for someone to fit a scenario around. Take the most logical, likely route first and then see if there’s anything major to throw against it. In this case there just isn’t. Jack the Ripper was a serial killer. It might not be revisionist enough for some or interesting enough for others but that’s how it goes.

It might be said that I’m anti-conspiracy theory? Too right. It’s the scourge of humanity. A discipline inhabited largely by the certifiable with far too much time on their hands (those comments are not directed at anyone on this Forum btw) It’s so prevalent these days that it warps far too many peoples thinking. There are people around who actually believe that Donald Trump isn’t an alien!

[Michael W Richards]

This is no evidence for a conspiracy. Do we think for a second that when the police are investigating murders with very obvious links, whether in the Victorian Era or in modern times, they would think “well we have to consider the possibility of a conspiracy because there are some discontented people around?” No, they would see women of the same class, all with their throats cut and with mutilations (apart from one but they see a plausible reason for this) all within a very small area over the space of less than 3 months. This absolutely screams “one killer” about as loudly as it gets.

There’s conflicting evidence in the Chapman murder so why no conspiracy there? To propose a conspiracy/cover up solid evidence is required and not just a few discrepancies for someone to fit a scenario around. Take the most logical, likely route first and then see if there’s anything major to throw against it. In this case there just isn’t. Jack the Ripper was a serial killer. It might not be revisionist enough for some or interesting enough for others but that’s how it goes.

It might be said that I’m anti-conspiracy theory? Too right. It’s the scourge of humanity. A discipline inhabited largely by the certifiable with far too much time on their hands (those comments are not directed at anyone on this Forum btw) It’s so prevalent these days that it warps far too many peoples thinking. There are people around who actually believe that Donald Trump isn’t an alien!

What I was attempting to highlight was the fact that the these particular years in that particular place were bound to be violent. Too many influences for that to be avoided. The fact that less than half of the Unsolved Murders were suggested as connected by one killer, some which include this throat slitting that for some reason people consider a rarity. Its a rarity now, but not then. Cheap, easiest to obtain and to conceal weapon.

The Trump reference is apt I think, especially for the half hearted coup attempt, because it demonstrates just how influential and dangerous incorrect ideas and false premises can be now that we are so socially mediated. The populous of any civilized city, in this case the great city of London, contains all sorts of elements intent on crime, insurrection, revolt, revolution..for a variety of reasons. All these flash points were there...poverty, density, predjudice, unsatisfied with the government, the Industrial Revolutions' gears were coming loose. There were other killers than someone who sought to mutilate the victims after he kills them, its right there in the stats, I think that its much more prudent to try match one with just one other than use a premise that attempts to link one with all. Its the least probale answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I was attempting to highlight was the fact that the these particular years in that particular place were bound to be violent. Too many influences for that to be avoided. The fact that less than half of the Unsolved Murders were suggested as connected by one killer, some which include this throat slitting that for some reason people consider a rarity. Its a rarity now, but not then. Cheap, easiest to obtain and to conceal weapon.

The Trump reference is apt I think, especially for the half hearted coup attempt, because it demonstrates just how influential and dangerous incorrect ideas and false premises can be now that we are so socially mediated. The populous of any civilized city, in this case the great city of London, contains all sorts of elements intent on crime, insurrection, revolt, revolution..for a variety of reasons. All these flash points were there...poverty, density, predjudice, unsatisfied with the government, the Industrial Revolutions' gears were coming loose. There were other killers than someone who sought to mutilate the victims after he kills them, its right there in the stats, I think that its much more prudent to try match one with just one other than use a premise that attempts to link one with all. Its the least probale answer.

The fact remains that there is zero evidence for a conspiracy and so one has to be manufactured by quibbling about discrepancies. The links between the murders on the other hand are very real and so we can make plausible inferences. The inferences in this case of one killer are unavoidable and obvious. To challenge this we need real evidence and not a scenario based on a notion about Schwartz which the facts have 100% dismissed added to two witnesses in a club guessing the time.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fact remains that there is zero evidence for a conspiracy and so one has to be manufactured by quibbling about discrepancies. The links between the murders on the other hand are very real and so we can make plausible inferences. The inferences in this case of one killer are unavoidable and obvious. To challenge this we need real evidence and not a scenario based on a notion about Schwartz which the facts have 100% dismissed added to two witnesses in a club guessing the time.

What do you mean by conspiracy, in this case?
Do you mean something like Wess and Diemschitz persuading Schwartz to go the police station, dressed in theatrical garb, and telling a tall tale behind an interpreter?
Do you regard that as being on the same level as someone suggesting the moon landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick?

As for a lack of evidence, perhaps you could tell us what is going on with this...

Der Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5:

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.
…
At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body.

So the paper knew when the murder occurred, but also claimed the body was 'discovered' at 1am.
Please explain this gross anomaly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you mean by conspiracy, in this case?
Do you mean something like Wess and Diemschitz persuading Schwartz to go the police station, dressed in theatrical garb, and telling a tall tale behind an interpreter?
Do you regard that as being on the same level as someone suggesting the moon landings were filmed by Stanley Kubrick?

Yes because there’s no reliable evidence for either. Both are equally valueless examples of time wasting.

As for a lack of evidence, perhaps you could tell us what is going on with this...

Der Arbeter Fraint, Oct 5:

The first murder occurred on Saturday night about a quarter to one.
…
At about one o’clock the steward of the club, Comrade Louis Dimshits, came with his cart from the market. He was the first to notice the dead body.

So the paper knew when the murder occurred, but also claimed the body was 'discovered' at 1am.
Please explain this gross anomaly.

The body was discovered around 1.00 by Diemschutz therefore the murder must have occurred before 1.00. They guessed at 12.45. So what?

”Please can everyone step away from the conspiracy. There’s nothing to see here except desperation.”