How many victims?

[MrBarnett]

exactly fiver. she was stabbed to the point of mutilation and also had a CUT to the privates. post mortem overkill

post mortem?

[Guest]

hi man
no one had a key to her room, they lost it. so perhaps if blotchy killed her, he locked (or it locked auto) before he left and closed the door. or barnett (or some one else like hutch) who knew the window trick came later when she was passed out. one things for sure-whoever killed her was the ripper IMHO.

rage (anger, jealousy) does many times point to a personal motive and that they knew each other, but to post mortem mutilate to that extent and remove organs requires a whole different animal. Im not saying barnet couldnt have done it, but if he did, then surely he was the ripper.

(one thing pointing away from barnett though is that when a loved one is murdered, the killer will often, for psychological reasons, will do something like cover them up with a blanket--not leave them horribly displayed)

and i do think mary kelly probably knew her killer, which imho means she knew the the ripper. ive felt for a long time this is one reason why she is the key to this ever being solved, although at this point unlikely.

Abby
Rage born of jealousy for real or imagined wrongs does strange things to the human mind. Abnormal behavior, even in a psychotic episode, can be a "one time thing". Barnett, I'm sure, was quite satisfied with his "revenge", albeit savage and quite unnecessary. He lived until the 1920s, got married and as far as I know lived a "normal" life. He was not JTR, some one else was. Who that may be (IMO) I'll leave until another day.
I agree MJK is a key, but to exactly what, I'm not sure.
The lock to MJK's door was surely an old one and anyone other than the occupant (or former one in Barnett's case) would have left the door unbolted as they left. A person leaves hers/his premises and locks the door from force of habit.

[Scott Nelson]

Stride wasnt mutilated at all. Nor was Tabram.

Well, Stride would have been if her killer hadn't been interrupted. Tabram -- also yes. 39 stab wounds could be considered a type of mutilation.

[Guest]

Stride wasnt mutilated at all. Nor was Tabram. So..another killer at the same time? At least one other for my money, because I dont see the killer of either of those women being a Torso maker either. I think you rely too much on a single active serial killer premise...because as we see today, in much larger populations of course, perhaps 10 or even hundreds of multiple killers killing simultaneously.

Tabram was indeed mutilated, without her intestines sticking out, but mutilated just the same. I'm sticking with the single killer theory. He was escalating, exploring, from Smith to Tabram to Nichols to Chapman to Eddowes and interrupted "doing" Nichols and McKenzie.

[caz]

I'm unclear where there’s any credible evidence that the Ripper had nine or ten victims. That’s taking speculation a very long way. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

More to the point, some serial killers certainly can change their MO. A notable example was that latter-day Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. He changed his method of murder from bashing on the head with a hammer to strangulation. Admittedly he bashed Marguerite Walls on the head before strangling her, but when he attacked Dr. Uphadya Bandara he began his assault by trying to strangle her--an attack that she luckily survived. That’s a radical change in MO--and very late in his series of murders, too, when we’d expect an MO to be firmly established. It threw the police for a loop because they failed to connect these crimes with his other murders. Plus these victims weren’t prostitutes, but very respectable women. Sutcliffe started seeing every woman as a “prostitute” in the end, whether she was or not.

Compared with that, taking or not taking body organs is a minor variation. I would say the Ripper’s primary intention was to hack, destroy, and mutilate, driven by insane hatred. Taking body organs as trophies was a secondary motive that occurred to him along the way. In any case he was developing his MO as he went along, and no doubt ran short of time on more than one occasion, so variations in what he did to his victims were to be expected. I’d be very surprised to hear if he was a cookie-cutter killler who succeeded in doing precisely the same thing to all of his victims.

I have just caught up with this thread and agree with Gordon that the ripper's 'primary intention' seemed to be to destroy his victims, with the trophy taking secondary, if and when the circumstances allowed, but equally if and when he felt like doing so. I'm not sure if he ever went out with his knife determined to try and remove or take away body parts, never mind a specific organ. Just because he could, it doesn't follow that he always would, given half a chance. It seems to me that it's a common mistake to judge the number of ripper victims, based on an assumption that the killer who removed and took away body parts would have been compelled to do so whenever he committed murder, and would only have attacked a woman for that express purpose. Others exclude victims from the ripper's tally using the degree of mutilation or lack of it. When the killer of Nichols and Chapman earned himself the nickname Jack the Ripper, Stride had not yet been murdered, and the nickname had yet to be made public, but the argument goes that because she was not actually ripped, then Jack the Ripper didn't kill her. It's as if he is expected to have lived up to a nickname, which, if he didn't give it to himself, he didn't even know about at the time. Had the author signed himself Jack the Throat Slitter, the same killer would not have let anyone down if he slit Stride's throat and left her unripped, with all her body parts present and intact.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I have just caught up with this thread and agree with Gordon that the ripper's 'primary intention' seemed to be to destroy his victims, with the trophy taking secondary, if and when the circumstances allowed, but equally if and when he felt like doing so. I'm not sure if he ever went out with his knife determined to try and remove or take away body parts, never mind a specific organ. Just because he could, it doesn't follow that he always would, given half a chance. It seems to me that it's a common mistake to judge the number of ripper victims, based on an assumption that the killer who removed and took away body parts would have been compelled to do so whenever he committed murder, and would only have attacked a woman for that express purpose. Others exclude victims from the ripper's tally using the degree of mutilation or lack of it. When the killer of Nichols and Chapman earned himself the nickname Jack the Ripper, Stride had not yet been murdered, and the nickname had yet to be made public, but the argument goes that because she was not actually ripped, then Jack the Ripper didn't kill her. It's as if he is expected to have lived up to a nickname, which, if he didn't give it to himself, he didn't even know about at the time. Had the author signed himself Jack the Throat Slitter, the same killer would not have let anyone down if he slit Stride's throat and left her unripped, with all her body parts present and intact.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

That's a fair point.

I'd say "to be fair", but you've previously extracted the micturate over that phrase, so I'll go with "a fair point". Which it is.

[caz]

Cheers Al Bundy's Eyes. Or can I call you Al?

With my tongue only slightly in my cheek...

To extend the point further, if the Dear Boss author had signed off as 'Womb Raider', would we now be excluding all but Chapman and Eddowes from his tally?

Peter Sutcliffe typically used a hammer and/or his hands, so the Yorkshire Ripper was hardly the most fitting trade name, yet he saw no reason to try to live up to his public image as a late 20th century Jack.

I think, when not ruling out Stride as one of Jack the Throat Slitter's victims, one could make an argument for or against the Dear Boss letter being a hoax. If it was, then the throat slitter didn't know he was meant to rip every time, to rise to 21st century expectations, and messed up in Dutfield's Yard.

If the letter was genuine, then by giving himself the trade name of Ripper, he would soon have a public image to keep up, and one could view his Saucy Jacky postcard as an apologetic postscript to explain why a second victim had to die that night. One could speculate that he was making up for the first, by taking two specific body parts from Eddowes, who didn't have two wombs, but a kidney would do nicely as a consolation prize. Kate and kidney pie would at least be edible, and serve as a takeaway if he arrived home a bit peckish.

Have a splendid weekend, Al.

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

Paul Simon - You Can Call Me Al (Official Video) - YouTube

[Trevor Marriott]

Heart missing + not in the room = taken away (it’s that simple Trevor.)

Further corroboration from the South Wales Daily News 14 November 1888 to the Insp Reids interview with the NOW in which he states no organs were taken from Mary kelly by her killer posted by Chris Phillips on forums

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Further corroboration from the South Wales Daily News 14 November 1888 to the Insp Reids interview with the NOW in which he states no organs were taken from Mary kelly by her killer posted by Chris Phillips on forums



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you any relation to the Trevor Marriott who’s always telling us to place no reliance in anything printed in the press? ;-)

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you any relation to the Trevor Marriott who’s always telling us to place no reliance in anything printed in the press? ;-)

The same, but you misquote me what I say is that it is unsafe, but in this case there is corroboration to what is printed in the press, and that comes from Insp reid who was head of Whietchapel CID and who visited the crime scene and he later gave a live interview with a reporter so as far as evidence is concerned that interview is prime evidence whereas many newspaper reports of the day relating to these murders are secondary evidence.

There are also several other newspapers of the day that carried the same report one being

The Times 12th November

“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

So if the same killer killed Chapman and Eddowes why did he not take away any organs? because he had the chance to remove the whole bodily organs. or was it the case that it was the same killer but he did not take away the organs from Chapman and Eddowes?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

The Times effectively retracted that statement the next day:

From The Times, Nov 13, 1888:
"...The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Seems like for some, Newspaper acticles are getting peoples theories into some bother

Just like over on Schwartzsland.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Times effectively retracted that statement the next day:

From The Times, Nov 13, 1888:
"...The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

- Jeff

I am fully aware of this and other articles but there is no getting away from Insp Reids interview in which he states that no organs were taken away, and I personally am going to go with that interview and the newspapers articles that corroborate what he said. After all we have a police witness who was involved in the case against an ambiguos statement made by Dr Brown. Its a no brainer !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Seems like for some, Newspaper acticles are getting peoples theories into some bother

Just like over on Schwartzsland.

The newspapers contain a lot of contradictory reports. Even if the overall gist of two or more newspaper stories are similar, they often get specific details wrong when compared to police reports and other official documents, and even differ between each other. It is one of the things that leads to different interpretations because at some point one has to either disregard the newspapers altogether, in which case one is left with almost no information to work with, or one has to try and work out what aspects reported in the news reflect reality and fliter out the erroneous bits. And at that point one is, or should be, worried that they've made a mistake in that filtering process. Anything only mentioned in the news, for which there is no official corresponding information, should be viewed with extreme caution as there's nothing more reliable to compare with. Personally, I view memoirs as unreliable for details, prone to exaggeration and egos, although they may be a window to the broader general atmosphere of the time but even that is suspect, as our memory of events from years ago are highly coloured by the intervening years of experience and our thoughts today. Others see them as invaluable sources of untainted information. Clearly, we'll filter information from them differently.

This is why different people can look at the same collection of information and come to diametrically opposed ideas; they effectively apply different filters and so are left drawing conclusions from different subsets of the total evidence. (I hesitate to use the word "evidence" with respect to newspapers, but I'm only using it here in reference to the information we draw upon to access 1888 and I'm not equating it to what would be admissible in court, or what would have guided the police at the time). The catch 22 is, of course, if you don't apply a filter, the information ends up contradicting itself, and so no conclusion at all can be drawn.

- Jeff