Home office report

[Jeff Leahy]

Lynn I dont recall saying that I could provide examples of sexual serial killers between 1880-90

My whole point is that Serial killing phenomina is very rare and distinctly different to crimes of a political nature...

There are of course other serial killers with their own MO in this period the Torso murderer for a start, not to mention Chapman and Cream...

or even earlier the Radcliff Highway murders...

To some extend it might be argued that Jack was father to a modern type of sexual serial killer: Baton Rouge, Paul Bernardo, David Berkowitz,Kenneth Bianchi, Boston Strangler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish,Eddie Gein, Green River killer, Michael Swango, Fred and Rose west, the Zodiac Killer, Mark Dixie

The list goes on...

But Jack the Ripper fitted into this pattern. Yes there are differences in his victims but those differences are marked by their smilarities, targeting the abdoman, esqualation, the ablitoration of MJK body....

These murderers were perpetrated by a lone sexual serial killer.

They were not hits by a politically revolutionary group.

Pirtate

[Jonathan H]

Pirate,

I think you are essentially correct about serial killers in general.

On the other hand, I accept the Cullen thesis that Druitt could have killed prostitutes anywhere in London, and therefore he did have a political agenda in constantly returning to impoverished East End -- specifically the 'evil quarter mile' designated the abyss-within-the-abyss by social reformers.

[lynn cates]

coda

Hello Jeff.

"Lynn I don't recall saying that I could provide examples of sexual serial killers between 1880-90"

I thought that was our deal? Very well. I shall stifle my disappointment.

"My whole point is that [the s]erial killing phenom[e]n[on] is very rare and distinctly different [from] crimes of a political nature..."

Quite possibly so. But must not one ascertain first that a number of crimes is part of a series? There is an intelligence test given whereby one is to ascertain the next number in a series. In general, one is called on to discover a function whereby one predicts the next integer. In a few cases, the correct answer is, "None of the above" as there is no true series.

Also, my point is that political revenge killings CAN be savage. I am sure you are familiar with the Ton Ton Makout and their necklaces?

"There are of course other serial killers with their own MO in this period the Torso murderer for a start . . . "

Given, of course, there is a unique individual responsible.

" . . . not to mention Chapman and Cream..."

And their MO seems fairly pat.

"To some exten[t] it might be argued that Jack was father to a modern type of sexual serial killer . . ."

Indeed. IF there was a JTR. But even if not, people like Kurten READ about the supposed case and, to some extent, emulated him/them. But my contention is that the killer/s of the C5 NEVER read those who came after--nor yet Sigmund Freud. And so I advise that one NOT put the cart before the horse.

"But Jack the Ripper fit into this pattern. Yes there are differences in his victims but those differences are marked by their s[i]milarities, targeting the abdom[e]n, es[c]alation . . ."

Except for Liz. And this, of course, rules out McKenzie as she was NOT part of an escalation.--unless one makes another exception.

"These murderers were perpetrated by a lone sexual serial killer."

Nice theory--and one MUST theorise. But the evidence?

"They were not hits by a politically revolutionary group."

Again, this is only a theory to guide research. There is as much evidence for one as for the other--zero.

Good luck with AK.

Now, let us return this thread to the long suffering Glyn. I am content.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Quite possibly so. But must not one ascertain first that a number of crimes is part of a series? There is an intelligence test given whereby one is to ascertain the next number in a series. In general, one is called on to discover a function whereby one predicts the next integer. In a few cases, the correct answer is, "None of the above" as there is no true series.

Yes I'm aware that there are a large number of posters who seem to discount that Nichols, Chapman, Eddows and MJK were perpetrated by the same hand.

But then their are those that agrue the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat.

Take it from me they were killed by the same man. Finish.

Also, my point is that political revenge killings CAN be savage. I am sure you are familiar with the Ton Ton Makout and their necklaces?

Yes you keep claiming this. I refer you back again to Bonds autopsie report and ask you to provide other example of post mortum mutilation carried out in this way?

And you continually wriggle out because you cant do so. Your theory has no evidence to support it, just your wishful thinking.

"There are of course other serial killers with their own MO in this period the Torso murderer for a start . . . "

Given, of course, there is a unique individual responsible.

" . . . not to mention Chapman and Cream..."

And their MO seems fairly pat.

And?

"To some exten[t] it might be argued that Jack was father to a modern type of sexual serial killer . . ."

Indeed. IF there was a JTR. But even if not, people like Kurten READ about the supposed case and, to some extent, emulated him/them. But my contention is that the killer/s of the C5 NEVER read those who came after--nor yet Sigmund Freud. And so I advise that one NOT put the cart before the horse.

Take my word. There was a JtR. Who killed at least four women, possibly six, may be seven. You can deduce this by taking the trouble to read the autopsie reports and examining the medical evidence.

You dont need to consult Sigmund Freud or put any carts before a horse.

"But Jack the Ripper fit into this pattern. Yes there are differences in his victims but those differences are marked by their s[i]milarities, targeting the abdom[e]n, es[c]alation . . ."

Except for Liz. And this, of course, rules out McKenzie as she was NOT part of an escalation.--unless one makes another exception..

Having studied the Berner street murders at length I conclude Stirde was a ripper victim (Many thanks for your recent statistics Colin)

However I except the MO varied slightly from the other four....I mean attacked from behind not not mutilated..

"These murderers were perpetrated by a lone sexual serial killer."

Nice theory--and one MUST theorise. But the evidence?

READ THE MEDICAL REPORTS.

"They were not hits by a politically revolutionary group."

Again, this is only a theory to guide research. There is as much evidence for one as for the other--zero.

No Lynn, all the EVIDENCE points to a lone serial killer (and your talking to someone who some years ago toyed with a dual killer theory)

But Study of the evidence points to a lone killer.

What there is Zero evidence for is the the Whitechapel murders were Fenian related hits or some kind of bizarre religous hits or masonic rituals or witch craft or aliens from outer space.

Jack the Ripper was not an invention of the press, a Royal conspiracy or the work of a surreal artist or a forged Diary...

Everything says lone serial killer...

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,

I think you are essentially correct about serial killers in general.

On the other hand, I accept the Cullen thesis that Druitt could have killed prostitutes anywhere in London, and therefore he did have a political agenda in constantly returning to impoverished East End -- specifically the 'evil quarter mile' designated the abyss-within-the-abyss by social reformers.

Yeah I dont but it because prostitution was common across London. Druits arrival point was Cannon street and there were safer easier killing feilds close by...

That said that cunning person Caz recently pionted out you do have an example to support your theory....Colin Ireland travelled to one specific place to pick up his victims...although they were all gay...

So the possibility is there....I'd simply argue statistically AK is a more probable match than MJD

Pirate

[Phil H]

Yes I'm aware that there are a large number of posters who seem to discount that Nichols, Chapman, Eddows and MJK were perpetrated by the same hand.

And quite rightly too. Scepticism about conventional wisdoms is always healthy.

But then their are those that agrue the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat.

I've never done that, Pirate. But I do frequently argue that you are a figment of my imagination....

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

And quite rightly too. Scepticism about conventional wisdoms is always healthy.

Not when it flies in the face of the facts, it simply disappears up its own...

I've never done that, Pirate. But I do frequently argue that you are a figment of my imagination....

Phil

Ah! Existencial philosophy, a George Berkeley man....another mad Irishman

[Phil H]

Me: Scepticism about conventional wisdoms is always healthy.

Pirate: Not when it flies in the face of the facts, it simply disappears up its own...

But the facts are simply what you see them to be - how YOU have fitted the mosaic together. Your reconstruction of history will always say more about you, than it does about the past. Same for mine...

Historical reconstruction is ALWAYS subjective, never objective. There may be seeming "facts" (historical references, documents, objects), but it is our interpretation of those, how we see their context etc that matters.

One of the problem about assessing men like Anderson and Melville Macnaghten is that our perception of such figures, in todays's less deferential age, in a time that has vastly different values, has altered. We now assess them from a position that has little understanding of theirs (not least of Anderson's Christianity) and is indeed cynical and questioning about Victorian values generally.

That is why I find the deconstruction of the Ripper case so fascinating. When The Killer Who Never Was" came out some years ago, I was initially socked. But as the concept sunk in it made me question evertything and look at each murder from a fresh perspective. I realised how straight-jacketed we had become by the imposed views of Macnaghten (5 victims etc) and that there were other ways of viewing and assessing each of these terrible crimes.

Hence I have concluded that there is rather less likelihood than is usually assumed, that Stride and Kelly were murdered by the same hand as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. But it brought McKenzie into the frame for me.

Currently, I am striving to integrate the Torso killings into the wider picture - something that the conventional Ripper book signally fails to do. To me there was clearly more than one murderer (serial killer?) around in London in 1888 (and perhaps more than two) so it is not unreasonable to assume a different hand for at least some of the canonical five and to introduce new members of that sorority.

Pirate - you seem to draw your conclusions in the main from the auropsy/medical papers. If so, perhaps you could inform us by an equally thorough dissection of the medical evidence on the Torso killings, your views on how those relate to the specifically Whitechapel/Spitalfields murders - was the Pinchen St victim a Ripper victim, in your view?

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

[B]

Pirate - you seem to draw your conclusions in the main from the auropsy/medical papers. If so, perhaps you could inform us by an equally thorough dissection of the medical evidence on the Torso killings, your views on how those relate to the specifically Whitechapel/Spitalfields murders - was the Pinchen St victim a Ripper victim, in your view?

Phil

The torso murders are not my area. Mei Trow might be a good contact?

But the mind set of such killings are very different. The killer has taken time to conceal and dispose the bodies....I once raised the idea that Chapman might be a better psychological profile for these killings than JtR.

Jacks MO is completely different, so no I dont think they were the work of Jack...Jack had very specific tastes.

With regards to multiple serial killers, there is some evidence that certain social condition can give rise to more than one. It happened in Mexico City back in the 1970's. However serial killers are very rare, to my knowledge there are no specific books relating to this...could ask Stan Reid?

But we're back to probability, the ripper murders happened in a very short space of time, on any serial killer MO, unusual. Its why they took off so quickly after Nichols (they already had Smith and Tabram murdered within days) But the cutting of the throats, in near location, the attacks to the abdoman...everything points to this being the same person, the odds are simply to steep to consider they were not...

And sometimes the most obvious conclusion is the most logical.

I understand peoples reluctance to include Smith and Tabram even Stride.

But it really is stretching the imagination to suggest that Nichols , Chapman Eddows and Kelly weren't committed by the same killer.

Pirate

[Phil H]

What about Alice McKenzie? There were what appeared to be the start of abdominal mutilations in that case - perhaps prevented by her relatively tight clothing.

On the other hand maybe JtR was disturbed (as with Nichols) or enfeebled (hence the "gap")?

With Kelly - I am concerned by the different location, the age of the victim, the extent of the mutilations (more I'd suggest than simply a product of time and opportunity) and the fact that we cannot be sure what killed her. I also think that the possibility of a "crime of passion" - that is a murder by someone who knew the victim closely and had emotional reasons for the dismemberment - should not be ruled out, and even allowing for MJK's questionable story, we have candidates for thet - the Barnett brothers, Fleming etc.

I also believe that MJK may have been made to look like a "Ripper" job but was not.

Smith and Tabram, I think may have been killed by the same group of men, but NOT by "Jack" unless he was a member of the "trio"(?).

On the other hand, I would not discount attacks earlier than Buck's Row as the work of the man who would become "Jack".

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Its seems a reasonable acessment Phil...

Alice McKenzie is interesting, but we have a comparatively long time gap (not that we would thinks so today) and the killers tastes appear similar to Jacks.

I dont think Smith and Tabram were killed by the same people/person

I think Tabram a possible for Jack...mainly because of time and location.

I think we'd agree on Nichols chapman Eddows...

Kelly I think was a Jack victim, Age dosnt bother me, I dont think it bothered Jack, he took what he could get, opportunity. The victims sellected the murder location, so Kelly took him inside.

The attack to the abdoman, removal of the face and organs. This was more than your average domestic.

I agree the info on Flemming is interesting, theres alway's something that is in this case...but I dont think poor old Joe had anything to do with it..

At least we are back on solid Ripper ground

Pirate

[Phil H]

At least we are back on solid Ripper ground,,,

Is there such a thing?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

You will excuse me if I, in a light hearted vein and without malice, pull apart your words. There are sadly great holes in the presumption that we can "take it from you" that all the murders are from the hand of a single lone killer.

The gospel according to Jeff is based on the veracity of three things. One, the MM. Two, the SM. Three, SRA's pearls of wisdom.

No.1 is riddled with holes, falsities and fantasy. No. 2 is riddled with problems far and away based on the veracity of No.3 and No. 3 is at best a pile of conjecture without an iota of proof.

The gospel therefore is based on a weak house of cards put together to fit a theory that doesn't stand up without all three being completely true. And the simple words that pull the house down? Ostrog, the Russian named in the MM was in France, Druitt, named in the MM was wrongly listed as a doctor, amongst other things, and Kosminski was in 1888 nothing more than a dog walker without a lead to go on.

You have also stated on jtrforums that you think that Stride is a Kosminski job (together with Coles..which makes it very hard to believe the gospel because I believe he was indulging in a spot of locked away r and r at the time), and there is not an iota of proof Kosminski was ever violent in the cut-throat mad lone killer fashion you have listed with all the other killers you named.

Now that leaves 4 of the C5 unaccounted for. Which also means your statement a few posts ago that all of the murders were done by a lone killer and we should take it from you a little confusing.

Then we have the odd similarities that make dear old "Jack" caught and not caught according to various policemen on the job at the time, Sadler who was considered to be JTR by the police yet can't have been if MM, SM and SRA are correct. Grainger who was also considered to be JTR but can't be if the MM, SM and SRA are correct. Chapman likewise. Tumblety likewise. Anyone else likewise. All of whom were in the frame of the police apparently at the time. I won't even mention Le Grande but another "suspect" there that according to some is confused with Ostrog in the MM, the possibility of Isenschmidt having been a possibility in the Chapman murder, ruled out only because he was incarcerated when C3 and C4 happened (that doesn't mean he didnt kill Chapman) and of course the final little nail in the coffin.. that should the Special Branch ledgers become available, and there is no mention of Kosminsky, Druitt, Ostrog, Tumblety, Chapman, Grainger, Sadler, Bury, Kelly, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all infact... aren't under the light of Special Branch, then the dear old MM takes rather a tumble because you would have thought that Mac knew all about every suspect when he wrote his little piece of diatribe.

And if the MM is shown to be rubbish.. then the three card trick that relies on each part to keep the mystery alive disappears with a wave of the wand. Abracadabra!

So do Jeff, do please continue to entertain us with your gospel. I enjoy reading it. It's fun. It makes me smile. I feel relaxed knowing that the trio of Mr. Punch, his stick and the Policeman is a lovely kiddies story that is based on no proof whatsoever, and we can all rest our heads happily on the nice soft comfy pillow and dream on.

As Mr. Punch says.. "That's the way to do it!" Trouble is, only very small children believe Mr. Punch exists in real life. Something tells me that Mr. Punch and his actions, a.k.a. Jack the Ripper....is a glove puppet. And the policeman who arrested him... is a glove puppet too.

Still, makes a nice story doesn't it. Oh well, Brighton beach next year.. same time, same channel, same story. All-together now..."Oh no he didn't!" "oh yes he did!"

best wishes

Phil

[curious4]

Mr (not Dr - he was high enough up the professional ladder to be regarded as a "gentleman" - if I remember rightly they paid a guinea a year for the privilege ) Bondīs report makes interesting reading, as does the letter asking him to give his opinion on the murders. He studied the all the cases very carefully and came to the conclusion that all five murders were by the same hand. He was the acknowledged expert and foremost in his field at the time apparently. No-one at the time was interested in adding to the number of murders by JTR - in fact they had a lot to lose by not solving so many murders by the same hand - if anyone in the police had had the slightest chance of suggesting that not all the women died by the same hand I think they would have taken it and thus diminished the panic somewhat.

Regards,
C4

[Chris]

... should the Special Branch ledgers become available, and there is no mention of Kosminsky, Druitt, Ostrog, Tumblety, Chapman, Grainger, Sadler, Bury, Kelly, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all infact... aren't under the light of Special Branch, then the dear old MM takes rather a tumble because you would have thought that Mac knew all about every suspect when he wrote his little piece of diatribe.

I don't follow that at all. How could the absence of a name from Special Branch records demonstrate a deficiency in Macnaghten's knowledge?

In any case, my feeling is that the only Ripper suspects who would have been mentioned in Special Branch records are the ones in whom SB was also interested for other reasons, such as William Magrath, as a "suspicious Irishman." A few of the known suspects might come into that category, but most of them wouldn't.