Did Jack the Ripper even exist?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Who said two serial killers?
I don't recall anyone has ever suggested that any victim that would fall out of the C5 should have been victim to another serial murderer but in fact that they were unrelated individual killings.

As for the number of victims, I stand by my general opinion, that - according to victimology, circumstances on the crime scene and the killer's modus operandi - we can only be absolutely certain of three victims, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. The rest have to remain open for debate.

Let's also remind ourselves that two other serial killers roamed the same area only a few years after the Ripper murders - Neil Cream and Severin Klosowski. And as for other brutal murders in Whitechapel we shouldn't forget Henry Wainewright in 1875 ("The Whitechapel Murderer") as well as other brutal crimes performed in Miller's Court at the turn of the century (the Kitty Ronan murder was indeed brutal beyond the usual). Then add, fort example, the murder of Emma Smith to this equation, as well as some of the torso murders during the same period.
I'd say East End and its relatively limited geographical area certainly had its share during a short time period even without the Ripper.

All the best

[Nothing to see]

Are we reading the same thread? I'm not so sure. Only Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes. Well, you must have definitive proof that only they are linked.

And yes, there are posters who think 2 serial killers at the same time.

PS. I don't blame the Swedes for nothing.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Are we reading the same thread? I'm not so sure. Only Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes. Well, you must have definitive proof that only they are linked.

Only that they share similarities and trademarks, with the same intent and direction and the same focus on certain areas of the body, that makes them difficult to disregard. They are so similar on those points that they must be viewed as fallen victim to the same offender.
It shall also be noted that this view has been put forward quite many times during the last years and by different people so it's nothing new.

Of course, that the rest should have fallen victim to another serial killer is nonsense and to be honest I haven't seen that theory displayed that much. The discussions concerning Kelly and Stride has to my knowledge centered around them being either probable domestic murders or unrelated prostitute-client murders.
I am not even sure of two murders (Stride, Kelly) would fall into the general definition of "serial killing" but of course that depends on which definition one prefers to quote. But then again, we have the murders of Coles and McKenzie (which I don't believe to be Ripper victims and I don't think they were connected either). And I believe you - like me - also rules out Tabram (so there's another gruesome murder perpetrated in the same area during the same time period).

However, three definitie victims by the same hand (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) would in any case support for a fact that a serial killer did exist. But in my view, Jack the Ripper is just as much a phenomenon and a press creation as he is a real killer.

All the best

[Nothing to see]

Jack was a real boy. He did 5. I include Stride and Kelly. You can't not include them and say there wasn't another murderer. No, I don't think Tabram. Not Jack's style. Stride and Kelly as domestics? It's a possible theory if their murders had happened at any other time. But they didn't. They were Jack's gets. Too much similarity to belong to anyone else. IMO.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Stride and Kelly's murders are actually very dissimilar compared to one another - Stride "only" had her throat cut, and not to the same degree as in the Ripper killings, while Kelly was totally butchered so there is no need whatsoever to subribe those two to another killer who did both. That would be just silly.
In fact, the same night as the double event John Browne of Westminster cut his wife's throat and stabbed her in a much more gruesome manner than what we see in Stride's murder (ad note it was the same night!), but we don't accuse him of being the Ripper.

As I said, using the "same time period" as a valid argument is usless, since so many other gruesome murders DID in fact happen outside of the C5 around the same time as the Ripper murders. So I find that to be a very strange and ill-founded argument, the same goes for the arguments based on the location.

But there can be no question that Jack was "real boy" since he did in fact murder at least three women, which would undobtadly make him a serial killer.
But I also think he is a phenomenon partly created by the press and the hysteria in many ways.

All the best

[Crystal]

That's interesting. John Browne was local, I take it? Was it in Whitechapel that this murder took place? Do you know if the contemporary press linked this murder with the double event if this is the case?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Crystal,

No, it happened in the district of Westminster (not really East End), but location aside I just refer to it in order to point at its gruesome character - worse than the Stride murder - combined with the fact that it happened the very same night as the Double Event (which is an interesting coincidence in itself).
I don't think it was ever linked to the Ripper murders, but it did get some press coverage in its own right. But of course, the two alleged Ripper murders the same night got most of the attention.
The murder of Sarah Browne in Westminster was a domestic killing; poor Sarah had for some time been quite afraid of her violent husband and he had displayed some disturbing traits lately. Sraha had tried to get him confined and she feared for her life. Unfortunately the authorities didn't do anything about it and then this happened. It is indeed a tragic case, because what happened was exactly what she was afraid of.

All the best

[Nothing to see]

Well this will be interesting. The last time I tried to reply to you I lost this site for 2 hours. It's all your fault.

[sdreid]

There is really no settled definition of serial killer. I subscribe to the C5 at a minimum but if the "series" was just Nichols-Chapman-Eddowes then by the most exclusive definition, that is that the murders spanned less than 5 weeks, then there was still a Jack the Ripper but he was a spree rather than a serial killer. I've also seen definitions that require as many as 5 victims or as few as 2.

[Nothing to see]

Take as much time off as you want. I had 2 hours. Jack killed 5. No less.
Jack was a serial killer.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Jack killed 5. No less.
Jack was a serial killer.

You can be a serial killer by claiming as few as three victims.

[perrymason]

To Nothing To See,

You cannot win an argument where you suggest that only one serial killer is evident in the records at the time of Jack the Ripper....its provably incorrect. Someone killed and chopped up a woman in August and parts of her were found October 2-3rd...there is another such event the following year. The Pinchin Street and Whitehall Torsos. There were also some Torsos found pre 88. Its far less likely that these acts were unrelated than it is that Liz Stride and say Annie Chapmans murders were. You also have several unsolved cases from the Spring that may have an individual assailant. And of course Martha is not a Canonical Victim....so you need to explain that murder as well. Alice McKenzie was momentarily thought to be Jack back at work based on the police response to the crime,...but if it wasnt, there is another knife murder unattributed to Jacky.

Jack and at the very least Torso Maker...operated simultaneously..they both killed in August of 1888. And other men killed with knives before and after the Fall blitz.

But of all those victims that have no murderer named, some 13 or 14...including the Canonicals, ...only 4 had postmortem mutilations done specifically and primarily to their abdomens. And its possible the first three were consecutive murders....if you eliminate Liz Strides single wound murder....which leaves the possibility that the 4th one that occurs the following year might be emulation.

Best regards

[cbenee]

'Such precise mutilations - or consistent, should I say.'
That doesn't sit too well though with the concept of a 'frenzied' attack, does it?
I'm quite prepared to believe that the mythical monster we know as 'Jack the Ripper' never existed at all.
As I have often pointed out I have found similar cases from the LVP where prostitutes have been viciously attacked in a robbery where the attempts by the robbers to remove the victim' stays and skirts with blades to get at their secret pocket has resulted in what could be seen later as a frenzied attack upon their person rather than their possessions.
Many of these cases showed a total disregard for the life of the woman who was being robbed, and knife wounds to the throat, breasts, abdomen and genitalia were not uncommon.

I think it both amusing and rewarding to refelect on some research I did here on site some years ago, which showed that the same number of East End women were either murdered, or severely injured, in attacks with blades in 1887, 1888 and 1889.
So if we accept as fact that Jack the Ripper existed then his murderous rampage had no impact on the statistics of murder in that time slice of the LVP, which must mean that he never existed.
Because if a serial killer suddenly starts operating in a very restricted area of Whitechapel then the statistics would surely reflect that peculiar situation.

Just reading through this for first time so sorry if this has been answered

Wouldn't you say that the greatly increased police presence in the area for 4 months of 88 means you would expect to see a FALL in the numbers?

Therefore for them to stay the same would indicate that something kept them higher?

ie without there being a murderer around, the hugely ncreased police prescence would have made the figures lower for 88 than they were for 87 and 89?

[DarkPassenger]

Hi DP,
Minor correction - in the interests of sticking to the facts, you understand...

At least one of those 5 murders wasn't conducted in a "very similar" way to the others, and the signature was nowhere near as unique as that seen among the remaining "canonical" victims. Throat cutting stands as a rather banal method of committing murder, and Stride's death was no different in that respect than any number of predecessors and successors who perished in a similar manner.

I have to agree there - but there's still four victims lying dead. I personally am a bit of a Stride-denier.

That's neither strictly true, nor a rationale that I'd recommend

The same was suggested of the Yorkshire Ripper - the top cops said a few times that there were two serial killers active. And the Boston Strangler - it was suggested that two killers were active. I've even seen the same about the Suffolk Strangler, because some victims were dumped in water and others in woodland (however, the people suggesting this were of the mind that serial killers are stuck in their ways solidly and deterministically, which is bullshit.)

[Mitch Rowe]

Take as much time off as you want. I had 2 hours. Jack killed 5. No less.
Jack was a serial killer.

Dude.. Its no use arguing with them. It appears they think they are smarter than the average homicide detective. Or even the above average homicide detective. Or even MacNaghten!

You can be assured MacNaghten was using the correct methods of detective work when he first determined and then proclaimed there were only 5 murders and 5 only that are attributed to JTR.