Have Ripperologists Been Polled As To Who They Think Jack Really Was?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]JTR was not motivated by nastiness[/QUOTE

Obviously, I was wrong. I'm sorry.

[DVV]

Hi Malcolm

i think the anti- semetism is him playing a game with the police, or he's upset about poor employment prospects etc.

Certainly so, imo.

i'm 100 miles away from what it is

No, you can't even know the distance

but the oddest thing of all is JTR stopping or downgrading and stopping

Very odd, indeed...

this to me is very strange

...unless it was a scenario ā la Kemper.

[Malcolm X]

Gosh Malcolm -that's quite a cruel remark..I'd hate to be dismissed as only a "run of the mill cut-throat killer", never quite in the "mutilator at large" league..

Maybe it was nasty jibes like this that fuelled Jack's motivation ?

i'm just differentiating between the two that's all, we have a mutilator at work in Whitechapel, plus another killer that doesn't, there's nothing cruel about what i've said, or ment to be.

i.e i doubt that JTR is responsible for the torsos, but i'm not sure about Mackenzie etc.

JTR was not motivated by nastiness, his murders reveal little sadism, unlike Bundy or Sutcliffe, he's killing for a reason that i'm not sure about, it's most odd, it is semi-madness/ occult etc and i think the anti- semetism is him playing a game with the police, or he's upset about poor employment prospects etc.

i'm 100 miles away from what it is, just like 6 years ago, but the oddest thing of all is JTR stopping or downgrading and stopping, this to me is very strange.

mind you, you cant really be sadistic out on the streets can you, or she'll scream etc etc, which will attract attention to you, so all of this JTR stuff is full of contradictions, because maybe JTR was a nasty bastard back at home with his girlfriends, maybe ending up with torsos or poisoning etc, but out on the streets he has to kill quickly, so maybe he cant afford to be nasty/sadistic.

all of this is very confusing

[Rubyretro]

we're not talking about copycats here, because what we really mean is a mutilator at large, plus also a run of the mill cut- throat killer,

Gosh Malcolm -that's quite a cruel remark..I'd hate to be dismissed as only a "run of the mill cut-throat killer", never quite in the "mutilator at large" league..

Maybe it was nasty jibes like this that fuelled Jack's motivation ?

[Malcolm X]

Hello Jon. A remarkable post. The nub is:

"if we call on Special Pleading to include Stride as a Ripper victim we also require Special Pleading to exclude Coles."

Here is a short thought experiment to help motivate thought about Annie and Kate.

Q1: Who had the more extensive mutilations, Annie or Kate?

Q2: Who supposedly had more organs extracted, Annie or Kate?

Q3: How long did Bagster Phillips estimate the mutilations on Annie took?

Q4: How long the estimate on Kate?

THE BIG Q: Given the answers above, why were Kate's mutilations thought to take a good bit LESS time?

Quandary: Could it be that Bagster and Baxter knew whereof they spake when they referred to Kate's mutilations as "unskilful" and Annie's as "skilful"?

Cheers.
LC

you're getting far too involved in the nitty gritty, this is causing you to see things that aren't there and if there, are due to varying circumstances, such as time available, the killers mood, inexperience, different medical opinions at that time etc

try to look much wider, because it's highly unlikely that this is more than one person that's mutilating..... and the most likely is that the last 3 are definitely the same killer

[Malcolm X]

It wouldn't be that hard to copycat, given that the wounds inflicted were well documented, it would be quite easy to do so, but the reasons against this are.

1..... it's highly unlikely that you'd see two mutilators suddenly killing in this small area of London and at the same time

2..... why copycat to shift the blame to JTR instead of you?...... the police are bloody useless, they'll never catch you, so there's no point bothering hiding your crime.... nobody else did, it looks like a free for all mini crime wave, two for the price of one !

3.....it's far more likely that JTR might encourage someone else to simply go out and cut throats only, rather than to mutilate

4.... It takes a real sicko to gut and mutilate someone, it's totally revolting, it would sicken most killers, this type is pretty rare and definitely not two at once in Whitechapel.... no way!

we're not talking about copycats here, because what we really mean is a mutilator at large, plus also a run of the mill cut- throat killer, both of these killers would need to stalk their prey in virtually the same way, thus they look like one person only.....it is almost definitely this.

the other killer has not mutilated, when the chances were there to do so and this is very important, in a few of these, it looks like the killer has walked off with the victim still alive, this too is important.

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Simon:

Of course knife attacks were common in Victorian London - as an uneducated guess I would say that there was a reasonable amount of them every year surrounding JTR's murders, not just 1888. The reason for this is of course that they were so easily obtainable - I mean knives were apparently even found laying in the street during JTR's time. So many tradesmen used them and so many citizens carried them about for various purposes, mischevious or otherwise, that it's no wonder that attacks with them were common.

That's no different to bottle/glassing attacks being common around pubs on a Saturday night - the instrument can do a lot of damage and is readily available, so it's used. I don't see anything suspicious in numbers of knife attacks being relative to anything at all.

By the way, in my previous post, I didn't even include the torso murders!

Tom:

While you're quite right that we should not really be challenging qualified opinions from those who were there without serious evidence to back it up, I think we need to be a little careful with Dr. Phillips at the same time. Well respected though he most certainly was (and perhaps still is in the eyes of some), his remarks throughout the case on the murders were evidently not flawless, especially in regards to Chapman's time of death and Eddowes' candidacy as a JTR victim - it isn't, and shouldn't be seen as, gospel on the case.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

The fly in the ointment with respect to wound analysis is that the wound to Stride is so ordinary it could be ascribed to anyone who used a knife.

Of course, Dr. Phillips would beg to differ, but let's not let qualified opinion get in the way of a good crank theory. And which C5 murder was Coles killed within an hour and a mile of?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

whom?

Hello Jon G. Were you addressing this to me? Delighted to answer, but hate to jump in if I were not the intended recipient.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

How do you explain the differences in wounds between Nichols and Chapman?

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Jon. A remarkable post. The nub is:

"if we call on Special Pleading to include Stride as a Ripper victim we also require Special Pleading to exclude Coles."

Here is a short thought experiment to help motivate thought about Annie and Kate.

Q1: Who had the more extensive mutilations, Annie or Kate?

Q2: Who supposedly had more organs extracted, Annie or Kate?

Q3: How long did Bagster Phillips estimate the mutilations on Annie took?

Q4: How long the estimate on Kate?

THE BIG Q: Given the answers above, why were Kate's mutilations thought to take a good bit LESS time?

Quandary: Could it be that Bagster and Baxter knew whereof they spake when they referred to Kate's mutilations as "unskilful" and Annie's as "skilful"?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

... As I said, I myself posted a quite extensive comparison of the wounds in the C5, and the similarities are striking, very much so. Anyone who wishes to claim one o the C5 was not a Ripper victim will have to address this issue first, then look at the others too.

The fly in the ointment with respect to wound analysis is that the wound to Stride is so ordinary it could be ascribed to anyone who used a knife.
Special pleading is required to 'insist' Stride is to be included because the wounds to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly were so unique.
If wound analysis provides certain evidence then the 'twin'-style killing of Coles cannot be easily excluded.

Whatever wound analysis criteria is manipulated in order to include Stride automatically includes Coles. Therefore, some might argue for a definite C3, others for a possible C4, but wound analysis argues against a C5 and jumps straight to C6.

The time-gap between Stride & Coles (or Kelly & Coles) is not without any number of reasonable explanations. So now we end up with a dilemma, if we call on Special Pleading to include Stride as a Ripper victim we also require Special Pleading to exclude Coles.

There is also another little mentioned detail about Coles, her throat was cut twice, one wound but two cuts. A more critical review of Eddowes throat wound just might offer clues to the same, but that is surely for another thread.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

notion

Hello Maria.

"I'd say it depends on suspectology, Phil. With Kozminsky (or Tumblety) one would have to say copycat. With Le Grand, he could have asked a minion to commit these murders for exculpatory purposes (Bianchi-like, referring to the LA hillside stranglers). For an unknown local, it's real hard to say. Coles might have even been done by Sadler."

Well, nice to know you don't stick at the notion of multiple knife murderers.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

As I said, I myself posted a quite extensive comparison of the wounds in the C5, and the similarities are striking, very much so. Anyone who wishes to claim one o the C5 was not a Ripper victim will have to address this issue first, then look at the others too. So there is not a lack of evidence to support the theory. The "there is no Jack the Ripper" camp has not, to my knowledge, given any supporting evidence that undermines the traditional view.

Absolutely. Plus there's Don Souden's not often mentioned article Suede the Ripper in Ripperologist #? (apologies – don't have the entire issue, as the article was sent to me by the author).

A questiö for you Maria. Counting McKENZIE, Coles, and the 12 Simon mentioned- just how many different killers were there in your opinion?

I'd say it depends on suspectology, Phil. With Kozminsky (or Tumblety) one would have to say copycat. With Le Grand, he could have asked a minion to commit these murders for exculpatory purposes while he was in jail (Bianchi-like, referring to the LA hillside stranglers). For an unknown local, it's real hard to say. Coles might have even been done by Sadler.
The 12 by Simon Wood I assume contain the C5, Tabram, Smith, plus the 1890 ones, and the rest are domestic with no mutilations?

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello Rob. Don't mean to be contradictory, but there is NOTHING deductive about the argument. Perhaps you mean inductive?

The autopsy reports? Been over those ad nauseum. There are similarities; there are differences. My camp exalts one; yours, the other. And when a difference in wounds is found, my camp is hit with, "Well, JTR wasn't a robot was he?" Well and good, but you can't have it both ways.

To make a quick point, what did Wynne Baxter (speaking from Phillips' findings) say at the Stride inquest in comparing the Chapman and Eddowes cases? Did he come to believe in one killer? Why?

Cheers.
LC