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

[mariab]

Phil,
I COMPLETELY agree with Rob House when he's saying that the evidence supporting the theory of one lone killer is overwhelming, based on similarities between the crimes, including victimology, time of attack, MO, location, and most importantly, a comparison of the crime scenes, escape routes, specific wounds, and body positioning. The time-frame is too short for a copycat of this new, particular type of killer (serial killer/post-mortem mutilator) to have materialized and NEVER to have hit again after 1891. And I would throw in Tabram “to boot“ too.
As for Le Grand, there's evidence that he might have engaged also in obstructing the Mitre Square investigation. I'm working on this (still needs lots of research).

[lynn cates]

Cadfael

Hello Maria. Why would a copycat kill more than once? His raison d'etre is not to create a series of crimes but something very practical--to evade justice.

Must I sentence you buy a DVD copy of "Brother Cadfael: One Corpse too Many"?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Lynn,
perhaps we should agree to disagree about this, but a copycat has never happened on the exact same night as the original crime, nor does a copycat generally escalate from the original crime. Anyone acquainted with forensic psychology would immediately see that the Whitechapel murders are an expected progression of the same perp's “needs“ and MO.
Brother Cafdael (as far as I know) is a fictional character. Or did you mean this as a pun?

At least we are totally in agreement pertaining to Rachkovsky, Lynn.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Maria,

You are entitled to your view as well.
Obstructing an investigation is not being a murderer.

Like I politely and respectfully said- we all fall down along the way. All ideas have problems attached one way or tother. We will simply never agree.

I see things in a different way. We all do in the minutae. A questiö for you Maria. Counting McKENZIE, Coles, and the 12 Simon mentioned- just how many different killers were there in your opinion?

I tell you what it tells me. Too manx by far.

Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

punctus contra punctum

Hello Maria.

"perhaps we should agree to disagree about this."

Just as you wish.

"but a copycat has never happened on the exact same night as the original crime"

Agreed. But Eddowes happened about 3 weeks after Chapman--or am I mixing dates?

"nor does a copycat generally escalate from the original crime."

What escalation? The facial mutilations were predicted as part of the set up.

"Anyone acquainted with forensic psychology would immediately see that the Whitechapel murders are an expected progression of the same perp's “needs“ and MO."

Sorry, don't watch CSI. Like Camelot, it is a silly place.

"Brother Cafdael (as far as I know) is a fictional character."

Indeed. So is "JTR."

"Or did you mean this as a pun?"

No, I merely called attention to the underlying premise of the episode.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

Hello Rob, Steven.

"For those who seem to want to believe that Jack the Ripper never existed... i.e that all or some of the C5 were not killed by one lone serial killer, I would suggest providing some evidence to support the theory."

Actually, this theory is a denial of the C5 theory. And since it is a DENIAL, argumentatively, according to rule, the onus is on the assertor of the POSITIVE theory. Those who deny a theory need observe no such strictures.

Cheers.
LC

The argument FOR the C5 has already been well-argued, and is entirely within the bounds of logical deduction based on the factors I mentioned, among others. 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. Anyone who thinks Kelly and Eddowes were done by different killers should really re-examine the autopsy reports. And in my opinion, the rest of the C5 are likewise consistent with the wound characteristics in these murders, assuming certain variables... fear of interruption, actual interruption, escalation of mutilation, etc.

RH

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[Jon Guy]

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

[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

[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

[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.