Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

I agree about the jigsaw puzzle, and though it took decades we have enough pieces to be able to construct competing theories to try and make sense of the contradictions -- and to fill in the gaps. How successfully is in the eye of the beholder.

Despite what Leonard Matters and Donald McCormick had dismissively argued (in 1929 and 1959 respectively) there was a real 'drowned' man who was fished from the Thames on Dec 31st 1888, and who had been 'believed' by his 'friends' -- eg. 'family': plus maybe an unidentified friend -- to have been a sexual maniac and Jack the Ripper. We later found out that this tale had originated and leaked in Dorset.

Tom Cullen speculated in 1965 that somewhere gathering dust was a document waiting to be found which would also prove to be vital, if not conclusive.

It was not in an attic but in an antiquarian book shop where lay the Littlechild Letter, unread and undisturbed for 30 or so years. Although all you had to do -- if you had the time and the resources and nobody did -- was check the US papers to discover, quite easily, that there was a prime police suspect of 1888 who was a 'doctor', of sorts.

Tumblety was definitely a [quack] doctor but he had not committed suicide as was 'believed', while Druitt was definitely a drowned barrister but was only 'said to be a doctor'. Put them together and you have the 'drowned doctor' solution of Sims in the Edwardian Era. But since they are actually completely separate people does that mean they are two non-suspects fused together to create a better suspect and a better tale? Or, was one considered the real thing, and the other just a Trojan Horse to hide the probable Jack?

[HelenaWojtczak]

the intellectual game of seeing whether the pieces of the jigsaw that remain to us, can be arranged to make some sort of picture

What a beautiful way of putting it, Phil!

Helena

[HelenaWojtczak]

It would be a fair old twist of fate in the event two murderers were operating within half an hour of one another in the same area: considering the number of murders in London in that period.

But unless we accept that all eleven Whitechapel victims were done by the same hand, there must have been more than one killer in that two-and-a-half-year period. It's coincidental but not impossible that two of them happened to be out on the same night.

I've seen Bob Milne's current presentation, and he states that there were eleven women murdered in the UK in 1887 (none were in Whitechapel), seventeen in 1888 (47% of which were in Whitechapel) and eleven in 1889 (18% of which were in Whitechapel).

If he is right then am staggered that there were none in Whitechapel in 1887, then suddenly we have up to seven killers, killing eleven women in a two-and-a-half-year period. Then all of them ceased by early 1891. And none of them caught. Does that sound feasible to any of you? It doesn't to me, which is why I find the idea of Jack doing in the C5, plus up to six other woman-killers on the loose all in the same area at the same time, untenable.

If the eleven were indeed killed by five/six/seven different murderers, why were so many men suddenly roaming the streets stalking and killing women with a knife/knives? Why did they start and why did they stop?

I say "up to" seven, there could have been as few as two 'Jacks', but even that would be an amazing coincidence.

Helena

[Phil H]

that makes me extremely curious to understand why so many men were suddenly roaming the streets stalking and killing women with a knife/knives.

I think there is a possible explanation for that.

First we know that, almost certinly two serial killers were operating in London at approximately the same time, "Jack" and the "torso murderer" unless (as some have) one wants to conflate the two. I perceive two distinct hands and drivers here, though the torso killer might have had assistance (moving the bodies).

We know many men habitually carried knives in the East End in 1888.

We know the press whipped up the "Leather Apron" and "Ripper" frenzies, associating non-Jack and possibly non-Jack crimes (Smith, Tabram) with those which do seem to be by the same hand (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes).

Now let's assume you have heard about/read about the mutilation crimes and you want to kill someone - what easier way of covering your tracks than to try to make your crime look like one of Jack's.

A slit throat with no mutilations is immediately accepted as one of Jack's
- Stride - even though another, and perhaps stronger explanation is available. Dismiss stride as a Ripper-victim, and Jack has more time to focus on, find etc Eddowes (no trek from Berners St to the Square). IF (and I emphasise IF) Kidney killed his lover, then he may not have intended it to look like Jack's work - it was just taken as such. (A slit throat is an easy way of killing with a knife after all).

With kelly, was the utter plundering of the body (together with the private location) both a reflection of a different and more intimate motive AND an attempt to replicate Jack's "style"? taken too far, not really similar at all - but the authorities assumed it was just one hand.

McKenzie, I see as a possible "Jack" victim, but by a killer weakened mentally or physically and no more able to do/capable of doing what he had done in Mitre Square.

So I do not think that multiple killers are out of the question given the unique circumstances and rampant paranoia of the area in 1888/1889.

Phil H

P.S. I dislike calling my interest in JtR "a game" of any kind (it is rather disrespectful to the victims). But that is what it has been over the years, a an intellectually stimulating exercise in solving a real-life detective problem.

[HelenaWojtczak]

let's assume you have heard about/read about the mutilation crimes and you want to kill someone - what easier way of covering your tracks than to try to make your crime look like one of Jack's.

Yes, I can see that on the surface Jack provided an opportunity to kill and then let him take the blame once he was caught. But it sounds like a plot from an Ealing Comedy. What about the psychological aspect of murdering? Ordinary people just don't have the same mentality as someone who can slash and eviscerate and disembowel etc without compunction. Surely, someone has to be pretty unhinged to be able to do such a thing and then return to normal life without their actions causing some kind of nervous breakdown?

And why would a bunch of different men all want to kill penniless, ragged women, anyway? There would be nothing to gain from their death but some kind of revenge. Now, ONE such case I could understand (she broke his heart, she knows a secret, etc) but up to seven different men with a murderous grudge against some impoverished, street-walking woman, just waiting for a chance to kill her? I just can't buy it, sorry.

So I do not think that multiple killers are out of the question given the unique circumstances and rampant paranoia of the area in 1888/1889.

Rampant paranoia? About what?

Regards

Helena

[Debra A]

Well, Helena,

We know there was at least one "domestic" on the night of Stride's murder (which I increasingly believe was also a "domestic").

The "torso murderer was active, and (if different) whomever murdered the possessor of the "Pinchen St torso". Was there perhaps some rivalry or competition going on?

Hi all,
In light of the discussion of domestic murders, maybe we also have to consider the possibility that there was no 'torso murderer' either. Maybe the 1887 Rainham case, 1888 Whitehall case, 1889 Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin St cases were all individual domestic cases too? Murder followed by dismemberment was not that uncommon and I've been trying to look at the figures for solved murders of this kind (mainly domestic or financially driven) to determine just how common they were. If we had a few per year then could the torso's 1887-1889 fit in as unsolved domestic murders?
Just a thought.

I also like the jigsaw puzzle analogy, Phil.
It just gets annoying when some try to force the last piece in with a sledgehammer!

[HelenaWojtczak]

It just gets annoying when some try to force the last piece in with a sledgehammer!

I also love that codicil [1], Debs!

I also find it disturbing that there were a series of men dismembering their wives/mistresses. (Bored with her? Just chop her up and sling her in the Thames!)

Helena

[1] is that the right word?

[Fisherman]

Debra:

"maybe we also have to consider the possibility that there was no 'torso murderer' either."

Here´s the first part of the discussion inbetween the coroner and Bagster Phillips, relating to the Pinchin Street Torso murder:

"I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street?
Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case."

Meaning that Phillips did not exclude the possibility that the Pinchin Street murderer and the Dorset Street murderer were one and the same. There were pointers in that direction - just as there were pointers the other way.

I still think it is vital to keep an open mind on all of this.

All the best,
Fisherman

[martin wilson]

The Old Bailey Online makes for interesting reading.
Using search parameters 'Guilty found insane' will at least demonstrate that there were any number of peculiar people around, why not William Hanwell for instance? tried to cut his wife's throat and was obviously extremely disturbed.
All the best.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I can more easily accept that Jack the Ripper (one man) changed his MO many times and was responsible for all eleven and the torsos, than I can accept that there was a long series of evil men ready and willing to murder (presumably innocent) women in such a horrible, bloodthirsty fashion then go and get on with their lives.

[martin wilson]

There is a theory in 'The Mammoth Book of Jack The Ripper' which unfortunately I no longer have that the press reports led to copycat murders.
As an example maybe Alice Mackenzie? here we have a murder that could suggest her killer tried to make it look like a Ripper murder but didn't have the stomach to go through with it.
If everyone is carrying knives then like gun fatalities in America,an argument that gets out of hand may have dire consequences,and whilst the killer may not know the exact details he thinks if he cuts her up it might get attributed to Jack the Ripper?
All the best.

[HelenaWojtczak]

There is a theory in 'The Mammoth Book of Jack The Ripper' which unfortunately I no longer have that the press reports led to copycat murders.
As an example maybe Alice Mackenzie? here we have a murder that could suggest her killer tried to make it look like a Ripper murder but didn't have the stomach to go through with it.
If everyone is carrying knives then like gun fatalities in America,an argument that gets out of hand may have dire consequences,and whilst the killer may not know the exact details he thinks if he cuts her up it might get attributed to Jack the Ripper?
All the best.

Are you sure it wasn't Jack the Ripper's Book of Mammoths? Sorry, just had a silly moment there

Your point about the knives is a very good one. It wasn't an offence to carry a knife in those days, unlike today. And I think there was also more of a mentality that every man had to 'look after himself' and his loved ones in the sense of being able to defend himself, his 'castle' and his family. But of course, that same knife can end up being used against his loved one(s).



Helena

[Phil H]

Meaning that Phillips did not exclude the possibility that the Pinchin Street murderer and the Dorset Street murderer were one and the same. There were pointers in that direction - just as there were pointers the other way.

I find it difficult to reconcile a man who had dismembered a number of women successfully - and presumably had the opportunity to do more - making such a (literal) "shambles" of No 13.

To me the corpse of MJK reeks of disorganisation and a rather unpracticed attempt to do what the Ripper had done or to emulate his work. The torso murderer would surely, were his aim to have disarticulated the body, have succeeded. Whomever killed Kelly obviously did not - and one can rule out surprise, I think.

Further - a number of different torso murderers clearly had very similar MOs (IMHO). In no case was the head found, and the efficiency with which the body parts were scattered is striking. I would be prepared to accept maybe two murderers, known to each other, both dismembering woman and driving each other on. Even "Jack" as a disciple of the "torso killer" who went his own way.

Mei Trow in his book, speculates that a cats' meat seller might have had a place and a cart to assist him in his work. I cannot help but link that to the presence of a cat's meat shop in the front of 29 Hanbury St.

On a more general point, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, there were murders in most years in the late 1880s. So there were many murderers, its just a question of whether some of them coincided or crossed-over in time. Why not?

Also as I suggested earlier (maybe not clearly) the climate created by the exceptional press coverage of the Ripper killings may have inspired or induced copy-cat crimes or people to seek to cover-up by copying perceived MOs.

Phil H

[Phil H]

As an example maybe Alice Mackenzie? here we have a murder that could suggest her killer tried to make it look like a Ripper murder but didn't have the stomach to go through with it.

Entirely possible, or (of course) that the killer was interrupted and fled.

But the half-hearted nature of the stomach/abdominal wounds does make me wonder if this was the work of a weakened and ill "Jack".

If everyone is carrying knives then like gun fatalities in America,an argument that gets out of hand may have dire consequences,and whilst the killer may not know the exact details he thinks if he cuts her up it might get attributed to Jack the Ripper?

That is precisely what I think may have occurred between Stride and Ki9dney.

Phil H

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"I find it difficult to reconcile a man who had dismembered a number of women successfully - and presumably had the opportunity to do more - making such a (literal) "shambles" of No 13."

To be frank, Phil, I am not including more than the Pinchin Street deed in this suggestion. And that was the year after Dorset Street, meaning that the killer could have developed knowledge and/or an interest in to how to dismember at that stage.

If you have read the Lechmere threads, then you may have picked up on the Pinchin Street Torso having been found the fewest of yards from where Charles Lechmere´s mother and daughter lived in Cable Street. This is why I am interested in it.

The best,
Fisherman