Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Phil H]

Sorry, I missed these points in your earlier post, Helena.

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?

I'm not trying to associate the same motivations to all the crimes. For instance, with Stride I can believe a frustrated angry man simply struck out at a loved one. Possibly, Kidney's later unsolicited appearance at the police station reflects guilt and anguish/regret about what he had done in a drunken rage.

On the other hand, I have always thought i detected something deeply personal in the elimination of personality/humanity from MJK. For that reason, I think the killer might have been someone intimate with her, whether Joe or Flemming or A N Other.

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?

Would frusrated love be enough to drive an otherwise sane and decent man over the edge? Also with Kelly, I have yet to rule out an Irish/political aspect.

And why would a bunch of different men all want to kill penniless, ragged women, anyway?

I think penniless and ragged Nichols, Chapman and eddowes were all killed by the same hand. But many students of the case believe that Tabram, Smith and later victims were killed by another hand.

Stride and Kelly I see as killed for other reasons, as I have already detailed in this thread.

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.

Well, many serious studies of the case accept that Smith, Tabram, and Mckenzie, Coles, Pinchin St victim etc, were killed by other hands. So this is hardly a new view.

Stride was NOT impoverished in the sense that Nicols and Chapman at least were - she had been out for the evening, started with sixpence in her pocket, and had bought (or been bought) a flower and cashous. neither is it evident that MJK was penniless - she appears to have had clients before her death (though no money was reported as found). Eddowes must have had money from somewhere to have got as drunk as she did.

More than the penniless/impoverished line, maybe we should look at DRUNK: Nichols, Eddowes, Kelly, Tabram and Smith (possibly), McKenzie? Coles? Was it inebriationthat made them easy tagets?

Stride may have had a drink but does not appear to have been drunk.

Rampant paranoia? About what?

I thought the context had made explicit what I meant. Sorry. The climate created by the media in spreading the idea of a single killer stalking the area meant that people were immediately assuming that ALL murders were "his" responsibility. I see this as a sort of "paranoia" (but wasn't using the word in any scientific sense).

Phil H

[Phil H]

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 Lechmereīs mother and daughter lived in Cable Street. This is why I am interested in it.

Fisherman

You may not be aware, but I am not unsympathetic to your interest in Lechmere/Cross. Indeed, before my absence from the boards, late last year, I think I partly helped resurrect interest in him, by suggesting that he might have been overlooked all these years as a suspect - after all he was found standing "over the body" of a victim!!

I also note (but no more) the potential linkage to the Pinchin St torso. My apologies in that I had assumed you meant the other torso murders.

Phil H

[Debra A]

Debra:

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

Hereīs 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

Oh, I do keep a very open mind, Fisherman. I've been researching and posting about the torso murders for a very large amount of time. I just thought domestics couldn't be excluded from the torso series either seeing as we are discussing that scenario in relation to JTR.

Yes, Dr Phillips was asked to look for similarities between Pinchin Street and MJK but his conclusion, after noting some similarities, was that a different person was responsible for both crimes. We also have to bear in mind that both Hebbert and Bond were present and viewed and made notes on the body of MJk and together made extensive studies and wrote and published academic papers on the four torso murders but did not mention any link to the murder of MJK. They did think that the torso murders were definitely by the same hand though.

If you want to talk similarities. look for the posts where I have described the injuries to Elizabeth Jackson in comparison to MJK and the striking similarity. But that was never mentioned by Hebbert and Bond either.

[Fisherman]

No need to apologize, Phil; I could have been clearer myself.

My interest in the Pinchin Street Torso murder is mainly led on by the geographical positioning of the dumping place. I simply note that there were clear similarities in some of the cutting, and I donīt see Phillips ruling the slaying out as being connected to the Kelly slaying. Building a case against Lechmere, the Pinchin Street Torso therefore very much belongs.

The best!
Fisherman

[kensei]

Just jumping in here. On page one, Fleetwood Mac stated "only Kosminski is a good candidate." I'm afraid I beg to differ. My two favorite suspects are currently James Kelly and William Bury, and I can't see why they both wouldn't seriously raise the eyebrows of anyone studying the Ripper case. Neither, however, could be responsible for the possible Ripper murders that came after Mary Kelly, James Kelly because he was out of the country as a fugitive, and William Bury because he was dead, hanged for the murder of his wife.

Though they are my two favorites though, I hate to admit that I have to grudgingly answer the original question of this thread by saying yes, I do think Jack is someone we have never heard of. And I agree with a great many of Helena's points. As opposed to those who think Jack killed less than five victims, I believe he may very well have killed several more, as well as having early victims who survived. She's right- people who go out hunting women to kill and to cut up in little pieces are an absolute aberration, the rarest of the rare (and thank God for that). More than one of them occurring within the same neighborhood in a short span of years is extremely unlikely. I suppose we could look at Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway operating in the same city, but they weren't at the same time. And the differences in all the possible Ripper cases aren't unprecedented either. The Zodiac started out shooting couples in lover's lanes in isolated areas, then moved on to a stabbing, then shot a lone male cab driver in a large city. It's not impossible that London had a serial killer who struck sporadically in the East End in different ways for a few years, even if we include the torso murders. And he totally got away with it. I'm not saying I fully believe that, only that it's possible.

[Debra A]

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.

Maybe, Helena. I've often seen it argued that the torso murders were a natural progression from the Whitechapel murders, reflecting a murderer looking to go the next step from the murder of MJK but Hebbert and Bond were convinced that the four torsos found between 1887 and 1889 were done by one man. The 1887 Rainham case often goes ignored in the 'series' in this particular argument and also the fact that the Whitehall torso probably came just before the first of the canonicals according to Hebbert and Bond. So progression is out of the window if we are to believe those two doctors who did detailed forensic examinations on those four sets of remains.?

[Fisherman]

Debra:

"Oh, I do keep a very open mind, Fisherman."

May the Good Lord smite me if I ever hint at anything else, Debra! I was not pointing any finger at you in any regard.

"I just thought domestics couldn't be excluded from the torso series either seeing as we are discussing that scenario in relation to JTR."

Agreed.

"Dr Phillips was asked to look for similarities between Pinchin Street and MJK but his conclusion, after noting some similarities, was that a different person was responsible for both crimes."

He would have been "different" alright! (Couldnīt resist that, sorry! )
Yes, that is correct, but I think that the word "conclusion" is slightly misleading. What Phillips said was "I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations", and that makes for something else if you ask me; Phillips DO tell us that some cuts were "very similar", but there were also so many dissimilar elements involved that he in the end opted for saying that the similarities as such were not sufficient to convince him that there was a connection.
His main objection physically, was that he thought that in the Pinchins Street case, there had "been greater knowledge shown in regard to the construction of the parts composing the spine, and on the whole there has been a greater knowledge shown of how to separate a joint."

But we do know, of course, that the same doctor had thrown forward a suggestion that there could have been an attempt to decapitate Chapman, by the looks of things. And we need to weigh in two important factors when discussing this:
1. Chapman was killed out in the open, quite possibly meaning that her killer felt pressed for time and decided to abort before he could remove her head. This would seemingly be in accordance with Stride, where indications are that the killer was disturbed, with Nichols, where it can be reasoned that the killer would have wanted to extract organs, but was disturbed, and with Eddowes, where we know that time was scarce.
In the Pinchins Street murder, Lechmere (if it was him) may have had access to his motherīs lodgings, and maybe very much time on his hands.

2. If the killer of the canonicals and the Pinchins Street killer were one and the same, then he would have had ten months in which to pick up on how to separate bones.

Another point Phillips makes is that the Pinchin Street murderer seems to have cut away in order to dispose of the body and perhaps not for the sheer joy of it. But that would of course very much hinge on what the Pinchin Street killer thought of dismembering. If he had nourished an unsatisfied wish to do so since the canonical series of killings, then we may be speaking of something quite different from practical purposes only.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Before I am being taken to task for having highjacked the thread, I may as well say that as regards the original premise of the thread, I think that there IS a chance that Jack was never involved in the investigation in any shape or form - but since the magnitude of it all was so colossal, the better guess would - to my mind - be that he was to be found in the material, at least when it was full.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

kensei

She's right- people who go out hunting women to kill and to cut up in little pieces are an absolute aberration, the rarest of the rare (and thank God for that). More than one of them occurring within the same neighborhood in a short span of years is extremely unlikely.

But not ALL the victims were "cut up in little pieces".

Indeed, of the women killed the ones literally "cut up" were those of the torso-killer whom most of us do not believe to have been the same man as JtR. So we have to assume (maybe hypothesise would be a better word) at least TWO murderers operating in parallel - however unusual that may be.

Stride was not "cut up" or even sliced open. Nichols and Mckenzie were comparayively little touched - but one can I think make a case that we have a rising crescendo (learning curve?) in Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes (and maybe, but I am not convinced) MJK. One could add Mckenzie as a falling off akin to Nichols as a "first" or early victim. But there were clearly several murderers operating within a few years in the East End, UNLESS one considers every victim from 1888 to the early 1890s as a victim of "Jack" and I don't think that would find much favour.

The old conventions - five canonical victims; only one murderer at a time - surely have to be reconsidered. The traditional approach has not got us anywhere much, and seems to trip us when new ideas come forward. So why not wonder if only (say) three of the women fell to the hands of "Jack" and if that opens the window on Lechmere/Cross, well, he should be looked at AGAINST THOSE VICTIMS.

New insights might explain why we have such an unusual phenomenon as so many victims in a small area in a short time. If it emerged as a plot of somekind among Fenians or by them to terrorise London, everything might fall into place. It could be that it is our standpoint that is wrong, that is distorting our perceptions. We'd all be saying, why didn't I see those connections before? The choice of victim, the way of escape, the diversity of police suspects and statements, might all suddenly gain greater consistency.

Phil H

[Debra A]

2. If the killer of the canonicals and the Pinchins Street killer were one and the same, then he would have had ten months in which to pick up on how to separate bones.

Another point Phillips makes is that the Pinchin Street murderer seems to have cut away in order to dispose of the body and perhaps not for the sheer joy of it. But that would of course very much hinge on what the Pinchin Street killer thought of dismembering. If he had nourished an unsatisfied wish to do so since the canonical series of killings, then we may be speaking of something quite different from practical purposes only.

All the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman, are you assigning just the Pinchin Street torso to Lechmere here?

[Fisherman]

Debra:

"are you assigning just the Pinchin Street torso to Lechmere here?"

I am not assigning it to Lechmere, Debra - I am merely pointing out that when working from the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, then it must be of interest that the Pinchin Street Torso was found under the railway arch directly facing his motherīs and daughterīs lodgings in Cable Street.

I have not read up enough on the torso murders as such to be able to form any opinion on whether they too could have been Ripper deeds. And if the Torso killings were conclusively linked together by the evidence, then my best guess is that they were not Ripper-related.

At this stage, all I am saying is that logic dictates that the Pinchin Street case may well be of relevance to the Ripper case; at least if one - as I am - is of the meaning that Charles Lechmere is a superb bid for the Ripperīs role.

You are of course familiar with the normal procedure when a serial killer is picked up. All the killings that have occurred along the route of the serialistīs life are dug up and reassessed to see if they are connected. This is the exact same thing, more related to the geographical position the body was found at than anything else.

Hope this makes sense!

The best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Debra:

"are you assigning just the Pinchin Street torso to Lechmere here?"

I am not assigning it to Lechmere, Debra - I am merely pointing out that when working from the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, then it must be of interest that the Pinchin Street Torso was found under the railway arch directly facing his motherīs and daughterīs lodgings in Cable Street.

I have not read up enough on the torso murders as such to be able to form any opinion on whether they too could have been Ripper deeds. And if the Torso killings were conclusively linked together by the evidence, then my best guess is that they were not Ripper-related.

At this stage, all I am saying is that logic dictates that the Pinchin Street case may well be of relevance to the Ripper case; at least if one - as I am - is of the meaning that Charles Lechmere is a superb bid for the Ripperīs role.

You are of course familiar with the normal procedure when a serial killer is picked up. All the killings that have occurred along the route of the serialistīs life are dug up and reassessed to see if they are connected. This is the exact same thing, more related to the geographical position the body was found at than anything else.

Hope this makes sense!

The best,
Fisherman

Yes, I understand what you are saying, Fisherman. Thanks for the explanation.
I'll hold off sending you the cream for the cherry pie I thought you were making just yet then.

[Fisherman]

Much as I love cherry pie - and cream; yummy! - I think thatīs a very wise decision, Debra!

The best,
Fisherman

[PC Roadnight]

Yes, perhaps someone we have yet to hear of indeed. And, yes again, the JTR murders might well have 'copycat' or opportunist domestic 'spins-offs' amongst their number. I personally find it a little difficult to see though, that if (whatever their number) the 'Canonical' killings led up to the frenzied 'shambles' with MJK, then the killer would turn to the more calculated dismemberment of the 'Torso Murders'.

Many 'torso' murders seem to be perpetrated either after the murder as a way to dispose of the corpse, or if dismemberment was the first intent to be nevertheless done fairly clinically.

I confess I have not delved into the torso murders of the period closely, but am I right in thinking that they did not display further evisceration of the torsos themselves?

Peter

[Jonathan H]

The primary sources were here before us ...

What the primary sources actually show is that the police were not sure which murders were by the same hand, eg. maybe the two before Nicholls to Frances Coles, who was thought to be the final victim in 1891 by some police -- including arguably Anderson and Swanson.

The idea that in fact only a limited number of the Whitechapel murders were actually by 'Jack' was a later notion cemented by finding Druitt, which cancelled out Mylett, McKenzie, and Coles. The timing of his suicide was very inconvenient but Macnaghten's investigation, eg., conferring with the brother, nevertheless led to the canonical five because that is whom he was told Druitt had killed.

Conversely, if you do not think that Druitt was the Ripper then, apart from Dr Tumblety, you can have the killer murdering right through to Coles -- though not Aaron Kosminski for that last one.


It is in the Mac memoir; this idea of discovering that murders the police initially thought were probably by the same killer were apparently not at all:

' ... At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand. Indeed, I remember three cases - two in 1888, and one early in 1891, which the Press ascribed to the so-called Jack the Ripper, to whom, at one time or another, some fourteen murders were attributed-some before, and some after, his veritable reign of terror in 1888 ... Suffice it at present to say that the Whitechapel murderer committed five murders, and - to give the devil his due - no more ... There can be no doubt that in the room at Miller's Court the madman found ample scope for the opportunities he had all along been seeking, and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide ; otherwise the murders would not have ceased. The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms ...'