Favoured Suspect...

[FrankO]

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I'm with you, RD. I think he wouldn't.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

The term "Canonical 5" is a Macnaghten construct and based on his subjective opinion.

This is despite the official police file on the case consisting of up to 11 possible victims.


Similarly, the term "Jack the Ripper" is a construct of the individual who wrote "Dear Boss"

If this letter was not written by the real killer, then the term "Jack the Ripper" has no contextual relevance to the case.

The term "Whitechapel Murderer" should be the term used when discussing the case, because it covers a broader range of possibilities.

I would suggest that "From Hell" which doesn't mention "Jack the Ripper" is the authentic letter; if there actually was one written by the killer.

It's also poignant to acknowledge that the likes of Bury and Maybrick with an alleged link to the use of the name "Jack the Ripper' may inadvertently be one of the strongest reasons to infact rule them out as the real killer.

In other words, if the Dear Boss letter wasn't written by the killer, then any suspect linked to the name would have no actual link to the real killer.

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I doubt it.

Well said RD. Succinct and right on the money. Excellent post.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

The term "Canonical 5" is a Macnaghten construct and based on his subjective opinion.

This is despite the official police file on the case consisting of up to 11 possible victims.


Similarly, the term "Jack the Ripper" is a construct of the individual who wrote "Dear Boss"

If this letter was not written by the real killer, then the term "Jack the Ripper" has no contextual relevance to the case.

The term "Whitechapel Murderer" should be the term used when discussing the case, because it covers a broader range of possibilities.

I would suggest that "From Hell" which doesn't mention "Jack the Ripper" is the authentic letter; if there actually was one written by the killer.

It's also poignant to acknowledge that the likes of Bury and Maybrick with an alleged link to the use of the name "Jack the Ripper' may inadvertently be one of the strongest reasons to infact rule them out as the real killer.

In other words, if the Dear Boss letter wasn't written by the killer, then any suspect linked to the name would have no actual link to the real killer.

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I doubt it.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I would submit that most of this forum, and the other place, to a lesser degree, is based on opinions based on speculation.

Cheers, George

My bad about Baxter,



Of course it should have been "Why Should we"

[FISHY1118]

Well done in spelling Sir Melville Macnaghten's name correctly. It's getting rather rare.

Cheers. I have been known to misspell a word or two tho over the years

[rjpalmer]

Of course we also have the opinion of Macnaghten.

Well done in spelling Sir Melville Macnaghten's name correctly. It's getting rather rare.

[GBinOz]

Why shouldn't we assume Eddowes and Kelly aren't related George?
Could you restate this without double negatives please?
And weren't those opinions that of the coroner's not Baxters ?
Baxter was the coroner.
I just don't get your argument and way of thinking based on what is known and accepted together with the mountain of evidence overall regarding the C5 .
There is no mountain of evidence. We don't even have transcripts of the Inquests, being forced to rely on conflicting press reports. What is accepted is far from based on what is known. We are basically trying to assemble a jigsaw that has most of the pieces missing.
But I guess you're entitled to your opinion of course.

Hi Fishy,

I would submit that most of this forum, and the other place, to a lesser degree, is based on opinions based on speculation.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Why shouldn't we assume Eddowes and Kelly aren't related George?

And weren't those opinions that of the coroner's not Baxters ? I just don't get your argument and way of thinking based on what is known and accepted together with the mountain of evidence overall regarding the C5 .

But I guess you're entitled to your opinion of course.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Of course we also have the opinion of Macnaghten who said there were " 5 and only 5 murders " so we can only speculate and opinionize as to whether those extra 4 ( or how ever many more one wants to add ) are unrelated to the C5 .

A couple of things , just on Baxter and his opinion about two different techniques, can you point that out to me as I can't seem to find it .

And what evidence is there that leads you to assume Eddowes and kellys murders were not related or not a ripper victim/s ( in Kelly's case) .? Cheers.

Hi Fishy,

Baxter's opinion was expressed in his summary at the Stride inquest - quite near the end.

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;"

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html

I'm not saying that it should be assumed that the Eddowes and Kelly murders were not related, only that it should not be assumed that they are related. The C5 is only a concept presented by Macnaghten who was planting tea in India when these murders took place. There were differences of opinion by the actual investigators and the doctors involved with the cases at the time as to how the victims might have been related to any particular perpetrator. I don't think it is productive to place the "5 and only 5" in a sacrosanct box labelled Jack the Ripper. McKenzie's injuries have more in common with those of Nichols than Stride's injuries in comparison to Nichols, but McKenzie is often attributed to someone else because she is not one of the "5 and only 5". JMO.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

My daughter looked at the autopsies in isolation and formed the opinion that entirely different techniques were employed.

We so often confine our discussions to the C5, but there were, according to Swanson, 9 Whitechapel murders plus an attempt (Farmer) and and an alleged (Mylett), and of course the torso murders. So how many killers were involved?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Of course we also have the opinion of Macnaghten who said there were " 5 and only 5 murders " so we can only speculate and opinionize as to whether those extra 4 ( or how ever many more one wants to add ) are unrelated to the C5 .

A couple of things , just on Baxter and his opinion about two different techniques, can you point that out to me as I can't seem to find it .

And what evidence is there that leads you to assume Eddowes and kellys murders were not related or not a ripper victim/s ( in Kelly's case) .? Cheers.

[FrankO]

On the night of the double event there were three women that had their throats cut, so I'm not entirely persuaded as to rarity.

Hi George,

When I talk about rarity of the 4 mutilation murders, I refer to the mutilations, not the cut throats.

It is not so much that I like to have an unusual opinion. Rather that I don't feel obliged to conform to a usual opinion.

Then apologies for having said something incorrect about you. I just get that impression sometimes.

I don't feel obliged to conform to a usual opinion, either. I do the same as you, which is to examine each murder on its own merits. Only I arrive at other probable conclusions, possibly because we put stock in different basic things.

I find the premise that if evidence points to suspect for some murders, but it is assumed that he must be innocent because he has an alibi for other murders, to be an apocryphal assumption.

I have to admit that I don't give the named suspects much thought. Some seem to be promising, but still, too much information is missing.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I couldn't agree more... with your closing abbreviation, that is. As Mike J.G. said, these kinds of murders are pretty rare as it is, and then, if we add that 4 such murders were committed in only 10 weeks and within a relatively small area, then even the odd alone are that they were committed by one man. Although I wouldn't be surprised to find that the rough living conditions of the area back then produced more serial killers (that's why I tend to think Torso Man, if he was just one man, was not the Ripper), just as they seem to have done in some of South Africa's townships.

You say you're not persuaded and that's fine, of course. I respect that. I even think I've come to know you as someone who actually likes to have an unusual opinion.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

The C5 murders are a subset of the Whitechapel murders, and the torso murders are additional. On the night of the double event there were three women that had their throats cut, so I'm not entirely persuaded as to rarity. It is not so much that I like to have an unusual opinion. Rather that I don't feel obliged to conform to a usual opinion. I find the premise that if evidence points to suspect for some murders, but it is assumed that he must be innocent because he has an alibi for other murders, to be an apocryphal assumption. My preference is to examine each murder on its own merits, and let the distribution fall where it may. JMO.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

I'm a bit confused here George, are you saying that your daughter believes two different perpetrators for chapman and Eddowes murders ?.

Kelly not a victim of JtR ??? So 3 killers during the Autumn of Terror?

Hi Fishy,

My daughter looked at the autopsies in isolation and formed the opinion that entirely different techniques were employed.

We so often confine our discussions to the C5, but there were, according to Swanson, 9 Whitechapel murders plus an attempt (Farmer) and and an alleged (Mylett), and of course the torso murders. So how many killers were involved?

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

WADR, I cannot agree. My daughter is a medical professional who has zero interest in JtR. When I asked her to look at the autopsies she responded that Chapman and Eddowes were by different hands (unknowingly agreeing with Baxter). I am not convinced that Kelly was a victim of JtR. I am of the opinion that we are all endeavouring to fit the murders into an artificial construct whereby, if the perpetrator of one murder is found then the JtR case is solved. I am not persuaded that this is the case. YMMV.

Hi George,

I couldn't agree more... with your closing abbreviation, that is. As Mike J.G. said, these kinds of murders are pretty rare as it is, and then, if we add that 4 such murders were committed in only 10 weeks and within a relatively small area, then even the odd alone are that they were committed by one man. Although I wouldn't be surprised to find that the rough living conditions of the area back then produced more serial killers (that's why I tend to think Torso Man, if he was just one man, was not the Ripper), just as they seem to have done in some of South Africa's townships.

You say you're not persuaded and that's fine, of course. I respect that. I even think I've come to know you as someone who actually likes to have an unusual opinion.

All the best,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Absolutely fascinating discussion thus far.


I think that there's some evidence to suggest that the murder of Stride may have been the work of a different killer.

She was dispatched in a manner akin to a professional execution and IMO may have been silenced for some reason.

With the Thames torso killings; there's some evidence to suggest that the placing of certain victims body parts was undertaken by more than one person.
The placing of the torso under the New Scotland Yard for example, would have required someone with prior knowledge of the site, and therefore just may have required more than one person to coordinate the initial placing and subsequent attempt at moving the torso, on the same weekend as Stirde and Eddowes were murdered.

Emma Smith was the work of a gang; and unless the Ripper was part of that gang, her death is unrelated to a solitary psychopath.

Rose Mylett's murder also indicates that 2 men were involved.

Martha Tabram's murder also indicates that 2 men may have been involved.

The Pinchin Street Torso and the Cleary/Leary/Arnold saga, indicates some prior knowledge that a body would be dumped just yards from the junction of Back Church Lane and Pinchin Street. Such prior knowledge would suggest more than one person being aware that a woman had been dismembered.




However, with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, there are clear key signatures that are left by the Ripper.

The manner and angle of the incisions, the placing of the entrails over the right shoulder, the targeting of the reproductive organs, the throat cuts etc...

Nichols IMO was the closest the killer got to getting caught; he wasn't able to carry out the level of mutilation that he manages with Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.


When we look at diagrams of each victims torso, the similarities are there to be seen.


The question is...was the Ripper part of a larger gang and therefore also involved in the murders of Smith, Mylett etc...?

Were the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly akin to the Ripper's solo career; like a lead singer from a band releasing a few solo albums but still retaining their place in the band at the same time?


It is also interesting to look at the murder of McKenzie; her death being more similar to the murder of Nichols than any other victim.

When we directly compare the murder of Nichols and McKenzie, it would appear that the Ripper may have come full circle.

But there's another interesting parallel that should also be acknowledged and considered...

In November 1886 a woman's torso was found on the steps of a church in Paris (Mont Rouge)

The similarities between the Paris torso and the torso killings in London are rather startling...but in addition to her head and legs, the Paris torso victim also had her torso attacked and her Uterus and left breast removed.

The Paris torso of 1886 is seemingly the perfect hybrid between the London Torso killer and the Ripper.


When we throw a wider net over proceedings and move away from the blinkered and restrictive "Canonical 5," we begin to see the bigger picture.

There was a lot more going on here than we realise.