2 Rippers

[Tom_Wescott]

Great post Tom.

The fact that Emma Smith was set upon by a group of at least 3 men, should immediately rule her out as a potential Ripper suspect.

However, she still remains in the discussion to this day, and is of course included in a total of 11 potential Ripper victims.

This makes little sense, unless the Ripper was a member of the group of men who attacked Emma, or the Ripper was more than one man; ergo, a gang in it's entirety.

In other words; to even include Emma Smith in the discussion, it then rules out the Ripper having been a solitary killer.

We can also add Rose Mylett to that list; the known evidence implying there were 2 men involved in her untimely demise.

Emma Smith
Emily Horsnell
Rose Mylett
Martha Tabram (perhaps to a lesser extent)

It's also rather intriguing how at least 3 of these women all resided in George Street within yards of each other and at least 2 of them at the same address.

Hi RD. I don't think it follows that Rose Mylett is ruled in if we assume (for the sake of argument) that Emma Smith is ruled in. The two sailors seen with Mylett, IIRC, was hours before her death. The idea is that the East End in the 1880s was a different time then even fifty or sixty years later in that criminals often ran in groups and it's not impossible that one or two of the Emma Smith attackers developed an already burgeoning taste for the violence and escalated to Tabram. After all, the women were murdered only yards apart and their victimology was identical. Tabram had a 'deal of blood between her legs' and I'd wager that was from the dagger-like instrument being inserted into her, ala Smith.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom,

I have a different interpretation as to what Phillips was implying. The Casebook entry for McKenzie has Phillip's statement as:

After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.

I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances and other evidence are considered, holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion only on Professional grounds, based upon my own observation.

I interpret Phillips as saying that while on purely medical evidence he can not say that all the Whitechapel murders were by the same hand, based on the mode of procedure, the mutilations and the motive he would conclude to the contrary. He adds that the evidence is almost conclusive that there was a single perpetrator, but it was his duty to report on purely medical grounds.

Can you expand on your interpretation please?

Cheers, George

Hi George. That's interesting. I was not aware that a Casebook transcription of Phillips had him writing 'our man'. I was going by the version transcribed by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner. I'd say the context of what follows would indicate 'one man' is the correct transcription. Phillips most likely also discounted Eddowes and probably Kelly as Ripper victims, so he did not see his views as aligning with the police. I couldn't imagine him writing 'our man' but since I'm not looking at his handwritten notes, I can't say for sure. I believe he is simply saying that he doesn't think - based solely upon what he's viewed on his post mortem table - that all the Whitechapel murders were committed by the same hand. But he's aware that other evidence not coming under his immediate attention might force the conclusion that they were. After I finish writing this post, though, I'm going to reread his statement with your interpretation in mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott