Stride or MJK - Least likely Ripper victim?

[Harry D]

When it comes to the thorny subject of victim canon, these two victims remain the most controversial. In this case we have a complete contrast - one victim who lacked post-mortem mutilations and the other who was completely dissected.

Of the two, which do you think is least likely to be a Ripper victim - Stride or MJK? I'm guessing Stride will probably dominate the votes, as a lack of mutilations gives more reason for doubt than an excess, but is it as straightforward as that? MJK's murder seems far more sexually motivated than Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, and arguably more personal, as the killer completely defaced his victim. Added to that, the killer seems to have dispensed with his previous skill and deliberation when carving MJK up.

[Tom_Wescott]

There's actually very little 'controversy' over whether or not Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim. Like the Stride exclusion, that's a modern construct. Even Dr. Phillips and his assistant included Kelly as an official Ripper victim, although based solely on medical findings, they could not be so sure about Stride and Eddowes. If one were to go strictly off of contemporary opinion and were only to consider the 'canonical five', then Eddowes becomes the most controversial.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Damaso Marte]

I have always found "the killer was indoors and had more time" to be a perfectly suitable and plausible explanation for why MJK was subjected to far more extensive mutilations.

[Rosella]

Yes, exactly, the killer of MJK (whom I believe to be Jack) had at least three hours to indulge himself and perform his destruction of her body.

I believe Liz Stride was also a Ripper victim, with her murderer left frustrated and angry at the unexpected arrival of Louis Diemschutz. If he and his barrow had been half an hour later there would be no controversy about Stride being one of the C-5.

However, if I had to plump for one of the two women not being a victim of Jack it would be Liz Stride.

[Batman]

The only change that may be warranted is the addition of Tabram which Sugden seems to have done.

The most glaring problem with removing a victim is that its usually done to fit a suspect.

For example,
Removes Stride and the GSC because Kozminski/Cohen are Jews.
Removes Kelly because a suspect is in jail at the time.

I think Sugden got it right. 6.

[caz]

Good post, Batman.

The 'modern construct' (as mentioned by Tom) of excluding MJK or rejecting the double event, ironically ignores the various modern day examples which appear to show the exact opposite is more likely.

Robert Napper, for example, murdered two young mothers, in circumstances and using methods that were frighteningly similar to Tabram and MJK. In Napper's case, the two crimes were more than a year apart, and at opposite sides of London, while just 3 months and a very short stroll separated Tabram and MJK. And at least three modern killers, including Ted Bundy, have been genuine double eventers, where conditions outside their control caused them to cut short a murderous encounter, only to seek another at the earliest opportunity.

Such human behaviour is rare but recognisable and documented. What I have yet to see is a single comparable example of a solved serial murder case, featuring either a Kelly or Stride equivalent, who turned out to be killed by A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

I, for one, am dying to see Tom's book on the Liz Stride killing...I don't know why but, personally, something has always told me that the double event may be the key to the mystery...

This gut-feeling aside, the Stride and Eddowes killings are fascinating in their own right and I can't wait to hear Tom's take upon them...

[Tom_Wescott]

I, for one, am dying to see Tom's book on the Liz Stride killing...I don't know why but, personally, something has always told me that the double event may be the key to the mystery...

This gut-feeling aside, the Stride and Eddowes killings are fascinating in their own right and I can't wait to hear Tom's take upon them...

Hi Cog, at this point I doubt I'll be doing a strictly Stride book. However, I am writing a book on the C5 and will spend a good amount of time on Stride. The double event being the key to the mystery was my driving force in getting so interested in Stride to begin with and is what led me to Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[gnote]

Good post, Batman.

The 'modern construct' (as mentioned by Tom) of excluding MJK or rejecting the double event, ironically ignores the various modern day examples which appear to show the exact opposite is more likely.

Robert Napper, for example, murdered two young mothers, in circumstances and using methods that were frighteningly similar to Tabram and MJK. In Napper's case, the two crimes were more than a year apart, and at opposite sides of London, while just 3 months and a very short stroll separated Tabram and MJK. And at least three modern killers, including Ted Bundy, have been genuine double eventers, where conditions outside their control caused them to cut short a murderous encounter, only to seek another at the earliest opportunity.

Such human behaviour is rare but recognisable and documented. What I have yet to see is a single comparable example of a solved serial murder case, featuring either a Kelly or Stride equivalent, who turned out to be killed by A.N.Other.

Love,

Caz
X

There have been cases of more than one serial killer operating in the same general area. If MO changes in either of them that naturally can confuse the situation further. As could a random murder within that time frame.

In terms of your example i'm not aware of one either. If such an example exists is then there two such coincidences in history? It's not impossible of course but to me seems highly improbable.

I'm not "strict" on the Canonical idea but it appears many are concentrating more on the differences than the similarities.

[caz]

There have been cases of more than one serial killer operating in the same general area.

Hi gnote,

No doubt, but to my knowledge nobody argues that Stride or MJK may have been the victim of a serial killer other than the ripper.

The favourite argument seems to be for someone who knew the victim personally and bore some grudge against them - which just happened to flare up with fatal consequences during the few short weeks when the ripper was doing similar knifework in the near vicinity.

It's possible, but I don't find it likely or particularly workable. And when one individual could all too easily have been responsible, it's not like we are desperate for another option.

Love,

Caz
X

[gnote]

Hi gnote,

No doubt, but to my knowledge nobody argues that Stride or MJK may have been the victim of a serial killer other than the ripper.

The favourite argument seems to be for someone who knew the victim personally and bore some grudge against them - which just happened to flare up with fatal consequences during the few short weeks when the ripper was doing similar knifework in the near vicinity.

It's possible, but I don't find it likely or particularly workable. And when one individual could all too easily have been responsible, it's not like we are desperate for another option.

Love,

Caz
X

I understand and i agree. Kidney with Stride, Barnett for Kelly and so on.

It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility multiple killers were responsible but i think calling the JTR murders a "myth" is misleading and incorrect. If the truth came out and it turned out any one of the victims wasn't murdered by the Ripper i wouldn't exactly fall out my seat. At the same time i would indeed be shocked if there were 5 or 6 different people responsible for all. (outside of team killers)

[caz]

Thanks gnote.

...but i think calling the JTR murders a "myth" is misleading and incorrect.

More than that, it appears to insult almost everyone concerned: the police for being stupid or corrupt; the press and public for being gullible (for - ironically - mistakenly 'recognising' the yet-to-be established phenomenon of the serial killer); the unknown and unknowable other 'killers', who may not be killers at all; and the murdered women themselves, who become something other than the helpless victims of a motiveless crime. They are murdered because of who they are, or what they have said or done, and not just because their killer got his jollies that way. Makes me vaguely uncomfortable, as though the blame is being shifted, or shared, whenever the ripper is cleared in favour of various killers with distinct 'motives'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Hi gnote,

No doubt, but to my knowledge nobody argues that Stride or MJK may have been the victim of a serial killer other than the ripper.

The favourite argument seems to be for someone who knew the victim personally and bore some grudge against them - which just happened to flare up with fatal consequences during the few short weeks when the ripper was doing similar knifework in the near vicinity.

It's possible, but I don't find it likely or particularly workable. And when one individual could all too easily have been responsible, it's not like we are desperate for another option.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello, Caz.

Obviously, whoever eviscerated MJK was one sick puppy. It's difficult to swallow that this was a personal hit that either exploded out of hand or was made to resemble a Ripper murder. For starters, if they had wanted to do that, I'm sure a trademark cut-throat and some slashing around the body would've been enough to throw the police off the scent. In this case, the murderer took great pleasure in dissecting MJK piece by piece and splaying her innards around the room. Sure, MJK could've known someone with a violent temper who snapped and slashed her throat but they would've also had to have been a crazy lust-killer who had done that sort of thing before. Which brings us full-circle to the probability argument of there being more than one such murderer active in Whitechapel at the time.

[caz]

Hello, Caz.

Obviously, whoever eviscerated MJK was one sick puppy. It's difficult to swallow that this was a personal hit that either exploded out of hand or was made to resemble a Ripper murder. For starters, if they had wanted to do that, I'm sure a trademark cut-throat and some slashing around the body would've been enough to throw the police off the scent. In this case, the murderer took great pleasure in dissecting MJK piece by piece and splaying her innards around the room. Sure, MJK could've known someone with a violent temper who snapped and slashed her throat but they would've also had to have been a crazy lust-killer who had done that sort of thing before. Which brings us full-circle to the probability argument of there being more than one such murderer active in Whitechapel at the time.

Hi Harry,

Good post. Also, if someone known to MJK had a reason to want her dead, the worst possible place to do the deed was in her room. A quick job in a dark alley would have looked far more impersonal and in keeping with a stranger who engaged with prostitutes and murdered them for no apparent reason. Surely only a stranger would practically invite the cops to swarm round Miller's Court and focus their attention on MJK's known associates. Whether the cops did so or not is beside the point.

Love,

Caz
X

[gnote]

Hello, Caz.

Obviously, whoever eviscerated MJK was one sick puppy. It's difficult to swallow that this was a personal hit that either exploded out of hand or was made to resemble a Ripper murder. For starters, if they had wanted to do that, I'm sure a trademark cut-throat and some slashing around the body would've been enough to throw the police off the scent. In this case, the murderer took great pleasure in dissecting MJK piece by piece and splaying her innards around the room. Sure, MJK could've known someone with a violent temper who snapped and slashed her throat but they would've also had to have been a crazy lust-killer who had done that sort of thing before. Which brings us full-circle to the probability argument of there being more than one such murderer active in Whitechapel at the time.

Even worse is the theory that was a botched abortion made to look like a Ripper crime.

Something goes wrong, MJK dies and the abortionist thinks ... "Instead of just running i'll cover this one up to look like it was murder committed by that Jack the Ripping guy or whoever that's been in all the papers. Brilliant!"

So he then spends the next several hours absolutely eviscerating her.

If that was done as a coverup it has to be the most dedicated effort performed in all of history. He still didn't fool everybody though!