How Many Victims?

[Tani]

Who do you believe JTR killed?

Why?

Any counter-arguments to your argument?

[Fiver]

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - Definitely.
Tabram and Kelly - Probably.
Stride - Possibly.
McKenzie - Weak possibility.

My estimates are based on match to the Rippers signature and timing. McKenzie would rate higher if she'd been killed on a dark night like the others.

[Abby Normal]

c5 definitely. mckenzie and tabram probably

[John Wheat]

The C5, Tabram, Rose Mylett and Ellen Bury.

[I1ariusz]

I think that these victims were killed by the same killer: Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. It's possible that he killed Tabram and McKenzie. With Tabram even more, cause of such close proximity to other murder sites.

Btw, I don't understand why some researchers think that Kelly is not the Ripper victim. To me that's just irrational: lust killers are very rare (especially of that kind) and with Spitalfields and Whitechapel (where depsite infamy murder was not that often) to have two of that kind, in the same period of time, is almost impossible. Some think that Kelly was killed by a copycat or someone who was trying to stage it as a Ripper victim (which is, considering her destruction, even more silly). Well, to me Ripper title is even more deserving for the Kelly murderer that any others but you can clearly see similarities to Eddowes killing (mutilation of both abnominal areas and face). The only differences are coming from her being younger and killed indoors. I think it this case the Ockham razor is a good principle. The same goes for Stride.

[FrankO]

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly - Definitely.
Tabram - Probably (75/25).
Stride - Possibly (50/50).
MacKenzie - Weak possibility (25/75).

My view is that he was driven by a desire to mutilate, which we clearly see in the first 4.

I think that Tabram may have got the series going, in the sense that she, perhaps, triggered him while he hadn't been going out with murder on his mind, yet. In other words, she said or did something that infuriated him to such an extent that he attacked her in the spur of the moment. That would explain the differences between her and the first 4 on my list.

With Stride I'm on the fence; the timing and, therefore, the number of people that were still up & about was different and the attack itself was different in my view. If it was the Ripper who killed her, then I think he realized he would have no time to mutilate, but killed her anyway.

I'm inclined to think MacKenzie probablly wasn't a Ripper victim, because of the differences in the wounds - both to the throat and the abdomen - and the relatively long gap, but I've not closed the door entirely to that possibility.

[The Rookie Detective]

Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly - certainly
Nichols, McKenzie - almost certainly
Coles, Stride, Tabram- probable
Pinchin St - possible
Mylett - unlikely
Smith- No

[Lewis C]

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - definitely
Kelly - 90% chance
Tabram, Stride - 75% chance
McKenzie - 50% chance

[The Baron]

Mckenzie, Tabram, Nichols: 100%
Chapman: 95%
Eddowes, Stride: 90%
Kelly: 85%
Pinchin: 80%



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly - 100%
Stride - 40%/50%
Mackenzie - 20%/30%
Tabram - 10%
Coles - 5%
Pinchin - 0%

[Fiver]

Pinchin - 0%

Agreed. The Ripper and the Torsoman were different people. The signatures are completely different.

* The Torsoman did remove organs - sharing that in common with the Ripper.
* The Torsoman disarticulated limbs with a practiced skill - the Ripper did not.
* The Ripper mutilated the victims torsos with frenzied overkill - the Torsoman did not.
* The Ripper posed the victims' bodies flat on their backs with skirts hiked up - the Torsoman did not.
* The Torsoman was skilled at removing heads - the Ripper was a bumbling failure.
* The Ripper left his victims posed bodies where they were sure to be found in short order. The Torso Killer did not. Remains were pitched into rivers and canals where they only surfaced once decomposition was far enough along and were found by pure chance. Other parts were buried. Parts were hidden in shrubbery. The most visible but was the Pinchin Street Torso which was found by pure chance shortly after it was deposited, when it could have lain there unnoticed for days.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed. The Ripper and the Torsoman were different people. The signatures are completely different.

* The Torsoman did remove organs - sharing that in common with the Ripper.
* The Torsoman disarticulated limbs with a practiced skill - the Ripper did not.
* The Ripper mutilated the victims torsos with frenzied overkill - the Torsoman did not.
* The Ripper posed the victims' bodies flat on their backs with skirts hiked up - the Torsoman did not.
* The Torsoman was skilled at removing heads - the Ripper was a bumbling failure.
* The Ripper left his victims posed bodies where they were sure to be found in short order. The Torso Killer did not. Remains were pitched into rivers and canals where they only surfaced once decomposition was far enough along and were found by pure chance. Other parts were buried. Parts were hidden in shrubbery. The most visible but was the Pinchin Street Torso which was found by pure chance shortly after it was deposited, when it could have lain there unnoticed for days.

It’s baffling why anyone connects the two Fiver. The only reason Fisherman wants to tie the two series together is because we asked “how come the murders ceased and yet Cross was still around?” And what do you know…he ties to two series together to suggest that Cross went on killing. It’s all a part of the agenda. Sadly some gullible people fell for it. Unbelievable.

[The Rookie Detective]

I disagree.


There's a difference between M.O and Signature.


The Ripper and the Torso killer shared a key signature; they both desired for their respective victims to be found.

The Pinchin St torso wasn't placed under the arch to be hidden...it was placed deliberately in the knowledge it would be found.

The same applied to the Whitehall Torso; the evidence suggesting that the Torso had been previously buried and then deliberately dug up and placed...to be found

The Ripper always left his victims displayed in a manner that would cause the most possible shock value to the first person who found the body.

The killers choice to display and present a victim, is suggestive of an individual who wants acknowledgement of his work and recognition of his efforts.

When we consider that the Rippers signature was in the displaying of his victim, and the Torso killer deliberately intending for his victims to be found....we can see that there are clear similarities in the psychology of both men.

It is important to distinguish the difference between a killer needing to conceal a body with the intention of hiding a victims identity; with a killer choosing to place a victim in an area that would guarantee the victim would be found.

It's not about the identity of the victim, its about deliberately placing a victim with the knowledge that someone would eventually find it; and thus the killer's end game is the thrill of someone finding his work... the exact same signature as the Ripper.

The Torso killer wasn't trying to hide the victims permanently, otherwise he would have just dumped all the body parts in the Thames with heavy weights.

The reason why the M.O is different between the Ripper and the Torso killer, may just be that the killer wanted to make the world believe that there was more than one killer.

Nobody would suspect the Ripper being the notorious Torso killer.

That despite many newspapers at the time listing the Pinchin Street torso as a Ripper victim.

Then along came the shallow-minded concept of the Canonical 5 to ruin the parade.

Never say never