Is Eddowes demise the key?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Following on from Sally's post.

With only five victims, you can't have multiple serial killers at work. So there's that scenario up the pictures.

I don't know if there's an officially-recognised minimum victim-quota in order to qualify as a bona-fide serial killer, but only two murders actually resembled each other. So for the sake of argument let's ascribe Chapman and Eddowes to one perpetrator.

This leaves three victims.

Polly Nichols has a special place in Whitechapel mythology. She evolved over time from being the third victim of a lone maniac [briefly rumoured to be Leather Apron] to becoming the first victim of Jack. Two very different people, according to the author of Dear Boss.

The inquest medical evidence rules out Stride having been mutilandum interruptus on Jack's part.

This leaves the Millers Court murder, which is in a jiggery-pokery league of its own. Money couldn't have bought the obfuscation which followed in its wake.

The word conspiracy is bandied around in its most pejorative sense whenever we shrink from addressing the many and varied shortcomings of the official version. We've talked ourselves into believing in Jack and heaped every obstacle in the way of any suggestion that he was anything less than real.

However, there is not one soupçon of evidence to suggest that a serial-killing Jack was responsible for the five Whitechapel murders. Think about it. Jack was apparently blessed with the appearance of a foreigner, split-second timing, lightning surgical skills and a mordant sense of humour. Yet the cops tried to pin his crimes on a cricket-playing barrister from Dorset, a Jewish lunatic who ate food from the gutter, and a man with an iron-clad alibi.

We need to get over Jack. The question we should be asking ourselves is why various policemen actively encouraged the press and public to believe he actually existed.

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate the word conspiracy.

Regards,

Simon

[Henry Flower]

Simon, with respect, almost your entire comment concerns itself with reactions to the killings, rather than the killings themselves. That's a fascinating phenomena for study, no doubt - but one can hardly take the varied 'ideas' of Jack and use their variety as evidence that there was no single Jack.

Not one soupcon of evidence that a serial killing Jack was responsible for the five murders? With respect, that's rather an 'authoritative' way to write, and many sane and well-read people will find the assertion baseless or blinkered. If you were to say 'proof' rather than 'evidence', then of course you'd have a very valid point.

Foreign appearance - split-second timing - surgical skills - mordant sense of humour - barrister - lunatic - man with alibi. Yes - and what does that suggest? Nothing more than the fact this was a new phenomena, and in the absence of any hard evidence, nobody knew who the hell they were dealing with, or who to look for - in the midst of a media shitstorm which demanded constant sensational developments and narratives.

We don't really need to re-evaluate the word conspiracy. We need to remember what we're dealing with. In Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888 several women who made money by prostitution were killed by knife attacks to the throat and abdomen. Given the abbreviated timeframe and very tight geographical locus, the probability is very strong that at least 4 of those 5 women were killed by the same hand.

Once you start over-emphasising slight variations or progressions in 'technique', you have to explain why, out of the blue, 2 or maybe even 3 such maniacs appeared at the same time in the same place, doing something that had hitherto been extremely rare.

Nothing as precious or as intellectual as re-evaluating the word 'conspiracy' is really necessary.

In my opinion. Cheers Simon - enjoyed your approach, even while disagreeing with it entirely

[Monty]

Simon, with respect, almost your entire comment concerns itself with reactions to the killings, rather than the killings themselves. That's a fascinating phenomena for study, no doubt - but one can hardly take the varied 'ideas' of Jack and use their variety as evidence that there was no single Jack.

Not one soupcon of evidence that a serial killing Jack was responsible for the five murders? With respect, that's rather an 'authoritative' way to write, and many sane and well-read people will find the assertion baseless or blinkered. If you were to say 'proof' rather than 'evidence', then of course you'd have a very valid point.

Foreign appearance - split-second timing - surgical skills - mordant sense of humour - barrister - lunatic - man with alibi. Yes - and what does that suggest? Nothing more than the fact this was a new phenomena, and in the absence of any hard evidence, nobody knew who the hell they were dealing with, or who to look for - in the midst of a media shitstorm which demanded constant sensational developments and narratives.

We don't really need to re-evaluate the word conspiracy. We need to remember what we're dealing with. In Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888 several women who made money by prostitution were killed by knife attacks to the throat and abdomen. Given the abbreviated timeframe and very tight geographical locus, the probability is very strong that at least 4 of those 5 women were killed by the same hand.

Once you start over-emphasising slight variations or progressions in 'technique', you have to explain why, out of the blue, 2 or maybe even 3 such maniacs appeared at the same time in the same place, doing something that had hitherto been extremely rare.

Nothing as precious or as intellectual as re-evaluating the word 'conspiracy' is really necessary.

In my opinion. Cheers Simon - enjoyed your approach, even while disagreeing with it entirely

Just as faith was ebbing away, there comes a voice that restores it.

Marry me Harry, take me away from all this.

Monty

[Henry Flower]

Monty you are most kind, but alas I must decline your proposal; 'Mrs Flower', whom we might call 'Molly', would not consent to such an odd arrangement.

And besides, everything I wrote is a subjective response to certain open-ended and inconclusive facts over a century old - which is what Mr Wood did also. Maybe you should marry us both? In time you can perhaps cruelly divorce whichever of us is proved wrong concerning the number of killers.

I'll put it to Mrs Flower.

[Sally]

Mundane..

It seems to me that most, perhaps all of the 'mysteries' in the case can as easily be attributed to:

Lack of information (then, and subsequently, now)

Human error

Personal opinion (contemporary)

All of which is explicable and usual and none of which indicates in itself that there was more than one perpetrator at work or that there was any conspiracy.

It doesn't matter what conspiracy, or by whom - it still must have a reason for being, a purpose, and agenda - and that, I'm afraid, is sadly lacking.

It all seems to rest on Stride and Kelly.

To go a bit further, 'killer division' hinges on Stride. It is impossible to say that Stride 'cannot' have been a Ripper victim - because we don't know what her killer's intent was. If he had been seen, for example, how do we know that he didn't just want to dispatch her asap? In fact, how could he have left her alive if he'd been disturbed?

The ambiguity of Stride encourages some to consider two killers on a single night - and if two, then why not three, four or five? And besides, she makes a neat divider between the two before and the two after.

The even more ambiguity of Kelly is the real conspiracy deal-maker - because we don't know who she was. Of course she wasn't using her real name - can't we see that from the 'Marie Jeanette' business alone? Whilst it means we may never identify her, in and of itself, that doesn't mean very much - it isn't necessarily ominous, and doesn't imply that she was anybody special.

So, Stride + Kelly = Multiple Perpetrator Conspiracy.

And at the end of the day, you still have at least four women with bits taken out of them in a tiny locale in the space of a few weeks.

[Monty]

You acknowledged Simons arguement, a courtsey not often reciprocated.

I can see Mollys attraction.

Monty

[Henry Flower]

Monty, Simon is clearly not a deranged, ranting idiot - quite the opposite - and thus deserves courtesy and an acknowledgement of his good faith, even though I disagree with him. To be fair, I think there is a lot of generosity and good will even between opposing 'camps' on casebook; that is half the attraction. And most seem mature enough to cope with some friendly ribbing and sarcasm.

And anyone who says otherwise is scum, and an idiot, and I hate them.

As for Molly, I'm not even sure there is only one Molly. After all, the wife I awoke beside this morning did not do exactly the same things today as the wife I had yesterday, or the wife I had in December. I think it's clear that at least three women have been operating as my wife.

Another trip to Hanbury St tomorrow to pick up more canvas from Atlantis. I'll give poor Annie a warm hello from anyone who sends her good wishes.

[Henry Flower]

Good night all Happy hunting!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Henry,

Based on the lack of evidence, proof - call it what you like - I find the assertion of Jack the five-victim serial killer to be baseless or blinkered.

You say there is a strong probability that at least four of the victims were killed by the same hand, and I don't think I need guess the identity of your odd-victim-out. If I'm reading you right, you accept the possibility of two murderers being involved.

Sleep well. Let's take it from there tomorrow.

Regards,

Simon

PS. I'm already spoken for.

[Errata]

Hi All,

Following on from Sally's post.

With only five victims, you can't have multiple serial killers at work. So there's that scenario up the pictures.

Regards,

Simon

Well, why is it multiple serial killers? Why not a serial killer and a one off? Or two one offs?

And speaking from a simple skill acquisition standpoint, if there is a serial killer who killed all 5 women, he HAS to have killed others. And I don't mean one or two others from the non canonical list. I mean like a dozen. Probably two between Nichols and Chapman. Since that many people didn't go missing in London, he has to have done it somewhere else. Somewhere where these types of corpses wouldn't get press, and where the travel turn around time is less than three weeks. Now I can think of a few places where these types of murders would go unremarked, but they aren't within a week and a half of London. So how did he get from ineffectually slashing at Nichol's abdomen to a not uncomplicated hysterectomy in Chapman in three weeks? It's not one of those things a person can puzzle out on the spot. If it's the same guy, where are the other bodies, or if there are no bodies, what on earth was he practicing on?

[DVV]

The theory that never was

Hi Henry

Lynn, hi - for me this is the clincher - count me a convert:

6. Two neck cuts on Polly and Annie; second neck cut on Kate, "superficial."

In other words, there were two neck cuts on Polly and Annie, whereas there were two neck cuts on Kate.

Clearly, the work of two very different killers. That autumn. In Whitechapel/Spitalfields.

Do you convince even yourself with this stuff, or are you merely being mischevious?

I must say I'm knocked for six.
Two prostitutes found with their throat savagely cut down to the vertebrae in the same area, same month, and this would indicate two different killers.
How can a theory be seriously considered on such a basis ?
It's either sad or delightful, I don't know.

[Henry Flower]

Simon, based upon the lack of a criminal conviction or even a strong chief suspect, I accept the possibility of there being at least five murderers involved. I also have to accept the possibility that these five murderers each had family and friends with them to lend moral support during the killings. And family pets. By the same token, based on the lack of 'evidence, proof - call it what you like' (how very cavalier and revealing, how high-handed!) you have to accept there might - just might - have been only one killer.

At some point we have to stop treating it as a set of cryptic crossword clues and remember that it's a cluster of murders, like other, less mythic murders, and that in Whitechapel/Spitalfields in the space of a few weeks in 1888, it's statistically more likely that one person started cutting throats and mutilating abdomens with a knife, than several. Who then all stopped at the same time, just as they had started.

The close basic similarities between four of the murders, the compressed timescale, the very confined geographic spread. You have all of that to contend with, and with the best will in the world I don't think you do that by contending that one person thought the killer was from Dorset whilst another thought he ate kosher bread from a gutter.

Were there differences between the crimes? Of course. Find me one real-life serial killer whose victims all suffered absolutely identical injuries. It's only when you start putting these murders back into context, by comparing them with other serial killings, that you realise how silly some of the comments here are - weaving theories on the basis that two victims had two throat-cuts each, whereas the fourth victim had one throat-cut and only a superficial second cut. Come on - can we stop playing silly games? There are variables. Hypothetically; give Jack the same room in which to kill, the same passive victim, the same lighting levels, and the same amount of time fifteen times over - and there's still a chance that all fifteen murders would have slight differences. Give him different light levels, different women, different circumstances on four or five occasions - and guess what?! There are differences in the injuries. Like every other serial killer in history.

I listened to Beethoven's Diabelli Variations last night (Richter live at the Concertgebouw, 1986 - wonderful, though my reference recording for this work would be Stephen Kovacevich, 2008, on Onyx). There is the same basic musical material underpinning each of the 33 variations, but they differ wildly in tempo, rhythm, mood, colour; the strange thing is, they were all written by the same man! Go figure!

And some people contend that Beethoven was at least partly black, while others think he was deeply religious, others a humanist. At times he was ferocious, other times as gentle and as spiritual as snowfall at twilight. Makes you wonder - was there more than one 'Beethoven' after all?

Maybe we need to re-evaluate the word 'theory'

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello David.

"Two prostitutes found with their throat savagely cut down to the vertebrae in the same area, same month, and this would indicate two different killers."

You may have misread this one. I have no doubts about Polly and Annie's activities when they were killed. Nor do I doubt they died by the same hand.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

paradigms

Hello Michael. There is much in your post with which to agree. But:

"Find me one real-life serial killer whose victims all suffered absolutely identical injuries. It's only when you start putting these murders back into context, by comparing them with other serial killings, that you realise how silly some of the comments here are"

makes me wonder why you assume a serial killer in the first place FOR the comparison?

Now, I really have no problem with that, as such. As Kant would have us believe, percepts cannot be without concepts. But you take the data points and interpret then through a paradigm--just like I do. So we BOTH theorise.

When you filter those data points through a different theory (mine, say), and whilst retaining your paradigm, of course the alternate theory seems silly. But that goes, mutatis mutandis, for someone like me who does the converse.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

"The close basic similarities between four of the murders, the compressed timescale, the very confined geographic spread. You have all of that to contend with, and with the best will in the world I don't think you do that by contending that one person thought the killer was from Dorset whilst another thought he ate kosher bread from a gutter."

Hi Henry,

Based on the fact that Simon says "no-Jack conspiracy" while I favour the lone serial predator, is it about time we considered two one-eyed tigers, arm in arm? It's the simplest explanation - they got away with murder because the order was given by some fool to shoot the beast between the eyes.

Do I win £5?

Love,

Caz (and the other Caz who washes up occasionally)
X