c3 or not?

[DVV]

Glenn,
We can also put Martha Tabram in the frame, for this matter.
Illustrated Police News, 18 aug.:
"The difficulty of identification arose out of the brutal treatment to which the deceased was manifestly subjected, she being throttled while held down and the face and head so swollen and distorted..."
The mortuary photograph seems to confirm the statement, even though the IPN is not famous for its reliability.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"there was no mention about suffocation (unless I recall incorrectly) in Eddowes' case either"

There were the tightly clenched hands, though, and they may well have been a sign of suffocation. But when it comes to written evidence in the police reoprts, I believe you are right.

"As for the cut - well, we've been here before - it appears to be a cut going deeper than the others, that's all."

With all due respect, Glenn, I do not think that is all - it is a cut placed on the exact spot that generated the Rippers interest. And it does NOT go deeper than the others, it is in fact a lot more shallow than the stabs that pierced the inner organs. To my mind, that earns it recognition as something totally different from the rest of the wounds on her body. Three inches long and one inch deep, and not being a rip, it would have come about by the killer drawing his knife across Tabrams lower abdomen. No stab, therefore, but instead a wound that is very much harder to describe as one that came about in a frenzied mann (not that I think that the other stabs necessarily did either, but that is another story altogether).

"It does not appear to be a 'rip' or an attempt to open her up "

First notion seconded, the second one not - though feeble in comparison to what we see in the other cases, there is no way we can establish that the cut did not come about as a result of a wish to open Tabram up.

But just like you say, we have been here before, and it is a subject that really belongs to another thread, so maybe we should leave it for now?

The best, Glenn!

Fisherman

[caz]

...If instead you change the perspective and see the murder as something that took place in a sudden fit of rage, you are suddenly provided with an answer to the question why it all looks like something NOT premeditated, why it was carried out in such a risky environment, why the cut is significantly different from the Ripper´s handiwork, why she felt enough at ease to take out her cachous, why she was not mutilated, why she ended up on her side instead of on her back and why there were no signs of suffocation about her - because it was a spur of a moment deed. No premeditation, no intent from the outset.

Hi Fisherman,

Do you have any particular reason for believing that the same man who killed Polly, Annie and Kate could not have murdered Liz in this sudden fit of rage you describe, while suggesting that some other unknown man who may never have killed anyone before in his life did just that?

I do find it odd that for some people to even consider Liz as a potential victim of the man who would soon be known as Jack the Ripper, they first have to see her murder as premeditated and committed with exactly the same mindset as the others.

Imagine if Liz had been a boy or an old man, who encountered the ripper lurking around Dutfield's Yard and said or did something that enraged him, or even put his continued freedom to offend at risk. Do you think the man who was capable of the Buck's Row and Hanbury St murders would have thought twice about cutting this meddlesome fellow's throat? Would he have said to himself: "Wait a sec, what am I thinking? I only ever kill women who give me the chance to mutilate them afterwards"?

It's funny really, because the few posters who can conjure up from their imagination a whole scenario involving a different, totally unknown man as a vicious killer, tend also to be the ones who lack the imagination to see the ripper, a known vicious killer, as a man first and a serial mutilator second.

How can Jack possibly be eliminated in a search for an unidentified male who could slice a woman's throat on the spur of the moment in a sudden fit of rage, and in an environment that would arguably be too risky for a planned mutilation attempt in any case?

Martha Tabram does not belong in either the c5, c6 or c3.
There are absolutely no similarities between her murder and the Ripper killings - she was stabbed 39 times, her throat wasn't cut and she wasn't mutilated. Not to mention the fact that ther murder occurred only three weeks earluer than Nichols' and still is fundamentally different, with the only similarity being the choice of victim - a victim which engaged in one of the most danerous occupations both now and in those days.
It is an insane idea, to say the least. She was obviously killed by a pshychoic client, and the two murderer's profile are fundamentally different. It's pure nonsense from beginning to end.

All the best

Hi Glenn,

While I have no opinion at all these days regarding Tabram (that is to say I could no more rule her out as one of Jack's than I could rule her out as another killer’s victim), I really think you ought to read the post I wrote earlier today on the Stride - no strangulation.small knife ? thread concerning two modern day double events:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=911&page=3

If the two murderers each responsible for their own independent double event had not already been identified and convicted, you would now be thinking it was a far more 'insane idea' and even purer 'nonsense from beginning to end' to connect any two of the offences together. You would be saying that they were all very clearly committed by very different individuals, with very different motivation. And you would be very wrong in both cases.

I cannot emphasise enough that it is sheer folly to completely rule out one offender for two unsolved crimes unless he simply had no opportunity to commit one of them. A mutilating serial killer of prostitutes, for instance, would be no less capable of beating up or smothering the missus during a heated row, or robbing a bank at gunpoint, than the next man. Indeed, we are always being told to look for suspects who have a record of other offences that certainly wouldn't include mutilating strangers for no apparent reason.

Crime scene evidence alone can often show that one offender was undoubtedly responsible for more than one unsolved crime. But I bet it can rarely show that two unsolved crimes linked by space or time had no other connection whatsoever.

Love,

Caz
X

[Celesta]

What bothers me about Liz is that Scwartz said that the drunken man, he followed along the street, dragged Liz out of the yard, and with his hands, on her shoulders, pushed her down into the street. She screamed but not very loudly, as if she didn't want to draw a lot of attention. This isn't the vision I have of JTR's approach to his victims. On top of which, no one ever witnessed him attack a single victim or call out to a single witness. (So far as we know.) Why would he change his methods at this time? This approach is more like what a domestic attack would be like. The guy has been looking for the woman, he is drunk and angry, and the longer he looks, the angrier and drunker he gets. When he finds her, he's in a frenzy to teach her a lesson. It goes from there.

[perrymason]

There is no justice in a system if individual crimes are not treated as such, and the Canon was 5 individual crimes first and foremost. To suggest that they should all be attributed to "Jack" because we know he was killing at that time is, at best, a lynch mob mentality Caz.

Each crime can only be attributed to a killer, in this case we can say the "known" killer is a man mutilating unfortunates, by the earmarks and evidence presented in each case demonstrating his likely involvment, and in the case of Liz Stride there is only a throat cut and that she was an unfortunate that can be used. Since many knives were in the hands of many bad men on those streets,...and there were something like 35,000 unfortunates roaming about, and perhaps 6 other unfortunates were killed with knives during that 88-89 period that were not believed to be Jack's work, there is no solid case against anyone without some proof.

Perhaps you think Jacks throat cuts were "like no other"... well, Im certain thats very subjective, and untrue. His were vicious cuts, but they were made by a man and a knife,....and as such could have been any man who was the type to carry a sharp knife on him and was provoked or encouraged to use it, in his own mind of course.
There were no signs anything other than her death was on her killers mind. And that sounds like JtR?

When a woman is cut to pieces, do we then assume its the man who cuts women to pieces that is at large? The man who leaves Torso's. No. We dont. We assume its the man who sometimes just cuts throats.

Liz Stride was seen in a fracus with a man who "manhandled" her within 15 minutes of her death, and just feet from the location where she dies.

Thats most likley who killed Liz.

Best regards all.

[Dan Norder]

There is no justice in a system if individual crimes are not treated as such, and the Canon was 5 individual crimes first and foremost. To suggest that they should all be attributed to "Jack" because we know he was killing at that time is, at best, a lynch mob mentality Caz.

That's like saying that five separate photos of a giraffe running wild through Spitalfields taken at different times during the same day should be treated as five separate giraffes. It's not "lynch mob mentality" to note that wild giraffes running loose in an urban environment are very rare and that reports from the same very small area and same general time are almost certainly the same giraffe seen by different people. It's common sense.

[perrymason]

That's like saying that five separate photos of a giraffe running wild through Spitalfields taken at different times during the same day should be treated as five separate giraffes. It's not "lynch mob mentality" to note that wild giraffes running loose in an urban environment are very rare and that reports from the same very small area and same general time are almost certainly the same giraffe seen by different people. It's common sense.

Your regular choice of analogies Dan reveals the spite....just so you know you dont have to respond each time based on that kind of motivation.

Its nothing like 5 recorded giraffe sightings. Its 5 separate murders, varying in style from a simple execution to a serial killers glut indoors, carried out within a square mile, in approx 2 1/2 months. That you have decided they are linked absolutely is your business,...my point is that line of thinking hasnt proven to be very useful in solving these cases, there are clearly some differences in each consecutive murder from the prior, and there is no evidence of any single killer, without assigning the killer a motivation of killing and cutting, and a very flexible MO. But there is no evidence available at this time that dictates the killings were "serial", and the motivation was bloodlust in these 5 murders.

You are doing what Bond did, who only examined one victim himself....and Macnaughten, and others...you are attributing victims to an unknown killer "Jack" without proof there even was a "Jack", or that he killed 5 and only these 5 "Canon" women.

"The Whitechapel Murderer" is a headline...so is "Jack the Ripper". A nomme de plume. 5 women were killed, some very similarly. Martha was the actual start of the real panic,...and she is not even thought to be a "Ripper" victim. Starting with a proven foundation at least gives you an objective view of each case, and in this case all that has been proven is that the women were murdered in the same neighbourhoods in the Fall of 88.

Objectively speaking, there is at best a weak case made for one, and perhaps 2 Canon victims to-date. And no sound case at all for one man killing these 5 only. Thats the reality.

Im just a messenger on that point, bear that in mind.

Best regards.

[Sasha]

I think it's very difficult to include or exclude victims on MO of kill alone. 1)The killer of these women had a knife and cut their throats (from behind). 2) There was evidence of overkill in most instances. 3) One and only one of these women was killed inside. If one concentrates on 1) alone, this becomes a very limiting viewpoint. A knife is a relatively cheap weapon - accessible to most people - and cutting a person's throat from behind is a very expeditious way of expending them. Surely such a method is more inclusive of a theory of any (many) killer(s) rather than one in particular? Now if only one killing had been done by firearm or poison then we could certainly start to exclude people? And Anna, I too had thought about the killer's use of chloroform to subdue the victims. On the one hand, this makes it easier for him. On the other hand, 2) suggests he is sick puppy and a sadist. I don't think he'd make the actual killing so easy on them. I think the absence of 2) in one case (Stride) is important as is the presence of 3) in only one victim (Kelly) is also relevant. There may well be logical reasons for including these women despite 2) and 3) but I always have at the back of my mind that we are dealing with a psychopath and logic doesn't always hold. And the last point makes it equally difficult to exclude or include Stride and Kelly from the canon 5.

In other words, I think we have to look behind the mode of killing as a basis for including or excluding victims from the canon 5.

Sasha

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Michael/Perry,

I just want to say that I absolutely agree with everything in your last post above.

All the best

[DVV]

1)The killer of these women had a knife and cut their throats (from behind).
Sasha

Hello Sasha,
There is no evidence at all that he cut the throat "from behind".
On the contrary, it's very likely that this was done after the victim was lowered to the ground.
Amitiés,
David

[Dan Norder]

Its 5 separate murders, varying in style from a simple execution to a serial killers glut indoors

Funny how all that "varying in style" is the same criminological signature.

carried out within a square mile, in approx 2 1/2 months.

And how often do you think mutilation killers who kill their victims with deep throat slashes show up? If they just happened willy nilly then you should expect clusters of them all over London, not to mention the rest of the world, in three month time spans on a regular basis. It simply doesn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances -- if it did nobody would think twice about the Ripper anyway, as he'd be one of a million such killers.

But there is no evidence available at this time that dictates the killings were "serial", and the motivation was bloodlust in these 5 murders.

Ignoring evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.

Objectively speaking, there is at best a weak case made for one, and perhaps 2 Canon victims to-date. And no sound case at all for one man killing these 5 only. Thats the reality.

Now you say there's at best a weak case for there being one victim of Jack the Ripper....? A month or so ago you were crediting at least three -- which is absurdly low, but, hey, at least other people share that idea. Now you're not even really grasping basic math. Let me guess, next month you'll be saying he killed negative three people? Or will you move onto fractions? So Jack killed half of Annie Chapman and then a meteorite falling from the sky did the rest of the damage, while all the others were killed by a pack of rabid giraffes. Great. Brilliant.

[Dan Norder]

Michael/Perry,

I just want to say that I absolutely agree with everything in your last post above.

So you think the Ripper killed maybe one person, perhaps two? Come on Glenn, you may be stubborn and ignorant with how real world non-fictional serial killers actually operate, but you're not insane.

I think maybe you just assumed he was pushing the same three victims you do and decided to chime in without reading it. But, by all means, if you've now started moving onto seriously considering that the Ripper possibly had less than one whole victim, please do give us more information on how you think that would work. It'd be amusing.

[perrymason]

Hi Dan,

I expected some opinion to the contrary from you...

Funny how all that "varying in style" is the same criminological signature.

A slit throat is the same as uterus extraction? A murder on a sidewalk in a street is the same as a murder in a victims room?

And how often do you think mutilation killers who kill their victims with deep throat slashes show up? If they just happened willy nilly then you should expect clusters of them all over London, not to mention the rest of the world, in three month time spans on a regular basis. It simply doesn't happen except in the rarest of circumstances -- if it did nobody would think twice about the Ripper anyway, as he'd be one of a million such killers.

Deeply cut necks are a feature of these murders, not a flashing sign indicating that one man must have committed them,.. its conceivable that the severity of the wounds just demonstrates that the killer(s) were just ensuring the victims death, without using any special technique or knife. Its a man who didnt know how much force to apply, so he applies more than is required to ensure results. Jack may have cut throats deeply, but that is hardly a "signature".

Now you say there's at best a weak case for there being one victim of Jack the Ripper....? A month or so ago you were crediting at least three -- which is absurdly low, but, hey, at least other people share that idea. Now you're not even really grasping basic math. Let me guess, next month you'll be saying he killed negative three people? Or will you move onto fractions? So Jack killed half of Annie Chapman and then a meteorite falling from the sky did the rest of the damage, while all the others were killed by a pack of rabid giraffes. Great. Brilliant.

I should think that anyone who read what I wrote without having a mindset to then ridicule the remarks, would see that I referred to one of the 5 Canon victims, not that I said there was one victim. I have consistently been of the opinion that 2 or perhaps three women were killed by one man,.....so its not that I dont buy your argument that there was a "Jack" about at the time, just that the leap of faith required to say he committed the 5 "Canon" murders is not something I see as warranted, or prudent.

Three women had their abdomens mutilated post mortem. Two of them had organs taken from that region. Two had the same organ taken. One victim had a single death cut. These were outdoors, while the women were out assumed soliciting for doss money. One victim was barely recognizable as human. She was killed indoors, while undressed and in bed, and she didnt have to pay for her bed that night.

Clearly a single killer? Hardly.

PS.....Thanks Glenn for your post.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Mike,

I've pointed out previously that we should only focus on those variables that were within the killer's direct control. The location and whether or not the victim owed rent, or was out looking for money to pay for a bed, were not within the killer's direct control.

And, to clarify, "outdoors" is a very broad category. A room is as different from "outdoors" as a densely-populated dwelling's back-yard is from an open street, or a public square.

Three women had their abdomens mutilated post mortem.

Four women had their abdomens mutilated post-mortem.

Two of them had organs taken [removed] from that region.

...and the third had all the organs taken [removed] from that region.

Two had the same organ taken [away].

...one of whom also had a different organ taken [away].

We'd better add: "Two had their faces slashed", for consistency; also: "Two had the flesh from their abdomen removed in three panels or flaps".

Now, to bring this back to Stride, I'll observe that none of the above fit her particularly well - apart from the fact that she was killed outdoors, which, as I see it, is a probable red herring. I'm sure that Jack wouldn't have hesitated to attack a woman in a public lavatory, a church vestry or an empty omnibus, if the opportunity had presented itself.

[robhouse]

Just to clarify again on the use of this word "canon". The closest definition in Merian-Webster that applies to the usage here is: "the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works"

The author in this case being the killer. "Sanctioned or accepted body of related works" implies "generally accepted by experts in the field".

Given the definition of "canon", it is ridiculous to debate a canonic 3 or a canonic 1, because the majority of experts who have studied the case over the years have generally agreed on a canonic 5. When I say the "majority of experts" I am not talking about the people on these boards. On casebook, I would say the casebook canon may be more like 4 because there seems to be so much debate about Stride (which I personally strongly disagree with).

But please dont throw around the word canon if you are going to use it incorrectly.

Rob H