Body-count inflation?

[Uncle Jack]

Hi Adam,

I've come across a few things.

Hi Celesta. I would be interested to see what you have found so far. I am currently in the process of writing a book and my aim is to include details of some murders/attempted murders that had a ripper style to them. I have quite a few so far and believe it is possible that the Ripper may have been responsable.

Kind regards,

Adam

[Fisherman]

To me, the smoke that rose from Geroge Yard on the 7:th of August 1888, was smoke coming from a starting gun.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Oooh Mitch, dont let Stewart Evans see that, it MacNaghten!

Not only that, Monty.
It's actually Macnaghten, with a small 'm'.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I sometimes wonder whether, deep down, there might be a desire to keep Jack's body-count up at all costs, if only out of a desire to paint him as an even bigger SOB than he already was?

Views welcome.

Of course there is.
To add all kinds of murders to a serial killer's tally is tempting but in some cases misleading. Personally, I continue to be amazed at the attempts to include victims like Emma Smith and Martha Tabram.

In Sweden we've had a couple of examples where serial killers have been investigated for other murders than those already attributed to them, only to find that they didn't do any of them.

We must also consider the possibility, that the activity of a serial killer also spurs and inspires other murders, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the number of murders grow in such a context.

I have no doubt that the Ripper might have committed other offenses before Nichols, but I don't think they necessarily must have included murder.

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

" I continue to be amazed at the attempts to include victims like Emma Smith and Martha Tabram."

Yes, yes, yes, Glenn ... and no, no, no!

Anyways, Glenn, it´s good to hear your voice again. And I second your opinion that the Ripper may well have had a criminal file containing miscellaneous stuff - not necessarily murder, or even violence.

The best, Friend!

Fisherman

[Celesta]

Hi Adam,

Just names really, Adam, which lead nowhere, as yet. Mostly from the Old Bailey. Pretty much along the lines of what we were talking about last week with Joseph Carlin. Everybody's trawling the Old B. There's one where a group of young males was indicted for sexual assault on 3 young girls in their early teens. Ref. # t18871024-1049. Off the top of my head, seems like only one was actually convicted. I'll take another look at it. It made me think of Emma Smith's 19 year old. There are several accts of indecent assault on young females by grown men. I was also keeping an eye out for arson, breaking and entering with some violence associated. Any of those activities that proto-serial killers delight in.

[Uncle Jack]

I have been trawling through the old Bailey records again Celesta and came across an interesting character that came to my attention, despite not living within the East End. I'll have to dig out the details. He was known to have a violent temper, a hatred towards women and was, lets say, not all there. People who knew him said he used to go out some nights carrying "a parcel or package in his hand". He was put on trial for the murder of his wife. He killed her by cutting her throat... Definately one worth looking into more.

Kind regards,

Adam

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sounds interesting, Adam.
Keep us up to date about further developments. Although I am sure of that the Ripper never will be identified with 100% proof, it is interesting to look along these lines nevertheless.
And of course, although it is my belief that the killer would have had some knowledge of the area, that doesn't necessarily mean that he acually lived there at the time of the murders.

All the best

[Dan Norder]

I really don't think there's a really body count inflation in the field (well, except in books by authors like Cornwell and Marriott, who seem to want to add every murder around the world for decades or more, including solved ones, to the Ripper's count). Quite the contrary, I think most people are lean far too heavily on the minimalist side and just don't take into account how incredibly small of a geographic area most of the Whitechapel murders took place in, and how infrequent murders of that typer took place in general, let alone in an area of that size with such similar features over the space of only a couple of years. I think Macnaghten's Five should really be considered a minimum. That's certainly not an attempt to make Jack more dramatic, it's just following what we know about actual serial killers. You can't seriously make any reasoned judgments about what Jack would or would not have done unless you know about what other similar serial killers have done and how they operate. As Stan said, when serial killers are caught there are almost invariably more victims that were murdered by the same person. That's just reality.

And, seriously, I don't know how many times I have to say it (of course saying it multiple times won't convince those people who have already made up their minds), but if you were to drop the list to three (not that there's a good reason to), the three victims with the most important features in common are Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Nichols is a rather minor mutilation murder compared to the other three.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

IAnd, seriously, I don't know how many times I have to say it (of course saying it multiple times won't convince those people who have already made up their minds), but if you were to drop the list to three (not that there's a good reason to), the three victims with the most important features in common are Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Nichols is a rather minor mutilation murder compared to the other three.

And it doesn't become more credible regardless of how many more times you say it, because it will still be complete nonsense.

The level of mutilation is not the key but where the focus on the mutilations lie. Nichols may not have been as severely mutilated as Chapman, Eddowes or Kelly, but the target zones on her body as well as the modus operandi of the killer and his approach is in total similarity on what we find on Chapman and Eddowes.
Therefore suggesting that Nichols shouldn't be in the Canonical Three is probably the worst analysis I have ever heard in the Ripper context.

But again, you have been told this several times but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

[perrymason]

Hello again,

I think Monty is on the right track with 3 victims that seem to be linked by more than just the type of women and the weapon used. Mary Ann Nichols was mutilated, her abdomen. Annie was mutilated, her abdomen with organ removal, and Kate was mutilated, her abdomen with organ removal and superfluous wounds.....all post mortem. There is progression yet continuity. That continuity is broken with Liz, and again with Mary Kelly...two victims who to this day are questioned more than any other as Canonicals.

I would think it would be very likely that any other miscreant with a propensity for violence and blood might be inspired by the success of Jack, and perhaps try their own hand at it. Alice McKenzie comes to mind, for one.

A few things that the proponents of at least 5 victims disregard....One is that he was 100% successful killing and escaping scott free before November 9th, there was no reason to move to more secluded surroundings indoors, in fact why would he change a thing he has done so "cleanly"...and when the actions taken in that room are very unlike what has transpired before...starting with Marys defensive wounds, you have to wonder if her killer was emulating Jack, without the sequencing or the passion for taking abdominal organs with him that he has excised.

Using a knife to kill was hardly Jacks own unique style, it was what he did after that makes him "The Ripper".

In the case of Liz Stride, no ripping....and in the case of Mary Kelly, not knowing when to stop Ripping. There are partial acts that are unlike any Ripper crime...peeling the flesh entirely off one leg... to the knee joint, and only doing the inside of the opposite thigh for example. That is a perfect example of the many time wasting cuts in Room 13 that when complete, offered him what?......the satisfaction of peeling one thigh? The great release he got from putting a breast under her head? ps on this point,.....I did read once that Mary may have had a birthmark on her upper right thigh...which makes the damage done very interesting, if true. It would be a way to remove part of her identity...like her face, and her soul...in the form of a heart.

The man in room 13 was utterly lost. JtR was anything but....he went to work the minute they were lying down legs akimbo...and he left when he had what he wanted. Maybe he was disturbed at some sites, and it curbed some cutting.....but there is no evidence that he sought to strip thighs of flesh....and its more likely that "close call" was in Mitre Square, rather than Dutfields Yard.

Best regards all.

[Uncle Jack]

And it doesn't become more credible regardless of how many more times you say it, because it will still be complete nonsense.

The level of mutilation is not the key but where the focus on the mutilations lie. Nichols may not have been as severely mutilated as Chapman, Eddowes or Kelly, but the target zones on her body as well as the modus operandi of the killer and his approach is in total similarity on what we find on Chapman and Eddowes.
Therefore suggesting that Nichols shouldn't be in the Canonical Three is probably the worst analysis I have ever heard in the Ripper context.

But again, you have been told this several times but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

I completely agree with you Glenn. The focus of the mutilations were the genitals, abdomen etc. To suggest that someone isn't a victim because the mutilations / wounds are not exactly the same as previous murders seems very closed minded. If a Ripper victim had her abdomen cut open and another victim had her abdomen stabbed, is it fair to rule out the second victim as a Ripper victim simply because he didn't "rip" her abdomen and instead stabbed it? The most important factor was that the abdomen was targeted. There are many serial killers who changed their style of murder from one killing to the next. What makes Jack so different. You made many good points above Glenn.

Best regards,

Adam

[Dan Norder]

The level of mutilation is not the key but where the focus on the mutilations lie.

First off, level of mutilation certainly is key. I don't know where you came up with the idea that it's not, but the experts on the topic say otherwise. Second off, the focus of the mutilations in the Mary Kelly case have more in common with the Eddowes and Chapman murders than the ones in Nichols case. Eddowes and Kelly both had facial mutilations. All three had organs removed. All three had organs taken. All three had their abdomens totally opened up. Nichols doesn't have any of that, and anything Nichols has Kelly also has, but moreso. You can't get much more clear cut than that.

TBut again, you have been told this several times but it still doesn't seem to sink in.

I just follow what the experts on the criminology have to say, and what has been proven in other real world serial killer cases. I'm not particularly concerned about the opinions of people who don't have any sort of background or knowledge on the topic, or even basic common sense for that matter.

[Dan Norder]

I completely agree with you Glenn. The focus of the mutilations were the genitals, abdomen etc. To suggest that someone isn't a victim because the mutilations / wounds are not exactly the same as previous murders seems very closed minded.

Hi Adam,

It sounds like you were confused about what the people posting to this thread have said. Glenn does, in fact, declare that Mary Kelly and Martha Tabram were not Ripper victims because they weren't exactly the same as other murders. And, yes, he is very closed minded about it.

[Veritas]

I aggree with you. I think that Jack killed 6 (I am including Tabram) and possibly more.