Body-count inflation?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Personally, I think its more likely with two offenders in collaboration, each with their own weapon, rather than one offender with two weapons.

In any case I would urge people to read the very illuminating article about the Tabram murder in the latest Ripperologist. A lot of common sense there.

All the best

[Uncle Jack]

Personally, I think its more likely with two offenders in collaboration, each with their own weapon, rather than one offender with two weapons.

Hi Glenn.

Do you think then that if, for arguments sake, Martha was a Ripper victim, it would suggest two Rippers rather than one, working together? Or do you think it more plausable that there were two non Ripper killers involved in her murder, and if so, what do you think would be their motive?

Best regards,

Adam

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Adam,

I don't want to turn this into another Tabram thread and no doubt much that can be said about Tabram has been said before. But I certainly don't see Tabram as a Ripper victim; if there were two offenders, then they were non-Ripper connected. Most likely she was killed by one or two customers, probably one or two soldiers since PC Barrett came across a soldier standing at the corner of Wentworth Street-George Yard at the right time for the murder to occur, and where the solider siad that 'his mate had gone off with a girl".
As in many attacks on prostitutes, the motives could be numerous: dispute over money, she could have made fun of him sexually etc. Mayeb she tried to steal from him (we know some of the women tried this stunt).
Sometimes no real motive is needed, only some kind of psychotic episode. Since she and some soliders also had been bar-hopping it is also quite likely that at least Tabram was quite drunk, possibly even her client and when people are drunk a lot can happen. Let's not forget that prostitution is one of the most dangerous trades and that these women (and men) on a regular basis comes across people that might not be "all there".

As for the Ripper crimes, I do not believe there were two offenders working in tandem as a duo.

All the best

[Uncle Jack]

Getting back on topic, I find myself adding more to Jack's list, not so because of a way to dramatise his evilness more but because I believe he would have carried on (if he hadn't died/been locked up/rendered unable after MJK) and I tend to not dismiss victims because their murders are slightly different from the C4. I tend not to base my judgements on Macnaghton's word. But I think their are arguments for both sides and this debate will certainly rage on for many years to come I suspect.

Best regards to all,

Adam

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And none of us will most likely ever know the real truth anyway.
It is of course a fact that it is impossible to establish the number of victims in a 120 year old serial killer case, where the killer is unidentified.

Personally, I am of the opinion the Ripper didn't commit that many mutilation murders in London, and my view is that he started with Nichols and finished with Eddowes. If this is true, then that means he committed three murders with a regular time pattern and within a time period of one month and then for some reason stopped or continued elsewhere. I don't believe that he was responsible for either McKenzie or Coles. Mary Kelly is, as we've seen, a matter of debate.
To automatically take for granted that he would have continued if didn't die or got locked up is a false and dangerous assumption, since we know of serial killers who have stopped or committed only a small number of murders during a very long time span. The old myth that serial killers don't stop on their own needs to be revised; it may be true in many cases but it shouldn't be taken as a rule.

All the best

[Moriarty]

And none of us will most likely ever know the real truth anyway.
It is of course a fact that it is impossible to establish the number of victims in a 120 year old serial killer case, where the killer is unidentified.

Personally, I am of the opinion the Ripper didn't commit that many mutilation murders in London, and my view is that he started with Nichols and finished with Eddowes. If this is true, then that means he committed three murders with a regular time pattern and within a time period of one month and then for some reason stopped or continued elsewhere. I don't believe that he was responsible for either McKenzie or Coles. Mary Kelly is, as we've seen, a matter of debate.
To automatically take for granted that he would have continued if didn't die or got locked up is a false and dangerous assumption, since we know of serial killers who have stopped or committed only a small number of murders during a very long time span. The old myth that serial killers don't stop on their own needs to be revised; it may be true in many cases but it shouldn't be taken as a rule.

All the best

The claim that serial murderers continue until and unless they are killed or captured is challengeable, I agree. If, however, the Kelly murder is deemed to be canonical then it implies an accelerating deterioration of the mental state and overall psychopathy of the offender. It is surely hard to believe that this person was capable of stopping, I would submit.

This is what makes Chapman such an unlikely suspect (in my view). Not the fact that he would have altered his MO; but the fact that he would have been required to demonstrate a level of control and rationality that the slayer of Kelly would have not been capable of. Poisoners are control killers. Kelly's killer emphatically was not.

[Moriarty]

From a Stride thread...That got me thinking, Mike.

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.

Yes. If we're honest we'd admit that the greater the body count the more real the fascination. I'm also sure that, deep down, we might never want to know the solution to this mystery.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The claim that serial murderers continue until and unless they are killed or captured is challengeable, I agree. If, however, the Kelly murder is deemed to be canonical then it implies an accelerating deterioration of the mental state and overall psychopathy of the offender. It is surely hard to believe that this person was capable of stopping, I would submit.

Well, I've seen mutilation murders where the victim has been more or less destroyed or hacked to pieces, and this has been done by people who've only done it that one time and never done anything similar before. Of course we can't know if they would have continued since they obviously were caught, but since they had a close personal connection with the victim it is unlikely that they would kill others. Poeple can do this kind of stuff without being serial killers or being raving lunatics (another old misconception).
Also, according to crime scene analysts like Paul Britton, the person who killed Kelly do not need to be insane (I think Macnaghten's statement about the murderer's 'mind caved in in Miller's Court' has created a lot of damage), although he performed an abnormal act. But abnormality is not the same as insanity.

But I agree with you about Chapman, and that he most liekly should be refered to as a control killer. Poisoning involves a lot of planning and also patience (if it takes a long time period for the victim to die).

All the best

[Moriarty]

Well, I've seen mutilation murders where the victim has been more or less destroyed or hacked to pieces, and this has been done by people who've only done it that one time and never done anything similar before. Of course we can't know if they would have continued since they obviously were caught, but since they had a close personal connection with the victim it is unlikely that they would kill others. Poeple can do this kind of stuff without being serial killers or being raving lunatics (another old misconception).
Also, according to crime scene analysts like Paul Britton, the person who killed Kelly do not need to be insane (I think Macnaghten's statement about the murderer's 'mind caved in in Miller's Court' has created a lot of damage), although he performed an abnormal act. But abnormality is not the same as insanity.

But I agree with you about Chapman, and that he most liekly should be refered to as a control killer. Poisoning involves a lot of planning and also patience (if it takes a long time period for the victim to die).

All the best

Hi, thanks for the reply.

I agree with you. The point about accelerated deterioration only applies if Kelly is deemed canonical. If, as is possible, it's a stand alone then I'm wrong.

[Bailey]

I'm also sure that, deep down, we might never want to know the solution to this mystery.

Damn right! Where would the fun be if we had a solution? Personally I'd like incontrovertible proof to be discovered about three days before I die...

B.

[perrymason]

When it comes to attributing murdered unfortunates without any evidence. to an unknown man or men by their pen-name,... Id really rather hear that, than perpetuating a mythological killer that defies categorization and is thought by most of the comtemporary investigators to have killed at least the 5 women described as Canonicals.

The book I'm waiting for is The Murdered Unfortunates of East London..subtitled..All the Unsolved Murders of street prostitutes from Londons East End in 1888 and 1889, ..Ripper or Rippers?

At least that would be honest, I think.

Cheers.

[Bailey]

The book I'm waiting for is The Murdered Unfortunates of East London..subtitled..All the Unsolved Murders of street prostitutes from Londons East End in 1888 and 1889, ..Ripper or Rippers?

At least that would be honest, I think.

Cheers.

Publishers would never go for such an unwieldy title. And then there would be the pedantic argument over whether they were all in fact prostitutes.

But I'd buy it

B.

[ianincleveland]

ive my doubts about Stride and Kelly though i think he certainly killed Nicholls,Chapman and Eddowes.The MO is remarkably similar in all those cases