Tabram and Kelly?

Well...lets see what the murder victims Tabram and Kelly shared with the other Canonicals in short form...based on the accepted evidence, including witnesses and medical officials:

Assumed picked up by the killer while soliciting-Martha
Attacked and subdued without knife use-neither
Throats cut while laying on the ground-neither
Abdomens cut open-Mary
Abdominal organs extracted and taken-neither

So....so far we have only the mere cutting of Marys abdomen, and the pick-up of Martha as even having some similarity to Ripper kills,... by the methodology, signatures and behaviors seen in just three murders within the "Canon". Yet one of the above...the victim that has only a single attack/subdue/mutilate trait she shares with priors....is considered a Ripper victim. And one victim within the Canon not mentioned here, shares none of those traits or actions.

I would think a vivid imagination is a huge asset in some professions,... but there is one profession that comes to mind where imagination alone, without having proof attached,... is useless problem solving.... Police work. They have to prove what they claim. Because people are punished by their accusation and presentation of proof of a crime.

Its no wonder then that the Canonical Group as is merely an opinion....not an official position. Because all 5 of those murders...with 3 very similar ones inside it....are just as unsolved as they were 120 years ago....just like the 7 or 8 non-canonical unfortunates.

Its good to remember that "Jack" is a pen-name on a probable hoax letter...not a known individual person.

Best regards

[RonnieKray]

Oh, one more thing - Hi Ronnie Kray. I like saying that.

Roy

Hello back to you Roy!


I think the Mary Kelly murder is indicitive with a serial killer that just wanted time and space to murder in peace and in private. We have to remember that perhaps by that time it would be virtually impossible to murder in the immediate surrounding district with just about everyone suspicious of each other...paticularly a lone male.

I think that at least one of the suspects in the Kelly murder has a reasonable allibi in that barnett played cards and went to bed after midnight. There are no reports that he left or returned during the night or that he was bloodstained as the killer was most likley to have been. Also the police seemed to be happy with his account.

As for the other man in her life there is no eveidence oh him actually being Jack or having such ferocious jealousy to inflict such grusomeness.

It appears to me that Jack was working himself up to do what he most wanted to do.....enjoy making such a terrible gory mess and spend some time doing it.

George Hutchinson's account...overhearing Kelly saying something to the effect that he will be comfortable rings very true.

As for Tabram....I don't see any significant difference in her murder than the others to discount her.

And Stride....is it possible that two killers had the same idea to kill on the very same night.... a relative short distance away? It sounds very unlikley and I think that a lot of details involving Riper murders are often dismissed or interpreted in the most amusing ways.

I personally don't have a view who killed any of the women but I think that he certainly killed the five canons and possibly Tabram too.

The Yorkshire Ripper is a prime example that serial killers do alter the way they kill....using different methods and do not follow the patterns we somehow try to see them as.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Most captured serial killers have been responsible for more victims than investigators previously considered prior to capture, rarely less.

And of course the opposite type of 'link blindage' also exists.

Like Vernon J Geberth says in his crime manual Practical Homicide Investigation and in several artcles for Law and Order magazine: several extreme crimes involving excessive mutilation (especially in a domestic environment), often in the beginning are expected to be the works of an unknown sexual predator but in the last majority of cases they in the end turns out to be perpetrated by someone close to the victim. And these types of cimes are especially hard to investigate if they happen in the context of an active serial killer on the loose.

It seems to be in fashion these days to attribute more crimes to a serial killer than what is necessary and that is just as much a misleading mistake as to do the opposite.
In Sweden we recently unveiled and captured a serial killer and he was immedately suspected of other similar crimes. However, DNA evidence has ruled him out from some of those while others still are being investigated.

'Link blindage' can appear both ways.

Le's remember that the enviroment in Est End and the large number of prostitutes would expect to attract a large number of crimes of extreme nature since prostitutes tend to draw many abnormal characters to themselves. Not to mention when licker gets into the picture.
In such a context the attacks on Tabram and Emma Smith shouldn't really come as a surprise. To add all of those to the Ripper is a questionable approach indeed and somewhat of a cliché. I think several crimes in the area at the time indicates that he most certainly was not alone.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

To tell you truth, Glenn, I have no problem linking Smith, and Hames to the Ripper. He could very well have been in the gang. The pack instinct propelled him, then he struck out on his own. And him being the alpha male, the other gang members were too afraid to rat on him.

I'm thinking Canon 7 plus Hames, Milwood and maybe Wilson, too.

Roy

Hi Roy,

No I don't agree with that at all.
And that is for several reasons:
a) we must consider the nature of the area: poor inhabitants, serious social problems and a large numner of prostitutes, which in turn tends to attracts crime.
b) what has been said before, namely that crime history reveals both before and after the Whitechapel murders that extreme crimes were happening in London and even in East End. It is nonsense to try to pin every murder or attack on the Ripper when the area was highly strucken by poverty and crime. I've said it before and I'll say it again: considering the nature of the area I am astounded over the fact thast MORE stuff like this didn't happen.

And no, I can't see him as a gang member.

All the best

[Ben]

Excellent post there, Brenda.

I'd say you've got three killers at most out of that lot, and there's no evidence that the torso killer did the actual "killing" in the East End anyway. There seems to be this "If in doubt, rule 'em out" mentality taking root, whereas experience should have taught us that the opposite approach is the safer option. Most captured serial killers have been responsible for more victims than investigators previously considered prior to capture, rarely less.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

But in support of Emma Elizabeth Smith's story of a gang of hoodlums (regardless of other inconsistencies in her story), we have the witness testimony from her female friend Margaret Hames (or Hayes), who under oath declared that she had been assaulted by such a gang under similar circumstances in December 1887 and barely survived.

To tell you truth, Glenn, I have no problem linking Smith, and Hames to the Ripper. He could very well have been in the gang. The pack instinct propelled him, then he struck out on his own. And him being the alpha male, the other gang members were too afraid to rat on him.

I'm thinking Canon 7 plus Hames, Milwood and maybe Wilson, too.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

It is actually not that odd, that murders in a small environment tend to spur other murders, and with good help from the press and the media hysteria.

That is a very good point Glenn. Look at all the actions the media circus and panicked environment produced. Why not murder by other perps too? A very good point.

But one thing you have to remember, Glenn. We in the USA have been tragically shocked and disappointed time and time again when discovering more murders committed by a serial killer than originally thought. Crimes that at first did not seem to fit. I guaran-darn-tee you that your average American crime buff looks at the Bond Canon and MacMemo 5 with a jaundiced eye, wanting to add more to the list, not take away. We are hard-wired that way.

Oh, one more thing - Hi Ronnie Kray. I like saying that.

Roy

[Howard Brown]

Glenners:

I found it...

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=55156&highlight=bucks#post55156

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I don't remember that particular incident, Howard. Sorry.

But in support of Emma Elizabeth Smith's story of a gang of hoodlums (regardless of other inconsistencies in her story), we have the witness testimony from her female friend Margaret Hames (or Hayes), who under oath declared that she had been assaulted by such a gang under similar circumstances in December 1887 and barely survived.

All the best

[Howard Brown]

Dear Brenda:

Around the time of the Nichols murder...I'm going on memory here...there was a report of a trio of cads who accosted a woman on Bucks Row.

Glenn may be able to pinpoint it a little better...I had mentioned this here or elsewhere recently about the gang or at least,confederates in crime. Sorry for not providing the report...I'm going great guns today elsewhere..

P.S....Glenners..I, uh, would be careful with this guy. It is after all,Ronnie Kray !

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Brenda,

It is actually not that odd, that murders in a small environment tend to spur other murders, and with good help from the press and the media hysteria.
And as you say, since there probably existed other murderers and maybe even serial murderers (the torso killings from the 1970s up til 1889) we shouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of some of the murders being attributed to different killers.
Let's also remember the "Whitechapel Murderer" Henry Wainwright, who in a gruesome manner killed and mutilated his finacée in the mid 1870s. Not to mention W H Bury who mutilated his wife in a (to some degree) Ripper-like fashion in 1889.


Ally (grabbit),

I agree with much of what you say. Although I personally discount Tabram - and am keeping an open mind to the idea that the Kelly murder was not a Ripepr crime - I do so mainly on basis of personal interpretation of the evidence. When it all comes down to it, the evidence will never prove one way or the other.

Therefore I agree on that the whole Canonical concept is quite problematic indeed and thus has kept people from keeping an open mind and looking in new directions for a long time. When people include Tabram - since she doesn't initially belong to the canon - it is in an attempt to look beyond the canon and add something new to it. When people discount Kelly (and Stride) it is to break down to canon and try to look at the evidence in a fresh new way. Both approaches are extremely vital to Ripperology (regardless if we disagree with them or not) because new information comes to light all the time.
In all essence, there can never be a canon in a murder series where no killer has been identified and can tell us who he killed and did not kill, especially not after 120 years and with very few evidence.

All the best

[Brenda]

It begins to stretch belief that there were so many psychopathic overkill murderers in one small section of London all at the same time. (of course there were other murderers, but that many in Jack's league??)

• - a homicidal gang going around attacking random women in the street.
• - the person that killed Martha Tabram
• - JTR himself
• - Liz Stride's murderer
• - Mary Kelly's murderer
• - the Torso murderer

All of these, with the exception of Liz Stride's killer, went way and above the call of duty of what was needed to kill a woman. One can almost understand the gang mentality feeding the exceptional brutalness of the street attacks, but the rest of these murders were committed by someone who got a lot of enjoyment out of what they were doing.

[Grabbit]

Hi Ronnie,

I think people exclude Tabram, Kelly and/or the victim/s of their choice because of the danger of contaminating the evidence that is relevant to Jack. Just look at where that got them in the Sutcliffe case with the whole Wearside Jack fiasco.

However, to completely rule out cases which don't fit 'perfectly' is to ignore a lot of potentially important evidence as well. That can definitely be seen in the Sutcliffe case. If they'd put all the photofit images of attacks, including those they'd ruled out, side by side, then 'Mister Beardy' would've jumped out at them and probably been picked up long before the hoax tape even arrived.

I'm thinking the whole idea of canonicals is driving the focus away from what could be a much bigger (and better) picture. It's trying to keep the evidence neat, when real life serial killers and their situations just aren't that neat. Sutcliffe being a prime example, though by no means the only one.

Maybe if we kept the whole status of victims much more fluid we'd be able to match up various criteria better. Different matchings would obviously form different pictures, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as it keeps us thinking and looking for new ideas. Ruling a victim out completely, for whatever reason, seems far too rigid a thinking to me.

Just my thoughts at any rate.

Ally

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

OK, suit yourself.

All the best

[RonnieKray]

I refuse to debate with a bully. PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE. You hve been requested to do so several times. STOP!!