Did Jack only kill 3?

[Michael W Richards]

This may or may not have been brought up before, but I've always wondered about the reasoning behind the canonical 5.

Jack 'ripped' his victims, but if you believe the night of the 'double event', he didn't; Liz Stride only had her throat cut. So why is she considered a canonical Ripper victim? I find it somewhat tenuous that people think it was Jack's handiwork - after all, he was the ONLY killer in the East End, wasn't he?!

Then, he changed his MO, set up nicely indoors, and spent hours with Mary Kelly. But - and it is a credible arguement - if we assume that Joseph Barnett killed MJK, surely, that leaves only 3?

So why 5?

Hi Simon,

Youve voiced concerns over the Canonical Group as a "starting point", and there are certainly others who share those concerns. The crimes referred to as the Jack the Ripper murders are 5 assumed victims of an assumed serial killer.

We cannot assume Barnett killed Kelly, nor can we assume the Ripper didnt kill Stride, what we can do is sort through the known data and see what makes sense and what should be set aside. Thats not easy for many Ripperologists, whove spent many years analyzing a series of murders and searching for the one man responsible. The proof of that is in the very large list of "suspects" that now exists without any evidence on which to base the accusation on.

Based on the known data it is only opinion, modern and contemporary, that links these murders. But there are very similar characteristics in some of them that suggest one man may have killed more than 1 of them.

You would think that if a serial killer was responsible for all 5 we would see a continuing underlying motive for all the murders, simply... that he killed to satisfy some need he had psychologically. Finding proof of that within the known physical evidence however is another thing. Some are quite similar murders, similar victimology, similar attack and mutilation patterns, and similar objectives, based on the end results of course. Some change in the attack or murder methodology or specific wound patterns isnt enough to discard a victim from that Group, it is enough however to question its inclusion.

For me, murders 1 and 2 attributed to Jack were most probably the work of a man who killed to satisfy his compulsions and mental illness. They appear to be almost identical in victim profile, in attack methodology, in preferences for a killing cut to the throat followed by abdominal mutilations, and there is an escalation of actions resulting in the actual excising of organs with Annie.

I see that sort of overview in only 1 other Canonical murder, but there are some striking differences also that make a "Group" assignation, for me anyway, premature.

Good idea to question everything Simon, otherwise you'll just be fitting events and interpreting remarks to best support your suspect choice, something many still try but NONE have made work so far.

Best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

huh?

Hello John. Identical MO's?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

I tend to rule out Stride because (and this sounds odd) but her throat cut was perfect. No false starts, no overkill, clean, efficient. Sort of the throat cutting equivalent to a double tap to the back of the skull. Professional like. And while in my mind it's not impossible that Jack managed to get it right on Stride, it is highly improbable that he got it right, and then went back to doing it messy.

Hi Errata,

What was messy about the way Kate Eddowes' throat was cut?

[Errata]

I think that only 3 of the C5 were Ripper victims. Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

I tend to rule out Stride because (and this sounds odd) but her throat cut was perfect. No false starts, no overkill, clean, efficient. Sort of the throat cutting equivalent to a double tap to the back of the skull. Professional like. And while in my mind it's not impossible that Jack managed to get it right on Stride, it is highly improbable that he got it right, and then went back to doing it messy.

Mary Kelly is a puzzle. Despite various assertions, serial killers who mutilate are not in a constant state of unspooling. They don't go from taking uteruses to taking everything. The fantasy fulfillment doesn't work that way. A serial killer who fantasizes about completely eviscerating a woman is not going to settle for less. He wouldn't take an organ here and there, and then empty some poor girl. He would grab as much as he could every single time. And he would exert more control over the location of the kills so that he wouldn't be interrupted. When serial killers escalate, they tend towards higher risk. Higher profile victims, more victims in less time, more ferocity in the attacks. They do not tend to add to the fantasy. There is a certain element of truth in that serial killers are constantly trying to recapture the thrill of the first kill. As such they are unlikely to change the fantasy. It's not impossible, but it's rare.

The other problem with Mary Kelly is that her murder seems very personal. And not just in the facial mutilations. Her external sex organs were pulped, her breasts excised, her lips shredded, her heart was missing... almost a textbook example of a jealous psychopath punishing an unfaithful woman. Now that doesn't rule out Jack the Ripper as her killer. But it does mean that he didn't kill her for the same reason he killed the others. Something akin to Ed Kemper. He killed then raped coeds. Finally, he killed his mother and threw her vocal chords in the trash compactor. Same killer, but he killed coeds to fulfill his sexual fantasies. He killed his mother because she was an abusive harping old bat. You have to really know the guy to see the connection between the two, and the last two murders shed no light on his previous murders.

The real question is, where are the other women he murdered? The ones evidently not in England? There is an extraordinary jump in skill between Nichols and Chapman. Where did he acquire that skill? He went from almost undirected abdominal slashing to successfully taking a difficult organ to locate in one piece. Clearly he was practicing. But where? And on what? Or who?

[John Wheat]

I find it strange that some believe there were several killers in the East End of London with identical m.o.'s. That probabilities not very high is it?

[Fleetwood Mac]

With MJK, it just seems a little odd to corner himself inside a tiny room in a small court?

I should have mentioned the principles of risk and reward.

Edited to add: and that risk seekers will choose the option that maximises reward regardless of the increase in risk.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thank you Richard and Fleetwood Mac.

With MJK, it just seems a little odd to corner himself inside a tiny room in a small court? Perhaps he wanted to be caught?

Many victims are often murdered by someone that knows them so Barnett shouldn't be discounted - after all, Peter Sutcliffe was questioned by police and then let go at first.

And as for Joseph Barnett not being crazed-killer material - was the nerdy-looking Fred West?

Simon,

As said, there is nothing to implicate Barnett.

If the argument goes: he knew her and Fred West wasn't suspected prior to dead bodies being found, then it isn't an argument at all for reasons that shouldn't need to be stated.

Wanted to be caught? Doesn't seem to have been that way considering he probably wasn't caught.

I think it's fair to say that the Eddowes murder involved an uptake in his mutilations, and so it's a reasonable proposition to suggest the next one would have done too. Where better to undertake such an act than within four walls and a blocked window?

[miss marple]

Fred West nerdy!!!!!!!!! ????

Miss Marple

[Simon the Whitmore]

Thank you Richard and Fleetwood Mac.

With MJK, it just seems a little odd to corner himself inside a tiny room in a small court? Perhaps he wanted to be caught?

Many victims are often murdered by someone that knows them so Barnett shouldn't be discounted - after all, Peter Sutcliffe was questioned by police and then let go at first.

And as for Joseph Barnett not being crazed-killer material - was the nerdy-looking Fred West?

[Fleetwood Mac]

This may or may not have been brought up before, but I've always wondered about the reasoning behind the canonical 5.

Jack 'ripped' his victims, but if you believe the night of the 'double event', he didn't; Liz Stride only had her throat cut. So why is she considered a canonical Ripper victim? I find it somewhat tenuous that people think it was Jack's handiwork - after all, he was the ONLY killer in the East End, wasn't he?!

Then, he changed his MO, set up nicely indoors, and spent hours with Mary Kelly. But - and it is a credible arguement - if we assume that Joseph Barnett killed MJK, surely, that leaves only 3?

So why 5?

May or may not!?

It's a regular talk in every Friday or so.

The reasoning is pretty sound.

Put simply, there weren't many people wandering round the East End of London subduing women, cutting their throats and lying them down for a spot of mutilation - in the whole of the 1800s, let alone in the space of a few months (and possibly beyond).

I'm always a touch suprised when posters expect all of the kills to have been almost exactly alike, given the factors that Jack had no control over.

I think the Stride murder is open to debate, but I'd lean towards Jack.

How on earth Kelly is considered to have been someone else's work is odd to say the least. The board could come up with a hundred reasons as to why he moved in doors; there are all sorts of options. Perhaps the best one is that he simply struck lucky in that he met Kelly on the street and she just happened to have her own place from which he could satisfy his desires.

As far as I can see, there is nothing to implicate Barnett. He simply was the last to live with her and didn't like her nightly activities - hardly crazed killer material.

Personally, I think at least 5 and probably more. Coles is a good bet.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Simon,
If only it was that straightforward ..
The C5 has always assumed to be the work of the Ripper, one cannot rule out Stride,simply because of the non mutilation, because the possibility of being disturbed is present, indeed this quite possibly applied to Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, although the latter showing signs of what the real motive was, complete Mutilation.
In the case of Kelly , the killer had it, given to him on a plate, the victim had a room, and a bed, and he could finally achieve his ultimate goal.
This guide is what most folk on Casebook accept, although its obviously far from that simple.
As for Barnett killing Kelly, its unlikely, although initially the police ,considered it may have been an act of Jealously, but he was questioned, and not believed to have been involved.
The Kelly murder holds the key , it was the last Ripper style act, although others were initially considered, so we should assume that the killer was either caught, or unable to resume , owing to death..one could also speculate that with the death of Mary Kelly,the killer had no reason to carry on, and faded into the annuals of time..
The fascination with this case, enables us all to hold personal views, it's a giant puzzle, that the greatest detective agency in the world ''Casebook'' has taken on , in the hope of a solution.
Good Hunting,
Regards Richard.

[Simon the Whitmore]

This may or may not have been brought up before, but I've always wondered about the reasoning behind the canonical 5.

Jack 'ripped' his victims, but if you believe the night of the 'double event', he didn't; Liz Stride only had her throat cut. So why is she considered a canonical Ripper victim? I find it somewhat tenuous that people think it was Jack's handiwork - after all, he was the ONLY killer in the East End, wasn't he?!

Then, he changed his MO, set up nicely indoors, and spent hours with Mary Kelly. But - and it is a credible arguement - if we assume that Joseph Barnett killed MJK, surely, that leaves only 3?

So why 5?