Did Jack only kill 3?

[Admin]

Posters, please keep the thread on-topic and leave the personal argument off it. Thank you.

[Debra A]

Hello Debs. Looking at your post, an update may be needed. Hope that this is tangential to the OP's original intent and not too far off topic.

I have been researching 3 people who have connections to the various Irish groups in the 1880's. The idea was that one of them may have been relocated and named MJK. They are:

1. Miss Kennedy

2. Miss Worth

3. Alice Carroll

Miss Kennedy is off the table. She apparently married her Irish connection (no pun intended) and moved to America.

Miss Worth (whom I assume was using a nom de plume) is still on the table. Cannot find a trace of her or her notorious boarding house. Nor can I establish just how closely she had worked with "Mr. Dawson" (AKA Llewellyn Winter). She is definitely in the mix.

Alice Carroll, as you discovered, was in Dublin in 1887. If she had been there continuously between 1882 and 1887, she would be an EXTREMELY poor candidate.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks very much for the updates, Lynn. I look forward to your further research on Miss Worth.

[Simon the Whitmore]

Hi Simon,

Bottom line, after 124 years, we know nothing..........that's why we're here.......!


Greg

Couldn't agree more - and yet it's so frustrating!

[Scott Nelson]

It's very annoying to sit here and read about those of 'us' who just sit back and accept the same old same old by people who aren't willing to put their own ideas up to closer scrutiny. They propose an idea and as soon as someone looks a bit closer and finds problems and asks about them they scurry off and hide behind some excuse or other as to why they can't say any more!

I know. Isn't it annoying?

[Roy Corduroy]

Hello Roy,

(Forgive me Simon...)

I will venture to comparing Simon Wood to a snooker player facing an awkward snooker.
He may have found an angle or two, but we wont see it until he looks down the end of the cue, and shows us his shot.
i do know one thing. Sometimes it takes a combination of angles to find the answer to the snooker.

Best wishes

Phil

Thanks for the reply Phil,

But you didn't answer the question either. Since Simon proposed these were all unconnected murders, but that the 'official' line was to blame them all on a 'fictitious' Jack the Ripper -

That begs the question -

Did the police know these were unconnected, so the police were lying,

or

the police were mistaken. They actually thought this was a series.

The fact that they actually invested stock in the name 'Jack the Ripper' for a time is something we are supposed to be shocked and awed about. That must be why you keep mentioning in constantly and Simon never makes a post on any subject at all without saying 'there was no Jack the Ripper.'

But that still doesn't get to the root of what I am asking. At all. If you propose the murders were unconnected, then were the police mistaken, or were they lying. Were the wrong, or lying, or when the weren't lying were they wrong?

You haven't said.

Simon hasn't said.

Yet you and Simon keep harping on this constantly and continously without ever saying.

After awhile this gets to be Shallow Hal.

Roy

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Just a general comment....to suggest an area of study or a different angle is hardly as offensive to students of these crimes, new and old and jaded, as it is being offered yet another name as the solo killer without any hard evidence to support it. Again.

The existing public data is not the property of only the long time students or authors, nor are valid suggestions or opinions related to the interpretation of that data. When moaning occurs that senior Ripperologists get slighted when people suggest the serial killer Canonical group concept doesnt work, perhaps they should also consider how consistently advancing a new name of the serial killer seemingly picked out of a hat sits with new students.

Is naming potentially completely innocent people as Jack the Ripper and then delving into their personal lives better than merely suggesting that these crimes should be viewed as individual unsolved murders and studied as such?

I personally believe the last thing that will be answered is Whom in any of the cases... not the first, but I do believe that Why can still be solved in some cases.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Simon the Whitmore]

Thanks Ally

Yes, I do beg your pardon - it was Florida ( at the time I had been speaking to a friend of mine who's brother lives in Houston), but regardless of that, I'm not saying literally that he wanted to be caught, just - as you put it - it's about their ego, the thrill. Also, the whole of the East End was looking for a killer, so a discreet knock on the door wouldn't be for no apparent reason.
But I find it odd why he would do that, IF anyone did come snooping (and police were going door to door and not just searching the streets), he'd be cornered, red-handed. Why? It's a different MO, and therefore (possibly, maybe, perhaps, even a little bit) a different killer? Surely Jack liked the anonymity and freedom of the streets; the cuts, the meandering alleyways - all escape routes.
And if Kelly was killed because of some Irish connection, surely she would have just been stabbbed or her throat slit to shut her up, there would be no need to totally destroy her!

[GregBaron]

Nothing from nothing leaves nothing...

Couldn't agree more - and yet it's so frustrating!

Well, not quite nothing. We know the Jack the Ripper epitaph was a newpaperman's invention.
We know that the police, for a while at least, believed the invention and pushed the idea.
(letter and postcard Dear Boss+Saucy Jack=posters). We know that the police didnt seem to have a clue until
lo and behold their retirement memoirs were published. And we know that people left right and centre have been
taken in by clever authors and idea makers like Stephen Knight and Joseph Gorman.

Thanks Simon and Phil and I also agree, it's muddled and frustrating.

Perhaps I should have said we know next to nothing.

We do know...

1) Some women were murdered
2) Some women were mutilated
3) An apron piece of a victim was found some distance off from her body
4) These women were arguably of the lowest class in the free world
5) Five women were murdered by throat cuts within 71? days in Autumn 1888 within a square mile or two
6) Political turmoil ran simultaneously; Parnell, Fenians etc.
7) It was a worldwide press sensation
8) Vigilante committees were formed
9) Police were ineffectual
10) Politicians were ineffectual
11) No one was tried or prosecuted
12) Conflicting memoirs eventually appeared



In totality, we have what we sometimes refer to here as a CF.......a cluster F*#k

And if Kelly was killed because of some Irish connection, surely she would have just been stabbbed or her throat slit to shut her up, there would be no need to totally destroy her!

This is well stated Simon and I believe a problem for the Fenian advocates. Even if copycating a non-existent ripper, the overkill was extraordinary. Hard to finger a political hit....



Greg

[lynn cates]

other cases

Hello Simon.

"And if Kelly was killed because of some Irish connection, surely she would have just been stabbed or her throat slit to shut her up, there would be no need to totally destroy her!"

But that wasn't what happened at either Phoenix Park nor yet in Chicago in Dr. Cronin's death, right? In a political situation, passion CAN run deep.

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Thanks Ally

Yes, I do beg your pardon - it was Florida ( at the time I had been speaking to a friend of mine who's brother lives in Houston), but regardless of that, I'm not saying literally that he wanted to be caught, just - as you put it - it's about their ego, the thrill. Also, the whole of the East End was looking for a killer, so a discreet knock on the door wouldn't be for no apparent reason.
But I find it odd why he would do that, IF anyone did come snooping (and police were going door to door and not just searching the streets), he'd be cornered, red-handed. Why? It's a different MO, and therefore (possibly, maybe, perhaps, even a little bit) a different killer? Surely Jack liked the anonymity and freedom of the streets; the cuts, the meandering alleyways - all escape routes.
And if Kelly was killed because of some Irish connection, surely she would have just been stabbbed or her throat slit to shut her up, there would be no need to totally destroy her!

No big, re: the mistake location. I've made bigger screwups than that. But it should be pointed out that ALL of the states except one that Bundy killed in were death penalty states. There was a brief moratorium on the carrying out of executions country-wide during some of his years as an active killer, but prior to the four year moratorium and after it's revocation, five of the six states he killed in had the death penalty. The idea that he fled to Florida as some kind of "suicide wish" is one I believe that was put forth by Anne Rule when she first wrote her book and still had a somewhat "romanticized" view of Bundy, if I am remembering correctly. Bundy himself said the reason he picked Florida was after escaping in December in Colorado into the mountains he was freezing his butt off and wanted to go somewhere warm.

I do not subscribe to the modern perception that serial killers always follow a logical progression, that their MO never changes, that their locale never changes. Time and time again, we have had proven that serial killers do absolutely change even the most significant details about their crimes.

Let's parallel Bundy and Jack. Bundy selected and killed most of his victims out of doors. Then he moved his attack indoors. But he was still the perpetrator in both cases. By your logic, moving indoors would have excluded him from the running. And he took even more of a risk in the sorority house, killing people with other people just down the hall! There were 30 plus women in that house and no one heard/witnessed a thing! Kelly absolutely cannot be ruled out based on her location. Her location is entirely irrelevant to her candidacy.

[Phil Carter]

my apologies

Thanks for the reply Phil,

But you didn't answer the question either. Since Simon proposed these were all unconnected murders, but that the 'official' line was to blame them all on a 'fictitious' Jack the Ripper -

That begs the question -

Did the police know these were unconnected, so the police were lying,

or

the police were mistaken. They actually thought this was a series.

The fact that they actually invested stock in the name 'Jack the Ripper' for a time is something we are supposed to be shocked and awed about. That must be why you keep mentioning in constantly and Simon never makes a post on any subject at all without saying 'there was no Jack the Ripper.'

But that still doesn't get to the root of what I am asking. At all. If you propose the murders were unconnected, then were the police mistaken, or were they lying. Were the wrong, or lying, or when the weren't lying were they wrong?

You haven't said.

Simon hasn't said.

Yet you and Simon keep harping on this constantly and continously without ever saying.

After awhile this gets to be Shallow Hal.

Roy

Hello Roy,

Thanks for the reply,
My apologies. I will indeed attempt some sort of answer from my side in a short ish while (am busy atm) but I will do it as soon as I can. Hope thats ok?

i cant (and wouldnt even try to) answer for Simon as I dont know how he looks down the end of his cue or at what shot he has in mind. Heh heh

best wishes

Phil

[GregBaron]

Variety...

No big, re: the mistake location. I've made bigger screwups than that. But it should be pointed out that ALL of the states except one that Bundy killed in were death penalty states. There was a brief moratorium on the carrying out of executions country-wide during some of his years as an active killer, but prior to the four year moratorium and after it's revocation, five of the six states he killed in had the death penalty. The idea that he fled to Florida as some kind of "suicide wish" is one I believe that was put forth by Anne Rule when she first wrote her book and still had a somewhat "romanticized" view of Bundy, if I am remembering correctly. Bundy himself said the reason he picked Florida was after escaping in December in Colorado into the mountains he was freezing his butt off and wanted to go somewhere warm.

I do not subscribe to the modern perception that serial killers always follow a logical progression, that their MO never changes, that their locale never changes. Time and time again, we have had proven that serial killers do absolutely change even the most significant details about their crimes.

Let's parallel Bundy and Jack. Bundy selected and killed most of his victims out of doors. Then he moved his attack indoors. But he was still the perpetrator in both cases. By your logic, moving indoors would have excluded him from the running. And he took even more of a risk in the sorority house, killing people with other people just down the hall! There were 30 plus women in that house and no one heard/witnessed a thing! Kelly absolutely cannot be ruled out based on her location. Her location is entirely irrelevant to her candidacy.

I basically agree with Ally's premise here, in fact I believe Bundy himself said you don't do it the same way every time.

Bundy's last victim, a poor 12 year old girl, had her throat cut. He typically strangled with pantyhose. I'm sure he used other methods. These killers are not robots.

Bundy also killed indoors early in his career I believe - in the Lake Sammamish double event!

So Allys' point is solid, slight varieties in location and M.O. aren't enough to establish different perps.

There were 30 plus women in that house and no one heard/witnessed a thing!

On this minor detail Ally I must disagree, a girl spotted Bundy leaving the building in a cap and carrying a large stick. She identified him in court.

I stand with your basic idea completely...


Greg

[Simon the Whitmore]

I do not subscribe to the modern perception that serial killers always follow a logical progression, that their MO never changes, that their locale never changes. Time and time again, we have had proven that serial killers do absolutely change even the most significant details about their crimes.

Let's parallel Bundy and Jack. Bundy selected and killed most of his victims out of doors. Then he moved his attack indoors. But he was still the perpetrator in both cases. By your logic, moving indoors would have excluded him from the running. And he took even more of a risk in the sorority house, killing people with other people just down the hall! There were 30 plus women in that house and no one heard/witnessed a thing! Kelly absolutely cannot be ruled out based on her location. Her location is entirely irrelevant to her candidacy.

Thanks again Ally. Good parallel with Bundy and Jack. Why take that risk of possibly getting stuck inside?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

With respect to the proponents of the philosophy that serial killers can and often do change their methodologies, thats acceptable by most everyone I think,.....but the reason the serial perp kills in the first place likely remains constant no matter how many he kills. Outdoors, indoors, knife, hammer, saw, in the Library with a lead pipe,.. none of those characteristics within a series of unsolved murders excludes a single killer.

If it were obvious within the physical evidence that all the Canonicals were killed simply to satisfy the delusional needs of a single mentally ill man...that they all definitively revealed a single Motive by their murderer,... then I would agree with looking for one man.

Thing is, I can think of a vast number of reasons a woman got just her throat slit in the East End at that time that have nothing to do with a mental illness. Jealousy, Spite, Anger, Retribution, someone feeling betrayed, someone judging her to be a bad person for working for Jews, or maybe dating one...someone who hated the Club or Socialists, someone seeking to Blame the Jews for her murder, someone shutting her up because she could expose or ruin them, suspicion she was a spy on the club, suspicion by the Club she was a police spy....there are lots of possibilities. I also believe that the climate that Fall could lead a simple killer to rip his victim so that he would avoid suspicion and put the blame on the phantom.

Another possibility, near the bottom of the list, is that Liz was killed by a mentally ill man bent on mutilation after cutting throats, but he was deprived of the time and privacy to fulfill his desires. I say the bottom because there is no evidence that her killer was interrupted and there is no evidence that the privacy afforded him in the passageway was insufficient. Take the backyard of Hanbury at nearly dawn as proof of that.

Best regards all,

Mike R

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks again Ally. Good parallel with Bundy and Jack. Why take that risk of possibly getting stuck inside?

Simon,

Every decision is underpinned by the principles of risk and reward.

As human beings, we instinctively balance the risk of losing with the reward associated with winning.

Jack will have made an instinctive decision on whether or not it was worth it.

A risk averse person will tend to minimise the risk at the expense of the reward (or at least choose the option that garners the most reward from options of equal risk); a risk seeker will tend to maxmise the reward at the expense of risk.

I think it's fair to say that Jack was a risk seeker in that he placed himself in a situation where he could hang for his passions.

Put simply, Jack was enamoured with the reward to an extent that the risk was of secondary importance.

And, it is open to debate whether or not Jack placed himself at an increased risk by killing in a home unlikely to have had anyone but the victim in it beyond midnight. Personally, I would say it was a less risky option.