Did Jack only kill 3?

[lynn cates]

desiderata

Hello Mike. Thanks. I can accept some of this--at least in broad outline.

"I think that in this hypothetical scenario we have to look for Kate in a sort of blackmailer's position. She returns to town without much luck hopping but with a new jacket, and she and John get down to pawning his boots for the Friday night bed. Allegedly. She makes it known that she possesses information on the recent killings and intends on claiming the reward, not insubstantial money even at that stage for an unfortunate."

Alright. But if they are coming back on Thursday, whence did she obtain the information?

"She meets with a person or people Saturday afternoon that act as intermediaries for the person she intends to present evidence against and a deal is struck and sealed with some booze."

I can live with this.

"She will meet a man with a red scarf at midnight or 1am outside Mitre Square. From there she will be taken to where she will be given a greater sum than the accumulated official reward. To keep quiet. Hush money is always more expensive."

The problem here is the timing. Could her assailants know exactly WHEN she would be released? If those times are correct, could Kate KNOW that they would still be waiting at 1.30?

"The intention of course is to get her alone and silence her, marking her for all to see, that sticking your nose in other peoples business will get it cut off."

This works for me.

"The chevrons or nicks are part of that same mocking. A clown like visage."

This is not needed. The nicks can be seen as collateral damage in a furtive first attempt to remove the nose.

"My further speculation is that this man had some inner connection with the Fenian movement, either Glan-Na-Gael or the Fenian Brotherhood, and the man she intended to finger hadnt killed any of the first 3 Canonicals. But he had done and planned to do worse things."

But where would Kate have obtained such information?

"I believe it's that connection that somehow links this murder with Mary Jane's, I cant believe that Kate's choice of nomme de plume in the last 24 hours which was Mary Kelly and Jane Kelly, one residing on Dorset Street, was merely coincidental."

I believe that her pawn ticket read "Anne Kelly." Her address was given as #6 Fashion st, (at Bishopsgate Station) if I recall properly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

myth

Hello Jon. Indeed. The whole story sounds apocryphal. Don Souden dealt with this in his dissertation on ripper myths.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Gareth

Hello Dave.

"For example do we know for sure there was no trace of faeces in the facial wounds? Not just visibly, but were there chemical tests at the time, and were they routinely applied? etc etc..."

The best discussion of this--so far as I've seen--is Gareth Williams' "By Accident or Design." It's in the dissertation section.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

the man she intended to finger hadnt killed any of the first 3 Canonicals. But he had done and planned to do worse things.

I have a problem with that statement/contention.

I may be iconcoclastic in challenging the number of canonical victims, but I see a clear association between Mary, Annie and Catherine in MO and circumstances. I don't think a copycat would have got so close to replicating Hanbury St in Mitre Square.

Slitting a throat, tearing at an abdomen is one thing (anyone might attempt such things) - the way the bodies were laid out, the way they were mutilated, seems to me to reek of an association.

But the second sentence in the quote above puzzles me. What "worse" things had your killer done? Do you have someone specific in mind? Where as it were, are the bodies to support your contention.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike

Interesting...but nonetheless where is the evidence that there is no trace of faeces in the facial wounds? I repeat also my query regarding whether there were relevant chemical tests at the time, and whether or not they routinely applied? etc etc...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon, Dave,

I think that in this hypothetical scenario we have to look for Kate in a sort of blackmailers position. She returns to town without much luck hopping but with a new jacket, and she and John get down to pawning his boots for the Friday night bed. Allegedly. She makes it known that she possesses information on the recent killings and intends on claiming the reward, not insubstantial money even at that stage for an unfortunate.

She meets with a person or people Saturday afternoon that act as intermediaries for the person she intends to present evidence against and a deal is struck and sealed with some booze. She will meet a man with a red scarf at midnight or 1am outside Mitre Square. From there she will be taken to where she will be given a greater sum than the accumulated official reward. To keep quiet. Hush money is always more expensive.

The intention of course is to get her alone and silence her, marking her for all to see, that sticking your nose in other peoples business will get it cut off. The chevrons or nicks are part of that same mocking. A clown like visage.

My further speculation is that this man had some inner connection with the Fenian movement, either Glan-Na-Gael or the Fenian Brotherhood, and the man she intended to finger hadnt killed any of the first 3 Canonicals. But he had done and planned to do worse things. I believe its that connection that somehow links this murder with Mary Janes, I cant believe that Kates choice of nomme de plume in the last 24 hours which was Mary Kelly and Jane Kelly, one residing on Dorset Street, was merely coincidental.

Who was it that said there are no coincidences?

Thats sort of my take on this at the moment anyway.

Cheers,
Michael

[Wickerman]

The story that Kate had returned from Kent to "name" who she thinks is the Killer, was preceded by four other stories of people who also think they can identify the killer. It was likely just a common retort among the populace.

There was no official reward available until the City came up with one in consequence of Kate's murder (and Stride).
Prior to this Mr Montague, MP for Whitechapel had offered £100, The I.P.N. offered £100, and the W. V. C. offered £50, all as a consequence of Chapman's murder.

Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

I believe thats why we see an apron section being taken from this murder victim and no others.....this murderer didnt kill intending to take organs, he killed then thinking quickly he sought out organs to suggest someone else for the crime. Thats why her abdominal incision is so odd, thats why her face was, by the lack of feces in the wounds, was likely cut before he cut into her body. The colon section made a cut after the fact, without feces traces, almost impossible.

The wounds suggest to me that Kate was killed then made an example of....but only to people who knew what she intended to do....tell on someone she thought was involved in the local murders. Thats of course if there is any validity to the story she stated she was going to claim the Ripper reward money.

Hi Mike

I'm generally wary of anything that might be construed as a conspiracy theory - even if it's just something that doesn't conform to the established "norms"...

It doesn't, however, stop me listening to people like Lynn, someone whose views I respect, and who's never led me astray...so you'll understand I find the above very interesting...would you care to enlarge on what you've said?

For example do we know for sure there was no trace of faeces in the facial wounds? Not just visibly, but were there chemical tests at the time, and were they routinely applied? etc etc...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Good point about the specific organs sought. The uterus as a defilement of the female reproductive system makes sense of a sort. The heart (if it was indeed taken) has symbolism of its own. Why take a kidney?

Regards, Bridewell.

My thinking on that Bridewell is that someone who didnt covet the organs weve mentioned would not realize that he was supposed to take something symbolic during his attempt at replicating the deed. I think the person who took Kate's kidney thought that to implicate the Ripper for this murder some internal organ had to be taken away.

I believe thats why we see an apron section being taken from this murder victim and no others.....this murderer didnt kill intending to take organs, he killed then thinking quickly he sought out organs to suggest someone else for the crime. Thats why her abdominal incision is so odd, thats why her face was, by the lack of feces in the wounds, was likely cut before he cut into her body. The colon section made a cut after the fact, without feces traces, almost impossible.

The wounds suggest to me that Kate was killed then made an example of....but only to people who knew what she intended to do....tell on someone she thought was involved in the local murders. Thats of course if there is any validity to the story she stated she was going to claim the Ripper reward money.

Which I believe. I also believe that its likely Mary Kelly knew of the same circle.

Best regards,

Michael

[Bridewell]

Hi Michael,

Good point about the specific organs sought. The uterus as a defilement of the female reproductive system makes sense of a sort. The heart (if it was indeed taken) has symbolism of its own. Why take a kidney?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

No Jacks first kills would not have been ripped you don't start with those mutilations you work your way up to them.

More then 3 victims.

That would be likely be true in the case of a multiple murderer that evolves throughout the series of kills, however, we do not know for a fact we have a "series" unless 3 counts as a series...see thread premise....and secondly, there is no reason at all why the very first kills by any multiple killer wouldnt involve some mutilations, amputations, or dismemberment. I doubt very much that the killer of the Torso's found before and during the Ripper murders were the result of escalating injuries to the victims previous, if any. That man likely cut his first kill into parts. And the subsequent ones.

Which brings me back to my point....multiple killers often show their stripes immediately, on the first kill.....for example, Zodiak's motivations were most probably to experience the rush of the kill...whether he used a knife, or a gun, there seems to be little evidence to suggest anything personal or more sinister beyond that simple goal.

What if the man that killed Annie was intent on acquiring internal organs? How does that impact how we see the 3rd murder? Does it matter that it didnt get that far with the first victim....can we see the same handiwork?

For me the main issue for the past several years has been how to reconcile Kates and Marys murder with that same man. Can I say firmly that the man that killed Mary was after internal organs? There is quite a lot that is done in that room that has nothing to do with obtaining organs, and one organ that was chosen 2 times in the Canonical Group preceding this murder is excised and left behind under her head.

Seems to me that it would be almost impossible to state with any conviction that Marys killer likely sought internal organs, even though he took one of the most symbolic ones home.

But Annies killer sought them.

Best regards,

Michael

[Doppelganger]

No Jacks first kills would not have been ripped you don't start with those mutilations you work your way up to them.

More then 3 victims.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

I think our inability to 'perceive the true motivations' behind any of the Whitechapel murders is very likely to continue unless evidence emerges against one or more of the individuals who actually committed them. The most obvious obstacle to solving the motivation issue is having no bugger to ask!

An unknown person's motive for doing anything a bit out of the ordinary is likely to be the very last thing that can be established with any degree of certainty. As I said elsewhere, the only way one can really test a theory about motive in any of these unsolved cases is to round up your potential suspects - anyone who can be connected by solid evidence to a victim and/or a crime scene would be good - and see if that motive could apply to one of them.

In short, you have to find the buggers wot done it first and then, if you're lucky, their motives may become clear.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Perhaps I can better explain my thinking with this example, if hypothetically the evidence in the first 2 Canonical murders suggested strongly that at least in part, the killers ultimate intentions were to obtain internal female organs, and that the wounds seemed consistent with a semi-skilled man with knife usage and anatomy, then we at least could narrow the suspect parameters somewhat. That man would by necessity be someone who uses a knife, most probably in his work cutting up animals, and someone who likely is identifiably mentally ill. He need not be overtly disturbed, or violent, but recognizably odd certainly.

Im grouping the first 2 murders because in my opinion they do suggest some of what I theorized above, and therefore, in my opinion of course, were likely by the same killer.

There is no evidence that the 3rd murder fits that general profile, so, we need not seek the same kind of individual for that crime. The 4th and 5th murder strongly suggest the same kind of killer as in C1 and C2, however, there is no evidence that suggests the killer desired to acquire specifically female organs, ...that may be a flag. When considering some additional evidence in those 2 murders we also see some wound patterns that are dissimilar to the ones we find in the first cases. Perhaps another flag.

Im suggesting that if the evidence is perceived accurately, the above motivational theorizing can help narrow the field a bit.

Best regards,

Michael

[caz]

Hi Mike,

I think our inability to 'perceive the true motivations' behind any of the Whitechapel murders is very likely to continue unless evidence emerges against one or more of the individuals who actually committed them. The most obvious obstacle to solving the motivation issue is having no bugger to ask!

An unknown person's motive for doing anything a bit out of the ordinary is likely to be the very last thing that can be established with any degree of certainty. As I said elsewhere, the only way one can really test a theory about motive in any of these unsolved cases is to round up your potential suspects - anyone who can be connected by solid evidence to a victim and/or a crime scene would be good - and see if that motive could apply to one of them.

In short, you have to find the buggers wot done it first and then, if you're lucky, their motives may become clear.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Someone in each case, Mike.

It's Errata who is looking for 'the other women' murdered by the man who killed Nichols and Chapman. I was just giving her some potential examples to look at.

Love,

Caz
X

I'm glad that was simply a misread on my part Caz,... I shuddered at the thought of the exchanges if you had adopted that position.

To my eye Alice is a very good fit with those 2, although I believe that Lynn Cates has made a good case for Jacob Isenschmid for the first 2 and he was unavailable to kill Alice...so, who knows.

You mentioned earlier about a lack of apparent motive for the killings, and I would say that it is our inability to perceive the true motivations that is at issue, due to incomplete evidence, interpretive analysis, whathave you. There are legitimate obstacles when solving these puzzles.

If you set aside the argument itself for the introduction of the specific organ theft theory, and leave open other possible motives that might spawn acts like we see, I think there are ways to get a sense of what might be logical based on the meager evidence we have.

Best regards,
Michael