Did Jack only kill 3?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Not that it matters, but was the 3rd victim Nichols or Stride?

Sit back, pour yourself a well-shaken Toronto, take a long deep breath, clear your mind of the 125 years of Ripper clutter we've all gathered along the way, and instead consider events in these terms—

Why were a number of unconnected murders officially placed under the auspices of a fictitious JtR?

This is the essence of the real Whitechapel mystery.

Regards,

Simon

Before I responding Simon, I wanted to say thanks to Phil and the other Simon for the nice comments, I forgot to do that earlier. Im not use to reading good things.

I suppose in Ripperology Liz is #3, but in the Whitechapel Murder files she is what, Annie-Emma-Martha-Polly-Annie...#5 of 13 I suppose.

My own belief Simon is that some run of the mill unsolved murders got congealed with some psychotic ones and due to the Keystone Cops involvement, passing for Central Intelligence dealing with National Security issues including Terrorism, evidence was withheld and fabricated with respect to some of the murders. To conceal their own incompetence primarily, or at the minimum, a lack of interdepartmental disclosures. I think somehow Kate and Mary's murder were related to Irish issues and maintaining silence.

If some of the most Senior Officials in the Whitechapel murder investigation were outed during the Commission sessions,...either by their contacts or by double agents or colleagues,.. their lack of success in the Ripper cases would be a footnote late in the memoir. And the throne would certainly have shaken. There was huge news going on while hopeless women were murdered, to imagine that these 2 stories stood apart is I think naive.

I think Liz was likely killed by a gentile resenting Jews, perhaps a part of the anti-Semitic swell after Annies murder or maybe just a generally anti-Jew/anti Socialist, not pre-planned, and the killer just used the opportunity to try and frame the Jews at the club. I think its this murder that the grafitti refers to, and yet I dont believe one man killed them both.

I also believe some police were prone to the antisemitism that I mention, perhaps by being themselves attacked the previous November. By the same folks now plagued by "Jack".

I recall that Sam Flynn once told me here that 20L in London in 1888 has the modern equivalent of roughly 1500L Sterling today. So 10,000L in London in 1888 had the equivalent of roughly 750,00L Sterling today. That was, as you know, a fee discussed for a witness for the Parnell Commission. By a member of The Fenian Brotherhood who had the previous year threatened to blow up the Queen at the Jubilee, then were engaged in 1888 in a plot to blow up the Irish Secretary. What kind of spy story has people being paid that kind of money to either speak or shut up.

That back-story coincides with some "Ripper" murders.

If I ever had the data to tie up those knots you would be one of the first to know.

Cheers Simon,
Mike R

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

Not that it matters, but was the 3rd victim Nichols or Stride?

Sit back, pour yourself a well-shaken Toronto, take a long deep breath, clear your mind of the 125 years of Ripper clutter we've all gathered along the way, and instead consider events in these terms—

Why were a number of unconnected murders officially placed under the auspices of a fictitious JtR?

This is the essence of the real Whitechapel mystery.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn
With the exception of Stride all of the C5 were strangled, had there throats cut and were then mutilated. Thus almost identical M.O.s. for 4 of the C5 and Stride was strangled, then her throat was cut. There may have been a reason why Strides killer didn't mutilate her.

Cheers John

Hi John,

Strangled is a specific term and it does not apply in actuality to most of the victims. Or at least there is insufficient evidence to claim it was done. In Strides case her scarf was twisted left and the line of the cut and the border of the scarf match....thats why it was cut slightly.

So she may not have been strangled per se, but she did have the scarf grabbed by her killer. As for reasons why she wasnt mutilated, you can almost be sure it had nothing to do with any interruption, there is no evidence that occurred.

Simon Wood.......I obviously agree with the sentiments , but to be fair I think that the man who started cutting women open, the killer of the first 2 women, earned the name. That name was created before the 3rd victim.

So if Lynn is correct about Mr Isenshmid, he gets the title by default.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

"Jack" didn't kill anyone.

Regards,

Simon

[GregBaron]

Speculator's paradise....

What, I live alone - can't the police knock on my door? Just how many policemen and WVC members were out looking for the killer? By cornering yourself in a small courtyard inside a tiny room, it doesn't leave much room for escape.
Let's face it, Ted Bundy deliberately went to Texas because they still had the death penalty, so perhaps Jack did want to get caught. He would have spent more than just a few minutes boxed away in the room with MJK.

Hi Simon,

If Mr. Rip wanted to be caught I imagine he would have been. That's not the hard part.

In fact your Mr. Bundy fled to Florida which indeed had the death penalty. Whether he went for that reason is speculative. He may have chosen that state because it was the furthest reaches from his previous hunting grounds - meaning post escape.

You will find 2-1-1-1 advocates out here and others all the way to a Royal flush 11.........with everything in between....

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


Greg

[Simon the Whitmore]

Who was going to catch him? Mary Kelly was living alone.

Regards, Bridewell.

What, I live alone - can't the police knock on my door? Just how many policemen and WVC members were out looking for the killer? By cornering yourself in a small courtyard inside a tiny room, it doesn't leave much room for escape.
Let's face it, Ted Bundy deliberately went to Texas because they still had the death penalty, so perhaps Jack did want to get caught. He would have spent more than just a few minutes boxed away in the room with MJK.

[lynn cates]

strangulation

Hello John. Thanks.

It may well be that all were strangled. But, besides Polly and Annie, there is no overt evidence of such. Hence, one must rely on personal belief.

Cheers.
LC

[John Wheat]

Hi Lynn
With the exception of Stride all of the C5 were strangled, had there throats cut and were then mutilated. Thus almost identical M.O.s. for 4 of the C5 and Stride was strangled, then her throat was cut. There may have been a reason why Strides killer didn't mutilate her.

Cheers John

[Rya]

Superficial cut, overkill, primary cut much larger and deeper than it needed to be, yet failed to sever the carotid.

It's Rorschach tests of cases, so you can see anything just about any way you want to. This is just how I see it.

This is funny, because in responding to an adjacent thread just now, I argued for exactly the opposite, and after reading the Eddowes postmortem evidence over and over, I find myself increasingly thinking that it was the killer of Nichols and Chapman who was the "tyro," and that Eddowes's killer showed more precision, economy, and crude anatomical know-how in his business.

But, I am also aware that we know vastly more about Kate's injuries from inquest testimony, drawings and photos than any on the other murders. If we magically discovered the full reports on each of the C5 victims tomorrow, along with some postmortem illustrations and photo plates, I suspect we would all learn how little we actually knew before about any of the other murders in the sequence.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

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

Superficial cut, overkill, primary cut much larger and deeper than it needed to be, yet failed to sever the carotid.

It's Rorschach tests of cases, so you can see anything just about any way you want to. This is just how I see it.

[Bridewell]

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?

Who was going to catch him? Mary Kelly was living alone.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Thanks Phil Carter and Michael W Richards, I can see you both know your stuff. Maybe if someone could invent a time-machine and go back and just kidnap each suspect in turn to see if the murders still happen. Start with Isenschmidt and hey presto! It'll turn out to be John Smith from Finchley!

Hello Simon,

Thank you indeed. But I know much less than many others in the genre.
Mike certainly does, as is shown by his perceptive post.

i myself tend to lean, at present to a 2-1-2 or 2-1-1-1 scenario of the C5. But I admit to being open to change. i do not believe Stride was part of this so called C5 grouping. I also see strong persuasion in C1 and C2 being of the same hand. C3, Stride, being a slash n dash victim of possibly a club member from the IWMEC in Berner Street. Thereafter the real problems for this idea start.
If C4 isnt connected to C2, we have, if not a direct copycat murder, a masqueraded murder, i.e. A murder made to resemble C1 and C2. That, is hotly contested and places those such as myself in some people's eyes in an outer circle. One nears slightly if C4 and C5 are of the same hand.

I believe the key to the C5 murder is the total inability of every researcher to discover the slightest trace of one Mary Jane Kelly. One of the genre's very very best researchers, Chris Scott, has turned over more stones surrounding MJK than most all others. With his brilliant work in mind, I have concluded that MJK was not the true name of the C5 victim. That, in turn, opens up many a possibility. Here may, just may, lie the link to Irish Fenianism first mentioned not in 1956 in book form, but 1920 in newspaper form in an epitaph. Even this reference may originate in the newspaper articles from 1888 itself, when writing that specialised Irish anti-Fenian policemen were ushered into the fray. And all of this may single out Kelly from Eddowes.
However, one has to admit it being speculative at present. The only red light that shines bright in this sense is the now known fact that Special Branch were involved in the murder hunt. Originally designed and even named the Special Irish Branch, their prime object was to quell Irish nationalism in the UK, and later anarchists from other sources. Ensuring National Security in other words. I believe that the Stride murder may have been investigated through using SB, whom we know were watching the Berner St club anyway.

That's basically where I stand. It doesn't win votes but isn't meant to either. Like I said in the previous post, all we have are voiced opinions. But until someone can produce some official suspect evidence against anyone, then all the named suspects have not an iota of evidential proof against them.

C3 and not C5? Yes. Possible. Then again, some argue a C4, some a C6, some a C7. Some believe more. You pays yer money and takes yer choice.


Best wishes

Phil

[Simon the Whitmore]

Thanks Phil Carter and Michael W Richards, I can see you both know your stuff. Maybe if someone could invent a time-machine and go back and just kidnap each suspect in turn to see if the murders still happen. Start with Isenschmidt and hey presto! It'll turn out to be John Smith from Finchley!

[Simon the Whitmore]

Someone who thinks like I do! Thanks for your insight Errata. It seems we're not all blinkered by the obvious.
It's for another thread, I know, but there are too many that give any credence to the graffiti on Ghoulston St as well!
"Ooh, look, there's a piece of discarded manure in the East End - it MUST have something to do with the Ripper case!"

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

As has been stated earlier, it is far from straightforward.
Stride's inclusion has been contended for many many years. The origin of the C5 itself being based on the opinion of one doctor's report to Assistant Commissioner Robert Anderson. This has been looked at in retrospect by researchers, writers and commentators alike who note that the doctor in question wrote his opinion in retrospect, referring to other opinions in post mortem notes etc.
Kelly's inclusion has, until fairly recently, been solid. However, authors, researchers and commentators in recent years have questioned her inclusion, for varying reasons. The situation has caused opinions to become far more variant than the origin of the C5 and the opinion that proposed it.

Recently for example, Lynn Cates put forward the impressiue argument that C1 and C2 were done by the hand of Isenschmidt, who is thereafter incarcerated. Left with a remaining C3 as it were, the inclusion of Stride being a victim of the same hand as Eddowes. This has traditionally been based on the double event being a truism. However, that very truism has been seriously questioned due to what boils down to a possible style change of killing, which in turn has been counter argued being down to a time problem being the cause of the necessary change of modus operandi. Again, counter arguments are held that, for example, the comparison between Stride's demise and Kelly's, are virtually non existant. Etc etc etc.

Kelly has been singled out per say because she can have been a victim of either Hutchinson, Barnett, Blotciy faced man or a connection to an Irish killer first mentioned as a possibility in a book from 1956 that quoted a purported comment in then existing files from Melville MacNagthen allying the killing to the leader of a plot led by Fenians to murder Balfour.

So no, it isnt simple. We have no idea who killed who or how many. The arguments ebb and flow without concensus. No one proposed suspect can be shown to have been in attendance at each of the murder sites. High ranking police comments are nearly all different as to whom that killer or killers were either. At least one Doctor disagreed with the police view on whether the killer was known nr not. Witness statements vary and are unreliable too. Official files from both the Home Office and the Police are missing, presumed lost, destroyed, burnt or stolen.
The list goes on and on. All of which have an effect on the question "How many did X kill".

There is no definitive answer, contrary to the opinions of some. And finally, it is all down to individual opinion as to how many X killed depending on who or what is the persons pet theory, of which we are all, to varying degree guilty by dint of voicing that opinion.

No. It isnt that easy. And those who dive into this mess splash were Angels fear to swim, for fear of sinking.

Best wishes

Phil