Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Many Victims Were There?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The single, vertical cut to the Pinchin St torso's abdomen did not penetrate the abdominal wall. I've no doubt that the Ripper wouldn't have hesitated to eviscerate her "properly", given that whoever disarticulated the body would have had plenty of time and privacy available in which to do so. As it is, the victim only endured a scratch, compared to what happened to Nichols et al under far less favourable circumstances.
    That does not matter to the discussion we are having. You said that the case was not in the slightest way Ripper-like, and you were wrong. Regardless of how deep the wound was, it was nevertheless a gash from breastplate to pelvis, and that IS reminiscent of the Ripper. Extremely few murders have that inclusion.

    PS. Since you do not know zilch about the circumstances under which the Pinchin Street woman was cut, best not make comparisons with other cases in that respect. Just saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    The single, vertical cut to the Pinchin St torso's abdomen did not penetrate the abdominal wall. I've no doubt that the Ripper wouldn't have hesitated to eviscerate her "properly", given that whoever disarticulated the body would have had plenty of time and privacy available in which to do so. As it is, the victim only endured a scratch, compared to what happened to Nichols et al under far less favourable circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    Only if you count them, which is a moot point. There was a huge gap (more than eight months) between Kelly and McKenzie, for a start, and McKenzie's death wasn't convincingly Ripper-like. The Pinchin Street case, which followed a further two months after McKenzie, was not Ripper-like in the slightest.
    ... but for the fact that there was a gash running from breastplate to pelvis. That, Gareth, was quite reminiscent of the Ripper, and the press and police duly noted it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    perhaps-but what many seem to forget is that both seemingly stopped at the same time with the (probable) last victims pinchin and McKenzie.
    Only if you count them, which is a moot point. There was a huge gap (more than eight months) between Kelly and McKenzie, for a start, and McKenzie's death wasn't convincingly Ripper-like. The Pinchin Street case, which followed a further two months after McKenzie, was not Ripper-like in the slightest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Including the perpetrator of the Pinchin Street murder, which was the only torso deposited anywhere near the Ripper murders. (Unequivocal evidence of evisceration for its own sake is entirely absent in the torso series, anyway.)
    As I have said multiple times, I believe it was not about eviscerations but instead about cutting per se - which INVOLVES BUT DOES NOT PREDISPOSE eviscerations. There were many cuts to Kelly that were not of an evisceration character, just as there were in the Eddowes case.
    True, we cannot say that the eviscerations that are proven in the torso cases must have been led on by an urge to eviscerate. Then again, that of course applies in the Ripper case too. If we don't know, we don't know.

    But we DO know that whenever eviscerators surface, they are unlikely in the extreme to have other eviscerators surfacing alongside them. And once we add the character of the eviscerations, involving the taking out of sexually oriented was well as non-sexually oriented organs AND the taking away of abdominal walls, we can safely say that the chances of a common killer are overwhelmingly large, while the chances of two separate ditto are virtually nonexistent.

    PS. Hebberd was sure that the Pinchin Street woman was killed by the same man who killed the Rainham, the Whitehall and the Horsleydown victims. Ergo, your hunch willl in all probability be misguided. And what with the "anywhere near" thing? She was smack, bang in Ripper territory!

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Agree, but the torso murders took place over at least a 16 year period, possibly longer, across London and the ripper murders over a few months in Whitechapel in 1888. So assuming the statistics you quoted are accurate (1 eviscerator every 7 years on average), it would be quite conceivable that the ripper and torso killers were separate people and not especially surprising that they overlapped.
    perhaps-but what many seem to forget is that both seemingly stopped at the same time with the (probable) last victims pinchin and McKenzie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman
    But no, not every person capable of knife violence is likely to eviscerate his or her victim/s.
    Including the perpetrator of the Pinchin Street murder, which was the only torso deposited anywhere near the Ripper murders. (Unequivocal evidence of evisceration for its own sake is entirely absent in the torso series, anyway.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    All true but I might add the mutilations of the C5 with the exception of Liz Stride were not common place.
    Agreed, which is why I see Stride as a bog-standard knife crime unconnected to the rest of the Canonical Five, like the majority of the other non-canonical Whitechapel Murders that didn't involve disembowelment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Agree, but the torso murders took place over at least a 16 year period, possibly longer, across London and the ripper murders over a few months in Whitechapel in 1888. So assuming the statistics you quoted are accurate (1 eviscerator every 7 years on average), it would be quite conceivable that the ripper and torso killers were separate people and not especially surprising that they overlapped.
    To begin with: I don't know how large a percentage the 460 murders covered within the serial killing total. I don't think there were only 460 serial murders in the US between 1960 and 2006 - Ridgway and Bundy would cover a hundred, roughly, on their own!

    Moving on, it still applies that evisceration murders are very, very rare. And once they DO occur, we should not expect them to take place in the same city and time period. It reasly should go without saying.

    There were roughy 35 million people in Britain at the time these murders took place. In Greater London, there were some five million people. So that alone speaks against a common striking area. It was one chance in seven that you were a Londoner.

    What you want is for these parameters to simultaneously appear: two serial killers in the same town, overlapping time periods, both of them eviscerators, both of them take out hearts and uteri, both of them cut away abdominal walls from victims.

    It just hasn't got any credibility at all going for it. It is unlikely in the extreme. Theoretically it CAN happen, but Iīd say that the chances of it being just the one killer are a zillion times greater. If it walks like a duck ...

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Making comparisons between regular knife violence and the type of knife violence that surfaced in the Ripper and Torso series is not very viable. Yes, there were more than one person capable of knife violence in London in 1888. But no, not every person capable of knife violence is likely to eviscerate his or her victim/s. Only a minuscule fraction of people will do that. Luckily, they are very, very few and very, very far apart in time and place, owing to the scarcity of these slayings.
    Agree, but the torso murders took place over at least a 16 year period, possibly longer, across London and the ripper murders over a few months in Whitechapel in 1888. So assuming the statistics you quoted are accurate (1 eviscerator every 7 years on average), it would be quite conceivable that the ripper and torso killers were separate people and not especially surprising that they overlapped.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Bingo, John Wheat!

    If we look at the statistics for murder in the US of 2017, we will find that the commonest type of murder is committed with a handgun (roughly 7000 in 2017). The next commonest type is other firearms (roughly 3000 in 2017). Thereafter follows knife violence (roughly 1500 in 2017).
    Obviously, there were not many firearms around in London in 1888, and so knife violence will have dominated.

    If we turn to serial killing, much is changed. In FBI:s "Serial Murder - pathways for investigation", by the behavioral analysis unit of the FBI, 480 cases or serial murder in the US from between 1960-2006 were investigated, and the result that was found was that around 80 per cent of the murders were sexually motivated. The most common method of killing here was strangulation. In six of the 480 cases, there were eviscerations.

    That is six cases in 46 years. Meaning that there was roughly one such case every seventh year in the cases that were investigated, while there was roughly ten cases of serial murder every year.

    Making comparisons between regular knife violence and the type of knife violence that surfaced in the Ripper and Torso series is not very viable. Yes, there were more than one person capable of knife violence in London in 1888. But no, not every person capable of knife violence is likely to eviscerate his or her victim/s. Only a minuscule fraction of people will do that. Luckily, they are very, very few and very, very far apart in time and place, owing to the scarcity of these slayings.
    exactly fish-and I think that pretty much gets right down to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    im not sure what the point is being made here about a lot of knife wielding men at the time. sure many men carried knives.

    but violent as it was-murder was rare at the time in WC, especially of women. Of the the victims in the WC murder file-smith and mylett are out of this argument since no knife was involved. the c5 plus tabram and McKenzie were IMHO probably killed by the ripper as maybe pinchin. Coles was probably killed by sadler (But maybe someone else or the ripper)
    so for this argument ive got two possibly three knife wielding killers for all the unsolved knife murders in the WC file and coles/sadler being probably a domestic. so that's the ripper, pinchin and coles three different men (although pinnchin and coles COULD have been the same man as the ripper-im being conservative to be fair).

    not sure of this talk of eight or so knife wielding killers then.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-19-2019, 04:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Bingo, John Wheat!

    If we look at the statistics for murder in the US of 2017, we will find that the commonest type of murder is committed with a handgun (roughly 7000 in 2017). The next commonest type is other firearms (roughly 3000 in 2017). Thereafter follows knife violence (roughly 1500 in 2017).
    Obviously, there were not many firearms around in London in 1888, and so knife violence will have dominated.

    If we turn to serial killing, much is changed. In FBI:s "Serial Murder - pathways for investigation", by the behavioral analysis unit of the FBI, 480 cases or serial murder in the US from between 1960-2006 were investigated, and the result that was found was that around 80 per cent of the murders were sexually motivated. The most common method of killing here was strangulation. In six of the 480 cases, there were eviscerations.

    That is six cases in 46 years. Meaning that there was roughly one such case every seventh year in the cases that were investigated, while there was roughly ten cases of serial murder every year.

    Making comparisons between regular knife violence and the type of knife violence that surfaced in the Ripper and Torso series is not very viable. Yes, there were more than one person capable of knife violence in London in 1888. But no, not every person capable of knife violence is likely to eviscerate his or her victim/s. Only a minuscule fraction of people will do that. Luckily, they are very, very few and very, very far apart in time and place, owing to the scarcity of these slayings.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Lots John, how many that disemboweled or disarticulated their victims, far less. Consider that the Unsolved Murders file is around 13 victims. The Canonical Group, as established by many contemporary investigators is five of those. The area the Five were killed in is historically significant for the very reason we had murders in the first place,... extreme poverty, alcoholism, overcrowding, dissatisfaction with the government and democracy, Freedom fighters, large nocturnal population....etc. Knives were abundant, but men who chose to use them to kill and then gut women in public were not.
    All true but I might add the mutilations of the C5 with the exception of Liz Stride were not common place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    Don't forget Mylett. As to the rest, I make it there were 11 Whitechapel Murders in all, but perhaps Michael has another two in mind from elsewhere in London.

    As I say, it's only a thought experiment. My main point was that, assuming JTR didn't kill ALL the non-canonical victims, and that they in turn were killed by different men, then we're almost certainly dealing with several different knife-wielding killers at large.
    Murder by knife was and is a very common type of homicide.

    Evisceration murder was and is a very rare thing.

    Let's not loose sight of that.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X