How Many Victims Were There?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam and Michael
well other than the C5 the WC murder file has smith, tabram, pinchin, McKenzie, coles. correct? who are the others?

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.

[Abby Normal]

It was just a thought-experiment, Abby. Whatever those 13 unsolved murders referred to by Michael were, minus the Canonical Five.

Hi Sam and Michael
well other than the C5 the WC murder file has smith, tabram, pinchin, McKenzie, coles. correct? who are the others?

[Sam Flynn]

which eight victims sam?

It was just a thought-experiment, Abby. Whatever those 13 unsolved murders referred to by Michael were, minus the Canonical Five.

[Fisherman]

That's my take too Sam, and although I can see other multiple murders by one killer within that same larger group..like the Torsos, its evident that fatal knife usage wasn't restricted to Jack The Ripper. As we agree on Sam, disemboweling victims in the streets was.

How many of Gareths eight knife-wielders performed eviscerations? How many cut away parts of the abdominal walls? Were there any such perpetrators, other than in the Ripper/Torso series?

[Abby Normal]

Accepting that for the sake of argument, and supposing that the non-canonical murders were committed by different perpetrators, it could be argued that at least eight persons carrying knives (and using them to kill) were at large during that period.

which eight victims sam?

[Michael W Richards]

Accepting that for the sake of argument, and supposing that the non-canonical murders were committed by different perpetrators, it could be argued that at least eight persons carrying knives (and using them to kill) were at large during that period.

That's my take too Sam, and although I can see other multiple murders by one killer within that same larger group..like the Torsos, its evident that fatal knife usage wasn't restricted to Jack The Ripper. As we agree on Sam, disemboweling victims in the streets was.

[Sam Flynn]

Consider that the Unsolved Murders file is around 13 victims. The Canonical Group, as established by many contemporary investigators is five of those...

Accepting that for the sake of argument, and supposing that the non-canonical murders were committed by different perpetrators, it could be argued that at least eight persons carrying knives (and using them to kill) were at large during that period.

[Michael W Richards]

I disagree how many mad men with knives do you think we're running about a small area of London all of a sudden and at the same time?

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.

[MrBarnett]

Here’s one. The incident took place on the morning of Annie Chapman’s murder.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree how many mad men with knives do you think we're running about a small area of London all of a sudden and at the same time?

Quite a few, I'd have thought, albeit possibly only one who got his rocks off by pulling women's guts out.

[John Wheat]

This question should be asked. The formation of a group of women under one killer has always been speculation, and is not supported by the circumstantial and physical evidence alone. Its assumptive. And it will continue to remain as such until people reach the conclusion that to find any answers here, the known parameters have to be established. In that vein, I believe the evidence does suggest that at the very least, Polly and Annie were killed by the same person. The facts in those cases allow us to imagine how they met, what his objectives were, and how capably he achieved them if he did. That's a partial profile. Why people throw that out to add a single throat cut a month later, and a dissection table indoors a month after that, is beyond my understanding. 2 almost identical murders within 2 weeks. That's a group you can feel confident starting with. Starting a search with 5 victims with some real differences in all relevant features is dooming one to fail.

I disagree how many mad men with knives do you think we're running about a small area of London all of a sudden and at the same time?

[Michael W Richards]

This question should be asked. The formation of a group of women under one killer has always been speculation, and is not supported by the circumstantial and physical evidence alone. Its assumptive. And it will continue to remain as such until people reach the conclusion that to find any answers here, the known parameters have to be established. In that vein, I believe the evidence does suggest that at the very least, Polly and Annie were killed by the same person. The facts in those cases allow us to imagine how they met, what his objectives were, and how capably he achieved them if he did. That's a partial profile. Why people throw that out to add a single throat cut a month later, and a dissection table indoors a month after that, is beyond my understanding. 2 almost identical murders within 2 weeks. That's a group you can feel confident starting with. Starting a search with 5 victims with some real differences in all relevant features is dooming one to fail.

[Michael W Richards]

A valid point, Sam, but it falls into that trap of categorizing the killer as a robot. He did 'x' in some cases, therefore he must do it in every case, when we know that humans are capricious creatures that can act according to whim.

Actually Harry, since we know that the killer we call Jack the Ripper killed so he could move on to other things,..it appears the kills were just to offer him the opportunity to cut into someone who couldnt object, we can say that was his "x". That speaks to Why.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't want to say how many victims there were, as JTR was never caught. We don't even know for certain who exactly his first victims were.

I think if you try and isolate the first crimes that had the type of slaughter we most associate with Jack the Ripper, you either have to start with the Torsos earlier in the 80's, or with Polly Nichols. Brutailty wasn't rare in that area, nor was killing. The way some crimes were committed suggested a certain dispassionate element that isn't as evident in other murders, the victims were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Harry D]

But not with Tabram, Nichols, Stride or Chapman, all of whose murders post-dated 1873 and 1884, of course, and pre-dated Eddowes and Kelly
. You'd think that, if he was responsible for both those earlier torso murders, he'd have carried on where he left off from the outset of the Autumn of Terror.

A valid point, Sam, but it falls into that trap of categorizing the killer as a robot. He did 'x' in some cases, therefore he must do it in every case, when we know that humans are capricious creatures that can act according to whim.