How Many Victims Were There?

[Fiver]

Around 12, or 23 if Jack was also responsible for the torso killings.

The Ripper Killings and the Torso Killings had completely different MOs.

[Fiver]

Murder in Westminster

https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../dt881001.html

Thanks for sharing. It obviously has nothing to do with the Ripper killings. Wrong kind of target, wrong location, wrong killer, even the wrong timing.

[Astatine211]

Around 12, or 23 if Jack was also responsible for the torso killings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A domestic decapitation that took place in a house. The woman wasn't a prostitute and couldn't have been mistaken for one. Michael brings it up when someone says "what are the chances of there being 2 throat cutting prostitute murderers in operation on the same night."

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Who was this third woman?

Murder in Westminster

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881001.html

[Fiver]

But that third woman was so obviously unconnected with any of the Whitechapel victims that I fail to see why you routinely have to wheel her in, as if her case is relevant to anything at all.

Who was this third woman?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that third woman was so obviously unconnected with any of the Whitechapel victims that I fail to see why you routinely have to wheel her in, as if her case is relevant to anything at all.

I have a feeling that you do know Caz.

[caz]

The fact is Trevor that 3 women had their throats slit that night, but only 1 was mutilated after that. 1 was solved, leaving us with 2 murders which are not alike. I agree with you on Stride...no surprise,...but I see the variations in actions taken and cuts made as indicators of different killers. The Unsolved Files have what, 12-13 murders in them? People assume 5 are by one man, which to me reveals the FACT that more than 1 killer killed during that period in time, and in that area. Its never been unclear that more than one killer committed these, its just a matter of how many under 1 knife.

But that third woman was so obviously unconnected with any of the Whitechapel victims that I fail to see why you routinely have to wheel her in, as if her case is relevant to anything at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don’t know what was in the killers mind at the time of each of the murders? We don’t know if he had a downer on prostitutes specifically or whether he simply found them the easiest target? We don’t know how each victim initially reacted? We don’t know what external forces were at play like doors banging, lights going on, voices heard which might have had an effect on the killers actions? So how can we know what we would expect to have occurred or what we would have expected to see?

Its noticeable that when people try to say ‘this would have happened,’ or ‘we should have seen this or that,’ it’s usually from someone pushing a theory and the assertion that they’re making would be a convenient fit.

[caz]

My view is that the Whitechapel murders were a combination of nothing more than murder and mutilation, with the exception of Stride. So I would expect to see variations in the method of mutilation which we in fact do see.

I know that there are those who will quote the facts that is is unikely two murders ocurred on the same night Stride/Eddowes as being the work of two different killers. But there is nothing really to suggest that the same killer was responsibe for both of those murders, because they are so different in each killers MO and all the different facts surrounding each of those two murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Trev, what the killer could not control was a prospective victim's reaction to his presence. These women were not like Sir Cliff's Living Doll: cryin', talkin', sleepin', walkin', livin' dolls, put in place to satisfy the soul of a killer with a roamin' eye, and to be locked up in a trunk so no big hunk could steal them away. [Dodgiest lyrics in poptastic history if you ask me. ]

It would only take a woman who didn't like the cut of his jib, or wasn't in a good place for what he had in mind, and he'd have been reduced to dragging her off bodily, kicking and screaming, if he was to have his wicked way with her undisturbed.

It's bad enough when people like Michael Richards treat the killer as a robot, to fit a pet theory, but worse when the victims are treated like wax figures, with no possible influence over their killer's actions, with their fate entirely in his hands. Given the environment, he had to trust to luck as much as good judgement that any woman he set his sights on would not make a fuss, or put up any resistance to going off with him to her doom.

If Stride was resistant to her killer's attentions, and Dutfield's Yard was her choice of location, not his, would this not provide a perfectly logical explanation for the differences, without needing to drag in another man, kicking and screaming, to accuse of killing her?

Love,

Caz
X

[Christian]

Hi Christian,

I always wonder if even the most adamant Stride excluders would think the same if the murders had only happened recently.

Added to which, there have been several genuine, well documented double events by repeat offenders in the decades since the ripper murders, which provide plenty of food for thought and material for comparison purposes, which ought to be fully taken into account before anyone rules Stride out over perceived differences.

In any solved series of crimes, we would expect to see many differences as well as similarities, and these can all be instructive when considering the Whitechapel cases we discuss here, and deciding which differences/similarities are significant enough to safely exclude or include a particular victim on that basis.

The argument often goes that that was then, and this is now, and today's serial predators can't be compared in any meaningful way with one who operated so long ago. All four of my grandparents were on the verge of adulthood in 1888, and I see no evidence that the human condition has changed significantly since then, or why the ripper would have been a different creature from today's crop, in terms of his biological or psychological make-up.

Love,

Caz
X

Afternoon Caz
yes you make some valid points that I agree with! I don’t think psychologically we have changed -evolved that much!! The fact he was disturbed or ran out of time with Stride does offer certain anomaly’s with her injuries! Hence he prowled Aldgate! No way personally can I dismiss Stride as a victim as I stated two woman killed same night less than a mile apart both throats cut !! Some coincidence if I’m wrong
christian x

[caz]

I think thats part of the story cd. And it has nothing to do with prostitution,.. that being a very important detail. The very nature of a streetwalkers lifestyle enables the killer, they actually look for strangers and go to dark places willingly with them. Was Mitre Square dark? Oh yeah. Did he do the extractions in the dark on that spot...probably. Might have done it in one of a few empty warehouses in that square. But thats not what our focus is, is it...its who killed her. Was this Jack? Well I suggest that similar cutting, though seen as less competent by the man who examined Annie, isnt the litmus test...its the manner and circumstances of her murder that would reveal who killed her. There is within the witness statements for Kates murder by someone who knew her well that suggest Kate was sure she knew who was behind the recent killings, and although not a massive reward was waiting, it was privately offered and there for the taking.. in the form of 2 donors donations I believe. She intended to claim the reward and give a name, or names, to the police. Do you know what a "rat" was called in those days....someone who would rat out people they knew by repeating gossip or stories that suggest crimes committed..usually for a fee, and to the police. Noses. Look at the picture of Kate in the morgue, now...does it appear her nose was somewhat important to her killer?

The fact that Kate was abdominally mutilated after having her throat deeply cut is compelling when considering Jack as the man, but does this appear as Jacks work...or is it Jacks work?

Ive always maintained that within the potential motives lie the killers, and that repetition of face value characteristics are not suggestive of deeply ingrained actions. Ones that are a part of any killer...the reason he, or she, kills. The way he or she kills can be emulated, the motive for killing however would remain unalterable. A fixed point. Why did Annie die? Because her killer chose her apparently randomly and he wanted to kill a woman so he could mutilate her abdomen. In her particular case it was believed it was all done to acquire what he took intact..her uterus.

Now...is that Kates murder? Do the circumstances and ultimate objectives sit easily with prior crimes? Or would it require modifying the killers profile to now include less specific mutilations and superfluous cutting. And fluctuating competencies.

The killer would have been modifying his own profile all the time, or having it modified for him, depending on each new set of circumstances, so we wouldn't expect to see a carbon copy of his first crime, with any of his subsequent crimes. To use an example close to your own heart, Michael, if Chapman's killer was incarcerated before the double event, then his profile was now modified to the extent that he was now, effectively, a non-ripper, just like Stride's killer. He would have been interrupted by the men in white coats before he could go out and grab himself another menopausal specimen.

You could argue that there was more urgency and less competency shown in Mitre Square than in Hanbury Street, because Eddowes's killer had something extra to prove that night, and was determined not to go home empty-handed. Taking two body parts would have made up for the shortfall, if an earlier attempt to lure a woman away from a busy location left him with nothing to show for his trouble. One could even argue that the Jews at the club were the men he blamed for leaving him with 'nothing'.

[caz]

Even if we could prove that Eddowes did not engage in prostitution ever does that mean she could not have been a Ripper victim? No. We still have the throat cutting and mutilation.

c.d.

Even if Eddowes had no intention of offering her killer anything beyond her company, as they walked together to that dark corner of Mitre Square, he could have taken her for someone who was willing for half a shilling. The result would have been the same. It's the killer's twisted perception of women that matters, not what each victim was doing in his company.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Great point regarding the double event!! Historically how often do two woman die within 1 mile of each other similar neck wound and on the same night??? Been saying this for years!! Still doubters say Stride not a Ripper victim SOME coincidence or statistically amazing!!! Just saying

Hi Christian,

I always wonder if even the most adamant Stride excluders would think the same if the murders had only happened recently.

Added to which, there have been several genuine, well documented double events by repeat offenders in the decades since the ripper murders, which provide plenty of food for thought and material for comparison purposes, which ought to be fully taken into account before anyone rules Stride out over perceived differences.

In any solved series of crimes, we would expect to see many differences as well as similarities, and these can all be instructive when considering the Whitechapel cases we discuss here, and deciding which differences/similarities are significant enough to safely exclude or include a particular victim on that basis.

The argument often goes that that was then, and this is now, and today's serial predators can't be compared in any meaningful way with one who operated so long ago. All four of my grandparents were on the verge of adulthood in 1888, and I see no evidence that the human condition has changed significantly since then, or why the ripper would have been a different creature from today's crop, in terms of his biological or psychological make-up.

Love,

Caz
X

Although I'm of the belief that JTR is responsible for the deaths of Tabram. Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and McKenzie, I'm still of the opinion that MJK was killed/slaughtered by Joseph Barnett. One instance that interests me is the knife attack on Annie Millwood. Though there were no witnesses to the attack, she was stabbed multiple times and subsequently admitted the Whitechapel Infirmary. I'm wondering if JTR could possibly have been testing his knife/method/approach on her. M O's change, a comparatively short while at times.