How Many Victims Were There?

[Abby Normal]

Id really be interested in seeing how people would deal with a reduced size Canonical Group instead of always trying to incorporate more victims under the C5 umbrella, requiring that the killer must morph many times throughout his killing years. If we start with a number that is sustainable within only the known evidence, that's Polly, Annie, perhaps Kate, and perhaps Alice...then the whole dynamic changes. Circumstantial evidence can help differentiate to some degree, at least eliminating people who do not fit into a mold already created. Not one that is being made. Pollys killer was fully formed, he showed that the subsequent murder. After that only Kates murder suggests the same killer, then the next year, Alices.

After all the books, the dissertations and the essays, the press reports, the endless discussions about the minutia... for me, this is still about someone who killed 2, maybe 3 women, in a brutal way in the streets of London. He killed by throat cuts, and then he mutilated their abdomens. The fuss has always been caused by opinion and speculation, some more convincing than others, but I don't see any evidence of a connection of those 2 or 3 to any other of the unsolved murders. By murderer, that is. I also see someone who before that Fall, and after that Fall, killed women so he could dismantle the bodies. And someone close to someone who went by the name of Mary Kelly ended her life so violently that the whole world trembled. But, they co-existed. They also co-existed with street gangs, individual murderers and snitches and spies. Violent men who did terrorist acts. Killed innocent people in the streets, terrorism, very much in keeping with the JtR events in that regards.

Instead of the round peg into the evolving hole shape, working with smaller numbers means less speculating about why he changed style and activities, and allows for a clearer perspective on the period and it characters as a whole. Jack was not the only killer in town that Fall. Its self evident historically.

totally disagree.

History has shown that once a serial killer is caught the extent of there crimes is much more extensive than what was thought when they were still an unsub.

Its well known myth that serial killers don't change there MO. They do depending on circumstances, evolution, escalation and personal reasons.

Their sigs remain for the most part consistent, as does the victimology-which is exactly what we have for the c5, plus tabram and McKenzie and (probably)the torsos:
A post mortem type serial killer whos victims were prostitutes whos sig(motivation) was cutting up and removing body parts of his victims, with a secondary motivation of leaving or placing the victims remains in odd and shocking places.

the idea that there was a veritable gaggle of post mortem mutilators trapesing around London at the same time is ridiculous.

[Michael W Richards]

Id really be interested in seeing how people would deal with a reduced size Canonical Group instead of always trying to incorporate more victims under the C5 umbrella, requiring that the killer must morph many times throughout his killing years. If we start with a number that is sustainable within only the known evidence, that's Polly, Annie, perhaps Kate, and perhaps Alice...then the whole dynamic changes. Circumstantial evidence can help differentiate to some degree, at least eliminating people who do not fit into a mold already created. Not one that is being made. Pollys killer was fully formed, he showed that the subsequent murder. After that only Kates murder suggests the same killer, then the next year, Alices.

After all the books, the dissertations and the essays, the press reports, the endless discussions about the minutia... for me, this is still about someone who killed 2, maybe 3 women, in a brutal way in the streets of London. He killed by throat cuts, and then he mutilated their abdomens. The fuss has always been caused by opinion and speculation, some more convincing than others, but I don't see any evidence of a connection of those 2 or 3 to any other of the unsolved murders. By murderer, that is. I also see someone who before that Fall, and after that Fall, killed women so he could dismantle the bodies. And someone close to someone who went by the name of Mary Kelly ended her life so violently that the whole world trembled. But, they co-existed. They also co-existed with street gangs, individual murderers and snitches and spies. Violent men who did terrorist acts. Killed innocent people in the streets, terrorism, very much in keeping with the JtR events in that regards.

Instead of the round peg into the evolving hole shape, working with smaller numbers means less speculating about why he changed style and activities, and allows for a clearer perspective on the period and it characters as a whole. Jack was not the only killer in town that Fall. Its self evident historically.

[Lipsky]

real reason for edit: To impress us. So what's your PhD in?

Editing nearly all your posts is hardly impressive. It's been too many years since I was a fast-typing forum-ist and I am prone to much more spelling/syntax/grammar errors (English is not my native language as you may have noticed). My offered edit "reason" was an attempt at self-sarcasm. Obviously, my PhD is not in comedy.

[Scott Nelson]

real reason for edit: To impress us. So what's your PhD in?

[Lipsky]

A U.S. Senator one introduced himself to me. I was so flustered I called him by his first name instead of Senator. You should have seen the look he gave me.

I accidentally addressed one of my college professors by her last name Ms. Jones. She gave me an absolutely withering look and said it's Doctor Jones. Oops.

c.d.

Now why did the "Devil in miss Jones" phrase pop up? Blimey.

Never met a Senator. Conversing with some of my favorite artists has been my claim to fame so far, and good grace they never bothered the first name approach, or my hyper-fast-talking (and real life offers no edit button, woops).

It's a few (?) years since I completed my PhD, and some students still confuse me for a post-grad or a god-forsaken under-grad student when I first enter class.

I find it fabulous each and every time.

"Doctor Lipsky" didn't do it anyway -- or could he?

Sorry for the off-topic Sam.

[c.d.]

A U.S. Senator one introduced himself to me. I was so flustered I called him by his first name instead of Senator. You should have seen the look he gave me.

I accidentally addressed one of my college professors by her last name Ms. Jones. She gave me an absolutely withering look and said it's Doctor Jones. Oops.

c.d.

[Lipsky]

Interrupted is one thing, but what if there was no sign of mutilation ever having started?

Excellent point. I think the "being interrupted" angle is erroneous. Hence the concept that the second murder was hastily (and thus, randomly) performed in need of some "I cant hold my exploding pants" Ted-Bundy-esque frenzy is erroneous, too. Our man is cold, methodical, in doctorly (hint: soldierly?) fashion. This is a man on a mission, deranged, (deranged missions require deranged "disciples", right?), but not a sex-frenzied-freakshow. Though you wouldn't like it at your niece's birthdays, hmmm?

Not a ripperological point, but the correct form of address is "Sir William", not "Sir Gull". If he'd been made a peer, the convention would be reversed; i.e. he would have been referred to as "Lord Gull", but never "Lord William".

I stand corrected. I admit total lack of knowledge when it comes to aristocratic protocol. Must be the radical element in me (did I say I always fancied your Nietzsche reference?)

As I just mentioned on another thread, the "Canon" is by now the accepted shorthand for "the Canonical Five", i.e. the women named by Macnaghten as the victims of Jack the Ripper. Because of this, the "Canon" is indeed monolithic, even if one doesn't accept that all its members were Ripper victims or, for that matter, believe that others could be included. The Canon is the Canon, however.

The problem with the Canon was that it was the monolithic (first fault) product of a person unsuitable for the job of canonising (sic?) anyway (second and gravest fault).
Imagine if Macnaghten headed the West Yorkshire case? He might have interviewed/conversed with our man even more times than he actually was.

[Sam Flynn]

If the mutilation was interrupted, it is still there --- as necessity of the scheme (warning: scheme, not necessarily "mindset").

Interrupted is one thing, but what if there was no sign of mutilation ever having started?

whatshisname was discovered bringing milk to Sir Gull's butler

Not a ripperological point, but the correct form of address is "Sir William", not "Sir Gull". If he'd been made a peer, the convention would be reversed; i.e. he would have been referred to as "Lord Gull", but never "Lord William".

due to some monolithic notion of "canon"

As I just mentioned on another thread, the "Canon" is by now the accepted shorthand for "the Canonical Five", i.e. the women named by Macnaghten as the victims of Jack the Ripper. Because of this, the "Canon" is indeed monolithic, even if one doesn't accept that all its members were Ripper victims or, for that matter, believe that others could be included. The Canon is the Canon, however.

[Lipsky]

Considerations for the multivariate analysis of the chaotic system known as "The Whitechapel murders":

1. Motive is only proven by direct physical implication (caught in the act/leaving evidence behind) or by correlation of what brings together the perpetrator and the victims. This, as a general condition/starting point. (Calibration, in our language).

2. Victims are defined by a limiting (and indeed limited) set in the axis of time or its mirror image, space. Space is a specific section of a specific notorious area of Victorian London. The time window is equally narrow - 1887/1888 to 1891.

3. Victims include all known attacked females pinpointed in that space/time zone. If the blitz attack was unsuccessful, its nature doesn't change. If the mutilation was interrupted, it is still there --- as necessity of the scheme (warning: scheme, not necessarily "mindset").

4. The mutilation in itself is a means, not the end. It is , as mr. Douglas pointed out, learned behavior, a work in progress. But the motive is not gratification. Noone would venture and risk arrest for "gratification" of a few minutes. This was clinical, methodical, cold. This wasn't random, spontaneous, or indulging in vice (unlike Ted Bundy for instance, who got caught multiple times cuz he simply "Couldnt resist it" ---- a genuine madman but falling short of his weakness and not too brightly up the sociopathic ladder and full of himself but always transparent in his limited "naked emperor" demimonde--- just like our chap Chapman ---- NOT stating that Chapman is the perpetrator of the "Ripper" acts of terrorism -- also not saying that he wasn't... if the contemporary search failed because they focused on catching the perpetrator "in the act" instead of contemplating the time-space pattern and correlation of the involved physical entities, latter-day research failed due to the appealing but ineffective sensationalism of name-calling... "a mr. whatshisname was discovered bringing milk to Sir Gull's butler----let me call him out in my new book which is full of itself" --- nah....).

5. Motive is linked with purpose (not the same, though, the motive concerns the killer, the purpose concerns the spectators of the "oh so conveniently put out for public display" corpses). The purpose was terrorism - not of the victim, but (1) those who would discover it in general and mostly (2) those who would learn of it AND knew the victim in particular (food for thought: what was weirder about the March/April 1888 attacks? the superifical exclusion from the rest of the attacked women due to some monolithic notion of "canon" or the hush up of the infamous landlords etc)....

...and lined up next? (alias of Eddowes)

6. Motive and purpose are intralinked with the piles of lies and blackmail going on in between these physical entities. Including said earlier incidents ("Spring of terror"? 1888 was quite the "Death-Rock" year, one might argue?)

[Michael W Richards]

Do you have any idea how many potential answers there may be to that question, Michael?

My own idea is that there need not be any practical consideration behind the different choices of MO. I think he likely wanted to add killing in the street for the added shock value, but that he would no want to miss out on the more controlled killing/cutting since it was something he liked to do.

Any which way, neither possibility can be ruled out. And any which way, there WILL be an explanation, because there must be. It was the same killer, and therefore the solutions to these issues will be there. And trust me, they will be mundane and easy to understand.

As Ive attempted to illustrate Fisherman I think the desires and the actions taken in these cases...Ripper VS Torsos...as revealed in the specifics of the actual evidence as it exists, both physical and circumstantial, are decidedly different on the most basic levels. The killer you've been looking for is a Jekyll and Hyde persona within a Hyde persona. Both calm, quiet and controlled and murderous, and also danger and excitement seeking murderous. The serial killer librarian gambling addict. They do exist, sure, but in what percentages? Far more probable that we have a man who is dark/light, not with multi leveled dark personalities.

[Sam Flynn]

We're not taking about "a crime ridden ghetto" in respect of Chelsea or Battersea, which was where the vast majority of the torso parts were dumped. It's a totally different part of London. Then or now, if Abby told a Battersea resident that they lived in "the same general area" as Whitechapel, they'd laugh out loud.

[Fisherman]

So he takes, or as you suggest, kills a woman then wonders where he can safety take her to cut her limbs and head off? Or he doesn't kill until his "chop shop" is vacant? Is this his own place? If so, why wouldn't it be available at anytime he likes?

Do you have any idea how many potential answers there may be to that question, Michael?

My own idea is that there need not be any practical consideration behind the different choices of MO. I think he likely wanted to add killing in the street for the added shock value, but that he would no want to miss out on the more controlled killing/cutting since it was something he liked to do.

Any which way, neither possibility can be ruled out. And any which way, there WILL be an explanation, because there must be. It was the same killer, and therefore the solutions to these issues will be there. And trust me, they will be mundane and easy to understand.

[Michael W Richards]

which again could simply be explained by torsomans chop shop not being available but the urge was still there. If your killing in your own place-dismemberment is usually needed in ease of removal. If your killing on the street you don't need to worry about that and it takes more time/risk to dismember and you cant easily get away in public carrying limbs, torso or head can you?

the ripper was more than just internal organ removal.
the torsoman was more than just dismemberment.

they were BOTH about killing unfortunates and cutting them up, post mortem mutilation, removing organs, removing body parts, targeting the face, removing stomach flesh in flaps, leaving victims in shocking fashion, incredible ability to not be caught, rusing victims to get them where they wanted them, killing in the same general area and the same span and stopping at the same time.

So he takes, or as you suggest, kills a woman then wonders where he can safety take her to cut her limbs and head off? Or he doesn't kill until his "chop shop" is vacant? Is this his own place? If so, why wouldn't it be available at anytime he likes? The reason he takes them to a private place is for the very reason you mention, and since he may work with the dead body over days, its unlikely the space he uses would be available for anyone else to access...hence, 24 hour a day access to a lair...the reason Jack the Ripper NEVER MOVED 1 VICTIM from the spot he kills them on is much more simple...he didnt need privacy, or much time.

Jack the Ripper killed to obtain internal organs, read the synopsis on what the medical expert said about what was done to Annie and why...to obtain what he took. All he did was to take what he did. "There were no meaningless cuts". Torso man killed so he could dismember and disarticulate. He did so in private, over who knows how long. Then he disposed of the parts he didn't want, and in one case, he may have left it specifically and with purpose. You used the term Unfortunates, you normally claim they were all active prostitutes, so I see that as progress..., but on the other points...PM mutilation of the abdomen, not just PM mutilation....2 Canonicals had facial injuries... out of Five assumed victims, hardly a Feature of Ripper kills, being in the minority, only 1 Torso left in place, most parts discarded or washed up. Evidence says that Jack killed the first 2 women, unknown to him, who were actively soliciting at the time...there is no such credible evidence for any other Unsolved kill. The fact that we are talking about a crime ridden ghetto sort of deals with your "area" argument for violent attacks, and the Torso appeared years before the Ripper crimes even began, and continued beyond them.

[Abby Normal]

If he takes them somewhere with their consent, I agree, if he drugged them or rendered them unconscious, then I don't. Do you know whether he kept them alive for a day or 2 after taking them,... nope, you don't. He may well have kidnapped his victims. How long did Torsoman take killing and mutilating...don't know, but we do know that jack took very little time. Did he do any of this publicly? With the danger element present? Nope. Did he leave the bodies to be discovered shortly after he killed them? No. Did he keep any materials from the victims? don't know. But we know Jack took some away with him.

Jack the Ripper killed women he met as strangers on that same night, and in public. He wanted to obtain abdominal organs. He had to worked fast as a result, there is no indication that Torso man was in any hurry to accomplish his goals. Which were more in the disarticulation realm.

which again could simply be explained by torsomans chop shop not being available but the urge was still there. If your killing in your own place-dismemberment is usually needed in ease of removal. If your killing on the street you don't need to worry about that and it takes more time/risk to dismember and you cant easily get away in public carrying limbs, torso or head can you?

the ripper was more than just internal organ removal.
the torsoman was more than just dismemberment.

they were BOTH about killing unfortunates and cutting them up, post mortem mutilation, removing organs, removing body parts, targeting the face, removing stomach flesh in flaps, leaving victims in shocking fashion, incredible ability to not be caught, rusing victims to get them where they wanted them, killing in the same general area and the same span and stopping at the same time.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi MR

[LEFT][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]A

torsoman "kidnapped" his victims? umm don't think so. no evidence they were kidnapped at all. in all likelihood rused to a private secluded spot, more than likely his chop shop. killed quickly and they were cut up soon after death. no sign of torture. totally different than a kidnapper who abducts victims and keeps them alive to torture and sexually abused over the course of some time.

so seemingly both torsoman and the ripper used a ruse to get the victim where they wanted to quickly kill and mutilate .and apparent difference could be simple fact his chop shop not available yet the urge is still there.

If he takes them somewhere with their consent, I agree, if he drugged them or rendered them unconscious, then I don't. Do you know whether he kept them alive for a day or 2 after taking them,... nope, you don't. He may well have kidnapped his victims. How long did Torsoman take killing and mutilating...don't know, but we do know that jack took very little time. Did he do any of this publicly? With the danger element present? Nope. Did he leave the bodies to be discovered shortly after he killed them? No. Did he keep any materials from the victims? don't know. But we know Jack took some away with him.

Jack the Ripper killed women he met as strangers on that same night, and in public. He wanted to obtain abdominal organs. He had to worked fast as a result, there is no indication that Torso man was in any hurry to accomplish his goals. Which were more in the disarticulation realm.