How Many Victims Were There?

[harry]

At least 10

[Robert]

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly - in the 90s because nothing is ever certain.
Stride about 60 -40.
Tabram about 30 -70
McKenzie about 30 -70.

[Robert]

Oh, and 20 - 1 Bar.

[Michael W Richards]

He has been more equivocal: "Both authors feel that on grounds of modus operandi at the very least, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were almost certainly victims of the same killer. There must be less certainty, on the same grounds, that Stride and Kelly were." (Evans and Rumbelow, 2006)

When discussing things here informally, which I must say I miss, he was very gracious in offering his personal insights when asked specific and informed questions. The pause when it comes to Kate is, for me, based on some circumstantial evidence and some recognizable differences in how the knife was used when compared with Annies injuries. I can see many, many men in that area who would fit a general description of "Man seen with Victim" carrying, and able to use, a knife of some sort. For basic utility reasons alone. Many of them might have rudimentary knowledge of anatomy, through the preparation of hunting catches maybe, or as a part of their workday. That's all that Kates killer needs.

Annies killer went a notch above that level, and went after what he wanted. In a logical manner, with some degree of skill and knowledge. Knowledge, like the kind a medical student being trained in dissection might display as he goes about his business." There were no meaningless cuts". I think if you use only the murders of Polly and Annie as a baseline for a profile, youll find that person doesn't seem to be present in the murders that followed. The ones presumed to be by Jack that is.

[Sam Flynn]

We can't really use Polly as a baseline, because the documentation is so sparse and the description of her wounds too vague.

[ohrocky]

Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and very probably Kelly.

Probably Stride and possibly Tabram.

Torsos? Nah.

[Michael W Richards]

We can't really use Polly as a baseline, because the documentation is so sparse and the description of her wounds too vague.

The observations about Polly...

"Five teeth were missing, and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes. There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. the injuries were form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

The observations on Annie;

"The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated...the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck...On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay. He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge...he should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence...of a struggle having taken place. He was positive the deceased entered the yard alive...He noticed the same protrusion of the tongue. There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was now well marked. There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand. There was an old scar on the left of the frontal bone. The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the ring finger, with distinct markings of a ring or rings. The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. There were various other mutilations to the body, but he was of the opinion that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck...The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge."

I snipped these bits and emboldened a few parts to show that many of the same characteristics were there, from Polly to Annie. The greater amount of damage can also certainly be explained by a new venue.

[mpriestnall]

C5 (but I don't believe a lot of what MM said but there you go).

I believe 2 of them were specifically targeted (not saying which), though I don't understand
the reason for the extra murders.

Martyn

[APerno]

Rainham torso :::: (Walter Sickert)
Annie Millwood :::: (JTR)
Ada Wilson ::: (JTR)
Emma Smith ::: (High Rip gang)
Martha Tabram ::: (JTR)
Mary Ann Nichols :::: (JTR)
Annie Chapman :::: (JTR)
Elizabeth Stride :::: (Her bully-boy [pimp])
Catherine Eddowes :::: (JTR)
Whitehall Mystery :::: (Walter Sickert)
Mary Jane Kelly :::: (JTR)
Elizabeth Jackson :::: (Walter Sickert)
Alice McKenzie :::: (maybe JTR; No Opinion)
Frances Coles :::: (unlikely JTR; No opinion)
Pinchin Street torso :::: (Walter Sickert)

[Sam Flynn]

No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes. There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side

"There were several incisions... There were three or four similar cuts..."

Slower, please, Dr Llewellyn, I need to get all that down.

[John Wheat]

The C5 as a minimum.

[John G]

When discussing things here informally, which I must say I miss, he was very gracious in offering his personal insights when asked specific and informed questions. The pause when it comes to Kate is, for me, based on some circumstantial evidence and some recognizable differences in how the knife was used when compared with Annies injuries. I can see many, many men in that area who would fit a general description of "Man seen with Victim" carrying, and able to use, a knife of some sort. For basic utility reasons alone. Many of them might have rudimentary knowledge of anatomy, through the preparation of hunting catches maybe, or as a part of their workday. That's all that Kates killer needs.

Annies killer went a notch above that level, and went after what he wanted. In a logical manner, with some degree of skill and knowledge. Knowledge, like the kind a medical student being trained in dissection might display as he goes about his business." There were no meaningless cuts". I think if you use only the murders of Polly and Annie as a baseline for a profile, youll find that person doesn't seem to be present in the murders that followed. The ones presumed to be by Jack that is.

With regard to Chapman, unfortunately we are dependent upon Dr Phillips' opinion, which is problematic for me as I consider his "one sweep of the knife" comment to be absurd. We cannot know that another medical professional would have come to the same conclusion. In fact, presumably Dr Bond did not. There also seems to have been sine disagreement, between Dr Brown and Dr Sequeria, regarding the level of anatomical skill demonstrated by Eddowes' perpetrator.

[Sam Flynn]

The "one sweep of the knife" bit came from an editorial piece in the Lancet, not Dr Phillips.

[FISHY1118]

Nichols , Chapman , Stride, Eddowes ,Kelly for sure. Torso.... nah. Definitely not Martha Tabram.

[John Wheat]

Definitely none of the Torso victims the evidence just isn't there.