How Many Victims Were There?

[jerryd]

thanks jer
why you think yates and Tottenham are linked? same time frame and facial mutilations? were they close geographically?

I really haven't determined they are linked. Time frame and geography MAY point to a connection. No facial mutilations that I'm aware of with Yates, though. The Tottenham torso had facial mutilations that were, imo, very similar to Catherine Eddowes. Nose cut off, gash in cheek/mouth and eyes cut out.

[jerryd]

I have my reasons.

For one, I'm not a great believer in the "science" (?) of 'signature,' Fish, though I admit, in a general sense, it can be useful within limits---just as long as one bears in mind that Kurten, et al., attacked his/their victims in various ways.

Nearly always when there is a 'series' that is solved, the cops find out that one or more of the crimes they attributed to the same chap weren't his work, and other crimes, never connected to the case, were his.

By the way, a half-sovereign was found among Yates' bedclothes. Ergo her murderous client was not the 'working chap' so beloved of Ripperologists. He had plenty of money.

Hi R.J.

Her 9 carat gold ring was taken, though.

[Abby Normal]

I really haven't determined they are linked. Time frame and geography MAY point to a connection. No facial mutilations that I'm aware of with Yates, though. The Tottenham torso had facial mutilations that were, imo, very similar to Catherine Eddowes. Nose cut off, gash in cheek/mouth and eyes cut out.

thanks Jer!
then dosnt really seem enough there to link yates but the totenham case with facial mutilations is another clear link between ripper and torsos.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jerry/Abby

Are you referring to the Tottenham Court Road torso? If so, best not call it the "Tottenham Torso", because Tottenham is a district in its own right, some 8 or so miles north of Tottenham Court Road, which is slap-bang in the centre of London. If it helps, Tottenham Court Road is sometimes abbreviated to TCR.

[jerryd]

Hello Jerry/Abby

Are you referring to the Tottenham Court Road torso? If so, best not call it the "Tottenham Torso", because Tottenham is a district in its own right, some 8 or so miles north of Tottenham Court Road, which is slap-bang in the centre of London. If it helps, Tottenham Court Road is sometimes abbreviated to TCR.

Yes Gareth, the Tottenham Court Road torso. I guess I left out "Road" in one of my posts. I'll blame it on the fact I'm from Vegas. Excuse me, Las Vegas, in case you were confused about which one.

[JeffHamm]

Bit late to the game, but here's my view (at least today):

Annie Millwood : maybe/maybe ( is dependent upon Tabram, if Tabram is a yes, I think this goes up, but if Tabram a no, this goes down - so I might think maybe)
Ada Wilson : no (robbery appears to be the motive, and JtR's victims were clearly without anything to steal)
Emma Smith : no (gang attack, robbery as motive, attack does not appear to be intended as immediately fatal)
Martha Tabram : maybe
Mary Nichols : yes
Annie Chapman : yes
Elizabeth Stride : maybe/yes (I waver on Stride, currently leaning towards yes, but not convinced)
Catherine Eddowes :yes
Mary Kelly : yes
Alice Mackenzie : no/maybe (I tend to think no, but don't think the door should be closed entirely)
Frances Coles : no
Torso’s : no

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

I have my reasons.

I worked from the assumption that you did - which is why I asked.

For one, I'm not a great believer in the "science" (?) of 'signature,' Fish, though I admit, in a general sense, it can be useful within limits---just as long as one bears in mind that Kurten, et al., attacked his/their victims in various ways.

...which goes to prove that a ripper and a torso killer may well be one and the same, if nothing else. As for signatures and such matters, they can be decisive; it all depends on the rarity and specificity of the signature. If somebody feels compelled to hit people over the head, that is of less value than if somebody decides to put a pebble in the vagina of his victims, for example. To some degree, I find that using the word "signature" sometimes muddies the waters - I find it quite enough to speak of what different killers do to their victims. In the Ripper/Torso cases, if I was to say that taking away the abdominal wall in sections is a signature or part of a signature, people will immediately say that this happened only in three out of a round dozen cases, and they will be correct. But using that fact to somehow detract from the importance of the matter would be sheer folly. It is a trait that is extremely uncommon, and so it must be given tremendous weight.

Nearly always when there is a 'series' that is solved, the cops find out that one or more of the crimes they attributed to the same chap weren't his work, and other crimes, never connected to the case, were his.

Although I cannot ascribe to any insights into the statistics you seem to be drawing on when speaking about "nearly always", I think you make an important point here. Yes, there are various examples of this phenomenon. However, up until the killer is caught and the character of his work is revealed, it is on little or no use to us when searching for the culprit. At best, it can prevent us from totally leaving out or ruling in murders that seem illogical - but the fact of the matter is that murders that seem unconnected are more likely than not to BE unconnected.
Latter-day revelations to the contrary are interesting when they arrive and they urge us to be wary, but they are generally speaking a useless tool in the hunt for a killer.

By the way, a half-sovereign was found among Yates' bedclothes. Ergo her murderous client was not the 'working chap' so beloved of Ripperologists. He had plenty of money.

A nine carat ring went missing, though. Maybe the killer missed out on the money? Then again, if we look at the brass rings that Chapman lost, we may have an example of something else, perhaps best illuminated by the loot carried away by the Visalia Ransacker/Golden State killer; we may be looking at somebody who took personal items and left valuable, impersonal ones behind.
Speaking of signature behavior, though, there is too little in it to say which - if any - applies.

[Michael W Richards]

Actually, the number relies on nothing but inherent similarities inbetween the victims, chronologically, geographically and physically. That is all such a number CAN rely on.

Fisherman, If you are suggesting that there is a linear solution based on the factors you mentioned I would heartily disagree. Much of the story here, the real story, has been lost in the years of discussions and "revelations" since, but the volume of possibilities remaining prevents anyone from reaching any conclusions about a reasonable list size.

rj mentions the potential confusion arising when you do make those assumptions, some crimes may be erroneous overlooked, and some erroneously included. I can see the man that killed Polly and Annie being someone who had prior crimes, but I do think Polly was a first bold new step by her killer. Maybe he had just been scaring women up until then..like a Leather Apron type.

I say rely on what evidence there is, and resist the temptation to investigate, as "Simon says", from the point of view of a theory. Strictly circumstances of the particular evening and all relevant details concerning the manner of death and the subsequent steps taken by the killer. Using that kind of barometer one is left with a smaller Canonical Group, not a larger one.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, If you are suggesting that there is a linear solution based on the factors you mentioned I would heartily disagree. Much of the story here, the real story, has been lost in the years of discussions and "revelations" since, but the volume of possibilities remaining prevents anyone from reaching any conclusions about a reasonable list size.

You quoted me saying that the inherent similarities inbetween victims in terms of chronology, geography and physical similarities is what we can use to identify links inbetween victims. That is and remains a universal truth.

rj mentions the potential confusion arising when you do make those assumptions, some crimes may be erroneous overlooked, and some erroneously included. I can see the man that killed Polly and Annie being someone who had prior crimes, but I do think Polly was a first bold new step by her killer. Maybe he had just been scaring women up until then..like a Leather Apron type.

I very much agree with R J about how crimes that seem unconnected may be connected nevertheless just as crimes that seem connected may be unconnected. And I pointed out that until we have the facts revealed, such insights are going to take us nowhere, because in general, what we see tells us the correct story. If we see a murder involving torture and one not involving torture, these crimes MAY be connected, but the likelihood that they are not is much larger. If we see two murders in the same city and time that involve the cutting away of the abdominal flesh, these crimes may be unconnected, but the likelihood that they are connected is tremendously much larger. One can use the material at hand to draw likely and well underpinned conclusions and one can use it to point out that sometimes, things are not what they seem to be. Its up to anybody to make his own choices when it comes to these things.

I say rely on what evidence there is, and resist the temptation to investigate, as "Simon says", from the point of view of a theory. Strictly circumstances of the particular evening and all relevant details concerning the manner of death and the subsequent steps taken by the killer. Using that kind of barometer one is left with a smaller Canonical Group, not a larger one.

Yes, I agree: when the evidence is that there are missing abdominal walls in two series in the same city and time, these two series are in all probability the work of the same man. That is "relying on the evidence there is", Michael. I also say that when we have a number of killings involving eviscerations in the same city and time, we are arguably dealing with the same killer in all of these cases. Plus I realize that once we demand the exact same details adhering to each and every case before we make the call of a common killer, we will inevitably end up with one killer per victim because exact replicas will never occur. This is where I believe you and Simon are misunderstanding the material, and indeed misinterpreting it - which is what you want to avoid, right?

[Abby Normal]

For one, I'm not a great believer in the "science" (?) of 'signature,' Fish, though I admit, in a general sense, it can be useful within limits---just as long as one bears in mind that Kurten, et al., attacked his/their victims in various ways.

...which goes to prove that a ripper and a torso killer may well be one and the same, if nothing else. As for signatures and such matters, they can be decisive; it all depends on the rarity and specificity of the signature. If somebody feels compelled to hit people over the head, that is of less value than if somebody decides to put a pebble in the vagina of his victims, for example. To some degree, I find that using the word "signature" sometimes muddies the waters - I find it quite enough to speak of what different killers do to their victims. In the Ripper/Torso cases, if I was to say that taking away the abdominal wall in sections is a signature or part of a signature, people will immediately say that this happened only in three out of a round dozen cases, and they will be correct. But using that fact to somehow detract from the importance of the matter would be sheer folly. It is a trait that is extremely uncommon, and so it must be given tremendous weight.

Nearly always when there is a 'series' that is solved, the cops find out that one or more of the crimes they attributed to the same chap weren't his work, and other crimes, never connected to the case,

were

his.

Although I cannot ascribe to any insights into the statistics you seem to be drawing on when speaking about "nearly always", I think you make an important point here. Yes, there are various examples of this phenomenon. However, up until the killer is caught and the character of his work is revealed, it is on little or no use to us when searching for the culprit. At best, it can prevent us from totally leaving out or ruling in murders that seem illogical - but the fact of the matter is that murders that seem unconnected are more likely than not to BE unconnected.
Latter-day revelations to the contrary are interesting when they arrive and they urge us to be wary, but they are generally speaking a useless tool in the hunt for a killer.

A nine carat ring went missing, though. Maybe the killer missed out on the money? Then again, if we look at the brass rings that Chapman lost, we may have an example of something else, perhaps best illuminated by the loot carried away by the Visalia Ransacker/Golden State killer; we may be looking at somebody who took personal items and left valuable, impersonal ones behind.
Speaking of signature behavior, though, there is too little in it to say which - if any - applies.

hi fish/rj/MR
Its more often the case that when a serial killer is caught and identified, that they find more often than naught, that there where more victims, that there where victims not originally ascribed to them and that the extent of the killers crimes were far greater. Its part of the reason I tend to be more inclusive and expansive when looking at unsolved cases in general and the ripper/torso specifically.

and fish, I do think this has a bearing on cases, and that if we had more open mind on this it could help solve cases. for example one of BTKs victims was generally not considered part of the series because her body was not found in her home, so police ruled her out. turns out she was his victim and lived on his street! I cant help but think if they took her more seriously it might have led to his capture more quickly.

and this lesson should be applied to the ripper/torso case/s IMHO

[APerno]

hi fish/rj/MR
Its more often the case that when a serial killer is caught and identified, that they find more often than naught, that there where more victims, that there where victims not originally ascribed to them and that the extent of the killers crimes were far greater. Its part of the reason I tend to be more inclusive and expansive when looking at unsolved cases in general and the ripper/torso specifically.

and fish, I do think this has a bearing on cases, and that if we had more open mind on this it could help solve cases. for example one of BTKs victims was generally not considered part of the series because her body was not found in her home, so police ruled her out. turns out she was his victim and lived on his street! I cant help but think if they took her more seriously it might have led to his capture more quickly.

and this lesson should be applied to the ripper/torso case/s IMHO

I wonder if it was one of his early victims?

The profilers seem to believe that serial killers, first time out (early on) often hit very close to home (I suppose because of insecurity) and then ranch out. With Jack though, that almost seems irrelevant, with the murders all being on top of one another. But if we could figure out who was first, Martha or Polly (or maybe Annie Millwood) maybe we could know his neighborhood.

[Fisherman]

I´m thinking we need to go all the way back to the 1873 torso victim (and probably beyond). And we do not know where she was picked up OR where she was killed, so it seems to be a futile exercise...
In 1873, the man you seem to favor for the torso murders, Walter Sickert, was 13, by the way!

[Abby Normal]

I wonder if it was one of his early victims?

The profilers seem to believe that serial killers, first time out (early on) often hit very close to home (I suppose because of insecurity) and then ranch out. With Jack though, that almost seems irrelevant, with the murders all being on top of one another. But if we could figure out who was first, Martha or Polly (or maybe Annie Millwood) maybe we could know his neighborhood.

hi AP
it was actually one of BTKs later victims.

with just the ripper (not including the possibility that he was the same as torso man) all the victims were relatively close, including millwood, tabram and polly, so that not sure that it helps pinning down his location, except that he was close.

[Abby Normal]

I´m thinking we need to go all the way back to the 1873 torso victim (and probably beyond). And we do not know where she was picked up OR where she was killed, so it seems to be a futile exercise...
In 1873, the man you seem to favor for the torso murders, Walter Sickert, was 13, by the way!

who is this directed to? APerno?

[Fisherman]

who is this directed to? APerno?

Yes - he listed Sickert as the torso killer in an earlier post on this thread.