How Many Victims Were There?

[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.

[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?)

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[Scott Nelson]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Can't see how we can say that the torsos were probably linked to the Ripper. These were very different crimes, the overwhelming majority of which occurred in a completely different part of London, geographically and socio-economically. Even the solitary East End torso was found further south than any of the Canonical Five murders, of which the nearest was the least convincing of the Canon by far.

As to victimology, there were other prostitute murders in the East End before, during and after 1888, so this counts for little or nothing, especially as we're talking about a part of London where casual street prostitution was a major social issue.

[Michael W Richards]

History has also shown us that serial killer get blamed for crimes they didn't commit too. You say that its well known myth that serial killers don't change their MO... Abby..interesting you think that, but any way.....approaches working street whore prey acting as potential client, attacks quickly, subdues quickly, cuts throats deeply, twice...then proceeds to mutilate the abdomen, in some cases, taking internal organs from that location. That's the MO for both Polly and Annie, and perhaps Kate. That's it.

He didn't leave or place anything, other than perhaps an apron section, he left them where he killed them. There is no "placement", and in the Torsos it can only be suggested things were placed in 1, perhaps 2, cases. This killers MO is very clearly carried on from 1 to 2, so why do you think he then just cuts a throat once a month later? Fatigue? Arthritis? Boredom?

And you've stated this erroneous remark many times in these kinds of threads, Id really prefer you use facts to try and bolster a position...and those facts are that only 2 of the Canonical Group left evidence behind that indicates that they were actively soliciting at the time they met their killer. That establishes a stranger to stranger encounter...another facet of his MO, he kills strangers...and there is no such evidence that Liz or Kate were soliciting at the time. Ergo, we cannot assume they were killed by someone unknown to them. There is evidence that is later discarded that Mary may have been, but its highly improbable a drunken woman without any recent history of concern for her arrears or an inclination to work the streets at all...(since Joe gave her, excluding that last day, money),...would go back out to work through her hangover. The murder location and the circumstances indicate she knew her killer.

[Abby Normal]

Can't see how we can say that the torsos were probably linked to the Ripper. These were very different crimes, the overwhelming majority of which occurred in a completely different part of London, geographically and socio-economically. Even the solitary East End torso was found further south than any of the Canonical Five murders, of which the nearest was the least convincing of the Canon by far.

As to victimology, there were other prostitute murders in the East End before, during and after 1888, so this counts for little or nothing, especially as we're talking about a part of London where casual street prostitution was a major social issue.

hi Sam

Can't see how we can say that the torsos were probably linked to the Ripper. These were very different crimes, the overwhelming majority of which occurred in a completely different part of London, geographically and socio-economically. Even the solitary East End torso was found further south than any of the Canonical Five murders, of which the nearest was the least convincing of the Canon by far.

yes I know im in the minority when it comes to the torsos, which is why included probably (and im not at 100% certain by any means) but nevertheless IMHO they are not very different at all as ive mentioned previously. If none of the torso victims had post mortem mutilation above and beyond what was needed for dismemberment then I would probably conclude that they were probably not related. but they do-all of them. pinchin had a gash vertically on the abdomen, totenhams face was disfigured like Eddowes, Jackson had flaps removed from her stomach like Kelly and chapman, Whitehall had internal organs removed etc.

re location-as has been discussed before, we don't know where the killer lived,nor where his chop was. if for example, he lived in the east and his chop shop was in the west, and his chop shop wasn't available during the ripper killings (and he had to kill on the street nearer to his home), then that could be one explanation of the apparent difference in location. there are other possible explanations. and of course pinchin was in the east end ripper territory. and both series also coincidently end at the same time with McKenzie and pinchin both in the east.

As to victimology, there were other prostitute murders in the East End before, during and after 1888, so this counts for little or nothing, especially as we're talking about a part of London where casual street prostitution was a major social issue.

Of course the same victimology of prostitutes counts for something. Serial killers dont just target female prostitutes. there victimology includes, men, children, non prostitute women, gay men etc. That both torsoman and the ripper targeted female prostitutes is very telling, and that the MO was basically the same in terms of targeting with a ruse involved-mainly getting the victims to a secluded spot, probably with the offer of money involved, should also be taken into consideration.

[Michael W Richards]

Outdoors/Rapidly/Abandoned in place
Indoors/Pace Unknown/Discarded at other location(s)

Those seem like similar traits to anyone? The acts the Ripper performed and the ones Torso man did are almost polar opposites.

[Michael W Richards]

Of course the same victimology of prostitutes counts for something.

So you do get that. Then paying attention to ones that we can say with any degree of certainty were actually acting as prostitutes at the time would be important? 2. 2 of 5 "Canonicals", ….and that's all folks.