How many women did the ripper kill?

[Barnaby]

As a psychologist, I'm biased toward 7 plus or minus 2. It's actually not a bad guess and is where my biases are.

But as a Price is Right enthusiast, I want to state 1 because you can't win if you go over.

But that got me thinking: what is the minimum number of murders committed by the same hand in order for there have been a historical Jack the Ripper (and not merely a Jack the Ripper social construct)? My guess is that if all the victims were killed by different people, then most here would conclude that there wasn't a Jack (but what if one penned the Yours Truly letter and provided the name?).

Let's say one killer killed two of the C5. Is that enough to pronounce a historical Jack the Ripper? Or are more victims required?

[GUT]

As it takes three to make a serial killer I plump for three to make a ripper.

[FrankO]

I see the lifting of the skirt as being the final act, now he/they search for her pocket under the skirt to get their coppers back, and leave.

How do you explain the cut to her lower abdomen/private part then, Jon?

Nothing about this murder screams "Ripper" to me,...

Or to me.

... so anyone who chooses to view it as such has to try justify these wounds in the best way they can.

As do those who choose not to view it as such, which is why I posed the above question.

That is all I read here, people trying to justify dissimilar wounds in order to build a theory.

I don't have a theory, I'm on the fence regarding Tabram, mainly because of the cut in combination with the lifted skirts.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Problem with this, FrankO, is that you're starting with the assumption that Tabram was a Ripper victim and working backwards, rather than taking the evidence at face value.

I’m not starting with the assumption that Tabram was a Ripper victim, Harry, as you could have understood from my post #25 and my post above to Jon. In fact, I agree to a large degree with your views against the arguments suggested in favour of Tabram being a Ripper victim.

When I look at Tabram’s murder, a couple of things stand out in all of those 40 wounds: the large number of stabs to the throat (9), the stab to the heart with apparently another knife and the cut to the lower abdomen. I can’t help but coming to the conclusion that the cut was inflicted deliberately rather than an incidental result of the whole attack. The fact that she otherwise received only stabs and 39 of them, makes it stand out even more. On another thread you suggested that what was done to Tabram and how tell us things about her killer. Well, to me a deliberate cut to the private part is one such thing.

You'll note that I haven't dismissed Tabram completely.

I hadn’t noted that. In fact, you could have fooled me with some of the remarks you made in recent posts. But it's good to now know that you haven't.

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

How do you explain the cut to her lower abdomen/private part then, Jon?

Hi Frank.

That was a short slice about 3" x 1", if it is described accurately. I don't think it tells us anything, was it intentional or accidental?
What did it achieve? - nothing as far as I can see.

I put that pubic slice in the same category as the diagonal slice across Eddowes right cheek - hard to explain, no apparent purpose, it achieved nothing.

[Wickerman]

I don't have a theory, I'm on the fence regarding Tabram, mainly because of the cut in combination with the lifted skirts.

No, I wasn't suggesting you do, I was making a passing comment about the fact some do include her on what I consider to be the flimsiest of evidence.
Tabram was a stabbing victim from what I can see and the circumstantial evidence implicating a soldier is every bit as reasonable as any other theory.

Knife attacks did happen sporadically, quite possibly Millwood, Wilson, Tabram, Stride, Farmer, McKenzie & Coles are known examples, but what else do we see in those attacks to suggest something more than an unrelated random assault with a knife?

[FrankO]

I don't think it tells us anything, was it intentional or accidental?

Hi Jon,

OK, let me try another way. I'm playing the devil's advocate. What would be your best shot be at explaining how the cut could have been accidental? By 'accidental' meaning that it ended up in that area without it having been the killer's intention.

I put that pubic slice in the same category as the diagonal slice across Eddowes right cheek - hard to explain, no apparent purpose, it achieved nothing.

Still playing the devil's advocate: you mean to say that it’s possible that it ended up there by accident?

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

OK, let me try another way. I'm playing the devil's advocate. What would be your best shot be at explaining how the cut could have been accidental? By 'accidental' meaning that it ended up in that area without it having been the killer's intention.

One of the knives was a long blade apparently.
Even the Devils Advocate must agree that small slice achieved nothing, so how did it originate?
Certainly he could have grabbed the hem of her skirts with the hand to lift them up and throw them back, but he could also have raised her skirts with the long blade and caught her groin with the tip of the knife.

The wound is not described as though the blade was inserted with any recognisable purpose.

Still playing the devil's advocate: you mean to say that it’s possible that it ended up there by accident?

With Eddowes that diagonal slice could have happened as he crouched over her and raised the apron up over her head and sliced through the cloth. The blade caught her cheek. The right cheek was upper most, her head being turned on the left side after all.

It was dark at the time of these attacks so unintentional wounds might be expected as a result of haste.

[Harry D]

Let's flip it, what if Tabram had been stabbed repeatedly in the groin, with a single stab in the chest and people used that as a basis for rejecting her as a JTR victim?

[Michael W Richards]

As a psychologist, I'm biased toward 7 plus or minus 2. It's actually not a bad guess and is where my biases are.

But as a Price is Right enthusiast, I want to state 1 because you can't win if you go over.

But that got me thinking: what is the minimum number of murders committed by the same hand in order for there have been a historical Jack the Ripper (and not merely a Jack the Ripper social construct)? My guess is that if all the victims were killed by different people, then most here would conclude that there wasn't a Jack (but what if one penned the Yours Truly letter and provided the name?).

Let's say one killer killed two of the C5. Is that enough to pronounce a historical Jack the Ripper? Or are more victims required?

Hell of a question Barnaby.

[Michael W Richards]

Prosttitute-Only 2 Canonicals left evidence they were soliciting on their last night
Same location-so every unsolved murder in that area is due to one serial killer? Innovative
Unsolved-There are at least 11 unsolved murders in that same file
Killer just gets away-which just makes them Unsolved doesn't it?
Murdered on streets-just 2 of the Five Canonicals were killed "on the streets".
Left carteroid(carotid) artery severed-Both were cut with the majority of victims
Use of knife-I suppose more accessible than finding a piano to drop from a height on them. Knife attacks are THE most frequent kinds of weapon assaults for the place and period.
Abdomen mutilated- 3 had their abdomens mutilated outdoors, one had it emptied..indoors
Clincher-skirt pushed up. Just like the others- so then Liz Stride is off your list now?

I know Abby.. there are lots of exceptions you must explain when you make this Canonical Group into a serial murder series, but that challenge is taken on by many such as yourself anyway. Just like the flat earth people...or Creationists.

Hey...you cant lose points or money for that kind of guesswork....so who gets hurt, right? Only the reputations of the victims,...the accuracy of the known facts, and the search for real truths.

[sdreid]

Let's say one killer killed two of the C5. Is that enough to pronounce a historical Jack the Ripper? Or are more victims required?

I say for sure if those two are Chapman and Eddowes. If they were another combination of two then it would depend on who killed the others. For instance, if one guy killed Nichols and Chapman then another guy killed Stride, Eddowes and Kelly then it would be difficult deciding which one you would call the Ripper. Maybe we would have to go with Jack the Ripper and the Original Jack the Ripper like they did with the Night Stalker.