The Canonical Five

[Templarkommando]

I think a 0-10 scale for certainty might be helpful.

For me it goes something like this:

Tabram: 6
Nichols: 10
Chapman: 10
Stride: 7
Eddowes: 9
Kelly: 8
McKenzie: 6
Coles: 4

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

Dr Phillips' believed that the mutilations in the Pinchin Street case were carried out for purposes of disposal of the body.

John,

Yes, he cut off the legs and head. I highly doubt cutting open the abdomen would aid in transport.

[John G]

Thanks John,

I guess you can say no medical proof, however, the supposition of Dr. Phillips was there there was a former incision in the neck. He couldn't prove this with the absence of the head. Due to the lack of blood in the heart and vessels he ascertained the death was by loss of blood. He concluded it was not loss of blood in the stomach or lungs. The bruises on her body, fairly fresh, showed the woman may have been kicked or beaten before death.

This is also an interesting statement from Dr. Phillips from the inquest report of the London Evening News and Post, 24 September 1889:

The walls of the abdomen were divided from just below the cartilage of the ribs to the upper part of the skin over the vagina, which it had penetrated. [emphasis mine]

Initial reports also said in regard to this "deep gash" of the abdomen; the intestines were protruding. All mutilations were done post mortem. That to me sounds a bit like the ripper.

So, I agree that it is hard to conclusively state medical proof, but common sense leads me at least, to think she was murdered. Why perform post-mortem mutilations on the stomach and vagina for a botched abortion?

Hi Jerry,

Dr Phillips' believed that the mutilations in the Pinchin Street case were carried out for purposes of disposal of the body. What is also of primary importance is the fact that the body had clearly been transported, which applies to all of the Torso cases. That means the perpetrator(s) must have had access to transport. Conversely, JtR's victims were clearly not transported nor, incidentally, was the killer interested in disguising the identify of the victims. Moreover, all of the C5 murders, plus Tabram, occurred within an extremely small geographical area, for example, I seem to recall that Dorset Street was only a couple of hundred yards from Hanbury Street.

In other words, even when the police flooded Whitechapel with extra resources, and the publicity given to the crimes would have meant that local women would have been on their guard, the killer still did not extend his target area. What does this tell you about JtR? He was either very stupid or he didn't have access to transport.

[jerryd]

Thanks John,

I guess you can say no medical proof, however, the supposition of Dr. Phillips was there there was a former incision in the neck. He couldn't prove this with the absence of the head. Due to the lack of blood in the heart and vessels he ascertained the death was by loss of blood. He concluded it was not loss of blood in the stomach or lungs. The bruises on her body, fairly fresh, showed the woman may have been kicked or beaten before death.

This is also an interesting statement from Dr. Phillips from the inquest report of the London Evening News and Post, 24 September 1889:

The walls of the abdomen were divided from just below the cartilage of the ribs to the upper part of the skin over the vagina, which it had penetrated. [emphasis mine]

Initial reports also said in regard to this "deep gash" of the abdomen; the intestines were protruding. All mutilations were done post mortem. That to me sounds a bit like the ripper.

So, I agree that it is hard to conclusively state medical proof, but common sense leads me at least, to think she was murdered. Why perform post-mortem mutilations on the stomach and vagina just to dispose of an accidental death?

[John G]

Hi John,

With respect, you do realize in the Pinchin case the jury returned a verdict of, "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown", don't you? They felt, the evidence of both medical gentlemen engaged in the case clearly showed that the unfortunate woman had died a violent death.

Hi Jerry,

Well that was clearly based on circumstantial evidence as there was no medical proof the victim was murdered. However, I do agree that's the most likely scenario.

Donald Swanson also commented, "absence of attack on genitals as in Whitechapel series of murders." So that's clearly another important signature characteristic of JtR that's missing, especially if you believe him to be a lust murderer.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello kensei.

I know that stabbing someone in the throat was the "East End Hello" of the Victorian era. The overall influence of this era on modern times is not lost on me; I would not be surprised if "go(ing) for the jugular" was born out of this period. However, Jack the Ripper seemingly has the intent of decapitating his victims.

I know the definition of "decapitation" could factor in, but Jack the Ripper leaves his victims with their head's very much less attached. DO you think this variation between neck-stabbing and decapitating may be indicative of a particular/exclusive M.O.?

{It's not just that the abdominal mutilations ended, but also the "decapitations".}

[jerryd]

What evidence do you have that the Torso victims were murdered?

Hi John,

With respect, you do realize in the Pinchin case the jury returned a verdict of, "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown", don't you? They felt, the evidence of both medical gentlemen engaged in the case clearly showed that the unfortunate woman had died a violent death.

[John G]

I almost hate to bring something esoteric into this discussion but I've had some experience with scrying (which most refer to as "fortune telling") and have seen it have very impressive results. I was doing some experiments with it once with myself and two other people in which we all focused on the same questions using a pendulum on yes or no questions, and I posed the question "Was Jack the Ripper any of the various suspects that have been suggested over the years?" All three of us got the answer "no." That's what I tend to go with, that the Ripper was someone that has never been named and who totally got away with it. BUT-- if that's not the case, my favorite suspect is James Kelly. I think he is a perfect suspect for having killed all of the C5 and actually I include Tabram to make a C6, but though he has been implicated in other murders during his fugitive life as a sailor in other parts of the world including America, he would not have still been in London to kill McKenzie or Coles, and I've given serious consideration to them being Ripper victims too, which if true would rule out James Kelly. I even include the Torso victims as possible Ripper victims. The difference in MO does not bother me, but obviously this keeps me from ever really arriving at a really firm conclusion as to what I believe about the Ripper case.

Modern serial killers have displayed radically different MOs. Ted Bundy favored bludgeoning but he also strangled, showed a gun to a victim that got away, and used a knife on his final victim who was only 12 years old, much younger than any of his other victims. He even cut off a head once and brought it home. Richard Ramirez was also all over the board- guns, knives, machete, theft, torture, rape, murder as well as letting people live. I don't think it would be surprising at all for Jack the Ripper to have shown a similar variety in his MO.

But the bottom line is that even in the cesspool of Whitechapel/Spitalfields at that time I just don't think it's likely that more than one person would have had the inclination to commit the Ripper's crimes or the balls to actually do it. Monsters like that are- thankfully- very rare aberrations. Bundy and the Green River Killer Gary Ridgeway prowled the same area, but not at the same time.

Some serial killers vary their MOs, and signatures can evolve, whilst remaining "behaviourally and thematically consistent" (Schlesinger, 2010). However, if the Torso perpetrator and JtR were the same, then it wouldn't be a matter of an evolving signature, but an alternating one. Therefore, can you given another example from criminological history where a serial killer has alternated their signature, i.e. between mutilator and dismemberer? Can you given me an example from criminological history where a serial killer has alternated between disguising the identity of his victims, and not taking steps to prevent their identity from being discovered?

What evidence do you have that the Torso victims were murdered? Could you please cite authority for this proposition. What evidence do you have that there was a single Torso perpetrator? Have you ruled out gang-related activity?

[Elamarna]

To Steve

Yes but McKenzie was killed long after Mary Jane Kelly. I doubt Jack could have waited over half a year to kill again after killing Mary Jane Kelly.

Cheers John

John

That depends on several things, he was away, unwell maybe


just say he is the man watched by Cox and Sagar and he is put into a private asylum early 89. Released say 3 months later, as it could be a voluntary admission.

Steve

[GUT]

Yup. Entirely possible that Jack had just finished a stint at a workhouse by the time he killed McKenzie.

Or even an asylum.

So many things.

Mrs Ripper may have been keeping a close eye in him, because he'd Ben out late to often, and she thought there was another (live) woman around.

[Harry D]

Unless he was, for whatever reason, unable to.

Ill

Prison

Work

Whatever.

Yup. Entirely possible that Jack had just finished a stint at a workhouse by the time he killed McKenzie.

[kensei]

I almost hate to bring something esoteric into this discussion but I've had some experience with scrying (which most refer to as "fortune telling") and have seen it have very impressive results. I was doing some experiments with it once with myself and two other people in which we all focused on the same questions using a pendulum on yes or no questions, and I posed the question "Was Jack the Ripper any of the various suspects that have been suggested over the years?" All three of us got the answer "no." That's what I tend to go with, that the Ripper was someone that has never been named and who totally got away with it. BUT-- if that's not the case, my favorite suspect is James Kelly. I think he is a perfect suspect for having killed all of the C5 and actually I include Tabram to make a C6, but though he has been implicated in other murders during his fugitive life as a sailor in other parts of the world including America, he would not have still been in London to kill McKenzie or Coles, and I've given serious consideration to them being Ripper victims too, which if true would rule out James Kelly. I even include the Torso victims as possible Ripper victims. The difference in MO does not bother me, but obviously this keeps me from ever really arriving at a really firm conclusion as to what I believe about the Ripper case.

Modern serial killers have displayed radically different MOs. Ted Bundy favored bludgeoning but he also strangled, showed a gun to a victim that got away, and used a knife on his final victim who was only 12 years old, much younger than any of his other victims. He even cut off a head once and brought it home. Richard Ramirez was also all over the board- guns, knives, machete, theft, torture, rape, murder as well as letting people live. I don't think it would be surprising at all for Jack the Ripper to have shown a similar variety in his MO.

But the bottom line is that even in the cesspool of Whitechapel/Spitalfields at that time I just don't think it's likely that more than one person would have had the inclination to commit the Ripper's crimes or the balls to actually do it. Monsters like that are- thankfully- very rare aberrations. Bundy and the Green River Killer Gary Ridgeway prowled the same area, but not at the same time.

[John G]

I believe Jack killed the C5 plus Tabram and as I believe WH Bury was probably the Ripper I'll add Ellen Bury to that list. Why? Well for a start the MO used in Ellen Bury's murder is closer in my opinion to the MO used in the C5 than for instance the MO used in the Torso Murders which some believe Jack committed.

Yes, I also agree about the Torso crimes. Firstly, it's not been firmly established that the victims were actually murdered. Secondly, very different signatures are apparent. Thirdly, it would mean a serial killer whose signature alternates, i.e. disguising the identity of the victim/not disguising the identity of the victim; targeting victims outdoors and making no attempt to remove the body/possibly abducting the victim and using disposal sites.

[Shaggyrand]

I'm open to any argument for adding or subtracting victims. I do lean more toward including McKenzie more than the other common additions.

[GUT]

To Steve

Yes but McKenzie was killed long after Mary Jane Kelly. I doubt Jack could have waited over half a year to kill again after killing Mary Jane Kelly.

Cheers John

Unless he was, for whatever reason, unable to.

Ill

Prison

Work

Whatever.