A gang?

[MrBarnett]

Then there’s the attack on three women by Johannes Morgenstern in Limehouse: he stabbed one, kicked another and beat the third with a poker.

And the attack on Margaret Sullivan (the future Mrs Crossingham) by a ‘gang’ of three men. She was stabbed in the head and the side. That was in Dorset Street.

It might be interesting, if someone could be bothered, to compile a list of violent attacks against women in the East End in the last quarter of the 19thC. I suspect it would be a long list.

[MrBarnett]

Interesting. Two occurrences in three years is still pretty rare, although I guess there might be others we don't know about. Also interesting as seanr says above the geographic location, the unusual nature of the violence, the similar time of the attacks and similarity of the victims are all plausible reasons to think these crimes might be related.

The attack I find most intriguing is the one carried out by the blind laces seller near Spitalfields Market on 8th September, 1889. He ‘felled’ his female guide with a blow and proceed to stab her several times. If the crowd hadn’t intervened, it might have ended up an almost carbon copy of the Tabram murder.

Annoyingly, the attacker’s name is proving elusive, although I have a candidate in mind. A vicious blind laces seller who went on to marry … Pearly Poll.

[Aethelwulf]

The young woman was seen by Dr Septimus Swyer of Brick Lane in whose practice it would seem Dr Timothy Killeen was working when he attended the Tabram crime scene.

Here’s Swyer giving evidence at the Old Bailey in 1878 in case involving a woman whose throat was cut by her husband.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...-189#highlight

Although murder was rare, extreme violence against women was commonplace in the Victorian East End.

Interesting. Two occurrences in three years is still pretty rare, although I guess there might be others we don't know about. Also interesting as seanr says above the geographic location, the unusual nature of the violence, the similar time of the attacks and similarity of the victims are all plausible reasons to think these crimes might be related.

[MrBarnett]

There was an almost identical attack on a young Hungarian woman in a house in Back Church Lane in 1885. A group of men held her down and assaulted her with a walking stick.

The young woman was seen by Dr Septimus Swyer of Brick Lane in whose practice it would seem Dr Timothy Killeen was working when he attended the Tabram crime scene.

Here’s Swyer giving evidence at the Old Bailey in 1878 in case involving a woman whose throat was cut by her husband.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18780114-name-255&div=t18780114-189#highlight

Although murder was rare, extreme violence against women was commonplace in the Victorian East End.

[MrBarnett]

There was an almost identical attack on a young Hungarian woman in a house in Back Church Lane in 1885. A group of men held her down and assaulted her with a walking stick.

[Aethelwulf]

No two attacks by the same man are going to be identical, and any violent offender has free will to experiment; chop and change what works and doesn't work for him; adapt to the situation and circumstances; change his mind about attacking anyone on a particular night; escalate or go back to something he tried before if the mood takes him. Why would we put our own arbitrary restrictions on the behaviour of such an individual?

I don't know what to think about the attack on Emma Smith, so I rule nothing out and remain 50/50 on a connection with one or more of the other murders, most obviously that of Martha Tabram, ripper murder or not.

I do find it remarkable that both victims were defenceless street women, and both were attacked on a Bank Holiday. The closeness of the locations is staggering. If Emma had sustained any knife wounds along with her other injuries, and had not lived long enough to talk about her ordeal, I'd have been far more inclined to link her with one or more of the Whitechapel knife attacks.

One witness suggested Emma was reluctant to go to the hospital for treatment, which, if true, might support the theory that a lone man was responsible, but she was too embarrassed to admit it. It must have been just one man who caused the truly horrific injury which proved fatal. If two or three others were present, I have to wonder whether they stood around watching, or helped to hold her down.

I seriously doubt that JtR would have been part of a gang, so it all depends on whether Emma told the truth. If she did, how would the other gang members have known if the one using the blunt instrument did go on to commit the ripper murders? More to the point, how would they know he didn't? Either way, I can't see them grassing him up and risking their own necks, assuming they were aware that the attack on Emma Smith had ended in her murder. And what about Martha Tabram? If she was a victim of the same gang we'd never know it, would we?

Whoever did that to Emma was a depraved and extremely dangerous individual, as was the creature who brutally murdered Martha Tabram, and yet we have to consider that the killer in either case did nothing like this again and bowed out just as Jack was about to make his entrance.

Love,

Caz
X

I think this post and the one below by Seanr (#17) are good and along the lines of what I think. Although it seems unlikely JtR was once in a gang, in Aprill 1888 Jtr the mutilator didn't exist and Tabram and Nicholls were still months away. Perhaps gang is not the right word either, as it implies a group going around regularly carrying out similar attacks, and as far as I know there aren't any of this nature. Perhaps she just came across a violent and maybe drunk Jtr with some friends on a night out. Smith suffered genital trauma as did Eddowes for example and Tabram was stabbed in the groin.

Putting on the suspect tinted spectacles, there are a couple of Bury references that are interesting. Those being Ellen Bury saying he had some unsavoury friends and Bury saying he wanted to go back to London and 'get a bar' with his pals. The man seen talking to Smith was described in one account as wearing a black suit and white silk necktie, which sounds rather smart. Smith was attacked on Bury's wedding night - perhaps he was out drinking with his pals. A wedding night might sound a good alibi, but Bury was punching his wife in the face two days after their marriage and kneeling on her chest and threatening her with a knife five days after their marriage. We also know Bury inflicted genital trauma on Ellen in a near identical manner to Eddowes, and stabbed her in each groin.

[seanr]

Ok I am just now getting into reading about Emma Smith and the other non canonical victims, something I've only peeked at in the past, but how is Emma considered a victim of JtR when she herself said to the dr. that she was approached and assaulted by a group of men? I'll admit that I'm not done reading but wanted to put this out there

The problem is, if we ask the wrong questions then we are very likely to arrive at the wrong answers.

Emma Smith reported to Doctor Haslip she walked past Whitechapel church where her attackers followed her up Osborn Street. She said they attacked her at the top of that street, at the junction with Brick Lane. The coroner at her inquest, Wynne E Baxter, admitted that he has never heard of such a dastardly assault. No common robbery of a woman walking the streets this. An unusual cruel and brutal attack which deprived a woman of her life.

When just 4 months later, a woman who had also been drinking in the vicinity was murdered just two alleyways across from Osborn Street. Martha Tabram was a similar age, had been out on the streets late at night and was possibly a sex worker. Just like the previous murder, it had occurred in the early hours after a bank holiday.

The connection between the two crimes was considered plausible enough to create a file containing both of these murders. The Whitechapel Murders file was started and the police were looking for a multiple murderer or murderers. A murderous gang hanging out in the vicinity of Whitechapel church must have been one possibility. Another could be that Emma Smith had not been entirely truthful and her attacker had been a single man, perhaps out of bravado but arguably more likely because she knew her attacker. Hiding his identity out of fear or a misplaced loyalty.

At the end of August, the body of another woman was found in Whitechapel. 'Another woman found mutilated in Whitechapel' were the kinds of headlines, the press started to go wild. There had been three murders of women in Whitechapel in under six months. The last person to see the woman alive was Emily Holland, who met her at the bottom of Osborn Street. The woman walked down Whitechapel Road, her route must have taken her past Whitechapel church. The woman's body was found about one hour later, roughly fifteen minute walk from the spot. Her murder must have taken place shortly after that conversation with Emily Holland. That woman was Polly Nichols.

The link between these three crimes must have seemed extremely plausible. The geographic location, the unusual nature of the violence, the similar time of the attacks and similarity of the victims are all plausible reasons to think these crimes might be related.

The world did not hear the name 'Jack the Ripper' until late September 1888. At the beginning of September in 1888, 'who is Jack the Ripper?' was not the case the police were trying to crack. The murders of Emma Smith, Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols was the case. If the murders had stopped here, it is doubtful anyone would argue the three crimes were related and the history books might better remember Leather Apron as the name given to the perpetrator(s) of three unsolved murders in Whitechapel in 1888.

Emma Smith was not added to the Ripper's tally. The crime was later removed from consideration. So in my opinion more historically accurate questions to ask might be, why is Emma Smith no longer considered a victim? Why did some of the later police investigators consider only the later murders? Did the investigators really establish a 'canonical five'? And should we accept their conclusions?

[caz]

No two attacks by the same man are going to be identical, and any violent offender has free will to experiment; chop and change what works and doesn't work for him; adapt to the situation and circumstances; change his mind about attacking anyone on a particular night; escalate or go back to something he tried before if the mood takes him. Why would we put our own arbitrary restrictions on the behaviour of such an individual?

I don't know what to think about the attack on Emma Smith, so I rule nothing out and remain 50/50 on a connection with one or more of the other murders, most obviously that of Martha Tabram, ripper murder or not.

I do find it remarkable that both victims were defenceless street women, and both were attacked on a Bank Holiday. The closeness of the locations is staggering. If Emma had sustained any knife wounds along with her other injuries, and had not lived long enough to talk about her ordeal, I'd have been far more inclined to link her with one or more of the Whitechapel knife attacks.

One witness suggested Emma was reluctant to go to the hospital for treatment, which, if true, might support the theory that a lone man was responsible, but she was too embarrassed to admit it. It must have been just one man who caused the truly horrific injury which proved fatal. If two or three others were present, I have to wonder whether they stood around watching, or helped to hold her down.

I seriously doubt that JtR would have been part of a gang, so it all depends on whether Emma told the truth. If she did, how would the other gang members have known if the one using the blunt instrument did go on to commit the ripper murders? More to the point, how would they know he didn't? Either way, I can't see them grassing him up and risking their own necks, assuming they were aware that the attack on Emma Smith had ended in her murder. And what about Martha Tabram? If she was a victim of the same gang we'd never know it, would we?

Whoever did that to Emma was a depraved and extremely dangerous individual, as was the creature who brutally murdered Martha Tabram, and yet we have to consider that the killer in either case did nothing like this again and bowed out just as Jack was about to make his entrance.

Love,

Caz
X

[clark2710]

I definitely believe he most likely started by strangulation and graduated from there.

It's no uncommon for serial killers to change how they do things as they go.

[erobitha]

I do wonder if he built up to the murders? Some women approached and strangled to the point of unconsciousness maybe? Not necessarily reported to the police and thus unreported and forgotten about. then as his confidence grew, he moved on to the next stage?

I definitely believe he most likely started by strangulation and graduated from there.

[Losmandris]

I do wonder if he built up to the murders? Some women approached and strangled to the point of unconsciousness maybe? Not necessarily reported to the police and thus unreported and forgotten about. then as his confidence grew, he moved on to the next stage?

[Darryl Kenyon]

are there any theories or indications that Jack the Ripper was one of many counted as one person?

I personally believe Jack was one person who killed the C5 plus Martha. With Emma If I was a gambling man [ which unfortunately I am ], I would say probably not ripper, but I still think there may be a chance. I was wondering if Jack could have been part of a gang who attacked Emma [ if indeed it was a gang who attacked her], and then went solo later so to speak as an escalation. I would hazard a guess that Jack possibly attacked women early in his career with killing not being the prime motive and he evolved to that.
Regards Darryl

[clark2710]

I was impressed by Tom Wescott's book - The Bank Holiday Murders, and his arguments regarding the escalation theory. If, as Tom surmises Martha was stabbed in her private parts, then there maybe a connection from the instrument thrust into Emma. Also if Emma was attacked by a gang, how do we know that Jack wasn't part of that gang and he was the one who used the instrument on Emma ?
Regards Darryl

are there any theories or indications that Jack the Ripper was one of many counted as one person?

[Abby Normal]

Whoever attacked her didn't mean to kill her, she died of later complications.

Agreed, this and other factors rule her out. It's wether you want to look at Jack as an escalation killer. Which to my mind is plausible, but is this attack evidence of a pre mutilation killer? Not at face value, possibly with some modern forensics.

Did Jack arrive at throat cutting and disemboweling on a whim? Probably not, so pre Polly crimes have to be looked at, Tabram in particular, but nothing in the Smith case suggests an early Jack, particularly if we doubt Emma Smith's report, which may have been accurate.

agree al
per my previous post...imho millwood was early botched attack and tabram was an escalation. i just dont see the ripper going from a lone attack to a gang attack, and one with no knife used at that. it is a natural progression/escaltion from millwood to tabram to nichols and the rest.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I don't think whoever attacked Emma Smith necessarily set out to kill her. This, along with other factors always makes me think she was not a victim of JtR.

Whoever attacked her didn't mean to kill her, she died of later complications.

Agreed, this and other factors rule her out. It's wether you want to look at Jack as an escalation killer. Which to my mind is plausible, but is this attack evidence of a pre mutilation killer? Not at face value, possibly with some modern forensics.

Did Jack arrive at throat cutting and disemboweling on a whim? Probably not, so pre Polly crimes have to be looked at, Tabram in particular, but nothing in the Smith case suggests an early Jack, particularly if we doubt Emma Smith's report, which may have been accurate.