Ripper Victims?

[ChrisGeorge]

if JTR were not dead or incarcerated after Mary Kelly, what would be the most logical next step? for me, it would be Elizabeth Jackson.

1. Martha Tabram- stabbed to death and left next to dwellings

2. Nichols- killed, cut open, left in the street

3. Chapman- killed, opened, disembowelled, left in a backyard (slightly more discreet than an open street). body part taken as souvenir

4. Stride- killed in a court, but interrupted

5. Eddowes- killed, opened, disembowelled, badly mutilated, left in a court not heavily travelled at that hour. body part taken as souvenir

6. Kelly- killed, opened, disembowelled, very badly mutilated, left inside private residence. body part taken as souvenir

7. Jackson- killed at an unknown location, mutilated and dismembered, disposed to be found later. body part taken as souvenir? her head was not found was it? weren't there also other organs missing?

to me, it's a progression. as the heat picked up, JTR became more discreet. he knew Mary Kelly would eventually be found, but it could've been days or a week. Jackson's killer knew her body parts would eventually be found, but by the time it was, the heat would be off him.

I'm not saying that I think Jackson WAS a JTR, I'm saying that it shouldn't be quickly dismissed on the basis that JTR left victims out in the open and Jackson's killer didn't. for me, JTR killed as a purpose to mutilate and covet. the fact that the bodies were left where they died was just a necessity, not part of the overall plan.

Hi Pontius

The Elizabeth Jackson murder sticks out to me as the odd-one-out of the killings you list. As noted by Tom, the other six murders were done where the victims were found and there was no attempt whatsoever to disguise the victim's identity nor to hide the body.

So, far from the Jackson crime being the progression that you believe, it's a different type of murder altogether and a departure rather than a continuation of the other crimes.

While I am unsure that Tabram was a Ripper murder -- I am doubtful about it because it didn't feature the deep deep neck cut, clear back to the spine, so distinctive of the canonical five murders -- in terms of the display of the body, Tabram had much more in common with the Jackson crime which seems of another type altogether, so much so that it doesn't belong with the other six murders at all.

To be even clearer about it, in my view, the Jackson murder belongs more credibly to the general torso crimes series that began before the Ripper crimes and continued after them.

Best regards

Chris

[Pontius2000]

Hi Pontius

The Elizabeth Jackson murder sticks out to me as the odd-one-out of the killings you list. As noted by Tom, the other six murders were done where the victims were found and there was no attempt whatsoever to disguise the victim's identity nor to hide the body.

I disagree with that. from Tabram to Kelly, the killer took more measures to delay finding the body and identifying. Eddowes' face was badly mutilated, but she was still identified quickly. Kelly's face was mutilated even worse, but she was identified too. if he had killed Kelly in a court or backyard, but with the same facial mutilations, she would not have been identified as quickly. and he could not have known that Kelly, a single prostitute living alone, would be found a matter of hours after her death. he may have reasonably expected that she wouldn't be found for days or weeks.

with Jackson, her head was taken away completely. fingerprints were not done at that time. so he was obviously trying to hide her identity better than he had done with Eddowes and Kelly (IF he was JTR). Jackson's killer could not have guessed that a homeless prostitute would be identified by her clothes.

we don't know where Jackson was taken from or how she died. she very well could have died by strangulation/throat cut. since her head specifically was not found, we have to assume it was either hidden to hide her identity or taken as a souvenir.

I don't think display and disposal was important for JTR, but became more important as the heat picked up. that much is shown in the progression from Tabram to Kelly. so, for me, Elizabeth Jackson COULD be a logical next step.

my opinion, after Kelly, I don't think we'd see another JTR victim that was stabbed/slashed and left in an open street or court. Kelly showed that he was forced to become more careful. and Jackson could show that he was becoming even moreso. after Kelly, he may have realized how risky it actually was to kill a person in the victim's residence....it may have allowed him time for more mutilation, but raised the risk of being caught with no escape route. with Jackson, he may have killed her at a residence, shed, barn, etc which would allow for escape and more mutilation.

again, I'm not saying I believe Jackson was or was not a JTR victim, only that she shouldn't be dismissed so quickly based on disposal of the body.

[Pontius2000]

Hi Pontius, but Elizabeth Jackson was not found where she was murdered, and her killer went to pains to keep her from being identified. It was only through her clothes that she was identified at all. And are you saying that you don't feel that Jackson was related to the other torso murders?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

maybe or maybe not. it's been awhile since I read up on them, but weren't there varying degrees of mutilations in the torso victims? you said yourself that the street gangs were the rob and run type. I can't a couple thugs doing what was done to Jackson just to hide her identity. I CAN see someone who killed for twisted reasons (ala JTR) killing Jackson. I also have not seen any more proof that Jackson was a victim of a botched abortion anymore than she was a victim of JTR.

also, while we're on the subject of the torsos, what is the name of Mei Trow's new book? I keep seeing it referenced, but the only Trow book I've been able to find is a JTR book from 2009.

[Malcolm X]

the torso murders are done by a killer trying to hide his lovers, (that other people are aware that he knows)....

but out on the street this doesn't matter at all, so yes it could be JTR, but i doubt it, because these torsos aren't mutilated, unless he didn't fancy making a gross mess in their homes, that would take flipping ages to clear up, like with MJK, thus leading back to him!

so yes, these could be JTRs crimes too, and finally, torsos are relatively common, even today, because this is always a good way of hiding/ transporting the victim, even the Mafia do this, flipping everyone does this !

i expect this is what happened to Jimmy Hoffa

[Pontius2000]

the torso murders are done by a killer trying to hide his lovers, (that other people are aware that he knows)....

but out on the street this doesn't matter at all, so yes it could be JTR, but i doubt it, because these torsos aren't mutilated, unless he didn't fancy making a gross mess in their homes, that would take flipping ages to clear up, like with MJK, thus leading back to him!

so yes, these could be JTRs crimes too, and finally, torsos are relatively common, even today, because this is always a good way of hiding/ transporting the victim, even the Mafia do this, flipping everyone does this !

i expect this is what happened to Jimmy Hoffa

again, it's been awhile since I read up on these crimes, but I'm pretty sure Jackson's torso WAS mutilated, at least to the point where organs were removed. probably not mutilated to the extent of Mary Kelly. however, the Kelly murder may have finally satisfied his mutilations to that extent. He was clearly starting to take more of an interest in facial mutilations from Eddowes to Kelly. and we don't know to what extent Jackson's face/head were mutilated since her head was never found.

yes, torsos are somewhat common as a means of disposal. but how many of these torsos are found that are actually mutilated with organs removed?

[Malcolm X]

i quote

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the lower pieces of the trunk. The skin was fair, and the mons veneris was covered with light sandy hair. The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus; both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder. The uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall. The organ was much dilated the vessels on the inner surface large and open and the mucus membrane swollen and softened. The uterus measured 10in. long by 7.5 in. wide. The circumference of the os externum was 4in….

....The cord measured 8in. and the distal ends showed a clean cut. The vessels contained fluid blood."

so, the killer didn't mutilate like JTR, but he did have a quick look and a brief toying with his knife...

now then, the other 2 torsos weren't mutilated, one was heavily decomposed and according to Swanson, the other wasn't mutilated either.

all of this is yet another mystery to be solved and i dont think you can say that much either way

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pontius, just go to amazon and type in Trow and Torso and you'll see it. Personally, I prefer Gordon's book, but there are some interesting things in Trow's book as well, and since they're the only published works on the case, you might as well have them both. The definitive torso murders book has most certainly not been written yet.

Your theory suggests that the killer of the three women (Eddowes, Kelly, and Jackson) attempted to hide their identities, which in turn suggests he knew them and could be discovered. Considering they were identified, and didn't lead to a common link (him), either the police were daft or the theory doesn't work. Also, Kelly was murdered in her own house, so I don't think the killer expected any delay in her identification. As for Eddowes, he didn't cut out her eyes, or madly slash her face, or anything that we would expect from someone whose motive was to hide her identity. Perhaps you're correct, and that these women were all killed by the same man/men, but surely it must be for different reasons than you're arguing here.

the torso murders are done by a killer trying to hide his lovers

Love 'em and cleeve 'em? Sorry, I can't buy that at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

well, he's trying to hide their identity, that's for sure and making them easier to dispose of, whatever the case, lovers or not, torso victims are well known to their killers.

this my friend is fairly obvious, but it is not obvious that these are in any way related to somebody like....... uum LE GRAND ...not yet anyway!

[Pontius2000]

Your theory suggests that the killer of the three women (Eddowes, Kelly, and Jackson) attempted to hide their identities, which in turn suggests he knew them and could be discovered. Considering they were identified, and didn't lead to a common link (him), either the police were daft or the theory doesn't work. Also, Kelly was murdered in her own house, so I don't think the killer expected any delay in her identification. As for Eddowes, he didn't cut out her eyes, or madly slash her face, or anything that we would expect from someone whose motive was to hide her identity. Perhaps you're correct, and that these women were all killed by the same man/men, but surely it must be for different reasons than you're arguing here.



Love 'em and cleeve 'em? Sorry, I can't buy that at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

no, I'm not suggesting that he went to any great length to hide the identities of Eddowes or Kelly or that he knew either one of them. What I'm suggesting is that the more he killed, the more witnesses there were, and the increased likelihood that a witness would eventually recognize him as being with the victim. He knew they would eventually be discovered and identified, but any delay in identification would buy him time to separate himself from the crimes. he could not have guessed that Kelly would be found only a couple hours after the murder. whether or not that was important to him, I can't say.

a lot of people make a deal of JTR "displaying" victims, and I don't see it. he left them where they lay, and the atrocities were a display in and of themselves. but I think the important thing for him was mutilation and coveting/recreating the crimes.

it may be rare for a serial killer to change his MO, but leaving the bodies out in the open may have been meaningless for JTR so therefore it wouldn't really be a leap to say that he went from Eddowes to Kelly to Jackson if dismembering and disposing of the body became perceived as a necessity to avoid detection.

the FBI profilers said that JTR was probably more lucky than intelligent. I have to agree with that. and JTR himself probably realized that he could not continue on with his work by leaving bodies in the open street, or even in a private court or tiny residence.

[Lechmere]

Hi Lech. I had no idea that Millwood, Wilson, Smith, and Coles were your favored suspects!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Oh my God isn’t it obvious – they are one person - aliases used by my master criminal suspect.

On a different note, I think most victims were left on display (Kelly, Chapman, Eddowes, Tabram), unless he was disturbed (Stride, Nichols).

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pontius,

I wouldn't pay much attention to FBI profilers. They don't know much about serial killlers, and next to nothing about the Ripper.

Lechmere,

For a long time there you seemed rather dedicated to Charles Cross, but lately you've been all Hutchy. I'm a bit perplexed over who your suspect is?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Ah – I think Hutchinson was almost certainly Toppy and I don’t think it at all likely that Toppy did it.
But it is an interesting sub topic – well I find it interesting anyway.

I find the arguments put forward in support of Hutchinson as the culprit in some cases interesting and in others wholly unrealistic.
Hutchinson is a glaring example of how people in this area of study can lose their reason by arguing in the most ridiculous and overblown manner – refusing to concede an inch when the point of argument is blatantly and obviously against them.
People who I suspect are quite rational and able to behave in an intelligent and informed manner in ‘normal life’ are quite capable of going completely over the top.
Of course Hutchinson is not the only instance of this in the world of Jack the Ripper.

I still favour Charlie – he used to live in Pinchin Street when it was called Thomas Street in 1861 – the one and only time he was ever called Cross. And strangely his dear mama lived there with her third husband and one of Charlie’s daughters in 1881.
By 1889 they were living just under the railway arch on Cable Street. To bring us back to the torsos.
Husband number 3 died a few months after the torso was discovered.

[K-453]

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted ..."

That post mortem sounds a lot like that of Mary Jane Kelly. Also the one of Catherine Eddowes.

[Pontius2000]

Hi Pontius,

I wouldn't pay much attention to FBI profilers. They don't know much about serial killlers, and next to nothing about the Ripper.

well, a lot of their assumptions are broad and kind of common sense generalizations. But I'll give them credit for not jumping on a flavor of the month like: "the killer was probably a prince" or "the killer was probably a middle aged cotton broker who kept a diary" or "an artist who once painted a picture of a woman lying on a bed".

if I were to imagine what JTR was probably like, it would probably be close to the FBI's profile: somebody like Kosminski....of the same social class as the victims, not a lot of education, mental illness, free to roam around at night, etc. yeah, it's broad and common sense stuff, but a lot more logical than a lot of the nonsense we see thrown out.

is profiling a concrete science? of course not. but I don't think it's completely useless either. I mean, you can't deny that a lot of JTR had to do with dumb luck.

[Ben]

With all due respect to Lechmere, whose recent research efforts have uncovered some real gems, he is hoist with his own petard as far as suspect preference is concerned. He argues the controversial and seldom-discussed case for Charles Cross as the ripper, and for that I don't begrudge him. I for one would love to learn more about this first-on-the-scene "witness" from the Nichols inquest.

It all seems to go wrong, though, when the Cross proponents think they can only advance his "case" by downplaying or pooh-poohing any perceived "rival" suspects.

What makes matters much worse is when they single out for criticism those suspects or "persons of interest" who have already proved immensely popular with other writers, researchers, and enthusiasts, and who will continue to receive much more attention than Cross. All these efforts achieve, paradoxically, is a sustained interest in these more popular suspects who are supposed to look "weak" alongside Cross in the minds of the latter's advocates, but who don't in reality.

So my advice for the "Crossians" would be to spend more time (and money) researching their favourite suspect, and to ditch the silly, unsuccessful attempts to tear down perceived "rival" candidates. Without wishing to be too off-topic and argumentative, I personally suspect that Lechmere has some rather fanciful ideas as to what constitutes "refusing to concede an inch when the point of argument is blatantly and obviously against them".

Has he ever conceded such an inch with regard to the far-less-likely and far-less-popular Cross?