As Few As Two ? [Archive] - JTRForums.com - THE place to be for All Things Ripper

admin tim

01-10-2008, 06:08 AM

Ah, one of my favorite topics.

From Murder Most Foul:

One of the great EC Comics stories of the 1950’s was Harvey Kurtzman’s The Giggling Killer, in which an unhappy husband imitated the modus operandi and signature of a serial killer then terrorizing the city to murder his wife, secure in the knowledge that he would never be suspected of the crime. Were some of the murders then, such as Elizabeth Stride’s and Mary Kelly’s, actually unrelated crimes committed by others that have since been attributed to the Ripper? Did an enterprising Michael Kidney or Joseph Barnett conceal his own crime by emulating the Ripper’s methodology at precisely the right time?

In the same article, Stewart Evans is quoted from Casebook:

“Statistically speaking, Kelly is far more likely to have been killed by Joseph Barnett than anyone else. Their domestic situation indicated a stormy relationship, with the resultant separation and the fact that they often 'rowed'. Barnett saw her on the eve of her murder and we have only his word that they were on 'friendly terms'. If she had finally rejected him on that occasion, he may well have returned later and murdered her in a violent domestic dispute, again statistically the most likely scenario for her murder.

Barnett would have known that in the eyes of the police he would be the number one suspect anyway. In those days that sort of murder had only one consequence for the killer - he hanged at the end of a rope. In such a desperate situation he would have only one real way out - to shift the blame for the murder. Although there had been no Ripper killing since 30 September, the story was still in the news and the Ripper was still at large.

This theory does not involve a 'copycat' murder; it involves an unpremeditated domestic murder being disguised as the work of another killer who was still at large, in order to avoid blame. It is no use to argue that Barnett simply could not have inflicted such horrific mutilations. The history of crime shows that husbands and lovers have been responsible for the most extreme mutilation and dismemberment of their victims in an effort to cover their crime. It has nothing to do with 'harbouring a grudge' or 'casually cutting her to pieces.' It has everything to do with the result of a violent domestic dispute and desperately cutting up the victim to shift the blame.

The history of crime is littered with such cases of first-time murderers carrying out the most horrific mutilation to cover a crime. Buck Ruxton is a prime example, he beheaded his common-law wife, and a maid, peeled off their faces and totally dismembered them in an effort to get rid of the bodies and prevent identification. There are many others, Greenacre, Deeming, Mahon, Crippen and so on.”

So, although I believe to the contrary, discovering that there were really only 2 actual victims of JTR would not surprise me.

How Brown

01-10-2008, 06:25 AM

Not to divert....but one thing struck me about Nichols' murder a while back and thats the location ( out on the damned pavement under or close to a light) and the feeling that Nichols would not have, out of a sense of dignity, allowed her killer whomever it may have been, to engage in sex in that location.

It would have taken only a matter of seconds to go to a more dignified and definitely secluded spot than right there.

Naturally, there is nothing dignified about Hanbury Street, yet we had testimony that others used the yard on previous occasions....and despite the unbelievable risk factor, not for sex, but for murder....it is more secluded than Bucks Row.

Thats why I sort of tend at present to believe or entertain the theory that Nichols was killed in a 'blitz' fashion unlike the Hanbury Street murder....where if the same murderer was at work, he at least attempted to kill in seclusion.

This same principle also strikes me about Mitre Square. Its, in a way, closer to the theoretical "blitz' attack on Bucks Row than it is Hanbury Street.

Sex in a dark corner is one thing...but to engage in evisceration in Mitre Square quite another.

Paul Butler

01-10-2008, 08:20 AM

Is it possible to have more than 1 killer with the same method of murder?

We do see a differing pattern between the C5, from minor mutilations to the complete destruction of Mary Kelly.

Is it possible that copycat killers were at work in Whitechapel in 1888/1889?

Did the press/ police hold anything back that the murder only could have known, and used on the next victim?

This area really intrests me.

Morning all.

This part of the case really interests me too, (at least, other peoples reasons for excluding one or more of Jack’s victims does), so perhaps I will come out of the closet and say that I really haven’t read anything that strongly persuades me that Jack wasn’t responsible for all of the usual five, and just maybe Tabram and a few other earlier ones too.

My impression of Jack is not that he was in any way seeking out prostitutes in particular, but that he was a sort of perverted fantasist who just delighted in opening up a human body, any human body as long as it’s female, to see what was inside. Maybe a failed doctor or just someone who liked to think he was. His victims, being weak and feeble women of the street, just happening to be the most convenient fodder for fulfilling his needs.

I might be inclined to exclude Stride if hers was the only murder that night, but the fact that Eddowes was killed, undoubtedly by Jack in my view, within striking distance that same night makes me think that I should definitely count her in.

I would most certainly include Kelly, as hers seems the obvious culmination of Jack’s sick fantasy. He at last is presented with a woman almost naked and in a “safe” environment where he can really get to work with easy access to all areas.

Previously he had to contend not only with being in risky outdoor spots, but also with a very limited access to the women’s insides due to stays, drawers, corsets etc. but with Kelly his dreams had come true and he had unlimited access to the ultimate prize, the heart.

I realise this is rather an old fashioned view of things these days, as Jack’s status as a serial killer is gradually whittled away to little or nothing, but I do have the opinion of the contemporary Police on my side.

The idea that there was more than one man capable of disembowelling women in the same area during the very same short period of time just doesn’t do it for me. To be a copycat of a sick perverted disemboweller, first requires that the copycat is also a sick perverted disemboweller himself. Very, very few human beings would have the stomach for that sort of thing.

But I’m only too willing to be persuaded otherwise!

Regards.

Paul.

Adam Went

01-11-2008, 07:44 AM

Hi all,

I agree that out of all the murders, Chapman and Eddowes stand out as the 2 that we can definitely attribute to JTR.
Having said that, I still believe that there was 6 JTR victims - the 5 canonical victims plus Martha Tabram.

Killers can and do change their method of killing, even if it's only slight - perhaps excluding Elizabeth Stride, the other 5 women all had similar injuries and were killed in similar circumstances. As far as Elizabeth Stride is concerned, I believe the theory that the killer was interrupted. IMO, it's too much of a coincidence that so many similar killings could happen in a period of just a few months, in the same area, for them to not be attributed to the same man.

Aside from that, the more killers there were, the more likely atleast one of them was going to get caught. It seems fairly far-fetched to suggest that there was a copycat of a copycat of JTR.

The only 2 victims out of that 6 that I believe are questionable as JTR victims are Tabram and Stride, simply because of the nature of their injuries - but we all know as far as Tabram is concerned, that as Jack went on, the mutilation became more and more severe, so it makes sense that Tabram was the least mutilated. As for Stride, as I've already mentioned, it seems likely that the killer was interrupted. So, IMO, it's fair to say that Jack had atleast 4 victims, and possibly up to 6.

Cheers,
Adam.

How Brown

01-12-2008, 08:11 AM

I was just reading something to Nina the other day about a murderer who had influenced at least 4 similar ( some even more horrific than the "original" ) murders...but damn if I can remember which one it was...

I'm with you Adam....in that I tend to believe in 6...despite what I just mentioned above....

Yet I think ( in a sort of parallel mind, so to speak ) that there may have only been 2 murders committed by the same individual, JTR.

I also don't think that limiting the number of murders attributable to Jack The Ripper "hurts" anything or sets us backwards. I understand the argument that we ought to be connecting the murders, as it might be more fruitful that way.

Yet, as we know, Jack The Ripper was "born" in the subsequent aftermath of the Double Event, "trade name" wise. Maybe there were as few as three...or two that he killed. The Nichols murder might have inspired him, the Tabram murder, a "one off" and the Stride murder, another copycat ( I disagree, but respect A.P. and Glenn Andersson's position on a domestic murder, but have my own ideas on that that are contrary to their stance.) murder....and the Kelly, the worst of the copycats, if not definitely a Ripper murder.

Robert Linford

01-12-2008, 08:18 AM

It seems to me that the simpler explanation is preferable - Jack killed at least four, maybe as many as six.

Anyway, two is as low as you can go. To say that only one was a Ripper murder would be meaningless, because the phrase "Jack the Ripper" would be meaningless.

Adam Went

01-12-2008, 08:28 AM

Hey How and all,

Just on the Kelly murder....as I mentioned before, if we include the 5 canonicals plus Martha Tabram as JTR's victims, Elizabeth Stride excluded, each murder grew in its brutality, culminating in the bloodbath that was the scene of Mary Kelly's murder.

I'm sure it's happened before, but I just can't imagine that anyone other than JTR could have been responsible for such a brutal murder. Killing indoors, Jack had ample time to do whatever he wanted - what would be the motive for anyone else wanting to do something so horrific?

In any case, if we believe George Hutchinson's testimony, and the man he saw with MJK was also her killer, they weren't arguing, and the way in which he approached the victim is very similar to that the witnesses in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes described.

IMO, the only other possibility if MJK wasn't a JTR victim, is that Joe Barnett killed her....and let's not even go down that path...

Cheers,
Adam.

Robert Linford

01-12-2008, 08:48 AM

Adam, of course we can have MJK as JTR victim AND Barnett as JTR - but let's not go there either!

Mags

01-12-2008, 10:53 AM

I agree that more rather than fewer is likely. I include Tabram and almost exclude Stride- she's 40/60 not for me.

And I think it's likely that the killer comitted other attacks, maybe even murders (but not rapes) before the C5.

So I guess I'm a traditionalist.

Glenn L Andersson

01-12-2008, 02:21 PM

To exclude Nichols is to me a strange idea, since she shares the most important traits with those displayed in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes: an extremely deep throat cut as the cause of death plus post mortem mutilation in terms of a rip in the abdominal area. The rip on Nichols is of course not as severe as in Chapman's and Eddowes' case but she was on the other hand also the first victim that had a rip in the abdomin, so this could either be a result of inexperience or interruption.

Besides that, the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes all share the same common factors; the same circumstances on the crime scene, the same deep throat cut and the same target areas on the body.

Personally, I agree with the view - put forward by people like Stewart P Evans and others - that we, based on the main characteristics of the murders, only can be certain of three victims: Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
The rest, according to such things as modus operandi, circumstances surrounding the murders and victimology, have to be regarded as less certain. It doesn't mean that they weren't Ripper victims, only that they have to remain open to debate.

Tabram, however, I feel can be ruled out from the tally for many reasons and with relative certainty. Stride will always remain a problem for me, though, and I never seem to be able to make up my mind on that one.

All the best

Mags

01-12-2008, 04:53 PM

I agree, Glenn, that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are the core of all Ripperology. So much, so in fact that the one question I would ask at the Pearly Gates is "Who killed Catherine Eddowes?"

Stride is very iffy and I go back and forth all the time about her.

I know we disagree about Kelly. And I'm pro Tabram but not rabidly so.

What if anything do you think the killer was doing before Nichols?

How Brown

01-12-2008, 05:04 PM

Dear Glenn & Maria:

Thanks for the comments. Its funny, but I referenced you, Glenn, earlier, since I think you are one of the most vocal contra-Stridists around.

Anyway...I think a cursory glance at the location of Nichols' murder deserves mentioning in order to try and make my point here.

Since we at times get hung up on m.o. and signature, we often overlook location...which can provide associativeness between murder victims...not all the time...but sometimes.

Chapman,as opposed to Nichols, wasn't killed on the pavement....and yes,there are signs of a similarity between these two...one that I would link them with in the process of their associativeness.

However, Chapman was killed in a back yard, with a modicum of cover....and yes, it was perhaps as risky or the riskiest of all the outdoor murders with a successful evisceration which may have been foiled in the first attempt 8 days prior.

What "bothers" me about Nichols is the spontaneity of her murder, seemingly performed in a location where Nichols either:

1. First accepted the gesture of a sexual liason
2. Then rejected it for whatever reason
3. Then was killed on the spot

OR........

1. No insinuation of a sexual liason on the part of one or both occurred.

And finally...

1. That Nichols, had she accepted the offer, would almost certainly make an effort to perform this act with at least a modicum of cover, i.e, an alley.

Thats why I feel at this time...and we all know how things change in the field and in our heads....that Nichols may have been blitzed, with her killer simply assaulting her on the spot.

That the real Ripper was encouraged by reading about this murder may have inspired him in the subsequent Chapman & Eddowes murder....the latter which I also feel is unproven as to being a definite sexual tryst gone wrong.

Mags

01-12-2008, 05:24 PM

Granted that Nichols location is much more open than Chapman

. But if the killer was spotted on the street, he would have had a lot more room to manouver and get away than he would behind a house surrounded by fenced in yards. The first location seems safer to me, just because it gives the killer time to notice who might be coming and several options on how to get away.

How Brown

01-12-2008, 05:37 PM

Mags:

Granted, the killer of Nichols probably would have if not definitely had a superior chance of escape. Anyone with a knife has an advantage should he be that close to capture, but I understand fully what you mean,Mags.

In fact, thats possibly one reason to reconsider Nichols.

Yes, the Hanbury Street affair seems like madness....for someone to commit murder,not engage in fencehugging, there....as does Mitre Square,likewise known for liasons.

The difference...maybe minute in reality and a product of my overactive imagination...is that I have never heard of and recently have been having trouble accepting a murder occurring on the pavement with an attempt post-mortem to remove organs ...and likewise have trouble with believing the level of dignity of Mrs.Nichols was so low,that she would acquiesce to a sexual liason without looking for cover first.

At least in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, some degree of cover might have been considered.

Mags

01-12-2008, 05:43 PM

It was almost morning. Polly was desperate for one last chance to make her pittance. The fence was set back from the street by about a foot, wasn't it?She may just not have cared.

Fences, fences, all these fences at the crime scenes.

Glenn L Andersson

01-12-2008, 05:56 PM

Hi Howie,

I actually see very little difference in that regards between the Nichols' and Eddowes' murders. Both were performed on the pavement in connection to a street and close to a wooden gate.

Both murders appear to have been done with speed and by taking the victims with surprise.

Apart from the development in the mutilations, I see little difference.

I also think that modus operandi and likewise is more important than the location. I mean, the odd location of the three really is the back yard in Hanbury Street, but still there can be no doubt that Chapman and Eddowes were murdered by the same man.

How Brown

01-12-2008, 05:57 PM

Mags:

Polly was killed prior to 3:45 AM ( which is when P.C.Neil found her )...which, will all due respect, is a little ways off from the morning ( or dawn ).

Its also possible,Mags, that she had earned her pittance after her chat with Mrs. Holland...blew that...and was too shi-faced to know where she was at the time...a point in favor of the location meaning little.

Robert Linford

01-12-2008, 05:57 PM

Mags, not a fence, but a gate. Polly was killed outside gates. Eddowes too was killed near a gate. These gates were locked, but the victims might not have known that until reaching the spot.

Robert

How Brown

01-12-2008, 06:02 PM

Bob:

Thats a great point....."These gates were locked, but the victims might not have known that until reaching the spot."

And come to think of it, maybe the killer didn't either.

Maybe this fact enraged him and he just decided to rock and roll on the spot.

Good point, Bob...seriously. I never thought of it in trying to wheedle my blitz idea into the discussion. It makes me reconsider this murder all over again in light of this.

Glenn L Andersson

01-12-2008, 06:29 PM

I agree. That is a very interesting point, that the gates might have been locked. Can't say I've heard that one before.

Robert Linford

01-12-2008, 06:31 PM

Glenn, How

It's one of those things that gets implanted in the mind, and years later, you can't name the press report. In fact, I'm not so sure that it wasn't Monty who told me they were locked.

Robert

Dan Norder

01-12-2008, 10:50 PM

Recently,Dan Norder made a comment about the notion that perhaps Polly Nichols wasn't a Ripper victim at all.

Just for the record, I was arguing that the people claiming that Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim couldn't logically make that claim and still include Nichols as well, because Kelly and Chapman and Eddowes are the three with the most in common. I wasn't arguing for only two, I was arguing for at least four.

When figuring out which murders were linked, signature analysis is key, not trivia like if a gate was around and so forth. I mean, hell, that's like trying to say who was a Ripper victim and who wasn't based upon which ones had a C in their names.

The most unque aspects of the Ripper murders compared to other murders were the taking of organs, the leaving of organs removed from the body at the scenes, and the facial mutilations. Then you look at the dates and the locations. Anything with such extreme similarities in a few months in the space of half a mile is a no brainer. Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman are solid locks. After that we look at the nature and size of the wounds and widen the times and locations slightly and we get Nichols and then probably Tabram not too far behind the main three. Nichols can be seen as a transition between Tabram and Chapman. Stride can probably get tossed in just on the date and location, though the wounds aren't definitive.

This trend to come up with excuses to pull names off of the list for the most trivial of reasons -- and especially when it's clearly been done rather arbitrarily and for reasons that historically were suspect-based -- is completely contrary to what we know about actual serial killers in the real world instead of the imaginary ones armchair detectives think up in their heads and then get attached to.

How Brown

01-13-2008, 06:56 AM

Just for the record, I was arguing that the people claiming that Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim couldn't logically make that claim and still include Nichols as well, because Kelly and Chapman and Eddowes are the three with the most in common. I wasn't arguing for only two, I was arguing for at least four.---Dan

I'm sorry for not clarifying that point. I used your previous post to jump into my mini-spiel about the possibility of Nichols perhaps being a catalyst for the Ripper's murders of Chapman,Eddowes,etc...in that the Ripper may have been a copycat. I wasn't claiming you were definitive about how many or whom were victims. I was on this kick about Nichols being "blitzed" due to location without considering the gate being locked...

This trend to come up with excuses to pull names off of the list for the most trivial of reasons -- and especially when it's clearly been done rather arbitrarily and for reasons that historically were suspect-based -- is completely contrary to what we know about actual serial killers in the real world instead of the imaginary ones armchair detectives think up in their heads and then get attached to. -Dan

Chapman and Eddowes are virtual carbon copies of each other and I agree that its damn near impossible to separate these two murders from each other...and the fact that one of the two involved severe facial mutilations where the other didn't is virtually irrelevant. The only feature in the execution of these two murders that I would say is possibly different is the approach the killer attempted. Chapman, in all probability, was seen engaged in small talk with her killer prior to her death...where the possibility that Eddowes was attacked without some sort of verbal exchange ( blitzed) could have happened. Thats just my view on the matter.

There have been exceptions to the rule as far as how serial killers perform their murders....Joe Christopher being a real exception in that he utilized three different techniques to accomplish his goals.

There's food for thought in your paragraph above on how we, as a community, have occasionally pulled a name out of the Macnaghten Five and tried to disassociate them with the other victims...especially the two mentioned above.

I think its also true that some of us add a victim to the M5 or C5, for various reasons as well....certainly not for suspect-based reasons...but nonetheless, its done.

I think its good to examine each of the murders...not that any of the observations we make or ideas we come up with will change anything....and that the possibility that the Nichols murder & murderer served as a catalyst for the Ripper may have existed. I recently read somewhere of a murder that inspired 4 other vicious murders, some of which were more horrific than the original......

As I mentioned before, not that it matters what I think....I go with the M5 and Tabram. In fact, it was you, Dan ...and Alan Sharp, that got me rethinking Tabram a while back.

Even if we stick with the three that to you and I are most closely linked ( I agree that Kelly,Chapman and Eddowes are closer...since they followed Nichols and have enough similarities ).....its possible that we still have 4 or 5 killers in the greater London vicinity ( for the crimes we most often refer to at that time ).

1. The C/E/K murderer
2. Tabram's murderer
3. Stride's murderer
4. The Torso murderer
5...and possibly....just possibly...the catalyst for subsequent Ripper murders,the Nichols murderer...whom I agree was not unique,but the Ripper himself.

Thanks for the post Dan !

Glenn L Andersson

01-13-2008, 07:03 AM

Well, the facial mutilations and the taking of the organs can hardly be seen as the key elements in the Ripper's signature, but as mere additions or (in the case of taking of the organs) extra benefits for gratification.

The main key features in the Ripper murder are
a) the very deep throat cuts and
b) post mortem mutilation in the abdominal area.

Those are the key elements, and they are all displayed on Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. As far as Kelly is concerned there are, however, other features in the murder that makes it questionable - things (like crimescene facts and victimology) that Norder usually tend to ignore but details that every sane police officer investigating any murder case would take into account. Every murder has t be investigated in its own right.

It is also a total lie that people who exclude Kelly generally are suspect-based. I certainly am not and I know several who aren't. I know that Rumbelow's reason is his suspicions regarding Timothy Donovan, but that's about it.
As Howard says, people who tend to add victims to the tally also do this from a suspect perspective at times.

But hey - this is not a Kelly thread. Let's just once again point out that I think it's safe to assume that we can be sure of only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes if we really look at modus operandi, the circumstances on the crime scenes and the basic characteristics of the signature. Excluding Nichols simply because she didn't have her face cut or because her organs wasn't taken (serial killers do not take souvernirs from all of their victims and there are several credible reasons for why he didn't do it this time) is flawed reasoning and a complete misreading of what the key elements really are in the Ripper murders.

Robert Linford

01-13-2008, 07:10 AM

Of course, with Nichols we have stabs, as well as rips, which is one reason why I like to leave the door open for Tabram. Eddowes too had stabs (internally).

How Brown

01-13-2008, 07:18 AM

Adam Went

01-13-2008, 07:25 AM

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I don't remember reading anything about any other murders as brutal as the canonicals in the East End area immediately before or after the JTR murders, that weren't attributed to JTR. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume that all of those during that time period - yes, more than likely including Tabram and Stride - were the victims of JTR. Otherwise, if we go by the theory that there were other killers at work, that would mean that there was atleast one, if not two or three killers with similar MO's at work in exactly the same time period in exactly the same area. That, for me, is a little bit too much of a coincidence. It might be more likely in the modern era, but not in 1888.

Cheers,
Adam.

How Brown

01-13-2008, 07:36 AM

Robert Linford

01-13-2008, 07:43 AM

The more serial killers one posits, the more explanations for their cessation one has to posit. Two suicides? Three, four suicides? Or two incarcerations in asylums? Etc, etc. However, one-offs wouldn't face the same problem, so I suppose that someone could say that Nichols was a one-off, and likewise Tabram (by another killer). But it makes it all so complicated!

From my own suspect's point of view, I'd rather jettison Stride but bring in McKenzie. But there you are, I'm stuck with 60 -40 in favour of Stride, and 20 -80 against McKenzie.:loco:

How Brown

01-13-2008, 07:50 AM

Bob:

Why do you think people usually...and frankly,surprisingly....dismiss MacKenzie so easily?

Glenn L Andersson

01-13-2008, 07:53 AM

Dear Glenn:

Would you ascertain that the organ removal was not the primary objective of the Ripper? In essence, in that their murders were only necessary to achieve the ultimate objective.

Hi Howie,

That's right - I don't consider the organ removal as the primary objective, only as souvernirs in order to relive the crime for gratification. To me - as in the cases of many other serial killers - the mutilations as such seem to be his primary objective. Not the killing, not the removal of the organs.
I don't think the Ripper cut up their bodies in order to get hold of some organs, they were just an extra benefit.

But again - it's all speculations and we can't get into the killer's head. But based on what I can can read out from the murders and based on what we know from several other serial mutilators, I have no doubt that it was the actual ritual of cutting their bodies and opening them up that was his intent.

All the best

Robert Linford

01-13-2008, 08:00 AM

How, probably mainly because of the time gap after Kelly, and the fact that both the throat-cutting and mutilation weren't nearly as severe as in the previous murders. Of course, one can say that the killer had been in prison, or otherwise unavailable, and that he was in poor health when he killed Alice, and so on. But those would be extra assumptions brought in ad hoc, which we would want to avoid if possible. We've already had quite a lot of those before, e.g.

He was interrupted with Nichols
He was interrupted with Stride
Plus, any explanation which deals with the botched nature of the Kelly murder.

Robert

How Brown

01-13-2008, 08:00 AM

Glenn L Andersson

01-13-2008, 08:02 AM

Well...I guess one could argue that the Ripper murders are as horrific as they get, Adam....but MacKenzie's murder ( after ) and Emma Smith's ( before ) and the Thames Torso murders ( before,during,after ) are all pretty horrific as well....and seldom get considered, as you rightly say, as being linked to the Ripper.

That is absolutely right and spot on, Howie.

In fact, we can go back to as far as Burke and Hare in the 1820s to find horrific mutilation crimes, and then we have the Thames Torso/Embankment murders - where the first torso appeared in 1873, and then a number of very horrific isolated crimes where women were murdered (Henry Wainwright, Holmes Norman Thorne etc).
In the light of those very bloody and bizarre crimes, the murders of Emma Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Coles actually appear rather lightweight and less spectacular - although naturally sad and gruseome enough. Inessence, the Ripper certainly weren't unique in creating horrible mutilation murders in London.

The fact that the area of East End roamed another serial killer - Neil Cream - just a couple of years after the Ripper murders (besides Klosowski) clearly indicate that the Ripper shouldn't be held responsible for all murders in the area. Even the torso murders could partly be a result of serial killing.

How Brown

01-13-2008, 08:09 AM

Dear Glenn:

Lest we not forget George Chapman as well in the pantheon of badmen. Adam wouldn't like that I think... : )

Bob:

Well stated sir...I agree with your points.

Glenn L Andersson

01-13-2008, 08:13 AM

Glenn:

Thanks for elaborating your position on the murders. Up to now, I was not certain of how your percieved them this way.

In other words,you maintain that :

1. The women had to be murdered
2. The act of cutting and exploration was the objective
3. The removal was secondary and/or an afterthought.

Here's another question for you,sor...

Would you ever consider he ate the organs?

Well, that's a tricky one, Howie.

I have always theorized that he took them for gratification, so that he could relive his crimes. What bothers me about that he could have taken other stuff from their clothing or possessions for such gratification. But each of us have differet needs and fantasies and at the same time it is a safe bet since this appear to be the main objective for taking organs in serial killer cases. He might not have needed them to be in too good condition for that. Every individual is of course unique and even a rotten sample of a cut human organ can dor some bizarre people work as gratification in that respect.

As for the cannibal aspect, that can't be ruled out of course. I also seriously doubt, however, that such items as bladders and uteruses would work that well on the supper meny. Serial killers who also have been cannibals appear to have been quite picky about the quality of the body parts they cut away and save for consumption - they preserve the organs and prepare them carefully almost with same enthusiasm as a chef. The organs taken by the Ripper seem to be less appropriate to eat, if we disregard the half of the kidney.

Likewise, I think many organs taken away by the Ripper would be in too bad condition for collection or selling, so that leaves me with the thought that he took them for symbolic reasons in order to relive the crimes and that he didn't care about how messy they were.

But again - all speculations on my part as anyone elses.

How Brown

01-13-2008, 08:22 AM

Thanks a lot Glenn...

I agree with you about the "problem" in that it would have been easier to simply take, say, Eddowes' finger....or an article of clothing....to fantasize in the future and avoid all the mess of internal exploration and reduce the time spent ( hence: risk ) in doing so.

I have this gut ( no pun intended ) feeling that he ate the organs.

I can't see the marketability of organs and offal taken from the victims.

Andrei Chikatilo, another known s.k. cannibal, was also a little finicky about what organs he preferred. He wasn't nuts over the taste and texture of uteri he extracted. A real piece of work,that guy.

In fact, he is "close" to the type of man I percieve the Ripper being at this point in time...which isn't germane to the thread.

Robert Linford

01-13-2008, 08:29 AM

It might be worth bearing in mind that poor people in that area were forced to eat any and every garbage they could get their hands on, so there is a bit of a cultural gap between them and us. But yes. Hercule Poirot would certainly turn up his nose at stuff like this, and put it down to the usual atrocious English cuisine.

Glenn L Andersson

01-13-2008, 08:42 AM

Robert,

Indeed. I was thinking about that 'poor' aspect as well, and that is why I am inclined not to rule out the possibility of cannibalism. It is perfectly true that we must look at this in the context of the social conditions and the historical context and not from our modern preferences. So point taken.

Dear Howie,

Yes indeed. As I said, I certainly do not rule out that he ate them. To me the itmes he chose is a bit of a problem with this, though. Although he also took such things as a belly wall, half of a kidney and a bladder, he removed the womb on two occasions, which indicates to me some sort of sexual objectification connected with his removal of the organs. That is one reason for why I consider them to be souvernirs.

Yes, he could easily have taken possessions from the victims instead or some of their clothing, but the again we have other serial killers who choose to take a human ear instead of the ear ring in spite of that, and often for the reason to use it as symbolic object so that he can relive his crime. So this is the crux: we all have our own obesseions and fantasies. Each his own, so to speak, and often some people are willing to take great risks in order to fulfil them even though it may appear irrational and bizarre to the rest of us.

Robert Linford

01-13-2008, 09:01 AM

Glenn, that would agree with your doubts about Kelly - the argument that he could have taken her womb, but didn't, so perhaps it was someone else.

Anyway, if he was a cannibal, then we can surmise that he lived alone. Surely he'd never have gotten away with cooking that stuff in front of the wife.:jaw:

Glenn L Andersson

01-13-2008, 09:13 AM

Glenn, that would agree with your doubts about Kelly - the argument that he could have taken her womb, but didn't, so perhaps it was someone else.

Indeed, that is one aspect although one of many.

Anyway, if he was a cannibal, then we can surmise that he lived alone. Surely he'd never have gotten away with cooking that stuff in front of the wife.
Ha! :rofl:
Indeed Robert.
Think about it: 'Hi woman, see what I got for a bargain at Spitalfield's market this morning...' :hungry:

Paul Butler

01-14-2008, 07:38 AM

Morning all.

This topic has certainly livened up over the weekend.

It gladdens my heart to see that I’m not as much in the minority accepting the usual five as all victims of Jacky as I thought.

What does perplex me is the way Stride is so readily dismissed in some quarters as one of Jack’s victims. We know that Jacky was abroad with murderous intent that night, and in the very same area at the same time. What are the odds that a second throat cutting murderer just happened to chose that very night at the exact same time to commit such a similar crime and so close by?

Minute I should think.

Surely good old common sense should tell us that this was almost certainly one of Jack’s and that he was disturbed before he got to the bit that he really wanted to do. The simplest explanation is always the best in my book.

As for the taking of uteri in only two instances. Surely this goes against the idea that Jack was interested in taking sexual organs, even if he knew which were and which were not. He took what he could, and may have been quite unaware as to which bit was which.

He took Kelly’s heart, not sexual organs, which for all we know was his ultimate prize.

If we accept that Jack was interrupted in Stride’s murder, which I do, then it follows that probably he was interrupted on other occasions too, with the likely exception of Kelly. Who can tell how much further he might have gone, with Nicholls in particular, if he hadn’t been in such risky situations?

Regards to all.

Paul

Mags

01-14-2008, 09:29 AM

I'm a Stride doubter and for this reason- if it was Jack who intended to kill and mutilate her, he was getting very sloppy.

Some man was seen with her, throwing her down onto the street. She was killed in a ridiculous place, between the fence and the side door of a building that was full of partying people, either one of which could have been opened at any time.

On the plus side, perhaps he tried to get her to go further down the alley and she balked so he had to simply kill her (to leave no witness) and moved on to someone more amenable.

I realize that Mitre Square was populated too, but most of those people were in and asleep for the night.

I can't explain Hanbury St at all unless he had delusions of invulnerability.If he did, then that brings me full circle round to Stride being a yes.

Six impossible things before breakfast, indeed.

Paul Butler

01-14-2008, 11:57 AM

Good points Mags.

Although I think that just because we have a witness who saw Stride in a tussle with a man who just might have been Jack, doesn't really do much to single out Stride as doubtful. For all we know Jack may have had a similar tussle with one or more of his other victims and it just wasn't witnessed.

I am trying to ignore that sort of thing and just concentrate on the statistical likelihood or otherwise of two throat cutting murderers being at work at the exact same time and in the very near neighbourhood. To my mind, the extreme likelihood is that both were killed by the same man.

Would Hanbury Street been any more risky in Jack's mind than a location on the street? Assuming that several prostitutes didn't service their respective clients at the same time in that back yard, anyone coming along and catching Jacky crouching over Chapman's body would surely just assume that they were in the course of doing what comes naturally and move on to another spot?

Regards.

Paul

Mags

01-14-2008, 01:41 PM

Hi,Paul

On Hanbury St, if someone looked out one of the many windows or came into the yard, Jack was literally fenced in. Jack would have to be nimble indeed to escape then.

Statistically, I think you're absoultely right, though. Sometimes we get so frustrated with the case that we start thinking too far outside the box.

Paul Butler

01-15-2008, 07:34 AM

Hi Mags.

Yes. Thinking a bit too far outside of the box certainly does start to cloud the issue sometimes when a simple and obvious explanation based on pure common sense seems to be the best way to go.

It just seems obvious to me, as it did to the 1880s police, that Stride was killed by the same man as Eddowes, and IMHO that man was Jack.

I do like these nitty gritty back to basics topics though, and find them very interesting.

As far as Hanbury Street goes, I was just wondering if in Jack's mind he would have felt more at risk in a hemmed in situation like the back yard of No. 29 or Dutfield's Yard, or out in the open street where anyone could have appeared round a corner or seen him at work from an upstairs window.

Maybe his experience at No. 29 made him extra cautious about not having an escape route, hence the aborted attempt at Dutfield's Yard?

I do wonder just how hemmed in Jack was at No.29. I know we are told that there was no rear access, and yet there is a cellar entrance there. These properties weren't always slums, once being nice merchants houses, and I have a problem with the idea that stuff had to be carted through the house in order to be taken down there. Presumably there would have been a coal shute at the front, or was there? Why a cellar entrance in a back yard with no rear access?

Have you seen that famous old clip of James Mason walking around the back yard shortly before the place was pulled down? There's a tantalising glimpse of what looks a bit like a gate at the rear! Even if there wasn't, all Jack needed was a handy packing crate or something similar lying about, and he'd have been over the fence into next door like a flash.

Perhaps its me starting to get too far out of the box now!

regards.

Paul

Mags

01-15-2008, 03:52 PM

I loved that James Mason thing. The old place certainly hadn't changed much.

I subscribe to the idea that the women led Jack to the murder sites rather than the other way around, so maybe he wan't all that comfortable with Hanbury St but figured, what the hell as long as I'm here....

And yes, I think he was capable of jumping a fence and other fancy moves.

I don't think that Jack tussled with any of the victims. If Stride was a victim, then someone else ( Kidney) was the man who fought with her. Jack was very quiet and fast. If Stride was a victim, I think that she refused to go further down the yard toward the stable, where Jack would have been much safer. I think she balked right inside the gate so he had to dispatch her then. Especially if she had indicated that she was suspicious that he was the WM and she was going to tell.

I agree with you totally that the "back to basics" threads are great.