Discussion : Did Jack The Ripper Ever Even Exist ?

[Howard Brown]

......or Did The Whitechapel Murderer ever even exist ?
The inference being that there was not a serial killer at work in the East End beginning in the Fall of 1888.
No two women, therefore, being killed by the same hand.

Inspired by a remark made by Rob House on another thread in this section.

[Lynn Cates]

definition

Hello Howard. Good idea for a thread.

I think a serial killer requires three kills? At least, that is the definition I have been given.

Cheers.
LC

[Howard Brown]

Two Won't Do

LC:

Yes, it does require three...and the thread was set up because of a remark Rob House made.

[Lynn Cates]

alike

Hello Howard. Thanks.

Very well, I suppose step one is to show two alike?

I must sound like a broken record but I cannot shake how Polly and Annie were killed in similar fashion. The clincher seems to be that both had twin cuts to the neck. I don't think much was made of this in the papers, so my best conjecture is that this was NOT attributable to a reader of papers who saw fit to emulate.

Also, one could make heavy weather out of the depth of the neck cuts and their width. Depth: the bones were notched. Width: 2 inches. (As you recall, the cuts were 1 inch and 1/2 inch apart on the two victims. Looks like someone who operates habitually in killing that way.)

So far, so good?

Cheers.
LC

[Howard Brown]

You have the floor, Chairman Cates....

[admin tim]

Well, there IS only circumstantial evidence after all. Modern trial lawyers would argue that there was no such person.

Of course, according to these same trial lawyers, no one killed Nicole Simpson.

[Lynn Cates]

step two

Hello Howard. Thanks.

The problems with both Liz and “MJK” are so well known that I do not feel obliged to repeat

them here.

Hence, on to Kate.

Although I enumerated the differences in my “New independent Review” essay, “Possibly the Work of an Imitator” I can briefly recap here.

1. Polly and Annie had their skirts lifted for mutilation; Kate’s clothing was cut through. (Note that, Kate, had three petticoats on, but Polly had two. In fact, if I were the knifesman, I would rather NOT cut through the extra material.

2. Polly and Annie, two distinct cuts to the neck; Kate, not.

3. Polly and Annie, knife in and DOWN; Kate knife in and down followed by in and UP.

4. Polly and Annie, facial bruising; Kate, not.

5. Polly and Annie, lacerated tongue, protruding tongue; Kate, no.

6. Polly and Annie, mutilation described as skilful; Kate’s, unskillful.

7. Polly readied for disembowelment, Annie disemboweled, no intestinal breakage; Kate, severed intestine.
(It is well here to quote from a letter by R. Hull [former butcher] dated 8 October, 1888, “The only fear of making a mess would be the breaking [of] a gut or intestine and that would not be done by one knowing his business.” From Don Rumbelow, “The Complete Jack the Ripper” p. 171.)

8. Polly and Annie clearly soliciting (by statement); Kate, just released from gaol.

Now, I recognise the standard retorts here, “Go look at other serial killers, like Kurten.”

But was there such divergence after such convergence? The difference from Annie to Kate do not impress me nearly as much as the similarities in Polly and Annie.

But if Kate is removed, then two killings, hence no serial killer.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Howard. Thanks.

Very well, I suppose step one is to show two alike?

I must sound like a broken record but I cannot shake how Polly and Annie were killed in similar fashion. The clincher seems to be that both had twin cuts to the neck. I don't think much was made of this in the papers, so my best conjecture is that this was NOT attributable to a reader of papers who saw fit to emulate.

Also, one could make heavy weather out of the depth of the neck cuts and their width. Depth: the bones were notched. Width: 2 inches. (As you recall, the cuts were 1 inch and 1/2 inch apart on the two victims. Looks like someone who operates habitually in killing that way.)

So far, so good?

Cheers.
LC

My money is on someone who knew excatly how to kill using a knife in that way for example a soldier I dont go with the butcher theory which in my opinion has been used to prop up certain likely suspects.

The killer plunged the knife deep into the centre of the victims throat from behind and then forcibly drew the knife across to the point of almost decapitation as is known.

An attack of the victims from the front would cause the killer problems with the victims likely screaming and the killer trying to the render the victims helpless enough to be able to cut the throat from behind. The victims neck wounds clearly corroborate this.

The killer would not be able to cut the throat of a victim from the side whilst the victim was still alive and struggling and laying on their back.

So in order to make it easier for the killer and because it would seem that the killer had gone to these locations with the victims for sexual purposes. I would imagine that the victim thinking that sex was imminent would turn their back on the killer hitch up their skirt facing a wall or a fence leaning forward with their hands or hand on the wall or fence, thereby making it easier for the killer to approach with the knife from behind and catch the victim off guard.

So with that in mind Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes. fit that criteria !

One shouldnt also forget that the cutting of the all of victims throat is not sinonymous to these crimes. In Victorian Times cutting a persons throat was the main accepted method of despatching people to the afterlife and had been so for almost a century before that.

Unlike today when more people die from stab wounds than throat cuts in knife related incidents.

Just my opinion but I am sure there are those who will disagree as a matter of course simply because its me, and god forbid that in the eyes of some posters that I was ever right about anyhting to do with Ripperology !

I also think it is wrong to keep comparing more modern day serial killers with this victorian serial kiiler. In 1888 there was almost no such persons as serial killers so any would be serial kiiler like Jack would be somewhat unique by forming his own individual MO and not being in a position to copy MO`s of any other serial killers. So although we can say his MO in 1888 now perahps fits the MO of more modern day serial killers, it is in fact those that have copied the MO`s of past serial killers.

[Howard Brown]

Just my opinion but I am sure there are those who will disagree as a matter of course simply because its me, and god forbid that in the eyes of some posters that I was ever right about anything to do with Ripperology !

Not so...
I agree, at this point in time, that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were victims of the same hand.



I also think it is wrong to keep comparing more modern day serial killers with this victorian serial kiiler. In 1888 there was almost no such persons as serial killers so any would be serial kiiler like Jack would be somewhat unique by forming his own individual MO and not being in a position to copy MO`s of any other serial killers. So although we can say his MO in 1888 now perahps fits the MO of more modern day serial killers, it is in fact those that have copied the MO`s of past serial killers.

Trev... This seems to be a contradiction. Bear with me.

If, as you say, modern day serial killers have copied the modus operandi of past serial killers then how could it be wrong to compare modern day serial killers with the Victorian serial killer ?
Each killer, like each person, is different in his or her unique way....but, likewise, there are similarities between past and modern that are often quite similar.
What is significant & unique, in my mind, Trevor, about the Ripper...is where the victims were found (location) in 1888/1889 and how they were found murdered ( supine, legs open, genitalia exposed)....and so far, without a definable motive, that's all we have. I understand your issues with profiling, but there are elements in this art, not science, which are instructive

[Trevor Marriott]

Just my opinion but I am sure there are those who will disagree as a matter of course simply because its me, and god forbid that in the eyes of some posters that I was ever right about anything to do with Ripperology !

Not so...
I agree, at this point in time, that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were victims of the same hand.



I also think it is wrong to keep comparing more modern day serial killers with this victorian serial kiiler. In 1888 there was almost no such persons as serial killers so any would be serial kiiler like Jack would be somewhat unique by forming his own individual MO and not being in a position to copy MO`s of any other serial killers. So although we can say his MO in 1888 now perahps fits the MO of more modern day serial killers, it is in fact those that have copied the MO`s of past serial killers.

Trev... This seems to be a contradiction. Bear with me.

If, as you say, modern day serial killers have copied the modus operandi of past serial killers then how could it be wrong to compare modern day serial killers with the Victorian serial killer ?
Each killer, like each person, is different in his or her unique way....but, likewise, there are similarities between past and modern that are often quite similar.
What is significant & unique, in my mind, Trevor, about the Ripper...is where the victims were found (location) in 1888/1889 and how they were found murdered ( supine, legs open, genitalia exposed)....and so far, without a definable motive, that's all we have. I understand your issues with profiling, but there are elements in this art, not science, which are instructive

Mu apologies it is late what I was trying to say was in effect that we should not compare "Jack"s mo with that of modern day serial killers because Jacks Mo was unique to him way back in 1888 .He could not copy anyones previous MO, whereas many modern day serial killers have copied some of those killers MO who have gone before. Hope that now make sense. I know what I meant ! lol

As to the locations well they were somewhat different Nicholls in the street, Chapman back yard, Eddowes seculded quiet square. But all places where street prostitutes would have no hesitation in doing their business if it were quiet. So nothing unusual about them. The kiiler was targeting prostitutes.

I dont think the killer positioned the bodies as some suggest he simply murdered them and then lifted up the skirts to look at his work and to view the genitalia and in the case of Chapman and Eddowes continued his frenzied attack, Nicholls he may well have been disturbed,

[Howard Brown]

My apologies it is late what I was trying to say was in effect that we should not compare "Jack"s mo with that of modern day serial killers because Jacks Mo was unique to him way back in 1888
Understoodand in my opinion, no question that you are correct.

.He could not copy anyones previous MO, whereas many modern day serial killers have copied some of those killers MO who have gone before. Hope that now make sense. I know what I meant ! lol

I wonder whether that's really applicable,Trevor, whether one serial killer copies another's m.o. intentionally....because to copy implies an intent to mimic or recreate from an original.
Be similar to, yes...to copy, not sure about that.

[Lynn Cates]

New one on me.

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"The killer plunged the knife deep into the centre of the victims throat from behind and then forcibly drew the knife across"

Indeed? Haven't heard that one before.

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

open legs

Hello Howard. Would not legs need to be open for, say, genital mutilation or uterus removal to occur?

Cheers.
LC

[Lynn Cates]

fresh out of gaol

Hello Trevor. Do you honestly believe that a woman, fresh out of gaol, would solicit?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

My apologies it is late what I was trying to say was in effect that we should not compare "Jack"s mo with that of modern day serial killers because Jacks Mo was unique to him way back in 1888
Understoodand in my opinion, no question that you are correct.

.He could not copy anyones previous MO, whereas many modern day serial killers have copied some of those killers MO who have gone before. Hope that now make sense. I know what I meant ! lol

I wonder whether that's really applicable,Trevor, whether one serial killer copies another's m.o. intentionally....because to copy implies an intent to mimic or recreate from an original.
Be similar to, yes...to copy, not sure about that.

Of course they do when selecting victims in the first instance, then when deciding on the method of murder, and then the method of disposing of the body, If you are contemplating a murder for the first time would you not pre plan it perhaps and with that you would surely think and perhaps look up and read how other serial killers in the past had done it and look at how they got caught and try not to do the same.

Very few killers will pick up a protsitute and then have the sudden urge to kill them. I am not saying sometimes circumstances dont effect that but as a rule they dont.

Sadly throughout the ages prostitutes are from a vulnerable group in our society and as such are easy prey to killers.

There are several serial killers who have referred to Jack The Ripper when caught so clearly in many way they copy and try to emulate in some cases.

Peter Sutcliffe The Yorkshire Ripper, changed his MO on a number of occassion to incorporate stabbing his victims in the stomach and abdomens.