|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Steve
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 5:30 pm: |       |
Out of curiosity, what evidence compels you folks to feel that the five or so "Ripper Murders" were all committed by just one individual? |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 5:01 pm: | |
Steve writes:
Out of curiosity, what evidence compels you folks to feel that the five or so "Ripper Murders" were all committed by just one individual?<<<
I'll second that. Personally, I'm pretty new to the case, but my analysis is that the whole "canonical 5" concept is completely misleading. To be more accurate, I would classify it this way: There were 6 murders of a similar nature within a short time period, and 3 were "typical" (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes)and 3 were atypical (Tabram, Stride and Kelly)
The 3 typical murders were almost certainly by the same killer. (Within a reasonable doubt). Whereas, the atypical murders are each controversial in their own way.
So, in short, it seems to me that any reasonable analysis of these crimes should begin with this basic stance and work from there. I.e., the question of "who was the Ripper" really translates to "who killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes" and if it turns out he also killed some or all of the others, more the better.
|
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 16
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 3:41 pm: | |
Randy, I tend to agree in part with your analysis and have looked at the crimes in much this way myself. One might also include the Pinchon Street torso and Francis Coles as "atypical" murders in the sequence. However, one also must look at the interconnections.
Granted, Stride is atypical in MO. However, it is highly unlikely that two "throat-slashing" murders of prostitutes on 30 Sept 1888 would be unrelated. Such murders were not very common in Whitechapel at the time. Furthermore, the atypical aspect of Stride's murder (lack of mutilation) is easily explained by the killer being interrupted by Diemschutz's arrival. Therefore, there is virtually no doubt in my mind Stride was killed by the killer of Eddows, and hence also Nichols and Chapman.
Kelly's murder is slightly more problematic in that the venue is entirely different (indoors) and the mutilations far, far more extensive than any other (save the Pinchon torso). However, a bit of logic again provides a very plausible connection. Kelly was the only victim to have her own private room, therefore the killer did not have the opportunity of such a venue with his other victims. Opportunity arose and he took it. Also, while Kelly's mutilations are far more severe than the others, it is true that Eddows' mutilations were also a large step up in severity from those of Chapman and were in some ways similar to Kelly's (e.g, facial disfigurement). I therefore assume (though with not quite the certainty of Stride) Kelly was murdered by Eddows' killer, and thus that of Nichols, Chapman, and Stride.
Tabram I think is a much more difficult question.
Andy
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 06, 2003 - 7:04 pm: | |
I think we need to look at this from a perspective of statistical probability.
If we at first assume that the Ripper did kill the canonical five, then we know that in London there would be two serial killers at work in London at the same time - Jacky and the Pinchon torso killer. This makes sense, and is possible, as these two killers had completely different MOs and signatures.
If we assume that the three mentioned by Randy (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) were killed by one killer, with Tabram, Stride and Kelly being killed by other people, you've got either 3, 4, or 5 seperate killers committing similiarly vicious crimes - almost unprecedented - within three months of each other in roughly the exact same geographic area. The chances of this occurring are mindboggling high.
The MO for each of these killings appears to be the same. Find a prostitute, get her alone, kill her. The signature is also very similiar - throats cut, some kind of mutilation, etc. - which also decreases the probability of multiple killers.
It's an interesting theory, but I think the safer assumption is that the canonical five were more likely than not killed by the same hand.
B |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 7:28 am: | |
Brian,
actually I do agree with your general assessment regarding probabilities, but this is the very reason that I find the concept of the canonical 5 misleading. Namely, I find it very ironic and arbitrary that the first in the series -- Martha Tabram -- should be disincluded, while the other atypical victims are included. And the fact that she was the first is in itself significant. Are we to believe that a few weeks after a particularly unusual and gruesome murder takes place, that suddenly another person decides to go on his killing spree? A spree which I might add bears a striking resemblance to that first murder in many ways.
On the other hand, modern investigators tend to be wary of the possibility of copycat killers. Which suggests, if this possibility is valid, that both Stride's and Kelly's murders could conceivably have been copycat killings. But in the case of Tabram, the scenario which the canonical concept implies, is that all five post-Tabram were in effect a "serial copycat" of a single murder. Possible? Perhaps, but it strikes me as a very bizarre idea.
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 07, 2003 - 8:41 am: | |
And Andy, I also agree with your basic arguments as well. But I would say that, if timing is an argument establishing a connection, then Tabram is perhaps a better candidate than Stride, being that she was first in the sequence, and therefore unprecedented by any "Jack the Ripper" legend which would have influenced a "wannabe" killer's thinking.
And to both of you, it's not so much that my initial post was an argument that there "may have been more than one killer" -- but in fact, the "canonical five" theory indeed suggests just that. My personal opinion is that it's more likely that all 6 were by the same killer, than that any given victim was killed by someone else.
But the cold hard facts, prior to any judgment regarding what is or what isn't plausible, is that there were six in a series of unsolved murders, and half of those six fit neatly into a specific M.O. while the other half have similar M.O.s but with significant differences as well.
And how we deal with the atypical victims would seem to be a key point in solving this case.
|
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 21
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
Randy,
Tabram has been climbing in my ranking of possible victims in the thirteen or so years I've been fiddling with the case. I'm still not ready to call her a probable victim, mainly due to the nature of her wounds being so different from other victims (however, could this be explained as the killer's "first attempt") but she's getting close.
Andy
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 1:31 am: | |
Oh and one more thing about Tabram, and then I'll shut up.
I find it intriguing that when you look at a map of the Whitechapel killings, George's Yard lies roughly in the center, while the "canonical murders" form a rough circle surrounding this point. What that might signify is hard to say (perhaps the killer lived in or near George's Yard?) but it does give one pause.
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:25 am: | |
Andy,
Ever since I've become interested in this subject (which admittedly hasn't been that long, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt), the Tabram issue has bothered me and intrigued me, because her murder was so close to the onset of these crimes. From a purely historical stand-point (as in, a tallying of a series of events which occurred within a certain time-frame) Tabram's murder is most certainly part of the series. It's only when the focus becomes "whodunit" that the issue of excluding this or that victim even enters into the equation. And though I realize this seems to be the primary focus of most Ripperologists, I think such a focus can be limiting at times.
But certainly, "whodunit" is an important question, since without a perpetrator, the crimes would never have occurred in the first place, and we wouldn't be here talking about it. And the related question of which victims were killed by the same hand is certainly important in that context, so I'll address the issue of Tabram's status as a victim.
First of all, the fact that there are significant differences in M.O. does equate to evidence against her inclusion, but whether or not it's strong enough evidence to outweigh the evidence in favor is another question. I might point out here that we do know of cases where the perpetrator has dramatically changed his M.O. through time or circumstances, so a difference in M.O. is not in itself enough to conclusively exclude any victim, unless the differences were very great indeed. (Particularly since we know little to nothing about the psychology of the killer himself by which to make such a determination, and the fact that there were so few victims -- three -- which fit into a strictly defined M.O., that it's hard to even make a generalization on what variations he would be likely to make)
And yes, I agree with your suggestion that the "first attempt" might employ a different M.O. by virtue of the killer likely not having a clear idea what specifically he wants to do with his victims. In fact, the idea of killing women may have been but a vague desire prior to this killing, much less a well-fleshed-out plan of attack. |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 8:37 am: | |
For what it's worth, in the 1940s the writer Elliot O'Donnell interviewed a number of "old timers" from the East End. Oddly, not one of the people he interviewed thought that the murders were the work of one man. |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 27
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
Hi, RJP!
Could you source that interesting piece of Elliot O'Donnell oral history for us?
All the best,
Martin F |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 3:15 pm: | |
i still find the idea that they were a set of unconnected killings one of the most convincing theories of all!
jp |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 9:48 pm: | |
Martin--
"In 1895, when staying in London, I visited Whitechapel and had interesting conversations about the murders with several inhabitants of the district. * * * None of the people with whom I conversed believed the murders were the work of one man only. "Had they been," they told me, "somebody would have given him away."
Haunted Britian (1948)
As you can tell, my memory was a bit faulty about when O'Donnell had spoken to the locals. Cheers, RP |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 31
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
Many thanks, RJP.
All the best,
Martin F |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 7:45 pm: | |
Even more convincing is the idea that there were more than the canonical five victims.
Take the recent serial killer/rapist in Lousiana here in the States. I found this:
The six women were killed several different ways, and there was no forced entry into any of their homes.
Gina Wilson Green was strangled in her home in September 2001; Geralyn Barr DeSoto was stabbed to death in her home in January 2002; Charlotte Murray Pace also was stabbed to death in her home in May 2002; Pam Kinamore was abducted from her home and found with her throat slit in July; Trineisha Dené Colomb was found beaten to death in November near Scott, and Carrie Lynn Yoder was abducted from her home in March and found 10 days later. She had been strangled.
here...http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/062203/new_lee001.shtml
Serial killers don't always kill there victims in the same way. Most of the earlier reports claim 7 victims. Why was this changed?
Valerie
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Valerie,
I can't see any really good reason why one of the gang who attacked Emma Smith could not possibly have gone on to commit the canonical ripper murders. It's speculation either way, because I find it equally possible they were entirely unconnected.
I think there are supposed to be rules about what we should conclude in the absence of evidence pointing to a connection or to no connection. But the application of such rules has not helped solve the mystery, so there may be a case for asking who made up the rules, and why they shouldn't be adapted by others or even torn up and redrafted.
An old mate of mine has a favourite saying: 'Rules is for fools'.
Love,
Caz |
Richard Lawrence
Police Constable
Username: Rl0919
Post Number: 1
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 6:38 pm: | |
I have to agree that fixating on five particular murders and assuming that they are all victims of one hand, and the only victims of that hand, is a bad way to approach the investigation. I evaluate the possible victims with four things in mind:
1) What kind of victim was she?
2) What was the time and place of the murder?
3) How as she killed?
4) Besides murder, what else did the killer do?
If you look at these aspects of each crime, you have a more logical approach to including or excluding victims.
Three of the cases are very closely matched, those being Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. On point one, all three were destitute middle-aged prostitutes living in Whitechapel. On point two, all were murdered late at night in Whitechapel, in public but relatively secluded places, and all within a span of a few months in 1888. On point three, all three had their throats cut in a similar manner On point four, all were mutilated after death, with most of the mutilation focused on the abdominal region and with organs being removed in two of the three cases. After the mutilation, the bodies were left in place. With so much similarity, there is a strong case for believing that these three were killed by the same person, who we can reasonably refer to as "Jack the Ripper."
Other proposed victims of JtR have at least some differences from these three. That doesn't necessarily mean the same person didn't kill all of them. There is no law of nature requiring a killer to be perfectly consistent in his crimes. But the nature of the differences provides some basis for arguing about it rationally.
Tabram - Matches on points 1and 2, but not 3 and 4. She was stabbed repeatedly rather than having her throat cut, and no post-mortem mutilations were inflicted.
Stride - Matches on points 1, 2 and 3, but not 4. She was not mutilated at all.
Kelly - Matches on point 3, and partially on the remaining points. She was not as old, was killed indoors, and was mutilated much more extensively.
McKenzie - Matches on 1 and 3, and partially on 2 and 4. Her murder occurred several months later than the main set, and the post-mortem mutilations were much less extreme.
Coles - A match on 3, and partially on 1 and 2, no match on 4. She was younger and was killed in 1891. She was not mutilated. The only really good match is that her throat was cut.
I tend to think the differences that do exist in the Kelly murder can be explained based on opportunity. JtR happened to meet a prostitute a bit younger than typical for the area, who also had her own room. Thus she was killed indoors, and he had more time to spend on the mutilations. The Tabram murder is another story. Although the "first murder" excuse is plausible, I think the weight of the comparison tends towards excluding her versus including her. McKenzie is a toss-up in my mind, while Coles is probably out.
Stride is a good match on the other points, and there is a clear explanation available for why she was not mutilated. On the other hand, I actually think it is less likely that a killer who almost got caught would immediately go out to commit another murder the same night. So for that reason alone I tend to discount Stride as a victim. But she is clearly a plausible inclusion if you believe the killer was actually so imprudent.
Regarding the torso murders (there was more than one), they have some similarities, but generally speaking not a good match on any of the points. The torso murders are more similar to one another than they are to the definitive Ripper murders, which suggests a different killer.
Notwithstanding my own personal opinions about who should be excluded or included, I think one thing is clear: there are enough differences between the three core murders and the other possible victims that no suspect should be excluded simply because he couldn't have killed one of the victims from the extended set. This bears on such suspects as Tumblety and Druitt, who could not have committed some of the later murders. They are still viable suspects for the three core murders (and maybe more), because it is entirely possible that only those three are by the same hand.
|
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 28
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 1:27 pm: | |
Randy,
Interesting piece of lore, the O'Donnell quote. Yet I find it hard to believe that it is accurate. The newspapers certainly believed the killings (at least most of them) to be by the same hand as did Scotland Yard and other government officials and, apparently, police departments abroad. Would that be the case if all the locals were convinced they were not by the same hand? Also, can anyone name one serial killer that was turned in by friends or relatives? The likes of Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer were all apprehended due to invstigations of missing persons (victims) or by would-be victims who escaped. The closest I can come is Ted Kazinsky (the Unibomber) who was turned in by his brother, I believe.
BTW -- When I say I have been fiddling with the case for 13 years, I mean very intermittently so. I really don't consider myself to be a died in the wool expert.
Richard,
Excellent summary. I have followed the same logic over the years.
Andy
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 6:04 am: | |
Richard lawrence:
"The Tabram murder is another story. Although the 'first murder' excuse is plausible, I think the weight of the comparison tends towards excluding her versus including her. McKenzie is a toss-up in my mind, while Coles is probably out."
I like your post overall, but I find the term "excuse" in the above rather misleading. (Suggesting that any "excuse" is even necessary to explain a deviance from a behavior pattern, when one considers that serial killers are not robots and thus are not incapable of employing different methods, or acting in a different manner in different situations). In short, I think there is a tendency to focus a little too much on M.O.'s as the be-all end-all of the comparison, particularly in light of the fact that serial killers have been known to vary their methods.
On a similar note, your statement that "the weight of the comparison tends towards excluding" would seem to be accurate enough, but let's not forget that there might be some issue regarding how much weight we should be placing on such a comparison as a primary criterion in the first place. I.e., there may be other criteria which may also have at least equal bearing, which might add a good deal of weight to an otherwise inconclusive comparison of M.O.'s. Namely, in the case of Tabram, her being the first in a series of similar murders is enough to add substantial weight to her being a victim of the Ripper.
As for the actual comparison, you list 4 criteria, and say "Tabram - Matches on points 1and 2, but not 3 and 4."
The problem with that is that "matches" are not a yes or no question, but rather there's a sliding scale between no match and a close match. -- And which a good case could be made that Tabram falls somewhere in the middle of the scale for both 3 and 4.
3. How was she killed? Apparently with a knife, like the other victims, although some have concluded that in her case, as well as with some others, that garroting may have been the preliminary method of attack. She was also killed while laying on her back in position suggesting recent intercourse, also like some of the other victims.
4. Besides the murder, what else did the killer do? He spent an inordinate amount of effort abusing her dead body with a knife. 39 stab wounds were after all not necessary to kill her. The question here is how different is this from mutilation? Ok, it's certainly not the same thing as disemboweling, but the general focus of the stab wounds were in the same general area of her body.
5. is my own criterion, which is how she was found, lying on her back in a pool of blood, her skirt raised as if intercourse had recently taken place, and from the point of view of those who discovered her, the effect was very similar indeed.
Having said all this, I won't state categorically that Tabram was a victim of the Ripper, but all things considered, it's easier for me to believe that she was a victim (of the same hand) than that she wasn't. (On the other hand, if indeed she wasn't, it would just be another odd coincidence in a very strange case.)
P.S., Andrew, it wasn't me who introduced the O'Donnell quote. I believe that was R.J. Palmer.
|
Andrew Spallek
Sergeant
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 42
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 12:44 pm: | |
My mistake, Randy. 
Andy
|
James Eric Carter
Police Constable
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 8
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 12:08 am: | |
The "canonical five" were all mor or less killed in the same manner. And with the exception of Liz Stride there were more mutilations done to each of the victims.
Martha Tabram was stabed 39 times, none of the canonical victims were "stabed" they were "slashed" or cut.
I think the main thing to look at though is the fact that the canonical victims had their throats slashed which Tabram did not. Tabram I believe was just a victim of the random violence common to the east end.
Eric |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 191
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Eric,
So you're suggesting that Jack was just a natural born killer?
Didnt develop or learn as he went along ? or even alter to avoid detection ?
Monty
 |
James Eric Carter
Police Constable
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 8:01 pm: | |
Monty,
As we see today a general rule is that the serial killer will develope as they kill getting more bold as they go. Also, they need a bigger thrill and thus the escalation with the kills.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, or I was unclear in the post. Even though Tabram's murder was violent the over all M.O. was different in that her troat was not cut nor were there any mutilations to her. There were no signs of strangulation that was present on most of the "canonical" victims.
I'm sure he developed as he went, we can see that in the way there was more done to each victim. I don't really think he woke up one day and said "hmmm! Think I'll start a murder spree today." I'm also sure that if you could get the arrest records for the five years before there were some failed attacks that involved stangulaton or random attacks on prostitutes and you might have a good suspect for Jack.
Eric |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 194
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
Eric,
I agree. Im sure he is/was in some areas police records also.
I also feel there were failed attacks during that Autumn.
I just cant see how you can rule out a victim because the MO is slightly different compared to the canonical 5. The East end wasnt (and still isnt) that violent in terms of deaths. Murder was rare. So I would get a little suspicious when 3 women ended up dead within weeks of each other....even if the MO matches or not.
Just my views,
Take care,
Monty
|
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 11
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Monty,
On a further note as to police records, I'd like to see the arrest records for the five years before the murders and the records for arrests right around the time of Mary Kelly's murder.
And yes I can see how it looks suspicious that three women were killed within a few weeks but with Emma Smith I don't think her attackers ment for her to die or she would not have walked away. And it is very well possible that Tabram was Jack's first. The only thing I find hard to buy is that while both attacks were done with a knife, Tabram was stabbed to death if she was Jack's then it would seem that he would have contined along that path since it worked and he got away clean. To change methods totally as he then would have to have done, ie. strangle, throat cut, mutilations seems to be a little much. Generally these guys stick to what brought them to the dance as it were, and its rare for them to change much of anything between kills.
I could of course be wrong too.
Later,
Eric |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
