"How Many Victims" survey

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

"How Many Victims" survey

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: "How Many Victims" survey

Author: Steve Haddon Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 09:43 pm
Hi everyone, I'd like to say hello. I've been studying JtR intensively for...um...a week, although I did watch the 73 BBC film a while ago and recently saw a documentary on the Tumblety theory. First of all my complements to the chefs; the Casebook is an excellent site, especially for people like me who are too lazy/cheap to read all the books for themselves. The question I'm interested in primarily is which victims can be ascribed to Jack. As far as I've ascertained, everyone seems to agree that Nichols and Chapman can, and nearly everybody Eddowes. I'd be interested (if it hasn't been done before) in trying to find out what support there is for the other possible victims. At the moment, my list is: Nichols Chapman Eddowes Kelly My initial thinking rejects Stride because a) There is some suggestion that the method of killing is inconsistent with the other victims b) Jack would have to appear "normal" 45 minutes after an interrupted kill in order to get the trust of Eddowes ...but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, also for the case of Tabram etc. Steve
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 11:47 pm
Steve, Your best bet, IMHO, is to be a "Whitechapel Five-O," e.g., to accept the canonical five victims. What's good enough for Melville McNaghten, who was on top of everything, is good enough for me. Always be willing to entertain Tabram as well, provided you can make an argument for why her mutilations differed from the others. (Lots of such arguments could be made.) Discount the rest for two reasons. (1) Difference in M.O., and (2) Something made the murderer stop after Kelly, which probably would have also prevented him from killing much later. David
Author: Diana Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 06:39 pm
If you feel ambitious enough you might want to read about Andre Chikatilo, a Russian serial killer who was in many ways like Jack. Chikatilo's career illustrates that method of killing can vary and does evolve and change. After reading about Chikatilo I had to open my mind to the possibility that some of the less typical killings might have to be ascribed to JTR after all.
Author: Davidoz Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 06:57 pm
Steve, As you will discover, I'm always out of step with these out-moded theories...perhaps knowing MacNaghton for other reasons best left to Joseph to explain. I plum for 10 'canonicals'.
Author: Steve Haddon Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 07:19 pm
David, I'm still uncertain about Stride, although one could argue "what are the chances of two murders in a night". But you can play "what are the chances" with the other murders as well, and ask why 1888 in particular should be such a big year for attacks and killings in Whitechapel. Never having been a serial killer, or a profiler, I can't say anything with certainty, but are MO's always adhered to? Is there never any room for experimentation? If Jack is a silent, insane killer then perhaps he did only kill four, five people. But if he is intelligent and manipulative enough to taunt the police (with graffiti, maybe a letter, false clues perhaps) then he perhaps has the imagination to vary his method, maybe to help elude detection, maybe just to confuse the issue. In my opinion, the more victims we can ascribe to him with certainty, the better idea we have of who he is, where he is and why he is doing it. Maybe he was smart enough to know that confusing that issue would be to his advantage. Steve
Author: Davidoz Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 07:38 pm
Steve, Its a FACT that killers come in all shapes 'n sizes. 'Profiling' is another name for Guess Who? Some 'intentions are obvious from the start of a series of crimes, other become apparent during the course of the investigation...except where the killer is of a particular cunning character. Any the wiser?
Author: Shawn W. Marmash Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 07:50 am
It's interesting that when it comes to a tally of the Whitechapel murderers victims, very few consider the possibility that he had killed outside of London or the UK. I don't doubt that "Saucy Jack" probably came from or was familiar to the East End. But if you look at Nichols murder, it was done quickly and with little or no struggle. It would appear that his technique was already familiar to him, this suggests practice. Does anyone know of research into similiar murders in other countries prior to Nichols?
Author: Jon Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 08:29 pm
That angle has been looked at several times, the problem is, too many countries to look at and the records are too sparse. As far as I know no-one has checked all the press archives in all the English speaking countries around the world, never mind the foreign ones. Regards, Jon
Author: Shawn W. Marmash Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 05:04 am
I was told by an aquaintence that there was a series of identical murders of prostitutes in South America. What caught my attention was that she mentioned the name of Tumbelty in connection with these. I have asked her to find the book she read of this in, as I am curious to see if there is any substance to this claim. Or is it yet another author making facts fit theories? Presuming her information to be correct, it would possibly give some credence to the idea that "Jack" was a traveling man. If anyone has heard anything on the aledged SA murders please let me know. And I will post more info when I have read the book that was mentioned to me.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 03:40 pm
Hello Shawn: The book that your friend was referring to I believe is the one by Stewart P. Evans and Paul Gainey, The Lodger, republished as Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, which names an Irish American quack doctor, Dr. Francis Tumblety, as a strong suspect in the Whitechapel murders. Here is a quote from the interview with Mr. Evans in the "Interviews" section on this site: "There were a series of prostitute murders, undetected, in Kingston, Jamaica in late December 1888 and in Managua, Nicaragua, in early 1889. These murders were so similar, involving both facial and bodily mutilation, to the London killings that the contemporary newspapers gave details of them speculating that the London Ripper was responsible. This appeared in American newspapers and in the London Times, and it was alleged that Scotland Yard contacted the Nicaraguan police for details, feeling that their quarry was then in that country. Dr Tumblety, as stated in his books, visited both the Caribbean and Central America, and he was on the run at the same time of these other murders." I hope this information is helpful to you. Best regards Chris George
Author: Jon Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 07:19 pm
Chris Do you recall someone posting on this site (2 yrs back?) about the murders in Nicaragua?.....something to the effect that there was no sign of strangulation, no apparent deliberate singular throat slash, no attempt to open up the womb? They were just described as simple random knife slashings. How then were they 'so similar'? Does anyone have a description of the wounds?
Author: Elizabeth Anne Ritter Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 08:57 pm
Steve, Hi I have to agree on eliminating Stride as a victim of the Ripper. As a witness stated he saw a man attacking Stride shortly before her death; and that there were two other men with him. I feel that Stride may have had a lovers fight with the man that attacked her and then he came back and finished the job later. I do believe that Eddows,Chapman,Kelly and Nichols were all killed by the same man.
Author: Neil K. MacMillan Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:27 pm
I lean toward six victims although if I found other that were killed in a similar manner I would revise my opinion. I still keep Stride with a bit of reservation but only because i have yet to read all the evidence that would eliminate her. (Not disputing the theory mind you.) My victims list is as follows. Martha Tabram- If Saucy Jack didn't start murdering until 1888, I believe Tabram was his first victim accounting for the somewhat different modus operandi. Mary Anne Nichols- The generally accepted first. Anne Chapman Elizabeth"Long Liz" Stride- I think that JtR was interrupted hence the lack of mutilation. (See Above) Catherine Eddowes Mary Jane "Marie-Jeanette" Kelly- The brutality evinced here very possibly would have happened with some of the others had there been access to a room as with Kelly. My chief suspect is Tumblety although in the novel I'm working on I up the body count and created a suspect. a rather interesting thought. Old Francis Tumblety is buried approximately seventy miles from where I sit in Holy Sepulcher cemetery in Rochester New York (I'm in Syracuse New York. The bloody old quack did quite well for himself. Have a good night all Neil
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Friday, 18 January 2002 - 03:49 pm
Hi dudes, spacemonkies other places, I've truely opened my eyes about these victims. I know I'm a bit of a joker else where on these pages but here is my theory (revised from other stupid theories I've put forth). I believe that only two of the killings could have been Jack, all other murders were those so called tree's hidden in a forest. Any other murder linking to this series of murders is only By the by, so to speak. it's time to wake up to ourselves here and admit multiple-murderer's copying each other. Christ, we don't even know that Mary Jane Kelly's body was certainly hers even. Let us wake up to ourselves here. All murders of prostitutes at the time were either street gangs, disgruntled customers, Jewish psychopaths or truely ratted off relatives. I think my above statement(s) are far more believeable about how many victims there may have been, or even the identity of our killer. Has anyone woken up to this theory yet ? Tris
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 11:09 am
In the Ripper mystery Dorset Street is noted as being the wickedest, most lawless street in W/chapel or the Eastend. When Eddowes was murdered it was noticed that after the killing the Ripper was surely heading for Dorset St. I think he was based there,-- the wickedest street for the wickedest man, it makes sense to me,it was also called, "do as you please street", the Ripper would surely know the reputation Dorset St had with Policemen,--they wouldn't go in there alone, and he would be pretty safe in there. We are led to believe that biggest part of inhabitants of Dorset St were crooks, thieves and footpads of some sort, and all women were prostitutes. But were they? McCarthy and his fellow landlords, and Dosshouse keepers had to walk the streets to take their money to the bank. Or did they keep it at home, in a safe, did they suffer from burgleries and robberies? McCarthy was described as a gentlemanly looking man, but what was his history?, apart from making money, what made him live, and make his wife and children live in the most evil and sordid street in the Eastend. Did he own Millers Court until its demolition in 1926? Barnett was also a gentlemanly looking man, living in that street, and walking around like a "toff", how is it he didn't get "ROLLED", unless, everyone knew everyone in that street, and they knew Barnett wasn't worth "ROLLING", but then again, before he lost his job, Barnett was picking up a good wage! Is it ridiculous to wonder, could McCarthy have been JtR,--or at least have killed Mary Kelly?. Some posters think Jack was of the gentleman class, well McCarthy was to a degree. He had a good base in Dorset Street, with all conveniences to hand, and he was right on the doorstep for Kelly. Maybe he was infatuated with Mary, perhaps he tried to win favour with her by not demanding the rent strictly on time, it seems to me VERY unusual for a landlord to do that in those times, unless it was to receive something in return. Maybe he killed her after trying something on, and being rebuffed?
Author: angela h Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 07:07 pm
Tristan, you said: "I believe that only two of the killings could have been Jack, all other murders were those so called tree's hidden in a forest." Which two? For a while, I was convinced that of The Five, Nichols and Chapman were killed by the original "Ripper", someone else tagged Stride and Eddowes (two in one night because he needed to make it look like a Ripper killing and he was interrupted before he could do that with Stride), and a third person took Kelly. I had a scenario to go along with that line of thinking, but it all fell apart when I started double checking... However, the murders of Stride and Eddowes bother me, they just don't seem to fit with the first two.
Author: Matthew Richard Michael Monday, 25 March 2002 - 04:30 pm
Having just finished "The Mammoth Book of JTR", I was particularly intrigued by Peter Turnbull's theory that the murders were the work of several different killers. I disagree with some of his conclusions (I think he misinterprets some of the medical evidence e.g. the nature of Eddowes' throat injuries). However, it's certainly food for thought. For what it's worth, I think that there were certainly three Ripper victims (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes - the similarities in m.o. in these three cases easily outweighs the differences). I'm also reasonably convinced that Kelly was a Ripper victim - her extensive mutilations fit with the pattern of increasing frenzy demonstrated from Nichols to Chapman to Eddowes, and most of the differences in method could be attributed to the nature of the crime scene. However, I've never been convinced that Stride was a Ripper crime. I find it inconceivable that a killer who was scared away from Nichols' corpse, and who went to great pains to avoid detection (staying off the streets following the increased police presence after the "double event") would go on to kill and eviscerate Eddowes only minutes after he was disturbed whilst murdering Stride. Surely he would have fled home immediately. At the end of the day, if the Ripper did kill Stride and was not disturbed, he would have disembowelled her as he did the previous victims. If he was disturbed (and, by implication, almost caught) I don't believe he would have gone on to perform his most gruesome murder yet, and then lingered in Whitechapel writing chalk messages and dropping bits of bloody apron fully knowing that the police were already swarming about the place. It doesn't ring true with his behaviour before or after, and so I'm inclined to say Stride was murdered either by one of Turnbull's copycats who lost his nerve, or by someone known to her who believed he could pass the killing off as another Ripper crime. Matt
Author: david rhea Monday, 25 March 2002 - 07:40 pm
Dear WP; I hope you get an answer about the McCarthy property.I asked the same question and got no reply.There is also a will according to someone-Neal Shelden I think.I wanted to know if any of that property was left to his heirs, and how much property he owned there or elsewhere. If I remember correctly Kelly had rented from him before in another location.To me its interesting that she asked Hutchenson for a loan but no word about Fleming the man she had been with and wanted to go back to. Is there any information on Fleming?Hutchenson had no money to lend her, but he could spy on her for 30 minutes. There is something screwy about him, but the police didn't think so. They surely knew more than I do, but he's still rather odd.Hope you get some answers. David
Author: graziano Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 12:25 am
David, once I met a prostitute (in the street). She was very beautiful and I was very young and hot. I asked her "How much ?" She answered me she was not free at the moment (she was waiting for another guy). But she added "Just wait till I've finished". She was so gorgeous that I did it. When the guy came, they went inside and I waited outside for more than half an hour. Of course at this point you may put the back of your hand over your mouth and shout "Oh, how disgusting!" Yes, OK, maybe... But what's "screwy" with all that ? Bye. Graziano.
Author: Jack Traisson Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 02:28 am
Hi All Nothing screwy at all about that, Graz; but how good of a description could you give us of this man! I just wrote an article entitled "Hutchinson's Wait" that explores the possible reasons he waited for so long. There's more than you think. David, McCarthy is involved in some research I have been doing. McCarthy died in 1934, leaving an estate worth £15667 13s 9d. The north side of Duval Street (changed from Dorset Street in 1904), including Miller's Court was demolished in 1928 as part of the Spitalfield Market expansion, which was approved in 1920. By the time of Kitty Ronan's murder at 20 Miller's Court in 1909, he was still the landlord. I am still digging but it is possible he kept his Duval Street holdings until the destruction. If he kept it until 1920, it's ownership, plus other street property would have been valuable. Judging by the estate he left, McCarthy was no fool. By 1890, his brother, Daniel McCarthy bought a shop in Dorset Street. Later John McCarthy increased his assets by acquiring the Common Lodging House at No. 30, Dorset Street. As for the question of Kelly renting from McCarthy at a previous location, you would have to contact Neal Shelden, as my research has been post-1888. Hope some of this helps you out, David. As to Dorset Street's reputation: Due to Booth's survey (and its bias), and remarks by people like Samuel Barnett, the street appears to be worse than it actually is (although reactions to Barnett's comments by Arnold and Monro are very interesting in 'The Ultimate Sourcebook'). It was just one of many bad streets in Whitechapel and Spitalfields. There was general hostility toward the police, but no more so in Dorset than any other street. It is a myth that the police would only patrol it in pairs. Cheers, John
Author: graziano Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 02:51 am
I'm sorry Jack-John (or is it John-Jack ?), but the point about "Hutchinson's wait" was one of my first interests on these boards and I developed about it quite a lot. So, before saying "there is more than you think", try to know what I think. S***, man! (Don't get angry, I am only kidding). Where is your article ? Bye. Graziano. P.S.: As for your very interesting points about the property of Mc Carthy, it only confirms what I allways thought about him: he was a very powerful pimp earning a lot of money from his girls. Miller's Court was a "professional" site. Joe Barnett was not such an "innocent" man. And if Mary Kelly or whoever was killed inside Miller's Court, this was intended as an "advice" for Mc Carthy, who probably knew all what there was to know about everything concerning the underworld in Whitechapel and surroundings.
Author: Jack Traisson Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 04:48 am
Hi Graz, No worries. I rarely take comments personally. "There is more than you think" is a poorly worded sentence. "There is more to it than people think" would have been better. I did not mean to aim it at you. My mistake. My article isn't out yet. If you subcribe to the magazines you'll see it soon, under my real name. I have an article coming out in July called 'Mary Kelly's Rent' that you may also find fascinating. I discuss the reasons why McCarthy would have allowed Mary and Joe to get so far behind on their rent. Okay, I've done enough plugging for today. John is my middle name by the way, but I'll answer to anything though. Cheers, John
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 06:15 am
Hi David, thanks for your inquiry, your post got us both an answer,--- in my case it's taken since January. Thanks again. All the Best, Rick.
Author: Jack Traisson Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 03:34 pm
Sorry, I didn't notice your earlier posts, Rick, or I would have answered sooner. Unfortunately, I do not follow the boards every day. Glad some of the information helped. Cheers, John
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 26 March 2002 - 05:13 pm
Thats okay John, you did an excellent job when you did answer, thank you very much. All the Best, Rick.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 01:09 pm
The number of victims really cannot be known. Sir Melville's memorandum was profoundly in error about the suspects. However, for some reason, his analysis of the number of victims has been accepted. Indeed, there is only modus operandi proof in three cases (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes). A telling point is that Stride is generally accepted as a Ripper victim while Frances Coles is not - despite their injuries being the most similiar to any others in the series. Rich
Author: graziano Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 04:30 am
The analysis of the number of victims by MacNaghten was not "his" analysis. It came directly from Doctor's Bond report after the murder of Mary Kelly. It has never been "generally" accepted. In fact it was discarded by the same Doctor Bond at the time of the McKenzie murder. Frances Coles was beaten on the head, or maybe her head struck the pavement when falling. Her feet were crossing one another. Stride's body had all appearances of having been quietly deposited on the ground. This seems to me to make a huge difference. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 05:30 am
Dear Graziano, Nobody- except Jack- knew the exact count.Thats for sure. Rosey :-)
Author: Neil K. MacMillan Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 08:55 pm
What are the chances that if he did not have an accomplice (I don't think he did) that someone knew about his "Little games" (His words: Supposedly, not mine.) Perhaps there were witnesses to it that did know but were afraid to speak at the time. Neil

Add a Message