|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 08 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
How Many Victims?:
Archive through 08 November 2002
Author: dclydew
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 12:33 pm |        | Alright, here's a query. This article was in the sept 1 British Daily Whig:
NEW YORK, Sept. 1.--The Time's London says a strangely horrible murder took place at White Chapel [sic] yesterday morning. The
victim was woman, who, as 3 o'clock, wa knocked down by some man, unknown, and attacked with a knife. She attempted to get up, and
ran a hundred yards, her cries for help being heard by several persons in the adjacent houses. No attention was paid to her cries, however,
and when found at daybreak she was lying dead in another street, several hundred yards from the scene of the attack. Her head was nearly
severed from her body, which was literally cut to pieces, one gash reaching from pelvis to the breast bone. This is the third murder of the
kind which has been done lately. In the last one, two weeks ago, the victim was stabbed thirty nine times. In the case before, some months
ago, the victim was stabbed with a stick, which was forced through the body. All three victims have been women of the lowest class. All
three murders have taken place in the same district, at about the same hour, and have been characterized by the sameinhuman and ghoulish
brutality. The police have concluded that the same man did all three murders, and that the most dangerous kind of lunatic is at large. The
excitement is intense over the matter
If this was Sept 1 then that means that its covering our first c. vicitm, Mary Ann. This would indicate that the police (or at least this journalist) was already leaning towards a serial killer, BEFORE four of the c. victims died.
Quite odd. |
Author: anon
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 01:02 pm | | A pretty inaccurate and sensational report of the Nichols murder.
However, it is not odd that the press were 'leaning towards' a serial killer(s) at this time, all the papers did. As is evident in the above report, the murder was being linked with the 3 April 1888 murder of Emma Smith in Osborn Street, and the 7 August 1888 murder of Martha Tabram in George Yard. Thus it was the third in a series of Whitechapel murders. |
Author: dclydew
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 07:05 pm | | I agree it was definately inaccurate, but I believe it was copied from the NY Times, which had an almost identical article.
So now the question becomes, why, if people of that time were linking these murders, is it so hotly debated... even casting our first two Smith and Tabram out of the likely victims?
It is important to determine who was and was not killed by "Jack". This could certainly narrow our list of possible suspects. If Emma was killed my Jack (which is doubtful since she herself claimed to have been attacked by a gang) then our list of suspects easily loses George Chapman. He's at 70 West India Dock Rd in early 1888. His Cable St shop isn't remarked upon until 1889, so we could assume fall of 1888 (when the records would have been taken).
Of course if we begin with Tabram, then he becomes a prime suspect, since he would have moved to the area around or shortly before that time. |
Author: anon
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 09:19 pm | | | And here you have the gist of the problem, just who was killed by the Ripper? That we will never know for sure, and so the arguments and debates rage on. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 03 August 1999 - 05:20 am | | dclydew
We all know crime was no stranger to the East End, muggins, brawls, blackmail, theft, many books cover the crimes & times of living in the 'Abyss'.
But the Whitechapel murders were very different, prostitutes were always being roughed up, even beating up each other, assaulted by clients, even stabbed by a drunken abusive soldier on occation. So the Emma Smith assault was seen as another albiet extreme, but yet another roughed up prostitute. Until she died of her wounds, then it became another matter. Even so she may have passed into history unknown, if it wasn't for Tabram being found in such a terrible state, and now people were becoming aware that these two women had died a violent death, when all that usually ever happens is cuts & bruises.
These two murders were the exception, not the rule, murder was not common, certainly this kind of murder was very different, and with the victims in such close proximity.
Then it was the Nichols murder that really brought it to the attention of the press, public & in consequence, the Police. Now three women had died very violent deaths. The horror was only really sinking in, when a week later Chapman was found. This was the pinacle of the local terror, people tend to think it was the murder of Kelly that was the high point, but no, it was the murder of Annie Chapman that focused all the press, all the public, all the full weight of the Police dept on the East End.
Vigilantes were formed, local citizens were in near riotus state, a cordon was thrown around the area of Hanbury Street and 200 lodging houses were searched, hundred of people questioned, 80 or so, detained....the pressure was on.
The escallation of events and the notorious aspect of the crimes meant they were considered together, nothing else like it had ever happened.
The die was cast, this was the begining of a series of killings to be ever refered to as The Whitechapel murders.
All things considered, the medical evidence strongly indicates that the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were by the same hand. There are several other concerns about Tabram, Stride, Kelly, McKenzie & Coles.
Kelly must be included with the previous three, but the fact is the medical details of her murder are not the same, so doubt are raised.
Regards, Jon |
Author: sam clifton
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 12:35 pm | | TO ALL.....
AFTER MORE THAN A CENTURY, EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS, SCRUTINY, NEW EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS FROM A MULTITUDE OF EXPERTS, HOW MANY RIPPER VICTIMS DO YOU THINK THERE REALLY WHERE OTHER THAN THE TRADITIONAL FIVE?
IT SEEMS LIKE THE MORE I READ THE MORE OF A BLACK HOLE IT BECOMES.......SAM |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 01:20 pm | | Hi, Sam:
You are exactly right that the number of victims is subject to argument. Many commentators these days discount Stride as part of the series, and some discount Kelly as well, while some are inclined to include Tabram. So take your pick, the canonical five, or five with Stride out and Tabram in, four with Stride and Kelly out but Tabram in, or the canonical three, Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. . . Apart from Tabram it seems that not much of a case can be made for including Emma Smith, Ada Wilson, or Alice MacKenzie, etc., although a minority may argue that they should be included. In terms of the nature of the mutilations (or lack thereof), such other East End murders probably should not be included.
Chris George |
Author: Dave Owings
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 04:25 pm | | | I am a novice so please excuse my ignorance. But, after my examination of the information on the suspects in the casebook, I am certain that Tumblety's the man. What are the arguments against him? The only one I've read so far is that he was bi-sexual or homosexual and homosexuals typically kill their own gender. However, there seems to be nothing typical about the violent nature of the crimes. The violence indicates to me a deep hatered and anger, which Tumblety expressed to witnesses during the American Civil War. With what we know, I find it hard not to finger him as the Ripper. I would love to hear what others who know more have to say. Thanks. |
Author: Julian
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 10:59 pm | | G'day Dave,
I've discounted Tumblety cause he was too open about his dislike of women, particularly working women.
Our Jack was a bloke who didn't want to draw attention to himself, quite unlike the behaviour Tumblety displayed.
Jules |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 05:56 am | | G'day Dave and Jules,
I agree with you Jules! Jack didn't want to draw attention to himself and was very confident that no one would even suspect him. I believe he was a local man that everyone knew and trusted, that's why it was so easy to get the women where he wanted them!
LEANNE! |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 07 September 1999 - 10:41 pm | | Goodonya Leanne,
Can almost always trust you to back me up. Sorry I can't do that for you with your Barnett theory but........
Jules |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 12:32 am | | G'day Jules,
OK, you don't think Barnett diserves a closer look, but do you agree that 'Jack' was a local man, how everyone thought was harmless?
LEANNE! |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 08:24 pm | | G'day Leanne,
Keeping an open mind mate, I believe it's possible that Jack may have been a frequent visitor to the area, hence his familiarity with the area.
Sorry this is short mate. Very busy.
Jules |
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 09 September 1999 - 05:55 am | | G'day Jules,
I'm trying to keep an open mind too, mate, but I was impressed with Bruce Paley's book and it drives me crazy when people say: "Poor-old-Joe", "Poor-old-Joe"!
That's exactly what I reckon was peoples opinion of him, at the time and I don't think we should let our opinions on peoples outer character, get in our way of solving this!
Right now, I'm not so sure of Barnett as a suspect myself, but I haven't found another one yet.
LEANNE! |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 09 September 1999 - 09:43 am | | Dear Leanne,
For what it's worth, I'd put Barnett above most of the others on the suspect list simply for some of the reasons you have already mentioned. I am sure Jack had to know the area almost inside out, so he must have been living and/or working in or close to the East End for more than just a few weeks or months.
I also think he would have appeared to strangers, acquaintances and relatives alike as a sympathetic character, even charming, but also respectable and of moderate habits. His appearance was probably very average and he must have looked quite 'at home' as he travelled around the area. If he stood out in any way from the madding crowd he faced the real risk of coming to the unwelcome attention of all those who were on their guard at the height of the scare, in other words practically everyone out on the streets after nightfall.
In my view Jack was not one of the known 'lunatics' who openly displayed their madness or various 'vices', nor anyone known to behave with particular eccentricity, nor had he only recently arrived in, or passed through Whitechapel, such as a foreign sailor.
I also don't believe our man absolutely had to either kill himself, die or get himself incarcerated somewhere to explain why the murders stopped. All serial killers are unique. They have their own extremely personal reasons for their crimes, but as has been stated elsewhere (by Bob Hinton I believe), remorse does not tend to appear on their list of priorities. So Druitt, choosing a soggy death in the Thames, apparently because he was afraid of turning out like his mother (she may have been in an asylum but I'm sure she was nothing like the ripper!), doesn't sound to me like the strong fearless serial killer either. IMHO Jack would not recognise any of his character traits as failings.
I guess what would appear to go most against Barnett being JtR would be the surgical skills issue, although this is by no means as clear cut (ouch) as some would have us believe. Without a suitable amateur or professional pathologist in the frame, who also fits all the other criteria, I must admit I'm a bit stumped for ANY of the known suspects fitting my bill.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 09 September 1999 - 09:49 am | | Hi all
I accept it's quite possible JB might have murdered MJK. But how could he possibly have had the necessary medical knowledge to dispatch the others?
Karoline |
Author: Caz
Friday, 10 September 1999 - 12:16 am | | Hi All,
I DON'T accept that JB could have started and ended his murdering career with MJK, effectively upstaging Jack, and simply walked away. I find this even more difficult to accept than JtR not having been an officially-recognised trained or trainee medico.
IMHO, JB had to be the ripper or was an innocent man. But I also think the police would have had good reasons of which we are unaware (quite apart from any general impressions of Barnett's meek demeanour and their sympathy for his situation) to eliminate him from the ripper enquiry. I can't believe old Abberline could question Barnett for several hours without afterwards checking alibis etc. to his complete satisfaction. It seems inconceivable that any policeman involved with the case at this point would risk releasing Barnett if there was even the slightest doubt about him. The very last thing they wanted was a repeat of the abomination of Kelly's murder.
I know that Peter Sutcliffe was questioned and released several times during the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry, but I guess things would have been mighty different if the most savagely-treated victim had turned out to be a recent live-in girlfriend of his!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 10 September 1999 - 04:21 am | | G'day Caz,
Yes, Barnett did blend in well, in the East End and had a number of jobs, after he lost his well-paid job at Billingsgate.
Bruce Paley points out that he got by 'around the orange markets' plus managed to find some 'labouring jobs'. I wish he could have been more specific about this. In Paley's opinion, JtR could have worked at some stage as a 'butcher, mortician's helper, medical examiner's assistant or a hospital attendant'.
He wanted desperately to keep Kelly off the streets, keep showering her with gifts and the thought of losing her to prostitution, probably reminded him of the abandonment of his mother.
He was described as looking 'very respectable for one of his class' and drank in the local pubs.
At Kelly's inquest, JB blatantly contradicted himself, as to why he left her. 12 hours after her death, he claimed to Abberline that it was 'in consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution'.
Testifying at her inquest, he said 'Because she took in an immoral woman. My being out of work, had nothing to do with it'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Caz
Friday, 10 September 1999 - 07:50 am | | Hi Leanne,
I can see that it is possible that JB, having met MJK initially as her client, subsequently fell in love and wanted her all to himself.
I can even see someone whose mother had abandoned him desperate to change and control the next woman in his life. And when it became painfully obvious that this lady was no more for turning than was his dear mama, I can see that he might flip in a moment of blind rage and disappointment, making sure she had serviced her very last customer. This gives us a clearly-defined motive for a domestic murder or crime of passion.
But does this sit well with the more nebulous motives usually associated with serial killers, and the calculated way JtR planned all the murders, including Kelly's? Why the ritualistic removal of certain organs? Why some of the victims' meagre possessions 'arranged' by the bodies? These details and many others would surely have been outside of JB's narrow remit, if this was simply to scare Kelly off the streets and into his arms for good. The time spent planning his series would surely have been better spent looking harder for work to support Mary. This had worked in the past. It could have worked again.
It seems such an unbelievably convoluted plot to gain a woman's love and respect, first trying to half scare her to death by killing and mutilating others of her persuasion, then when that fails to keep the trollop indoors, winning her undying affection in the process, after just a few weeks of incredibly daring and successful serial killing, he gives it all up as a bad job and says, 'Oh sod it. This isn't working. Mary's gotta go too'.
Sorry for the detour from the original topic.
Leanne, do you think Martha Tabram and Lizzie Stride could have been victims of JB too?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 September 1999 - 02:36 am | | G'day Caz,
As I am about to go right off this topic, I'll move this post to 'Joseph Barnett'. See ya there, if you want to read my reply to your above post.
LEANNE! |
Author: Sean
Saturday, 06 November 1999 - 11:56 am | | | The Encyclopaedia Britannica (which is now online free) has the number of victims at at least 7. I found this odd, because I had always heard that 5 was the generally accepted number. |
Author: anon
Saturday, 06 November 1999 - 11:20 pm | | | What the hell does the Encyclopedia Britannica know about the Ripper murders anyway??? |
Author: sean
Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 12:01 pm | | Anon,
Just mentioning this apparent bald error from a reputedly reliable source of information. I wasn't trying to imply it was correct and evryone else is wrong. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 07 November 1999 - 05:38 pm | | Hi all.
SEAN: Thanks for the tip- I bookmarked Britannica's online site. Anything free is bound to be a bit outdated, but I'm sure it will still be helpful in future research.
If you're new here - Welcome Aboard! As you study the JtR case further, I think you'll find the Cannonical Five of Nichols, A. Chapman, Stride, Eddowes & M. Kelly is the popularly accepted number of victims.
However, the count swells to 6,7,8 or 9 by adding Smith, Tabrum, McKenzie, and/or Coles. The list shrinks by subtracting Stride and/or Kelly from the C. Five.
My research so far makes me confident in a count of Four - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. I look forward to hearing where your research is taking you.
Regards,
Ashling |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 09:08 pm | | I opt for a minimum of five. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddows and kelly. As I have stated else where, i still believe that Stride was a victim but I am not entirely convinced.
Smith waas not and she herserlf provided the evidence. I'm not sure about Coles and McKenzie but i think not. Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 09:15 pm | | I opt for a minimum of five. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddows and kelly. As I have stated else where, i still believe that Stride was a victim but I am not entirely convinced.
Smith was not and she herself provided the evidence. I'm not sure about Coles and McKenzie but i think not. Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 03:56 pm | | Now the Whitechapel murderer had six victims, and six victims only: Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 05:56 pm | | With the recent changes to the boards (unarchiving of old posts) we'll probably see more long dead threads made active.
Considering that we frequently can't be sure of the total number of victims even when a serial killer is caught and confesses these days, it'd be sheer folly to try to come up with a firm number for Jack. Anyone who claims to know is just fooling themselves.
I think all we can really say with any degree of certainty is the total could range from a minimum of four (Stride is the least likely of the five normally mentioned) all the way up to the teens. The number could potentially climb still higher if Jack moved and continued the killings elsewhere.
Dan |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 01:48 pm | | Hi Dan,
I don't even think we could agree with your premise of the minimum of four - there are some people who have studied the case very closely who say the number could be as few as three.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 08:14 pm | | Then they should study the case a little closer, LOL.
Yeah, some people do say three. I can't for the life of me figure out how they can expect to be taken seriously, but, OK, minimum of three.
Dan |
Author: alex chisholm
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:43 pm | | Quite right, Rich
But then, perhaps it is only those who have ‘seriously’ studied the case ‘a little closer’ that are going to recognise the possibility of as few as three. LOL.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 06:23 am | | Dan.
You mention similar crimes elsewhere, and I've just read Sugdens History of Jack the Ripper.
Sugden mentions in his chapter about Chapman that there were similar crimes in New York when he moved out there.
What are these crimes? The book doesn't cover them in any way that sheds much light.
By the way, I'm a bit of a newcomer, so please forgive my question if it seems a bit "amatuerish".
I know I need to read more.
cheers
stu |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 09:53 am | | Hi Alex,
Agreed. No less an authority than Stewart Evans has said that it is possible only three were killed by the Whitechapel murderer (though he does not rule out more victims).
Yet people are so devoted to their own opinions of the case that they resort to insulting a position held by an esteemed author such as Evans who, I might hazard a guess, has studied the case far more extensively than the person who hurled the insult.
The one thing about this case that troubles me most is people who hold their own pet theories and refuse to entertain the possibility of some different interpretation. One person says there must have been at least three, another says at least four, another says at least five. The fact is we are dealing in probabilities, not absolute fact. The case is 114 years old and the information we have in many cases is highly questionable. The fact is we do not know how many victims there were and never will.
Rich |
Author: jennifer pegg
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 10:52 am | | hello,
can i ask something that ties into this thread?
if we were to take any one who had been suggested as a ripper victim how many would this be could we ever get to 15 (suggested in the chic. art. if memory serves correctly)?
all the best
jennifer |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 11:16 am | | Jennifer,
It is quite possible the murderer may have killed more than 15. We don't know about his crimes beyond the alleged Whitechapel murders.
I think its true that only 3 of the killings can be definitely linked based on modus operandi and signature. However, it is a mistake to think that murderers never change their pattern (witness Peter Kurten). Some do.
I, for one, am wary of anyone who claims to know how many victims this killer claimed.
In the US, Jerry Lee Lucas and Ted Bundy murdered in various states and the killings were not linked until after their capture. In many respects, their various killings at times did not fit their established patterns.
Rich |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 01:46 pm | | Jennifer -
Off the top of my head, here are twelve women whom I know have either been directly or implicitly linked to the Ripper:
Ada Wilson, Margaret Haimes, Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Kelly, Alice McKenzie, Rose Mylett, Frances Coles.
There is, I think, also another under the rubric of 'possible early attacks' either before or after Ada Wilson, but for the life of me, I can't remember her name.
However, if you expand the list by adding the victims attributed to the several suspects put forth as the Ripper (such as, for one, Severin Klosowski), then you could comfortably bump the list up beyond 15.
As for myself, I'm one of those who would give at least 3 victims to the Ripper - Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. I've never been fully convinced of Stride's canonicity (though I realise this puts me in a minority), and depending on how I feel on a certain day, I have my doubts about Kelly as well. But I would be hesitant about fully excising Kelly from the list, and I would give some sober consideration to Tabram as well. So colour me 'undecided.'
Cheers,
CMD |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:25 pm | | CMD,
You might be referring to the legendary victim 'Fairy Fay'. This victim has never been fully identified to the best of my knowledge
STAN |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:42 pm | | Stuart and Dan, Phillip Sugden states: "The case against Chapman would unquestionably look stronger if it could be shown that his movements correlated with other recorded sex murders or assaults. In this context... the alleged American attacks of 1890-92 are interesting."
The information for ‘alleged' American attacks between the years 1890 and 1892 comes from Hargrave L. Adam's book, The Trial of George Chapman, published in 1930. Adam offers absolutely no evidence of said attacks but merely states that attacks started in America once Chapman moved there in 1890 and they stopped once he moved back to London in 1892. Problems with this statement arise immediately when it is learned that Chapman did not move to the U.S. until sometime after April 1891, (he appears on the 1891 census taken on 5 April of that year). No one has yet found any evidence of any Ripper like murders in New York in 1890.
The murder and mutilation of Carrie Brown on the night of the 23/24 of April, 1891 in New York City has been put forward by some as evidence that the Whitechapel murderer had traveled to the U.S. but there is no certain evidence to prove that Chapman was in New York at this time or that Brown was indeed a victim of the Ripper.
Michael Conlon, who has done some work on the Brown murder, has stated that there were at least one, possibly two, other Ripper like murders in New York in 1891 but no one else has looked into these murders to see what possible connection that they may have with either Chapman or Jack the Ripper.
Wolf. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:45 pm | | Hey, Stan
There never was a Fairy Fay. Phil Sugden writes that this is a confused memory of Emma Smith's murder (see 'A Century of Final Solutions' in "Complete History of Jack the Ripper.")
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:00 pm | | David,
I know that, but there is no other possible victim before Ada Wilson that CMD could have been refferring to. |
|
|
|
|
