|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 22, 1998
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
How Many Victims?:
Archive through November 22, 1998
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:28 pm |        | May 1996
There has been much dispute as to the number of victims the Ripper claimed, varying from only four to more than eighteen. How many victims do you think there were? Specifically, what credence do you give to the deaths of Fairy Fay, Martha Tabram, Emma Smith, Alice MacKenzie, and Francis Coles -- the victims most often deleted by Ripperologists? What evidence do you think supports your opinion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:41:03 +0100
From: Matthew Fletcher
By now all readers of the conference should know that Fairy Fay was a phantom. Emma Smith was probably attacked by a gang who assaulted her in a completely different way to the Ripper attacks. She was also left able to walk home. Martha Tabram is a far more interesting possibility. She was killed in the early hours of Monday August 6th which would make her the first recognised victim. The bank holiday and date fit naturally into the later sequence and she was a prostitute operating similarly to the other victims. The only reason why she is discounted is that she was stabbed (39 times) rather than cut or ripped. The medical examination did reveal that she had apparently been attacked by two weapons and had suffered one knife cut. The author Philip Sugden makes a highly convincing case for Tabram based on these points and I believe her consideration as the first known victim is long overdue.
The differences between this and subsequent cases are much less than between several of the universally acknowledged victims. Of course by then everyone knew that a maniacal killer was on the prowl so these differences were glossed over. In the Tabram case no-one knew what was going to happen in the forthcoming weeks. Opinion at the time was evenly divided about Tabram and the modern trend to dismiss her is unfounded. I think the murderer simply brought the wrong sort of knife along, or discovered he preferred ripping to stabbing.
Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles were discounted at the time by the police (who admittedly would not want the murders starting again) on the basis of the medical examinations. This was not unanimous but the doctors felt that the victims had not been killed by the same man - although they may have been copy-cat crimes inspired by the earlier killings. They were killed some time after the Autumn of Terror and cannot be reliably counted as true Ripper victims.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:02:35 -0400
From: Michael Rogers
I've never been completely convinced that Stride was a true victim. Everyone has always just assumed that the body wasn't mutilated because the killer was interupted. That's a hell of a leap. Anyone could have cut her throat. Murders were a dime a dozen in Whitechapel. Until someone comes up with a little more solid eveidence, I'm going to remain skeptical as hell about the number of murders.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 96 02:47:09 EST
From: Tom Saupe
The more I read and think about the case, the more inclined I am to include Martha Tabram as a victim and the less inclined I am to consider Elizabeth Stride as one.
Tabram "fits" in so many ways. The timing works with all the other murders. The place in which she was attacked and the apparent hours of the attack is similar and certainly the frenzy of the attack all seem to fit with what we know of the other murders. What has generally excluded her from the canon is the nature of the wounds. She was stabbed 39 times and apparently by two different weapons, one assumed to be a bayonet.
The bayonet wound takes on greater importance when it is remembered that she was in the company of soldiers earlier in the evening. However, the medical evidence only states the it was a weapon which "could have been a bayonet." Even if it was, that doesn't mean it was a soldier wielding it. Bayonets could be purchased freely.
As to the actual nature of the wounds, the medical evidence does state that there was, among the puncture wounds, one three and one half inch rip in the abdomen.
It is beginning to seem to me that the Tabram murder shows the same murderer not yet sure of his MO.. The Nichols murder also contained very little (comparatively) abdominal mutilation either, and there is no question as to her place in the canon. If you look at the Tabram murder within the context of a progression, it fits very nicely.
Again, thinking in terms of a progression of mutilation, Stride becomes an aberration. There will always be a doubt regarding this murder. It is quite possible that the killer was interrupted and made his escape in the confusion and darkness only to find Kate Eddowes later on. This could also explain the differences in the wound in the neck from the earlier victims.
But what waves a red flag for me is the apparent lack of strangulation of the victim. I think it has been shown beyond any doubt that the victims were strangled, at least into unconsciousness prior to any cuts being made. This would mean that it was the killer's first action, and yet there is no evidence of it on Strides body. The bruises are on her shoulders, as if someone was forcing her down to the ground, but not of strangulation.
Of course, it must be noted that her kerchief had been pulled very tight, apparently from behind, and this may have had the same effect. But Eddowes and Chapman also wore kerchiefs and on these the bruising evidence clearly shows someone grabbing their throats.
As with many of the questions revolving around the murders, I suppose we'll never really be sure, but for me, count Tabram in and put Stride down as very questionable.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 09:13:00 -0700
From: Tommy Reynolds
I believe there to only be six victims of the Ripper:
1.Mary Ann Nichols (August 31, 1888)
2.Elizabeth Ann Chapman (September 8, 1888)
3.Elizabeth Stride (September 30, 1888)
4.Catharine Eddowes (September 30, 1888)
5.Mary Jeanette Kelly (November 9, 1888)
6.Alice McKenzie (July 17, 1889)
Emma Elizabeth Smith was followed by four men as she walked the streets as a prostitute. The men stopped Smith in Osburn Street and physically abused her. The men forced an extremely blunt instrument into her vagina, which torn the perineum. The men then fled and were never found.
I BELIEVE THIS WAS NOT A RIPPER ATTACK BECAUSE: The Ripper was a solo operator and not part of some gang/group of men. Plus the mutilation of the body of such a victim was not present. If this was a Ripper slaying, why did he allow her to live?
Martha Trabram and another prostitute had picked up two Grenadier Guards and had seperated, both taking one of the Guards with them. Trabram was found dead on the first floor landing of the George Yard buildings. She had been savagely attacked with a sharp balded instrument. She was stabbed nearly forty times. Most of the stab wounds were in the area surrounding the vagina and the torso. There is no doubt that the killer had some grievance against prostitutes due to the number of stab wounds and the strength it wound take to inflict that number. As far as the Ripper is concerned, this particular crime was most influential in the development of several myths of further killings. This crime was not in MY determination committed by the Ripper because the particular traits of his killings are absent; for instance, the carotid artery was not cut, the body was not mutilated, and the depth of the stab wounds were consistent with that of a bayonet.
Francis Cole is found by a police constable on Feb. 13, 1891 on a road near Chambers St. Her throat had been cut, and Thompson, the ploice constable, thought he interrupted the killing because he thought he heard someone running from the scene. Cole also had abdominal injuries. She was alive when found but died shortly thereafter. This killing may very well be a Ripper killing. Maybe if Thompson would have arrived a few seconds earlier the identity of the killer would be known. Maybe if he would have arrived a few seconds later all the characteristcs of a Ripper slaying/mutilation would have been there. Who knows? Without more evidence, I would have to say that this was not a Ripper slaying.
Alice McKenzie was found dead on July 17, 1889. Her throat was cut and clothing disarranged. The left side of McKenzie's neck was incised with a jagged cut. She also had adbominal injuries which were not deep enough to open the cavity. Bruising was also found on her chest which during post-mortem was recorded as being caused by the attacker kneeling on her chest while cutting her throat. Dr. Brown recorded that he did not believe this slaying to be a job of the Ripper. He had examined two of the prior Ripper slaying victims and felt he was qualified to make this opinion. A second opinion was requested and was conducted by Dr Bond. Bond concluded that the Ripper was responsible for the slaying due to similarites in the cutting of the throat and the mutilation of the abdomen and sexual organs. It is theorized that a pimp had a grievance against Alice and was responsile for the slaying. I believe that this slaying was that of the Ripper. I feel that Dr Brown may have been attempting to prevent another scare amongst the people of the community. Can you blame him?
Well this is just my opinion. I have only read several Ripper volumes and have not read enough about Fairy Fay to remember any true details. So I shall not commit myself to any opinion that I cannot defend.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 16:21:51 -0700
From: Nicholas A. Racht
I doubt that Martha Tabram was the first Ripper victim due to the marked differences between her injuries and those of the other commonly accepted victims. While the attack on her was extremely brutal it just does not seem consistent with a progression to the later attacks.
Murder by means of simply stabing (albeit multiple times) and the grotesqe mutilations of the later killings seem to suggest killers of distinctly different methods of attack as well as fortitude. As far as the Tabram attack being a form of MO development the evidence is just not there. Stabing a person and tearing someone open with a knife are very different operations (no I'm not a homicidal maniac but I do work part time as a police officer and I spent ten years in the light infantry at times working as a combatives instructor). Almost anyone can muster sufficient strength/force to stab or slash a person but the type of deeply penetrating cutting (ripping) injuries to the body cavity require a great deal more strength/force to accomplish. Also whereas a person might be willing to stab someone to death the leap to actually gutting someone and removing their internal organs after only one "practice" attack would be quite a leap.
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 11:25:13 -0700
From: Kent Conwell
Some sources report Martha Tabram was stabbed thirty-nine times. In Sugden's book on page 17, the autopsy report accounts for only twenty-two. Is there anyone who can explain the discrepency?
Post Reply to Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 96 22:54:49 -0400
From: John Sherman
I have always believed Martha Tabram/Turner was a Ripper victim. She fit the profile in everyway but one - she was not mutilated. As far as the victim profile goes, mutilation is obviously the most important point. HOWEVER! The crimes increased in their violence (discounting Stride for the moment) until he reached the horrible acme with Kelly. If Tabram was the first victim, one would expect the least amount of mutilations. Now technically, she wasn't multilated at all. But she WAS stabbed 39 times! I can easily see Tabram being the victim of an embryonic Ripper. As a matter of fact, I am wondering if there were any deaths before Tabram's that were vicious stabbings or even just strangelations. I seem to recall a statement made in one of Colin Wilson's books that it is not unusual for a killer to begin with strangling and move on to knifing.
Also, has anyone thought about the possibility that Eddowes and Stride were together on the night they died? One goes off with a client, the other is then approahed by the Ripper who thinks she is alone. While is is killing her, the first returns and sees what's going on. She takes off running and is finally chased down by the Ripper some blocks away. Maybe? Nonsense? |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 09:15 pm | | So how many victims did Jack have?
Anyone familiar with my posting's will know that I favour 3 kills for Jack. Not only 3, but 3 for sure.
Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes are to my mind the obvious one's, now if your view of Jack is one of a progressive killer then you may want to include Tabram. But the murder of Tabram indicates a frantic killer with little control and the circumstantial evidence involving soldiers close by at the time of the murder is enough to cast doubt on Tabram being one of Jack's.
Not that Jack couldn't have been a soldier, he could, but plenty of work would need to be done in order to make a soldier a solid candidate.
Plus, for me the transition from frantic killer to methodical butcher is too sudden, what is needed (IMO) is a missing kill inbetween indicating transition.
So do we have two killers on the streets of Whitechapel?
Now to Stride, with all thats been written (and very interesting) on this board it is pointless for me to go into any detail here, suffice to say that the idea of a clumsy assault, or a 'ripper team' working together, and so many witnesses all give me the strong impression that this was not out Jack's work.
Was it the work of a soldier? no reason to suggest that either.
So do we have three killers on the streets of Whitechapel?
And to Kelly, plenty of reason to suggest she was the work of Jack, but also plenty of questions are being asked with regard to other possibilities. Presently I view her as a possible 50/50 victim.
Details about her death are very conflicting, and it seems that every year another one is named as her possible killer. Any reason to suspect her killer being the same one who did in Tabram or Stride?
Well, if not then we may have a fourth killer on the streets of Whitechapel.
I'm sure you get where I'm going with this line of reason, we can't seriously entertain too many killers on the streets at the same time.
I'm not proposing Jack killed them all, just playing devils advocate.
Jon |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 21 November 1998 - 12:25 am | | Hi, Jon.
I made the following points on another board. I'd like you to consider them.
"Can we all agree that strangulation was not the cause of death in any of the five canonical victims?
Can we agree that all five died of blood loss from at least one, no more than two, wounds to the throat?
Can we agree to the following descriptions of the wounds:
1) Nichols - 2 cuts on throat; 4 and 8 inches; depth ranging as deep as the spine.
2) Chapman - 1 cut, length unknown to me, likewise depth except it was "deep."
3) Stride - 1 cut, 6 inches long, varies in deth, partially severs left carotid, completely severs windpipe.
4) Eddowes - 1 cut on throat, 6 or 7 inches in length, starting superficially, cutting to the bone. "Large vessels" on left side severed. Right side of wound
shows minimal damage (in comparison) due to shallowness.
5) Kelly - 1 cut, deep, to the vertebrae; air passage cut.
That's roughly what I find in my sources of Sugden, Begg, and Beg/Fido/Skinner.
The question is, in cause of death, do we have a consistent pattern across all five of these victims? "
I think the answer to the questions is Yes, and that all five victims fall into the same category as to manner of death and show much more similarity than any dissimilarity in technique. What do you think?
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 November 1998 - 12:07 pm | | Hi Yaz
I read your previous posting of the same points on the 'MO' board.
- Strangulation subdued them but didn't kill them.
- Death from syncope (loss of blood to the brain, I think) was noted more than once.
I agree with your observations on points: 1), 2), 3), 4) & 5). and if we put our heads together I think we could come up with more.
The nature of the throat wounds strongly suggest to me a right-handed killer, it would be awkward for a left-handed attacker to hold the jaw and lacerate the throat in that manner, only my opinion, you understand.
(you already know that I don't include Stride)
Also Yaz, I wouldn't put too much effort into the argument that the throat wounds indicate 'the same killer', I think that if you took details of many various 'cut throat' type murders you would see similar details, I mean how many different ways is there to cut someones throat.
But carry on Yaz, Jon. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 21 November 1998 - 02:10 pm | | Jon, I agree about the details of the throat cuts, but you must admit that people use this argument to EXCLUDE certain (unnamed) victims from the canonical list. Cause of death due to a wound to the throat is a pattern, vs. stabbing, bludgeoning, etc. For those two reasons I feel it advisable to stay the course on this one.
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 November 1998 - 09:10 pm | | Hi again Yaz.
Let me put it another way, ....the knife was a common weapon used by criminal's, and many knife attacks or wounds look the same.
To include Stride because of the similarity of the slash to the throat, I think is eroneous.
The 'slash' was a little different, the 'knife' was said to be different, the 'style' of attack was different, the description isn't to be relied on.
what does the attack on Stride really have going for it except, the Dear Boss letter's (questionable authenticity) and time/location of assault.
The neck wound to Stride is not in the 'ripper' style, it's just a knife wound to the throat, it could have been done to her left side or right side, it's just a case of 50/50.
I know you won't agree and that's fine I would not want to try convince you to follow my line of thought, contrary views are what we need on the Casebook, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents for what it's worth.
I still maintain that the attack on Stride needs to be proven to be in the 'ripper style' in order to be accepted.
And I say it remains unproven. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 21 November 1998 - 10:54 pm | | Hey, Jon.
Check out the post called "re: Request for Help/Answer too? date=6:48 pm Thursday November 12, 1998". I rescued our old stuff from the Letters board before it went to electron oblivion.
I'll quote, cuz it's a pain to load that board:
"Hey, everybody. By chance, I received today my copy of Jack's London and the Ordinance Map (Survey map) from Key Publications. Along with these items was some ads, catalogs, and articles by John Smithkey III. Lo and behold, one of the articles -- which he wrote for Ripperologist, Number 10, April 1997 -- is titled How Common Was "Murder!" in Whitechapel?. In the article, Mr. Smithkey quotes a Joseph Lane, medical officer for health in 1887-8, which I'll summarize: 71 cases of violent death in Whitechapel in 1887. But violent death includes accidents and suicides. Using only murder as a criteria, Mr. Smithkey (and he cites the Lane stats from Paley, 1996 -- I don't which book that means though) says, in 1886 there were no murders; in 1887 again there were no murders; skipping 1888, the year 1889 had only one murder; and in 1890, again only one murder was committed in Whitechapel. "
Murder of any kind, with ANY weapon, was most uncommon for Whitechapel at least between 1886-90. I know that sounds hard to believe, but it's true unless the stats are wrong or the authors' citations are. You have to ask yourself: What was the most common cause of murder in 1888? The answers aren't completely in the stats (lacking data from 1888 and a breakdown of the type of murder for the years when it happened), but if they hold their probablity, the cause is not a knife, gun, jealous boyfriends or husbands, loonie doctors, or mental asylum alumni...it was JtR, a serial killer.
When people exclude Stride, they exclude ALL circumstances surrounding her death...I only emphasize here Schwartz's interruption, maybe the man with the pipe too. Can anyone ever "prove" Stride was killed in the "Ripper style" if you ignore/disregard the interruption...he didn't finish, so while the murder remains, the OTHER JtR phenomenon (mutilations, a second -- but sometimes the only -- cut that reaches to the bones in the victim's neck) never happened. And this is so because a second psychotic killed her? The same logic that excludes Stride would exclude Eddowes because her face was disfigured while Nichols' and Chapman's were not. JtR was not a robot, a cookie-cutter, a mold. He was human and changed...the evidence in written on the progression of facial photos of the victims.
Every slash the murderer of the five women made was "different." The point is that he used a knife to cut the throat rather than stab the heart or another target organ. The length, depth, and possibly the direction remain within a rather close range.
The business about a different kind of knife baffles me...stuff breaks; he may have found a "better" knife; where is it an unbreakable law that serial killers must use the same knife? Why the insistence on A particular knife rather than on the fact he used a knife rather than a club or gun?
Again, read the description of Strides' throat wound. It is not very simple or minor as people want to make it sound. She died from that wound; perhaps died so quickly she didn't have time to relax her hand holding the infamous cachous! The quickness of the kill is JtR. A jealous lover or another psychotic might and does find pleasure in tormenting victims as they die. JtR never does this. His real interest comes AFTER death.
I don't know what "style of attack" means either because, except for the mess he left behind, only with Schwartz do we get even a hint of how the "attack" might have gone.
I suppose we'll have to agree on what the "Ripper style" actually means before we can get beyond this. I know we disagree. I don't see many rushing to support me (thank you, Chris George, wherever you are tonight!) so I think I'm in the minority here. I have yet to hear unanswerable arguments from the "exclude Stride" side. Excluders MUST come to terms with Schwartz's testimony...point by point.
I feel like I'm not communicating very well on the Stride issue. And you're one of the few who'll even talk with me about it. Please bear with me.
Yaz |
Author: Jeff D
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 07:03 am | | How many Victims,... How many Killers ?
I'm not sure where to start this discussion, but after loking at recent posts, this seems as logical a place as any...
I am quoting a little from an excellent article "Done to Death" which was kindly posted to me, which raises so many interesting points which, it appears, are ignored, in the hunt for the single murderer, nick-named Jack The Ripper, at loose in Whitechapel in 1888.
Basically, we have the press to thank for the insistence that one killer was responsible for the series of crimes in Whitechapel, so how many victims of one-man, and how many men were actually killing in the area during 1888 seems to be continually ignored, in our obsession to pin the crimes onto 1 individual.
When Mary Nichols multilated body was discovered on Aug 31st., all major press reports, indicated that this was the 3rd. murder in the series, yet we, today, always consider Polly the 1st. of the canonical victims. Anyway, the press at the time associated the murders of Tabram and Smith with Nichols, and when Annie Chapman was found murdered on 8th. Sept., the series was well and truly established. The series, then, contiued to gather pace in the press, until the murder of Kelly on Nov. 9th. Not many people hunting the Ripper believe he was responsible for any murders after this date.
We can't lose sight of the fact, however, that even allowing for the "canonical five" then possibly adding Tabram, and linking her murder to Annie Millwoods, there were still at least 3 murderers at work in the Whitechapel area in 1888, then there was also the "Torso" killer, which we cannot forget. If we make a departure, and accept Tabram and Stride as having different attackers, then we have a minimum of 5, in all probability 6 murderers on the loose in East London in 1888.
All the Victims' fatal wounds, and mutilations differ to some degree, and we have always seemed to accept that he was learning his MO. Yet, when we look at such evidence as Nichols and Chapman, having their throats both cut from left-to right, yet no organs were taken from Nichols, and her wounds (according to Dr. Llewellyn)were made in a downwards direction, with Chapman's, etc., in an upwards motion, we do see more differences that cannot be so easily explained. Then with Kelly's throat being cut, with the fatal injury being to the right Carotid artery, not the left, as in others, there seem to be more deviations, than similarities in the entire sequence.
I just had to post this, in the hope that we do all understand that we just cannot get too carried away in the hunt for 1-individual, and if we do get back to basics, and sudy each horrific crime individually, we may get closer to identifying the real killer(s), through correct interpretation of the evidence, rather than following in the footsteps of the Press creation of Jack the Ripper. We do seem to appreciate that the alias Jack The Ripper was a creation of the Press, yet then dismiss the further influence the press had upon our understanding of the case today.
I am reminded of Agatha Christies "Murder on the Orient Express", Being an avid Sherlock Holmes fan, I never really did appreciate Agatha Christie, but with this murder you are reading of so many clues pointing at so many different people, anyone of whom had motive, and could have commited the dirty deed, then the murderer is discovered as being ........
Just a thought, I would welcome discussion on the 1-individual we call Jack, but how many victims can we actually suscribe to just 1 killer ? Of course, all of my points could be explained by circumstances dictating the extent, and type of mutilations on each victim, but still, we just cannot ignore that ther was more than 1 murderer on the loose in Whitechapel, in 1888.
Jeff D |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 08:16 am | | I'm not familiar with the details of the "torso killings" but weren't they discovered on or close to the railroad tracks, indicating that the bodies may have come from anywhere, been killed anywhere, and merely left in the area where found -- that being their sole reliable connection to a geographical area? Also, the torso victims were not abdominally mutilated. That's a fairly substantial deviation to exclude JtR.
Tabram deviates in that she was stabbed 39 times rather than cut open. She was more in the geographical territory of JtR than the torso victims. If I can't even get Stride, and maybe even Kelly, in the series...I won't even attempt a case for Tabram.
Excellent point on motive. But also as excellent a point to the police in 1888. They checked thoudands of people, homes, accusations, etc. Top on the list were friends and family of the victims. I see this as another reason to exclude the obvious accusation that the victims knew their murderer.
Serial killers do not follow the "rules" that make 90+% of homicides result in capture and conviction of the killer. Their victims are not chosen because the killer knows them, nor were they killed in the commission of another crime, etc. The 1888 police are shown following up the thought that Chapman's murderer may have thought he was "stealing" gold rings instead of brass ones -- maybe another basis for the gold farthings (the word gold) "myth." From what we can see of the police investigation, they seem to have responsibly and diligently followed all leads that we moderns find so compelling to build cases against friends and family members of the victims.
The police also applied theory in their search: the hunt for men who had the qualifications of mental instability -- including, but not limited to, stays in asylums -- and the medical knowledge supposition. Here again they applied themselves, and acquitted themselves in my eyes, very well. It was the right, the logical, and the appropriate approach to the killer's identity. But here again, it led to nothing substantial enough to even make a charge -- and at least to Abberline, hold suspicions.
As an aside: from all I've heard here and read, I seem to be the only dope who wants to speculate that JtR was "learning" or "changing" elements in his choice of victims, approach, attack, killing, and mutilations.
How many victims seems to have become the $20, 0000 question around here.
Yaz |
Author: Jeff D
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 09:10 am | | HiYa Yaz and all !
I think I have to agree with Jon's opinion that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were the work of one hand, the man we do today call Jack the Ripper. This then leads us to the inescapable conclusion that there were at least 3 or 4 other killers on the loose in Whitechapel in 1888. Although there are differences in Nichols' & Chapmans' mutilations, the geography, timing, etc., can explain these differences away, but what about Stride, and Kelly ? There are too many differences here to be ignored, then back-tracking to Tabram, and Smith,..... where does the series of JtR actually start and end ? How many victims is an excellent question, it then leads to how much of a homicidal maniac were we dealing with, or are there any real motives behind any of the crimes? |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 10:04 am | | Hey, Jeff.
There are always "motives." With a serial killer, it isn't easy to discern what they are. And I don't think anything is "inescapable" quite yet. The argument of " there are differences in Nichols' & Chapmans' mutilations, the geography, timing, etc., can explain these differences away" seems not to apply to Stride or Kelly, maybe even Eddowes. I ask, why not their cases too? But I'm probably wrong and the rest of the members of the Casebook seem to hold that opinion. Therefore, you should carry on with your conclusions.
Yaz |
Author: stanoje
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 10:08 am | | I fail to understand why the killer known as Jack has to live up to our concept of (his) profile.Does anyone recall the Richard Jewell fiasco in Georgia or the Colin Stagg case in Britain?These two were made to 'fit' their profiles.The Whitechapel killer
is likewise made to toe the straight and narrow concepts of what he had to do in order to fit the bill.
Perforce we start backwards,picking our favourite victims,brushing aside any contradicting evidence (in their killings) while pointing out minute deviations in the the murders of those we don't fancy.Using this methodology Richard Ramirez's crimes could be ascribed to a dozen perpetrators. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 12:28 pm | | Yaz, ...your not throwing the towel in are you ?
You don't need to form a following, that's not the reason were here.
Your points are well thought out and well worth reading, no-one can positively exclude Stride from the series, though several of us may have different reasons for excluding her.
But none can claim to be correct, the issues you raise cause us to think and re-think, and that is good. And your not the only one who thinks Stride was a Ripper victim, you may be the most vocal Stride proposer, but you are not alone.
I posted somewhere else on this site, playing devils advocate, that there could well have been more than one killer on the streets of Whitechapel during 1888.
Walter Dew and others have voiced a cautionary note regards taking 'official' statistics as a guide to how many different crimes were commited in those years.
For political reasons / misinformation / simple error classifications etc. the statistics are not to be relied on, certainly with a view to forming a concrete foundation of a theory.
As in the cases of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes the minor differences are outweighed by the similarities, which are far removed from those of Stride, Tabram and the 'torso' murders.
There could well have been more than one killer on the streets in 1888.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks Jack was responsible for them all. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 01:01 pm | | Hey, Jon.
No, I'm not throwing in the towel yet...but I'm thinking about it. I think, if I read Avala aright, the count is 3 for Stride included, many for exclusion, and a whole lot of (disinterested?) silence.
Are you trying to use the "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" argument? Yes, we lack important details regarding those stats -- but for our own purposes. I don't know if the stats were ever seriously questioned then or before this. A murder is a murder, after all, and damned hard to cover up. Some of the accidental deaths may have been murders, but that's pure speculation on my part...I have to have some trust in something. The mere asking of a thousand questions regarding one issue tends to make people think the issue really has something about it to doubt. That doesn't follow. It's a tactic often used by defense attornies -- Clarence Darrow recently being accused of starting it all -- where the mere accumulation of questions about the witness/evidence/etc can cause reasonable doubt. OJ Simpson's case is the most recent famous example of accumulating questions causing the appearance (maybe validity, I don't want to argue about Simpson) of error, doubt, etc.
As to the argument of political reasons, that's a two-edged sword. One side fights for a lower than actual stat; the other fights for a higher than actual stat. Is there any evidence that these stats were ever used for any purpose, political, "misinformation" (what is that, by the way?), or any other? Any record of a debate on their validity?
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 03:38 pm | | Yaz, Jon, Jeff, Avala and all -
I must admit I find it fascinating how quickly the idea that 3, 4 or even 5 separate killers running around the East End seems to have gained hold here. And no, my silence on this point isn't because the subject doesn't interest me. I have been running into an immense amount of computer problems lately, and I have a very large backlog of messages to respond to (including your excellent thoughts on Stride, Yaz, so I will get to them).
While I don't necessarily consider Stride a canonical victim and have my doubts about Kelly, I would be careful in throwing away all of the received wisdom. Let us assume, for the moment, that only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are "genuine" Ripper murders. Of the standard 5, then, we must now attribute Stride and Kelly to other men. Kidney? Barnett? Hutchinson? And then we have Martha Tabram: Leary and Law? What about the torso? And then there is McKenzie, Coles, Mylett, Wilson - well, you get the idea. Suddenly, rather than only the Ripper and possibly the Torso murderer, we have a regiment of killers stumping about, some in domestic quarrels that get totted up to Jack, others who strike without detection or motive and never seem to kill again, and murders that just don't fit any pattern we can figure out.
Yes, a casual look at some of the wandering nutcases whom the police picked up during the "Leather Apron" scare shows that there was no shortage of men with homicidal tendencies in the area at the right time. But could there really have been that many ready to cross the line from inchoate rage to physical murder? Even in 1888? Even in the "life is cheap" East End? I wonder. I really do.
I am not saying that there could not have been more than one murderer operating within the "square mile" during the Autumn of Terror. Indeed, the probability that Jack did not stalk the killing fields alone is statisically high. What I am saying is that by arbitrarily deciding that only killings bearing a certain hallmark or circumstances can be attributable to the Ripper, we are in danger of concentrating on a sapling that may never grow into a tree, while ignoring the forest around us.
Which is not the same as saying I think this argument has no merit. It does, and "Done to Death" represents a refreshing, salutary point of view. But just because a point of view is novel doesn't mean it immediately outweighs everything that has come before. I like this argument; let us just be careful where it leads us.
And to respond to Yaz's last: to the best of my knowledge - admittedly small - debate on the number of kills attributable to the Ripper is generally part of a larger debate on the validity of a suspect; Michael Harrison's wildly inflated list in support of J K Stephen comes to mind, and I am sure the assembled worthies here can speak to many other examples.
Just being a windy, pompous bloke today,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 03:55 pm | | Without labouring the point Yaz, I just wanted to quote from the recollections of
F. P. Wensley, former Chief Constable, CID who joined the Met. in 1887 at age 22:
'It was a bit rough and you learnt quickly. I got my first lesson in a street just off the New Cut when I tried to play peacemaker in a drunken quarrel and got thrown through a public house plate glass window ......
Gangs of hooligans infested the streets and levied protection money from shopkeepers.
There was an enormous amount of personal robbery with violence. ......
There was every sort from petty thieves to murderers in those slums and lodging houses.....many of them carried knives or guns and didn't hesitate to use them.
Murder was probably even more common than the official statistics showed, because bodies who had likely been knocked on the head were often found in the street, often near disreputable houses. But unless there was obvious evidence of foul play, the inquest verdicts were usually indefinite'.
Wanna discuss some other aspect of the Ripper case?
I'm sure there will be other points that we 'will' agree on.
To agree or not to agree is 'not' the point, it's the discussion that's important.
All the best, Yaz.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 05:23 pm | | CM! Glad to hear from you! HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was minding my own business, nattering on about a couple of letters....
First thing: What we lack is as close to a definitive list of the number of murders in Whitechapel in 1888 as we can get. I still am not sure that the torso killings were within the bounds of Whitechapel (or Whitechapel exclusively). I hear people mentioning murders that occured in 1889 and 1891 (Coles and MacKenzie) and counting them for 1888.
Next, the list we draw up of characteristics of a crime are valuable in trying to link a series of crimes whose characteristics are similar or "identical" to a single perpetrator. I postulated, in some other post (in another life, it seems), that too strict an adherence to the criteria would lead to an inflation of murderers...exaggerating to demonstrate an absurdity. I hope nobody took what I said literally.
Third, I thought when we got into this, that the motivation to move crimes away from JtR was to promote certain other specific suspects. I guessed this was to eventually promote that suspect to being responsible for all the victims...in other words, if I show X killed Chapman, therefore X killed all the others. That doesn't seem to be what we're doing anymore -- which is okay as long as everyone is on the same page, so to speak.
This discussion seems to have grown away from that notion. I'm not sure anymore if we're debating out of genuine belief or out of speculation..."Why can't there be more than one killer than just 'JtR'?" Who says there REALLY has to be more than one?
If anybody can help clarify this issue, I'd be grateful. What are we really debating here? Generalities: 1 man vs, multiple men? Specifics: 1 crime done by 1 specific man? Speculation?
Jon, I don't want to nit-pick all the time but, valid as Wensley's anecdotal testimony may be in some respects, does it specifically relate to 1888...one year after Wensley joined the MP? He must have had a long career; he sounds like he's generalizing. We're in need of specifics on the important year 1888, and maybe the few years surrounding it.
This part of Wensley might seem a clincher: "Murder was probably even more common than the official statistics showed, because bodies who had likely been knocked on the head were often found in the street, often near disreputable houses. But unless there was obvious evidence of foul play, the inquest verdicts were usually indefinite'." But what does that say to us now? Which year? Which accident or crime? Specifically, how was a death of that type listed in the stats...whatever year it happened in? And, because a man lies dead in a street, does he instantly qualify as being murdered, either alone or by the type and kind of criminal we call JtR? 'A knock on the head' can certainly have accidental causes, no? And a cop's opinion...well, how often does a cop's opinion agree with anyone else in the criminal justice system? Wensley's is an opinion. I know nothing about him to judge his opinions. Do we want to research that far afield from JtR or 1888?
We need help here, I think. I KNOW I need help. You all are chasing me, very legitimately, into a corner I have no expertise to get out of. I'm getting confused over the issues and, as CM warns, fear I'm in danger of saying something that sounds believable but is utter nonsense.
No, I don't want to go on to something else just yet unless you're all tired of it. Just, does ANYBODY OUT THERE...pardon me shouting into the great electron void...have a copy of the Annual Report on the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel gathered by Joseph Lane? That's where the stats I cited come from. Failing that, does anyone have any stats SPECIFIC to 1888 (including a year or two before or after is close enough). Taking stats and anecdotes that may cover decades is misleading.
I'm swimmin' with the sharks with a leak in my life-preserver!!!!
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 06:57 pm | | Hey, all!
I finally found the reference cited by Mr. Smithkey in his article. It's from Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth by Bruce Paley. The medical officer's name is listed there as Joseph Loane...NOT Lane. The Ripperologist article is a typographical error. Unless Paley's is the typo. Oh God, I can't take make more of this scholarship stuff!!!
Yaz
P.S., Hey, CM? If turning Mary Kelly from prostitution was Barnett's motive for killing her...how come he killed his motive, and in an even more brutal fashion than his previous "examples"? I think the lesson was lost on her at that point, don't you? And I CAN wait -- very well, thank you -- for the psychological slight-of-hand needed to escape that conundrum!!!! (grins, grins, and more grins) |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 09:48 pm | | Hi All,
At present, I personally would offer Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes without doubt. Stride I do discount for reasons given on the old message board, (see Victims, Mortimer - if still there). Tabram I see leaning toward Jack, but am still uncertain due to insufficient data. As for MJK, I believe a daylight killing by JTR is credible in light of Chapman, adding the benefit of a private room.
Tossing in a comment on profiles, I think they are useful as an aid once the individual has established what is or is not acceptable based on the information at hand. Only then will it help to form a "direction" in which to seek our killer.
I don't think the profile will aid much if the analysis hasn't already been accomplished. And, I might add that since the analysis is an individual choice, so to speak, then so must be the profile...ones obtained from professionals in the feild are almost valueless to the individual unless the reasoning coincides or the individual is willing to give ground in favour of what the "pros" say.
I find this particular line of discussion illuminating, as it is essentially the basis for many theories and suspects.
Once we as a group can generally agree as to whom Jack did kill, then I think we'll much further along.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 10:15 pm | | Hi, Dave.
I looked for the Mortimer post and could not find it. Could you recreate or summarize it? Or just jump in and squabble with the rest of us. I'd be interested to know anybody's opinion on why any of the five canonical victims should be excluded. But let's start with Stride and see if my brain can take more beyond that.
I don't quite understand your point on profiling...the analysis that is based on mutually-accepted information; that's what we're trying to do here, right or no? The analysis based on individual choice and their near valuelessness, I may not be understanding but I think I'd disagree. Profiles are valuable because they are based on specifics to each related murder...with each murder you have, the more potential information you gather about the murderer, and the more seemingly unrelated murders you can assign to a particular killer. When starting out, yes, profiles tend to be more general because of the lack of info. It's sad that the ratio between a better profile and the number of murderers is so closely related.
Also, profiles are verified and enhanced with captured and convicted serial killers. These profilers seem highly skilled in seeing through lies, deception, etc. But, by its nature, almost nothing can be said about the serial killers who are never caught. The verification is absent. The profile left unverified then becomes a matter of individual opinions and ideas. I think that's what you're saying, but correct me if I messed it up.
Profiling won't lead us to who JtR was, I don't think -- in fact, I'm pretty sure (forget the odds of finding, profile or no!). But if we can ever get consensus on who he killed, we might be closer to saying what he was and maybe why he did what he did.
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
