Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Abby Normal]

I suppose that's true....so I guess we are tied at zero with solving any of these crimes. The fact that someone compiled the list and some agreed with it isn't evidence of anything but agreement in opinion Jon, and my opinion is in line with a modern expert on these crimes who told us all on here that he believed 2, perhaps 3, were connected by one killer.

Its been an unsatisfactory position for over 100 years Jon, surely we can come up with more realistic scenarios.

why just because theyre unsolved? yeah that makes sense.

[Abby Normal]

Michael W Richards: That was well publicized before her murder Fisherman, and why would you assume that anyone who used that technique would be the ONLY person to use it?

Show me anorher killer who did, Michael. And much as it was publicized, why would another killer emulate it? And then do the rest differently?

The whole idea of identifying two murders as being of the same hand rests on these exact things - common traits. And the rarer they are...

As far as "realistic doubt", much about Kellys murder shows us reason to have serious doubt about her inclusion into the Canonicals. Starting with the injuries, the venue, and extenuating circumstances.

They are all overcome by the abdominal flap thing. It tells the whole story.

for the most part yes it does.

[Abby Normal]

If we believe Hutchinsons eye witness statement about a well dressed man, then perhaps MJK was more inclined to take her client indoors to her lodgings.

Best Regards,

Dan

Hi Dan
well I don't believe hutchs story, but we don't need it, if you think Blotchy was a client.

However, I'm not so sure he was a client, strictly speaking.

[Fisherman]

Who was Jack then Bury?

Bury was buried when Jack last struck, John.

[Fisherman]

Mary Ann Nichols was killed in Bucks row, on the pavement, hardly a suitable place for her to have an assignation with a client.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Nichols murder is extremely problematic in relation to the location of the murder.

It is quite simply far too risky an endeavor to assault, kill and mutilate a victim in such an open space.
I do think it possible (no more than that) that the killer felt less vulnerable carrying out the Nichols murder because it was close to his home.
No real risk of passing other pedestrians going to and from their work in the early hours.

Am I right in thinking that Nichols was probably heading East along Bucks Row, after leaving Emily Holland and heading East along Whitechapel Road?

There is no evidence that Nichols managed to get herself a client that night, and I think the open location of the murder makes it more likely that the killer encountered her in the street and committed a "blitz" attack.

If the killer was heading the same way as Nichols, the fact that he pushed into the wall suggests that he may may have been left handed (push her with the right hand and attack with the knife in the left).

Of course, if he approached from the opposite direction, he may have mushed her into the wall with his left hand and attacked with his right.

Christer, although many people disagree with your Lechmere/Cross theory, I don't think anyone would deny that your knowledge of this particular murder is very extensive.

Have you any thoughts about the direction the killer approached his victim?

Well, to begin with, I think we may need to opt for Whitechapel Road as the more likely place where Nichols was picked up by the killer. Looking for business in Bucks Row seems to have been a forlorn cause, given the fact that the back streets and alleys were deserted in the area.
If this is true, then Nichols could have entered Bucks Row from either the western or the eastern inlet, so itīs hard to say in which direction she and the killer walked. I tend to guess that they came from the west, because I think if they came up Brady Street, there would have been closer venues to do the business than the doorway outside Browns.

Nichols, Stride, Eddowes and MacKenzie were all found near wooden doors/fences, and it has been speculated that prostitutes used them to lean against when performing their services - they supposedly provided a less rough ride during sex. So if Nichols had led the killer to the spot herself, for sex, then he may have taken advantage of the moment she lifted her clothing, and grabbed her by the throat. The bruising - on the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face and on the left side of the face itself - seems to tally well with her having been gripped by the throat from the front. After that, she will have been lowered to the ground.
The bruise on the lower part of the jaw was, according to Llewellyns suggestion, seemingly that of a thumb. If so, it would indicate the killer using his right hand to throttle Nichols. That in itīs turn indicates right-handedness on his behalf. To me, that is consistent with how Nichols was lowered to the ground with her head facing eastwards - the left arm would have acted as a support while the right hand steered the action, always clenched around the neck.
Once she was on the ground, he will have whipped the knife out and set about cutting her.

Thatīs my best guess anyhow!

[dantheman]

Hi Dan
well I don't believe hutchs story, but we don't need it, if you think Blotchy was a client.

However, I'm not so sure he was a client, strictly speaking.

After reading the article you referred me to in Ripperologist 146, I've become 50/50 on the Hutchison statement.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Well, to begin with, I think we may need to opt for Whitechapel Road as the more likely place where Nichols was picked up by the killer. Looking for business in Bucks Row seems to have been a forlorn cause, given the fact that the back streets and alleys were deserted in the area.
If this is true, then Nichols could have entered Bucks Row from either the western or the eastern inlet, so itīs hard to say in which direction she and the killer walked. I tend to guess that they came from the west, because I think if they came up Brady Street, there would have been closer venues to do the business than the doorway outside Browns.

Nichols, Stride, Eddowes and MacKenzie were all found near wooden doors/fences, and it has been speculated that prostitutes used them to lean against when performing their services - they supposedly provided a less rough ride during sex. So if Nichols had led the killer to the spot herself, for sex, then he may have taken advantage of the moment she lifted her clothing, and grabbed her by the throat. The bruising - on the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face and on the left side of the face itself - seems to tally well with her having been gripped by the throat from the front. After that, she will have been lowered to the ground.
The bruise on the lower part of the jaw was, according to Llewellyns suggestion, seemingly that of a thumb. If so, it would indicate the killer using his right hand to throttle Nichols. That in itīs turn indicates right-handedness on his behalf. To me, that is consistent with how Nichols was lowered to the ground with her head facing eastwards - the left arm would have acted as a support while the right hand steered the action, always clenched around the neck.
Once she was on the ground, he will have whipped the knife out and set about cutting her.

Thatīs my best guess anyhow!

Thanks for this Christer, it is always nice to bounce an idea off someone.

I note your point about the killer possibly picking Nichols up somewhere and moving into Bucks Row to have sex.

It just doesn't feel right to me.
The venue is far too open for a prostitute to entertain a client there.

I think it possible that she was heading for the Roebuck Pub, to try her luck there, and if unsuccessful, turning right at the top of Bucks Row and heading
along Brady Street and then back down Whitechapel Road to try her luck in the numerous pubs there.

I really think this murder has a lot to tell us, if we could only figure it out.

And to be fair, maybe you've gone some way towards that.
Good luck with the book.

[Michael W Richards]

Which unrealistic scenarios do you refer to ?

Oh, you know, that murders that vary quite a bit in terms of actions taken by the killer, venues and motivations are connected anyway because someone just guessed they were,.... that "he" forgoes his trademark actions only on some kills,.... that his skill and knowledge using a knife is variable depending on the day,... that he has specific targets, then for no reason, he doesn't,...that having a possible motive for the murder isn't as probable as a murderer without any...those kinds of things.

The entire legend of a Jack the Ripper is based upon speculation, opinion and guesswork Jon, you know it, I know it, and anyone who has put in the time knows it too. Some prefer to propagate that dogma rather than really address the foundations of some of the principle problems within it....the varied methodology, victimology, knowledge, and skill,...as well as the juxtapositioning of other known killers to this same area including terrorists. I believe the big story that Fall was the Parnell Commission, and its been held in the shadow of a very long standing urban myth.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Dan
well I don't believe hutchs story, but we don't need it, if you think Blotchy was a client.

However, I'm not so sure he was a client, strictly speaking.

There has never been a story, article, or just as hearsay by a friend, that Mary Kelly ever took a client into her room in Millers Court, and in fact she was living with a male partner until the end of Oct and a roommate until the Tuesday of her last week.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael W Richards: That was well publicized before her murder Fisherman, and why would you assume that anyone who used that technique would be the ONLY person to use it?

Show me anorher killer who did, Michael. And much as it was publicized, why would another killer emulate it? And then do the rest differently?

The whole idea of identifying two murders as being of the same hand rests on these exact things - common traits. And the rarer they are...

As far as "realistic doubt", much about Kellys murder shows us reason to have serious doubt about her inclusion into the Canonicals. Starting with the injuries, the venue, and extenuating circumstances.

They are all overcome by the abdominal flap thing. It tells the whole story.

The part in bold above is your answer Fisherman,.....to make everyone think that the murder was committed by the unknown phantom. A bit of genius really.

[Fisherman]

The part in bold above is your answer Fisherman,.....to make everyone think that the murder was committed by the unknown phantom. A bit of genius really.

He is no unknown phantom, Michael. Iīve provided his name a thousand times. And I have heard a thousand times that all I do has the goal to sell my theory.

You state that the Kelly murder differs on many points from the other C5 murders. Then, when I point out a very apparent and rare similarity, you sweep in under the carpet as either something two killers are perfectly likely to do at the same time and in the same metropolis, or as the act of a copycat killer.

The similarity I point to is totally unlikely to be coincidental. The differences you point to are nothing of the sort. Thatīs why I say that Annie and Mary succumbed to the same hand.

[Michael W Richards]

He is no unknown phantom, Michael. Iīve provided his name a thousand times. And I have heard a thousand times that all I do has the goal to sell my theory.

You state that the Kelly murder differs on many points from the other C5 murders. Then, when I point out a very apparent and rare similarity, you sweep in under the carpet as either something two killers are perfectly likely to do at the same time and in the same metropolis, or as the act of a copycat killer.

The similarity I point to is totally unlikely to be coincidental. The differences you point to are nothing of the sort. Thatīs why I say that Annie and Mary succumbed to the same hand.

The part that bears the similarity was written about in most every paper at the time Fisherman, "coincidental" requires an entirely different scenario...like it happened without any press about Annies wounds.

The vast amount of dissimilar characteristics when comparing Marys death to any other Canonical far outweigh what could be described as merely "repetitive".

[Fisherman]

The part that bears the similarity was written about in most every paper at the time Fisherman, "coincidental" requires an entirely different scenario...like it happened without any press about Annies wounds.

The vast amount of dissimilar characteristics when comparing Marys death to any other Canonical far outweigh what could be described as merely "repetitive".

If the killer was another man, and if he decided to make the strike look like Hanbury Street - why did he not do that?

Why did he do a whole lot of things that deviated wildly from the Chapman murder - but cut away the abdominal wall?

Any killer who wanted to emulate a Ripper killing would cut the neck, open the abdomen and take out organs. End of story. The flaps were involved in one case only, and they were not first page stuff at all.

All the people in Texas knew that there was a killer who gouged out the eyes of his victims in the early nineties. And lo and behold, when further victims surfaced with the same damage, that did not make the police go "Itīs somebody ele, probably, who read about it in the papers". They instead accepted that the lost eyes were testimony to a single killer with a very odd preference for gouging out eyes. And they were spot on.

When there is something as odd as this involved in two or more murder cases, why would we NOT take that as ain indication of a single killer? If such a thing is not enough to make that judgement, then what is?

People were shot in cars by the Son of Sam. When it occurred repeatedly, the police knew they had a serialist on their hands.

Girls were strewn along the Hillside slopes by Bianchi and Buono. The police correctly concluded that it was a case of the same perpetrator/s.

Why did the police look for a serial killer when girl after girl were hit over their heads with a hammer and subsequently stabbed with a sharp implement some decades ago in Britain? And why was there just the one killer, Peter Sutcliffe? Why not a number of killers who had read about it?

It is all very simple, Michael - much as anything CAN happen, it is extremely unlikely in this case. History has taught us that.

[spyglass]

If we believe Hutchinsons eye witness statement about a well dressed man, then perhaps MJK was more inclined to take her client indoors to her lodgings.

Best Regards,

Dan

Hi,
I wouldn't trust Hutchinson statement, as it was clearly written for him.
I would also suggest that MJK wasn't murdered by the ripper ( I'm guessing she wasn't murdered at all ) but let's just say 13 Millers court was almost certainly picked out for various reasons by someone/someone's in authority.

Regards

[Michael W Richards]

If the killer was another man, and if he decided to make the strike look like Hanbury Street - why did he not do that?

Why did he do a whole lot of things that deviated wildly from the Chapman murder - but cut away the abdominal wall?

Any killer who wanted to emulate a Ripper killing would cut the neck, open the abdomen and take out organs. End of story. The flaps were involved in one case only, and they were not first page stuff at all.

All the people in Texas knew that there was a killer who gouged out the eyes of his victims in the early nineties. And lo and behold, when further victims surfaced with the same damage, that did not make the police go "Itīs somebody ele, probably, who read about it in the papers". They instead accepted that the lost eyes were testimony to a single killer with a very odd preference for gouging out eyes. And they were spot on.

When there is something as odd as this involved in two or more murder cases, why would we NOT take that as ain indication of a single killer? If such a thing is not enough to make that judgement, then what is?

People were shot in cars by the Son of Sam. When it occurred repeatedly, the police knew they had a serialist on their hands.

Girls were strewn along the Hillside slopes by Bianchi and Buono. The police correctly concluded that it was a case of the same perpetrator/s.

Why did the police look for a serial killer when girl after girl were hit over their heads with a hammer and subsequently stabbed with a sharp implement some decades ago in Britain? And why was there just the one killer, Peter Sutcliffe? Why not a number of killers who had read about it?

It is all very simple, Michael - much as anything CAN happen, it is extremely unlikely in this case. History has taught us that.

In the case of Mary Kelly, we have what amounts to be second hand testimony that she was involved in a 3 way triangle with 2 Joes, 1 of which was just ejected from her residence. If either Joe had heard about that, you would have a motive for a crime of passion. Do possible motives not count? Does the fact that the vast majority of murders involving facial mutilation are indications that the victim and killer knew each other intimately count? Considering the fact that she was killed in the most intimate manner possible, in her own bed, undressed? And what was done to her did not in any way resemble any other so-called Ripper murder. A sound reason why is because the killer who actually earned the name Ripper killed working prostitutes in the streets. That's the profile based on the first 2 murders only, to throw that out so you can then include non-ripped women, or women at home in bed is, for me, ludicrous.

Anyone could have done to Mary Kelly what was done, it was crude and without appreciable skill or knowledge. Now read what the doc said about Annies killer again....skill, knowledge and the ability to accomplish all that he did within a half an hour...which is likely the maximum time he could have had, since Cadosche tells us that a woman and man were on the same spot where Annie died at 5:15ish.

Mary Kelly died by the hand of someone she knew, that's almost a cert. Maybe you should try and link her with Lechmere instead of poo-pooing what others suggest as possible scenarios. You and your pet theory prevent you from assessing these murders as individuals Fisherman, so any pushback from you on any point has to be considered as defensive posturing. Someone using a fake name and being in the area of a ripper murder....(an area that is less than 1 square mile), is hardly evidence of anything.