Justification?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

It occurs to me that we can accept as a baseline something minute about the man, or men, that killed the Canonicals. And perhaps others within the Unsolved Murders file.

For me, it is highly unlikely that this man, or men, was just wandering the streets in the middle of the night, waiting in the shadowed alleys, for just the right opportunity to pounce upon a victim. That leaves the possible achievement of his goals on that particular night purely up to chance. It also seems improbable that someone bent on killing wouldnt have counted on some means of assistance to help ensure success. And it seems improbable to me that he would have committed what appears to be relatively silent murders if he wasnt able to get these women in close proximity before he struck, which implies he could befriend these women,...even after the first killings and while their guard was up.

So, can we accept a baseline premise that the killer, or killers, had some valid reason for their being out in the middle of the night? Some reason that the women who were out understood by sight. If they were ever stopped and questioned by police, they had an alibi at the ready. They could walk about with ease instead of trying not to be seen, they would be less threatening to a woman out at that time of night because of their regular presence on the streets, or perhaps some attire that suggested trustworthiness.

I do not for one moment suggest that a butcher or slaughterhouse-man would fit that bill, even though they were regularly out and about all through the nights, but rather perhaps a policeman, a religious man, or a doctor who works nights at local hospitals.

Isnt it time to set aside a drooling street character as this Jack fellow? Surely he had more on the ball than that.

[Kattrup]

So, can we accept a baseline premise that the killer, or killers, had some valid reason for their being out in the middle of the night? Some reason that the women who were out understood by sight. If they were ever stopped and questioned by police, they had an alibi at the ready.

I can't really accept it, seeing as plenty of folks walked the streets at night with no apparent "valid reason".

Look at some of the witnesses, for instance. Hutchinson was unemployed and just generally walking around with no real purpose.

[Harry D]

Isnt it time to set aside a drooling street character as this Jack fellow?

Why would an opportunistic prowler necessarily be "drooling?"

[Ginger]

I can't really accept it, seeing as plenty of folks walked the streets at night with no apparent "valid reason".

Look at some of the witnesses, for instance. Hutchinson was unemployed and just generally walking around with no real purpose.

Well replied. Certain parts of the East End seemed to be absolutely swarming at all hours.

I think it's obvious that there could have been nothing alarming in Jack's appearance or conduct. Had it been otherwise, he'd not have been able to induce the victims to go with him.

I think it's probable that he went out of a night intending murder. Had the killings resulted from chance meetings, it seems unlikely that they'd have occurred on the apparent schedule that they did. That all the murders occurred on weekends or holidays suggests to many that Jack liked to kill, but could only manage the logistics of it on these days.

Another possibility, and one that I think deserves more attention than it gets, is that he was under some sort of periodic stress, which either drove him to go out to kill for relief, or else made him so angry and on-edge that what might otherwise have been rough sex with a prostitute turned into murder.

I'm not sure that we ought to be asking ourselves whether the murderer had a valid reason to be out at night, but rather whether the victim would consider him an explicable, or even an expected character in the neighborhood. To a strolling prostitute, a man looking for sex is someone that she certainly expects to encounter. She herself would have no reason to be out and about in that neighborhood at night otherwise. For me, the rub comes in that Jack was apparently able on each occasion to get his victim to accompany him willingly to a dark or secluded location. A policeman or a clergyman or other authority figure might be able to manage that, although I would suspect that it would become much harder as the murders wore on. An ordinary fellow, though, whether labourer or unemployed, clerk or young horndog, would have a much better chance at that, I think.

[MysterySinger]

I can't agree with the proposal as a baseline either. I think to do so would endorse a thought that the murderer had a 100% success rate (or close to). I suspect that if they had been that "good" there would have been many more murders and that it was circumstances that prevented that. So, I'm more of the opportunist school of thought but not totally fixed either way.

Did the victims know their murderer? I'm not sure. However, if he is an opportunist and if there were "failures" at times, there is a chance that someone would have named them, so in that case I suspect the person was not known. The thought of a "known" killer might fit in more with Michael's proposal.

Just a couple of thoughts, hope it all makes sense.

[Semper_Eadem]

I think it could be argued that the Killer's victims added to his success rate by taking them both somewhere private.

I also think the Killer was probably employed so, hence there weren't more killings then there were.

Actually, why didn't the Police stop and question the prostitutes. I mean those woman working the street must of been known to the police but they seemed to leave those prostitutes alone unless they were arresting the them.

[Wickerman]

Actually, why didn't the Police stop and question the prostitutes. I mean those woman working the street must of been known to the police but they seemed to leave those prostitutes alone unless they were arresting the them.

Do we have any reason to think they did not question prostitutes?

Scotland Yard will have assumed this killer was known to the women of the night, so questioning the friends and associates of the victims would follow as a matter of course for the investigation.
We don't know everything the police did, and certainly the press did not know every aspect of the police investigation.

[DJA]

a doctor who works nights at local hospitals.

One who made his way home along Hanbury Street late at night.
That accounts for Nichols and Chapman.
Then Eddowes returns for a reward and enlists Stride.

[Joshua Rogan]

But how does it account for Kelly?

So the first two were just random killings as the doc walked home....but the next two were to silence attempted blackmailers? How and why was Liz roped into Kate's blackmail plot - not as muscle, surely? And how did the killer find out, not only that she was involved, but where she would be that evening? And how did he know that Kate would be on the streets? And why did Eddowes casually mention that she knew who the killer was to the lodging house deputy, but forget to mention it to her partner John Kelly?

[Semper_Eadem]

True Wickerman, Excellent Point.

[DJA]

But how does it account for Kelly?

So the first two were just random killings as the doc walked home....but the next two were to silence attempted blackmailers? How and why was Liz roped into Kate's blackmail plot - not as muscle, surely? And how did the killer find out, not only that she was involved, but where she would be that evening? And how did he know that Kate would be on the streets? And why did Eddowes casually mention that she knew who the killer was to the lodging house deputy, but forget to mention it to her partner John Kelly?

Gotta think it through Red.
All Five were in it together,although Nichols made her move immediately Eddowes left for Kent.

[Michael W Richards]

But how does it account for Kelly?

So the first two were just random killings as the doc walked home....but the next two were to silence attempted blackmailers? How and why was Liz roped into Kate's blackmail plot - not as muscle, surely? And how did the killer find out, not only that she was involved, but where she would be that evening? And how did he know that Kate would be on the streets? And why did Eddowes casually mention that she knew who the killer was to the lodging house deputy, but forget to mention it to her partner John Kelly?

The problem with that line of questioning is that it assumes a premise before it has been proven....that being that the Canonicals were all killed by the same man for the same reason.

The underlying obstacle in this area of study, in my opinion, is that the acceptance of a "series" beyond what is indicated by the evidence alone....(for example, assuming that any subsequent murder after the essentially identical kills within 2 weeks at the end of August/early Sept must have been committed by that same killer), despite the variances in method, skill and focus, limits ones queries in search of any real truths.

Now...your mention of Eddowes for me is interesting, because we have hearsay evidence that she voiced what could be construed as a motive for murder...accusing someone of the butcher style murders in the area. What if that someone did have something dangerous to hide...even if unrelated to those particular crimes.

As for Kelly, it appears that whoever killed her was known to her, which eliminates a random "prowler" opportunistic type kill, as what seems to be the case in the first 2 Canonicals. Does the fact that she was likely killed by someone she knew and who knew her open any possible motives for her murder? Does her telling a friend she was seeing another Joe even while she lived with Barnett, unknown to him, open any possible motives?

Of course it would.

[DJA]

Would your view be different if Kelly,Eddowes (Conway) and Nichols had known Jack for over twenty years.
Especially if Eddowes and Nichols were his inpatients together with the same disease.
Chapman and Stride were a bit newer,if I can put it that way.
Known most of this for eight years now.

[Joshua Rogan]

Would your view be different if Kelly,Eddowes (Conway) and Nichols had known Jack for over twenty years.

Did Kelly really know Jack when she was a child living in Wales?

[DJA]

Pretty sure she was a local lass.