How Jack struck

[perrymason]

I have always been interested by the theory that the ladies were attacked from behind initially after, er, 'presenting' themselves to him with their backs to him.
Not sure what anyone else thinks about this theory or if it has been debunked before.

Hi Kate,

It has not been debunked, and is in keeping with the manner in which many prostitutes serviced their clients. The one thing you can assume safely is that there was no "connection", it was looked for and not found in evidence. I think from behind is the answer, but whether walking to a venue behind the lady, or being in pre-coitus mode, is unclear. The one victim that was almost certainly attacked with her back turned is Liz Stride. Her scarf tells that tale.

Best regards.

[kensei]

It's easy to be swayed by the time-worn assertion that all the victims were prostituting themselves at the times of their deaths - they may not all have been. Many of such women in that area were desperate for cash, shelter or drink, and were more like what we'd call vagrants, rather than prostitutes. That being so, it's not inconceivable that Jack would have used a mixture of approaches, using empty promises just to get the women "on-side", not necessarily adopting the same strategy of propositioning for sex every time.

Nichols had been thrown out of her lodgings, and might just have been begging. The same circumstances applied to Chapman, who was very ill: another factor which Jack might have turned to his advantage, with promises of help. (What reason was there for Annie to be actively prostituting herself for doss money at that time of the morning anyway?) Stride, it seems to me, might feasibly have been on a date that night, and seems to have been roughed up prior to her death (some small-talk, there!). Eddowes was found with a thimble on the ground just off her hand - perhaps she'd offered to do some clothing repairs in return for some much-needed doss money, or a free drink.

I'm not saying that all the above happened, but that something similar might have happened in some instances. Either way, I see no reason to insist that Jack stuck rigidly to the pretence of hiring his victims for sex, or that each and every one of the women were soliciting at the time they met him.

Polly Nichols did make the comment "Look what a jolly bonnet I've got" in regards to why she would be back soon with her doss money, thinking she was looking more attractive than usual. That does seem to suggest that she was indeed intending to find a client for sex.

[Fisherman]

Hi Kat and Michael!
On the issue of whether he attacked from behind or not, I think that we must weigh in what was said about bruising in the cases. It is clearst in the case of Chapman, where ”there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest.”
It thus seems that Jack grabbed her from the front, and if he lowered her to the ground, there would have been very little space for him to do so standing behind her, inbetween the boarding and the stairs.
Of Eddowes we know that there were ”no bruises on the scalp, the back of the body, or the elbows.”
As for Stride – whoever killed her – we certainly have that tightened scarf that seems to speak of an attack from behind. But we also have the evidence telling us that: ”over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration”.
I would not want to swear to where the attacks came from, but I think the evidence goes more in favour of them coming from a face-to-face situation than from behind.

The best,
Fisherman

[KatBradshaw]

Hi Kat and Michael!
On the issue of whether he attacked from behind or not, I think that we must weigh in what was said about bruising in the cases. It is clearst in the case of Chapman, where ”there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest.”
It thus seems that Jack grabbed her from the front, and if he lowered her to the ground, there would have been very little space for him to do so standing behind her, inbetween the boarding and the stairs.
Of Eddowes we know that there were ”no bruises on the scalp, the back of the body, or the elbows.”
As for Stride – whoever killed her – we certainly have that tightened scarf that seems to speak of an attack from behind. But we also have the evidence telling us that: ”over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration”.
I would not want to swear to where the attacks came from, but I think the evidence goes more in favour of them coming from a face-to-face situation than from behind.

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks for that info!!
One querey, if the evidence suggests that Annie was bruised on the chest should there not be corresponding bruises on her back?? I the suggestion that Jack gripped her round the shoulders to force her down? So if the bruises on the front are from his thumbs should there not be 4 finger bruises on the back? Sorry if I am missing the point.

[Fisherman]

Actually, Kat, there is no telling who misses what here; it is a confusing business altogether trying to fit in the physical evidence with the final outcome and the fact that these were seemingly silent - or almost silent -deeds.
As for the "thumb marks" of the upper front of Chapmans chest, I would think that if he grabbed her around the upper parts of her arms and then applied the thumbs to the chest, perhaps pressing her against the boards with the thumbs, then that could have left us where we are, evidencewise. Offers no explanation to why there was only that single outcry of "No!", however.
Another possibility is of course that the pressure was applied after she had fallen to the ground, but that makes it even harder to explain the lack of any more outcries on Annies behalf.

Some have suggested that the attacks need not have been blitz-style at all; that he may have threatened the victims before he set about cutting them, to keep them silent. That seems feasible to some extent when it comes to Chapman. If he pressed her to the boards, threatening to do harm to her if she cried out, that may have kept her silent.
Then again, why would he first threaten her, then suffocate her, and thereafter cut her?

Sorry if I´m confusing more than helping out here, Kat. But confusion is what you always tend to end up with in this department!

The best,
Fisherman

[KatBradshaw]

Yes it certainly is. But then thats what keeps us all coming back!

[Sam Flynn]

Polly Nichols did make the comment "Look what a jolly bonnet I've got" in regards to why she would be back soon with her doss money, thinking she was looking more attractive than usual. That does seem to suggest that she was indeed intending to find a client for sex.

Indeed, but like I said, Ken "I'm not saying that all the above happened, but that something similar might have happened in some instances". Besides, she might have set out without a definite plan to prostitute herself and, if she'd been given the impression of a hand-out or free lodging/drink without doing the "dirty deed", I'm sure she wouldn't have turned it down. Which all gets back to Jack's possible adoption of a more flexible approach to lulling his victims into a position of trust. It need not have entailed propositioning them for sex all the time. In fact, as time wore on and the "down on whores" message got around, a "Good Samaritan" ploy might well have served him better.

[Nemesis Legion]

While this theory holds some weight (a peeping Jack if you will). I still doubt it, don’t most serial killers want the victims all to themselves, isn’t the choosing of the victim part of the game? I agree with the stalking bit but I am still holding on to the idea that he might have knew these woman and had intercourse with them possibly some time before and most likely just before the murders.

As for “There were no signs of sexual intercourse found on the victims”

To me I think that the police knew what type of woman they were and only looked for signs of forced intercourse (rape), which was very common in this era and area. Otherwise we have a serial killer with a small to no sexual motive and if that’s the case then our Jack is a pretty rare serial killer, also a non- sexual motive makes little sense to a killer who chooses things like the opposite sex, people were selling their bodies for sex, and are even in a similar age range to one another. That’s like going outta your way to well-known sushi restaurants in your city just to sample their wines - it makes little sense although it can happen I guess. Also I believe that even today with modern forensic abilities modern police have a hard time telling if a victim had sex just before death (or with the killer) unless they do checks with/for things that Victorian police would not have access to, like checking for sperm with UV lights and maybe even DNA testing – this becomes harder to trace if the victim was also a sex-worker.

Then again Sam makes some really great points too (recap below)

“It's easy to be swayed by the time-worn assertion that all the victims were prostituting themselves at the times of their deaths - they may not all have been. Many of such women in that area were desperate for cash, shelter or drink, and were more like what we'd call vagrants, rather than prostitutes. That being so, it's not inconceivable that Jack would have used a mixture of approaches, using empty promises just to get the women "on-side", not necessarily adopting the same strategy of propositioning for sex every time.

Nichols had been thrown out of her lodgings, and might just have been begging. The same circumstances applied to Chapman, who was very ill: another factor which Jack might have turned to his advantage, with promises of help. (What reason was there for Annie to be actively prostituting herself for doss money at that time of the morning anyway?) Stride, it seems to me, might feasibly have been on a date that night, and seems to have been roughed up prior to her death (some small-talk, there!). Eddowes was found with a thimble on the ground just off her hand - perhaps she'd offered to do some clothing repairs in return for some much-needed doss money, or a free drink.

I'm not saying that all the above happened, but that something similar might have happened in some instances. Either way, I see no reason to insist that Jack stuck rigidly to the pretence of hiring his victims for sex, or that each and every one of the women were soliciting at the time they met him.”


Thinking about the killer in this light (How Jack struck instead of who was Jack) gives us a better understanding of his times (1880’s) and a better idea on who it might have been. Its well better (IMO) then just picking the Metro Police’s pet suspects…

[Mitch Rowe]

The major problem I have with the idea that JTR had some sort of Sex with the Victims in not the so called "Autopsy Reports". Its the time involved. I dont think JTR had much time to do anything more than kill and mutilate.

The problems I have with any luring of the Victims with anything other than an offer of money for sex is the locations. Dark/Out of the way places arent anywhere to go to sell a bonnet or to sew on a button.

[Nemesis Legion]

“The major problem I have with the idea that JTR had some sort of Sex with the Victims in not the so called "Autopsy Reports". Its the time involved. I dont think JTR had much time to do anything more than kill and mutilate.

The problems I have with any luring of the Victims with anything other than an offer of money for sex is the locations. Dark/Out of the way places arent anywhere to go to sell a bonnet or to sew on a button.”

Good points

Although, I never said or thought he went thought with entire act or maybe he got off pretty quick (another reason for him to be bitter).

You make a point about selling items like “bonnet” and whatnot at times like 1:00 am - 5:00 am

[Sam Flynn]

The problems I have with any luring of the Victims with anything other than an offer of money for sex is the locations. Dark/Out of the way places arent anywhere to go to sell a bonnet or to sew on a button.

The button-sewing was only a suggestion, Mitch - and, let's face it, Eddowes really did have a thimble on the ground next to her hand, where one might expect a thimble to have fallen off. Your point about the darkness of Mitre Square is, of course, well made. As to selling a bonnet, that wasn't what I had in mind - my suggestion was that the Ripper may have approached Nichols on a charitable pretext, or she tried the old "Sob story" ploy on him first.

There's an interesting sequence at the start of Sondheim's Sweeney Todd, where the Beggarwoman approaches Sweeney and Anthony as they disembark at London docks. At first, she sings "Alms! Alms for a desperate woman! On a mis'rable chilly morning - thank you sir, thank you!". Having received "alms" from Anthony, and perhaps realising that he has some money to spare, she then launches into "How'd ya like a bit o' muff, dear? A little jig-jig? A little bounce around the bush? Wouldn't ya like to push yer parsley - you looks to me, dear, like you've got plenty there to push!". Fiction, I know, but nonetheless it strikes me as having a whiff of realism about it. Specifically, it represents how a vagrant/casual prostitute might have tried to ride her luck - if not her client - after an innocuous "first pass", with sex as the second resort.

Fancifully flipping to a Duke Street/Church Passage scenario, it might have started off with Eddowes saying, "Got any buttons need mending, sir? Oh [places hand on his lapel] I see you 'ave...", and progressed from there.

[Mitch Rowe]

"Got any buttons need mending, sir?":

'Why yes ma Lady I ave! Right ere on ma fly. Care to take a closer look?"

[DVV]

Fancifully flipping to a Duke Street/Church Passage scenario, it might have started off with Eddowes saying, "Got any buttons need mending, sir? Oh [places hand on his lapel] I see you 'ave...", and progressed from there.

Certainly a casual prostitute has to play her role like this. Indirectly.

Amitiés,
David

[Nemesis Legion]

So I went thought the victims again histories and noticed that none of them were full time streetwalkers most seems just very poor and would do anything thing for a bit of money – so they could get a drink (to forget their troubles) or for food and lodging. Most of these women seem to go to sex if it seemed like the best course of action to make money but by no means would they full time sex workers it seems. Not saying that they didn’t “see” men the night of their murders, just that begging and pawning items could have been done just as easily and those actions could have lead to sex.

A funny story is the one about Catherine Eddowes who said she was looking for and knew the whitechapel murderer (saying she’s going to cash in on the reward money - obviously she was joking,) and then ends up dead by our boy ol’ Jack himself - its sort of the same stuff you see in slasher horror movies.

“Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country but "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." The superintendent warned her to be careful he didn't murder her. "Oh, no fear of that." she replied. (There is no cooberative evidence for this story and it should be treated with a great deal of skepticism.)”

[perrymason]

“Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country but "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." The superintendent warned her to be careful he didn't murder her. "Oh, no fear of that." she replied. (There is no cooberative evidence for this story and it should be treated with a great deal of skepticism.)”

By all means treat the story with caution, but if you can figure out what Kate was doing that last night and Saturday day,...figure out when she really last saw John, why she headed to the City when released, and why she had a new jacket to wear when hopping had been poor that year.

The story is obviously pertinent if true, considering the eventual climax of her last night, and then add why she used to versions of the name Mary Jane Kelly in the last 2 occassions she had to provide a name for herself. Maybe she didnt want it known that she was back from hopping....as she plans as indicated above. The thing is.....who would she turn to with information.....Police? Or someone local who could get hands on residents money that was being pledged. The Official Reward money doesnt spike until after The Double Event.

Who knows.

Cheers.