Are we looking for the wrong thing here?

[Kuniworth]

Hello, I've been fascinated by this murder-mystery for quite some time now and frankly it still scares the hell out of me. I guess fear attracts in a weird way.

What strikes me though is that we are all looking for someone comfortable with the knife. But if we look at the killings, JTR killed or made the victims unconciouness by strangulation.

How do you know that you can silent a person by strangulation if you don't got experience in that field? JTR depends on his hands to then have the possibility to cut, and he is a really fast worker.

So my question is,

Should ripperologists perhaps focus more on earlier attacks/crimes of strangulation than those with the knife?

[DarkPassenger]

JTR is probably a progressive sex killer. It would be helpful to look at court records for assult with a knife, rape, that kind of thing, for about ten or fifteen years prior to the Ripper killings.

[Sam Flynn]

A well-made point, Kuniworth - and a valid one, IMO.

PS: Welcome to Casebook

[Cap'n Jack]

'a progressive sex killer'.

Indeed, when you swallow Colin Wilson something is bound to stick in the craw.

[Pinkerton]

I would say ANY type of violence, especially that directed at women would be something to look for. I also would look for robbery where violence is used AND burglary. I've heard quite a few serial killers were burglars at one point in their life. I'm not sure what the psychological connection is between the two though. Inspiring fear? Control?

Let me say this however. I and a lot of people have been pouring over newspaper articles and Old Baily transcripts for some time. If there was anything really obvious we would have found it by now. For example, there simply weren't a lot of unsolved murders in London with tangible connections during this time. In fact there weren't a lot of unsolved murders PERIOD during this time. Even fewer involving prostitutes, even less in the East End, and even fewer in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area. Murders almost always will turn up in the newspaper or court records (unlike assaults and robberies which aren't always reported or are considered "newsworthy"). Besides the ones we all know about I can only recall two or three cases of the unsolved murders of prostitutes.

So I am starting to think that IF JTR killed before 1887 he DIDN'T do it in the same area (Whitechapel/Spitalfields). I think the most likely thing we would hope to find of a suspect like JTR are assaults, robberies and burglaries. I can't tell you the number of times I've gotten excited by what I consider a good suspect, only to later realize the guy was dead, in prison, in the infirmary, or in an institution during one or more of the Ripper murders. I'm sure others have had this experience also!

[DarkPassenger]

'a progressive sex killer'.

Indeed, when you swallow Colin Wilson something is bound to stick in the craw.

Sex criminals start small and work up to bigger crimes because human sexual needs get gradually more elaborate and the stimulation required becomes more elaborate.

If you are seriously and properly telling me that you have some snivelling issue with the idea of progressive sex criminals, then you have zero reason to even be on this board. No wonder crackpot psychics have taken over the "science" of Ripperology

[Natalie Severn]

Sex criminals start small and work up to bigger crimes because human sexual needs get gradually more elaborate and the stimulation required becomes more elaborate.

If you are seriously and properly telling me that you have some snivelling issue with the idea of progressive sex criminals, then you have zero reason to even be on this board. No wonder crackpot psychics have taken over the "science" of Ripperology

Do "progressive" serial killers believe in sharing and bonding sessions with other serial killers?

[perrymason]

Hello all,

The progressive killer could be seen in some of these killings, if we are looking for continuing signs that the killer may have had some knowledge and skill he was using. But we dont have that evidence.

Liz Stride is regressive if anything, and Mary Kelly's corpse shows nothing of any knife skills or knowledge of anatomy by her killer. It almost seems like the killer hollowed her out to get the heart, if thats what he wanted...and since he took it, we must assume it was at least in part chosen by him. And tellingly, the uterus which was complete, was left behind.....at an indoor venue no less.

If you include only Mary Ann, Annie and Kate, you have progression, but if Polly starts the series, then strangulation cannot be considered his critical "MO" component, because in those three cases, the strangulation or cutting off the victims air in some manner, was reasonably his only choice if he wanted then dead quietly, without screams, and without too much struggle.

If a famous chef cuts the head off a fish before gutting and preparing it, would we look for that specific act as a way to determine if we are being served fish prepared by the same chef? Nope.....he just does it because it is part of the preparation process....just as Jack likely strangled his women first...simply the first logical step in the process, considering he CHOSE to work outdoors.......of course until he is forced, or suddenly decides, to go to womens rooms to kill them......the last without strangulation as a pre-cursor, and the only victim that was obviously struggling with him when he was using his knife.

Hmm,...is there any other Canonical that may have been attacked with the knife first... rather than after they are unconscious and compliant? I see no evidence of that at all.

The thread is are we looking for the wrong things, and I can say fairly comfortably that if we are, it more likely that we have assembled a series premise with many flaws and virtually no evidence. Im no lawyer......my namesake was one...but Ive never heard of finding someone guilty of something without having any physical evidence or even compelling circumstantial evidence pointing to that conclusion.

Best regards all.

[DarkPassenger]

Hello all,

The progressive killer could be seen in some of these killings, if we are looking for continuing signs that the killer may have had some knowledge and skill he was using. But we dont have that evidence.

Liz Stride is regressive if anything, and Mary Kelly's corpse shows nothing of any knife skills or knowledge of anatomy by her killer. It almost seems like the killer hollowed her out to get the heart, if thats what he wanted...and since he took it, we must assume it was at least in part chosen by him. And tellingly, the uterus which was complete, was left behind.....at an indoor venue no less.

I have been thinking about Stride. A different knife was used, and there were no mutilations. I am beginning to think Jack did not killer her - but again, we do not have evidence either way. Remember also that if Jack did kill her, he fled before he could "rip" because he was disturbed. Besides Stride, the killings suggest a progressive killer, but of course there is one aspect of the Stride killing that reflects this too - the fact that if Jack did do it, he fled the scene only to kill and mutilate again a quarter of a mile away, only fifteen minutes later.

If you include only Mary Ann, Annie and Kate, you have progression, but if Polly starts the series, then strangulation cannot be considered his critical "MO" component, because in those three cases, the strangulation or cutting off the victims air in some manner, was reasonably his only choice if he wanted then dead quietly, without screams, and without too much struggle.

Don't confuse MO with signature. Serial killers are pragmatically consistent - that is, they are conservative in their routines of murder but adapt accordingly when neccessary. Strangulation is present as a component of MO (I'm a bit cold on the autopsy reports, so I take it Polly did not exhibit signs of strangulation?), but the signature was the same, and has remained consistent, except for the exceptional circumstances of Stride.

If a famous chef cuts the head off a fish before gutting and preparing it, would we look for that specific act as a way to determine if we are being served fish prepared by the same chef? Nope.....he just does it because it is part of the preparation process....just as Jack likely strangled his women first...simply the first logical step in the process, considering he CHOSE to work outdoors.......of course until he is forced, or suddenly decides, to go to womens rooms to kill them......the last without strangulation as a pre-cursor, and the only victim that was obviously struggling with him when he was using his knife.

Kelly showed signs of struggle while the others were silenced first, is that what you mean? You're right - it is an inconsistency. But this could simply be a failure on his part - the rage of the mutilation might be explained by the fact that he failed to strangle her and had to literally hack her to death? We may never know.

[DVV]

The signs of a struggle may not mean a lot.
It was perhaps simply due to the fact that Mary was stronger than the other victims. Maybe she had a sort of instinctive reaction when she suddenly woke up, but I don't think there had been a big, long or noisy struggle. Nothing, at least, indicates it was the case.

Amitiés,
David

[Pippin Joan]

Kelly showed signs of struggle while the others were silenced first, is that what you mean? You're right - it is an inconsistency. But this could simply be a failure on his part - the rage of the mutilation might be explained by the fact that he failed to strangle her and had to literally hack her to death? We may never know.

This may sound like quibbling over terminology. First of all, I have a problem with the usual phrase "sex killer". I know it's been discussed before, but I still don't think that a vicious random murder is necessarily a "sex crime" just because the victim is a woman or a prostitute, or because the killer gets a massive rush from it. My next thought is the idea that Jack was venting rage. Is this necessarily true? Couldn't he just have a really warped and obsessive curiosity? The multiple stabbing of Martha Tabram seems rather rage-like, but the C5 murders seem definitely rageless. Even Mary Jane Kelly's horrible mutilations are calculated and methodical, at least more than the work of a person whose anger has crossed the last line. I am reminded of the general world-view of many people at the time, that a person who would do these things must be a true monster, a raving lunatic. They couldn't conceive of a rational insane person who functioned normally most of the time. I believe there must be some kind of anger at the bottom of his desire to do this to people, but the people, or who/what they were were, not objects of anger.

Does anyone see it this way?

[DVV]

I believe there must be some kind of anger at the bottom of his desire to do this to people, but the people, or who/what they were were, not objects of anger.
Does anyone see it this way?

Well thought and well expressed, in my opinion - though there might be something personal between MK and JtR.

Amitiés,
David

[catvance]

didn't the first victims 'assume the position' standing face against the wall? if you were being strangled from behind how do you fight? kelly was on a bed on her back, she would've been able to fight back.

[perrymason]

Well thought and well expressed, in my opinion - though there might be something personal between MK and JtR.

Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

Since the thread is "are we looking for the wrong thing", suggesting that the evidence that suggests that Mary Kelly either let in or allowed in her killer has anything to do with Jack the Ripper is perhaps a good place to start.

The opinions are that Jack killed Mary, almost unanimously, by the senior investigators. The evidence suggests that the killer may have had a pre-existing relationship with Mary, explaining his gaining access to the room when she is in nightclothes and its the middle of the night. The wounds suggest Jack the Ripper. My point being.....only the overall savage results are similar to Jack,... where she is found, how he met the victim, how he got her alone, how he subdued her, what hand he held the knife with, and what part of the body he was focussed on....(none).....indicate a departure from all previous Ripper attributed kills.

Jack the Ripper is not a man, or a woman, he is a catchphrase. One created most likely by journalists. That catchphrase is used to pin 5 deaths on.....only 5, according to the most vehement Canonical creator...leaving approximately that same amount of unfortunates killed by knife as "unclaimed". I think the first thing that needs to change is the idea that unsolved murders by unknown people are solved simply because Macnaughten and Bond say so. They were missing a very important part of proving guilt.....any PROOF of any kind pointing to a known man.


Best regards David.

[Sam Flynn]

and what part of the body he was focussed on....(none)

Which part of the body was Eddowes' killer focused on, Mike? Her face? Her intestines? Her uterus? Her colon? Her kidney?