Prove it

[Mr.Hyde]

Hi smezenen!
I agree JTR had been at "work" for at least 3 years before the 5CVs.Same area though.Not necessarily murders.
Hope your wife is well.

[smezenen]

Hi smezenen!
I agree JTR had been at "work" for at least 3 years before the 5CVs.Same area though.Not necessarily murders.
Hope your wife is well.

she is doing much better thank you.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Only Stride and Kelly are doubted as [canonical] Ripper victims, so I'll only focus on them here.

For me, Stride being a Ripper victim going by the evidence we have indicates that she was only ever deemed canonical due to coincidence and police speculation alone. There is no proof that ties her to the Ripper at all. If she hadn't had been slewn on the same night as Eddowes then she would've almost certainly had been deemed an average knife attack of the time. Her murder is only interesting to me because she was the probable work of an altogether different killer and the 'fact' that Jack and another murderer were working (unaffiliated) on the same night is an interesting aspect to the case. As for the theory that Jack was allegedly interrupted hence the no mutilation: if you buy into that then you have to accept that Jack was allegedly interrupted the moment his blade cut her throat. It's the only explanation, if you choose to believe that Jack was her killer, that she was murdered so differently from the other canonical victims. But even then you have to ask yourself why Jack, for this one time, decided to strangle this one victim with her scarf first as opposed to his hands as he did with one or two of his other victims? Not to mention the high risk factor in the venue of that club yard. You could argue that the other areas were just as dangerous to him but they wasn't. The other venues were nowhere near as active as that club and its surrounding areas.

As for Kelly, first of all, I very highly doubt that Jack just invited himself into her room while she was asleep. That's some serious From Hell BS. I think it's a hell of a lot more likely and realistic that she had invited him in as a client herself. Regarding her age, I'll hazard a guess that Jack might've wanted to have ripped someone nearer the age of his previous victims but couldn't afford to be too picky, so worked with what he could get. I'll openly admit that it is a clichéd and somewhat 'convenient' reason for the extensive mutilations performed on Kelly but I think the reason being is that Jack had more time and more privacy to work with. That and Kelly's mutilations seem like what I'd expect to see not only in the circumstances that they occured (inside as opposed to on the streets) but also the next step to Jack's escalation; to me, if you combine those two elements you get more or less what we see in the photos of Kelly's corpse. Also, her throat wound is just as powerful and perhaps done with the same amount as ferocity as that of the other canonical victims but Stride.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head for now, but I'll probably come back and rant some more later.

[Limehouse]

Hi Michael

I'm not going to write a long essay. I'll just take one of the points you mention - the age. Does anyone really think that Jack only wanted to kill and mutilate middle-aged women? So that in effect he was thinking to himself "I'll let you escape, because you're young. I'll kill you, you're old. You look like you're in your 30s - please wait a moment while I consider my options"?

That aside, Kelly's age has no bearing if like me you consider that Jack simply entered the room unaware of who or what he would find inside.

Peter Sutcliffe killed women from the age of 16 through to late forties. He also killed one of his victims inside her own flat. One of his victims was killed in a very different style from most of the rest. This is possibly because, on the night in question, he did not intentionally go out to kill but the opportunity presented itself and he could not resist. he therefore did not have his usual 'kit' with him.

All this illustrates, I think, that killers of this sort have to take opportunities as they arise. They may have a certain scenario in mind, but things do not always work out the way you planned them. For example, wasn't it raining the night Mary was killed? Maybe most of the other women did not venture out on that wet, cold night. Mary was perhaps desperate for rent money or for drink.

[Mr.Hyde]

Hi M&P.
Coincidence and (police) speculation are important tools in an investigation.
CVs 3 & 4,in particular,were stalking JTR.CV5 was last of the group.Blackmail!
JTR was at "the Club" due to philosophy-fan of Carlyle and Spinoza.
CV3 was despatched quickly for obvious reasons-crowd about to disperse from inside.Doubt he heard the approaching cart-defective hearing.

[Jon Guy]

"Stride: “The right arm was over the belly”

...and you use that to tie her in with the others. But I think that should be challenged.

To begin with, when it comes to the position of the arm in the cases of Chapman and Kelly we have something that defies logic and - to some extent - gravity.

With Chapman and Kelly, this does not hold true - one arm lies on the belly or breast area, and at least in Kellys case, it would seem that it has ended up there AFTER the eviscerations. A good case could be made for it having been placed deliberately on the stomach.

Hi Fisherman

Regarding Chapman`s arm left across her breast, I think the positioning in this case can be explained by one of the first people on the scene, James Kent, whose testimony has both Chapman`s hands raise towards her throat as if defending herself at time of death :

She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat.

[Robert]

Hi Limehouse

Yes, it may be that Mary ventured out into the rain. I tend to think it was the other way round, and the murderer simply walked in so as to get out of the rain. It all depends on what kind of murderer you think he was. Those who see a cunning psychopath will laugh at the suggestion, but I think it more likely that Jack was away with the fairies.

[Mr.Hyde]

Hi Robert
Stroke induced Alzheimer's would not suprise me.Brilliant man beforehand though.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy writes:

"Regarding Chapman`s arm left across her breast, I think the positioning in this case can be explained by one of the first people on the scene, James Kent, whose testimony has both Chapman`s hands raise towards her throat as if defending herself at time of death :
She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat."

That´s quite likely, Jon; good point! And if it holds true, then the arm was in place as she was eviscerated too, and that would leave us with just the one victim - Kelly - where we must accept that the arm ended up in it´s final resting position as a result of some sort of action on behalf of the killer. Whether there was some sort of "posing" or ritualistic element involved in it all is another question altogether, though. Both of these options are rendered somewhat less valid, however, if none of the other victims evidenced any action in this respect on the killer´s behalf!

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

[caz]

Peter Sutcliffe killed women from the age of 16 through to late forties. He also killed one of his victims inside her own flat. One of his victims was killed in a very different style from most of the rest. This is possibly because, on the night in question, he did not intentionally go out to kill but the opportunity presented itself and he could not resist. he therefore did not have his usual 'kit' with him.

All this illustrates, I think, that killers of this sort have to take opportunities as they arise. They may have a certain scenario in mind, but things do not always work out the way you planned them. For example, wasn't it raining the night Mary was killed? Maybe most of the other women did not venture out on that wet, cold night. Mary was perhaps desperate for rent money or for drink.

Great post, Limehouse.

Almost invariably, when serial killers are eventually identified, their accepted victim counts will tend to increase if anything, not decrease. If Sutcliffe had died shortly after his last murder and never been identified, would the armchair theorists now be fingering his victims' male associates for murder, one by one, on the basis of any and every perceived difference between the women, how they behaved, and where and how they were attacked?

If the murders of Liz and Mary can both be explained perfectly well in a ripper context by the fact that they were not behaving quite like Polly, Annie or Kate when first encountered by their killer, or when he decided they must die, there simply is no need to create further unknown killers unless one has hard evidence for who they were, what motive they had for doing the deed - or a bloomin' GREAT theory for a ripper with a perfect alibi for Liz or Mary.

Imagine Jack out on the prowl, seeing Liz at the entrance to Dutfield's Yard, assessing it as a risky mutilation location but finding her reluctant to go with him somewhere quieter. Faced with the choice of whacking her there or looking elsewhere (possibly having made her suspicious about his motives), he goes for whacking her anyway, but immediately retreats into the shadows to assess whether the coast would be clear enough for him to get down to business (see Sally Anne Bowman - second victim of a Croydon double event in recent years), and shortly afterwards has to abort and go to plan B: "Bugger!"

Now imagine Jack, a few weeks on, seeing his best opportunity yet, with Mary in her little room in Miller's Court, and seizing it with both hands: "Bingo!"

Why does any of this so need fixing that it causes people to become fixed in their alternative thinking?

Perry, I deeply regret offending you elsewhere, but was really pleased to see all the posts deleted and would prefer your minimalist ripper thinking to be all on the one relevant thread in future.

Maybe I take it far too personally when I see you popping up all over the place with nothing more than the same old speculation that goes nowhere. It's just that I can't help thinking that if I had to be murdered, and my name and butchered body paraded around the world for the next hundred years for all to see and speculate about, because my killer could not be identified and brought to justice, I know I'd MUCH sooner be remembered as the impersonal victim of a stranger than of any man who knew me personally and not only wanted me dead but wanted to do it himself.

I realise that facing up to the truth is infinitely more important than any potential murder victim's feelings, but where is this 'truth' that Liz and Mary were NOT impersonal victims of a stranger?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

All valid points, Caz. No doubt about it. And just like you say, finding that serial killers lie behind strikes that one would not have thought belonged to them grounded on appearances, is not uncommon at all.

Still, I think that when it comes to Stride we have to weigh in all parametres, and when we do, we end up with something that lacks logic on a number of counts.
The cutting of the neck - why did he do it in a more shallow fashion that what was the case with the other victims? What would have been the reason behind that?
If we assume that there was an interruption, it would seem it occurred in the split second when he cut.
That is anomaly number one. Of course many other points can be brought up, related to the MO and the choice of venue, but you have offered a viable - or at least alternative - explanation to most of it.
However, if he turned to plan B, just like you suggest, he would have done so knowing that the police would be swarming all over the streets in a short time after the Berner Street killing. Therefore one would have expected him to strike as fast as possible again. But although it only took ten minutes to walk to Mitre Square, he spent another 35 minutes before striking. Why? There would have been no shortage of potential victims on the streets, and many of them would have been there for the taking a lot closer to Berner Street than the place he chose.
Some will say that he needed to move away from Berner Street to make his escape safe, but we know for a fact that he doubled back after the Eddowes strike. Why would he take measures to avoid the police in instance one, only to walk more or less into their net in instance two? It makes no sense at all.

I think that the more credible thing is that Jack had chosen the Mitre Square area for that night´s exploits, and that he had his mind set on an evisceration, followed by a dash for his bolthole in the middle of the district - and that this was exactly the plan he stuck with, totally unaware that the area around Whitechapel High Street was a beehive of police action at that stage.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

I guess for me there is nothing that Ive seen that says to me personally that the man that killed Annie Chapman, which I and the contemporary Investigators believe also killed Polly, needed or wanted to do other than what is seen in those murders. From what I see he did not need to modify his approach and kill technique, it was wonderfully successful, and the physicians thought he killed so he could get what he eventually takes, not just what was a convenient grab for him, and if the series was confined to only women whose death matches the style and characteristics of those first 2 women, which is virtually identical, then we could omit some murders that necessitate a new iteration of Jack, and add some that match the style and "feeling" of a Ripper crime, but were not thought to be Jack. Like Alice.

By "feeling" I mean this..... read Polly and Annies autopsy data and crime scene data again....then read Liz Strides again. Do they "feel" the same? I know they look diiferently in terms of results, but do they convey the same level of evil in the killer? The same cold, flat emotional state that is seen in most of his wounds save the throat cut.

I can see that there was good reason for the severity in that regard, it was the only cut he makes that by itself must kill the women. Most other cuts could kill them eventually, but the throat cuts almost kill them instantly...or to some virtual death until blood loss stops the lungs and heart.

Best regards all.

[The Good Michael]

By "feeling" I mean this..... read Polly and Annies autopsy data and crime scene data again....then read Liz Strides again. Do they "feel" the same? I know they look diiferently in terms of results, but do they convey the same level of evil in the killer? The same cold, flat emotional state that is seen in most of his wounds save the throat cut.

Maybe colder even. This was a quick cut and get out as if she meant nothing to him but a death. No emotion here that I can see.

Cheers,

Mike

[smezenen]

I guess for me there is nothing that Ive seen that says to me personally that the man that killed Annie Chapman, which I and the contemporary Investigators believe also killed Polly, needed or wanted to do other than what is seen in those murders. From what I see he did not need to modify his approach and kill technique, it was wonderfully successful, and the physicians thought he killed so he could get what he eventually takes, not just what was a convenient grab for him, and if the series was confined to only women whose death matches the style and characteristics of those first 2 women, which is virtually identical, then we could omit some murders that necessitate a new iteration of Jack, and add some that match the style and "feeling" of a Ripper crime, but were not thought to be Jack. Like Alice.

By "feeling" I mean this..... read Polly and Annies autopsy data and crime scene data again....then read Liz Strides again. Do they "feel" the same? I know they look diiferently in terms of results, but do they convey the same level of evil in the killer? The same cold, flat emotional state that is seen in most of his wounds save the throat cut.

I can see that there was good reason for the severity in that regard, it was the only cut he makes that by itself must kill the women. Most other cuts could kill them eventually, but the throat cuts almost kill them instantly...or to some virtual death until blood loss stops the lungs and heart.

Best regards all.

I agree withmost of what you are saying Michael. Im even coming farther around to thinking that Stride was someone elses work. but using the same FEELING of cold flat emotional state that you use to exclude stide would by its nature include Kelly.

The other statement in your post that I dont agree with is "From what I see he did not need to modify his approach and kill technique, it was wonderfully successful," Nothing says he couldnt change it and maybe after kelly he did change it so drasticaly that his following murders are not even atributed to him. Im of the opinion that if it was to easy Jack might get bored with the technique and try something else. Just to avoid the rut so to say, when the shine wore off he might have tried something else. I think Jack need the thrill of the kill and if its to easy the thill isnt there.

[celee]

Hi Mike,

I am confused in what way did Jack modify his approach? He killed Kelly indoors because she took him there. He would have killed her in the street had she took him there..

The Kelly mutilations were so great because Jack had the time to indulge in his every fantasy. Simple as that.

I guess I am one of the fools who still feel that the Detectives who worked the case and the coronor were capable.

Your friend, Brad