Prove it

[perrymason]

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

Hi Brad,

I dont take any for fools, but I do think everyone of them had personal and professional angst and frustration that led them to categorize a patch of murders too quickly.

The Whitechapel Murderer was "Jack", before Dear Boss gave him the name. They called him that, not just referring to the Whitechapel Murders, but the Whitechapel Murderer.

And he was thought to start these nasty murders in the Spring, with Annie, Ada and Emma. Even though in Emma's case she stated herself it was 3 or 4 men that attacked her before she dies. Martha is added, but with new viciousness. Then something new starts. By the end of the Canonical list Martha and all the other women are now dead by someone else, and Jack killed the post mortem mutilated ones. They even added a non-mutilated one because they knew he was working the area and he kills later, within 45 minutes and 15 minute walk.

I think many people feel the same way today, without the same pressures that the investigators were under, and that to me doesnt make sense. We dont have to solve these quickly....they did.

To Mike, I disagree obviously with the nature of Liz Strides murder, It appears to me she was grabbed by her scarf, had it twisted tight to choke her, used it to pull her off balance, and then brutally slit her throat and dropped her. Since she is holding cashous, it would seem the second or two before the attack she did not anticipate it, and I can see one smart ass remark dissing the man she is with turning very bad for her by his anger.

I think she said something to incite his rage, maybe on purpose thinking she was safe to, and it backfired on her so badly she was lying on the ground bleeding to death within 2 seconds. At least I believe that satisfies the circumstantial aspects as they appear.

All the best

[Steelysama]

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 think that you are right on here. One of the reasons that the Whitechapel murders were so difficult to solve at the time was that the victims were women whose profession involved taking their client off to an out-of-the-way spot for their business. The likelihood is high that the killer would have taken advantage of this and allowed the victim to do the leading, which was to her apartment in Kelly's case.

I do not see how, logically, the Kelly murder could be disqualified for being indoors. In fact, as Brad notes, it gave the Ripper time to do whatever he wished to her. One could even suggest that he had been hoping for a private, indoor situation to come along. Kelly's murder looks to be the logical place where the Ripper was heading to through his crescendo of violence through the other murders.

As to age, I do not think there is evidence to show that the Ripper took this into consideration. All of the victims are already linked together by their being prostitutes. And we do not even have information on the average age of a street prostitute of the time, not to mention a myriad of other factors.

Addressing again the "homeless" question, there is again no evidence that the Ripper did look for this. For that matter, I do not know what motivation he would have in looking for this. He certainly was not trying to hide his murders by taking someone who people would not notice disappearing. After all, he left the bodies in plain sight. And then it is also to be asked how he would even know a homeless prostitute from one who wasn't. Short of asking them, it is unlikely that he could tell. And at the height of the public's awareness of the murders, it might be suspicious for a client to go around asking prostitutes if they were homeless or not.

[Jane Welland]

Do we think then...

.. In the case of Mary Kelly -

That Jack got lucky in happening on a lone prostitute in the early hours of the morning who happened to have her own pad?

Or,

That Jack was looking for some such said lady, as a logical progression from his last job, and a few words from Mary Kelly demonstrated that she would fit the bill nicely?

Or,

That he had already singled her out for special treatment?

What do people think? I should have started a Poll, but I'm not sure how to do it!

Jane x

[halomanuk]

That would have been a good poll too Jane...
Personally i think he got lucky,he may have been AWARE of her,as of many others, but i think he caught her at the right time for him,with Barnett gone,and used it to its maximum potential...

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I believe the only factor that is implicit in the Mary Kelly murder... that is relevant to the killers identity...is a personal knowledge element.

He could have entered using a method few people knew, he entered and was not summarily screamed at and fought with.. by the witness statements, this is certainly a personal venue and personal circumstances for a killer thought to kill only strangers in neutral locations, and 2 key actions taken in that room have a great symbolic link with emotion...the emotional impact of facial features, and the symbolic center of emotion, the heart.

I think that people who look into the occult type suspects or the ones that we would likely see ritualistic behavior from are looking in the right kinds of places myself. Im not sure all 5 Canonicals have seemingly purposeless mutilation as a fixture of these "rituals".

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

He could have entered using a method few people knew

Mr Blotchy didn't need to do that... he was let in by Kelly after accompanying her to her room.

he entered and was not summarily screamed at and fought with.

Neither was Blotchy, but he could still have been the one who killed her, I suppose.

this is certainly a personal venue and personal circumstances for a killer thought to kill only strangers in neutral locations

A back yard, with dozens of people's windows overlooking it, hardly strikes me as neutral.

the emotional impact of facial features

... but then, there's always Eddowes.

and the symbolic center of emotion, the heart.

Don't forget the bladder, the stomach, intestines, spleen, kidneys, womb, bladder, liver, breasts, and one lobe of a lung.

It's all very well focusing on single issues, Mike, but there's a wider picture to take into account.

[DarkPassenger]

If we relied on physical evidence only to judge the existence of a serial killer, no serial killers would ever get caught, except the sloppy ones.

Take the Suffolk Strangler - two prostitutes, killed within weeks on one another, and dumped in the same stream in a small country town. Doesn't take a forensic match to know it's probably a serial killer.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

I think your points on Blotchy are valid, and would make him a known entity as I suggested, but citing all the organs cut free isn't the main part of any Ripper crime scene, its what he takes that he cuts free that is.

Your lumping simple excisions in with organs of expressed interest and evident coveting.

No-one says it required knowledge and skill to remove a breast or remove any old object from an open abdominal cavity, however many medical professionals do seem to feel that to extract a uterus in " a clean sweep of a knife", or to extract a kidney through the patients abdomen are acts that did require skill and knowledge.

What he cuts out and leaves behind is not expressed interest in the organ..... its essentially his obvious disinterest in it.

Gareth, before we have people now start claiming that the intestines had some deep meaning to him because they were cut out, when in every case where they are removed it was most probably done so for his convenience and nothing more.... lets not start suggesting that the other organs that he cuts and leaves with the room or victim have some "special significance". Since he chooses to go for her heart via the sternum, rather than breaking ribs and accessing it directly and swiftly, all those organs left behind are likely no more "significant" than the intestines probably were. He moved them...he didnt take them.

The only organs that you can state have any lasting influence on him past the excision itself are the ones taken with him....everything he left he obviously didnt want.

In Polly and Annies case, the doctors thought that he may have actually killed them to take their uterus...in Annies case there is support for that statement.

Did any doctor suggest that Mary was killed for her heart?

Best regards Sam

[Steelysama]

Hi all,

I believe the only factor that is implicit in the Mary Kelly murder... that is relevant to the killers identity...is a personal knowledge element.

He could have entered using a method few people knew, he entered and was not summarily screamed at and fought with.. by the witness statements, this is certainly a personal venue and personal circumstances for a killer thought to kill only strangers in neutral locations, and 2 key actions taken in that room have a great symbolic link with emotion...the emotional impact of facial features, and the symbolic center of emotion, the heart.

I think that people who look into the occult type suspects or the ones that we would likely see ritualistic behavior from are looking in the right kinds of places myself. Im not sure all 5 Canonicals have seemingly purposeless mutilation as a fixture of these "rituals".

Best regards all.

Let's look at the suggestion of a personal element. I do not see a real case for the idea that there was anything more personal about Mary Kelly's murder. Let's look at the points in detail.

a) The murder took place in her apartment instead of on the street.

We have already established that Jack the Ripper preyed upon women who were prostitutes. These women, as a part of their business, would go with their client to an out-of-the-way place. For the other 4 canonicals, that was in the street. Mary Kelly just happened to use her apartment for the business. Therefore, it does not seem unusually personal in that way.

b) Mary Kelly did not scream or fight.

We actually do not know this. She might have done so after the killer had already pinned her down and covered her mouth. Mary Kelly was younger than the other victims, but that does not mean she was any match for a killer who was by that point practiced at quickly subduing his victims. Keep in mind, again, that Mary Kelly was a prostitute. She was placing herself in an extremely vulnerable position and allowing the killer easy access to her body.

c) The brutality, possibly symbolic, of the murder.

In the absence of other evidence to support the idea, the brutality of the murder does not indicate a personal element. It is a very strong possibility that the murderer acted with such brutality and depravity because he had privacy for his actions and he had already worked up his frenzy from the previous killings.

There could have been some kind of symbolism and/or ritual involved in the murder of Mary Kelly. But that would not mean that there was a more personal element to it than any of the other killings. It could be an extension of the fact that he had time and privacy to carry out his depraved work.

[The Good Michael]

There could have been some kind of symbolism and/or ritual involved in the murder of Mary Kelly.

Yet, there may have been some kind of symbolism in the other murders as well. Again, time and location may have made some things more obvious (though that is debatable), and more extreme. I believe that you are correct in your assessments, however. If one only looks at available time and location (with possibly much more lighting), all the things that were done seem like a completely sensible escalation with enough extra time for experimentation. All arguments against JTR seem to fail when those simple concepts are accounted for.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Let's look at the suggestion of a personal element. I do not see a real case for the idea that there was anything more personal about Mary Kelly's murder. Let's look at the points in detail.

a) The murder took place in her apartment instead of on the street.

We have already established that Jack the Ripper preyed upon women who were prostitutes. These women, as a part of their business, would go with their client to an out-of-the-way place. For the other 4 canonicals, that was in the street. Mary Kelly just happened to use her apartment for the business. Therefore, it does not seem unusually personal in that way.

b) Mary Kelly did not scream or fight.

We actually do not know this. She might have done so after the killer had already pinned her down and covered her mouth. Mary Kelly was younger than the other victims, but that does not mean she was any match for a killer who was by that point practiced at quickly subduing his victims. Keep in mind, again, that Mary Kelly was a prostitute. She was placing herself in an extremely vulnerable position and allowing the killer easy access to her body.

c) The brutality, possibly symbolic, of the murder.

In the absence of other evidence to support the idea, the brutality of the murder does not indicate a personal element. It is a very strong possibility that the murderer acted with such brutality and depravity because he had privacy for his actions and he had already worked up his frenzy from the previous killings.

There could have been some kind of symbolism and/or ritual involved in the murder of Mary Kelly. But that would not mean that there was a more personal element to it than any of the other killings. It could be an extension of the fact that he had time and privacy to carry out his depraved work.

Hi Steelysama,

On your points above,

A) A critical piece of the puzzle and the ONLY Canonical that even had a room. Seems to me to find middle aged women working the streets at night that he doesnt know, one need be on the streets at night looking for strangers. 4 of 5 proposed victims were found there, and were likely strangers.

B) Actually we know she didnt scream or fight before 1:30am, and we know she did fight... by the defensive wounds. Implied in that is the notion that he got close enough to her to attack her with a knife without her screaming or resisting...and she does resist when she is aware of what is happening. A Stranger would have had to break in or enter without waking her, close the door, and tiptoe to her bed on creaky floorboards until her is over her on the beds right side. Not really a viable concept. He was already in the room and most likely with her knowledge when the attack begins.

And Mary Kelly wasnt just younger than the other Canonicals, she could have been anyone of their daughters.

C)I would say that without a doubt Marys facial wounds were created by anger, as were her defense wounds, and that anger may have been at the source of some other wounds. In no other alleged Ripper murder are there overt signs that the killer felt ANY emotion at all when he cuts...save what are referred to as "playful nicks" on Kates face...possibly a result from the knife when he cuts her nose.

To me, excusing the many very real differences with this murder and what was done to her as Jacks just "acting out" due to his being indoors with privacy... is a less than a logical approach. Its not a safer setting in many ways, its far more dangerous, its not like he had any issues doing what he wanted outdoors in short time intervals, and the killer of at least 2 women may have been after a specific or some specific organs.....if Marys was, then he did a whole lot of unnecessary extra work to just take a heart.

Her right thigh being denuded of flesh seems on the surface, to have little to do with heart extractions.

Cheers SS

[Sam Flynn]

A) A critical piece of the puzzle and the ONLY Canonical that even had a room. Seems to me to find middle aged women working the streets at night that he doesnt know, one need be on the streets at night looking for strangers.

What logically prevents a "stranger" from having a room of her own, Mike? Such women did exist in that area - we know that - and one indoor murder out of eleven seems to be a reasonable strike rate for murderers of strangers in Whitechapel. (I'm including non-canonicals and non-Ripper murders in that calculation, by the way.)

[perrymason]

What logically prevents a "stranger" from having a room of her own, Mike? Such women did exist in that area - we know that - and one indoor murder out of eleven seems to be a reasonable strike rate for murderers of strangers in Whitechapel. (I'm including non-canonicals and non-Ripper murders in that calculation, by the way.)

Hi Gareth,

Point taken on a stranger owning a room in her own name, but then she wouldnt be an "Unfortunate" would she? And it seems to me that the Unfortunates were his chosen flock.....they were certainly available late at night due to their homelessness, they were desperate enough to go to dark places with men while the killings were going on, and they were middle aged and not as challenging an opponent as say, a stout 26 year old Irishwoman with a known temper. Wasnt it just that past summer she is in court for a D & D charge?

Mary is not categorically an Unfortunate.

In either his new location or approach, or his estimated ability of Mary to resist, he seems to have miscalculated.. and that is seen by the fact that at least this one victim was conscious and resisting him when he uses his knife.

There is no evidence that Mary Ann, Annie or Kate were. In fact there is evidence that suggests they were not conscious....they did not lie willingly on cobblestones and tilt their chins slightly for him, but they did so without obvious struggle or fuss.

But there is evidence that one other "Canonical" was,....Liz Stride was conscious..her killer used the knife before he subdued her too.

Funny how those two murders share some characteristics, but not in such a way as to suggest they had the same solo killer.

All the best Sam

[Tom_Wescott]

If we relied on physical evidence only to judge the existence of a serial killer, no serial killers would ever get caught, except the sloppy ones.

Take the Suffolk Strangler - two prostitutes, killed within weeks on one another, and dumped in the same stream in a small country town. Doesn't take a forensic match to know it's probably a serial killer.

A smart point well made. The argument that Stride and Kelly are unrelated murders is obviously a very labored argument. Remarkably, some very rational and educated people seem to buy into it. That's not to say it's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are, but certainly the overwhelming likelihood is that the murders are related.

And Mary Kelly wasnt just younger than the other Canonicals, she could have been anyone of their daughters.

Again, a labored point. Their actual age means nothing. Polly and Liz looked about 30 to those who saw them. Mary Kelly also looked about 30 to those who saw her. In any event, the Ripper went after 'late hour' prostitutes, the lowest of the streetwalkers. Most as a matter of course would be older.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi Tom,

I guess we disagree about the potential importance of Marys age and circumstances as relates to the priors....and I with your comment that the "overwhelming likelihood" is that Liz Strides and Kate Eddowes murders are related.

Im assuming you meant related by their killer...in which case not only hasnt that supposition been proven to have any merit based on real evidence, the only thing done the same in the two murders was knife use to cut the throat.

Since I would imagine many working men carried knives on them, and some even used them on women and werent themselves Jack....I think an "overwhelming likelihood" is a reach. There were many knife attack culprits in 1888 in that area....Jack was one. Hes the one that opens women and takes things from inside when he can, ....and not known to choke,slice, drop and then split.

All that could be used to support your claim is opinion...and opinions dont convict anyone of anything.

Best regards Tom.