Prove it

[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...

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

[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

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.

[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

[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]

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

[Mr.Hyde]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.