What remained consistent through the C5?

[Sam Flynn]

And Newton has been of very little help.

...not something one hears very often

[paul emmett]

Paul,

Other than with Kelly, I don't see that Jack did anything with left hands. Stride would already have been holding the cachous prior to death, and in the case of Kelly, it's likely just a matter of practicality - he was off to the left side of the bed and thus reached for the arm closest to him.

Tom,
Well, he took Chapman's rings off, and here he put the left arm, the one furthest away from him across her body. And, even though I know there was an argument on another thread regarding Stride that at times discussed the cachous, I remain unconvinced that she would hold on to them in any scenario that entails anything more than a quick traumatizing throat slash--and noone came up with such a scenario. The other cases were just a matter of placement which could have been intentional on JTR's part or not. And I feel yes.

Sam,
I'm from Wisconsin, where we have annual Newton bashing parties. But I won't say, "it's all relative," and change "heroes."

Paul

[Celesta]

[QUOTE=perrymason;5561]

As far as the booze goes, it might have been significant if he only killed sober church women,... and the alcohol doesn't factor into at least two Ripper deaths, Liz's and Kate's. Maybe more, considering Annie's illness that night.


Hi Michael,

Might we ought to say that, although the drinking was not a factor on the night Liz was killed, that in the big picture of her life, it did figure? I hesitate on Kate because she was probably still somewhat drunk when she left the jail.

Best wishes.

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul,

I'm not sure what Stride scenario you read on another thread, but one I wrote about in great detail in Ripper Notes is an idea I have that the victims were 'silenced' by way of robbery. The Ripper pulled his knife, told them it was a robbery, and that if they stayed quiet they'd be okay. This assured the silence of the victim while he worked them into position. Naturally, he asked them to empty their pockets. This is why Eddowes had the thimble, Stride the cachous, and Chapman the various articles at her feet.

Regarding Chapman, I don't believe her arms were 'placed' where they were found. Witness James Kent testified that her hands were curled towards her throat as though she were grabbing at it. This says to me that the final location of her hands has more to do with an involuntary dying reaction than with the killer positioning her arm. Also, the injury to the finger, and its locations, suggests strongly to me that the rings were removed after death and not before.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

Tom,
I know this does relate to this thread because it's how ALL--or at least 80%--of the victims were silenced, so I can go on and say a few things. One, I will look at your article: I've never been 100% content with the explanations I've heard. Two, could he really say, "this is a robbery; lay down"? I've seen it more as, knife to throat with, "I know who you think I am, but I ain't. All I want is a dirty ****. Lay down and you will stay alive." SLIT. A killer AND a liar!
I will revisit the Chapman stuff.

Have a good evening.

[perrymason]

Hi Folks,

First off, thanks all for contributing ideas.

Mariag:

In all fairness, Mike, I don't think that 80% constitutes consistency

I would say that if something, anything, happens 80% of the time, it could be construed as being consistent. 20% just represents anomalies. Like 4 out of 5 had abdominal mutilations, so that makes Liz an anomaly statistically.

We don't know if he was "rarely if ever" seen with a victim. What does that mean, anyway? Is it rarely or is it never or is it once ?

Since we do not know if he was ever seen, I felt it should be phrased that way. The only possibly legitimate sighting would have to be Lawende's, and since that cannot be confirmed as being Jack...only by the timing from that sighting to Kate's death is he at all eligible, it would appear probable that no-one saw him.

Trevor:

Does this not suggest a traveller with a specific itinerary ?

As Sam pointed out, I should have stayed with my original line on the kill dates, that he always killed before the 10th, and at months end. So even though Polly and Annie are close in timing,... one is at months end, and 1 is before the 10th of the next month. What I should have said before is that he doesnt kill from the 10th to months end, leaving 20 days of each month roughly...that he does not commit murders. Yes Trevor, I think that speaks to an itinerary or schedule that shows when he is unable, or uninterested, in killing whores in East End London.

Sam:

...then it pays to look again, in that we don't have a consistent 20 day period of inactivity. The killer's inactivity lasted a mere 8 days between Nichols' and Chapman's murder.

What you did note Sam is that one murder occurred less that 20 days apart from the previous one, however as I said above, it is 1 at months end, and 1 before the 10th. I think what the short gap represents in the two mentioned is insignifigant, the actual dates are more relevant to the consistency or pattern.

Tom:

Nichols (hat), Chapman (letter), Stride (cachous), Eddowes (thimble). 4 of the 5 have personal belongings in or near their hand. Kelly's hand was shoved inside of her.

Thats the kind of stuff I'm looking for Tom, and I was pleased to note that just recently I suggested that Liz's cashous were in her hand because he had her empty her pockets, and you suggest the same thing related to a robbery premise to waylay their fear he was a killer. Interesting.

Paul:

80% were mothers and then there's that pregnancy rumor for the other 20%.

As I said earlier, I think 80 percent does qualify as a consistency, but in the case of Kelly, there was no pregnancy, and with others, not one was actually raising their children, or even on good terms with their families in general. The only issue relating to motherhood would be the 2 uteri taken I would think.

Sam:

..which is Newton's Law of Gravitation. The thimble, hat, cachous, buttons, ear lobe (etc.) that were found in proximity to various victims may just have lain where they had fallen. Likewise, the victims' hands lay in pretty normal configurations, as far as I can see.

Sure, could be just things fallen out of pockets...except rings were wrenched from fingers, inner skirt pockets are torn, pills and glasses cases were on different sides of the body, and and it is completely odd that Liz has breath fresheners in her hand considering her assault just minutes before her death, and Kate thimble was one of a thousand things on her at the time, so why only the thimble falls out?

Whereas traditional rippertage would have it that Kelly's hand was pushed into her stomach, the photographic evidence of the murder scene points to a less sensational interpretation. Kelly's arm and hand are lying in a perfectly natural, and somewhat elevated, position across the abdominal cavity. And, let's face it, there was no stomach left for it to be pushed into anyway!

Pushed or placed, there is no sound argument that was not purposefully done by the killer. Mary was moved from where she was cut, and her hand was put on the recently created cavity that was formerly her abdomen. I know you also want to explain away organs under head and feet as naturally occurring phenomenon....Marys body and death scene was created, staged...there is little if anything on that bed that wasn't..,thats just common sense. Done purposefully. But since only two women have organs or biological matter intentionally placed around them,.. that is not just a convenience issue like the intestines, Kates colon section and Marys organs were almost certainly placed by the killer. Like Marys hand was. And excised breasts do not naturally fall under a head.

Celesta:

Might we ought to say that, although the drinking was not a factor on the night Liz was killed, that in the big picture of her life, it did figure? I hesitate on Kate because she was probably still somewhat drunk when she left the jail.

I would be hard pressed to deny that alcohol played a role in their circumstances, but Im not so sure about their deaths. Kate had slept for 4 hours. And Liz was tested for booze with none present. Polly...maybe, Annie...less likely, she was ill.

I appreciate the responses, but Im not looking so much at the minutia...like hand position, or wound type....more like the kill dates.....I think its clear by the dates that he was either unable, or unwilling to go out killing from the 10th of the month, until months end...and you all know what efforts were made to check boat and train schedules to see if they coincided with murder dates. I think there are behavioral patterns here....either chosen, or inflicted upon him.

My best regards all.

[sdreid]

I brought up the end of the month to the 10th business on a similar thread on the old boards. One related possibility I also mentioned was that his "partner" - wife-girlfriend-roommate-parent - may have either been away or working during that time which left him free to indulge his urges. From that, the pattern might have been dictated by someone else's schedule rather than his - just a possibility.

Tom also mentioned his interesting robbery theory on an old, now lost, thread.

[paul emmett]

Hello.
Michael, I know this is what you just said you weren't looking for, but it has come up, so I want to comment on both the possible posings of the bodies, and "my" significance of left hands theory.
I agree with you on the posings of MJK. But I think Chapman is still at issue. Chandler tells us that her right arm was lying down her right side. And Phillips's Inquest statement reads, "The left arm was PLACED across the left breast." The emphasis is mine because I want to emphasze how it balances with his more renown statement seven sentences later that the comb and muslin "apparently had been PLACED[at AC's feet] in order or arranged there."
Clearly, both disagree with Kent, and the repeated "PLACED" suggests to me that Phillips sees this scene, both body and surroundings, as posed.

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Stan, thats an interesting idea...in that you surmised the man may have had a life partner. I had always pictured him solo, in a boarding house with another "bolt-hole" he takes his messes to. Ill have to broaden my thinking perhaps.

I think you make a fair point Paul, and it does relate to the issue of "setting the scene" as it were. Interesting on that note....I would think that all of the outdoor victims were left with the knowledge they would be soon found, so if they were "staged" crime scenes, he did that for anyone coming by...not just police. He could not control who found them...and that was ok with him.

Yet Mary Kellys room was locked, curtains drawn.

My best regards gents...ciao for now.

[sdreid]

Hi Michael,

I'm not saying that he had a partner, only that he may have. One of the reasons he was said not to have a spouse or whatever was that he was out at night but if the wife, for example, was gone at certain times of the month then that wouldn't be a factor in that regard.

[perrymason]

Hi Stan,

I realize you weren't asserting it, just suggesting it, but it made me wonder if that was the case, did his wife experience his rage at all? The police seemed to feel that someone must have known who was doing this, but wouldn't come forward with information. I wonder if they reviewed the past domestic assault cases and police reports.

I would think a common thread here is that the killer dehumanized the womens bodies with his treatment of skin, tissues, organs. Could that same man actually love a woman too....without ever revealing his darker side to her? I wonder. My inclination is probably not.

Pretty awful imagining a woman being so terrorized by her husband that she couldn't go to tell the police that she thought she was Mrs Ripper.

Could a woman watch her husband come in with bloody clothing on Ripper kill nights and be too scared to tell anyone? And for how long?

It raises some interesting questions Stan.

My best regards.

[Celesta]

Hello Michael,


I was just thinking, as you suggested, that the alcohol was a large motivation in their lives, but not necessarily in their deaths. I think JTR may have just assumed they were drunks, and probably drunk. They were just convenient to his purposes.

Cheers,

C

[Carrotty Nell]

There is also the oft-noted possible connections with MJK.

1. Nicholls drinking in a pub on Brick Lane where MJK lived until about January 88.

2. Chapman lived in a lodging house on Dorset Street

3. Stride ditto

4. Eddows living in McCarthy's shed.

If we add Tabram:

5. Pearly Poll living in Dorset Street

[perrymason]

There is also the oft-noted possible connections with MJK.

1. Nicholls drinking in a pub on Brick Lane where MJK lived until about January 88.

2. Chapman lived in a lodging house on Dorset Street

3. Stride ditto

4. Eddows living in McCarthy's shed.

If we add Tabram:

5. Pearly Poll living in Dorset Street

Hi Nell,

You can add to that list a pawn ticket for Johns boots where Kate used Mary Kelly of 6 Dorset Street as her name and address, and she was Jane Kelly of Fashion St to the officer booking her.

Methinks there are other possible links between Mary and Kate...mutual friends in self-rule Irish social circles? Seen each other in pubs? Joe Barnett friends with John Kelly? Or Daniel Barnett?...I do know that members of The Royal Irish Constabulary visited the crime scene on the 13th or 14th, the same day members of Parliament and a Senior Post Office Official visited that room. Do we possibly have 2 crimes being investigated in Millers Court?

Kate was killed the weekend of the Post Office robbery.

Hi Celesta,

I think one thing that is important about the sobriety of the victims at the time of their death, is in this regard.....they went as quietly and quickly as the others. So I don't see a sauced whore as a significant signal for the killer to move in. Liz was sober, Kate had slept her drunk off, Mary had some sleep likely before her death, and Annie was ill...although I don't recall if she had alcohol in her system.

I personally feel the age range was more important to him...I believe he hunted middle aged whores, because they were worn and the weakest. And no-one stood up for them.

Best regards to you both.

[Celesta]

Yes, Michael, I think we are more or less in agreement on the tipsy aspect.