Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[Phil H]

On the client issue, I think it is quite possible that "Jack" had been a client of the women (those who had solicited at least) or knew them. If not, perhaps he worked in, or around, some of the lodging houses. It was for that reason I was for a while attracted to the Timothy Donovan theory.

These women were pretty low in terms of status, on their beam ends, so even a Kosminski might not have been beneath them.

I don't think a Druitt-type killer (i.e. a toff) would have consorted with woman like this. An MJK maybe if they liked low-life/slumming. So in part the answer to the question depends on whom you think the killer was.

Another indication, to my mind, that "Jack" used prostitutes, was his awareness of the geography of the backyard at Hanbury St. I am convinced that both logic and circumstantial evidence suggest that "Jack" would not have followed Annie into that awful place without knowing the lie of the land. He had been there before - and if it was indeed a place of assignation, why not for that reason. I also think the same logic leads to the conclusion that Annie was killed around the same hour as Polly or Kate - when it was still dark.

I think assumptions about the killer knowing where the uterus, or any other part of the body organs might be, is a step beyond where I would tread. Slit open the abdomen and it is there. On the other hand, given the plundering of Kate's kidney, I'll accept that the man might have had some oblique/rudimentary knowledge of anatomy - maybe he had assisted a barber-surgeon; worked in an abbatoir... was a cats meat salesman ... knew how to handle a knife.

Just some thoughts,

Phil H

[Sherlock Holmes]

here's a question Hunter

Did the victims know there killer? Was he perhaps a client of the women?

love to know what people think
Sherlock Holmes

[Hunter]

but you do assume that 5 murders within 2 1/2 months must be linked to one killer?

In normal circumstances one might think short timescale: one killer. But autumn 1888 was exceptional.

There was a media frenzy and I see the possibility that others might seek to imitate "Jack's" work to conceal their own. Hence, I am suspicious these days that MJK was not JtR's doing - but the mutilations were by someone who had read about but not seen what was done to Eddowes.

Kidney's killing of Stride may also have been overlooked in the mania to ascribe everything to one killer.

We should be more discerning.

We should look at the evidence... and the Autumn of 1888 was exceptional. These types of murders were exceptional. Someone targeting and knowing where the female uterus was would be exceptional. And in spite of the probability that the name, Jack the Ripper, was concocted, and despite the fact that there was a 'media frenzy,' the evidence still points to the strong probability of a serial murderer at work here... even if other scenarios are certainly possible and entertaining for discussion. We will never know - either way - with any conclusiveness.

I do not agree that any 'mania' deterred the police from investigating any domestic possibility in Stride's death. It was standard procedure, and had been quite successful in the past, as most murders were - and still are - of that variety. The police would have been more than happy to apprehend one individual for any one of these murders and they did look for evidence in that direction in each of these cases... Just ask Thomas Sadler.

[Sherlock Holmes]

i do believe that these were the work of just one individual. The MO is far to similar for it to have been multiple killers, I also believe that the victims knew there killer (possibly a client)

any thoughts
Sherlock Holmes

[Hunter]

Israel Schwartz is just an opportunity for a socialist Jew to direct attention from the local Jews for Strides death, and for the unsolved deaths to that point. Which by the remarks made, even the authorities thought them guilty of.

That is pure speculation based on no evidence. And just what remarks were made at the time of these murders by any policeman, or even a coroner, that implicated the Jews for any of these murders? Despite the differences between the police and Wynne Baxter, they worked together to exonerate Pizer, and Warren put his very job on the line by having the GSG erased so that the Jews would not be unfairly implicated for the murders. Both Abberline and Swanson considered Schwartz's testimony viable and Swanson thought that Lawende - despite his reluctance about knowing the man again - probably did see Eddowes with her killer. Both of these witnesses were Jews that may or may not have described Jewish suspects. They were looking for the killer of any of these women - whatever he may have been - based on the scant evidence they received... not based on some predetermined notion drummed up by the press or otherwise.

Even Anderson did not make such a proposal at the time of the murders themselves. The only person in authority who may have entertained such an idea as you suggest was the dimwitted Godfrey Lushington through his queries about Swanson's report... and which Abberline seems to have set him straight... or at least, tried to.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

I think in terms of Michael and Lynn you're preaching to the at least partially converted...I confess to an open mind on this aspect (mind you, I have heard it suggested that having an open mind is a surefire indication that Frankie Fraser's been round your way lately!)

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

but you do assume that 5 murders within 2 1/2 months must be linked to one killer?

In normal circumstances one might think short timescale: one killer. But autumn 1888 was exceptional.

There was a media frenzy and I see the possibility that others might seek to imitate "Jack's" work to conceal their own. Hence, I am suspicious these days that MJK was not JtR's doing - but the mutilations were by someone who had read about but not seen what was done to Eddowes.

Kidney's killing of Stride may also have been overlooked in the mania to ascribe everything to one killer.

We should be more discerning.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again, Lynn

Westminster is about four miles away, in Central London, an hour`s walk.
Still don`t see the relevance of the Brown murder to the Whitechapel murders

I don`t assume that the Ripper HAS to mutilate.
If he killed Stride it could have just been out of old plain spite, cos he could.
I don`t see anything to suggest he was interupted in Berner St or Bucks Row.

If you truly believe the above section I emboldened Jon, then the ONLY answer youll ever agree to is one that has a serial killer at the wheel. Which is something that statistically is improbable, or by assessing any of the individual evidence without prejudice.

From Polly to Annie there is pattern matching and obvious escalation lending itself to speculation that he likely intended to go further with Polly. You are right about Berner Street, the only interruption that happened there was an interruption in the unsolved deaths committed by a killer INTENT on mutilation. I might have said intent on excisions with the same degree of confidence, again, based on the evidence, not some preconceived notions about how a serial killer changes his objectives and methods constantly.

Using the visible skill sets alone, the "Ripper" kills started with Polly and stopped with Annie,... as to the rest...thats why we still study.

So, you dont ASSUME that a Ripper must Rip... but you do assume that 5 murders within 2 1/2 months must be linked to one killer?

Cheers Jon

[Michael W Richards]

But it happened, Lynn - except for the mutilations. Schwartz and Pipeman had left the scene when Liz was killed.

Hi David,

Nice to see you contributing. On your above response to "cozying up" as a preferential method of approaching a victim, by Israels story the man grabbed her in the street and pulled her off balance to the ground. Not much finesse there, and since there is no hard evidence that Pipeman and BSM were on the same team, he committed the assault in front of a witness.

Far simpler to believe that what was not seen or heard by anyone we know was in that area at that time were accurate representations of the situation, compared with taking the word of someone who we do not know was even there, about something only he alleges happens, with people only he sees or hears.

Israel Schwartz is just an opportunity for a socialist Jew to direct attention from the local Jews for Strides death, and for the unsolved deaths to that point. Which by the remarks made, even the authorities thought them guilty of.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

relevant

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well, absolutely speaking, I don't see any relevance from Brown to Liz. But, again, I see no relevance from Kate to Liz either.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi again, Lynn

Westminster is about four miles away, in Central London, an hour`s walk.
Still don`t see the relevance of the Brown murder to the Whitechapel murders

I don`t assume that the Ripper HAS to mutilate.
If he killed Stride it could have just been out of old plain spite, cos he could.
I don`t see anything to suggest he was interupted in Berner St or Bucks Row.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

"Domestic" ?

I was thinking more client and unfortunate.

[lynn cates]

domestic fracas

Hello Jon. Thanks. Then perhaps Marshall's man parted for a season, went home, had a drink or two, then returned?

Something like a domestic fracas? Well, I have no problem with that.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

But if Michael were BS man, whence was he coming? Where was he going? Was it a chance meeting?

All we know is that he (if Kidney was BS man) was walking down Berner St when he was first spotted by Schwartz, on turning into Berner St.

For all we know, BS man could have come out of a house in the northern end of Berner St.

My hunch, for what it`s worth, is that BS Man was Marshall`s Man, and had a reason, whatever it was, to walk right up to her and start throwing her about.

[lynn cates]

dialogue

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Not quite sure of its relevance myself."

Try this. What are we discussing? Well, whether or not Liz could have her throat cut within a short distance of Kate and on the same day--but by a different hand. I am given to understand that the probability is infinitesimal.

Very well. What about the other?

"Well, we KNOW who did that, and she was only a cut throat--no mutilation."

Ah! but Liz was not mutilated.

"Yes, be he wanted to. He was interrupted."

How do we know that?

"Don't be impertinent. Besides, Liz's killer was not caught."

So to be Jack, one must get away with it? Odd criterion.

"But I tell you, IT WAS ONE HAND!!"

O man, great is thy faith!

(heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC