Tweet
--- I should slip this in at the beginning, please excuse the length, but I'd been indisposed for a longer time, and I'm writing this while offline; I do think all these questions are linked. ---
I'm posting this, after a long absence, following one of these sudden brow-palms that ensure one will enjoy the rest of the night consciously.
I've been since scrolling through the various threads on this forum and revisiting the podcasts, and it is likely that I have missed the suggestion I was looking for, because it is extremely likely that it has been made, as it's such an obvious one, but you will forgive me, it's a lot to go through, and I haven't found much to this respect yet. Of what I have found, most notably board-members Observer and Wickerman reflected my sentiment towards the end in a thread from 2013:
- posts #45 & 50 -
but these their remarks weren't much regarded, and there are significant implications following from the idea. As I said, I'm sure it must be out there somewhere, so if this signifies a regurgitation please forgive. In any case, I believe it deserves another look, as virtually any other hypothesis on the question is much easier to find.
Like others I had previously thought that the perpetrator of these murders had been driven to an indoor location either due to increasing police presence or because he wasn't able to accomplish what he wanted in full outside, or because he had to get to a mind-frame that enabled him to make this step, or because this step was simply the next one to take, or a combination of all of this.
Others, who see the difference of outdoor- and indoor location as one too big, in fact discount Mary Kelly as a victim of the same killer based on this.
All this said:
is there any good reason for me to assume that the murderer of Mary Kelly actively sought an indoor location?
The answer is, of course, none whatsoever.
Polly Nichols: is thought to have been seeking potential clients for the purpose of soliciting in order to get her doss-money together, had no place to bring such a client to, the practise to do business on the streets was common, was found murdered outside.
Annie Chapman: found murdered in a spot reportedly known as a place frequented by women needing a quiet place to bring Johns to.
Leaving Liz Stride out this time, Catherine Eddowes: we don't know whether she was in a process of solicitation, but she was seen talking to a man at the entrance to a lane leading to Mitre Square and was found dead shortly after in the opposite corner of that square, and there's no evidence for her having been brought to this spot against her will.
We don't know whether Nichols was murdered where she was found by a prospective client or by a blizz-attack, but had she unwittingly found a murderous client it is likely that she would have looked for a good spot. That makes the victims themselves leading their murderer to the spot where they would then be killed a common denominator.
There is no reason to think that it would have been any different with Mary Kelly, who just happened to have a room at her disposal, unless we'd assume the killer, when invited to her place, would have thought to himself, 'I can't go there, it would totally break my MO' – unlikely.
No reason to think he would have made an effort to choose an indoor location this time; he just got lucky.
And how lucky would that be? If we indulge for a moment in the Whitechapel murderer being able to continue with killing indefinitely, how long until he'd meet a woman in the urgent need to make money who'd have a room, if it hadn't been Kelly? Or was Kelly the only woman in town with her own place to use for this purpose? As it was said in the thread: 1 out of at least 6 had a room.
Importantly: within the idea of this, in my opinion, most simple and most plausible explanation we have no change in MO.
The subsequent much more extensive and gruesome mutilations follow the logic of him having at last all the time and privacy needed to fully execute them, as per usual discussion, never mind whether you follow the escalation hypothesis or not. The opportunity was different, and the nature by which it was different is sufficient to explain the larger extent of the murderer's action executed on the body. The same goes for everything else that might or might not have occurred within the walls of Miller's Court.
I believe it is misleading to point out out, for example, that the uterus was taken away before but left here, that her heart was missing here but never with the victims before, that her face was destroyed here but despite Eddowes we hadn't seen this before, because, hopefully, no one here on the boards is her/himself someone with the desire to commit such an act; we don't know what is going on in such a mind. One is tempted to reply, 'yes, and none of the other victims had their thigh denuded – so?'
We could talk about a substantive change caused by circumstance if the murderer from then on, inspired by this stroke of luck, would now actively seek an indoor location. But how would he do this? First asking every woman he meet in the line of his intentions whether she'd have her own room, and would she bring him there (this was also asked in the thread)? This provided, of course, that Kelly wasn't his last victim. But even if she wasn't, the lack of other victims murdered indoors and showing similar mutilations is easily acceptable once one asks oneself how he would ensure this indoor location. Everything would change dramatically with such a restriction set by himself. I don't think, however, and that's of course my own personal speculation, that there's anything that points to a perp this organized. An opportunist, by all means, but making the indoor location a priority? As Lynn Cates points out in the thread, it would have been possible to make such a conscious shift. Lacking examples, we should entertain the possibility of the indoor location as not deviating from the murderer's MO as it was a stroke of luck as the most probable one, however, at least where it's about a single perpetrator.
As a side-thought, if we keep our minds just open enough to allow the possibility of earlier attacks that had indeed been reported, we might even ponder about one that could have been such opportunity for an indoor location – Ally Ryder has remarked in one of the podcasts that she can't see the killer going from 0 to 60, and neither can I. Rose Bierman's testimony varies from Ada Wilson's account significantly in that she stated that Wilson actually brought her attacker to her door, and it has been speculated that Wilson, facing her eviction and giving her occupation as seamstress, an often used euphemism for prostitute, might have been soliciting; if she indeed lied about her attacker knocking it might not have been the only lie.
I like referring to the 0 to 60-remark, because I believe it's an essential one that is often overlooked or disregarded when it comes to many alternative models, particularly where it concerns Mary Kelly.
Any hypothesis revolving around Kelly's murder having been a one-timer that had been masked as a Ripper-killing must confront each of the following two conclusions that would have to be drawn but rarely are:
- the murderer, be it Barnett or a, supposedly quite stressed out, midwife not only thought it through about masking the murder by committing post-mortem atrocities – s/he then actually went through with it.
Things are often discussed in a very matter-of-factly way, including ideas on motivations of the perp as to the details of his actions, but we're not talking dissecting a mouse here, we're talking the utter destruction of the body of another human being. Most people I know have a strong reaction seeing a dead body involved in a car crash, any dead body, for that matter. And here we have a sight that couldn't be more horrific. It's not a small thing. It's not simply a 'In Order to Make This Seem Like That I have to Do This.'
One also needs to look at details such as the very conscious placing of organs. If I'm inclined to believe in a first-timer – and it had to be one, otherwise we'd have records of other comparable findings outside the victims we know about – then in the very least it would have to be a mind with a) access to knowing what to do to 'make it look crazy' and b) then executing it in full. In other words, we'd end up with a murderer somewhat equally disturbed, by which time this first-timer has become rendered superfluous.
- Even if we allow for this first-timer to be this unconcerned as to the effect of these mutilations on his mind, not only was he able to decide on his actions, not only was he able to fully realize them, he must also have considered what we now call the escalation-hypothesis, an idea that is still and right here and quite often hotly debated. Precisely because this is so much more than what had been found previously we'd have to conclude this. 'There has been an increase of mutilations with each victim, this is indoors, so if I'd be the killer I'd have to make it much more gruesome. And crazy.'
What a mind. Especially with the principle of escalation most probably not being the most principle and fashionable on the minds of the contemporary investigators, not to mention the common folks.
The idea, as proposed in the thread, that the murderer had in the course of the mutilations 'lost track' or got carried away, might have some merit and would take care of that, but it'd still lead back to the 1st of these conclusions above.
That's not to say that any of this is impossible, of course, but at some point we should allow word to the short person in the upper corner row of the auditorium, who's hand we've seen raised for some time now, his name-tag reading 'Occam.'
Thoughts?
Perhaps also on how this solution for the location-witch might play on the possibility of potential later victims? Although I find the idea of the killer somewhat self-imploding after what he'd done to Mary Kelly quite a sensible one, I've lately found to carefully accepting some of the later murder victims, notably Alice Mackenzie and Frances Coles, as possible victims of the same killer, and there's a tentative gut-feeling that Miller's Court and all it enabled him to do might have been less of a destructive impression on himself if it had been a mere chance-location, and it might have been easier for him to return to the routine of the outside than I'd hitherto assumed, as he would simply continue to follow his MO - I'm not quite sure where this feeling comes from and how to substantiate it, however.
I'm posting this, after a long absence, following one of these sudden brow-palms that ensure one will enjoy the rest of the night consciously.
I've been since scrolling through the various threads on this forum and revisiting the podcasts, and it is likely that I have missed the suggestion I was looking for, because it is extremely likely that it has been made, as it's such an obvious one, but you will forgive me, it's a lot to go through, and I haven't found much to this respect yet. Of what I have found, most notably board-members Observer and Wickerman reflected my sentiment towards the end in a thread from 2013:
- posts #45 & 50 -
but these their remarks weren't much regarded, and there are significant implications following from the idea. As I said, I'm sure it must be out there somewhere, so if this signifies a regurgitation please forgive. In any case, I believe it deserves another look, as virtually any other hypothesis on the question is much easier to find.
Like others I had previously thought that the perpetrator of these murders had been driven to an indoor location either due to increasing police presence or because he wasn't able to accomplish what he wanted in full outside, or because he had to get to a mind-frame that enabled him to make this step, or because this step was simply the next one to take, or a combination of all of this.
Others, who see the difference of outdoor- and indoor location as one too big, in fact discount Mary Kelly as a victim of the same killer based on this.
All this said:
is there any good reason for me to assume that the murderer of Mary Kelly actively sought an indoor location?
The answer is, of course, none whatsoever.
Polly Nichols: is thought to have been seeking potential clients for the purpose of soliciting in order to get her doss-money together, had no place to bring such a client to, the practise to do business on the streets was common, was found murdered outside.
Annie Chapman: found murdered in a spot reportedly known as a place frequented by women needing a quiet place to bring Johns to.
Leaving Liz Stride out this time, Catherine Eddowes: we don't know whether she was in a process of solicitation, but she was seen talking to a man at the entrance to a lane leading to Mitre Square and was found dead shortly after in the opposite corner of that square, and there's no evidence for her having been brought to this spot against her will.
We don't know whether Nichols was murdered where she was found by a prospective client or by a blizz-attack, but had she unwittingly found a murderous client it is likely that she would have looked for a good spot. That makes the victims themselves leading their murderer to the spot where they would then be killed a common denominator.
There is no reason to think that it would have been any different with Mary Kelly, who just happened to have a room at her disposal, unless we'd assume the killer, when invited to her place, would have thought to himself, 'I can't go there, it would totally break my MO' – unlikely.
No reason to think he would have made an effort to choose an indoor location this time; he just got lucky.
And how lucky would that be? If we indulge for a moment in the Whitechapel murderer being able to continue with killing indefinitely, how long until he'd meet a woman in the urgent need to make money who'd have a room, if it hadn't been Kelly? Or was Kelly the only woman in town with her own place to use for this purpose? As it was said in the thread: 1 out of at least 6 had a room.
Importantly: within the idea of this, in my opinion, most simple and most plausible explanation we have no change in MO.
The subsequent much more extensive and gruesome mutilations follow the logic of him having at last all the time and privacy needed to fully execute them, as per usual discussion, never mind whether you follow the escalation hypothesis or not. The opportunity was different, and the nature by which it was different is sufficient to explain the larger extent of the murderer's action executed on the body. The same goes for everything else that might or might not have occurred within the walls of Miller's Court.
I believe it is misleading to point out out, for example, that the uterus was taken away before but left here, that her heart was missing here but never with the victims before, that her face was destroyed here but despite Eddowes we hadn't seen this before, because, hopefully, no one here on the boards is her/himself someone with the desire to commit such an act; we don't know what is going on in such a mind. One is tempted to reply, 'yes, and none of the other victims had their thigh denuded – so?'
We could talk about a substantive change caused by circumstance if the murderer from then on, inspired by this stroke of luck, would now actively seek an indoor location. But how would he do this? First asking every woman he meet in the line of his intentions whether she'd have her own room, and would she bring him there (this was also asked in the thread)? This provided, of course, that Kelly wasn't his last victim. But even if she wasn't, the lack of other victims murdered indoors and showing similar mutilations is easily acceptable once one asks oneself how he would ensure this indoor location. Everything would change dramatically with such a restriction set by himself. I don't think, however, and that's of course my own personal speculation, that there's anything that points to a perp this organized. An opportunist, by all means, but making the indoor location a priority? As Lynn Cates points out in the thread, it would have been possible to make such a conscious shift. Lacking examples, we should entertain the possibility of the indoor location as not deviating from the murderer's MO as it was a stroke of luck as the most probable one, however, at least where it's about a single perpetrator.
As a side-thought, if we keep our minds just open enough to allow the possibility of earlier attacks that had indeed been reported, we might even ponder about one that could have been such opportunity for an indoor location – Ally Ryder has remarked in one of the podcasts that she can't see the killer going from 0 to 60, and neither can I. Rose Bierman's testimony varies from Ada Wilson's account significantly in that she stated that Wilson actually brought her attacker to her door, and it has been speculated that Wilson, facing her eviction and giving her occupation as seamstress, an often used euphemism for prostitute, might have been soliciting; if she indeed lied about her attacker knocking it might not have been the only lie.
I like referring to the 0 to 60-remark, because I believe it's an essential one that is often overlooked or disregarded when it comes to many alternative models, particularly where it concerns Mary Kelly.
Any hypothesis revolving around Kelly's murder having been a one-timer that had been masked as a Ripper-killing must confront each of the following two conclusions that would have to be drawn but rarely are:
- the murderer, be it Barnett or a, supposedly quite stressed out, midwife not only thought it through about masking the murder by committing post-mortem atrocities – s/he then actually went through with it.
Things are often discussed in a very matter-of-factly way, including ideas on motivations of the perp as to the details of his actions, but we're not talking dissecting a mouse here, we're talking the utter destruction of the body of another human being. Most people I know have a strong reaction seeing a dead body involved in a car crash, any dead body, for that matter. And here we have a sight that couldn't be more horrific. It's not a small thing. It's not simply a 'In Order to Make This Seem Like That I have to Do This.'
One also needs to look at details such as the very conscious placing of organs. If I'm inclined to believe in a first-timer – and it had to be one, otherwise we'd have records of other comparable findings outside the victims we know about – then in the very least it would have to be a mind with a) access to knowing what to do to 'make it look crazy' and b) then executing it in full. In other words, we'd end up with a murderer somewhat equally disturbed, by which time this first-timer has become rendered superfluous.
- Even if we allow for this first-timer to be this unconcerned as to the effect of these mutilations on his mind, not only was he able to decide on his actions, not only was he able to fully realize them, he must also have considered what we now call the escalation-hypothesis, an idea that is still and right here and quite often hotly debated. Precisely because this is so much more than what had been found previously we'd have to conclude this. 'There has been an increase of mutilations with each victim, this is indoors, so if I'd be the killer I'd have to make it much more gruesome. And crazy.'
What a mind. Especially with the principle of escalation most probably not being the most principle and fashionable on the minds of the contemporary investigators, not to mention the common folks.
The idea, as proposed in the thread, that the murderer had in the course of the mutilations 'lost track' or got carried away, might have some merit and would take care of that, but it'd still lead back to the 1st of these conclusions above.
That's not to say that any of this is impossible, of course, but at some point we should allow word to the short person in the upper corner row of the auditorium, who's hand we've seen raised for some time now, his name-tag reading 'Occam.'
Thoughts?
Perhaps also on how this solution for the location-witch might play on the possibility of potential later victims? Although I find the idea of the killer somewhat self-imploding after what he'd done to Mary Kelly quite a sensible one, I've lately found to carefully accepting some of the later murder victims, notably Alice Mackenzie and Frances Coles, as possible victims of the same killer, and there's a tentative gut-feeling that Miller's Court and all it enabled him to do might have been less of a destructive impression on himself if it had been a mere chance-location, and it might have been easier for him to return to the routine of the outside than I'd hitherto assumed, as he would simply continue to follow his MO - I'm not quite sure where this feeling comes from and how to substantiate it, however.
Comment