The Ripper's MO....

[smezenen]

Another thought just occured to me. If Jack broke into Mary's room to kill her then he did it without being seen which blows everyone theory about who it was. The man Hutch seen isnt the killer or Hutchwould have said he broke in and Sarah Lewis seen Hutch and didnt mention that he was breaking in so he isnt the killer.

[Sam Flynn]

Weather conditions (etc.) at each of the murders

Pretty good guess Mallcolm you are only 9 minute off (7:09AM) here is where you can find the data http://www.sci.fi/~benefon/sol.html

Thanks, Smez. For info, the summarised data from the weather reports in London, as well as the sunset/sunrise times for each of the murders, may be found here:

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

[Malcolm X]

Another thought just occured to me. If Jack broke into Mary's room to kill her then he did it without being seen which blows everyone theory about who it was. The man Hutch seen isnt the killer or Hutchwould have said he broke in and Sarah Lewis seen Hutch and didnt mention that he was breaking in so he isnt the killer.

you dont know enough about the Hutch theory do you? you must undertand the full theory about that night and the following 3 days.....that's if it's still here, because this has all been discussed in great detail in the past.
and i can not be bothered to repeat it all here, it's too long and complicated. (no offence intended) he cant afford to be seen between 3.40am and 4am, but between 2am and 3am is fine, as long as he's got an excuse for being there..... and he did!

yes my time of 7am is close, that's because right now i work as a night porter.....so if he broke in at about 4am, he'd be wanting to leave at maybe 6am......quite often in november it's still dark at 7.25am, it depends how overcast it is.

cold?.... you just wrap up well...try being outside in Belgium (rigging an antenna on an American air base) all day long in -15, utterly freezing but it doesn't harm you....i've done it many times, and in Rugby rigging antennas too....in Rugby it was -2, but the chill factor due to the biting wind was about -12..... i was only 21 years old!

[perrymason]

Another thought just occured to me. If Jack broke into Mary's room to kill her then he did it without being seen which blows everyone theory about who it was. The man Hutch seen isnt the killer or Hutch would have said he broke in and Sarah Lewis seen Hutch and didnt mention that he was breaking in so he isnt the killer.

Hi smezenen,

I think a point in there is a good one, if this was a break in, it should rule out anyone that was seen with her. Which was Blotchy. Unless he does return later as Ben suggested, Im not sure that would be wise doing that, risking another sighting when he was seen once already that same night....by Mary Ann when they enter the room. Wideawake Man is only Hutchinson if Hutchinson was there as her said he was, and if he was, why then would he make up a story? But thats what their verdict was apparently. They didnt say he wasnt Wideawake or even address that element of Sarah's sighting, but they did blow him off as a potential witness of Mary and a Man at that time entering the courtyard. So we are left with him possibly being that man based solely on his own statement,... one which half of was rejected by the men investigating his claims.

In terms of break in and Suspects though Barnett could be on that list, or McCarthy...they knew of the latch method, maybe Joe Fleming, maybe Daniel Barnett,...I dont think Bowyer knew before that morning, or even noticed the opportunity. We are asked to believe the police didnt see it when they had 2 hours in the courtyard to do so.

In terms of MO, this is what I suggested earlier, a definite departure from the MO used with Polly, Annie, perhaps with Liz, and with Kate, ...if all by one guy.

I think Id accept a departure easier if there was some known factor that made that move preferable to his previous style. I dont believe there is any evidence that suggests the murders committed outside were not enough for him, and it had been 5 weeks since a previous murder had happened......Polly to the Double Event was only 5 weeks. He had been quiet for as long as it took him to possibly kill 4 of 5 women. I bet some thought he had left already.

Best regards smez

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Why would the Ripper change his MO with Kelly?...Kelly took her killer home with her as far as I'm concerned

If we're prepared to accept that the killer was capable of making "changes" in terms of his venue, we ought really to make the same sort of allowances for his pre-crime approach. In other words, "outdoors versus indoors" is of a similar scale of MO-alteration to "false client guise versus intruder", and if we argue otherwise we're giving the people who rule Kelly out as a ripper victim a stick to beat us with.

Wideawake Man is only Hutchinson if Hutchinson was there as her said he was, and if he was, why then would he make up a story?

Because he realised he'd been seen and wanted to legitimise his presence at a crime scene, whilst at the same time, deflecting suspicion in a false "Astrakhan" direction, Mike. The suggestion that Blotchy returned later is not to be ruled out, especially if the first encounter served as a "reconnaissance" misson of sorts. Again, the physical congruity between the Wideawake and Blotchy suspects is not to be dismissed too lightly.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Observer,



If we're prepared to accept that the killer was capable of making "changes" in terms of his venue, we ought really to make the same sort of allowances for his pre-crime approach. In other words, "outdoors versus indoors" is of a similar scale of MO-alteration as "false client guise versus intruder", and if we argue otherwise we're giving the people who rule Kelly out as a ripper victim a stick to beat us with.

Best regards,
Ben

I hope it doesnt feel like that at times my friend,...Im just stubborn and opinionated...not mean.

But your point is a good one. If he changes and does so willingly and purposefully....why not the whole enchilada?

I think for many the key to Marys inclusion though isnt the pickup, or the venue. Its the aftermath.

My point has always been on this one that the start is equally as important an identifier as the finish in the Ripper cases, cause the majority of the ones that fit a single man and were thought to be Canonical, had an almost identical start from what we can gather.

All the best mate.

[Malcolm X]

what Ben sais is the main theory Mike....very basically it goes like this..

1....Hutch waited outside Millers court, exactly as per the times mentioned....he was indeed seen, he left at 3am, realising that Mary was finally asleep/ alone

2....he returned and broke in at 4am

3....he went to the inquest to find out if that woman who had seen him had reported him...she had, but Hutch didn't know how much the police really knew, he was suspicious...because Hutch lived close by and this murder was a little bit too close to home, especially if he was a regular in Dorset st.

4...so he went to Abberline, admitting that it was him seen outside, with a totally fabricated statement

5...he diverted suspicion away from him, by fabrication a highly suspicious anti-semetic LA DI DA suspect, not just this, but also a highly farcical suspect; that dressed nothing like what JTR would've worn, if he was trying to blend into a crowd....this suspect isn't even close to the LAWENDE suspect.

6....he then offered to stroll around Whitechapel the next day, he was inserting himself into this case.... a bit too much so, he was behaving like a classic thrill/attention seeker; serial killer.

7....Abberline dismissed him as unreliable some time later, basically he thought he was a publicity seeking bullshitter...for whatever reason

HE WAS INDEED A LIAR, but Abberline missed the reason why he was lieing.. Hutch, in trying to frame somebody else, went too far in his description of the suspect...he went totally over the top.

but to understand why H is so suspicious, you have know the full story....but the one thing you can guarantee as almost a fact is, that he was definitely outside millers court at the times stated..he cant lie about this, he has to get his times spot on..just in case more people saw him.

but the important point is..... he was not seen entering her room/ leaving and according to him, he left Dorset st at 3am; never to return..... diverting attention away from him even more, by fabricating a LA DI DA suspect and pretending to help the police.

but there's miles more, too much to mention here.... i should've written a book ages ago....Ben and I were the first members here to build Hutch into a serious suspect, so you can blame us two for all these H threads.. but i was suspicious of H before this; on IVOR EDWARDES old forum.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Observer,



If we're prepared to accept that the killer was capable of making "changes" in terms of his venue, we ought really to make the same sort of allowances for his pre-crime approach. In other words, "outdoors versus indoors" is of a similar scale of MO-alteration to "false client guise versus intruder", and if we argue otherwise we're giving the people who rule Kelly out as a ripper victim a stick to beat us with.

Best regards,
Ben

Ah but that’s it, in my mind he had no intention of changing his venue to an indoor kill. If he and Kelly were strangers and he was employing his usual MO that morning, he would not have learned that Kelly had her own room until he aprroached her. It could well be that he allowed his victims to approach him of course, but the same would apply . This was a bonus to him, and explains the extensive mutilations suffered by Kelly, he having free rein to indulge in his unholy passion.

All the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Whether it was intention or not to seek out a different type of venue for the murder, the fact is that he ended up in one, assuming of course that Kelly was a ripper victim. Different crime venues will often call for a different pre-crime approach. Ted Bundy's "standard" method was to entice his victims using a false guise, but when it came to the final murders in Tallahassee, he simply broke in and attacked them. No "inveigling" process at all. That's not to rule out a client scenario in Kelly's case, but the intruder premise is certainly no less likely.

Best regards,
Ben

[smezenen]

cold?.... you just wrap up well...try being outside in Belgium (rigging an antenna on an American air base) all day long in -15, utterly freezing but it doesn't harm you....i've done it many times, and in Rugby rigging antennas too....in Rugby it was -2, but the chill factor due to the biting wind was about -12..... i was only 21 years old!

And i assume you had cold weather gear and where moving about quit alot.
My point was that if jack was staking out the room he would have either walked past several times, possibly drawing attention or he woud have been hidden and still. Hidden and still would be a danger to him for cold weather injury. Look i was an infantryman in the US Army for 22 years, Ive been to Alaska, Korea (which was even colder when the wind blows if you can believe that), and Germany in the wintertime standing guard at missile bases where you cant move around. The rule was 20 minutes tops before you are relieved from outside duty when the temp dropped below 40 becous hypothermia is a very real danger. the more i think about it it was raining that night too so that increases the time factor becouse now you are wet so take that time down from 15 minutes to 10 before you start to feel the effects.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Im actually pretty sure I known the gist of Bens ideas Malcolm, as we have bandied some of them about for over a year at least. If I remember correctly, for me, the time I knew he had some thoughts brewing was when Janie Coram mentioned Fleming was a Victoria Home for Working Men resident. As Hutchinson is on record as being, and I believe Daniel Barnett as well... from the Kelly offshoots.

Ben is a smart guy and a good friend, and when I disagree with an opinion he might have I believe he knows my comments will still be based on those principles.

For me Fleming is the one to follow here...and Bens ideas include Hutch and Flem being one person in reality. So we are not far apart on many issues. The main ones are that I believe Marys killing was probably not The Ripper's doing, and I dont believe that George Hutchinson is Joe Fleming. I think Joe Fleming may be Wideawake though...and Im not sure he worked alone.

As you know, I see a very consistent MO in 3 0f 5 alleged victims total, I see no reason for Jack to have been the man in Dutfields Yard, so thats perhaps 3 out of 4. Mary being the exception, not a continuance of any traditional MO used thus far.

All the best.

[DVV]

I dont believe that George Hutchinson is Joe Fleming. I think Joe Fleming may be Wideawake though...

Hi Mike,

I just fell down from the sofa.
I know many people who don't "believe" Hutch was Fleming. When I read them, I usually keep sitting.
But I had never met one who thinks Fleming was Wideawake, and still doesn't believe in Flemtchinson.

There's nobody like you, my friend!

Amitiés,
David

edit: Mary is definitely canonical. Shall we come back to the "definitely canonical" thread ?

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

I just fell down from the sofa.
I know many people who don't "believe" Hutch was Fleming. When I read them, I usually keep sitting.
But I had never met one who thinks Fleming was Wideawake, and still doesn't believe in Flemtchinson.

There's nobody like you, my friend!

Amitiés,
David

edit: Mary is definitely canonical. Shall we come back to the "definitely canonical" thread ?

Hi David,

Im assuming since we like each other that was intended as a friendly jab, n'est pas? I suppose some people think I just like being a Devils Advocate, playing it straight. Its not the case.

I dont believe George Hutchinson was where he said he was or who he said he was to Mary. Im sure he'd seen her before. A friend would not wait 3 days to give a story like this if its real....its vital evidence if true. I dont care what a wimp he was, its not kosher for a friend to hold back information that would help catch another friends murderer. I do believe Sarah Lewis.. on that portion of her tale. I believe Wideawake is not smoke and mirrors.

What I also believe is that he makes an ideal lookout for someone in the room at the time. I believe the police thought so too. I believe both the issuance and the wording of the pardon suggests an accomplice that helped him "after" the event, and that the idea of this kind of official document was strongly rejected until then.

Heres a snippet of what Im considering,....Blotchy and Fleming working together, Blotchy making sure she is in bed and sound alseep,..then leaving. Wideawake anxiously awaiting that moment when Blotchy walks out. Maybe Blotchy was to find out something from Mary as well. I know this positions the killer and accomplice in reverse position to what the Pardon document said, but I can see a "coast clear" guy going first. And later,..being scared out of his mind when he finds out what the guy who goes in after him does.

p.s....a Canonical victim in the case of Jack the Ripper is an assumed one, not a proven one, so I agree. She is assumed a Ripper kill.

All the best mon ami

[Ben]

What I also believe is that he makes an ideal lookout for someone in the room at the time.

Trouble is, Mike, he also makes a very good suspect, since serial killers have been known to moniter their crime scenes from a vantage point before attacking. When a modern investigator is contronted with eyewitness evidence of a man seen skulking fixatedly opposite a crime scene, his first priority is to rule that man out as a suspect, not as a potential "lookout".

In this case, there's a compelling if unproven case for the skulker in question being the man who introduced himself to police as George Hutchinson, since his self-confessed actions and movemets at 2:30am on the night in question mirror those of Sarah Lewis' man almost precisely. It could be argued that Hutchinson simply pretended, falsely, to be Sarah Lewis' man, but I'd have to wonder at the motivation for the move, especially if he neglected to give himself an alibi for the rather crucial 3:30-4:00 period. The annals of serial crime aren't exactly littered with examples of false witnesses pretending to be real witnesses who were seen at the crime scene by other witnesses, if that makes sense.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Trouble is, Mike, he also makes a very good suspect, since serial killers have been known to moniter their crime scenes from a vantage point before attacking. When a modern investigator is contronted with eyewitness evidence of a man seen skulking fixatedly opposite a crime scene, his first priority is to rule that man out as a suspect, not as a potential "lookout".

In this case, there's a compelling if unproven case for the skulker in question being the man who introduced himself to police as George Hutchinson, since his self-confessed actions and movemets at 2:30am on the night in question mirror those of Sarah Lewis' man almost precisely. It could be argued that Hutchinson simply pretended, falsely, to be Sarah Lewis' man, but I'd have to wonder at the motivation for the move, especially if he neglected to give himself an alibi for the rather crucial 3:30-4:00 period. The annals of serial crime aren't exactly littered with examples of false witnesses pretending to be real witnesses who were seen at the crime scene by other witnesses, if that makes sense.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi amigo,

I do see your contention Ben, and I know you have precedents for your suggestion that this is known serial killer behaviour....but for me, this isnt a serial killer crime scene yet, its a murder scene. At the end of a bunch of other murders that Fall.

Consider this......its possible, but unproven, that the man who says he was George Hutchinson to the Police, around 6pm that evening, learned of Sarah Lewis and her story before that time. If he was a crank, like many, many people were walking into police stations and pubs making wild remarks or acting scary, he could have used that story to make his look accurate. By placing himself in Wideawakes shoes based on Sarah's details.

The police never openly denied this part of his story, only that he was no longer believed within 72 hours. I think they made that assumption,...and I think we do. That just because he made up a suspect doesnt mean he would also lie about being there, or being Marys friend.

Was he Marys friend in practice? Close enough to her to spot her some coins here and there when she needed help? Does that kind of man wait 3 days? You know he wouldnt.

What that would leave us with is Sarah's Wideawake Man as an unknown... watching the courtyard from approximately 2am, which would be approximately 1/2 hour since Marys lights were noticed as out, and 45 minutes after her singing had stopped. Thats enough time to have killed her based on the opinions.

As you can tell, Im not married to who is who.....but if Blotchy is still in the room, I see Wideawake as watching for anyone entering the court which he could then signal to the man in the court with a whistle, or waiting for a man to come out and help him get away, or go into the room after her leaves.

And I can see Fleming in here....just not sure how to stitch this yet.

Cheers Big Ben, all the best mate.