Did Jack kill more than three?

Hi Michael,

1. First of all, the mutilations were what actually drove him


2. Secondly, out in the streets, Jack was very much pressed for time - even though he seems to have chosen times when there were as few people up and about as could be.

3. Thirdly, out in the streets, in order not to get caught, he had to divide his attention between what he was doing on the one hand and his surroundings on the other.

4. In other words, out in the streets, he wasn’t able to focus only on what he liked most.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Your take is as good as anyone else's, and is in keeping with the mainline Ripper community, however lets take the points to task.

1. That is what you can say about Mary Jane's murderer, and Pollys murderer, because nothing more than that was clear. In Pollys case we may have an aborted abdominal organ theft, as the preliminaries were out of the way, but in Marys case I would think mutilation for its own sake might have been his "driver".

There are 2 murders however that resulted in obtaining items located in the abdomen, and those seem to be the objectives in those murders, due to the constraint in peripheral damage. Yes Kates face was messed up, but by far the majority of the killer interaction with her was focussed on retrieving things from her abdomen.

2. I think the times were chosen because thats when he could kill, and thats when the women who fit the profile of the ones who donated abdominal organs were out....middle-aged, desperately poor, no home, and they sell themselves to an individual person in dark corners.

3. I agree he had to be aware of his surroundings, and that precisely why what we see done is what he chose to do in the time allocated. He entered into an agreement of sorts when he chose a victim....agreeing to the location, and the circumstances. He could have just kept his knife in his pocket if it wasnt right.....and it appears he does that for weeks at a time anyway.

4. Theres that assumption Frank...that what he wanted most was just mutilations, and Mary allowed that to the nines. That is, whether consciously or not, a result of your acceptance of Mary Kelly as a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer they called Jack.

In fact before Mary Jane came along, almost all the investigators put some emphasis on his trademark "abdominal mutilations" in order to allow the new murders into what became a Canon, that was what they looked for in new unfortunate victims of knives, and the trademark throat cut of course.... until what they looked for became so broad, so unimaginable after Mary Kelly, that they discounted the apparent order and structure of some early murders within the Canon, and deemed he must have been just a bloodthirsty fiend, and therefore capable of all descriptions of attacks and wounds, and incapable of rational thought or planning.

Maybe.

Or maybe its not as easy as simply an insane madman. Maybe where it happened....the arguable hell hole of the United Kingdom at that time......the era, repressed moralities, subversive revolutionary ideals surfacing.....and the timing.....during a period when the populous of the East End might have conceivably revolted against any Government authority....maybe they might offer more insights on to whom, why or how many, better than assuming because we cant figure out what he was doing, that neither could he....or more appropriately, they.

All the best Frank.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

there is no evidence in any prior attributed death that the killer lacked time, felt constraints, was uncomfortable, or not free to do as he pleased.

I can well imagine what kind of evidence might indicate that he did feel constrained by time - roughly opened abdomens with intestines merely hoisted out of the way; crudely executed evisceration with stumps of organs removed; collateral damage to internal organs (such as punctured liver/spleen and two severed colons); bodies still warm and blood still fluid when the first witness(es) arrive on the scene; etc. In other words, what we see in Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes is perfectly consistent with what we might expect to see if an eviscerating murderer was working under time-pressure or other physical constraints.

As to evidence that the killer did not feel constrained by circumstance in the pre-Kelly murders, I must confess that I struggle to think of any.

[FrankO]

Hi Michael,

I think thats the leading contender for "Why The Ripper went Nuts Indoors" Ben, but there is no evidence in any prior attributed death that the killer lacked time, felt constraints, was uncomfortable, or not free to do as he pleased.

I agree that there isn't any actual hard evidence for any of those things, but I'd look at it from another angle.

First of all, the mutilations were what actually drove him - he risked his very life by spending extra time on the crime scene inflicting them. Secondly, out in the streets, Jack was very much pressed for time - even though he seems to have chosen times when there were as few people up and about as could be. Thirdly, out in the streets, in order not to get caught, he had to divide his attention between what he was doing on the one hand and his surroundings on the other. In other words, out in the streets, he wasn’t able to focus only on what he liked most. If you would add the notion that the Ripper may very well have been disturbed once or twice, trying to find a victim he could ‘do’ indoors doesn’t seem an unlikely choice at all.

Just my take on it, obviously.

All the best,
Frank

Theres a nifty movie on just such a killer released a year or so ago, called Mr Brooks. Kevin Costner. Normal guy, lots of dough, loves his family, pretty even tempered...but he killed someone when he was young.....and became addicted. His addiction was the kill itself, the rush...but he didnt go into any situation unprepared, because he didnt want to get caught, and thought he could stop if he wanted to. He killed many ways, leaving a trademark Thumbprint at some.

The killing impulse inside him is played by William Hurt.

I think there is a possibility that the terror streak consisted of some kills that were intended to create an illusion.

Cheers Paul.

[paul emmett]

I think to propose a diversionary tactic is really giving Jack more credit for planning than he deserves.

Hello Kevin, Michael, all.

I was struck by this quote, espescially in light of Michael's recent post calling for us to consider a PLANNING killer(s). From what I've read, I believe Kevin's position for minimal planning on Jack's part is the majority position on the Boards. But I don't see why. Why couldn't Jack be cold AND calculating?

It's clearly relevant in general, and specifically on this thread. For example, Dan's insightful analysis "Heartless" suggests that the Double Event was indeed planned out, planned out to fullfill press reported rumours about Chapman being part of a double event. Dan's article argues cogently for such a premise AND for the fact that JTR is a consumate planner.

This might be taken a step further even because the false rumours on the day of Chapman's death told of a woman with her throat cut. If Jack is playing with the press, perhaps this offers a new angle on why Stride in the literalized Double Event had ONLY her throat cut.

....As I suggested before, he may have killed on the streets for want of private accomodation.

Regards,
Ben

I think thats the leading contender for "Why The Ripper went Nuts Indoors" Ben, but there is no evidence in any prior attributed death that the killer lacked time, felt constraints, was uncomfortable, or not free to do as he pleased.

There is a suggestion in Polly wounds that he may have not completed his task there, but no evidence as such.

In fact the inverse may be true, he may have preferred the outdoor venues, and chosen to kill outside rather than was forced by some circumstances, which I cant imagine myself...since there were ample abandoned buildings and lots of courts with whores in rooms alone to choose from.

If he sought desperately poor, middle-aged, full or part-time street prostitutes without their own rooms....seems being outdoors after midnight was smart trawling to me.

Cheers Ben.

[Ben]

Poor people were not the only inhabitants of East End London

Quite so, Mike, but they comprised the majority, especially in the pocket of the East End in which the murders were committed. Single private accomodation was very hard to come by, and the assumption that the killer met this criteria is somewhat allied to the "Gentleman Jack" fallacy, in my view. He could have been an organised serial killer, but still poor and working class, in which case he had to make too with the mitigating circumstances shared by most of the East End male population.

As I suggested before, he may have killed on the streets for want of private accomodation.

Regards,
Ben

I agree that there is no linear explanation possible in the "results only" analysis of these 5 womens deaths.

If I told you Id like to give you both, Sam and Ben, either 10 million dollars each, or around 5 million each,...you choose which, you might think the answers a no-brainer. But every week around the world people choose the lesser amounts because of their perception of "safe" money, or their desire to have it now in a lum sum, rather than dolled out in 250,00k annual installments or the like. Dont settle.

As to the blood Ben, some kills, like Liz's, I cant see causing him any problems, he could have waltzed into the club and come out with the rest when the police arrived. Or walked right out the gate...seeing as he finished by 12:56, and cart and horse arent even on Berner St yet,...
and of course I realize that cooking indoors over flame was basically the only option, or what you got back then, if you wanted warm food.

But Kates killer faltered a bit I think, and maybe allowed personal issues to have credence over his clinical ones...he may have been quite messy, and Marys killer had to have been....Bond's opinions are loved so much, and I believe thats his conclusion,...(preparing to be corrected ).

A poor man, delluded and mentally ill, couldnt afford a side bolt-hole.

A working man, if single... and of decent wage, in which case or if married, might.

A man of means wouldn't hesitate to have a cleaning room.

We seem to be only talking about the lowest possible common denominator here...when clearly, 2 of three answers could well include "side" rooms. Desperately Poor people were not the only inhabitants of East End London....and the hours the kills occur during might indicate work constraints, as to why they didnt ever happen at 8pm say.

I think if we wipe the drool from the killer or killers respective chins,...bundled under one man nicknamed Jack the Ripper due to a contemporary hoax letter... ....and allow him (them) the ability to reason, calculate and plan....which goes much further explaining his miraculous disappearances than sheer luck 5 straight shots does,....then him cleaning somewhere first is far less frivolous.

In fact it makes complete sense when fit into the probable missing hour of the apron piece.

Best regards mates.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Sam and Doc, both your counters include delving into what the killer may have wanted, or in Sams case, why the abdominal organs, ...but I was hoping to address this based solely on what did happen..not guessing why....not specifically surgically how....just what were the results.

But the results didn't exist in a vacuum, and there were very real physical constraints on what the killer could do which must be taken into account.

If we must confine ourselves to looking at the results strictly on what happened, then we are not permitted to speculate on what was going on in the killer's mind - because we can't know any of that. In contrast, the physical and temporal constraints under which the Ripper worked are beyond speculation or interpretation, and in a very real sense were an unavoidable part of the event itself.

[Ben]

the organ taker needs a private place first.

He doesn't, Mike.

He just needs a place where he isn't likely to be noticed, let alone suspected of any foul play, which is why these doss houses proved so popular with criminals as relative safe houses. He wouldn't have had visible bloodstains on him, and I've already dealt with the organs issue. Absolutely 100% no problem. As for private indoor locations, there was a serious dearth of those in the district we're interested in. He'd be pretty hard-pressed to find one.

All the best,
Ben

Sam and Doc, both your counters include delving into what the killer may have wanted, or in Sams case, why the abdominal organs, ...but I was hoping to address this based solely on what did happen..not guessing why....not specifically surgically how....just what were the results.

As you both say, its irresponsible to interpret what the motivations may have been for this Ripper character, since we do not know factually who he indeed killed for one, nor what prompted his killing.

So thats where my post was concerned with. I dont know why it appears at least one killer takes abdominal organs twice and the attack just seems to enable that, nor do I know what the hell the fella was doing in Room 13 other than just destroying Mary, but I do know that Liz was just murdered, and I do know that Marys killer had no attraction to abdominal organs as prizes. One of which he takes twice from priors.

I agree with what you suggested Doc about the likelihood that these killers would stumble into Doss or Lodging Houses after 2am, some with organs on them, and most with blood. Whether one killer, or 5, the organ taker needs a private place first. Sorry Ben and Sam, I just saw that you support the notion a guy would just walk in at all hours with blood on him.

It is interesting when considering when the apron piece may have been left off Goulston, perhaps more than an hour after the Mitre murder.

Best regards.

[Ben]

Good point, Gareth. It's most odd that only "strangers" were inquired about. I daresay that if the question had encompassed regulars as well as strangers, several names would have cropped up. Same with all the other lodging houses in the locality. If the regulars were holders of daily or weekly passes, they were even less likely to be inquired about.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

So . . . as you note, it seems unlikely he goes from there to a "doss house."

That's assuming he went anywhere, of course. At Eddowes' inquest, lodging-house keeper Frederick Wilkinson was asked whether any strangers (why "strangers", especially?) had arrived after 2 AM, but even after consulting his ledger he could not say that any had. In the aftermath of the "Double Event", and I daresay other murders, the police posed similar questions of lodging-house keepers in the area.

But what if the killer decided to lie low, or surreptitiously wandered about the streets until daybreak? What if he didn't re-enter his putative doss-house dwelling - amongst scores or hundreds of others - until the day after each crime?

First resident: "Where was you last night, Bert?"
Second resident: "Oh, I was stayin' over at Johnson's Doss-house in Poplar, after hitchin' up wiv a dolly-bird in the Sailor's Rest."

End of story.

[Ben]

Trophies wouldn't remotely have been a problem had the killer returned with them to the doss house. Dossers were coming and going with all sorts of dodgy meat victuals to cook and prepare for themselves, and the foul-smelling kitchens would have enabled the killer to cook and eat his trophies without fear of being questioned. Even if he didn't eat them, and wanted to keep them stored instead, many doss houses boasted private cubicles. Private these establishments may not have been, but they enabled any criminally-coerced occupant to become the proverbial needle in a haystack, which is precisely why criminals resorted to them. Any "stuff" on him from the abdominal mutilations would have been minimal in the extreme, and certainly not bloody.

It might be borne in mind also that private accomodation was a relatively rare luxury in such an overcrowded district as Whitechapel. If he did have private accomodation, it's quite possible that he'd have taken victims there (in the style of Nilsen and Dahmer) rather than risking capture on the streets.

[Doctor X]

Observer:

I do not know how he then avoids getting some "stuff" on him when he is mutilating the abdomens. Even if he avoids the "hose." I remind people that the jugular can give a continuous "jet" as well--just not as far as arterial bleeding unless the person is suffering from a venous hypertension.

Also, as one of the descriptions notes--Eddowes? Too tired to look up--in his "expert" dissection he violated bowel. Good luck that not getting on him.

So . . . as you note, it seems unlikely he goes from there to a "doss house." Frankly, I never bought that idea. Jack has to have some place secure to bring his trophies . . . even if he quickly disposed of them, ate them, or even sold them. Doss houses are, as described by Rumbelo, not exactly "private."

Yours fatiguedly,

--J.D.