It's 3rd September 1888 what should the Police have been doing?

[Harry D]

Explain how that Mary Kellys murder doesnt look like a domestic murder? She is in her home, in her bed, undressed, in the middle of the night, and her killer didnt break in so he is almost certainly there with her permission. He may well be the man she was in a love triangle with, no-one has identified the other "Joe" yet. You are assuming that very few people cut up other people, well, I can name a bunch of cases where a man kills his wife/lover and then chops her up. He didnt get into the murder desiring to chop up anyone, in most cases its to dispose of the parts later. Or to disguise the manner in which she was killed. In this case however the killer is fortunate, he doesnt have to dispose of the body at all, he just has to chop her up and leave her there so that everyone, just like you, will believe the mad Ripper man killed her. The previous kills, with widely published details, and the fact that no-one had been caught created that opportunity. I think Marys killer just took what was given to him.

In November 1993, in the Bisset home in Plumstead, Napper stabbed 27-year-old Samantha Bisset in her neck and chest, killing her, and then sexually assaulted[6] and smothered her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine Jemima Bisset. In her sitting room, Napper mutilated Samantha's body, taking away parts of her body as a trophy. The crime scene was reportedly so grisly that the police photographer assigned to the case was forced to take two years' leave after witnessing it.

Robert Napper, British serial killer. His victims were complete strangers to him.

[Michael W Richards]

If Mary Kelly's murder was a domestic even made to look like a Ripper murder the murderer went over the top. I doubt this was the case though its far more likely the Ripper found himself with an opportunity to murder indoors.

I believe a killer with a demonstrated preference for killing strangers outdoors is contrasted by the Kelly murder, not exemplified.

[John Wheat]

Explain how that Mary Kellys murder doesnt look like a domestic murder? She is in her home, in her bed, undressed, in the middle of the night, and her killer didnt break in so he is almost certainly there with her permission. He may well be the man she was in a love triangle with, no-one has identified the other "Joe" yet. You are assuming that very few people cut up other people, well, I can name a bunch of cases where a man kills his wife/lover and then chops her up. He didnt get into the murder desiring to chop up anyone, in most cases its to dispose of the parts later. Or to disguise the manner in which she was killed. In this case however the killer is fortunate, he doesnt have to dispose of the body at all, he just has to chop her up and leave her there so that everyone, just like you, will believe the mad Ripper man killed her. The previous kills, with widely published details, and the fact that no-one had been caught created that opportunity. I think Marys killer just took what was given to him.

If Mary Kelly's murder was a domestic even made to look like a Ripper murder the murderer went over the top. I doubt this was the case though its far more likely the Ripper found himself with an opportunity to murder indoors.

[Michael W Richards]

Mary Kelly's murder though looks to all intents and purposes the opposite of a domestic murder though Michael. The mutilations on Mary Kelly are thankfully extremely rare. You can't have things both ways Michael.

Explain how that Mary Kellys murder doesnt look like a domestic murder? She is in her home, in her bed, undressed, in the middle of the night, and her killer didnt break in so he is almost certainly there with her permission. He may well be the man she was in a love triangle with, no-one has identified the other "Joe" yet. You are assuming that very few people cut up other people, well, I can name a bunch of cases where a man kills his wife/lover and then chops her up. He didnt get into the murder desiring to chop up anyone, in most cases its to dispose of the parts later. Or to disguise the manner in which she was killed. In this case however the killer is fortunate, he doesnt have to dispose of the body at all, he just has to chop her up and leave her there so that everyone, just like you, will believe the mad Ripper man killed her. The previous kills, with widely published details, and the fact that no-one had been caught created that opportunity. I think Marys killer just took what was given to him.

[Harry D]

Mary Kelly's murder though looks to all intents and purposes the opposite of a domestic murder though Michael. The mutilations on Mary Kelly are thankfully extremely rare. You can't have things both ways Michael.

Good point, JW.

[John Wheat]

Its a marker for the fact that other people slit womens throats that Fall, domestic or otherwise. How do you know Liz wasnt a "domestic", or Mary Kelly for that matter? You can presume...you've shown a proclivity for that..but murders are murders, unless accompanied by some extraordinary attributes. The only reason to conclude Liz Stride was killed by a "ripper" is because so many presume it was Jack who also killed Kate. Like 2 killers cant operate on one night. The Brown case shows that on one night 3 women had their throats cut, and extraordinary attributes to the murder are evident in just one of them.

Mary Kelly's murder though looks to all intents and purposes the opposite of a domestic murder though Michael. The mutilations on Mary Kelly are thankfully extremely rare. You can't have things both ways Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

number three was a domestic, the perpetrator known. has nothing to do with the ripper case.

Its a marker for the fact that other people slit womens throats that Fall, domestic or otherwise. How do you know Liz wasnt a "domestic", or Mary Kelly for that matter? You can presume...you've shown a proclivity for that..but murders are murders, unless accompanied by some extraordinary attributes. The only reason to conclude Liz Stride was killed by a "ripper" is because so many presume it was Jack who also killed Kate. Like 2 killers cant operate on one night. The Brown case shows that on one night 3 women had their throats cut, and extraordinary attributes to the murder are evident in just one of them.

[Sam Flynn]

how grey? ; )

That's an interesting question. For Lawende to have perceived the cap as grey in low lighting, then it could well have been a fairly light grey, otherwise he would have taken it to be... um... black, like the one Schwartz's man wore.

[Abby Normal]

As I say, peaked caps were extremely popular form of headgear. Perhaps to emphasise this, Schwartz's man was wearing a black peaked cap, but Lawende's man was wearing a grey one.

how grey? ; )

[Sam Flynn]

As I say, peaked caps were extremely popular form of headgear. Perhaps to emphasise this, Schwartz's man was wearing a black peaked cap, but Lawende's man was wearing a grey one.

[Abby Normal]

We could just as easily be looking at two different men wearing an extremely common type of headgear.

I doubt it. reinforced by the suspicious peaked cap man sighted in church st inbetween the two murders

[Sam Flynn]

We could just as easily be looking at two different men wearing an extremely common type of headgear.

[Abby Normal]

Peaked caps were extremely common at that time.

yes and the ripper was wearing one the night of the double event

[Sam Flynn]

and by a man wearing a peaked cap, same as eddowes. she was a ripper victim

Peaked caps were extremely common at that time.

[Abby Normal]

The fact she is killed by throat slit makes her one of 3 women that night, so "double event" aside, its clear more than just Jack cut womens throats that Fall. Knowing that its awfully hard to reconcile a serial mutilator with what was done to Liz Stride. When assessing Liz its important to remember more than Jack carried knives, more than Jack used them, but when he used them so he could mutilate their abdomen,.... Then that was Jack.

number three was a domestic, the perpetrator known. has nothing to do with the ripper case.