Patterns formed by murder locations

[Robert]

We don't know that the murderer was actually finished compiling his pattern. If, say, he died suddenly, how would we know what shape he wanted to form?

It's my belief he was trying to draw this :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

[Victaella W.]

We don't know that the murderer was actually finished compiling his pattern. If, say, he died suddenly, how would we know what shape he wanted to form?

It's my belief he was trying to draw this :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

Made me spill my drink with that one

Although I find the whole "connecting the dots" thing entertaining, I also think it's pointless, but we have to remember that looking for and "finding" patterns is human nature (like when you see a face on the tiles of the bathroom or on the wall's texture). Personally, I don't think he was trying to "draw" any kind of shape with the murders locations, because that would imply the killings were, to some degree, ritualistic and I highly doubt that.

Cheers,
Victaella

[moonbegger]

We don't know that the murderer was actually finished compiling his pattern. If, say, he died suddenly, how would we know what shape he wanted to form?

And now , all of a sudden i hear the dulcet tones of Rolf Harris saying " Can ya tell what it is yet "

moonbegger

[Sherlock Holmes]

Victaella

Can you honestly that these weren't ritualistic?

[Sally]

Maybe to the killer, Sherlock, on a personal, private level. Other than that?

Probably not.

Yes, human beings see patterns in things. Human beings also invent private rituals. Perhaps the killer had his own.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sally I require some information could you help me out (the info isn't relevant to this thread. it is relevant to the murders info required thread)

Sherlock

[RavenDarkendale]

Sally I require some information could you help me out (the info isn't relevant to this thread. it is relevant to the murders info required thread)

Sherlock

As do I, Sherlock! again:

Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes View Post
It forms an IRREGULAR HEPTAGON

Regards
Sherlock

So what does this IRREGULAR HEPTAGON mean, according to you or whomever?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am not sure as to the meaning of the shape

Is it associated with cults in anyway like the pentagram is?

regards
Sherlock Holmes

[Victaella W.]

Victaella

Can you honestly that these weren't ritualistic?

Greetings, Sherlock.

Yes, I doubt they were ritualistic. Why? Well...

First, because of the obvious escalating sadism he showed to his victims. Ritualistic killers, although very rare, are very organized, most if not all of them have a severe case of OCD, and go directly to the point. Let's say that Jack was specifically after certain organs that held some meaning to, if there was any, the ritual. Why mutilate the face, ears, legs, arms and other body parts of the victims? Why bother when he knew he could be seen by a passerby or a policeman?

Second, there were never signs of any kind of ritual left at the crime scenes, although I do believe they could have been clues left on the bodies that went unnoticed, I don't think they were the type linked to some kind of ritual. Ritualistic killers want the world to know that they're on a "mission", they want to transmit a message (i.e. The Zodiac, Manson, etc.), Jack was very, very intelligent and I'm sure if he had wanted it, he would have left a clear message for everyone to see and even then it wouldn't have helped the police to catch him.

Third, again, if he'd wanted it, he could have used more specific or "symbolic" locations for the murders. For example, if he was the satanic type of ritualistic killer, he could have picked churches, chapels or other religious places to dump the bodies or commit the crimes at. If he wasn't a Devil worshiper and instead a Mason, like some have suggested, then the most obvious shape he would have wanted to form with the locations, would have been the masonic symbol. And it would have been perfectly "shaped". Now, even adding other victims to the map besides the C5, you still can't get the masonic symbol.

Of course, they could be a thousand different rituals that I'm not aware of, but like I said, some kind of message or clue would have been left on or near the bodies, maybe even days after the murders, but there were none that we know of. But who knows? Maybe in his mind it held some meaning.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion, do you think the murders were ritualistic? Btw, which order did you follow to connect the dots and find the irregular heptagon?

Hello, Sally.

It's truth that humans can have their private rituals, but why leave the bodies in the open for everyone to see if it was something private? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Cheers,
Victaella.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I understand what your saying but he targeted the lower classes when selecting his victims. Who's to say he wasn't organised?

It is my belief that he chose those locations because they were symbolic to his victims in some way i'm just not sure how

Maybe he did leave a message (in which case the police weren't looking hard enough).

Yes I do think were part of a ritual

Why sex workers?
why those 5?
why those spots?

[RivkahChaya]

Why sex workers?
why those 5?
why those spots?

Those are frivolous questions, I think, when you consider that it had to be someone, somewhere, and we don't even know that they were all sex workers.

I mean, when I get bananas at the store, and I wheel my cart away with five bananas out of the couple of hundred in the bin, why those five? Well, it will partly be because they were about the point of ripeness that my son likes, but it's also going to be that they were centered, and in my line of vision from where I approached, and I'll usually grab a bunch that are connected, not bother to pick separate ones. Really, it could have been five others; there wasn't anything that special about those five, and if someone came up and said, "Please, I must have the ones in your cart," I'd swap them.

It's not like choosing a house to buy, or car, where you really do look at every one available, check every detail, think it over, go back and check some of them again, haggle over price, check what's available the next city over, and spend days or weeks making up your mind. And, if you don't find exactly what you want, maybe the time isn't right. You drive the car you've got, even if you need to repair the exhaust, lease the apartment another year. Bananas, not such a big deal. Sometimes you worry that you missed the perfect house, or car, after you made a decision. You don't worry about missing the perfect banana.

I think these women were transient and disposable to JTR, and he really didn't put much thought into choosing, other than, "I can get that one." He may not have known their names, at least not until the papers came out the next day.

[Sherlock Holmes]

we do know they were all prostitutes

Was he a sex motivated killer?
and if so why?

[Victaella W.]

I mean, when I get bananas at the store, and I wheel my cart away with five bananas out of the couple of hundred in the bin, why those five? Well, it will partly be because they were about the point of ripeness that my son likes, but it's also going to be that they were centered, and in my line of vision from where I approached, and I'll usually grab a bunch that are connected, not bother to pick separate ones. Really, it could have been five others; there wasn't anything that special about those five, and if someone came up and said, "Please, I must have the ones in your cart," I'd swap them.

I think these women were transient and disposable to JTR, and he really didn't put much thought into choosing, other than, "I can get that one." He may not have known their names, at least not until the papers came out the next day.

I couldn't agree more with you on this, Rivkah. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that Jack was targeting those specific victims. I think they were merely random unfortunate women that were the easiest kill for him.

To answer your questions, Sherlock:

1.- Why sex workers? As Rivkah has pointed out, they were the easiest target. Nowadays, we would call them "high-risk victims" because of their lifestyle. They wandered the streets alone at night (well past midnight) looking for customers, they desperately needed the money to survive so their thinking probably was: "Anyone would do as long as they pay", they were usually homeless and, sadly, other people didn't really worried or cared about them.

2.- Why those five? Some people call the murders "crimes of opportunity", which basically means, they were there when he was. I agree with this to some extent. His victims were random, but he must have had followed them for a while (the night of the murders) to catch them when they were alone. He could have had waited at the specific spots for a prostitute to pass by but, if that was the case, then I bet he spent some really loooong nights outside in the cold

3.- Why those spots? I honestly think that if the victims were random, so were the spots. Moreover, witnesses saw some of the victims around the locations before they were found dead, so unless Jack deliberately lured them to those exact locations, then there's not much meaning to the places they were killed at. He only needed a dark, semi-secluded place where he could perform his killings without being perturbed. If he had been targeting those specific victims, he would have had to know them personally: their history, habits, names, places they frequented and of course, that they would be at those locations the night of the murders.

Now, while this is all characteristic of an organized killer and it's truth that a knife is considered more "personal" than, let's say, a gun in a murder; like Rivkah said, the victims were disposable to him and that contradicts everything else. If he wanted those specific women, why spend so little time with them and then leave them at the spots? If he had been following them and learning about them for so long, why not take them to a private place where he could spend his merry time with each one of them and just dump the bodies after? That would have been so much more comfortable for him, specially if he needed the organs for some sort of ritual. Don't get me wrong, though. I think it's obvious that Jack was organized and that he was targeting prostitutes for a reason, but I believe he was targeting what they were, not who they were.

What I find interesting here, is that you said the locations meant something to the victims not to Jack. I don't know what kind of connection you're looking for but you'll have to dig deep into the victims lives and find if there's anything that particularly stands out.

Anyway, I think we got off-topic enough for now Let me know of your findings, though!

Cheers,
Victaella.

[Phil H]

In my opinion, "Jack" chose his victims from the area and the people among whom he lived. These women were (not to make too fine a point of it) "easy pickings" drunk (Nichols, maybe Eddowes) or in a bad way in terms of health (Chapman).

They were killed in spots to which THEY (the women) each took him - I say this with some certitude, because each had a wooden gate, fence or wall which would "give"/not be unyielding for her purposes. The Stable doors in Buck's Row, the fence in Hanbury St, the wooden wall behind Eddowes in Mitre square. Plus the places were out of the way and dark - ideal for business.

Stride in my opinion is NOT a JtR victim in part for those reasons - the gates of Dutfield's Yard were too public. Also there is no clear evidence that she was soliciting that night - she appears on the contrary to have been on a "date".

Nor do I believe MJK or Tabram were victims of "Jack".

The killer was an opportunist, working late, picking up the dregs of his society, and butchering them in places they knew - he did not choose those sites.

All this black magic hypothesising is plain nonsense. Although the fact that Edward, Prince of Wales is known to have been a high ranking black magician, and the bodies make the shape of St Edward's Crown (with it's dipped arches)which he would later wear, do make one think. Perhaps he was seeking to revive a flagging libido....

Phil H

[Sherlock Holmes]

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't each scene within a mile of the next?

Sherlock Holmes