Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Funny you would write that but not take it into serious consideration with Kellys murder. So uncharacteristic of the known facets of the Ripper.
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    Based on how many killings? Hardly a large enough database to draw hard and fast conclusions as to what the killer might or might not do.

    If he wanted the luxury of more time alone with the victim then killing indoors would be the answer.

    c.d.
    Indeed, c.d.

    Michael bases his 'known facets of the Ripper' on just two killings, in Buck's Row and the rear of Hanbury Street. Any killing that is not a carbon copy of these two is attributed to another knifeman, as if the victims were identical rag dolls, who could have had no influence over when, where or how they were killed, so if Jack the Robot had got them, he'd have been able to dictate the proceedings and do precisely the same each time. So for him to have killed Kelly, he'd have done it outdoors, just like he did with Nichols and Chapman, and she could not have tempted him to change his ways for once and share her room, even though it was now November, the weather was miserable, and it would give him the best opportunity yet to roll up his sleeves and really get stuck in. No, Michael has some other deranged ghoul taking full advantage of the situation.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      ALL of the previous killings, including the other ones in the Unsolved File, were outdoor murders. Just what sort of ratio is at your comfort zone?
      How many times did Robert Napper offend indoors, compared with outdoors, Michael? Do you know? What would have been his preference, given an option on every occasion?

      You presume that Jack the Robot had some kind of built-in stop button, preventing him from killing indoors, when reality suggests he simply had to make do with outdoor activity on all but one occasion, because the most vulnerable women were also outdoors at night, having to make do with it. If there was nowhere indoors for them to go, he had no choice - unless or until he encountered a prospective victim with a room of her own.

      You might be better off considering the ratio of women the killer could have met and engaged with who were homeless, to those who had a private room. But you don't seem that interested in the women themselves, except when you are imagining what one did to cross a man who wasn't Jack.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        How many times did Robert Napper offend indoors, compared with outdoors, Michael? Do you know? What would have been his preference, given an option on every occasion?

        You presume that Jack the Robot had some kind of built-in stop button, preventing him from killing indoors, when reality suggests he simply had to make do with outdoor activity on all but one occasion, because the most vulnerable women were also outdoors at night, having to make do with it. If there was nowhere indoors for them to go, he had no choice - unless or until he encountered a prospective victim with a room of her own.

        You might be better off considering the ratio of women the killer could have met and engaged with who were homeless, to those who had a private room. But you don't seem that interested in the women themselves, except when you are imagining what one did to cross a man who wasn't Jack.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        exactly. "jack the robot" indeed. seems alot of people have that problem. he was human being, and a serial killer no less. strange and mysterious creatures and subject to the same unpredictable circumstances with the rest of us. he got lucky with kelly.

        btw-I agree with your views on blotchy too.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DJA View Post

          Where did you get that lot from?
          From the inquest evidence.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            I'm a Blotchy 'fan' too, Chava [perhaps not the right word!], but not to the extent of ruling out suspects on that basis. Similarly, I'm nowhere near 100% on Tabram, but when I compare Robert Napper's murder of Rachel Nickell in the summer of 1992 [outdoors, 49 stab wounds] with that of Samantha Bisset in November 1993 [in her own home], I find it impossible to rule out Tabram on the differences in MO between her murder and that of Mary Kelly:

            'On 15 July 1992 on Wimbledon Common, Napper stabbed the young mother Rachel Nickel forty-nine times in front of her son Alex, then aged two, who clung on to his mother's body begging her to wake up. Napper was questioned about unsolved attacks on other women during the year, but was eliminated from inquiries.

            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 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.'

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Napper

            The differences between Tabram and Kelly could be put down to the location, time available, the killer's experimentation, his relative experience and desired outcome.

            I am also open to the same man inflicting the terrible injury on Emma Smith, which caused her death.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            You make excellent points re MO. I'm not so sure about Emma Smith--although the coroner at the Nichols inquest which didn't end until 17th September so everyone knew about the murders by then--saw her as the first in four killings which he believed were clearly linked. That would be Smith, Tabram, Nichols & Chapman. However for me the injury to Smith was more overtly sexual in nature than the Whitechapel Murderer's ministrations.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chava View Post

              From the inquest evidence.
              Joseph Lawende: I reside at No. 45, Norfolk-road, Dalston, and am a commercial traveller. On the night of Sept. 29, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke-street, together with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left. I observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church-passage, Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square.
              The Coroner: Were they talking? - The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
              [Coroner] What sort of man was this? - He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same.
              Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
              The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.
              Mr. Crawford (to witness): You have given a description of the man to the police? - Yes.
              [Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.
              [Coroner] Did you overhear anything that either said? - No.
              [Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
              [Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.
              [Coroner] When the woman placed her hand on the man's breast, did she do it as if to push him away? - No; it was done very quietly.
              [Coroner] You were not curious enough to look back and see where they went. - No.
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                How many times did Robert Napper offend indoors, compared with outdoors, Michael? Do you know? What would have been his preference, given an option on every occasion?

                You presume that Jack the Robot had some kind of built-in stop button, preventing him from killing indoors, when reality suggests he simply had to make do with outdoor activity on all but one occasion, because the most vulnerable women were also outdoors at night, having to make do with it. If there was nowhere indoors for them to go, he had no choice - unless or until he encountered a prospective victim with a room of her own.

                You might be better off considering the ratio of women the killer could have met and engaged with who were homeless, to those who had a private room. But you don't seem that interested in the women themselves, except when you are imagining what one did to cross a man who wasn't Jack.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                I don't presume anything here Caz, and therein lies the difference in our approaches. I review the same evidence, I can make the same connections, and I can connect the dots as best I can. The real truth about the Jack the Ripper series is that the contemporary officials gave it life. And it still is breathing today.

                Anyone of us can see that using ONLY whats there, it would be very unlikely that the first 2 murders were by different men with different goals. It was one guy, one troubled guy. After that the "series" that has been proposed takes twists and turns, which folks like yourself would then like to categorize as some sort of standardized serial killer trait, killing in different ways for different reasons.

                Im sure that sophisticated data from modern, studied, serial killers interviews is valuable in understanding what they did. But if the killer who becomes Jack the Ripper to history killed only those first 2 women, how valuable is it to study what men that killed 5, 10 or 100 people were driven by each time they killed? Both victims alone in the middle of the night, approximately the same age and body type, both incapacitated physically in some form, both were killed by 2 deep neck cuts...unusual trait, and both women were placed in similar fashion and had their abdomens mutilated post mortem. On the very spot of the attack, wherever that might be. These 2 murders are almost identical, the only important difference being the location and the degree of injuries inflicted. Which it turns out, is self explanatory. More privacy=more cutting.

                If this man just kills because he cant control himself, then why don't we see lots more of these? I think he kills, the guy who kills Polly and Annie, because of some fascination for female abdominal organs. Thats his mental illness showing. He happens to have the knife skills to pull an attack like this off. And a burning curiosity. And a mental illness driving this whole thing. First time he gets itchy and commits in a bad spot. Cant finish. Waits a while, let things cool, then goes out again. Second time he asks for somewhere discreet and is led there. Not a great spot either, but better...he gets to complete his objective this time. Almost a month later a woman of the same general description, age, known occupation,...is killed in a 2 second single cut altercation that is complete unto itself.

                I think when you have evidence like we do its best to filter it individually, after all its easiest to solve puzzles with a variety of perspectives to apply.
                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-24-2020, 11:07 AM.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • I should add that the above indicates a man that knew the area well enough to trust the actual location to circumstances, so it doesnt seem that he felt a need to scope out anything before he acts. Not a Victim nor a location.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    Joseph Lawende: I reside at No. 45, Norfolk-road, Dalston, and am a commercial traveller. On the night of Sept. 29, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke-street, together with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left. I observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church-passage, Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square.
                    The Coroner: Were they talking? - The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
                    [Coroner] What sort of man was this? - He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same.
                    Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
                    The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.
                    Mr. Crawford (to witness): You have given a description of the man to the police? - Yes.
                    [Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.
                    [Coroner] Did you overhear anything that either said? - No.
                    [Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
                    [Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.
                    [Coroner] When the woman placed her hand on the man's breast, did she do it as if to push him away? - No; it was done very quietly.
                    [Coroner] You were not curious enough to look back and see where they went. - No.
                    Oh right.

                    Silly me

                    I only got the Cox evidence from the inquest.

                    Lawende's description was given to the police.
                    And exists in a memorandum from Chief Inspector Donald Swanson. BTW this description is cited on this board in the Catherine Eddowes part of the Victims section.

                    Sure sounds like they both saw the same man.

                    Comment


                    • There is a Hell of a lot to remember.

                      The transcript on here of Levy's evidence is actually Mrs Long's description of Chapman and ..... Sutton
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                        There is a Hell of a lot to remember.

                        The transcript on here of Levy's evidence is actually Mrs Long's description of Chapman and ..... Sutton
                        You're mixing up Levy & Lawende.

                        And this quote is from this very website under Catherine Eddowes in the Victims Section:

                        1:35 AM: Joseph Lawende, a commercial traveler in the cigarette trade, Joseph Hyam Levy, a butcher and Harry Harris, a furniture dealer leave the Imperial Club at 16-17 Duke Street. At the corner of Duke Street and Church Passage they see Eddowes and a man talking. She is standing facing the man with her hand on his chest, but not in a manner to suggest that she is resisting him. Lawende describes the man as 30 years old, 5 foot 7 inches tall, fair complexion and mustache with a medium build. He is wearing a pepper and salt colored jacket which fits loosely, a grey cloth cap with a peak of the same color. He has a reddish handkerchief knotted around his neck. Over all he gives the appearance of being a sailor. Lawende will later identify Catherine Eddowes clothes as the same as those worn by the woman he saw that night.

                        Comment


                        • Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy, the butcher in Hutcheson-street, Aldgate, stated: I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. .....

                          [Coroner] What height was the man? - I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high. I cannot give any further description of them. I went down Duke-street into Aldgate, leaving them still talking together.

                          I am agreeing with you. I think

                          That lot is under Official Documents. Inquests.
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                            Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy, the butcher in Hutcheson-street, Aldgate, stated: I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. .....

                            [Coroner] What height was the man? - I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high. I cannot give any further description of them. I went down Duke-street into Aldgate, leaving them still talking together.

                            I am agreeing with you. I think

                            That lot is under Official Documents. Inquests.
                            Lawende was the guy who was apparently toted out to identify a suspect but refused to do so. They thought he didn't want to shop a fellow-Jew. Which? Speaking as a Jew, is BS. My money is definitely on Mr Blotchy. I wonder if he paid a visit over to Mary Ann Cox's place after he was done with Mary to silence her. Because if Blotchy is our guy, Cox got a good long up-close look at him, and she definitely knew the victim well so could identify her with no mistake. However sadly for him Ms Cox was a dirty stop-out and didn't come home for a long long time. I do think it's possible Kelly was the last victim for that reason. The inquest evidence was widely reported. With his description all over it.

                            Comment


                            • Hi Chava,

                              I have also wondered if Blotchy paid the unemployed George Hutchinson handsomely for his 'last man in' account. Might explain the delay in Hutch coming forward and the various problems with his story. Blotchy could have told Hutch that he was innocent but had been seen with Kelly, and couldn't come forward to clear himself as he had a family and reputation to consider. Hutch's story might have sounded dubious, but as long as it couldn't be disproved, he could take the money and disappear, and Blotchy could disappear too, without giving Hutch any personal information.

                              Blotchy was in deep water, whether he killed Kelly or was merely 'entertained' by her singing.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Just for the record, information gleaned from modern serial killers via interviews is Im sure relevant when assessing serial killings prior the that/those interviews. In the case of these "Jack the Ripper" Unsolved Murders, not even 2 of them have been connected to one man after more than 130 years.

                                So.......There is no series to even start these discussion with.

                                I wouldnt think its prudent to compare apples with oranges.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X