Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

[DJA]

They deserve everything they get

[The Rookie Detective]

Pierre was a nice guy before he took that name.

He did some damn good research.
My screenplay's opening scene will be a testament to that.

Can't really blame him for taking the mickey out of the peanut gallery here,when they just kept feeding him/her.

There are lots of people at the base of the mountain telling others how to climb it,without ever setting foot on it.

PS. Abby and Al are just having a bit of fun.Two of the nicest people here.

thank you DJA, and no disrespect meant towards Abby or Al


TRD

[DJA]

Pierre was a nice guy before he took that name.

He did some damn good research.
My screenplay's opening scene will be a testament to that.

Can't really blame him for taking the mickey out of the peanut gallery here,when they just kept feeding him/her.

There are lots of people at the base of the mountain telling others how to climb it,without ever setting foot on it.

PS. Abby and Al are just having a bit of fun.Two of the nicest people here.

[The Rookie Detective]

trd and not crack me up. you guys are so into finding clues that dont exist, or crazy conclusions from ones that do,

says the person who still believes i am this Pierre fella

Oh the irony.


I take your point though.

I can only apologise for trying to look for clues that may or not be there, striving to try and solve the case by exhausting every possibility; albeit seemingly fruitless at times.

although I believe that it’s better to try and fail miserably, than to not even try at all.

it appears we differ slightly in our motivations and I completely respect your viewpoints of course.

some of us want to try and solve the mystery, even at the risk of sounding foolish or failing miserably, whereas some of us don’t appear to really want to solve anything at all, maybe just to continue the mystery of the ripper for the sake of some bizarre unspoken homage to him.

there’s no right or wrong of course but with respect, perhaps if you were to spend less time trying to accuse me of being some bloke I’ve never even heard of and instead spend more time in contributing positively to at least try and move forward in the case as a whole, then perhaps we would all achieve more as a collective.

This site can sometimes feel like it’s more about attacking another member personally and less about positive critique.

like being bullied in a school playground.

I don’t mind being wrong, or sounding ridiculous in my theories; I thrive on the challenge of being proven wrong if truth be told, but I also expect a certain level of reciprocation and mutual respect.

my views are equally as valid as yours and vice versa. Although I do accept mine are more questionable.


Pierre, if you’re out there at all buddy, you may have had some outlandish theories and sounded stupid at times, but at least you tried like I am trying to do.
Being criticised for your theories; rightly so of course, but by the sound of it, you were personally ridiculed and treated like a kid in a school playground.


But in reality, all that anyone has ever really achieved definitively in this case after decades of trying (and some not really trying) is to prove that the ripper killed prostitutes and used a weapon.


anything outside of that is still up for question...

can’t agree how many victims
cant agree motive
cant agree age
cant agree appearance
cant agree ethnicity
cant agree timings
cant agree occupation
etc... etc...


but hey, apparently I’m some guy called Pierre.



TRD

[Abby Normal]

And to think, we foolishly believed you were Pierre!

lol. i think we're

“On The Right Track”

on that one!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I would suggest the Ginger Beer bottles found in her room represent each victim.


TRD

And to think, we foolishly believed you were Pierre!

[Abby Normal]

trd and not crack me up. you guys are so into finding clues that dont exist, or crazy conclusions from ones that do, you miss the ones staring you right in the face.
re the ginger beer bottle... cmon whats the real clue here? ill give you a hint. coagulating blood.

[The Rookie Detective]

Another aspect to consider is the comparison between MJK and the other victims.

It is quite commonplace to see discussion regarding why MJK was the only victim killed indoors.
but I would also ask the opposite, ergo, why were all the others killed outdoors and therefore with a higher risk of being detected?

Was killing MJK indoors simply an impromptu opportunity and the reason why she was utterly decimated compared to the others? More time, more destruction.

or did the killer know her personally, hence why it occurred inside?

I believe MJK to NOT be the final victim, in which case, why did the killer change back to killing outside?

the challenge aspect is to decipher the actual definitive list of victims, as that’s the only way to get the full picture. Unfortunately because the list will always be unknown and up for scrutiny, it then blurs reality and the complete truth of why things happened the way they did.

One thing I have always wondered is why some of the victims were killed close to train lines?

If you look at the full list of possible alleged victims, several were killed beside train lines, train bridges or arches.


“On The Right Track”


another clue perhaps?!


TRD

[The Rookie Detective]

I've always been fascinated by the locations of the killings, as all of them with the exception of Nicholls in Buck's Row take place in broadened out areas which are arrived at through narrow passages. I thought the victims might have self-selected this way as they led their punter to these places. But now I'm wondering if it's possible that The Whitechapel Murderer is a lot more organized than he appears, and perhaps he did what a number of serials have done since, which is scout locations and check on them carefully before committing a murder there. If that's the case, then he would know about prostitutes taking their tricks to the backyard or 1st floor of 29 Hanbury Street. He would perhaps even know the customs of the people living in that house--what time they woke & went out to work etc etc. He may even have visited that back yard. He would know that the Club in Duffield's Yard was raucous and loud until late so that a killing in the shadows might not be overheard. He would know that the warehouse caretakers in Mitre Square didn't venture out at night and that few people were walking in that neighbourhood in the small hours. If Nicholls was the first, he didn't get what he was after. Sounds like he was disturbed probably by the guys who found the body. He may have decided to be more careful in future. And if so, it paid off for him. Which means he might be site-specific rather than victim-specific. He decides it's his night for fun. Hangs around his chosen location. Waits for someone to go--or totter--by. Says 'hallo'.

This original thread is a very fascinating aspect to consider.

say for example those Who favour Lechmere; this would explain why Nichols was the anomaly in terms of murder locations.

If for example Lechmere realised he was close to being caught red handed by Paul, that would explain why Nichols was the only victim be killed away from a broadened out area accessed by a narrow passageway.

it’s clear that after Nichols, the killer chose a different kind of murder site. It may be a coincidence of course but looking for the chronological narrative of the choices that the killer made, either consciously or subconsciously, is perhaps a good way to try and access their mindset at the time in terms of decisions made about victims and scenes of crime.


TRD

[The Rookie Detective]

I would suggest the Ginger Beer bottles found in her room represent each victim.

How many bottles were found?


killers of this type like to leave a signature and/or take a trophy.

Seeing as MJK was noticeably younger than previous victims may denote that MJK was picked for a specific reason and perhaps the previous victims were test subjects; trial runs so to speak.

If the bottles were MJK’s then the theory doesn’t hold any water, but if the bottles belonged to the killer, then I believe they were left in the room on purpose; each bottle representing one victim and therefore suggesting of MJK being the final victim.

however, I believe there were far more victims than we will ever know after MJK

but my each Ginger Beer bottle representing one life taken, is a nice way to link why the killer chose to make a specific reference to a Ginger Beer bottle in the Dear Boss letter (assuming it’s authentic of course)


I always like to believe that the intricate truth is always found in the finer details, the little things that even the killer himself couldn’t hide.

TRD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Blotchy face bought Mary a pot of ginger beer. She sang for him. Possibly no tricks. Then he left. Might have been friends with benefits.
Spiked ginger beer doesn't gel well with there being multiple bottles, and what did he drink while she were being slowly poisoned?
Surely the police asked Barnett about the bottles?
If he doesn't know, they got there fast, but for what purpose?

[caz]

Interesting. Consider in relation to Mary Ann Cox:

[Coroner] Was anybody with her ? - A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand.

Does the following work for you?

Pot of ale is actually a pot of ginger beer (necessarily alcoholic).
This customer pays with ginger beer, not coins.
Mary stocks the empty pots, to later trade for cash.
Mary sings for the customer, and whatever else.
Eventually, Mary falls asleep.
Man leaves, but awakens Mary on way out.
Mary cries 'Murder!', but then realizes the situation.
Killer arrives later, possibly much later.

It's certainly a possibility.

As with Stride, I see several possibilities, with nothing set in stone.

The TOD estimates for Kelly are bound to be problematic, more so than in Chapman's case, so who knows when her killer actually struck, let alone who he was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Mary turned tricks for ginger beer? No wonder her rent was so behind. It's a wonder she never thought to charge cash. What was the cash in value of a bottle compared to street walker prices?

The dodgy mineral water thing, a whole lot of 'if's' to contend with. A witnesses neighbours brother has a conviction. For trying to sell, presumably at a profit, less than high quality mineral water. Peckham Spring. Seems a far cry from manufacturing knock out drops.

The killer having his own supply of spiked ginger beer could work as a theory, but does it need to be so convoluted? The more links, the more supposition built on supposition, the more unstable it all is.

And what's with all the 'clues' in the case being so obscure no one can see them? Outside of Agatha Christie, do killers really leave these clues, which, by virtue of it being an intended clue, mean that it's discovery will lead to capture? Dare I suggest, no, they don't. Dare I suggest, we look for absolutely anything that might be interpreted as a clue and start clinging on fervently?

Have Jack drugging victims with tainted ginger beer by all means. Pharmacy laudanum and a readily available bottle. Keep it simple.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Charles Lechmere lived next door to a Ginger Beer Maker called George Hostler, who had 2 of his children attend the Berner Street school.

and there was a ginger beer manufacturer at the end of his road.

Given the small area over which the crimes were committed, and the large cast of witnesses, suspects, and victims, these sort of coincidences are going to occur.
Some types of coincidences grab my attention, but the someone lived next door to someone, or in the same lodging house, or someone probably had some passing acquaintance with someone else of note, don't.
These type of coincidences are probably much more likely to occur than you think.
In a room of how many people, is there a 50/50 chance of at least two people sharing a birthday?
Birthday Paradox

The Dear Boss letter doesn’t just mention Ginger Beer randomly; the killer is trying to give us a clue.

Ginger beer reference is far too specific from a psychological perspective.

This is a more interesting coincidence, because of its uniqueness.
I agree the DB author could have just said 'a bottle', so why specifically a ginger beer bottle?
The problem with leaping from the DB ginger beer bottles, to those in room 13, is why would the killer want to lug a bunch of them to Mary's room, and then leave them there?
Think about the noise of all those pots clanging together, as he walked into the court. Surely they arrived on separate occasions?
So were does that leave blotchy face? Maybe he been seen there a few times previously?
Btw, did Joe Barnett throw any light on the bottles?

[The Rookie Detective]

I concur with DJA regarding the use of Chloral Hydrate (essentially a horse tranquilliser or earliest use of a date rape drug)

But the only way it could be administered is through the Ginger Beer bottle.

George Hostler made it for a living and his own brother was convicted of trying to sell dodgy mineral water.

Lechmere have had better access to bottles considering his neighbour made it for a living.

If the victims were sedated through drinking dodgy Ginger Beer, that would explain the relative lack of noise made and why the ripper appeared to operate in silence.

he drugged them

then strangled them

then cut them


the same MO for all the victims.

TRD