Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

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.

TRD

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Just an observation - all ginger beer contained alcohol in those days. They only found a way to make a non-alcoholic version in the 20th century.

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[DJA]

Real ginger beer. Yummy.

[caz]

Which of these is the most plausible:

1. The killer planted the ginger beer bottles, to make it look like a JtR job, by association with Dear Boss
2. MJK drank both beer and ginger beer, and was keeping the bottles to eventually return them for money
3. Same as #2, but the ginger beer was actually alcoholic
4. MJK sold ginger beer, and became known as 'Ginger'
5. Same as #4, and some people were confused as to who was Mary

Or he might try to match it.

The last job
was a bad one and no mistake nearly
buckled, and meant it to
be best of the lot & what curse it

Just an observation - all ginger beer contained alcohol in those days. They only found a way to make a non-alcoholic version in the 20th century.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Does 'replicate' in this context include the taking away of organs?
What about facial mutilation? Was Kate's face mutilated, or 'decorated'?
It would seem, as you suggest, that 'replicate' is a fuzzy concept, so a non-JtR killer of MJK does not necessarily mean a 'copycat'.

The first bit is one mistake many people continue to make...the Ripper wasnt focussed on "any" organs,.. Kates face was marked, Marys was slashed repeatedly, what I was attempting to suggest is that Marys killers rage may well have seemed similar to the damage inflicted on prior women. Problem is that Polly and Annies killer sought to mutilate the female abdomen, and did so with some skill and knowledge. Marys killer had no comparable skills, nor focus.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Its entirely possible that the man that killed Mary Kelly wasnt trying to replicate anything.

Does 'replicate' in this context include the taking away of organs?
What about facial mutilation? Was Kate's face mutilated, or 'decorated'?
It would seem, as you suggest, that 'replicate' is a fuzzy concept, so a non-JtR killer of MJK does not necessarily mean a 'copycat'.

[Michael W Richards]

Its entirely possible that the man that killed Mary Kelly wasnt trying to replicate anything. Maybe what happened to her resembles the other killings but this time was a result of anger being vented. And not with any real objectives being sought. Just destruction.

To make the deceased virtually unrecognizable is also a possibility. Barnet only id'd 2 features after all.

[Chava]

Or Kelly may have been the victim of a copycat murder by someone who wanted her dead and chose to try and pin her murder on someone else.

Hello Chava,

That only works if the police knew who the Ripper was. Since they didn't anyone could be the killer.

c.d.

I take your point. However our putative copycat may not have thought that one through. He wouldn't have been the first. However, as I think I said back in the thread, I'm not a proponent of the copycat killing of Mary as a theory. I do think the same man who killed the others killed her. You can perhaps make a case for it being more personal and some people do. But I'm agnostic at best on that one. I believe he just had more time with her. And even though the room wasn't as secure as it could have been, the guy who kills and then spends time mutilating a body round the back of 29 Hanbury St, the guy who does the exact same thing in the highly-public Mitre Square, doesn't exactly care about his own safety. It's amazing to me that no one ever rolled up on him. But apparently they didn't.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Which is more plausible:

A non Jack killer, in an attempt to make the murder in Miller's Court look like a continuation of what was very much at the time believed to be the serial killing of women going as far back as Emma Smith and up to Eddowes, eviscerates a woman and pulls her apart, but, concerned that it might not be perceived as yet another killing by the Whitechapel Fiend, places a common, everyday, found in their hundreds ginger beer bottle at the scene in the hope that that will make the investigating authorities say "Ah. He strikes again!"?

Or..

You've yet again got carried away with what starts out as a reasonable question and rapidly snowballs into some overly convoluted theory that proves that the vital piece of 'missing evidence' that'll crack the case was staring us in the face?

Still, you do have a somewhat over excitable approach to your new ideas, and that's not without its charm.

On the subject of scoping out locations, that "Meet the Richardsons" thread by Simon Wood was very interesting. Maybe Jack didn't scope out Hanbury St, Annie already had. And I will concede, Mrs Richardson's remarks about the bowl of water / apron are interesting.

By all means, explore the ginger beer connections. But I kind of think the body was a bigger suggestion that Jack was at work again.

Okay, so 2, 3, 4 or 5.

By the way, plausibility is a trap.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Which of these is the most plausible:

1. The killer planted the ginger beer bottles, to make it look like a JtR job, by association with Dear Boss
2. MJK drank both beer and ginger beer, and was keeping the bottles to eventually return them for money
3. Same as #2, but the ginger beer was actually alcoholic
4. MJK sold ginger beer, and became known as 'Ginger'
5. Same as #4, and some people were confused as to who was Mary

Or he might try to match it.

The last job
was a bad one and no mistake nearly
buckled, and meant it to
be best of the lot & what curse it

Which is more plausible:

A non Jack killer, in an attempt to make the murder in Miller's Court look like a continuation of what was very much at the time believed to be the serial killing of women going as far back as Emma Smith and up to Eddowes, eviscerates a woman and pulls her apart, but, concerned that it might not be perceived as yet another killing by the Whitechapel Fiend, places a common, everyday, found in their hundreds ginger beer bottle at the scene in the hope that that will make the investigating authorities say "Ah. He strikes again!"?

Or..

You've yet again got carried away with what starts out as a reasonable question and rapidly snowballs into some overly convoluted theory that proves that the vital piece of 'missing evidence' that'll crack the case was staring us in the face?

Still, you do have a somewhat over excitable approach to your new ideas, and that's not without its charm.

On the subject of scoping out locations, that "Meet the Richardsons" thread by Simon Wood was very interesting. Maybe Jack didn't scope out Hanbury St, Annie already had. And I will concede, Mrs Richardson's remarks about the bowl of water / apron are interesting.

By all means, explore the ginger beer connections. But I kind of think the body was a bigger suggestion that Jack was at work again.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The whole MJK as a "copycat" killing is a bit tenuous at best. Compare it to some of the later murders that had superficial abdominal wounds, which might suggest an attempt at creating the Ripper impression by one who can't actually bring themselves to disembowel the victim.

Which of these is the most plausible:

1. The killer planted the ginger beer bottles, to make it look like a JtR job, by association with Dear Boss
2. MJK drank both beer and ginger beer, and was keeping the bottles to eventually return them for money
3. Same as #2, but the ginger beer was actually alcoholic
4. MJK sold ginger beer, and became known as 'Ginger'
5. Same as #4, and some people were confused as to who was Mary

If MJK was a copycat killing, Jack himself would saying "that's a bit much".

Or he might try to match it.

The last job
was a bad one and no mistake nearly
buckled, and meant it to
be best of the lot & what curse it

[c.d.]

Another point is that assuming a copycat had both the cojones and the stomach for the job he went way beyond what was necessary to accomplish his task. Excessive mutilations were a needless risk and only increased his chances of being caught in the act.

c.d.

[c.d.]

If MJK was a copycat killing, Jack himself would saying "that's a bit much".

Very well put, Al.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Or Kelly may have been the victim of a copycat murder by someone who wanted her dead and chose to try and pin her murder on someone else.

Hello Chava,

That only works if the police knew who the Ripper was. Since they didn't anyone could be the killer.

c.d.

The whole MJK as a "copycat" killing is a bit tenuous at best. Compare it to some of the later murders that had superficial abdominal wounds, which might suggest an attempt at creating the Ripper impression by one who can't actually bring themselves to disembowel the victim. If MJK was a copycat killing, Jack himself would saying "that's a bit much".

[c.d.]

Or Kelly may have been the victim of a copycat murder by someone who wanted her dead and chose to try and pin her murder on someone else.

Hello Chava,

That only works if the police knew who the Ripper was. Since they didn't anyone could be the killer.

c.d.