Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

[Abby Normal]

Actually I edited it out because it was a cheap shot.

But this isn't.

There was a broken window in 13 Millers Court which made it about as secure as Donald Trump's Covid Leadership. And he'd built a roaring fire. Anyone walking past would see the light and assume Kelly was in. Possibly knock on the door or look through the window. And I don't think he cares. Because he doesn't seem to factor in the possibility of being caught. It's likely, as another poster said, that this is part of the thrill for him. Perhaps even more of a thrill than getting to take a woman apart piece by piece. Certainly he doesn't go looking for other tarts with rooms after Kelly. He never kills again. Now why is that? Maybe because for the first time he's been seen by someone who knows his victim well. And has had a good long look at him. And therefore can identify him. Yes. Our Mr Blotchy. So there you go, Abby. A Mr Blotchy post for you

Oh and btw? There is no 'end of'. Not in this case. Not in any unsolved case. There are only possibilities.

yes. blotchy being seen well by cox with a good description definitely could have put him off for awhile.

[Chava]

Hi Chava



haha. good one-at least a sense of humor have you ; )

the rest of your post mere idle speculation. everyone could have decided to sleep in at hanbury which would have made it the safest place. see how that works.

stick to what we know-Kelly locked room. Chapman-public. end of.

now do not respond to me in the negative ever again. double negative ok.

Actually I edited it out because it was a cheap shot.

But this isn't.

There was a broken window in 13 Millers Court which made it about as secure as Donald Trump's Covid Leadership. And he'd built a roaring fire. Anyone walking past would see the light and assume Kelly was in. Possibly knock on the door or look through the window. And I don't think he cares. Because he doesn't seem to factor in the possibility of being caught. It's likely, as another poster said, that this is part of the thrill for him. Perhaps even more of a thrill than getting to take a woman apart piece by piece. Certainly he doesn't go looking for other tarts with rooms after Kelly. He never kills again. Now why is that? Maybe because for the first time he's been seen by someone who knows his victim well. And has had a good long look at him. And therefore can identify him. Yes. Our Mr Blotchy. So there you go, Abby. A Mr Blotchy post for you

Oh and btw? There is no 'end of'. Not in this case. Not in any unsolved case. There are only possibilities.

[Abby Normal]

Abby stop with the poster-shaming please. Or I'll be forced to ask you to learn some basic grammar

If someone stopped by 13 Millers Court in the small hours--as it might be Barnett or Venturney, both of whom knew about the broken window--then all they would do to see if Mary was at home if they didn't get an answer to a knock would be to draw the old blankets back that were in their way & look through the window. Because that fire was roaring. There would have been light coming through the door and the window. So the likelihood would be that she was home. What do you think they would they see? And what would happen next? I'm pretty sure I know. They would have yelled their heads off. Brought people from all over the Court. And that door would have been busted down in a second. With the killer completely trapped.

Hi Chava

Abby stop with the poster-shaming please. Or I'll be forced to ask you to learn some basic grammar

haha. good one-at least a sense of humor have you ; )

the rest of your post mere idle speculation. everyone could have decided to sleep in at hanbury which would have made it the safest place. see how that works.

stick to what we know-Kelly locked room. Chapman-public. end of.

now do not respond to me in the negative ever again. double negative ok.

[Chava]

anyone could have walked in on him in hanbury street. he was behind a locked door in millers court-nobody could just walk in on him. good lord please tell me you can see the difference.

.i dont even know where to start with this one.

really chava, your reasoning leaves much to be desired. about the only thing Ive seen you say that has any merit is that blotchy is a valid suspect for the ripper. he is. maybe you should talk about him more.

If someone stopped by 13 Millers Court in the small hours--as it might be Barnett or Venturney, both of whom knew about the broken window--then all they would do to see if Mary was at home if they didn't get an answer to a knock would be to draw the old blankets back that were in their way & look through the window. Because that fire was roaring. There would have been light coming through the door and the window. So the likelihood would be that she was home. What do you think they would they see? And what would happen next? I'm pretty sure I know. They would have yelled their heads off. Brought people from all over the Court. And that door would have been busted down in a second. With the killer completely trapped.

[c.d.]

Stride we know he is disturbed.

Hello Chava,

No, we don't know that. It is conjecture.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

No question he had all the time in the world. But in this area people came and went at any hour of the day and night. Barnet might have fetched up. Or Julia Venturney. Or some other trick looking to hook up. He was safe in all his locations because he was never caught. But in Hanbury St and Millers Court, if someone had walked in on him, he was trapped.

anyone could have walked in on him in hanbury street. he was behind a locked door in millers court-nobody could just walk in on him. good lord please tell me you can see the difference.

He was safe in all his locations because he was never caught

.i dont even know where to start with this one.

really chava, your reasoning leaves much to be desired. about the only thing Ive seen you say that has any merit is that blotchy is a valid suspect for the ripper. he is. maybe you should talk about him more.

[Robert St Devil]

Well yes. That's my point. Nichol's wounds were accomplished while the stays were on the body. But Chapman's wounds could not have been. Or Eddowes. Stays were hard to cut through. They were padded & reinforced with whalebone. None of the other victims wore stays at the time of their death. Those stays may have been the last vestige of any kind of respectability left to poor Polly.

That's a solid point. When was the observation made about the possibility of the wounds being inflicted with the stays being worn? If it was before Annie's murder, then obviously noone has any idea how macabre the mind of this lunatic ran; iow they weren't thinking about flesh and intestines being removed or organs being harvested. The authorities must have only thought they had a stabbing maniac on their hand.

Considering we know that he either unzipped up the middle [ala Eddowes] or chunked out pieces [ala Chapman], I could see how stays may have prevented that particular mode of his "operation",and how the described cuts may have occurred around the edges of the lower part of the stay.

[Chava]

The difference between kellys place and any other location in terms of risk is night and day. Its the safest place by far.Hes in her place. theres privacy and theyre behind a locked door. if shes still alive before any attack no worries. once he kills her he dosnt have to answer unless someone tries to break in.
its why she was the most extensively mutilated.

No question he had all the time in the world. But in this area people came and went at any hour of the day and night. Barnet might have fetched up. Or Julia Venturney. Or some other trick looking to hook up. He was safe in all his locations because he was never caught. But in Hanbury St and Millers Court, if someone had walked in on him, he was trapped.

[Chava]

Joseph Helson, Daily News 4 Oct
"All the wounds could be seen while the stays were on the body, and could, in the witness's opinion, have been inflicted without the removal of that garment"

Well yes. That's my point. Nichol's wounds were accomplished while the stays were on the body. But Chapman's wounds could not have been. Or Eddowes. Stays were hard to cut through. They were padded & reinforced with whalebone. None of the other victims wore stays at the time of their death. Those stays may have been the last vestige of any kind of respectability left to poor Polly.

[Abby Normal]

The difference between kellys place and any other location in terms of risk is night and day. Its the safest place by far.Hes in her place. theres privacy and theyre behind a locked door. if shes still alive before any attack no worries. once he kills her he dosnt have to answer unless someone tries to break in.
its why she was the most extensively mutilated.

[Robert St Devil]

And the thing that comes out of his murder scenes is that he could have easily been caught at any one of them although he has a something of a way out in Mitre Square & Buck's Row. Stride we know he is disturbed. But we don't know why he didn't go further with Nichols. And Nichols is the exception to the 'narrow passage/broader enclosed area' theory I have. This was not the landscape of Buck's Row. BTW I always wondered why he stopped short of the kind of mutilations that occurred to the other victims. And I think I have the answer: Polly Nichols was wearing stays. The other's weren't. I wonder if he asked before he went any further with them...

For the better part of me, I want to say that there was something "uncharacteristic" about Brown's Stableyard - either it was recently locked or painted and kept closed that night [uncertain]. It would be in line with backyards and yards and squares; and, it may have been their actual destination that early morning.

[Joshua Rogan]

Joseph Helson, Daily News 4 Oct
"All the wounds could be seen while the stays were on the body, and could, in the witness's opinion, have been inflicted without the removal of that garment"

[Chava]

Chava's point was: 'If someone comes in on the killer he's just as trapped in both places.'

The differences would surely have been down to where Chapman and Kelly were willing to be alone with their killer, which was not necessarily within his control, but he went with both locations and stayed there to perform extensive mutilations, despite the risk of being trapped in either place. Both victims may have had a false sense of security, in locations they imagined the Whitechapel Murderer would avoid like the plague.

Assuming Dutfields Yard was where Stride wanted to be, for whatever reason, the location could have been a risk too far for her killer. Anyone could have entered or left the club while he was performing his mutilations, and he may have had a narrow escape from Hanbury Street for the same reason. Not quite having the nerve to chance it again here, but smarting with frustration, he went looking for another opportunity and got his mojo back in Mitre Square.

Love,

Caz
X

And the thing that comes out of his murder scenes is that he could have easily been caught at any one of them although he has a something of a way out in Mitre Square & Buck's Row. Stride we know he is disturbed. But we don't know why he didn't go further with Nichols. And Nichols is the exception to the 'narrow passage/broader enclosed area' theory I have. This was not the landscape of Buck's Row. BTW I always wondered why he stopped short of the kind of mutilations that occurred to the other victims. And I think I have the answer: Polly Nichols was wearing stays. The other's weren't. I wonder if he asked before he went any further with them...

[caz]

I'd say that as 29 wasn't Annie's regular address, that's the major difference.

Chava's point was: 'If someone comes in on the killer he's just as trapped in both places.'

The differences would surely have been down to where Chapman and Kelly were willing to be alone with their killer, which was not necessarily within his control, but he went with both locations and stayed there to perform extensive mutilations, despite the risk of being trapped in either place. Both victims may have had a false sense of security, in locations they imagined the Whitechapel Murderer would avoid like the plague.

Assuming Dutfields Yard was where Stride wanted to be, for whatever reason, the location could have been a risk too far for her killer. Anyone could have entered or left the club while he was performing his mutilations, and he may have had a narrow escape from Hanbury Street for the same reason. Not quite having the nerve to chance it again here, but smarting with frustration, he went looking for another opportunity and got his mojo back in Mitre Square.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It depends which paper you read as to Kozebrodsky's arrival time. The Daily News, for example, reports;
"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard."

The Irish Times has him also explicitly say that he had not left and returned in the meantime;
"I was in the club last night. I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since. About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard."

Yes, and I was aware of the 6:30/12:30 contrast.
Arrival at 6:30 seems much more likely to have been what occurred. 12:30 sounds like he is turning-up just in time to participate in the murder!

What's interesting about these differing quotes is that only the Evening News seems to put the quote in quotation marks, and I can't as yet find another paper that states '12:30'. I know the double-quotes are important to some people. I personally think anything spoken in the first-person can be regarded as a near quote, or at least an accurate paraphrase.

This is the full Irish Times quote:

A young Russian Pole, named M. Kozebrodski, born in Warsaw, and who spoke the English language imperfectly, gave the following information:- I was in the club last night. I came in about 6.30 in the evening and I have not been away from it since. About 20 minutes to 1 this morning Mr Diemshitz called me out into the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a large pool of blood. It was running down the gutter, and in the direction of the gate, and reached about to the door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the direction of Diemshitz or some members of the club. I went in the direction of Grove street, and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial road, and there along with Eagle I found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I think she wore a dark jacket and a black dress. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom.

A few points:

• As soon as Kozebrodski sees the body, blood has already flowed more or less the entire distance to the side door. So how long before that did the interruption occur, and what did it consist of?
• Kozebrodsky then goes for police, at Diemschitz' request, or some other members of the club. This is in the direction of Grove St. The search fails. No mention of returning with a man (i.e. Spooner)
• Kozebrodsky then goes looking on Commercial Rd, with Eagle. Thus the searches along Fairclough to Grove back, and along Commercial Rd, did not occur concurrently - they occurred in sequence, and this would account for the complaints about how long it took to find police.
• It would also account for the approx 5 minutes that Ed Spooner says he was by the body before any police arrived. So how did Mr Harris hear the policeman's whistle, and mention it to Spooner, when Spooner first goes to the yard with Louis and Isaacs? Perhaps it was actually PC Lamb's whistle that Mr Harris (and Hochberg) heard, not that of PC Collins. In that case, Spooner cannot beat Lamb to the yard, and he certainly cannot fiddle with the cachous when he gets there!
• Kozebrodsky, like Diemschitz, is absolutely adamant that he sees grapes in Stride's right hand, when the doctor is examining the body. How can that be? He is clear on the relative arrivals of police, doctors and the inspector. He describes her clothes and sees the flower. He knows what he is talking about! So what's the story with the grapes?