Does The Killer Scope Out Locations Before He Kills?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[DJA]

Real ginger beer. Yummy.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

[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