Final killing -planned ?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock

I think you are right, except I wonder whether having been interrupted twice (once by Lechmere (or Paul if you consider Lechmere the killer) and once at the club) he particularly looked out for someone with a private space for fear of being caught.

First, with regards to the starting question of the thread, I think MJK was just another random victim who happened to have her own room, so no, I don't think it was planned (in the sense of her specifically being targeted, or that JtR was looking for someone with a room).

I've included etenguy's answer to Herlock, though, as I think one could argue that JtR was interrupted, or at least scared off, in every prior case:
1) Nichols, we have Cross and/or Paul (pending on your view of Cross' involvement)
2) Chapman: we have activity in the neighboring yard, though that doesn't seem to have caused him to flee at the time, so this is probably the weakest case
3) Stride: great debate on this, but one prevailing idea is he was interrupted by Diemshutz's (sp) return. Others have argued that simple noise in the club may have spooked him, etc
4) Eddowes: there are a few events that could have acted as interruptions and scared him off before Watkin's arrival. First, PC Harvey patrols Chuch Passage only a couple minutes prior to the body being found and second, there was the retired PC who worked in the warehouse and he reports he opened the door in order to sweep the dirt out. That also happened shortly before the body was found, and also would have spooked JtR.

So, there are events in all of the previous canonical cases that potentially interrupted JtR. Obviously, one can't be sure he was still at the scene (making them non-interruptions), but there's precious little time to work with so reducing it further by suggesting he left earlier becomes difficult.

Now, if JtR was willing to risk another murder even though the chances of being interrupted are so high, I don't think he's likely to change and worry about finding someone with a room. He just got lucky.

- Jeff

[etenguy]

First, with regards to the starting question of the thread, I think MJK was just another random victim who happened to have her own room, so no, I don't think it was planned (in the sense of her specifically being targeted, or that JtR was looking for someone with a room).

I've included etenguy's answer to Herlock, though, as I think one could argue that JtR was interrupted, or at least scared off, in every prior case:
1) Nichols, we have Cross and/or Paul (pending on your view of Cross' involvement)
2) Chapman: we have activity in the neighboring yard, though that doesn't seem to have caused him to flee at the time, so this is probably the weakest case
3) Stride: great debate on this, but one prevailing idea is he was interrupted by Diemshutz's (sp) return. Others have argued that simple noise in the club may have spooked him, etc
4) Eddowes: there are a few events that could have acted as interruptions and scared him off before Watkin's arrival. First, PC Harvey patrols Chuch Passage only a couple minutes prior to the body being found and second, there was the retired PC who worked in the warehouse and he reports he opened the door in order to sweep the dirt out. That also happened shortly before the body was found, and also would have spooked JtR.

So, there are events in all of the previous canonical cases that potentially interrupted JtR. Obviously, one can't be sure he was still at the scene (making them non-interruptions), but there's precious little time to work with so reducing it further by suggesting he left earlier becomes difficult.

Now, if JtR was willing to risk another murder even though the chances of being interrupted are so high, I don't think he's likely to change and worry about finding someone with a room. He just got lucky.

- Jeff

Happy New Year, Jeff

It's been a while since we've been in the same thread - nice to bump into you again. I hope you are keeping safe and well.

Perhaps you are correct and it was pure serendipity that he met MJK who just happened to have a room. I don't have a strong view on this, but given that MJK was a slightly different victim, in that she was young, it does raise the question why that part of the victimology changed. Looking for someone who had a private space might be a reason - although equally MJK may just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[JeffHamm]

Happy New Year, Jeff

It's been a while since we've been in the same thread - nice to bump into you again. I hope you are keeping safe and well.

Perhaps you are correct and it was pure serendipity that he met MJK who just happened to have a room. I don't have a strong view on this, but given that MJK was a slightly different victim, in that she was young, it does raise the question why that part of the victimology changed. Looking for someone who had a private space might be a reason - although equally MJK may just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Happy New Year to you too! I've been very busy for quite some time and have only had time to read a bit on the boards but not put my 2 cents in. While we can't know for sure what JtR was thinking, I think some aspects of MJK's situation sort of "go together", as in, she was younger and had just been in a relationship, and so having a room was more probable for her than for the other victims. What I mean is, I don't think they count as independent bits of evidence pointing towards a change in JtR's behaviour. In the other cases it appears most probable the victim led him to the murder location, and with MJK, that too would fit, the difference being that in her case she had a room rather than a nearby dark corner to take him to. Of course, it could be he was indeed searching for a victim with a room, but it's entirely fitting with what he appears to have done in the past with the differences reflecting the victim's circumstances rather than JtR's choices. I don't really have a strong view on it, and I do see where you're coming from and certainly can't disprove it. I just tend to lean towards the preference of "If you don't need to suggest a change to account for something, then it's probably best to stick with what you have."

I suppose, as I think about it, if one accepts Hutchinson's account where he claims he overhears Mary say "Don't worry you'll be comfortable" (or something like that), this could just possibly indicate he was checking to see if she had a room. It's not definitive, and of course, it requires accepting Hutchinson's testimony (or at least that part of it), but I admit it would fit with what you're suggesting. Not sure that's enough to change my mind, but I'm certainly open to the idea as worthy of exploration.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

The adverse reaction to anything that suggests more than one person might have agreed to keep information quiet, or to present facts in less than 100% accurate form to achieve some objective is really naiveté. People do those kinds of things all the time, in all facets of their lives... personally and professionally. The suggestions that there are viable reasons for "conspiring" to keep secrets would be more broadly palatable once you factor in that all the most senior men assigned to the Ripper crimes....(lets be blunt, some murders of presumed streetwalkers that no-one protected,..you understand why deception, deceit and yes, conspiracies might exist. These men were professional liars and mis-directors, with lots of secrets.

[Losmandris]

I fear that reality was far more mundane. This is a case of a severely damaged/mentally disturbed individual murdering several hopelessly deprived and vulnerable women. No grand conspiracy here I am afraid.

Has there ever been another spate of murders that have involved a conspiracy,major cover up or were perpetrated by someone famous? No.

Tristan

[Losmandris]

As to the original question. I am in two minds. I do give serious consideration to the idea that the killer scoped out either the locations for the murders, so he may have known MJK had a room. Though if this was indeed the case I this it was done on a murder by murder basis, I don't imagine that he planned to end the spree in murdering MJK in her room or anything like that. That said it is equally likely that he picked MJK up by random or by chance manged to convince her to go with him. I do sometimes wonder, if we are to believe MJK was the final victim, due to the fact that the murder was carried out somewhere where he was not disturbed he was able to get whatever it was out of his system to such an extent that he didn't need to carry out any more murders.

Tristan

[caz]

I would be inclined to agree with Herlock on this. It was most likely rare enough for a woman on her own to have a private room. She also didn’t have it fully as hers until just before she was killed. There is a chance the killer knew this but my guess is it was pure luck.

Simple works for me too, erobitha.

If the killer kept a low profile in the wake of the double event, because he'd taken too many risks and the streets were now hotter than ever, he'd have been well advised to be wary, and not leap at the first opportunity when he went back out for another go. It may have taken someone like Mary Kelly, now in a position to invite a man back to her room [as we know she did with Mr Blotchy, who was not recognised by Mrs Cox and was never identified], to persuade the killer to dip his toes in again, by making him an offer that was simply too tempting to turn down:

[Aside] "What? This woman tells a perfect stranger - me - that she has her own room with her own bed, and I'll be all right in there with her, because we won't be disturbed? Bingo!"

He may have had to convince her he could pay the extra for the warmth, convenience and privacy of a room, which might suggest he either looked good for the money or was able to pay up front, taking it back later. A two-way street, with Kelly now targeting men who looked like they could afford a bit above the going rate for street sex, and the killer being more discerning over his choice of victim and location.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I can’t dispute any of that Gordon. Stride of course might not have been a victim but the possibility exists that Tabram and Mackenzie were so we’re into interpretation territory as ever. The sheer horror of the Kelly murder, coming just after the horror of the Eddowes murder makes it close to impossible for me to believe them the acts of two perpetrators.

I think that we can sometimes overthink the mutilations (or nitpick) and talk about different depths of neck wounds and angles of incision etc as a method of differentiating to suggest different killers. Differences can occur due to outside influences as we know. How, for example, do we know that the killer wasn’t ambidextrous? How do we know that he didn’t damage his knife during one murder and so have to use another for the next? How do we know that the killer didn’t gain an injury which affected his actions? How do we know the extent to which each individual struggled and which victim might have been stronger than the other and so hamper the killer more? After all, the killer wasn’t working knife in one hand, serial killer mutilation instruction booklet in the other. I can’t envisage a modern police investigation doing anything but, at the very least, consider Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as victims of the same hand. With Stride as a likely possibility. Yes, the Kelly murder was a different level of horror, but we have a very obvious and very plausible possible explanation for this in the fact that, unusually for women in her position, she had her own room.

No 100%’s as ever though Gordon

And of course, another factor would be whether the killer was stone cold sober, mildly tipsy or high on drink or drugs at the time of each murder. I would guess that even the most experienced medical man, surgeon, butcher or slaughterer, for instance, would have 'operated' [excuse the pun] better or considerably worse, depending on his level of sobriety at the time, or what other substances he may have taken. We usually mention alcohol in relation to the victims' use of it, but just as drivers mustn't go out in their cars under the influence for very obvious reasons, a man's knife skills must surely be affected by how much he has had to drink.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think the 30,00 ft view is sometimes needed to fully explore the problems with assigning more than 1 kill to an unknown killer. For one, how good is the data? For another, are there environmental issues, political or economic, that might have influence on what we are seeing. The 30,000 foot view shows a desperately overcrowded East End, Socialist ideals being pushed forward, you have extreme poverty and nothing like whats now available in terms of supports. You have known criminals, suspected criminals and Terrorists and Anarchists actively carry on their agendas. Youve got spies, double agents, a public hearing into the possibility Irish self rule factions are within parliament, and all the senior officers dealing with espionage, national security and Counter Intelligence are assigned to these murders. These streetwalker murders.

From 30, 000 Im sure youd agree that there is a lot of possible problems with that scenario, including reasons to silence people.

This is why the possibility of conspiracy or story fabrication is a reality. No matter how disparagingly people use the Conspiracy terminology, its a viable storyline. How many different stories, different views, different storylines do these detectives provide us with? How can they not have shared the same information and proceeded to similar if not matching conclusions? Do we know we have a suspect interview in a Seaside Home, do we have assurances that all of the information from those investigations is available, are we remaining cognizant of the fact that no 2 murders have ever been unanimously and conclusively linked by a single killer. The unknowns remain unknown, and therefore premature assumptions about a head count by killer are an exercise in futility. There is only speculation that forms a Canonical Group, thats should be the pivot point for all storylines. Evidence first.

'Premature', Michael? Are you having a laugh?

When five female sex workers were murdered in the Ipswich area between October and December 2006, do you honestly think the police would have been taken seriously if they had suggested the possibility of different killers, ranging from Russian spies or double agents to anarchists or terrorists, had the crimes remained unsolved? Do you doubt that the murders were committed by one sad man, a frequenter of prostitutes, who became known as the Suffolk Strangler?

Have a safe weekend and keep taking the tablets.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I fear that reality was far more mundane. This is a case of a severely damaged/mentally disturbed individual murdering several hopelessly deprived and vulnerable women. No grand conspiracy here I am afraid.

Has there ever been another spate of murders that have involved a conspiracy,major cover up or were perpetrated by someone famous? No.

Tristan

Things might not be as simple as a choice between a lone serial killer, unknown to everyone else in existence, and a grand conspiracy.

Walter Dew:

SOMEONE, somewhere, shared Jack the Ripper's guilty secret. Of this I am tolerably certain. The man lived somewhere. Each time there was a murder he must have returned home in the early hours of the morning. His clothing must have been bespattered with blood.

These facts alone ought to have been sufficient to arouse suspicion, and to cause a statement to be made to the police.

Suspicion, I have no doubt, was aroused, but that statement to the police was never made.

Why should anyone seek to shield such a monster?

Well, my experience has taught me that the person who remained silent may have been actuated by any one of a number of motives.

It might have been sentiment. It is asking a lot of a wife to give away her husband when she knows in advance that she is handing him over to the gallows. That also applies to a mother.

The motive which prevented the words of betrayal from being spoken might also have been fear. There were many simple-minded people living in the East End of London at this time, who, with the knowledge which would have led to the Ripper being caught and convicted in their possession, would have been afraid to use it. The very terror the murderer inspired might well have been his own safety valve.

Quite apart from these two possibilities it is an established fact that many law-abiding folk are reluctant to communicate valuable information to the authorities in murder and other serious cases.

And this, despite the fact that their silence renders them liable to severe punishment as accessories either before or after the fact.


Chief Inspector Dew was fairly certain someone knew Jack the Ripper, but did not act on that knowledge. Was Dew a grand conspiracy theorist?

One of a number of motives for not turning him in, might be the rewards of blackmail. Does supposing this possibility make me a grand conspiracy theorist?

More importantly, does your dichotomy have the potential for important clues to be avoided, in case of being branded with the dreaded label?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What if he’d lived alone? What if he’d had a place to clean up before going home?

[DJA]

What if he had, moved his family out of town to say Sevenoaks,Kent, kept a place in Mitre Street which backed out into Mitre Square for when he had to work back,sometimes staying at a hotel in Hanbury Street!

[DJA]

Things might not be as simple as a choice between a lone serial killer, unknown to everyone else in existence, and a grand conspiracy.

Perhaps Jack's identity was not the big secret we have been led to believe.

1889's Cleveland Street Scandal had a number of players we are familiar with in Government and the police force.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps Jack's identity was not the big secret we have been led to believe.

There are many degrees of possible secrecy/conspiracy, from Mrs Kuer suspecting her lodger, but being coy on the details, to Mr Anderson pointing the finger at a large category of people...

... the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

1889's Cleveland Street Scandal had a number of players we are familiar with in Government and the police force.

Will have a look...

[Losmandris]

What if he simply rolled his sleeves up and was wearing dark clothes. Its not like we are talking blood spraying out here. How often did the typical dweller of Whitechapel get their clothes washed? It is no wonder that you see so many people back then wearing dark clothes. On a dark old jacket that is already stained would some blood really stand out? I cant imagine the killer would have been doing his business in a freshly washed white shirt and light coloured trousers.

Tristan