Final killing -planned ?

[MWatson]

I think the murderer must have felt “lucky” that at last, he had finally found someone that had somewhere secure and private where he could finally get complete relief as he’d imagined in his masturbatory fantasies. He could both open the lady up AND later relive the experience in private. Anything related to that experience would have aided this, including actual body parts and even the knife itself. Some men might understand and relate to how lingerie or used underwear can trigger sexual arousal. Sights, smells and tastes that allow a continuation and prolonging of the sexual experience. After that, where to? Nowhere - as Mary Kelly was THE fantasy cum reality. He could continue as before, a “normal” person but with the gratifying experiences that had finally made him the man he’d always suspected he was.

[Michael W Richards]

Back to thread premise, is there any evidence that suggests the man who killed Mary broke in? No. Is there evidence that might indicate the killers arrival time...yes, two ear witnesses around 3:45. Would a stranger be granted access at 3:45? Is there any evidence that her murder was the result of escalating violence? No. is there evidence she faced the wall when she is cut...yes. Is that consistent behavior while having a stranger in her room...no. Is it possible Wideawake was in cahoots with the killer? The police evidently thought so.

Planned, maybe. By someone she knew, definitely.

[Michael W Richards]

"What do you imagine the killer did with a prostitute's middle-aged womb? Was it just the one womb he wanted, or would he have taken more if free to do so after killing Chapman for hers? Was this the action of a sane man? Because if this killer had any trace of mental impairment, when mutilating Nichols and Chapman, his brain was likely to be in a state of flux, not dancing to a single loony tune of his own composition, and certainly not to one of yours or mine."

The killers state of mind as seen in the actions taken for me suggests that he wanted something that a sane person would not even come close to considering, but he may not have had any plan once he had the uterus. that he was focused on getting Annies abdomen opened up, what he took may just have had symbolic meaning for him and with no practical application in mind. No candles. No collections. I believe he had a fixation on womens reproduction equipment. Maybe he studied it. But certainly not a sane man. I think someone who already stood apart from the surroundings by being weird when out and about.

I also see a real possibility that her killer could have been Jacob Isenschmidt, which would dictate looking for other killers from Annie on. He couldnt kill on Oct 1st. That means that someone else was either just as deranged, or that he simulated the previous events actions so as to appear as the previous victims did...random, stranger to stranger, events. Opportunistic events. Perhaps the marking of Kates face is one indication this is a new fellow, because I believe the facial cuts to the nose and eyes are marking her as a snitch. It would not be the first time that had been seen locally.

[caz]

I would disagree with your conviction that motives are the last thing that can be ascertained, but your writing it explains some of your reluctance to see individual cases as just that. Individual cases. Youve already figured out the end game, its just a matter of a name to you. I believe motives can be seen in actions, and in the case of Chapman in particular, they can be obvious. The medical examiner suggested her killer cut only what was needed to be cut in order to obtain what he ultimately obtained. I doubt he would be tossing it aside considering the great risks he took to obtain it. And thats coveting. Since Pollys murder matches Annies in virtually every pertinent aspect when looking for matching data other than the extent of the PM cutting, it can be presumed that it was the same man or men.

The killer of Kate Eddowes took time to do things that were superfluous, cuts that meant something to him but the logic he used escapes us, he didnt cut specifically. Annies killer did. Marys killer cut aimlessly, leaving the Pro-Canonicals with only a mad single killers ultimate deterioration as a inclusionary argument. I would agree the man in room 13 was lost, I might disagree whether his intimate relationship with the deceased can be easily discarded. He was there with permission.

It's not a 'conviction' that's personal to me, and up for disagreement by you. The people who investigate unsolved murders know that motive can be virtually impossible to establish if nothing obvious such as robbery or sexual assault is present; or when nothing about the victim made them the likely target of someone connected with them; or when there are no potential suspects left to question. I suppose when you think about it, it's common sense.

These are individual cases, but they all suffer from the same lack of any specific motive, or tangible link between victim and perpetrator. So this is where we are.

What do you imagine the killer did with a prostitute's middle-aged womb? Was it just the one womb he wanted, or would he have taken more if free to do so after killing Chapman for hers? Was this the action of a sane man? Because if this killer had any trace of mental impairment, when mutilating Nichols and Chapman, his brain was likely to be in a state of flux, not dancing to a single loony tune of his own composition, and certainly not to one of yours or mine.

I agree that the killer was probably in Kelly's room with her permission, but that's not saying much if the killer was also in the previous murder locations with his victim's permission - with the exception of Dutfield's Yard, where IMHO Stride paid the price by resisting his advances.

[caz]

I don't imagine he took a particular surgical approach to what he did. For someone in a frenzy I think it would take only minutes. Quicker than even a butcher. Both butcher and surgeon are looking to be careful and precise, the killer was neither. I also think that mental state has so much to do with it, in the fact that a surgeon would be aware that they are working on something that is/was a human being. A deranged killer, would not be held back by any sense of humanity or conscious.


Tristan

When we consider Dr Harold Shipman's long murder career, I'm not sure we can say that a doctor or surgeon would have worried that it was a human being he was ripping up, if that was his particular bag. And while the Kelly murder could have been committed by someone with none of the knife skills required by a surgeon or even a butcher, it doesn't prove her killer was totally without skill. He just didn't exhibit any on this occasion. It wasn't compulsory. His job wasn't in danger if he made a pig's ear of it.

Even the most advanced driver can write off his car and kill people if, for instance, too much drink has been taken, or he's exhausted from lack of sleep, or is susceptible to road rage.

In short, a lack of skill displayed does not always equal a lack of skill possessed. Occasionally, by sheer chance, someone can even appear to display a skill they don't actually possess.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So what is the correct interpretation of Blackwell's estimate?

I don't know. My name's not Blackwell. But if we take his words at face value, his best guess was that Stride had been dead for a maximum of 20 minutes when he pronounced life extinct, but he allowed for up to a possible maximum of 30 minutes.

TOD estimates were not reliable, but at the most basic level Stride died at some point between 12.46 and when she was pronounced dead.

Either that, or we keep the canonical total at five, by accepting that Schwartz' story was a fabrication.
Yes I know, that would be a bitter pill to swallow.

I couldn't even begin to interpret this bit, sorry. Could an interpreter be made available?

[Michael W Richards]

Motivation is the very last thing that can ever be ascertained while a murder remains unsolved and the evidence shows up nothing obvious, such as robbery, rape, revenge or domestic abuse. Sometimes even the killer himself, when finally identified and questioned, can't supply a logical explanation for what made him do it, so what hope do we have of joining the dots, when nobody is firmly in the frame for a single one of the Whitechapel series?

You say that the killer of Nichols and Chapman 'killed so he could cut more' and 'coveted' their internal organs, but that is still only your interpretation, because you can't ask him. For all you know, he may have tossed Chapman's body parts to a passing dog before reaching his lodgings, or extracted her uterus merely because it was there and because he could. Stride's killer may have hoped for the opportunity to 'cut more', but if she refused to budge from the 'safety' of the club's premises until the pony and cart was fast approaching, his only consolation would have been to take his frustration out on her before fleeing. The same could so easily have happened in Buck's Row or Hanbury Street if someone had come along at the wrong time. The killer of Eddowes and Kelly also killed so he could 'cut more', and he too removed internal organs, even when he left them at the scene.

There is no evidence that any of these women were killed for some other reason, so trying to 'figure out' why else they might have become someone's murder victim seems to me to be counter-intuitive and unproductive, leading nowhere but down the garden path, looking for fairies. How are you ever going to take it beyond a fringe theory?

I would disagree with your conviction that motives are the last thing that can be ascertained, but your writing it explains some of your reluctance to see individual cases as just that. Individual cases. Youve already figured out the end game, its just a matter of a name to you. I believe motives can be seen in actions, and in the case of Chapman in particular, they can be obvious. The medical examiner suggested her killer cut only what was needed to be cut in order to obtain what he ultimately obtained. I doubt he would be tossing it aside considering the great risks he took to obtain it. And thats coveting. Since Pollys murder matches Annies in virtually every pertinent aspect when looking for matching data other than the extent of the PM cutting, it can be presumed that it was the same man or men.

The killer of Kate Eddowes took time to do things that were superfluous, cuts that meant something to him but the logic he used escapes us, he didnt cut specifically. Annies killer did. Marys killer cut aimlessly, leaving the Pro-Canonicals with only a mad single killers ultimate deterioration as a inclusionary argument. I would agree the man in room 13 was lost, I might disagree whether his intimate relationship with the deceased can be easily discarded. He was there with permission.

[Losmandris]

I Caught Crippen

I presume you suppose that a book supporting the notion that someone knew JtR, would sell more copies than a book claiming Jack was a mysterious unknown individual?
I would presume the later to be more likely, just as I would presume that to be the more popular view here.

Whatever the case, Dew was not alone in supposing that someone at the time, knew Jack's identity.
The following is in regard to words spoken by Charles Reeves, at a vigilance committee meeting, from the Evening News, Sep 20:

Mr. Reeves said that, looking at the way in which the murderer had committed the deed, the time he was about it, and consequently the awful state in which his clothes must have been, he felt positively certain that some one besides the murderer knew of the fact; and a heavy reward would, he thought, be the only inducement for that person to speak out. (Hear, hear.)

Basically yes. And I think in some ways that has always be the issue with the case over the years, its always been open to sensationalism and conspiracy. Which I think is a big appeal for a lot of people. Dew was an early adopter in this sense, who understandably so, due to his links to the case had a degree of clout.

Tristan

[Losmandris]

I've always wondered how he reached that conclusion as presumably he had never done the same thing himself and timed it. I'm wondering if he was estimating how long it would take a skilled surgeon with the tools of that trade. This isn't surgery though, it's crude butchery. How long would it take a butcher to do it? I actually showed the most famous Kelly image to a friend who is a master carpenter and asked him how long it would take a skilled operator, using a draw-knife, to inflict the external injuries. His reply, "Seconds - barely that actually", so that would only leave the organ removal. Two hours is a long time. Have we ever had a second opinion from a medically-qualified poster? I seem to recall there was one back in the day but I could be wrong.

Stay safe, everyone.

I don't imagine he took a particular surgical approach to what he did. For someone in a frenzy I think it would take only minutes. Quicker than even a butcher. Both butcher and surgeon are looking to be careful and precise, the killer was neither. I also think that mental state has so much to do with it, in the fact that a surgeon would be aware that they are working on something that is/was a human being. A deranged killer, would not be held back by any sense of humanity or conscious.


Tristan

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I presume that this is taken from a book he wrote, that he was trying to sell to as many people as possible?

Tristan

I Caught Crippen

I presume you suppose that a book supporting the notion that someone knew JtR, would sell more copies than a book claiming Jack was a mysterious unknown individual?
I would presume the later to be more likely, just as I would presume that to be the more popular view here.

Whatever the case, Dew was not alone in supposing that someone at the time, knew Jack's identity.
The following is in regard to words spoken by Charles Reeves, at a vigilance committee meeting, from the Evening News, Sep 20:

Mr. Reeves said that, looking at the way in which the murderer had committed the deed, the time he was about it, and consequently the awful state in which his clothes must have been, he felt positively certain that some one besides the murderer knew of the fact; and a heavy reward would, he thought, be the only inducement for that person to speak out. (Hear, hear.)

[Bridewell]

"Dr Phillips suggested that the extensive mutilations would have taken two hours to perform."

I've always wondered how he reached that conclusion as presumably he had never done the same thing himself and timed it. I'm wondering if he was estimating how long it would take a skilled surgeon with the tools of that trade. This isn't surgery though, it's crude butchery. How long would it take a butcher to do it? I actually showed the most famous Kelly image to a friend who is a master carpenter and asked him how long it would take a skilled operator, using a draw-knife, to inflict the external injuries. His reply, "Seconds - barely that actually", so that would only leave the organ removal. Two hours is a long time. Have we ever had a second opinion from a medically-qualified poster? I seem to recall there was one back in the day but I could be wrong.

Stay safe, everyone.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

They wouldn't be the only ones. I've seen many a poster misreading and misinterpreting Blackwell's estimate, possibly because he didn't express himself very well.

So what is the correct interpretation of Blackwell's estimate?

I still don't really see why you are hung up on the 'around 12.45' business. People very often round up or round down approximate times to the nearest quarter hour. And if Schwartz's story was known about, and assumed to be true, because there was no reason to think he invented it, one logical conclusion would be that Stride was probably killed shortly after 'the Hungarian' fled 'incontinently' from the scene of her roughing up.

Killed by the broad-shouldered man, who was probably not Jack the Ripper.

Either that, or we keep the canonical total at five, by accepting that Schwartz' story was a fabrication.
Yes I know, that would be a bitter pill to swallow.

Calling him 'the actor', because his attire was described as theatrical, gives an unwarranted slant to your thinking. You'll have him auditioning for the part next.

The part of Mr Hyde?

[caz]

I certainly don't believe MJK's murder was planned in the sense of singling her out, or intending her to be his final victim. We don't know she was the last.

I do think her killer had plans to kill again after the double event if the right opportunity knocked, and it was simply a coincidence that he bumped into MJK, who was now in a position to invite men back to her room.

Winter was fast approaching, so another bonus was the relative warmth and convenience of the location. I would imagine this killer liked his creature comforts. If he killed Rose Mylett, which I don't rule out, his enthusiasm may have cooled along with the outdoor conditions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Losmandris]

So where are we all on the original question? I am saying no, the final murder if that is considered to be MJK or AM or FC was not planned!

Tristan

[caz]

It was you who first mentioned ToD estimates. My point in reply was that if Arbeter Fraint had used Blackwell's estimate when stating the murder time, they didn't read what he said very carefully. On the other hand, the ~12:45 matches within a minute or two, the time stated by the actor. Just a coincidence, I suppose.

They wouldn't be the only ones. I've seen many a poster misreading and misinterpreting Blackwell's estimate, possibly because he didn't express himself very well.

I still don't really see why you are hung up on the 'around 12.45' business. People very often round up or round down approximate times to the nearest quarter hour. And if Schwartz's story was known about, and assumed to be true, because there was no reason to think he invented it, one logical conclusion would be that Stride was probably killed shortly after 'the Hungarian' fled 'incontinently' from the scene of her roughing up.

Calling him 'the actor', because his attire was described as theatrical, gives an unwarranted slant to your thinking. You'll have him auditioning for the part next.