Assumption buster #1 M.O.

[Harry Poland]

Welcome to the first of my assumption busters where I hope to stimulate discussion and debate around commonly held assumptions about JTR.

Let's have a look at MO:

It's commonly assumed that the ripper first engaged in conversation with his victims, presumably as a prospective client, before overpowering and killing them.

It is suggested that there is nothing in the available evidence to refute the possibility that the ripper actually waited in the shadows until his victim was alone and then carried out a blitz attack.

Discuss..............................

[Fleetwood Mac]

Welcome to the first of my assumption busters where I hope to stimulate discussion and debate around commonly held assumptions about JTR.

Let's have a look at MO:

It's commonly assumed that the ripper first engaged in conversation with his victims, presumably as a prospective client, before overpowering and killing them.

It is suggested that there is nothing in the available evidence to refute the possibility that the ripper actually waited in the shadows until his victim was alone and then carried out a blitz attack.

Discuss..............................

Could be wrong but I think serial killers usually approach their victims rather than wait for them to come to him.

I think the discernible MO is the method of throat cutting, not necessarily the depth or the number of times drawn over the neck, but the knowledge of how to kill and minimise blood splatter onto himself; and for that reason I think Mckenzie and Coles are good bets for Jack.

It's not a given that a person would know this - I certainly wouldn't have done.

[Phil H]

The assumption that "Jack" engaged in conversation with his victims is not I think an unreasonable one.

If (and I emphasise the if) Lawende saw the killer talking to Eddowes, then in at least one case we know he ddi so. It is thus reasonable to extrapolate to the other cases.

Nichols was looking for a client to earn her bed money (at least that is the impression she gave to Holland) so it is not unreasonable IMHO to assume he MAY have approached her.

Further, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and maybe Stride were all killed in places likely to have been of their choosing. this is indicated by the stable doors, fence and hoardings that were present and which had more "give" than a brick surface. If they took him to these spots, he probably spoke to them.

If he didn't speak - how do you see him getting into the backyard at No 29? Was he lying in wait? Did he follow her? IMHO it is more likely he picked her up and she led him there.

Finally, in relation to "engaged in conversation with his victims" - I see this as being a few words - "Will you?" Nothing more. No discussion of an intellectual nature or even gossip. Strictly business.

Phil H

[Wickerman]

Even if only to be sure any prospective victim was actually a prostitute he may feel the need to engage them in some meaningless patter.
(Assuming prostitutes were his intended targets)

Its a safe bet he did put them at ease before he pounced.

...

[Phil H]

I wonder what the common practice was?

In a polyglot East End, with many sailors from foreign parts, immigrants, Jews (some of them recent arrivals from Eastern Europe) many potential punters must have had limited, highly accented, strange or even no English.

We have snatches of recorded conversation between possible killers and his victims, so witnesses clearly expected or accepted that some sort of conversation was likely to have taken place.

But one could see the whole exchange being done almost in dumbshow, or with the woman doing most of the necessary/essential talking. especially if she then led the man to the place of assignation.

How much converstion would a Nichols or a Chapman have been capable of? We know Nichols could have a short chat with Holland, but she was clearly inebriated. Chapman was probably exhausted. Eddowes, I CAN imagine as a chatty sparrow, chirping away.

So I can accept a pretty silent "Jack", a man brooding on what he was about to do, rather than giving his mind to idle chit-chat. If Eddowes wouldn't stop talking it might have made him ever wilder.

Phil H

[RavenDarkendale]

Many serial killers are notoriously able to convince victims that they are harmless, and use some sort of ruse to get the victim alone. Bundy for example feigned car trouble, a broken arm, and being lost. No doubt JtR had several ruses to lure victims, and being a John looking for action was no doubt one of them.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Phil H]

Perhaps the only one.

Phil H

[Harry Poland]

I agree, many serial killers do engage their victims. Many others do not, some serial killers simply creep up to their victims or break into their house and without so much as a how do you do, proceed to kill them (I'm thinking Robert Napper as an example but I've not really studied him so can't be sure)

Its quite possible that one of the many characters seen with one of the many proposed victims was actually Jack. What I'm suggesting is that it is also possible for none of them to have been Jack.

Jack as a peeping tom who steps in and murders after the act, or Jack as a silent assassin stalking his prey are possibilities that can't be totally discounted.

I think that it is important that we discuss this topic because it is central to the type of character which we are looking for

[Errata]

I wonder what the common practice was?

In a polyglot East End, with many sailors from foreign parts, immigrants, Jews (some of them recent arrivals from Eastern Europe) many potential punters must have had limited, highly accented, strange or even no English.

We have snatches of recorded conversation between possible killers and his victims, so witnesses clearly expected or accepted that some sort of conversation was likely to have taken place.

But one could see the whole exchange being done almost in dumbshow, or with the woman doing most of the necessary/essential talking. especially if she then led the man to the place of assignation.

How much converstion would a Nichols or a Chapman have been capable of? We know Nichols could have a short chat with Holland, but she was clearly inebriated. Chapman was probably exhausted. Eddowes, I CAN imagine as a chatty sparrow, chirping away.

So I can accept a pretty silent "Jack", a man brooding on what he was about to do, rather than giving his mind to idle chit-chat. If Eddowes wouldn't stop talking it might have made him ever wilder.

Phil H

Anectdotally, there is some evidence that there was a developed gestural language developed for the sole purpose of flagging down prostitutes. There are certain rude gestures today that according to legend were used for just such a purpose. Including the British reversed "V" salute. You hear a lot of origin stories about such things, everything from an English "salute" at the battle of Bosworth, to a testimonial of injured workers during the industrial revolution. But If you ever go to the Museum of Sex in Amsterdam, there is an exhibit on non verbal communication, from the Castro Street handkerchief code, to specialized sign language meant to be used in a crowd. The language of flowers and fans from the Victorian period being a somewhat benign example. I think there was such a gestural language (and by language, I mean maybe five signs) back then for hailing prostitutes if you didn't speak English. I just think that they weren't written down or mentioned because they lacked the romance of flower language, and there was a dearth of anthropologists studying East End whores who would have cataloged such things.

[Phil H]

Off topic - but when you wrote "an English "salute" at the battle of Bosworth" errata, I think you meant AGINCOURT (1415).

The French had allegedly threatened to cut off the fingers used by English archers to draw their bow-strings. The gesture was to indicate the archers still had their fingers!!

Otherwise a most interesting post.

Phil H

[Errata]

Off topic - but when you wrote "an English "salute" at the battle of Bosworth" errata, I think you meant AGINCOURT (1415).

The French had allegedly threatened to cut off the fingers used by English archers to draw their bow-strings. The gesture was to indicate the archers still had their fingers!!

Otherwise a most interesting post.

Phil H

Yeah I meant Agincourt.

[MsWeatherwax]

I wonder what the common practice was?

In a polyglot East End, with many sailors from foreign parts, immigrants, Jews (some of them recent arrivals from Eastern Europe) many potential punters must have had limited, highly accented, strange or even no English.

I had the misfortune to briefly live in a red light district as a student (only about 18 years ago), and the majority of the initial communication between the sex workers and potential clients was non-verbal as far as I could tell. If a potential client drove or walked by, the girls would do things like wink, push their boobs together and lean forward or hitch up what there was of their skirt.

Co-incidentally, many of the girls themselves seemed to be from Eastern Europe, so language barriers may still have played a part. Obviously, times have changed a lot since the 1800's, and I'm not saying that any of the victims would have been as obvious as the girls I used to see...just that I imagine they initially used non-verbal communication to indicate availability too.

[Phil H]

If non-verbal communication was and is a possibility, then "Jack" may have needed to say little, if anything.

If Kosminski (or someone similar) was the killer, and given the dark conditions, that might have helped him.

Phil H

[Bridewell]

It is suggested that there is nothing in the available evidence to refute the possibility that the ripper actually waited in the shadows until his victim was alone and then carried out a blitz attack.

Discuss..............................

If the killer waits in the shadows while his intended victim is servicing a client there is an inherent risk of his presence being detected, at which point he is faced with both intended victim and angry client. To my mind it's much less risky - and therefore much more likely - that the killer himself posed as a client. There is more logic to the traditional assumption than to the suggested alternative scenario in my view, although either is possible.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

I too have never seen "Jack" as a "lurker".

I don't think there is any need to do so, or any evidence to suggest he was.

In the "classic" cases of Nichols and Chapman, it is just as plausible to assume that the killer met up with the unfortunate woman as they staggered around the streets. They were ill, drunk, desperate - easy pickings. Eddowes was probably similar as Mckenzie may have been.

Stride and kelly are the exceptions - for me at least - and I remain unsure of either as a Ripper victim.

But "Jack the Lurker"? No.

Phil H