A bizarre theory of the MJK murder

[FrankO]

Rephrase

Sorry, don't know how to get rid of this double post

I've never been able to understand the "limited time" in the other cases. Why could "he" not have killed "MJK" when he wished, and hence lots of time? Or why not more indoors--if he so chose?

Hi Lynn,

I’m afraid I don’t quite understand you there, so could you please rephrase?

Cheers,
Frank

[Errata]

Hello Frank.

"What would he go for when he only had limited time"

I've never been able to understand the "limited time" in the other cases. Why could "he" not have killed "MJK" when he wished, and hence lots of time? Or why not more indoors--if he so chose?

Cheers.
LC

I think it's sort of an expansion theory. If time was limited with jack's previous victims, then logic would state that he went for the bits really important to him. With an expanded time frame, one would expect expanded damage. But still within a pattern. Like if Jack had all the time in the world and did what he usually did with his victims, but then scalped her, that would be odd. If her hair was important enough for him to go through the effort of scaling her, you would expect some hair cut off at the previous scenes. There is something very juvenile in the mutilation of Mary Kelly that you don't see in the other murders. There could be a lot of reasons for that. But it's a little odd.

As for why not more indoors, the simple explanation there is that typically if a prostitute has a place to take you, she costs quite a bit more. You'd have to find a peculiar combination of a woman who somehow had enough money to afford a place of her own, but somehow damaged enough to not command higher prices. Which you get with Mary Kelly for that brief window of time. Her husband had left, so she had the place to herself, but he was still contributing income, so she could afford to stay there. Had he targeted her a few weeks earlier or later, that situation would not have existed. She would either not be alone in the room, or she would have been evicted from the room. For a short time, she wasn't whoring for a place to stay, she was whoring for drink. Which meant she needed less money from customers, and couldn't command more money.

[lynn cates]

analogy

Hello Frank. Thanks. Delighted to.

I am thinking of the analogy of a retired person. "For years I wanted to do X, but never had the time. Now I'm retired, I have time."

So, if this is the case with "MJK's" assailant ("I wanted complete destruction, but never had time, so I did it quickly in the street."), one wonders why he did not simply move indoors at the beginning? The retiree has "I must work" as an excuse. But surely the assailant could have done an "MJK" at any point?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Indoor Killing

Hello Colin. Thanks.

OK. Can you expand a bit?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I'm mindful of the fact that you don't accept there was a 'Jack' to begin with but, on the assumption that there was (and that he was targeting East End prostitutes) the opportunities to kill indoors and in private would have been, of necessity, limited I would have thought. (Unless he took them back to his place - but I think even a deluded killer might have foreseen problems with that!).

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

a house that is not a home

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"As for why not more indoors, the simple explanation there is that typically if a prostitute has a place to take you, she costs quite a bit more."

Very well. But there is a common argument on the threads that runs, "Jack lured then to spot X with money. After the murder, he recouped his cash." So could he not have done that with a prostitute with a house?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Frank. Thanks. Delighted to.

I am thinking of the analogy of a retired person. "For years I wanted to do X, but never had the time. Now I'm retired, I have time."

So, if this is the case with "MJK's" assailant ("I wanted complete destruction, but never had time, so I did it quickly in the street."), one wonders why he did not simply move indoors at the beginning? The retiree has "I must work" as an excuse. But surely the assailant could have done an "MJK" at any point?

Cheers.
LC

Precisely my good man. The opportunity for the killer to use locations and find appropriate spots to have prolonged interaction with the corpse always existed.

I dont see any evidence in any of the 4 priors that the killer was pre-empted from doing something, or that he was cut short on time either. He was never seen leaving any site. Not in Bucks Row, not in Hanbury, and not in Mitre Square. The case on Berner Street speaks for itself, she was not killed by a mutilator, hence, her exclusion from this review.

It seems someone found somewhere cozy and private to bring women there, cut off their appendages and their heads and create torso's....was that man just cleverer than Jack then? Or more committed to his desires.

Best regards mate

[lynn cates]

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"the opportunities to kill indoors and in private would have been, of necessity, limited"

But why? They were not limited in "MJK's" case?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Why Not?

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"As for why not more indoors, the simple explanation there is that typically if a prostitute has a place to take you, she costs quite a bit more."

Very well. But there is a common argument on the threads that runs, "Jack lured then to spot X with money. After the murder, he recouped his cash." So could he not have done that with a prostitute with a house?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

That's a really good question. If the common argument to which you refer is valid, the only logical conclusion I can see is that he lacked the resources for such large initial outlay. I'm back to 'local unknown', an impoverished one at that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

opportunity knocks

Hello Mike. Thanks.

I suppose opportunity is what one makes of it.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"the opportunities to kill indoors and in private would have been, of necessity, limited"

But why? They were not limited in "MJK's" case?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I did say limited, not non-existent!

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

cost cutters

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"If the common argument to which you refer is valid . . ."

Well, only deductive arguments can be valid. Let's say "good."

" . . . the only logical conclusion I can see is that he lacked the resources for such large initial outlay."

Very well. What outlay (no pun intended) are we looking at here?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

where there's a will

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"I did say limited, not non-existent!"

Well, if will can find a way . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

The Going Rate

Very well. What outlay (no pun intended) are we looking at here?

Hi Lynn,

Assuming you know I meant financial outlay, I have to admit to not knowing the going rate for a better class whore with her own home, but I'm assuming the cost would be measured in shillings rather than pence.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

debt

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"I have to admit to not knowing the going rate for a better class whore with her own home, but I'm assuming the cost would be measured in shillings rather than pence."

Then I wonder if the information is available? If in shillings, she would soon be out of debt to McCarthy.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hello Frank. Thanks. Delighted to.

I am thinking of the analogy of a retired person. "For years I wanted to do X, but never had the time. Now I'm retired, I have time."

So, if this is the case with "MJK's" assailant ("I wanted complete destruction, but never had time, so I did it quickly in the street."), one wonders why he did not simply move indoors at the beginning? The retiree has "I must work" as an excuse. But surely the assailant could have done an "MJK" at any point?

Cheers.
LC

The man was an opportunist. What was he supposed to do should he want to induldge his fantasies to the fullest extent indoors? " Errr yes I want to do business but have you got a room we can go to" ?

With the blood lust in him as he approached his victim he was commited, his mind was made up, he wasn't going to abort an attack because the woman didn't have a room, if she didn't have a room she was going to be murdered on the street. Tabram through to Kelly met their end in this way.

Most of the women on the streets lived in doss houses, with Kelly he got lucky, she had a room. And yes, I believe Kelly picked up JTR out on the street. I would hazard a guess that if you were to take into account the amount of women on the streets in late 1888, only one in six would have had a rented room. Six victims, one with a room.