Ripper and enclosed spaces

[etenguy]

The ripper is often talked about in terms of taking high risks by killing in the street. This though is not the case. Other than Mary Ann Nichols, the victims were murdered in enclosed spaces - in a backyard, in a club yard, in a secluded square and finally in a room in a lodging. It is perhaps one of the reasons that supports Liz Stride as being a canonical victim if choice of murder site is considered part of JtR's method. Still a high risk approach, but we might conclude the ripper was trying to find safe(r) places to commit his crimes.

If the above is a valid observation and accurately reflects JtR's intent - do we start to move away from a purely opportunistic killer to one who plans these murders more than traditionally believed. And if so - how does that affect who we believe might be JtR?

[DJA]

Nah!

[c.d.]

If we are dealing with a serial killer, even if the killings were meticulously planned there is always the possibility that he could simply have seen a woman and thought I am going to kill her circumstances be damned.

So to answer the question, no suspect is off the table or pushed to the back of the line.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

The ripper is often talked about in terms of taking high risks by killing in the street. This though is not the case. Other than Mary Ann Nichols, the victims were murdered in enclosed spaces - in a backyard, in a club yard, in a secluded square and finally in a room in a lodging. It is perhaps one of the reasons that supports Liz Stride as being a canonical victim if choice of murder site is considered part of JtR's method. Still a high risk approach, but we might conclude the ripper was trying to find safe(r) places to commit his crimes.

If the above is a valid observation and accurately reflects JtR's intent - do we start to move away from a purely opportunistic killer to one who plans these murders more than traditionally believed. And if so - how does that affect who we believe might be JtR?

I don't think this killer only went out four times, and killed four women, or five times with five women. I believe he was out regularly, its just the opportunity rarely presented itself for a variety of reasons. The streets after all were busy night and day, we only need to read accounts written at the time to establish that.

So, along came Nichols, they spent some time together, but when he did decide the time and location was right, he was interrupted in Bucks Row, the mutilation of Nichols was not complete. He decided to take his next one into a more secluded spot.

He spent quite some time with Chapman, and he picked the right spot, but he was seen & heard, so another close call.

I believe with Stride he attempted to entice her to a secluded spot, but for some reason, whether she smelled a rat or what, he had to put a swift end to it, then was interrupted again. However, he succeeded an hour later with Eddowes.
I think what we see when things went right for him, as with Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly, his Signature was 'Display', all three were posed for maximum shock value, something he didn't have time to do with Nichols & Stride.

I think his problem became worse when prostitutes began to walk the streets in pairs, now he had an extra hurdle to jump in how does he separate them without creating undue suspicion. So, yes I think you have a point.

[Yabs]

Perhaps the intention with Nichols was, if possible, to get her behind the gates she was killed in front of.
Same could apply with Eddowes too I guess.

Which makes me think, what if the back door of 29 Hanbury turned out to be locked, would we have an abandoned attempt or a murder on Hanbury street itself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It might be worth mentioning that the victims too would have had a desire for at least some level of seclusion. Obviously he was ‘lucky’ with Kelly in that she had her own room and perhaps Chapman too as she might have used the yard in Hanbury Street before or perhaps just knew that it was occasionally used by others.

I tend to agree with Wick on Stride as it was claimed that BS man was attempting to pull her into the street which could point to him trying to get her to go elsewhere (a more secluded spot)

Can we conclude that at some point he hadn’t killed on the spur of the moment? I’m wary of trying to assign a set behaviour or a list of ‘would have done’s or wouldn’t have done’s’ to a serial killer. I don’t think that we can be sure of too much.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The ripper is often talked about in terms of taking high risks by killing in the street. This though is not the case. Other than Mary Ann Nichols, the victims were murdered in enclosed spaces - in a backyard, in a club yard, in a secluded square and finally in a room in a lodging. It is perhaps one of the reasons that supports Liz Stride as being a canonical victim if choice of murder site is considered part of JtR's method. Still a high risk approach, but we might conclude the ripper was trying to find safe(r) places to commit his crimes.

If the above is a valid observation and accurately reflects JtR's intent - do we start to move away from a purely opportunistic killer to one who plans these murders more than traditionally believed. And if so - how does that affect who we believe might be JtR?

There does appear to be progression in terms of the level of privacy at each murder site, and so there is a degree of thought going into this and you'd assume he wasn't getting the privacy he wanted at the crime scenes prior to Mary. I don't think he had a great deal of options outside of trying to find somewhere a bit more private to achieve his ambitions, however, e.g. a square instead of a yard backing onto a club, in other words it was the obvious thing to do. This doesn't suggest this is some great planner, he's merely managed to pick a woman up and negotiate his way into a dark corner.

I've always felt this is no criminal mastermind, he was opportunistic and he simply walked away from the crime scenes. By the time the police had a co-ordinated search underway, he'd have been long gone.

In terms of how this impacts the type of person who committed these crimes, I'm not sure it makes any difference whatsoever due to him undertaking the obvious, i.e. trying to negotiate his way into privacy; but I do think Tom Wescott is on the right track with the root of his research in that there may well be a connection to the lodging houses in the immediate area, e.g. Dorset Street.

[DJA]

How Not To Be Seen Monty Python's Flying Circus - YouTube

[Damaso Marte]

As others have pointed out, Nichols was killed in front of closed gates to a courtyard.

I agree that courtyards or similar spaces are part of the MO of the Ripper. Though let's not pretend that the murder sites were not high risk. Chapman was killed in the backyard of a building that many people lived in. Stride was killed outside the door of a busy club during a meeting. Eddowes was killed in a public square that was being actively patrolled by both the police and by private night watchmen.

But yes, a killer who was absolutely insane - who believed that he was performing the righteous work of God or who believed that he was butchering horses - probably would have not taken even the minimal precaution of going into a courtyard before striking.

[Ms Diddles]

The ripper is often talked about in terms of taking high risks by killing in the street. This though is not the case. Other than Mary Ann Nichols, the victims were murdered in enclosed spaces - in a backyard, in a club yard, in a secluded square and finally in a room in a lodging. It is perhaps one of the reasons that supports Liz Stride as being a canonical victim if choice of murder site is considered part of JtR's method. Still a high risk approach, but we might conclude the ripper was trying to find safe(r) places to commit his crimes.

If the above is a valid observation and accurately reflects JtR's intent - do we start to move away from a purely opportunistic killer to one who plans these murders more than traditionally believed. And if so - how does that affect who we believe might be JtR?

Hi Eten!

Good to see you back!

I often find your posts to be an oasis of lucidity and good reasoning amongst all the crazy stuff!!!!

I tend towards an opportunistic killer, but one with no desire to be caught!

One could argue that enclosed spaces like Hanbury St, Berner St and Millers Court are actually higher risk as there is an increased possibility of Jack finding himself cornered and set upon by an angry mob.

An argument could be made that this is indicative of a killer who is physically confident and feels able to fight his way out of such a situation if necessary.

I'm not sure if I actually subscribe to that thinking, but it's a possibility.

[Christian]

Hi Eten!

Good to see you back!

I often find your posts to be an oasis of lucidity and good reasoning amongst all the crazy stuff!!!!

I tend towards an opportunistic killer, but one with no desire to be caught!

One could argue that enclosed spaces like Hanbury St, Berner St and Millers Court are actually higher risk as there is an increased possibility of Jack finding himself cornered and set upon by an angry mob.

An argument could be made that this is indicative of a killer who is physically confident and feels able to fight his way out of such a situation if necessary.

I'm not sure if I actually subscribe to that thinking, but it's a possibility.

Agree with your later statement as to being cornered and fighting his way out of trouble!! I have offered this same opinion before- he would most definitely be strong streetwise and tooled up!! Maybe he was seen in Mitre Square?? Or another witness? To be honest would take some balls to confront a person doing such an act!! Pure speculation but possible!!

[Ms Diddles]

Agree with your later statement as to being cornered and fighting his way out of trouble!! I have offered this same opinion before- he would most definitely be strong streetwise and tooled up!! Maybe he was seen in Mitre Square?? Or another witness? To be honest would take some balls to confront a person doing such an act!! Pure speculation but possible!!

Hi Christian,

I'm not sure if the closed in nature of the locations indicates physical confidence, recklessness or compulsion.

Perhaps a combination of the three.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As others have pointed out, Nichols was killed in front of closed gates to a courtyard.

I agree that courtyards or similar spaces are part of the MO of the Ripper. Though let's not pretend that the murder sites were not high risk. Chapman was killed in the backyard of a building that many people lived in. Stride was killed outside the door of a busy club during a meeting. Eddowes was killed in a public square that was being actively patrolled by both the police and by private night watchmen.

He wasn't flush with options.

I reckon the concept of 'high risk' should be considered alongside the context of the age: no CCTV, no DNA, no police helicopters to chase you down, policemen with footwear that made it obvious they were approaching, and so on.

Add in that Victorian habits were not like ours and the streets were much busier during the night, and I'm not so sure he could have significantly reduced the risks he was taking.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten!

Good to see you back!

I often find your posts to be an oasis of lucidity and good reasoning amongst all the crazy stuff!!!!

I tend towards an opportunistic killer, but one with no desire to be caught!

One could argue that enclosed spaces like Hanbury St, Berner St and Millers Court are actually higher risk as there is an increased possibility of Jack finding himself cornered and set upon by an angry mob.

An argument could be made that this is indicative of a killer who is physically confident and feels able to fight his way out of such a situation if necessary.

I'm not sure if I actually subscribe to that thinking, but it's a possibility.

Thank you, Ms Diddles - its nice to come back to a warm welcome.

I think opportunistic but maintaining freedom would get a lot of votes. Probably a wider range of views about why the murder sites were chosen and what that tells us, if anything. And it probably tells us nothing specially useful, beyond the usual geographical data.

But I am struck by the similarities of non random elements of the crimes (for example weekend killings, early or late in the month killings (not mid month), choice of murder sites etc..). Solely circumstance and opportunity or some planning involved? Seemingly not someone reacting to a random trigger and not someone carving out time to commit these murders - so I think some suspects are less likely if we accept this level of mental control.

[Harry D]

One could argue that enclosed spaces like Hanbury St, Berner St and Millers Court are actually higher risk as there is an increased possibility of Jack finding himself cornered and set upon by an angry mob.

That was my first thought when I read the opening post.

Perhaps these areas were a little more discreet, but if anyone had caught him in the act, he was trapped.