Why the Gap?

[Curious Cat]

Except that this wasn't someone trying to imitate a robbery scene by tipping over some furniture and stealing some things. This was someone who cut off breasts, ripped out intestines and cut the flesh completely from Mary's thigh. Are we to believe that he did all this while completely rational and thinking clearly and logically? What the Ripper did was frightening. What you are suggesting (that someone could do all this in an attempt to make it seem like a Ripper murder) is even more frightening. Why would you discount the killer of Kate Eddowes when we already know what he was capable of in favor of a copycat?

c.d.

Not sure how you think it would be impossible at the time. If the killer has a strong alibi for at least one of the other murders they can make a bid to have the one they do carry out look like it's another of the same unsolved collective case. It would be much harder to attempt that kind of extreme ruse now with modern policing/investigative techniques and general higher social surveillance. Though there have been some still trying to cover their murders by attempting to make them look like accidents or suicide. The Stephen Port case being a prime example.

No killer was caught for any of the murders. No killer was caught for the torso murders either. Many pre-20th Century murders went unsolved in a way that's much more rare these days.

[Sunny Delight]

I wonder if the longest gap came after Kelly? The fact that winter was setting in could well have made a difference, less people out on the streets. And maybe, following the murder, prostitutes with rooms becoming more reluctant to invite clients back. Is there any evidence to suggest that soliciting decreased during the winter months? Be interesting to find out.

Could the murderer have returned to his old habits or at least tried to with Alice McKenzie once summer had returned? He tries but Possibly ends up not being able to gain the same satisfaction after Kelly so ending up doing a 'half hearted' job? Hence the lack of mutilations? Maybe just picking at straws but possible? Maybe?

I think Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim. There could be endless possibilities why there was such a long hiatus. For me the most likely is that he was close to being identified after Mary Kelly's murder. I think the Police must have spooked him. Also the fact that George Hutchinson had stated the man he had seen with Kelly had seemingly been at Petticoat Lane Market on the Sunday may have also set alarm bells ringing. Could you imagine being the murderer reading that knowing you had been at the Market? The increased Police patrols also would have deterred the killer for a while. Then the opportunity wasn't there either. I think the killer of Alice McKenzie was JTR

[caz]

Or it could simply be that he didn't feel the "motivation" to kill on a fixed schedule.

c.d

Absolutely, c.d., but I do think the extra heat and vigilance on the street may have contributed to a temporary drop in his motivation. He didn't want to get caught, so some effort to avoid it would make sense. He wasn't interested in moving his operations elsewhere, but he'd sense when his comfort zone was becoming a discomfort zone as a direct result of his latest violent excesses.

There may also have been fewer women out alone on the streets during October, and those who braved it may have been more wary of strangers and inclined to stick with tried and tested regulars. The killer didn't operate in a vacuum, and might well have been caught if he had only reacted to what was going on in his own head, and had paid no attention to what was happening on his turf.

Mary Kelly still had Joe Barnett with her during October, so she may only have ventured out looking for paying customers to take back to her little room when the killer was raring to go again. Did she think her room would protect her from the fate suffered by the women who were murdered in outdoor locations? Did she reject anyone who wanted to do business on the street, because she assumed that was how the killer operated? Was this why she had been letting female friends stay over, despite Joe's disapproval, because they too had been spooked by this outdoor mutilator?

Love,

Caz
X

[Losmandris]

I wonder if the longest gap came after Kelly? The fact that winter was setting in could well have made a difference, less people out on the streets. And maybe, following the murder, prostitutes with rooms becoming more reluctant to invite clients back. Is there any evidence to suggest that soliciting decreased during the winter months? Be interesting to find out.

Could the murderer have returned to his old habits or at least tried to with Alice McKenzie once summer had returned? He tries but Possibly ends up not being able to gain the same satisfaction after Kelly so ending up doing a 'half hearted' job? Hence the lack of mutilations? Maybe just picking at straws but possible? Maybe?

[Aethelwulf]

There are two assumptions in the ponderings thus far that I don't accept. Namely that JTR was acting alone in these murders and none of these victims weren't specifically targeted.

Well, as there is no evidence JtR had an accomplice or the victims were specifically targeted, seems reasonable to me.

The issue I have is that when people start talking about an 'accomplice' or being 'targeted', what usually follows is some sort of conspiracy-type theory. Of which there is also no evidence.

The gap - select a few random dates in October 1888 and look at the press reports. I tried this and came across an article where the blood hounds were being tested, and the 'bait' for a couple of runs was none other than Charles Warren.

[mpriestnall]

There are two assumptions in the ponderings thus far that I don't accept. Namely that JTR was acting alone in these murders and none of these victims weren't specifically targeted.

[JeffHamm]

This one gave me much food for thought!

I have always thought the killer only had to prowl the same few main roads in order to encounter prospective victims, so the 'circuit' idea makes good sense to me.

Did he also have the good sense not to hook up with a victim on the same main road on any two consecutive outings, but to ring the changes each time with a different main road? The murder locations suggest they were chosen by the victim, for their closeness to the main road on which she met the killer. But the killer did have the option to 'take it or leave it' if a woman had approached him on the same main road where he had found his previous victim. I have the feeling that he would have taken the 'leave it' option in that case, and moved on to the next main road on his 'circuit'. Otherwise it seems a little too coincidental that he met each victim on a different main road from the last.

As for the apron piece being a clue to where the killer would be spending the rest of the night, it all hangs on whether he discarded it by coincidence under writing on the wall done by someone else, not anticipating that it would be found and then connected to his latest murder, or whether he left both the apron piece and message in Goulston Street on purpose.

In the former case, it was certainly careless, because of the swiftness and ease in which it was matched via the patch to the remaining part of the apron which would be found on the victim's body. It would have been seen by the police as a clue to his escape route home from the crime scene, if nothing more, and they might well have assumed that he was close to home when he got rid of it.

In the latter case, it's hard to see the killer advertising the fact, if he had lodgings in his own name very close to Goulston Street, by dropping the apron piece and writing the message where he did, in the hope they would be found and considered to be clues. He was either so sure by then of his own vastly superior intellect and invincibility that he knew the police would fail, even when he was virtually under their noses just a street or three away [in which case why bother leaving clues if the police would still be left clueless], or they were false clues to his whereabouts, designed to send them off on the wrong track.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Thanks. I think, whether JtR is local or someone who just comes into the area, he's out patrolling and looking for victims quite often. He would be familiar enough with the area to know where to find woman desperate enough to go with him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was a regular punter, and may have been known as such, but had a reputation of being harmless. Such is not uncommon today, and I see no reason why that might be different in 1888.

The route that I mapped out that would connect all but Stride seems pretty straight forward, it circles the main area where victims would be found, but isn't right in the thick of things (i.e. he's not going down Flower and Dean, for example), as those areas would probably be too busy for his purposes. Either with Stride he's taken a detour from his usual route along Commercial and towards Berners, or he's got something like the wider "loop" I pencilled in.

Anyway, I agree with your comments with regards to the apron and the graffitti. We just don't know enough about when the apron was left there. If it was dropped while leaving the murder, which seems the most straight forward explanation, then I think the graffitti is unrelated to JtR. That's just an opinion, of course, and I could very well be wrong on that, so while that's my general belief, it isn't carved in stone. Anyway, in this situation, I think he's dropped it before he gets to Commercial, where he's going to make a turn and head away, so the apparent direction would be misleading if one just extended along the direction from Mitre Square to Goulston (it would point North East, and he's going to turn off that bearing when he gets to Commerial, if we allow for my guesses to be correct, of course).

If he's gone home, and then come back to drop the apron, then the graffitti seems more likely to be his handiwork (at least to me). But if that's the case, I suspect he would have chosen a location that misdirects quite a bit, and rather than him heading to Commercial, his base would probably be to the West somewhere; close enough for him to get to, clean up, then return along Aldgate High, passed Mitre Street and on to Goulston, head up that way, drop the apron, then get over to Commercial to be on a main road, and head back south to get to Whitchapel and be just another face in the crowd, able to explain himself as he heads west back towards his residence if necessary. Obviously, that's not the only possibility if he's returned, just one that appeals to me at the moment. The main idea is that I think if he's gone home and out again, then he would have deliberately chosen a location to drop the apron and write his note that doesn't point in a direction associated with him.

In that case, he may still utilise the loops, he probably just enters the region via Whitechapel road, rather than from the north. The "geographcial hot spots" could just reflect the density of potential victims, rather than his entry point to the region (something I rather suspect is the case to be honest). The murder locations are pretty much redundant with "initial encounter locations", and the initial encounter location is one that reflects decisions about both the offender and the victim, and all the victims have an association with roughly that area. As such, the routines may be picking up on the common geography of the victims rather than picking up on spatial decisions solely made by JtR. I went with the assumption that the hotspot was informative about JtR more so than the victims when I suggested the above, and that assumption is highly challengeable (as I'm doing now, because I like to argue with myself as much as with others sometimes ).

Anyway, all that being said, I think there must be some interesting ideas that can be the result of trying to look at the whole series at once, and consider JtR's general movements and how he got to be in each of those locations. I don't think he finds a victim every time he goes out, so I suspect he's spending lots of time in all of those locations (which he would if he's prowling those streets multiple nights a week; say every weekend). I was just wondering what sort of patrol route he might therefore have been using.

- Jeff

[c.d.]

An imitator wouldn't know at which point the original killer stopped. They would be different individuals. The killer of the woman identified as Mary Jane Kelly would only be going by what has been reported and their own imagination. They also had more time with the victim.

Except that this wasn't someone trying to imitate a robbery scene by tipping over some furniture and stealing some things. This was someone who cut off breasts, ripped out intestines and cut the flesh completely from Mary's thigh. Are we to believe that he did all this while completely rational and thinking clearly and logically? What the Ripper did was frightening. What you are suggesting (that someone could do all this in an attempt to make it seem like a Ripper murder) is even more frightening. Why would you discount the killer of Kate Eddowes when we already know what he was capable of in favor of a copycat?

c.d.

[Curious Cat]

Mary Jane - Someone looking to make her murder appear to be carried out by the same killer of Polly, Annie and Catherine but going even further than them in that pursuit.

If this were the case, then why the overkill? It certainly would have looked like a Ripper murder if he had stopped the mutilations at an earlier point.

I just can't see any sane, rational person doing what he did in some attempt to be clever and I can't envision any other killer than the one who killed Eddowes.

c.d.

An imitator wouldn't know at which point the original killer stopped. They would be different individuals. The killer of the woman identified as Mary Jane Kelly would only be going by what has been reported and their own imagination. They also had more time with the victim.

[Sunny Delight]

I am sure this has been raised before but I will ask again. Why were there no murders in October 1888?

How do we explain this hiatus?

What do people think happened?

I think it's fairly straight forward. The right opportunity did not present itself.

[Sunny Delight]

This one gave me much food for thought!

I have always thought the killer only had to prowl the same few main roads in order to encounter prospective victims, so the 'circuit' idea makes good sense to me.

Did he also have the good sense not to hook up with a victim on the same main road on any two consecutive outings, but to ring the changes each time with a different main road? The murder locations suggest they were chosen by the victim, for their closeness to the main road on which she met the killer. But the killer did have the option to 'take it or leave it' if a woman had approached him on the same main road where he had found his previous victim. I have the feeling that he would have taken the 'leave it' option in that case, and moved on to the next main road on his 'circuit'. Otherwise it seems a little too coincidental that he met each victim on a different main road from the last.

As for the apron piece being a clue to where the killer would be spending the rest of the night, it all hangs on whether he discarded it by coincidence under writing on the wall done by someone else, not anticipating that it would be found and then connected to his latest murder, or whether he left both the apron piece and message in Goulston Street on purpose.

In the former case, it was certainly careless, because of the swiftness and ease in which it was matched via the patch to the remaining part of the apron which would be found on the victim's body. It would have been seen by the police as a clue to his escape route home from the crime scene, if nothing more, and they might well have assumed that he was close to home when he got rid of it.

In the latter case, it's hard to see the killer advertising the fact, if he had lodgings in his own name very close to Goulston Street, by dropping the apron piece and writing the message where he did, in the hope they would be found and considered to be clues. He was either so sure by then of his own vastly superior intellect and invincibility that he knew the police would fail, even when he was virtually under their noses just a street or three away [in which case why bother leaving clues if the police would still be left clueless], or they were false clues to his whereabouts, designed to send them off on the wrong track.

Love,

Caz
X

I think when it comes to the apron piece the most logical explanation is thar JTR is disturbed in the process of mutilating Eddowes and he cuts off the apron piece- although quite large in order to wipe the blood and faeces from his hands. He then stuffs the piece of apron inside his coat. Once he gets far enough away and into a quiet spot he throws it into an open doorway- this speaks to me of someone casually throwing the apron away as they continue their escape rather than discarding it on the street where it is much more likely to be found quickly. In my opinion there was no connection to the graffitti.

I like what Jeff has done above. It gives much food for thought and indeed I think the idea of him murdering Annie Chapman close to him is appealing. The 5:30am killing has always bugged me though. We know it was JTR but what was he doing at half 5 in the morning? Had he been prowling the streets for hours? It us a murder that raises more questions than answers. I think though clearly this was a local man with a intimate knowledge of the streets and side streets and I have no doubt this helped in his seemingly impossible escapes

[caz]

Another interesting aspect of the spatial information that is of interest are the 3 locations from the double event, on the assumption that Stride is a victim of JtR of course (and I'm on the fence on that point, so for now I'm considering things as if she were).

I'm going to present a lot of ideas here that are by no means the only possible interpretation. I'm going to make a bunch of assumptions (i.e. Stride is being considered a victim of JtR), any and all of which could be wrong (and if that one is, this all falls apart), but I will do my best to phrase things accordingly. Please forgive if I state anything in a way that is a bit more definite than it ought to be.

That tells us that JtR's movements are initially west from Berner Street, then he's at Mitre Square, then he heads north-east to Goulston, at which point we lose track of him. So again, we're working with the assumption that the piece of apron found at Goulston Street was dropped by JtR (Trevor does not agree, but for the present purposes I'm going with the idea it was). Also, built into this sequence is the idea that the piece of apron, while not noticed until 2:20 I believe, was in fact there earlier but it was overlooked (the PC was doing his first night on that beat so he would not have been as familiar with it as someone who had been doing that beat for sometime; meaning I'm not saying he was negligent per se, only that a piece of cloth in a dark doorway could easily be overlooked by someone not familiar with the area; particularly as they had no real reason to be on the lookout for anything at that time).

If consider the CPC as a valid sighting, then given JtR's movement from Berner Street, then either he met Eddowes at the end of Church Passage or he met her somewhere east of there and they walk to that location and at some point the rain starts. We know from Lawende and Leve it was raining at 1:30, but we don't know when it started exactly; however, given they were getting up to leave that would suggest it may only have just started, that leads to us considering the possibility that Eddowes and JtR had arrived at Church Passage around about 1:30ish, maybe a bit earlier, when it starts to rain and so they wait it out, and during that time PC Watkins does his patrol allowing the possibility of them seeing him pass (which would mean they have some reason to believe the square would be empty of police for the next 10 to 15 minutes).

Given JtR appears to double back (Berner street to Mitre Square is west, but he doesn't continue going West he now heads NE) I think that points to it being more likely he meets Eddowes somewhere east of where they are sighted (so east of the CPC).

And if JtR was heading towards "home" after Berner Street, but ends up west of his destination (Mitre Square), then he must have passed the street he intended to go to in order to interact with Eddowes. And I think it fair to suggest he would only do that if he could see Eddowes, and so diverted from him homeward journey at that point.

I've seen many suggest that JtR, when he left Berner Street, headed up to Whitechapel Road, then headed West along there in his journey to Mitre Square. His exit direction from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, heads towards Commercial Street, which I'm suggesting was the street he was heading for when he left Mitre Square, though not necessarily his final destination (I'm sticking to major streets and roads here).

If the above is correct, then that would suggest that when JtR reached the southern end of Commercial Street, he spotted Eddowes who was probably a bit to the West, maybe in the vicinity of where she had been earlier arrested for public drunkeness, though that is just passed Goulston Street so her visibility would depend upon lighting in the area. If she's standing under a street lamp, though, she would be visible at some distance.

Regardless of the exact location, the idea is that JtR diverts from his initially intended route, heads with Eddowes to Mitre Square, kills and mutilates her, and now has to head north east to get back on the route he initially diverted from.

And Commercial Street fits the bill. It would make sense of his initial direction of travel from Berners Street, and it makes sense of why from Mitre Square he now doubles back, in a north easterly direction. If his intention is to get to Commercial Street, and he diverted from that path in order to kill Eddowes, those movements make sense.

Also, we know Eddowes left the police station in the direction of Houndsditch, and would have head enough time to get to Aldgate High Street/Whitchapel Road, which would mean she could be just a bit west of Commercial Street and Whitechapel. So her known movements also fit with the suggestion, but I admit we know so little I run the risk of being accused of it being hard to come up with anything that doesn't fit.

Yes, it makes sense. Those movements also coincide with JtR heading into the high interest zone.

Now, while I don't expect anybody to believe my suggestion that JtR was heading to Commercial Street and then north is the only possible conclusion one can come to (it's not, even I don't believe that!), if I could beg a further indulgence and just ask that for now we run with that idea (because one great big bag of speculation can only get better if I add more, right?)

There's a very interesting pair of "circuits" that JtR could have been following. Basically, down Commercial Street to Whitechapel, east to Vallance Road (the one just west of Buck's Row that Cross/Lechmere and Paul headed north on to find PC Mizen), which he takes and hits Hanbury to get back to Commerical Street.

The 2nd also starts along Commercial Street, then heads down along Commercial Road (past Berner Street) to New Road, which runs north until it connects with Vallance Road to Hanbury etc.

I've indicated those as red lines in the map below, with much of the 2nd route in orange as there is never anything that places him on those streets at all, but looking at the maps they popped out at me as completing a circuit.

If JtR is prowling around those routes, he meets Nichols on Whitechapel, he meets Chapman on Hanbury, Stride along Commercial Road (say he's Broad Shoulders, then he spots her down Berner Street as he passes), Eddowes while heading back towards Commercial Street, and Kelly along Commercial Street. And for those who like Tabram, she fits well too, as does Alice McKenzie.

The spatial analysis hot spots are around the north west of that, and could just possibly be indicating that JtR enters these circuit routes from that corner, perhaps coming from further along Commercial Street to the North West (The Green Line on the map below). It could be JtR comes down the Green portion of Commercial Street, hits the pubs around Hanbury and Commercial, then prowls around looking for victims.



And another thing that I think is of interest, is that given Annie appears to have been killed as the light was coming up (I know that too is not agreed upon, but I did say I was going to have to make some assumptions, so one more is not going make much difference by now), I think that suggests JtR must have felt he was close enough to "home" that he could risk it as all he had to do was hide any blood for a short journey. And if MJK was murdered in the morning as some argue, her location is also very close to that exit route (and the high interest zone itself). If she was killed at night, though, then the time of the murder doesn't add to this idea but it doesn't take away from it either.

In other words, the time of the Chapman murder seems to fit easily with the current spatial analysis high interest area, and means we might also want to consider locations not too far along that Green Line.

Anyway, thanks if you've made it this far. And again, to be clear, I in no way am saying I think the above must be correct. There are a lot of assumptions that are being made that could very well be wrong, and some of them are fatal to the whole thing (i.e. if Stride isn't a JtR victim, then the idea that Commercial was his destination when fleeing Mitre Square is not much more than a guess as there are many things north east of Mitre Square. Those who favour Cross/Lechmere, for example, might argue he was heading for Wentworth Street, which is easier to do if Stride is not a JtR victim (otherwise, where was he going?).

And yes, the timing of the apron's arrival at Goulston Street could be wrong. If it really wasn't there until after 2, then we cannot say JtR fled NE from Mitre Square. He could have gone anywhere, and then headed to Goulston Street. And of course, Trevor's argument is that the apron piece wasn't even put there by JtR but by Eddowes herself, in which case it's a red herring. And I recognize not everyone agrees as to the time of Annie Chapman's death, or of Mary Kelly's, so again, those are debatable.

However, that being said, I do present it for what it is, a set of conjectures that I think are sort of interesting to consider. I don't expect everyone, or even anyone, to fully agree with the choices I've made, but I do think it's one possible arrangement of things. Also, I think this makes the sightings of the Bethnal Green Botherer all the more interesting as well.

- Jeff

This one gave me much food for thought!

I have always thought the killer only had to prowl the same few main roads in order to encounter prospective victims, so the 'circuit' idea makes good sense to me.

Did he also have the good sense not to hook up with a victim on the same main road on any two consecutive outings, but to ring the changes each time with a different main road? The murder locations suggest they were chosen by the victim, for their closeness to the main road on which she met the killer. But the killer did have the option to 'take it or leave it' if a woman had approached him on the same main road where he had found his previous victim. I have the feeling that he would have taken the 'leave it' option in that case, and moved on to the next main road on his 'circuit'. Otherwise it seems a little too coincidental that he met each victim on a different main road from the last.

As for the apron piece being a clue to where the killer would be spending the rest of the night, it all hangs on whether he discarded it by coincidence under writing on the wall done by someone else, not anticipating that it would be found and then connected to his latest murder, or whether he left both the apron piece and message in Goulston Street on purpose.

In the former case, it was certainly careless, because of the swiftness and ease in which it was matched via the patch to the remaining part of the apron which would be found on the victim's body. It would have been seen by the police as a clue to his escape route home from the crime scene, if nothing more, and they might well have assumed that he was close to home when he got rid of it.

In the latter case, it's hard to see the killer advertising the fact, if he had lodgings in his own name very close to Goulston Street, by dropping the apron piece and writing the message where he did, in the hope they would be found and considered to be clues. He was either so sure by then of his own vastly superior intellect and invincibility that he knew the police would fail, even when he was virtually under their noses just a street or three away [in which case why bother leaving clues if the police would still be left clueless], or they were false clues to his whereabouts, designed to send them off on the wrong track.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Mary Jane - Someone looking to make her murder appear to be carried out by the same killer of Polly, Annie and Catherine but going even further than them in that pursuit.

If this were the case, then why the overkill? It certainly would have looked like a Ripper murder if he had stopped the mutilations at an earlier point.

I just can't see any sane, rational person doing what he did in some attempt to be clever and I can't envision any other killer than the one who killed Eddowes.

c.d.

[Curious Cat]

The gap is only of interest if the killer is the same person in each case.

My opinion:

Polly, Annie and Catherine - Same killer.
Elizabeth - Different individual.
Mary Jane - Someone looking to make her murder appear to be carried out by the same killer of Polly, Annie and Catherine but going even further than them in that pursuit.

[c.d.]

Or it could simply be that he didn't feel the "motivation" to kill on a fixed schedule.

c.d