How Fast An Operator Was JtR?

[Amanda Sumner]

G'Day

Back on thread though.

If Jacky did not engage in any sort of transaction with the victims, but rather waited till they were alone and attacked [maybe from behind], cut their throats, then ripped. His "exposure" would be greatly reduced.

GUT

Well, I've always thought that the Ripper took a risk if, indeed, he interacted with his victims.
However, he may have interacted with Kelly and gone back to the room with her, or watched the passage and waited for her to be alone.
It is possible that none of the witness's saw the Ripper.
Certainly would have saved time if he jumped out of hiding and got down to his work straight away.
I've never been entirely convinced that a witness saw Eddowes standing with a man just a few minutes before she was found dead.
It must have taken the Ripper a wee while to do all the damage that he inflicted on her, than the very few minutes he had between the sighting of her and when her body was found.
That's just my humble opinion.

[Wickerman]

It is possible that none of the witness's saw the Ripper.

Very possible.

I've never been entirely convinced that a witness saw Eddowes standing with a man just a few minutes before she was found dead.
It must have taken the Ripper a wee while to do all the damage that he inflicted on her, than the very few minutes he had between the sighting of her and when her body was found.
That's just my humble opinion.

But it's an opinion shared by others.

[c.d.]

Hello Amanda.

"So if 17 were murdered by knife in '88 over the whole year, then 2 in one night must have been very uncommon."

So how uncommon is it that THREE women died that night from a knife?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, but you know as well as I do that the third woman was not a prostitute and DID NOT have her abdomen ripped open and organs removed. It was clearly a domestic. I am surprised that anybody uses that to bolster an argument. Clearly apples and oranges.

c.d.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

G'Day

Back on thread though.

If Jacky did not engage in any sort of transaction with the victims, but rather waited till they were alone and attacked [maybe from behind], cut their throats, then ripped. His "exposure" would be greatly reduced.

GUT

Attacked from behind works so long as the throat was slit in a manner to be condusive with the forensic evidence. No blood on the front of the victim. Nichols-possible signs of strangulation. Chapman-possible signs of strangulation. Stride-Scarf pulled. Eddowes is the one lacking in a, at least slightly, clear method of submission. I say all this because of a potentially short timeframe in which the murderer had to work. So some kind of takedown maneuver, possibly from behind or from the side, might have been used. Decreasing the time taken for dispatch and mutilation, but still allowing for a lack of blood on the front of the victim. However it was executed, it rendered very similar results to the Nichols, Chapman, and maybe to a lesser extent Stride. Guess what I'm saying is it appears that one of the more lengthier parts of the whole murder process was forgone and no impact other than maybe a reduced overall time required resulted from it. So faster. Maybe by 1-2 minutes.

[lynn cates]

Triple Event

Hello CD. Thanks.

"I am surprised that anybody uses that to bolster an argument."

Which means that you COMPLETELY miss the point.

The argument from the other side is that Liz and Kate were killed by the same hand because they died less than a mile apart and an hour between.

"But why not coincidence?"

"Oooh, what are the odds of two dying so close together and so soon?"

Then Mrs. Brown appears and it's off to the races.

I say again, if it were not for the fact that her assailant was caught, we'd see threads like, "Jack's ties to Westminster" and "The Triple Event."

Cheers.
LC

[Edward]

My problem with "multiple" Rippers ...

Hello All –

One problem that I have with the idea that multiple mad men were hacking away in the East End during the same time period is this: We would now be faced with not one, but two (or more) serial killers ending their activities at about the same time. (unlikely?) Nobody knows why the series ended abruptly. The death, incarceration or relocation of the guilty party are all possibilities for a single killer, but two (or more) killers ending their rampage at the same time? I find that rather improbable. The Torso Murders occurred at the same time, but didn’t end until 1889.

Of course, this belief ignores the possibility that one or more of the murders was a one off event, and was not part of a series.

Hi Wickerman - I agree that it is very possible that none of the witnesses saw the Ripper. I believe that any number of others walking the streets actually saw him, but never connected the dots –OR- saw him and never came forward.

Edward

Sorry for being off topic

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"I am surprised that anybody uses that to bolster an argument."

Which means that you COMPLETELY miss the point.

The argument from the other side is that Liz and Kate were killed by the same hand because they died less than a mile apart and an hour between.

"But why not coincidence?"

"Oooh, what are the odds of two dying so close together and so soon?"

Then Mrs. Brown appears and it's off to the races.

I say again, if it were not for the fact that her assailant was caught, we'd see threads like, "Jack's ties to Westminster" and "The Triple Event."

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I get the point, thank you. Mrs. Brown was not an unfortunate. Her abdomen was not cut open and her internal organs were not removed. We know who her killer was. It was her husband. Clearly apples and oranges.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Lynn,

Yes, but you know as well as I do that the third woman was not a prostitute and DID NOT have her abdomen ripped open and organs removed. It was clearly a domestic. I am surprised that anybody uses that to bolster an argument. Clearly apples and oranges.

c.d.

Neither did Liz Stride cd, and there is no evidence that she was soliciting.....better watch how you use comparisons.

To the thread matter, if Mrs Long was incorrect about seeing Annie, which by Cadosche's statement seems likely to me, then the killer had some time in that yard. The speed factor may not have been an issue, and it wouldnt have taken too long to do what was done to Polly....

Its the Lawende sighting that raises this issue.....and thats only relevant IF in fact he did see Kate....another questionable case.

So I would say on the whole that of the "ripped" Canonicals the murder and mutilation of Kate could have been very quick. Again....with that big IF. The speed is confusing if the sighting was correct, because the wounds that were made on Kate were NOT of the same precision as the ones on Annie, but that may be the result of speed and poor lighting.

Its the reason I am unsure about Kates status...but we also have the circumstantial evidence to tell some of that story.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello All –

One problem that I have with the idea that multiple mad men were hacking away in the East End during the same time period is this: We would now be faced with not one, but two (or more) serial killers ending their activities at about the same time. (unlikely?) Nobody knows why the series ended abruptly. The death, incarceration or relocation of the guilty party are all possibilities for a single killer, but two (or more) killers ending their rampage at the same time? I find that rather improbable. The Torso Murders occurred at the same time, but didn’t end until 1889.

Of course, this belief ignores the possibility that one or more of the murders was a one off event, and was not part of a series.

Hi Wickerman - I agree that it is very possible that none of the witnesses saw the Ripper. I believe that any number of others walking the streets actually saw him, but never connected the dots –OR- saw him and never came forward.

Edward

Sorry for being off topic

There is rather convincing evidence Edward that there were at least 2 multiple killer/PM mutilators operating at the very same in the East End in 1888, (some of The Canonical Victims and the Torso killer), and you can also add the Tabram murder as another case that wasnt likely a Ripper's work.

Since we have multiple Torso's, we also have another killer who repeats his actions..like some of the Canonical victims indicate. And since we have no throats to examine on the Torso's who is to say whether those women werent also slit with knives as the murder method.

One last point.....if you asked the Met Police in early summer of 1889 whether Jack the Ripper was still active, they likely would have suggested quite possibly...based on their response to Alice McKenzies murder.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

answer

Hello Edward.

"Of course, this belief ignores the possibility that one or more of the murders was a one off event, and was not part of a series."

Perfect answer to your own question.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

plug in

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Mrs. Brown was not an unfortunate. Her abdomen was not cut open and her internal organs were not removed."

Umm, plug in Liz Stride for Mrs. Brown and we'd agree.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Mrs. Brown was not an unfortunate. Her abdomen was not cut open and her internal organs were not removed."

Umm, plug in Liz Stride for Mrs. Brown and we'd agree.

Cheers.
LC

Very shifty of you, Lynn. You seem to dodge questions when you want to.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

question

Hello CD. What question?

How about, "Lynn, how many unfortunates do you KNOW were killed by other than Jack?"

That would be a nonsense as well.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pattern

Hello (again) CD. Are you asking about the conditions? (I'm trying to read between the lines.) Try this:

1."Polly was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open but her internal organs were NOT removed."

2. "Annie was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

3. "Liz was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was NOT cut open and her internal organs were NOT removed."

4. "Kate was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

So, am I supposed to see a pattern in all this rot?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn Sir.

Hello (again) CD. Are you asking about the conditions? (I'm trying to read between the lines.) Try this:

1."Polly was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open but her internal organs were NOT removed."

2. "Annie was an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

3. "Liz was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was NOT cut open and her internal organs were NOT removed."

4. "Kate was NOT an unfortunate. Her abdomen was cut open and her internal organs were removed."

So, am I supposed to see a pattern in all this rot?

Cheers.
LC

Not so sure about the non-unfortunate status of 3 and 4. Not so sure about their unfortunate status either. Just trying to be fair.