The FBI Profile of Jack the Ripper & it's usefulness

[John G]

I think the most obvious explanation is that she pissed him off by wasting his time (and perhaps money)because she would not go with him where he wanted, he lost is normal calm and attacked her prematurely, and with the interruption from scwartz, thought it best to skidaddle and try again under better circs.

Yes, I agree that this is a distinct possibility. James Brown saw a woman he believed to be Stride at around 12:45. He heard her say to a man "No not tonight some other night." Now, of course, she may or may not have been talking to her killer, assuming that the woman was Stride, but it indicates to me that she may not have been intending to solicit that particular night.

Of course, if that was the case a number of scenarios are possible. As you suggest her killer may have become frustrated at her lack of cooperation, leading him to launch a risky direct assault, as possibly witnessed by Scwartz.

As a consequence JTR may have been forced to improvise, pushing stride into the pitch-black darkness of Dutfield's Yard and qulckly slitting her throat. Now, of course, this may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but he may have subsequently become spooked when he became fully aware of the noise emanating from the club: for instance, he might have though that he heard someone about to leave the club- distinctly possible considering the fact that he could have been disorientated by the noise inside the building as well as the poor visual conditions- and, already agitated by the Scwartz/Pipeman encounter, he decides to flee the scene.

Or perhaps once he started to compose himself. after the initial rush of adrenaline resulting in the Stride assault, he might have become concerned that Scwartz or Pipeman could return with a constable.

I would also once again emphasize the appalling lighting conditions in the immediate area. In such circumstances he may have found it difficult, if not impossible, to see what he was doing, meaning that he might have reasoned that he would be unable to effectively mutilate Stride and remove organs; this is all the more likely if Dr Phillips was correct in his conclusions that JTR would have required a degree of anatomical knowledge and surgical skill, rather than someone who just slashes away in a random or haphazard fashion.

[Sam Flynn]

Regarding Mitre Square, an obvious problem for the killer is that it was accessible on three sides.

It was also "escapable" on three sides, JG - which is more than could be said of Dutfield's Yard or 29 Hanbury Street, fence-hopping excepted. Besides, my main problem with Berner Street that night is that it was rather busy, certainly when compared with the practically deserted and sparsely occupied Mitre Square.

[John G]

It was also "escapable" on three sides, JG - which is more than could be said of Dutfield's Yard or 29 Hanbury Street, fence-hopping excepted. Besides, my main problem with Berner Street that night is that it was rather busy, certainly when compared with the practically deserted and sparsely occupied Mitre Square.

Yes, sorry, I meant to point out that it was also "escapable" on three sides! Just out of interest, do you think that there could have been a significant number of individuals in the vicinity of Hanbury Street who did not appear in the official police reports? The reason I suggest this is because, as I noted earlier, working-class Victorians used to work very long hours and this must have necessitated an early start to the working day for many. I mean, surely John Davis wasn't the only person preparing to go to work at 5:30 in the morning? In fact, as an example, James Kent and James Green were both summoned by Davis, so presumably they were already at work, i.e at the packing case firm at the back of the nearby Black Swan pub, or at least just about to start work.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello John

The impression I get from Davis is that the Hanbury Street carters were a little further down the road. From this, I take it that there were not that many others in the vicinity. This, together with Mrs Long's testimony, tends to paint a rather sleepy picture of Hanbury Street before Annie's body was discovered.

[Fisherman]

Irrespective of where the door was, it would have been obvious to anyone that there were punters, very much awake, inside the club, any of whom could have exited and caught a would-be killer in the act. Besides, we know of a good few people, apart from Liz, who were in or around Dutfield's Yard within a short time of her death. Make no mistake, Dutfield's Yard was a very risky venue for a premeditated murder, let alone one of the evisceration type.

"Irrespective of where the door was..."?
But that door is all-important to the question, Gareth - no irrespective applies here.

The clubbers were having a get-together, we all know that. So, if the killer saw Stride and thought "Ah, a dark yard, that´s exactly the kind of venue I like, then that notion would be stupid once he realized that there was a door leading from the club into the yard.
If the door had NOT been there, then the clubbers would all have entered and exited the club via the front door facing Berner Street, and the clubbers would have posed no trhreat to somebody who shoved a victim into the darkness of the yard and finished her there.

It applies that if the killer knew nothing about the yard door, he may well have taken Stride into the yard with the intention to eviscerate her there, banking on getting a couple of undisturbed minutes to do it.
Once he got in there, brandished the knife and subsequently saw the door, he may well have thought f-ing hell, this won´t do, and then he finished Stride to leave no witness.

It is a completely feasible scenario, and it all hinges on that "irrespective" door.

The best,
Fisherman

[John G]

Hello John

The impression I get from Davis is that the Hanbury Street carters were a little further down the road. From this, I take it that there were not that many others in the vicinity. This, together with Mrs Long's testimony, tends to paint a rather sleepy picture of Hanbury Street before Annie's body was discovered.

Hi Sam,

Thanks for reply. Begg and Bennett (2012) state that Kent and Green were outside the Black Swan pub three door away on the same side of the street- apparently the packing case business operated from the pub's rear yard. However, they seem to have been the only workman in the immediate vicinity who are mentioned, which I must say surprises me a little when you consider how populated Whitechapel was, coupled with the fact that it was more common in Victorian times for people to start work early- maybe just not that early!

Regards,

John

[Fisherman]

Although I accept that this is not conventional wisdom, for me Dutfield's Yard, when all factors are considered, wasn't that riskier than either Hanbury Street or Mitre Square.

Thus, evidence suggests that much of the area was cloaked in pitch black darkness; this can be implied from the testimony of Joseph Lave- who couldn't even see the door to get back in, but had to feel along the wall of the club to orientate where he was-and, of course, Louis Diemshutz who, when he entered the passage, thought initially that he was obstructed not by a body but a heap of dirt (even though he must have been observing Stride's body from very close range).

However, it could be argued that anyone leaving the club would light up the passage once they opened the door- but this would also alert the killer and allow him to make good his escape.

In contrast, Annie Chapman may have been murdered in broad daylight- the sun rose at 5:23am that morning, several minutes prior to the Elizabeth Long sighting. Moreover, if the killer was interrupted wouldn't he have only one clear escape exist, unless he decided to scale fences or force his way through 29 Hanbury Street?

Isn't it also possible that, at the time Chapman was being killed and eviscerated there could have been a significant number of people either going to work or, like John Davis, preparing to go to work? of course, in Victorian England, for many, the working day started much earlier than is typical of the modern day.

Regarding Mitre Square, an obvious problem for the killer is that it was accessible on three sides. Therefore, in my opinion, there was a significant risk that the killer could have been caught by surprise if someone entered the square. And, of course, there was the added problem that, unlike Berner Street, this area was regularly patrolled by two police officers. In fact, PC Harvey reached the entrance of the square at 1:44pm, less than 10 minutes after the Lawende sighting.

If the Hanbury Street murder went down at the break of day, then I´d argue that it was a risker site than Dutfield´s Yard. At around 1 o clock at night, and if we look away from the club door leading into the yard, there was arguably less of a risk that somebody would walk into or out of the yard than there was that somebody on his way to work would visit the Hanbury Street backyard and it´s loo.

A killer would, if not knowing about the club side door, make a better choice of venue picking Dutfield´s Yard at 1 o clock, than the Hanbury Street backyard at 5.30-5.40. At least I think so!

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Why are we assuming that Liz's killer had the same mind set as a bank robber logically and dispassionately assessing whether this was a good venue? I think it is much more probable that he thought I want to kill this woman and everything else was secondary. Very quickly he then realized that he had gotten in over his head.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

"Irrespective of where the door was..."?
But that door is all-important to the question, Gareth - no irrespective applies here.

The important point is that the Club was busy - in which connection the location of the door is entirely beside the point. The activity in the Club, I maintain, was enough to have made Berner Street/Dutfield's Yard a particularly risky place for "Jack" to have chosen to commit an evisceration murder.

[Errata]

That`s the thing, was the opportunity there to procure organs ?

So, the shrink is saying the Ripper would only kill to procure organs?
Blimey, that must be why the FBI don`t catch that many serial killers.

Surely, someone who does what the Ripper did, would not hesitate to kill just for the hell of it.

Serial killers are extremely compulsive by nature. Not that there aren't people who would rip the face off of anyone they encounter, but they aren't serial killers. They end up as mass murderers or spree killers.

Serial killers do what they do for a reason. Not a good reason, but a reason. They obey the rules of their fantasies. Which sounds like delusion, and rarely is in fact delusion. But mostly it is a lack of... not impulse control exactly, but the inability or unwillingness to resist compulsion. They "want" to do something, it turns into "need", they do it. It satisfies them.

Jack the Ripper did not kill only to procure organs. He killed because he had an elaborate fantasy in his head that he needed to recreate. The fantasy gave him pleasure or relief, acting on it... more so. The fantasy included taking organs. He did. But one of the interesting parts of this mystery is that Jack has a tough time prioritizing. Take the Eyeball Killer. Just from the name you know what his priority was. He had an elaborate fantasy, but if he could not replicate that, he would still take the eyes. The eyes were the most important part. You can tell what murder victims were his by, if nothing else, the fact that the eyes were removed.

Jack the Ripper is tough. If we accept that he killed 5 or 6 women (the C5 plus maybe Tabram) then we have some real problems figuring out what this guy was after. Was he targeting middle aged prostitutes? Maybe, except that Kelly was not middle aged, and we don't know that all of these women were working prostitutes. Women with brown hair seems like way too big a victim pool, and two victims did not have brown hair. Nor were they all the same body type. It might have been a voice thing, but we have no way of knowing that.

And if we look at the murders themselves, the problems get bigger. Any idiot can see that if a man takes the time to burrow in there and grab a uterus, thats significant. But if that was the purpose, why did he fail 3 out of 5 times? If it's important, if that's what makes it worth it, he doesn't leave that behind. And he did. And he evidently spent just as much time sawing away at the throats of these women (after they were dead) as he did getting into the abdomens. The throat cut was not just a way to kill. He kept going. And going. The throat is significant. The abdomen is significant. Facial mutilations are significant. The posing may be significant. And I can't even a little think of any other serial killer with so many primary focuses. If these women had been been alive when these things were done, that might make sense to me. It's a basic form of torture. But they were dead.

Eyeball Killer had a fantasy, but the eyeballs were the focus. For Damher, the victims body type and the desire to control his victims were the focus. For Bundy, it was victim type and sadism. Son of Sam, terrorism. For Gein, this was the only acceptable contact with women that he had. For Jack... the organs, the throat the abdomen, the face, the post mortem behavior, the rush... and too many focuses is no focus. Jack had no focus. Everything was apparently equally important, so nothing was important, and that doesn't happen. So we are clearly missing something. I mean, we are missing a lot, but the statement that the Ripper only killed to procure organs is just massively untrue. And frankly, kind of dumb.

Every time I think about this particular aspect, I become convinced that there are two killers working together, despite the fact I really don't believe that to be true.

[Fisherman]

Why are we assuming that Liz's killer had the same mind set as a bank robber logically and dispassionately assessing whether this was a good venue? I think it is much more probable that he thought I want to kill this woman and everything else was secondary. Very quickly he then realized that he had gotten in over his head.

c.d.

Well, C.D., in my case, I make the assumption that the killer evaluated the killing zone based on how these killing zones look. In George Yard, Hanbury Street, Dutfields Yard and Millers´Court, we can see that he apparently avoided killing out in the open street. Of course, Mitre Square fits that picture too, to a large extent, since it was an out-of-the-way venue. In all of these instances, one must assume that the killer could have struck in the open streets instead, if fleeing options was what he favoured.
The better guess must therefore be that he favoured something else - he prioritized the option to find seclusion, is what I have suggested.

You say that he would simply have thought "I want to kill this woman" and everything else was secondary. But take, for example, Annie Chapman - surely he wanted to kill her too? And surely, that would have occurred to him before they got into the backyard?
If he had simply thought "I want to kill her", then he copuld have done so in Hanbury Street. Similarly, he could have killed Tabram outside George Yard buildings, Stride in Berner Street, Eddowes in Duke Street and Kelly in Dorset Street, if killing was the only priority.

However, C.D., if he had evisceration on his mind from the outset, a secluded venue would be a very much better place to go about it than an open street!

So that´s why I am saying that he may have liked Dutfields Yard since it seemingly offered that seclusion. Of course, we know about the club door, but the killer may not have.

All of this started when Jon Guy suggested that the killer perhaps didn´t have anything but murder on his mind when he saw Stride. The suggestion as such, and all that follows with it, is something that interests me much - if the killer was willing to look away from what seems to have been an urge to eviscerate, then that urge was perhaps not as fundamental as it sometimes seems.
If so, he could kill in many other ways, perhaps?

Being a Lechmerian, this reasoning leads me to a head- and legless torso, dumped in Pinchin Street.

And once we approach the Torso killer, we actually know that we had a man on hand that liked a bit of showboating.

What if it is the same man...? If so, where does that lead us?

That is why I take an interest in this discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

Hello Fish,

I have no doubt that the killer (and I am going to call him Jack) did evaluate killing zones but we have no way of knowing whether his passion and desire to kill was exactly the same in all the murders. I am merely suggesting that in Liz's case the desire to kill might have been so strong that it made him act impulsively.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

The important point is that the Club was busy - in which connection the location of the door is entirely beside the point. The activity in the Club, I maintain, was enough to have made Berner Street/Dutfield's Yard a particularly risky place for "Jack" to have chosen to commit an evisceration murder.

With respect, Gareth, I totally disagree. The door does not have anything to dio with the degree of activity in the club - but it has everything to do with whether the yard was a useful killing venue or not.

You say yourself that Berner Street seems to have been a bit busy on the night. I think it is a hard call to make with any certainty - the street may well have been deserted for periods of time - but I don´t disagree.

So let´s move with this notion, and let´s assume that there were people moving in the street to some extent. Then let´s divide the street into three entities - the street itself, the immediate vicinity of the club and Dutfield´s Yard.

No killer with any sense would kill out in the street.

No killer with any sense would kill outside the club.

The only spot that seemingly offered seclusion and a pretty good chance to get five minutes alon with a murder victim was Dutfields Yard.

If somebody was to kill and eviscerate, the yard would be the best bet by far - the only bet, even.

Now, YOU know that there was a door leading to the club from the yard. But make the assumption that the killer did not know this, and instead accepted that the door smack, bang in the middle of the facade of the club facing Berner Street was the door used by club members - why on earth would somebody on their way to the club dive into the yard, then dive out again and enter the club? Why on earth would somebody leaving the club, do so by going out into Berner Street, diving into the yard, dive out again and go home?

If the killer concluded that the yard was probably a working yard, unconnected to the club, why would he think that he had anything to fear from the clubbers if he dragged his victim into the shadows inside the yard and killed and eviscerated here there?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

With respect, Gareth, I totally disagree. The door does not have anything to dio with the degree of activity in the club - but it has everything to do with whether the yard was a useful killing venue or not.

The yard was adjacent to - in fact continuous with - the Club, and at right angles to Berner Street. Whether the entrance/exit of the Club was through a side door or a front door, there was a palpable risk of the killer being detected, whether during, or after the act. Or, indeed, before the act, if Schwartz is anything to go by; even if he didn't see the murderer, his testimony makes it clear that there was quite some activity going on in Berner Street around the time of Liz's death.

So, on the contrary, it has everything to do with the degree of activity in the Club, not to mention activity in the street outside. And, owing to those factors, Dutfields Yard that night was certainly not a "useful" venue to commit premeditated murder.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I have no doubt that the killer (and I am going to call him Jack) did evaluate killing zones but we have no way of knowing whether his passion and desire to kill was exactly the same in all the murders. I am merely suggesting that in Liz's case the desire to kill might have been so strong that it made him act impulsively.

c.d.

I don´t mind that suggestion at all, C.D. Nor do I mind Tom Wescotts suggestion that he set out to kill twice that night. I think we must stay very openminded.

Errata has problems sorting Jack into the right box. I think we all should recognize those problems. I sometimes think that we overwemphasize our own ideas of wat urges and compulsions this killer would have had.

Maybe his true driving force included other people than himself. Have look at the Torso killer. Clearly, he communicated, toyed, mocked ... whatever. At any rate, he involved other people, the surrounding society as a whole even, in his schemes.

Like I said, there is a possible point of connection inbetween the Ripper and the Torso killer in Pinchin Street.

If the Torso killer was about showboating to a significant extent, can we exclude the possibility that Jack was much the same? In a sense, has there ever been a series of killings that have been more captivating for the onlookers?

Maybe I´m bonkers, but I feel it is of interest to throw the possibility into the mix. If Jack really did not specifically want a uterus (as evinced by his failure to get one when he could, like in the Kelly case), a kidney (same solution), a heart (that could be had in Hanbury Street, reasonably), but instead was showboating...?

What do you think, C.D.? Was it just a very private matter, or was he - in a sense - sending a message of sorts?

All the best,
Fisherman