An attempt to shed some new light on JTR

[Fiver]

One thing that I would say with regards to the world of Ripperology; there's essentially 2 camps of thought.

One group seek to preserve the mystery and myths surrounding the case and tend to stick rigidly to the known "facts."
They're traditionalists who know the case intricately and have spent considerable time and effort maintaining the integrity of the case. They are to be rightly respected and admired for their contribution to the case. This group however tend to not embrace change and can often feel aggrieved by the idea of the boat being rocked. They are rigid in their views and trying to change their minds is virtually an impossible task.

Then we have the other group, who accept nothing, believe noone, and challenge everything. They favour the idea of trying to actually solve the case and bring it to a definitive conclusion; as opposed to keeping the case alive for the sake of it. They are open minded about the case and tend to not commit to following any one given suspect in favour of another. They ask questions, lots of questions, but are sometimes shut down by the other group for trying to bring new ideas and alternative views on the case.

There's not really a right or wrong in terms of which group one tends to favour or fall into automatically, but it does help to have an idea which individuals fit into which group.

This is an inaccurate description.

I haven't seen anyone seeking to "preserve the mystery and myths surrounding the case". The people you lump together as traditionalists disagree wildly on many points - number of victims, level of anatomical knowledge, authenticity of the letters, whether the Ripper has been identified, etc. This is hardly surprising, since period police and doctors disagreed wildly on these points.

The hidebound ones that I have seen are the ones proclaiming with absolute certainty that they have solved the case. At best, this involves selective interpretation of the available information. It typically involves interpreting all events through the lens of assuming guilt. Frequently, it involves ignoring things that undermine the theory. In extreme cases, it involves claiming provably false statements as facts.

I haven't seen any posters "who accept nothing, believe noone, and challenge everything", either. If they truly did that, they would be unable to reach any conclusions. Re-examination of events of the case can be useful, but often these "new" ideas are anything but new, and at times they are clung to with the same commitment as the most fervent suspectologist.

A fair amount of people try to treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit, we have a clear list of suspects. In the Ripper case, we don't even have a clear list of victims. In a whodunnit, times, especially times of death, are accurate unless deception is involved. In the Ripper case, times are vague, unsynchronized estimates. In a whodunnit, witness contradictions are a clue. In real life, they usually occur due to human perception being fallible. In a whodunnit, anything odd found at or near the scene of the crime is a clue or a red herring. In real life, it may just be a random bit of rubbish.

Trying to solve the Ripper case is like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when we don't have a picture on the box. And we don't have all the pieces. And there are pieces of other puzzles in the box. And in some cases, we only have descriptions of pieces that are now missing. And some of those descriptions contradict each other. Rearranging the known puzzle pieces or discovery of new pieces could give us a better view of the puzzle, but they're unlikely to recreate the whole picture.

[jasan]

Eddowes was in custody until 1 am, of course, so there was very little time for her to be killed, taken away, operated on slowly and carefully, and then secretly smuggled back unnoticed to Mitre Square and her body re-arranged carefully there. Are we considering her to have been swept away, and then brought back in a swift and silent carriage which nobody saw or heard? If JtR took her away to eviscerate, he certainly was "time restricted".

Let me expand on my speculation
"he doesn't kill and mutilate on the crime sites"
with a little parable. It's mostly about the Eddowes case.

I've been tying shoelaces for decades, it's a highly automated process for me.
98% of the time I can tie both shoes in 15 seconds max.
I'm an expert shoelacer, like most of us are.
Knowing all this, I have one task to complete to achieve eternal fame and glory.

There is a dimly lit room and a man is inside.
The man leaves the room for 1 minute, re-enters,
looks around for 2 seconds and repeats these steps for 8 hours.
I have to enter that room, put the shoes with the laces
tied somewhere on the floor and leave.
If he catches me in the room, the organizer hangs me.
A pair of shoes with their laces untied is waiting for me outside the room.
I can take that shoes whenever I want.
The game starts when I take the shoes and if I can't complete the task there is
a possibility that the organizer will hang me anyway.

So it's child's play; I tie my shoes in front of the room, and when he leaves,
I will put the shoes in the room.
I will reduce my exposure to the maximum.
To mock the organizer, I'll even polish the shoes, and for fun,
I'll cram some candy inside.
I'm an expert at tying shoes, but I will not tie the shoes in the room.
I will tie the shoes in the room only if I am:
1. utterly stupid
2. suicidal

[c.d.]

Or... attempting to solve the case by any means necessary, by not being scared to think outside the box.

Yes, being a rebel and being your own man is great. And if this approach results in solving the case, good on ya. But if it doesn't (and it hasn't seemed to yet) it will simply be another approach that failed. There are no special bonus points for being a rebel.

c.d.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Let me expand on my speculation
"he doesn't kill and mutilate on the crime sites"
with a little parable. It's mostly about the Eddowes case.

I've been tying shoelaces for decades, it's a highly automated process for me.
98% of the time I can tie both shoes in 15 seconds max.
I'm an expert shoelacer, like most of us are.
Knowing all this, I have one task to complete to achieve eternal fame and glory.

There is a dimly lit room and a man is inside.
The man leaves the room for 1 minute, re-enters,
looks around for 2 seconds and repeats these steps for 8 hours.
I have to enter that room, put the shoes with the laces
tied somewhere on the floor and leave.
If he catches me in the room, the organizer hangs me.
A pair of shoes with their laces untied is waiting for me outside the room.
I can take that shoes whenever I want.
The game starts when I take the shoes and if I can't complete the task there is
a possibility that the organizer will hang me anyway.

So it's child's play; I tie my shoes in front of the room, and when he leaves,
I will put the shoes in the room.
I will reduce my exposure to the maximum.
To mock the organizer, I'll even polish the shoes, and for fun,
I'll cram some candy inside.
I'm an expert at tying shoes, but I will not tie the shoes in the room.
I will tie the shoes in the room only if I am:
1. utterly stupid
2. suicidal

Er ... yes ... but what are you actually suggesting that JtR did between some time after 1 am till about 1. 40 am? Where did he kill her, where did he mutilate her, how did he move her without being seen, and how did he then arrange the fresh uncongealed blood around the neck wound as she lay in Mitre Square? Carrying a mutilated body, depositing it in the Square, then re-arranging it as it was found, and risking being seen seems to be, as you point out, 1. utterly stupid and 2. suicidal.

If you hear someone approaching when you've just killed Eddowes, you can run, but that is more difficult if you're carrying the body. If you moved it in a carriage, that can be seen and heard. What exactly do you think was done, and how? That Lawende and Co mis-identified Eddowes, I can accept, but the Coroner's Office reported that other witnesses saw Eddowes nearby shortly before 1. 30 am.

[jasan]

Or... attempting to solve the case by any means necessary, by not being scared to think outside the box.

Yes, being a rebel and being your own man is great. And if this approach results in solving the case, good on ya. But if it doesn't (and it hasn't seemed to yet) it will simply be another approach that failed. There are no special bonus points for being a rebel.

c.d.

Thanks for somehow unsettling, but overall nice comment, c.d.!

[jasan]

Er ... yes ... but what are you actually suggesting that JtR did between some time after 1 am till about 1. 40 am? Where did he kill her, where did he mutilate her, how did he move her without being seen, and how did he then arrange the fresh uncongealed blood around the neck wound as she lay in Mitre Square? Carrying a mutilated body, depositing it in the Square, then re-arranging it as it was found, and risking being seen seems to be, as you point out, 1. utterly stupid and 2. suicidal.

If you hear someone approaching when you've just killed Eddowes, you can run, but that is more difficult if you're carrying the body. If you moved it in a carriage, that can be seen and heard. What exactly do you think was done, and how? That Lawende and Co mis-identified Eddowes, I can accept, but the Coroner's Office reported that other witnesses saw Eddowes nearby shortly before 1. 30 am.

Where?
if you answer my question below, we can pick a suspect and location.

Answer in general:
He needs a safe place (somewhere safe).
I repeat myself:
That place could be mobile (some kind of vehicle) or static (house, flat,
barn, storage facility, shed, etc.).
If it is a static type, the closer to the crime site, the better.
Also, he can combine these two.
Which of the known suspects has any of the above?

After he finished his work (somewhere safe),
the only serious problem that remained was
rigor mortis.
The rigor mortis will break the illusion of doing it on the spot.
So, he can't wait too long, but he's in no hurry either.
He then assesses the conditions on the ground.
When the conditions are to his liking, he stages a scene.
If conditions never reach his standard, he calls it a night.
In terms of timing, exposure, whatever,
staging a scene is safer than doing it on location.
Especially if he is not alone.

Blood:
1. fresh victim's blood if he stages early
2. fresh animal blood
3. fresh human blood
4. his fresh blood
or any of above mixed with anticoagulant
5. something that fools doctors and coppers

Witnesses:
Witnesses are very unreliable.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Ok, so no particular person, and no particular place, except it was nearby. Ok, the witnesses were mistaken. But you haven't said how he moved her? An invisible and silent carriage, or horse and cart? And the problem of carrying a body, and then arranging the murder scene perfectly is as risky as committing the murder on site. If the blood around and under Eddowes' neck wasn't hers when murdered in situ, it was carefully and brilliantly executed, however he got the fresh blood, or anticoagulant. And he managed to carefully arrange a piece of her ear too on her clothing, which didn't fall off during the moving of the body.

I think that it is a good thing to look closely at the known evidence, question it, and not always automatically accept everything that is believed, but I think this aspect is beyond doubt. Eddowes was killed in Mitre Square.

[Indian Harry]

First, let me explain my current position on this JTR stuff.
I've been reading this forum for months now and the more I read,
the more it seems to me that we are in a major stalemate.

We really are in a stalemate, and trying to solve the case is a fool's errand. In spite of this I am drawn to the case at an emotional level and don't necessarily approach everything related in a rational manner. Put another way, as jaded as I am I'm still a sucker for the latest suspect theory.... but what I can say, and this is the elephant in the room, is that this site kind of sucks now. Too many posts are wasted, for instance, on arguing the merits for and against Lechmere. Also, there is a general tendency to look at everything in painful minutia and repetition. The same points are hammered to death over and over again. And, what do we have for our collective efforts? Threads that go on for hundreds of pages that no one in their right mind would ever go back and read from the beginning... and I think that's a problem.

So what is the solution? While I think it's good to have some rebuttal, many of the posters here must learn some restraint and be content with the fact that it is okay to agree to disagree.

So I applaud what you are doing and appreciate the fresh new perspective you bring. Your best point, in the thread's first post is that Jack was really good under pressure. In the days of automobiles most serial killers were able to drive their victims to more secluded areas where they could manage the risk of detection. Jack did not have to operate this way... and I think that's an important distinction. If I am allowed to speculate, in addition to these murders I think the killer may have done some bold public thefts. Perhaps he was caught for these lesser crimes shortly after the Kelly murder.

[Indian Harry]

This is an inaccurate description.

I haven't seen anyone seeking to "preserve the mystery and myths surrounding the case". The people you lump together as traditionalists disagree wildly on many points - number of victims, level of anatomical knowledge, authenticity of the letters, whether the Ripper has been identified, etc.

I accept the general grain of truth from the original post. However, It would have been more accurate to say, while describing this group's rigidity that "One would be forgiven to think this group is aiming to preserve the mystery and myths of this case."

The hidebound ones that I have seen are the ones proclaiming with absolute certainty that they have solved the case. At best, this involves selective interpretation of the available information. It typically involves interpreting all events through the lens of assuming guilt. Frequently, it involves ignoring things that undermine the theory. In extreme cases, it involves claiming provably false statements as facts.

I agree, this is a distinct third group not touched upon in the original post... but with all that being said not everyone falls so cleanly into such distinct categories all of the time.

[jasan]

Ok, so no particular person, and no particular place, except it was nearby. Ok, the witnesses were mistaken. But you haven't said how he moved her? An invisible and silent carriage, or horse and cart? And the problem of carrying a body, and then arranging the murder scene perfectly is as risky as committing the murder on site. If the blood around and under Eddowes' neck wasn't hers when murdered in situ, it was carefully and brilliantly executed, however he got the fresh blood, or anticoagulant. And he managed to carefully arrange a piece of her ear too on her clothing, which didn't fall off during the moving of the body.

I think that it is a good thing to look closely at the known evidence, question it, and not always automatically accept everything that is believed, but I think this aspect is beyond doubt. Eddowes was killed in Mitre Square.

You are asking so many questions, but they are all premature.
At the same time you ignore only one that I posted.
Ok, I'll try again with reduced version.

Are any of the known suspects in any way connected to the Mitre Square or nearby houses?
Is there an abandoned building in Mitre Square or nearby?

This is the first step, establishing the connection, if there is any.
If you don't know, just say so.
I can't estimate how hard it is to find that data,
but I hope it exists and that someone on this forum knows something about it.
However, this thread is approaching 1000 views and despite me repeating my questions,
only a few cared enough to answer.
I guess it's because I'm newbie here.
So, would you be kind enough as a senior forum member to open a new thread
with the question above? Maybe that approach can be fruitful.
Thanks in advance.

For fun, I'll answer how he moved her.
He compromised one of coppers on beat, who helped him to carry victim
in leather body bag to the exact location.
Nowadays this speculation is pure trash, we can't trace leather products
nor we can interrogate coppers.
However, this speculation is valid for Jack's time.
Almost all speculations about such details are unprovable.
I really doubt we'll ever know the details of acts.
It is premature to ask about the details.

[Kunochan]

Then we have the other group, who accept nothing, believe noone, and challenge everything. They favour the idea of trying to actually solve the case and bring it to a definitive conclusion; as opposed to keeping the case alive for the sake of it. They are open minded about the case and tend to not commit to following any one given suspect in favour of another. They ask questions, lots of questions, but are sometimes shut down by the other group for trying to bring new ideas and alternative views on the case.

I have noticed what I call "Orthodox Ripperology," which is what mostly seems to make it into non-fiction Ripper media. I'm more iconoclastic, and question a lot of the assumptions of Orthodox Ripperology.

I am, however, extremely impressed by the depth of knowledge of some of these people, and of others on this site. I hope to have that kind of expertise on the topic one day, although it will take years and a great deal of effort.

And unlike the members of the "challenge everything" group you describe, I do not think the case can be solved, or even that trying to solve it should be the point of Ripperology.

I am not critical of those who try to solve it—who knows? Maybe I'll be wrong and a likely solution will be found and accepted by historians. I am critical of those who claim the case is solved. It most certainly isn't.