Why those particular victims?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello, Michael.

Interesting hypothesis.

Why couldn't the killer have barged in and incapacitated her there and then?

If your scenario is to be believed, then it does narrow down the list of possible Ripper candidates. Where would Joseph Fleming rank among them?

Hi Harry,

Ive been flogging the idea that the cry out was from Mary while at her door for some time now, (just ask Sam Flynn....I think it intrigues him as well), which would as you say give us information that there was a pre-existing relationship between this killer and his victim. But I remain unconvinced that The Ripper fits this scenario, or the carnage that the room ends up in. I believe Marys other Joe is certainly among the people I would like to identify, that's for sure,... it makes sense if its Fleming, but its not a given that it was. And we hear from witnesses that this other Joe "treated" Mary "badly" on occasion, but I don't recall that being part of any of her discussions with anyone about her time with Mr Fleming. As for the idea that he attack Mary immediately, well....there are 2 women who could apparently hear things from around Marys room...one upstairs..and no sounds were heard to follow the cry out. Which to me suggests not that the attack began without any noise, but that Mary didn't need to converse with this man to find out what he wanted at almost 4am. She just lets him in.

I think what my suggested scenario could address is whether Mary knew her killer, how he gained access to the room,...(the scenario suggests she never left it again after 11:45pm Thursday night),...and it might address the issues which to me speak of a personal vendetta of sorts.....the absolute destruction of Mary, and the cruel slashing of her face.

I think its at least possible that the Mary Kelly that was killed the night of the Double Event... (by virtue of the last fake name Kate uses)...might in some way be tied in with the real Marys eventual demise, and I also suspect that Mary Kelly of The Court was killed because of someone or something she knew, not because she was randomly chosen by a serial killer while peeking into windows inside small, egress restricted courtyards.

Cheers Harry, all the best

[No Luck Yet]

Do you mind if I ask, if that's so - if Kelly's murder was a personal attack and Eddowes was mistaken for Kelly - what does that imply for the rest of the C5? Do you believe that those two were the work of a different killer than Nichols, Chapman, and Stride? Or that the whole series represents the killer hunting for Mary in particular? Or that the early murders were somebody's attempt to scare her off the straight?

Also, begging your pardon, if the killer knew Mary, is it likely that he'd mistake Catherine Eddowes for her? Wasn't she considerably shorter, for starters?

It is kind of a cool idea, though, isn't it?

[Rosella]

Catherine was not only considerably older as well as shorter than Mary, and lacked an Irish or Welsh accent.

The walls, ceiling etc of those rooms were probably paper thin. Mary could just as easily have been lying in bed when the attack happened and only had time to call out once. What solid evidence is there that the woman killed in Miller's Court wasn't Mary Jane Kelly, apart from Mrs Maxwell's testimony?

[Errata]

It is quite extraordinary that the Ripper was never caught in the act. You have to wonder how he would've reacted. Would he have quickly tried to silence any witnesses? What if it was some burly bloke and not a half-cut hooker who spotted him? Or he would have scarpered hoping that they didn't get a good look at him?

Well the last time I was caught assaulting someone in a British alley the man said "Oh dear god! I'm so terribly sorry" and turned around and walked out.

That was such a bad day... but it does lead me to believe that simply continuing what he was doing was not entirely out of the question. Mostly out of the question, but not entirely. There is no common response to an uncommon situation. Merely varying degrees of odd.

[L A Lester]

Agree. You just have to look at Margaret White's murder in March 1888 to see how people reacted. Over a 3 hour period her drunken husband beat her. When her grandson brought PC Swindon to the house at 1230 he just gave the husband a warning and left. Two hours later a customer walked in on the beating, complained about what he was doing, picked up her purchase and left. It was the neighbor who finally put a stop to it at 1630 and calls for help. By then it was too late - Margaret was pronounced dead at 1850. If that's how people reacted in Chelsea - imagine how much worse it was in the East End.

[Bridewell]

Catherine was not only considerably older as well as shorter than Mary, and lacked an Irish or Welsh accent.

We don't know that Kelly had an Irish or Welsh accent.

[Harry D]

Well the last time I was caught assaulting someone in a British alley the man said "Oh dear god! I'm so terribly sorry" and turned around and walked out.

Come on, Errata, you can't leave it there.

[Bridewell]

That was such a bad day... but it does lead me to believe that simply continuing what he was doing was not entirely out of the question. Mostly out of the question, but not entirely. There is no common response to an uncommon situation. Merely varying degrees of odd.

Good post this, Errata.

[Fisherman]

I have a feeling that he would have been coward about it, depending when he was caught. He would run. If it was post Chapman, the witness only had to shout "Ripper" and I'm sure in a matter of minutes the man would have been lynched.

I have a question for you - and all other posters who think the killer would have run:

Anybody heard of the so called startle reflex?

It is the reflex that comes into action when we are surprised and that makes us startle if we are suddenly subjected to a strong stimuli. The reflex involves blinking when we are surprised.

This reflex is stronger and lasts longer when the surprising element is perceived as unpleasant or frightening, regardless if the stimuli relates to something we hear or see.
People with anxiety have a reinforced startle reflex.

And did you know that we spontaneously get a tension of our muscles when we are scared? It is something that prepares us for flight.

What is very interesting in this context, and when discussing the Ripper, is that psychopaths lack the startle reflex partly or on the whole. And their muscles do not spontaneously prepare for flight when they see or hear something that could be perceived as intimidating.

Before one knows about these matters, it is perhaps wise not to simply accept that a psychopath would react with flight just like we do.
If the killer WAS a psychopath - and much points to it - then he would not have felt the same inclination to run as normal people would.
He would be physically predisposed not to react with fear and flight.
And he would not even blink.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Before one knows about these matters, it is perhaps wise not to simply accept that a psychopath would react with flight just like we do.
If the killer WAS a psychopath - and much points to it - then he would not have felt the same inclination to run as normal people would.
He would be physically predisposed not to react with fear and flight.
And he would not even blink.

Christer,

When Peter Sutcliffe was battering some poor girls head in on some recreational area a taxi pulled up nearby, their headlights briefly picking Sutcliffe out, and in his own word`s he sh#t it, crawling quickly away on the muddy field on his belly.

[Fisherman]

Christer,

When Peter Sutcliffe was battering some poor girls head in on some recreational area a taxi pulled up nearby, their headlights briefly picking Sutcliffe out, and in his own word`s he sh#t it, crawling quickly away on the muddy field on his belly.

To begin with, Jon, I would not take anything Peter Sutcliffe says as being the unquestionable truth. If you take a look at psychopaths and their behaviour, one thing that stands out is that they are very often compulsive liars. It is one of the points that are listed by Robert Hare in his definition of what a psychopath is about.

To carry on, the startle reflex and the muscle tension is not something I have thought up - it is on record and scientifically underbuilt and tested. This IS an example of how psychopaths differ from the rest of us.

You may have noticed that the reflex is not necessarily totally lacking in all psychopaths - it is partly OR totally lacking.

What you also need to take on board is that any intellectually unchallenged psychopath will be able to see that being discovered in the act of attacking another person will carry with itself the risk of being caught. And they will try and avoid that - but that is not a reflex, it is a conscious choice, made after realizing the development and realizing that flight will enable staying out of prison.

We may well have a parallel with Stride, if she was a Ripper victim - the killer is disturbed, he is NOT frightened but he recognizes the fact that he may get caught if he proceeds, so he instead aborts and leaves.

In my scenario, the killer bluffs it out in Bucks Row. That would predispose that he chose that option over running. In other words, he was not scared. Annoyed, yes, irritated, yes, but scared - no.

However, once he had played that card, he could do it no more. He could not afford to bluff it out in Dutfields Yard or in Mitre Square, since he knew that he would be recognized and the game would be up.

Whether that is real or not, we donīt know. It IS however a proven thing that psychopaths do not function reflex- or muscle tensionwise like non-psychopaths do when suddenly suprised.

But as always, everything that may seemingly point to Lechmere must be questioned, no matter if it is on record scientifically! But thatīs alright, Iīm used to it, and I can only hope that you can see the relevance of the argument I am making: on a reflex and muscle tension basis, there are no grounds for a psychopath to run in situations where the rest of us would have legged it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

To begin with, Jon, I would not take anything Peter Sutcliffe says as being the unquestionable truth.

This has been pointed out to me before, Christer, but I am referring to the interview Sutcliffe gave to the police immediately following his confession. In return for information Sutcliffe asked that he could break the news to his wife himself, and the floodgates opened..

I can only hope that you can see the relevance of the argument I am making: on a reflex and muscle tension basis, there are no grounds for a psychopath to run in situations where the rest of us would have legged it.

I don`t doubt it exists. I was just giving you one example of a murderer, similar to the Ripper, who did run.

[Michael W Richards]

Examples like the one of Peter Sutcliffe may be interesting to some of you here, but I have to say that its dreadfully boring and completely useless to those of us studying the unsolved murders in Whitechapel in 1888.

What someone else has done, and why they did it, is information that might be better used investigating serial killers...despite the many assumptive, speculative and imaginative suggestions that we are investigating a known series of crimes here.

The facts are, once again, that not one Canonical death has ever been linked to another by killer using the known physical and circumstantial data.

Cheers

[Harry D]

The facts are, once again, that not one Canonical death has ever been linked to another by killer using the known physical and circumstantial data.

Cheers

Hello, Michael.

So you're saying that there were five separate slashers operating within Whitechapel that autumn who enjoyed eviscerating women? I'm surprised they weren't treading on each other's toes!

[Michael W Richards]

Hello, Michael.

So you're saying that there were five separate slashers operating within Whitechapel that autumn who enjoyed eviscerating women? I'm surprised they weren't treading on each other's toes!

Based on my own perceptions Harry.... and others...and the definition of a serial killer, I would say that within the Canonical murder list are 2, perhaps 3 women that would make up a "series" by one man. So yes...I believe serial killing plays a part in the Canonical Group. But I don't need to study Sutcliffes crimes to see which of the Five that might be.

Lets put it this way, Polly Nichols murder was very unusual. Any subsequent murders in that same fashion could easily be by other men, she is the precedent. I personally cant think of a better way to hide a true motive for murder than by attempting replication of an unknown killers at larges' work. And any subsequent murder that does not have any of the characteristics of the murder of Polly I am unlikely to group with her killer. Like that of Long Liz.

Notice I said "my own perceptions". Not that Jack did or did not do it. I don't know who killed any of them, nor do I know why they were in fact killed. Nor does anyone else. So a Canonical Group as a starting premise is to say the least, extremely presumptuous.

cheers