Victimology, MO, signature

[DJA]

Some questions are;

1.The pawn ticket was for Friday, not Saturday as John said. They had money Friday night...so why did Kate supposedly go to a casual ward? And why, by the storyline, was she released without having to do any labor for her bed...as was the rule at casual wards.
2. Kate told a friend she intended to collect reward money for giving police the name of the killer at large...if so, was she blackmailing that party for an even greater reward?
3. She had no money that we are aware of on Saturday afternoon, yet she gets stupid drunk on someones money by 8pm. Who paid, and why?
4. Early on the police themselves speculated she had an "arranged meeting'? What prompted them to make that statement"?
.

1. If you mean the Shoe Lane Casual Ward,that was in Nichols' old stomping ground. Not "Whitechapel",but Fleet Street.
"Sailor" Hutchinson's late father ran a hotel around the corner at one time.
2. Obviously.
The reward would be difficult to collect when it became obvious that all CV5 were in on it.
Eddowes/Conway and Nichols had known each other since 1867.Notice how she moves in next door to Kate just before the hop picking.
3.Jack the Ripper.
4.That is new to me.No doubt they knew though.

[curious4]

Hi Curious,

We are told that Kate and John slept together almost every night, yet when she exits the police station, she goes in the opposite direction of where he would likely be. I believe John did in fact secure a bed for that night, so, had Kate gone looking for him she wouldn't have to walk the streets. The City's policy of holding D & D's until they were sober, unlike the Met who held them all night, did contribute to street traffic...but with Kate there are stories about her that make us question why she went to Mitre Square, and what happened those last 24 hours.
Some questions are;

1.The pawn ticket was for Friday, not Saturday as John said. They had money Friday night...so why did Kate supposedly go to a casual ward? And why, by the storyline, was she released without having to do any labor for her bed...as was the rule at casual wards.
2. Kate told a friend she intended to collect reward money for giving police the name of the killer at large...if so, was she blackmailing that party for an even greater reward?
3. She had no money that we are aware of on Saturday afternoon, yet she gets stupid drunk on someones money by 8pm. Who paid, and why?
4. Early on the police themselves speculated she had an "arranged meeting'? What prompted them to make that statement"?

Its far to easy, and without any evidence, saying that Kate was probably soliciting. Since she had been hopping for weeks, and since we have evidence that she and John were together every night by the landlord...just how often was she soliciting at that place in time? If at all.

How often was Liz Stride soliciting, when she said herself that she had been working for a few months "among the Jews"? How often did Mary solicit, with almost 3 weeks in rent arrears and a fear of the streets that Fall?

Its easy to speculate those three were soliciting, far harder to provide any proof of that.

Hello Michael

I agree. There is no evidence that Kate ever prostituted herself. I believe she was feigning drunkeness, needing a safe place to wait before an appointment with her killer, hence her preoccupation with the time. She was obviously on good terms with the supervisor of the casual ward if she confided to that she thought she knew the killer's identity, so I have always thought she talked him into releasing her early, or else (from memory I think the women did cleaning jobs and the men picked oakum) she finished her task early.

Best wishes
C4

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry Michael, this was meant for Rosella


No. Kate would have literally had to walk the streets all night if she had nowhere to sleep. It was an offence to sleep on the streets. I believe this was taken up at the inquest.

Best wishes
C4

Hi Curious,

We are told that Kate and John slept together almost every night, yet when she exits the police station, she goes in the opposite direction of where he would likely be. I believe John did in fact secure a bed for that night, so, had Kate gone looking for him she wouldn't have to walk the streets. The City's policy of holding D & D's until they were sober, unlike the Met who held them all night, did contribute to street traffic...but with Kate there are stories about her that make us question why she went to Mitre Square, and what happened those last 24 hours.
Some questions are;

1.The pawn ticket was for Friday, not Saturday as John said. They had money Friday night...so why did Kate supposedly go to a casual ward? And why, by the storyline, was she released without having to do any labor for her bed...as was the rule at casual wards.
2. Kate told a friend she intended to collect reward money for giving police the name of the killer at large...if so, was she blackmailing that party for an even greater reward?
3. She had no money that we are aware of on Saturday afternoon, yet she gets stupid drunk on someones money by 8pm. Who paid, and why?
4. Early on the police themselves speculated she had an "arranged meeting'? What prompted them to make that statement"?

Its far to easy, and without any evidence, saying that Kate was probably soliciting. Since she had been hopping for weeks, and since we have evidence that she and John were together every night by the landlord...just how often was she soliciting at that place in time? If at all.

How often was Liz Stride soliciting, when she said herself that she had been working for a few months "among the Jews"? How often did Mary solicit, with almost 3 weeks in rent arrears and a fear of the streets that Fall?

Its easy to speculate those three were soliciting, far harder to provide any proof of that.

[curious4]

As for Mary Rosella, she was first attacked undressed in her bed while facing the partition wall, the only person she was seen with that night is Blotchy Face at 11:45pm on Thursday, so she either brought her killer in with her in the form of Blotchy, or he arrived after Blotchy left at some point. In which case she would have been in bed. Her room was dark and quiet by 1:30am.

As for who was soliciting when they met their killer(s), I assume nothing...I know that ONLY 2 women admitted to another party that they were soliciting and that there is no evidence that Kate, Liz or Mary were.

Anyone who thinks they were out soliciting anyway is doing so without the support of any evidence. And the theory that Jack picked up working street women is left in question...that's if you believe in Jack. If they didn't fall prey to a stranger, then tons of possible motives are still on the table.

Sorry Michael, this was meant for Rosella


No. Kate would have literally had to walk the streets all night if she had nowhere to sleep. It was an offence to sleep on the streets. I believe this was taken up at the inquest.

Best wishes
C4

[Errata]

I think the signature is wrong...

[Michael W Richards]

^ No Michael, YOU assume that Mary Kelly was at home and in bed when her killer arrived. Don't place your assumptions on the rest of us, please!

Also, as John Kelly stated in his inquest evidence that Eddowes was 'trying to borrow money 'so that she need not walk the streets' on the day she died, the cat was out of the bag.

I think that Kate's way of making a living when she had no small items to hawk and she was stony broke, was exactly the same as other extremely poor women in the area. She knew her daughter was no longer living where she had been and she would have had to get money for a bed.

You can believe that Mary Kelly and Liz Stride were averse to soliciting on the nights they died, as is your right. My right is to believe otherwise.

As for Mary Rosella, she was first attacked undressed in her bed while facing the partition wall, the only person she was seen with that night is Blotchy Face at 11:45pm on Thursday, so she either brought her killer in with her in the form of Blotchy, or he arrived after Blotchy left at some point. In which case she would have been in bed. Her room was dark and quiet by 1:30am.

As for who was soliciting when they met their killer(s), I assume nothing...I know that ONLY 2 women admitted to another party that they were soliciting and that there is no evidence that Kate, Liz or Mary were.

Anyone who thinks they were out soliciting anyway is doing so without the support of any evidence. And the theory that Jack picked up working street women is left in question...that's if you believe in Jack. If they didn't fall prey to a stranger, then tons of possible motives are still on the table.

[Rosella]

^ No Michael, YOU assume that Mary Kelly was at home and in bed when her killer arrived. Don't place your assumptions on the rest of us, please!

Also, as John Kelly stated in his inquest evidence that Eddowes was 'trying to borrow money 'so that she need not walk the streets' on the day she died, the cat was out of the bag.

I think that Kate's way of making a living when she had no small items to hawk and she was stony broke, was exactly the same as other extremely poor women in the area. She knew her daughter was no longer living where she had been and she would have had to get money for a bed.

You can believe that Mary Kelly and Liz Stride were averse to soliciting on the nights they died, as is your right. My right is to believe otherwise.

[Michael W Richards]

If you wish to assume that Jack's a myth, I won’t hold it against you, Mike.

But when 4 women have their throats cut and their abdomens cut up in a relatively short time and a relatively small area and no obvious or normal motive for any of these individual murders can be established and throughout modern history such murders are quite rare and in case the perpetrators are caught they turn out to be (would-be) serial killers, then my logic may look inverted to you, Mike, but it isn’t and it’s logic nonetheless. This is where I come from. That you don’t see this as compelling evidence is your choice and, obviously, your prerogative.

Cheers,
Frank

Youre a gentleman, Ill give you that

I think the relevance of the throat cut is over emphasized...there were lots of cut throats including some of the non-Canonicals and some men. The singular aspects of this so-called Jack the Ripper that are most relevant to me are the choice of victim, working street women...which in 2 cases, (the 2 victims we can safely state were in fact soliciting when they met their killer, Polly and Annie),... appears to be spontaneous and opportunity based..and the post mortem mutilations, of which only 3 took place outdoors. In 3 of the Five Canonicals we do not know what they were doing when they met the killer..so, for all we know these were pre-arranged meetings...which of course would have great influence on the thinking of possible motives for the acts.

What we have are 2 very similar acts taking place in less than 2 weeks, a month long delay which ends with a woman who simply has her throat cut, and a second murder the same night which greatly resembles the first 2 womens murders in everyway but the skill and knowledge demonstrated, and another 5 week delay which culminates in a horrendous indoor murder and mutilation of a woman we can assume was already at home in bed when her attacker arrives.

To say that the small area and the throat cuts insinuates a connection by killer is just speculation really, and considering the differing wounds and circumstances of some cases, its premature.

[FrankO]

I think you've inverted logic with the above Frank...since there is no compelling evidence that identifies 1 killer of the Canonicals or someone called Jack the Ripper...other than some letter authors, Im inclined to assume that Jack is a myth.

If you wish to assume that Jack's a myth, I won’t hold it against you, Mike.

But when 4 women have their throats cut and their abdomens cut up in a relatively short time and a relatively small area and no obvious or normal motive for any of these individual murders can be established and throughout modern history such murders are quite rare and in case the perpetrators are caught they turn out to be (would-be) serial killers, then my logic may look inverted to you, Mike, but it isn’t and it’s logic nonetheless. This is where I come from. That you don’t see this as compelling evidence is your choice and, obviously, your prerogative.

Cheers,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn,

Indeed. I see no compelling reason to conclude there was no Jack the Ripper, so I'm inclined to assume that there was.

Cheers,
Frank

I think you've inverted logic with the above Frank...since there is no compelling evidence that identifies 1 killer of the Canonicals or someone called Jack the Ripper...other than some letter authors, Im inclined to assume that Jack is a myth.

[Michael W Richards]

Shall we try to make our short definition of the three?

My suggestion:

Victimology:

Poor women often addicted to alcohol selling their bodies cheaply and/or vagabonding in Whitechapel or the City

MO (modus operandi):

Execution in places with a high risk of fast discovery

Signature:

Honour based mutilations and posing

Regards Pierre

2 Canonicals for sure, and a possible third with Kate, match the above. ONLY 2 victims acknowledged that they were soliciting on the nights they were killed, the rest are often speculated to have been doing so.

Which brings up the main question for the "Ripper Killer of Five" folks.....why do we need to revise the above parameters? What catalyst, what transformation occurs to alter the behaviors of this killer? What is the evidence that supports the connection with victims who do not fit within the above confines?

If the man who killed Polly and Annie was a serial mutilator who thrived on killing prostitutes, women who were strangers to him, and then opening them up to excise organs in places where the bodies would be found quickly...then why does he slit one woman once and leave another in a room that is locked?

Morph the killer profile,...spoil the search I say.

[FrankO]

Hi Lynn,

Why draw MY attention to the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam?

That I don’t see a compelling reason is not the same as saying that there is no evidence of multiple killers at all and that, therefore, there weren’t or can’t have been multiple killers. The actual statement I made merely expresses a view based on interpreting the evidence, nothing more or less than you do.

Cheers,
Frank

[lynn cates]

fallacy

Hello Frank. Thanks.

I was merely drawing attention to the logical fallacy, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Beowulf.
I think the idea floating is that he was having sex with these prostitutes using his PEnkNIveS. And he probably climaxed while doing it.

Jack the Ripper puts a frame on how we consider normalcy. Key to social normalcy is how well you keep your sex life private, which is what most people strive for anyways, serial killers too apparently.

[Beowulf]

I just saw a program called Chasing the Devil, about Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer.

"I picked prostitutes as my victims because I hate most prostitutes and I did not want to pay them for sex," Ridgway said in his confessional statement. "I also picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught."
"I thought I was doing you guys a favor, killing prostitutes," he said. "Here you guys can't control them, but I can."

Prostitutes were an infestation, a sickly disease to which Ridgway thought he had the cure. So he "cured" young women of what he saw as their pathetic and undeserving lives. Not everyone he killed was a prostitute, but in his mind, they all deserved what they got.

On the tv special Ridgeway claimed he strangled them from behind because he did not want to see their faces. This made me think of Mary Kelly and her disfigured face. He perhaps did not want to see that as he carried on with the rest of his work. I have to wonder if the carving up of the face was the first to be done.

I believe I have read that JTR did strangle from behind, and then slit their throats.

I thought the interviews with Ridgeway compared well to the mindset of the Whitechapel murderer.

Ridgeway was very normal looking, was married and held a job. I always have thought the Ripper incapable of these things, and perhaps he was, but it makes me now have a different avenue of thought. Perhaps he was not all that degraded mentally.

Ridgeway also admitted to having sex with the bodies much after they had been dumped by the river. He only stopped with them when they had maggots and smelled. Pretty late in the decomposition process. Did not bother him up till then.

I know JTR did not stick around long enough for sex, or at least they don't know but the act of murder time frame was short (although some guys are pretty quick JTR filled up his 15 min or so of time carving up) but perhaps he took home parts for sex at his leisure? Maybe he did not need the whole kit and kaboodle?