A question about murder locations...

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Would it be possible, for some of the victims, mostly Eddowes and Chapman, to have been strangled somewhere else (not very far, but a safer secluded place) and brought where they were found, and start the mutilation on the spot?

I'm not pushing a theory, just remarking that the "murder scene" evidence are mostly about the slashing, while there is a possibility that they were strangled before.

What do you think?

edit: by not very far, I mean, for example, inside 29 Hanbury (corridor) or a darker alley adjacent to Mitre Square, or even the toilets in Dutfield Yard for Stride. I don't mean a body being carried for a long period of time.

[Errata]

Would it be possible, for some of the victims, mostly Eddowes and Chapman, to have been strangled somewhere else (not very far, but a safer secluded place) and brought where they were found, and start the mutilation on the spot?

I'm not pushing a theory, just remarking that the "murder scene" evidence are mostly about the slashing, while there is a possibility that they were strangled before.

What do you think?

edit: by not very far, I mean, for example, inside 29 Hanbury (corridor) or a darker alley adjacent to Mitre Square, or even the toilets in Dutfield Yard for Stride. I don't mean a body being carried for a long period of time.

Evidence wise, yes. There is no evidence that these women were killed until we get to the mutilations. So no traces of fighting, kicking out, flailing, trying to run... their actual death left no traces. So those traces could be somewhere else, or they were killed without a trace somewhere else. But nothing ties their actual deaths to the scenes where they were found. All we have is a possibility that Annie hit the fence on her way down.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello SirJohnFalstaff.
I believe the women were strangled - the neckerchiefs, the markings, certain aspects found in tge post mortem report. One of the suggestions that i read when i was reseaching ligature strangulation was: to look under the victims body to determine if they were strangled in the place of death (or, if they had been moved). If items were found under the body, there is a good probabilitythat they were strangled at that location.

Werent some of the victims found with items under their body?

----------------
Hi Errata.
I think the sound against the fence could have been the body hitting the fence. But i am open to the new suggestion that the sound heard was the killer rubbing the blood on the fence. I think i remember them saying they found blood smeared on the fence.

[DJA]

Would it be possible, for one of the victims, mostly Eddowes , to have been strangled somewhere else (not very far, but a safer secluded place) and brought where they were found, and start the mutilation on the spot?

Yep.

6 Mitre Street.

[Pierre]

Would it be possible, for some of the victims, mostly Eddowes and Chapman, to have been strangled somewhere else (not very far, but a safer secluded place) and brought where they were found, and start the mutilation on the spot?

I'm not pushing a theory, just remarking that the "murder scene" evidence are mostly about the slashing, while there is a possibility that they were strangled before.

What do you think?

edit: by not very far, I mean, for example, inside 29 Hanbury (corridor) or a darker alley adjacent to Mitre Square, or even the toilets in Dutfield Yard for Stride. I don't mean a body being carried for a long period of time.

Hi,

What would the killer gain by doing that?

Regards Pierre

[DJA]

Avoid getting caught.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hi,

What would the killer gain by doing that?

Regards Pierre

I would appreciate if you stayed out of this. Thank you.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hello SirJohnFalstaff.
I believe the women were strangled - the neckerchiefs, the markings, certain aspects found in tge post mortem report. One of the suggestions that i read when i was reseaching ligature strangulation was: to look under the victims body to determine if they were strangled in the place of death (or, if they had been moved). If items were found under the body, there is a good probabilitythat they were strangled at that location.

Werent some of the victims found with items under their body?

The idea came to me from several areas:
- the sound of the body against the fence. (Chapman)
- Stride looking as if she had been laid there, on her side.
- Eddowes being subdued, killed and mutilated in 14 minutes.


I believe that Jack was a sexual predator, (not a unique POV by far) and the point of the whole thing for him was the mutilations, in the same general sense that picquerism practician get turned on, and climax, by piercing their partner. Plus a sense of megalomania or narcissism by showing off to the entire world.
Killing the women was a necessary step to ensure that it could be done without having to worry about resistance, screams and the like. So, strangulation, waiting briefly until the course is clear. Bringing the body out, slashing the throat to ensure death (he might have learned his lesson with Tabram), and then proceed to the mutilations. He could gain a lot of time, if, for example, hiding with dead Eddowes close to Mitre Sq, he waits for Watkins to pass. He now knows he had a full round before the police pass again.

Anyway, I'm in no way pretending this is what happens. I'm a fiction writer, and my interest in the case is mostly from that perspective.

[John Wheat]

I would appreciate if you stayed out of this. Thank you.

Do you mean this thread or the whole site?

Cheers John

[Wickerman]

Why involve extra labor?
Eddowes might have been a lightweight, but moving Nichols & Chapman could require another pair of hands.

If the killer strangles them at location 'A', why not just mutilate them at location 'A', instead of carrying them to location 'B'?

To what end?

[Robert St Devil]

SJF.
Robert Keppel's paper on Jack The Ripper approached the murders from the POV that he was a picquerist. That his insatiBility grew with each murder. What little ive read about picquerism is infredibly disturbing bcause the fantasies are graphically horrifying. They exceed the standard limits of morality that we traditiobally bind our imaginings to the point of being a sexual farce.

I read Fisherman's dissertation on the placement of Liz Stride's body; very interesting. Wod you think that he may have purposely been aiming to have her neck directly above the wheel rut? So that it would run the length of the rut.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Why involve extra labor?
Eddowes might have been a lightweight, but moving Nichols & Chapman could require another pair of hands.

If the killer strangles them at location 'A', why not just mutilate them at location 'A', instead of carrying them to location 'B'?

To what end?

Like I said, neutralizing the victim in a safer area, then, if the way is clear, bring her a few feet to proceed to mutilations where the victims can be easily found.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

SJF.
Robert Keppel's paper on Jack The Ripper approached the murders from the POV that he was a picquerist. That his insatiBility grew with each murder. What little ive read about picquerism is infredibly disturbing bcause the fantasies are graphically horrifying. They exceed the standard limits of morality that we traditiobally bind our imaginings to the point of being a sexual farce.

I read Fisherman's dissertation on the placement of Liz Stride's body; very interesting. Wod you think that he may have purposely been aiming to have her neck directly above the wheel rut? So that it would run the length of the rut.

I totally agree with you with the disturbing part. I must confess I feel horrible making a fiction about it sometimes, to the point where I cannot write for long period about it.


I wanted to write something after watching the movie Conspiration, with Kenneth Brannagh, about the Wannsee Conference: the fact that a few people could sit around and talk about extermination while eating and drinking felt a bit overwhelming. I wanted to know if I could transpose this into another situation on a smaller scale in another space and time. I started reading about Jack the Ripper (which includes blaming the jews again) and set on this idea.

The more I'm reading, the more the reality of the events (not only on the victims, but also the climate of terror and living condition of Spitalfields / Whitechapel) far outweighted any fiction I could come up with. But I decided to stay on this topic, and I am puzzled about choosing from the inquests which witness are right and which are wrong, simply because I came to the conclusion that they cannot be all right, it's simply not possible, and I don't want a supernatural JtR.

In the case of Tabram and Nichols, there are no witness, so it's quite easier.
It gets a bit more complicated with Chapman, and a lot more complicated with Stride and Eddowes.

I usually deal with pure fiction. I have a feeling, could be silly of my part, that I owe the victims, history, to be as accurate as possible in this particular one.

My next project will be historical as well, but only for a socio-geographical point of view. I will not use real people or events. You can bet on that.

[Sam Flynn]

SJF.
Robert Keppel's paper on Jack The Ripper approached the murders from the POV that he was a picquerist.

That's just an indicator of Keppel's sloppy reasoning, to say nothing of his weak grasp of etymology. The Ripper wasn't, in any sense, a "piquerist" ("stabber") but, if anything - to coin a phrase or two - a "coupeur" (cutter) or "trancheur" (slicer). Above all, of course, he was an "eventreur" (eviscerator), and "piquerism" doesn't even approach a decent description of what he was all about.

(Incidentally, he didn't "pique" any of the Canonical victims.)

[SirJohnFalstaff]

That's just an indicator of Keppel's sloppy reasoning, to say nothing of his weak grasp of etymology. The Ripper wasn't, in any sense, a "piquerist" ("stabber") but, if anything - to coin a phrase or two - a "coupeur" (cutter) or "trancheur" (slicer). Above all, of course, he was an "eventreur" (eviscerator), and "piquerism" doesn't even approach a decent description of what he was all about.

(Incidentally, he didn't "pique" any of the Canonical victims.)

I didn't say or implied that he was into picquerism, but his fetish/fantaisie is in the same twisted area.

but this isn't what the thread is about.