Who Chose the Murder Sites?

[Abby Normal]

I suppose that's true....so I guess we are tied at zero with solving any of these crimes. The fact that someone compiled the list and some agreed with it isn't evidence of anything but agreement in opinion Jon, and my opinion is in line with a modern expert on these crimes who told us all on here that he believed 2, perhaps 3, were connected by one killer.

Its been an unsatisfactory position for over 100 years Jon, surely we can come up with more realistic scenarios.

why just because theyre unsolved? yeah that makes sense.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Mary Ann Nichols was killed in Bucks row, on the pavement, hardly a suitable place for her to have an assignation with a client.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Nichols murder is extremely problematic in relation to the location of the murder.

It is quite simply far too risky an endeavor to assault, kill and mutilate a victim in such an open space.
I do think it possible (no more than that) that the killer felt less vulnerable carrying out the Nichols murder because it was close to his home.
No real risk of passing other pedestrians going to and from their work in the early hours.

Am I right in thinking that Nichols was probably heading East along Bucks Row, after leaving Emily Holland and heading East along Whitechapel Road?

There is no evidence that Nichols managed to get herself a client that night, and I think the open location of the murder makes it more likely that the killer encountered her in the street and committed a "blitz" attack.

If the killer was heading the same way as Nichols, the fact that he pushed into the wall suggests that he may may have been left handed (push her with the right hand and attack with the knife in the left).

Of course, if he approached from the opposite direction, he may have mushed her into the wall with his left hand and attacked with his right.

Christer, although many people disagree with your Lechmere/Cross theory, I don't think anyone would deny that your knowledge of this particular murder is very extensive.

Have you any thoughts about the direction the killer approached his victim?

[John Wheat]

We already have - but we will probably never be able to prove it...

Who was Jack then Bury?

[dantheman]

Folks,


Millers Court on the other hand is a bit of a puzzle.
I am not aware of any evidence that Mary Jane Kelly ever took any clients back to Millers Court.

If we believe Hutchinsons eye witness statement about a well dressed man, then perhaps MJK was more inclined to take her client indoors to her lodgings.

Best Regards,

Dan

[Fisherman]

Agreed Mike, we will never solve it.

We already have - but we will probably never be able to prove it...

[Jon Guy]

I suppose that's true....so I guess we are tied at zero with solving any of these crimes.

Agreed Mike, we will never solve it.

The fact that someone compiled the list and some agreed with it isn't evidence of anything but agreement in opinion Jon,.

True, but the salient point is that the list was compiled by a police surgeon, who had only just performed the post mortem on Kelly, alongside Phillips and Brown, who saw the other victims.
That would be a professional opinion, and not even a "modern expert" can beat that.

Its been an unsatisfactory position for over 100 years Jon, surely we can come up with more realistic scenarios.

Which unrealistic scenarios do you refer to ?

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: That was well publicized before her murder Fisherman, and why would you assume that anyone who used that technique would be the ONLY person to use it?

Show me anorher killer who did, Michael. And much as it was publicized, why would another killer emulate it? And then do the rest differently?

The whole idea of identifying two murders as being of the same hand rests on these exact things - common traits. And the rarer they are...

As far as "realistic doubt", much about Kellys murder shows us reason to have serious doubt about her inclusion into the Canonicals. Starting with the injuries, the venue, and extenuating circumstances.

They are all overcome by the abdominal flap thing. It tells the whole story.

[Michael W Richards]

The person who first compiled "the canonicals" didn`t think so, Mike

I suppose that's true....so I guess we are tied at zero with solving any of these crimes. The fact that someone compiled the list and some agreed with it isn't evidence of anything but agreement in opinion Jon, and my opinion is in line with a modern expert on these crimes who told us all on here that he believed 2, perhaps 3, were connected by one killer.

Its been an unsatisfactory position for over 100 years Jon, surely we can come up with more realistic scenarios.

[Michael W Richards]

See above question bold.

Ok, in answer to your question, the cumulative evidence itself suggests that more than one man killed the 5 women, using expert opinion by the medical authorities...primarily by the ONLY one who saw 4 of 5 canonicals in death, using the circumstances...(in fact we have evidence that just 2 of the 5 women admitted to a friend that they were soliciting on the nights they were eventually killed, and both were physically impaired....try finding trustworthy evidence that Liz was soliciting, or just released from jail Kate, or Mary, who died undressed in her bed after arriving home before midnight very drunk). And then you can use the injuries, because there is great dissimilarity between Polly, Annie and Kates injuries and those of Liz Stride for example.

What the Canonical Group represents is an attempt by the contemporary authorities to explain why they have been so unsuccessful catching people who killed women around the East end during that year or 2 stretch, or an attempt to mislead the public and the press into thinking that only 1 madman was at large at one time. The facts are lots of evil men lived within a possible kill zone by access, some would kill women later on, some had already killed, and a few torsos says that there were a list of potential killers, not just one phantom.

Plus, for me, its inconceivable that the random violence that plagued London for years prior to these acts and for years afterwards, just stopped doing anything for 2 1/2 months so the phantom could have the streets and all the victims to himself.

[Jon Guy]

As far as "realistic doubt", much about Kellys murder shows us reason to have serious doubt about her inclusion into the Canonicals. Starting with the injuries, the venue, and extenuating circumstances.

The person who first compiled "the canonicals" didn`t think so, Mike

[Michael W Richards]

Mary Kelly had her abdominal wall taken away in three large flaps of skin together with subcutaneous tissue.

Annie Chapman had her abdominal wall taken away in four large flaps of skin together with subcutaneous tissue - one of the four flaps was missing, together with the parts taken from her abdomen.

This is extremely powerful evidence, telling us that these two cases had the same originator. There can be no realistic doubt about it, I´m afraid.

That was well publicized before her murder Fisherman, and why would you assume that anyone who used that technique would be the ONLY person to use it?

As far as "realistic doubt", much about Kellys murder shows us reason to have serious doubt about her inclusion into the Canonicals. Starting with the injuries, the venue, and extenuating circumstances.

[Patrick S]

Sorry for the delay in responding Sherlock, but the answer is No, I don't believe there was one unidentified assailant for all 5 of the Canonical Group. Based solely on what evidence there is, I personally can see 2 or 3 of the women in a group under 1 murderer. I exclude Liz Stride for reasons which are obvious, and Mary Kelly because the killer of Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate, took pleasure in both the venues and the acts. I believe the thrill of possible capture added to the excited state of the killer.

Is this just a feeling or is there something specifically that's informed this belief? I've always assumed that the victims and venues were chosen based upon access and opportunity (the victims were prostitutes, thus presenting opportunity and the murder sites were chosen based upon the couple's access to it and whatever privacy it may have afforded). I've always felt that Kelly's murder was likely an ideal scenario for the killer in the he'd attained a level privacy he'd not experienced (so far as we know) to that point. I'm interested in more detail and your thoughts. Thanks in advance!

And in Mary's case we have some witness evidence that there may have been a love triangle situation there, which can often trigger violence. I don't see the anger exhibited in room 13 in any other Canonical death.

See above question bold.

[Fisherman]

Sorry for the delay in responding Sherlock, but the answer is No, I don't believe there was one unidentified assailant for all 5 of the Canonical Group. Based solely on what evidence there is, I personally can see 2 or 3 of the women in a group under 1 murderer. I exclude Liz Stride for reasons which are obvious, and Mary Kelly because the killer of Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate, took pleasure in both the venues and the acts. I believe the thrill of possible capture added to the excited state of the killer.

And in Mary's case we have some witness evidence that there may have been a love triangle situation there, which can often trigger violence. I don't see the anger exhibited in room 13 in any other Canonical death.

Mary Kelly had her abdominal wall taken away in three large flaps of skin together with subcutaneous tissue.

Annie Chapman had her abdominal wall taken away in four large flaps of skin together with subcutaneous tissue - one of the four flaps was missing, together with the parts taken from her abdomen.

This is extremely powerful evidence, telling us that these two cases had the same originator. There can be no realistic doubt about it, I´m afraid.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael W Richards, do you believe that all 5 women were killed by the same man? It is my belief that that the killer or indeed killers if there were more than one which I doubt based on the escalating level of ferocity in the crimes. I don't remember non connected killings ever escalating like the Ripper did, I will however admit that I may be wrong about my above statement.

Kind Regards
Mr Holmes

Sorry for the delay in responding Sherlock, but the answer is No, I don't believe there was one unidentified assailant for all 5 of the Canonical Group. Based solely on what evidence there is, I personally can see 2 or 3 of the women in a group under 1 murderer. I exclude Liz Stride for reasons which are obvious, and Mary Kelly because the killer of Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate, took pleasure in both the venues and the acts. I believe the thrill of possible capture added to the excited state of the killer.

And in Mary's case we have some witness evidence that there may have been a love triangle situation there, which can often trigger violence. I don't see the anger exhibited in room 13 in any other Canonical death.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Michael W Richards, do you believe that all 5 women were killed by the same man? It is my belief that that the killer or indeed killers if there were more than one which I doubt based on the escalating level of ferocity in the crimes. I don't remember non connected killings ever escalating like the Ripper did, I will however admit that I may be wrong about my above statement.

Kind Regards
Mr Holmes