The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Fisherman]

And it wouldn't really matter if she was. Thus, the highly regarded criminologist, David Canter, in a pretty devasting critique of the Holmes and Holmes serial killer typology, found that body position-posing-was relevant to 75% of serial murders. On that basis, it would be very untypical if Nichols wasn't posed. See Canter and Wentink, 2004.

If a killer poses victims in a series, there is good reason to suspect he will do so with ALL his victims. The examples are many, like for example the Hillside stranglers and Danny Rolling. Itīs part of their thing.

[Elamarna]

It was pulled up to her stomach. That means she was exposed. They didn't see the wounds there or on her neck for that matter either because it was too dark. At sunup that would change the complexion of things. If she wasn't exposed why did they pull it down?

I am not convinced that her private parts were exposed, Paul said he had trouble in pulling it down, it was certainly up, but not as far as in the other cases.
We are disagreeing about degree here, not about intent I beleive.

That the killer planned to exposure her I have little doubt, but he was disturbed, be he Lechmere or someone else. The cutting was not to my view complete, but I may be wrong on that. He rushed off, leaving her clothing as it was when he cut.

Just my view.


Steve

[Batman]

let me clarify, she was partially posed, but not fully, her dress was only partly pulled up.

It was not the same as in Chapman or Eddowes. she was not exposed.

However I have no problem with accepting that was the eventual aim, if not disturbed.

Steve

It was pulled up to her stomach. That means she was exposed. They didn't see the wounds there or on her neck for that matter either because it was too dark. At sunup that would change the complexion of things. If she wasn't exposed why did they pull it down?

[Elamarna]

And it wouldn't really matter if she was. Thus, the highly regarded criminologist, David Canter, in a pretty devasting response to the Holmes and Holmes serial killer typology, found that body position-posing-was relevant to 75% of serial murders. On that basis, it would be very untypical if Nichols wasn't posed.

let me clarify, she was partially posed, but not fully, her dress was only partly pulled up.

It was not the same as in Chapman or Eddowes. she was not exposed.

However I have no problem with accepting that was the eventual aim, if not disturbed.

Steve

[Batman]

She was not sexually posed. If the clothes had not been pulled down by the killer, she would still not look sexually posed. Lying stretched out, flat on your back, is not being sexually posed.

You think that the killer made a point by posing Chapman et al. Have you considered how he could have done it for himself?

So why did they try to pull her skirt down from around her stomach? This tells you they felt uncomfortable looking at her in the strange position she was in.

That position was very sexually suggestive and not done just to stab someone in the private areas. They could have done that through her dress. Instead, they wanted her exposed this way for a reason. The answer is in the sexual degradation of the attack which also involves "open and displayed", a JtR trait. These are all planned because they are part of his fantasy, which is evident from the evolution of the posing all the way to turning MJK's face towards the door and laying her arm inside her missing abdomen. Chapman's legs were brought up. Eddowes was in the same position. Stride wasn't. Which means the posing is done after the mutilation or during it.

It's obvious that Lechmere isn't making a very good candidate if he is dressing his victims back up again.

[John G]

To begin with, Nichols was NOT posed in a sexual position in order to achieve shock value.

There is your first clue to the solution.

To boot, her wounds were hidden - clue two!

You speak of a perceived barrier that kept him from running in the Nichols case. Perhaps we should instead speak of a one-off opportunity - once he had bluffed it out in the Nichols case, he could not do so on any of the other occasions. That means that he had to run in those four cases - whereas he did not have to do that at all in the Nichols case.

And it wouldn't really matter if she was. Thus, the highly regarded criminologist, David Canter, in a pretty devasting critique of the Holmes and Holmes serial killer typology, found that body position-posing-was relevant to 75% of serial murders. On that basis, it would be very untypical if Nichols wasn't posed. See Canter and Wentink, 2004.

[Elamarna]

I think Monty has made it clear in the past that Mizen had no responsibility to search or detain the carmen.

Agreed, none at all unless he suspected a crime had occurred, or which there was no indication.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Louis was examined...

Louis Diemschutz:
[Coroner] How soon afterwards did a doctor arrive? - About twenty minutes after the constables came up. No one was allowed by the police to leave the club until they were searched, and then they had to give their names and addresses...
Inspector Reid (interposing): When the murder was discovered the members of the club were detained on the premises, and I searched them,whilst Dr. Phillips examined them.

Lechmere's case hinges on the above not being done to Paul and to Lechmere who walked with Paul all the way to Mizen and willing to be subjected to the above search/examination which was Mizen's responsibility to start/detain.

Good job Elamarna.

----

I think Monty has made it clear in the past that Mizen had no responsibility to search or detain the carmen.

[Fisherman]

Her skirt was raised up. They pulled it back down.

What's JtR doing trying to make them look better? Why not just leave up?

She was not sexually posed. If the clothes had not been pulled down by the killer, she would still not look sexually posed. Lying stretched out, flat on your back, is not being sexually posed.

You think that the killer made a point by posing Chapman et al. Have you considered how he could have done it for himself?

[Varqm]

What about Louis Diemschutz? He was the man on the horse and cart that found Stride.

Heck, he could have been riding Stride's corpse around in the back for a bit while he was at it.

Louis was examined...

Louis Diemschutz:
[Coroner] How soon afterwards did a doctor arrive? - About twenty minutes after the constables came up. No one was allowed by the police to leave the club until they were searched, and then they had to give their names and addresses...
Inspector Reid (interposing): When the murder was discovered the members of the club were detained on the premises, and I searched them,whilst Dr. Phillips examined them.

Lechmere's case hinges on the above not being done to Paul and to Lechmere who walked with Paul all the way to Mizen and willing to be subjected to the above search/examination which was Mizen's responsibility to start/detain.

Good job Elamarna.


----

[Batman]

Her skirt was raised up. They pulled it back down.

What's JtR doing trying to make them look better? Why not just leave up?

[Fisherman]

JtR deliberately posed his victims in sexual positions in order to achieve the maximum shock value that he could because he was not just assaulting unfortunates, but also Whitechapel established society itself (indicating he was likely part of said society). So JtR's signature involved someone eventually finding these bodies in these sexual poses and hopefully a whole group of people.

To hang around the body and not run away isn't something JtR seems to have done a lot of. With Chapman he vanishes into the night. With Stride he was likely seen attacking her and fled. With Eddowes he vanishes into the night. With Kelly he vanishes into the night.

So why not vanish into the night with Nichols also? What was the barrier to that, if there is one.

To begin with, Nichols was NOT posed in a sexual position in order to achieve shock value.

There is your first clue to the solution.

To boot, her wounds were hidden - clue two!

You speak of a perceived barrier that kept him from running in the Nichols case. Perhaps we should instead speak of a one-off opportunity - once he had bluffed it out in the Nichols case, he could not do so on any of the other occasions. That means that he had to run in those four cases - whereas he did not have to do that at all in the Nichols case.

[Fisherman]

Ah, so are you simply saying that someone who merely "discovers" a body can't be by definition be the killer?

Exactly so - and that involves a smallish protest about how we in true kneejerk fashion tend to say that Lechmere was one of the people who discovered a body. We do not know that this was so, do we?

[Batman]

Someone has to eventually discover these bodies.

JtR deliberately posed his victims in sexual positions in order to achieve the maximum shock value that he could because he was not just assaulting unfortunates, but also Whitechapel established society itself (indicating he was likely part of said society). So JtR's signature involved someone eventually finding these bodies in these sexual poses and hopefully a whole group of people.

To hang around the body and not run away isn't something JtR seems to have done a lot of. With Chapman he vanishes into the night. With Stride he was likely seen attacking her and fled. With Eddowes he vanishes into the night. With Kelly he vanishes into the night.

So why not vanish into the night with Nichols also? What was the barrier to that, if there is one.

[John G]

Because if you discover a body then it is already dead.

I tend to think that the killer was somebody who killed Nichols and then PRETENDED to be the one who discovered the body.

Ah, so are you simply saying that someone who merely "discovers" a body can't be by definition be the killer?