Why Hanbury St. No. 29?

[Hunter]

I think he was disturbed at Bucks Row - evidenced by the dress being pulled down - with Nichols and Stride being the only victims not left ‘on display’. Even Tabram was left with her dress right up.
Hence the limited mutilations at Bucks Row, plus he was on a learning curve. And Nichols's stays were an impediment.
But he may have intended more.

Hi Lechmere,

While it is possible that Nichols' murderer was disturbed at Bucks Row, Paul testified that he helped pull Polly's dress down, suggesting that she was left with her garments pulled up.

.

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Jacob Isenschmid, Corey Browning published an article in Ripperologist this year titled 'The Mind o Jacob Isenschmid'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

JTR was very lucky indeed not to get caught. It's not feasible that he didn't practise i.e. plan.

I think the options have to be taken into account.

Which other options did he have outside of going into a backyard?

Not a lot.

So, in this context the risks he took couldn't have been avoided.

I think he would have been unlucky to have been caught.

What? 15 minutes in a quiet spot during the night?

I don't see any planning beyond choosing a prostitute during the night.

[Rubyretro]

I think the options have to be taken into account.

Which other options did he have outside of going into a backyard?

Not a lot.

So, in this context the risks he took couldn't have been avoided.

I think he would have been unlucky to have been caught.

What? 15 minutes in a quiet spot during the night?

I don't see any planning beyond choosing a prostitute during the night.

There are a whole lot of factors that come into play : after the first murders
(which for me would be Tabram and Nichols), there was huge publicity given to the murders and the public, Police, and (from September) the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, were all trying to catch the killer.

He had to avoid the people on the streets coming and going, avoid the policemen on the beat, avoid being noted as unaccounted for at the times of the murders (wherever he lived), avoid getting blood on himself, hide organs,
whilst his enthusiasm escalated..

The fact that he was never caught can hardly be down to just luck. He
had to be planning -and that includes the locations- and increasingly so..

[Lechmere]

Hunter
Yes Paul pulled it down a bit - to the knees but it was previously only 'half up'.
The other victims tended to have the dress pulled right up sowing the lowrer part of the abdomen and making it obvious that the stomacjh had been attacked. Tabram even shared that feature.
As the dress wasn't fully up Paul (and Cross if you want to believe him) didn't see that she had been slashed open. This implies that the Ripper had deliberately lowered the dress back over the wounds and this in turn implies that he was disturbed and wanted to buy time.

[Edward]

Streetlights ?

Hello All –

A thought just occurred to me … do we know if there were any streetlights in Hanbury Street? (and their locations?)

Besides having an unlocked front door, and a straight shot through the house to a secluded backyard, if number 29 was in a darker part of the street, it may have enhanced its selection.

Just a random thought.

Edward

[Bridewell]

What If?

No 29 was more or less a small but heavily populated block of flats with a lot of people coming and going. Hence the front door was left open.
His choices for a suitably secluded spot were limited by the physical environment though. He had to work with what he had. No 29 was not a haven of peace and quiet.

We talk about the risk but, however you look at it, either Annie or JtR must have chosen the location. As both were acting illegally, whichever it was must have felt that the location was safe.

The argument that there was only one way out for JtR has to be balanced against the fact that there was only one way in for potential
interlopers. If JtR (or Annie for that matter) found a way of wedging the yard door shut, the location was actually very safe in my view.

Regards, Bridewell

[curious]

Why 29?

Mrs. Richardson, who owned the house, stated that she knew Annie and had even brought some of her crochet work because she felt sorry for Annie.

Therefore, Annie knew the house.

The last time Annie was reported being seen she was sitting down, too sick to really "work."

I have long thought it likely Annie knew that people slept inside No. 29 and headed over to Hanbury in order to rest there in the hallway.

Having thought that, I have never figured out how she met her killer.

It is possible that she slipped outside to the privy and was surprised on her way back in.

While I don't necessarily subscribe to Lynn's theory of JI and the first two murders, his fella would fit here. Others might as well.

[Barnaby]

We assume that Jack would want to commit his acts in a safe place where he would be uninterrupted, but maybe he got off a bit on the risk factor too.

[ChrisGeorge]

We assume that Jack would want to commit his acts in a safe place where he would be uninterrupted, but maybe he got off a bit on the risk factor too.

The side of the International Working Men's Educational Club in Berner Street would seem to be a very unlikely place for Jack to commit a murder, with singing going on inside the club and people coming and going.

Of course, that idea is used by those who would discount the Stride murder as one of Jack's. On the other hand, if risk-taking did turn him on, that might have been a reason why he committed that crime.

And if it was Jack and he was unable to do his signature abdominal mutilations because he was interrupted, it could be why an hour later he chose a safer location, namely Mitre Square, to commit his second murder of the night.

All the bst

Chris

[Fleetwood Mac]

The fact that he was never caught can hardly be down to just luck. He
had to be planning -and that includes the locations- and increasingly so..

I'd put it down to circumstance.

Having said that, I'll give you one thing as follows:

The fact he spent more time with his victim in the relative safety of the inside of four walls, suggests he knew the risk he was running, and in this respect there was a certain amount of forethought.

[caz]

I suppose the actual risk this killer took of being seen 'in the act' with a victim was no greater than the risk taken by every man who ever used a street prostitute's services. Over in seconds - or minutes at most if the coast was clear. How many thousands of such couplings would have gone entirely unobserved, with just a little bit of luck and care, despite the large numbers of potential observers?

The only difference was that in the former case the woman would be left butchered at the scene, while the man was risking his neck until he got home and could get rid of any evidence. But even the regular punter risked a slow death from disease every time he used a prostitute, plus assorted other hazards along the way, such as assault, robbery, arrest or loss of reputation. The risks didn't - and don't - stop even the most respectable men doing it time and time again, and the risks didn't stop this killer doing his thing either.

The idea that the man who did his thing in Hanbury St and Mitre Square, then took his time in 13 Miller's Court, would feel obliged to face the cops and explain his presence and never be able to do his thing again, all because some nosey female called Sarah Lewis may have seen him near the latest crime scene (but not even with the victim), seems more preposterous than ever to me.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

I suppose the actual risk this killer took of being seen 'in the act' with a victim was no greater than the risk taken by every man who ever used a street prostitute's services.

Exactly so, and that's how the killer himself must have assessed the risks he was taking.
It's such an important part of his method that I hardly understand how the point can still be missed.

[Wickerman]

The side of the International Working Men's Educational Club in Berner Street would seem to be a very unlikely place for Jack to commit a murder, with singing going on inside the club and people coming and going.

I wonder how much 'showmanship' played into these murders. There's a certain amount of bravado, daring, "in-your-face", not only to the exposure of the abdomen but the locations where the bodies were found.
With that in mind we might wonder why then make his last indoors? - well, it was the morning of the Lord Mayor's show.
Upstaged!, Jack once again grabs the headlines.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Indeed

I think they were all by the same hand (including Tabram, Kelly and McKenzie) - Cross or not. I don't think its credible that two people were operating at the same time and place, with a similar attack plan and similar victims at a similar time of day. Also murders of that kind were exceptionally rare. Unsolved murders were actually rare.
I am sure that if this were a modern case they all would be provisionally chalked up to the same person.
The similarities far outweigh any differences.

Also if this were a modern case, I am sure the assumption would be that the culprit would probably be a localish nobody who seemed outwardly normal.

My thoughts exactly, Lechmere.

I think we sometimes look at the scene question the wrong way round. We ask ourselves why JtR was prepared to kill in such "dangerous" locations. Should we not rather be asking ourselves why he considered those locations to be safe?

Bucks Row could be escaped in either direction and by doubling back on the far side of the Board School Building.

The yard of 29, Hanbury St had a door which opened outwards & could probably be held shut. (Is that why the murder took place so close to the steps?)

Mitre Square would have been dangerous had 3 beats converged on it from, Mitre Street, St James's Passage & Church Passage, but this was not the case. The same officer covered the first two, so one or other would always be clear (of police anyway).

Millers Court was enclosed, but the risk of detection was small. I think it likely there was an unwritten rule that the Millers Court residents didn't disturb each other when with a client.

Dutfields Yard seems the only location which poses real danger and, probably rightly, is the one most people seem to have a problem with as a Ripper murder. If the Ripper, he seems to have been prepared to take greater risks here than anywhere else.

I've diverted from the 29, Hanbury Street there, sorry. Perhaps one factor for JtR was that he could climb the fence on either side if need be. How many of this row of houses had that option?

Regards, Bridewell.