29 Hanbury street & Berner street murder locations??

[SuspectZero]

I don’t believe that the two series were committed by the same man. I was just making the point in response to Fisherman’s point about a pattern remaining consistent and how that can possibly square when faced with the differences between the ripper murders and the Torso murders.

OK. Fair enough. I would still suggest that the patterns for both styles are in line with someone motivated to sell body parts. As the police presence increased, the killer moved off the streets, disposing of the torsos afterwards, when they thought it was safer. The outdoor murder sites stopped and they went inside, but the primary goal of removal of body parts continued.

[Rob1n]

I suppose he was mad enough not to worry, probably, if he was challenged he'd take you on after all, he's got a big knife, possibly other weapons too what would the average person be carrying to defend themselves? Interesting if he did have failed attempts, and I suppose that could have happened, possibly explaining the lack of victims in October? It's possible he wore a disguise or as I say, was totally insane and didn't care if he was seen?

[Lipsky]

To me, high-risk murder locations like 29 Hanbury Street tell me two things:

(1) The killer had very high risk tolerance
(2) Because the killer killed in very high risk areas, yet was not caught and left little to no useful evidence behind, he likely knew that what he was doing was seen as wrong by society and thus took efforts to conceal himself and avoid detection

#2 leads me to exclude any suspects who are insane to the point of not knowing the difference between right and wrong, or suspects who allegedly were under the delusion that they were doing something other than murdering women (e.g., Lynn Cates's interpretation of Isenschmidt, whom Lynn believes was under the delusion that he was slaughtering horses when he killed Nichols and Chapman)

Agree 100%. This was, as I've said many times, "Special-ops" ---- specialist expertise being part of the killer's ID.

He was sane enough to know that any direct confrontation with workmen, witnesses, any crowd or the police would have him outnumbered and at the hands of public rage.

Terrorism was part of the scheme, and any good terrorist needs a mask on his face.... so the only two sightings were deliberate.

[APerno]

Of course he left no useful evidence behind because police forensics was for crap. -- There was nothing special ops about his ability to kill these women they were the easiest targets in London.

His sightings were deliberate exposure? Why?

He was an unorganized opportunist marauder! The only planning evident in any of the murders was how he got inside Mary Kelly's room, and come on, how tough could that have been, she was a prostitute.

You're making way too much out of this man; had he continued he would have been caught.

[Lipsky]

Of course he left no useful evidence behind because police forensics was for crap. -- There was nothing special ops about his ability to kill these women they were the easiest targets in London.

His sightings were deliberate exposure? Why?

He was an unorganized opportunist marauder! The only planning evident in any of the murders was how he got inside Mary Kelly's room, and come on, how tough could that have been, she was a prostitute.

You're making way too much out of this man; had he continued he would have been caught.

And if indeed these were the easiest targets, why make things difficult and narrow down to a bunch of victims who lived a few doorsteps from each other?
MJK was the "it girl" of Dorset , but even if we assume they didnt know each other, for the sake of argument....why not kill random prostitutes around London?
No reasonable answer exists.

People here keep calling him "unorganized" -- i fail to see how this description fits a man who disappeared like a ghost and was never caught or named.

I am claiming the Double Event had two sightings, by Jews, Israel and Lawende. I consider both to be deliberate.

"had he continued" --- well, why didn't he? all serial killers do, until killed or arrested.

[JeffHamm]

It’s likely that for prostitutes like Annie being seen or disturbed in the act was par for the course and so she wouldn'’t have been unduly worried about being seen. She had probably used the yard previously and not been disturbed. So I’d say that it was probable that she’d reassured her client - we’ll be ok here - kind of thing. It’s perhaps less a case of how risky the location actually was rather how risky the location was perceived to have been by the killer. Annie’s reassurances (from experience) would have given him a level of confidence.

Hi Herlock,

That's quite possible. What struck me when reading this was the following, entirely speculative of course, line of thought. From what you describe we could suggest a conversation such as "JtR: Are we likely to be disturbed here; Chapman: No", reassuring JtR that the location is safe. Chapman, in need of money for her bed, has every reason to try and reassure what she would view as a paying client that his concerns for being found out are unnecessary.

This is where I think this leads to some interesting speculation.

Now, we know Cadosch heard someone say "No" from somewhere in the backyard of #29.
We also know this didn't arouse his suspicions or raise any alarm bells at the time (he didn't investigate it, as one would expect if the "no" were in response to seeing a knife type thing, as there would be fear, perhaps a scream, etc).

We also know it is 3 or 4 minutes later when Cadosh returns to the yard and hear's a noise against the fence, also suggesting the inital "No" was prior to the start of the attack.

In fact, when Cadosch enters the yard, questions that JtR might reasonably be expected to ask might be things like the above, or "Does he come out her alot?" or "Are there often people around?" etc.

Things like that make sense if JtR did seek information from Chapman, which one would expect him to do given the unexpected appearance of Cadosch next door. It also might explain why it appears the attack seems to have begun after Cadosch went back inside (implying JtR was aware of him and waited, but continued the attack because he felt confident there would be no further interruptions). It was only Cadosch's unexpected return, but apparently at the point when JtR is putting Annie to the ground (and so, focused on what he was doing, may even have been unaware of Cadosch's return).

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

That's quite possible. What struck me when reading this was the following, entirely speculative of course, line of thought. From what you describe we could suggest a conversation such as "JtR: Are we likely to be disturbed here; Chapman: No", reassuring JtR that the location is safe. Chapman, in need of money for her bed, has every reason to try and reassure what she would view as a paying client that his concerns for being found out are unnecessary.

This is where I think this leads to some interesting speculation.

Now, we know Cadosch heard someone say "No" from somewhere in the backyard of #29.
We also know this didn't arouse his suspicions or raise any alarm bells at the time (he didn't investigate it, as one would expect if the "no" were in response to seeing a knife type thing, as there would be fear, perhaps a scream, etc).

We also know it is 3 or 4 minutes later when Cadosh returns to the yard and hear's a noise against the fence, also suggesting the inital "No" was prior to the start of the attack.

In fact, when Cadosch enters the yard, questions that JtR might reasonably be expected to ask might be things like the above, or "Does he come out her alot?" or "Are there often people around?" etc.

Things like that make sense if JtR did seek information from Chapman, which one would expect him to do given the unexpected appearance of Cadosch next door. It also might explain why it appears the attack seems to have begun after Cadosch went back inside (implying JtR was aware of him and waited, but continued the attack because he felt confident there would be no further interruptions). It was only Cadosch's unexpected return, but apparently at the point when JtR is putting Annie to the ground (and so, focused on what he was doing, may even have been unaware of Cadosch's return).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think that we can fall into the trap of making assumptions and one of those assumptions could be that the ‘no’ was the point at which Jack pounced but, as you’ve said, there are any number of reasons that she might have said ‘no.’ How often do we hear sentences where one word is said slightly louder than the rest of the conversation for emphasis. Perhaps she was just emphasising her reply to the question of whether they might have been disturbed?

Another assumption that appears to have been made in some quarters is that when Cadosch mounted his steps Annie and her killer were just the other side of the fence (and so at risk of being seen over a 5ft 6 - 6ft fence if he’d just turned to his left.) Surely this is unlikely? Annie’s head was found 6 inches or so from the steps with her feet toward the end of the yard so it’s difficult to see how she could have fallen like that from a standing position of around where her head was eventually. She would have either fallen into the wall of the house or with her head to the end of the yard (and I can think of no reason why the killer would have moved her body after death?) So I’d say that it would have been far more likely that Annie and her killer stood near to where Annie’s feet eventually were? When Cadosch got back to his steps they would have been 6 feet behind him.

[JeffHamm]

Yah, I'm not convinced the attack was starting at the point of the "no". The way Cadosch gives his testimony doesn't include anything that would give that impression, it is only the fact she was found dead later, and his later testimony of hearing something against the fence (3 or 4 minutes later), which would indicate the attack was started by that time. It seems to me, the most probable time for the starting of the attack was when Cadosch went back into his house, not while he was in his yard at the time he heard her say "no".

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock,

That's quite possible. What struck me when reading this was the following, entirely speculative of course, line of thought. From what you describe we could suggest a conversation such as "JtR: Are we likely to be disturbed here; Chapman: No", reassuring JtR that the location is safe. Chapman, in need of money for her bed, has every reason to try and reassure what she would view as a paying client that his concerns for being found out are unnecessary.

This is where I think this leads to some interesting speculation.

Now, we know Cadosch heard someone say "No" from somewhere in the backyard of #29.
We also know this didn't arouse his suspicions or raise any alarm bells at the time (he didn't investigate it, as one would expect if the "no" were in response to seeing a knife type thing, as there would be fear, perhaps a scream, etc).

We also know it is 3 or 4 minutes later when Cadosh returns to the yard and hear's a noise against the fence, also suggesting the inital "No" was prior to the start of the attack.

In fact, when Cadosch enters the yard, questions that JtR might reasonably be expected to ask might be things like the above, or "Does he come out her alot?" or "Are there often people around?" etc.

Things like that make sense if JtR did seek information from Chapman, which one would expect him to do given the unexpected appearance of Cadosch next door. It also might explain why it appears the attack seems to have begun after Cadosch went back inside (implying JtR was aware of him and waited, but continued the attack because he felt confident there would be no further interruptions). It was only Cadosch's unexpected return, but apparently at the point when JtR is putting Annie to the ground (and so, focused on what he was doing, may even have been unaware of Cadosch's return).

- Jeff

hi jeff
good analysis on what might have prompted the no from chapman and I agree

[APerno]

Maybe the 'no' Cadosch heard was Annie refusing the cashews.

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
good analysis on what might have prompted the no from chapman and I agree

Thanks Abby. As I say, the specifics I've presented are entirely speculative, and are more as an aid to illustrate the type of thing that could arise given I don't really see anything in Cadosch's evidence on this point that really indicates there was an attack happening at that very moment. The word "No" is not a cry for help in and of itself Although of course it could be, but in those circumstances I would expect that would have been manifestly obvious in Cadosch's description (sounds of struggle, a cry of NO, etc). Rather, similar to Long in some ways, he just appears to have caught a snippet of a conversation from someone who appears to be a loud talker.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Maybe the 'no' Cadosch heard was Annie refusing the cashews.

your way off base. it was obviously grapes!

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe the 'no' Cadosch heard was Annie refusing the cashews.

... cachous are the throat sweets found in Stride's possession. Cashews are those things that look like nuts, but aren't

[Michael W Richards]

In case anyone wants to learn facts here, not just spunky opinion, there was no evidence of grapes found at the site, on Liz, or in her stomach contents.

[APerno]

... cachous are the throat sweets found in Stride's possession. Cashews are those things that look like nuts, but aren't

Cadosch heard no cachous
Cadosch heard no cachous
Cadosch heard no cachous