How "safe" were the respective murder sites?

[Bridewell]

If you think about the short time and the speed it makes you think....a doctor or a surgeon would not be used to working fast. A doctors method is slow & cautious. A butcher however is used to working as fast as possible on as many animals as possible. It's all about speed for a butcher.

Spot on. That's the issue I have with Bond's two hour minimum for the mutilations to Kelly. He was assessing the situation from the viewpoint of a medical man.

[Bridewell]

No such risk was ever involved in the backyard of Hanbury Street. Comparatively, it was a safe murder place, just like room 13 Millerīs Court was.

That's my view too. Only one escape route means only one arrest route also. If the doorway is somehow sealed off the scene is secure.

[Bridewell]

And it would take some bottle to arrest a man who was brandishing a knife and skilled in the art of using it.

[RockySullivan]

Spot on. That's the issue I have with Bond's two hour minimum for the mutilations to Kelly. He was assessing the situation from the viewpoint of a medical man.

In Kelly's room the ripper was boxed in...he would want to get out of there as fast as possible because if anyone came to Kelly's he would be done for.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

And he was disturbed by a very odd carman.

I thought the accepted view was that there were very few carmen, or anyone else for that matter, walking through Bucks Row at that time of the morning.

MrB

Haha! Well, you would pick up on that, Mr Barnett!

And yes, I think we all know that Buckīs Row was very sparsely trafficed at the relevant hour - but there was nevertheless always the risk that somebody would pass through it. As evinced by the odd carman and that other carman!
There was also a couple of guys in Brady Street at around that time, roughly.

Nobody would walk through the backyard of Hanbury Street to reach their jobs, though, and no PC would come through it. So in this respect, it was a much safer and less risky place to kill than Buckīs Row.

Other parameters also speak of Bucks Row as being a worse choice - there were people quite close inside New Cottage and Essex Wharf who could overlook the spot. In Hanbury Street, you would need to lean out of the windows to see what was going on, more or less.

What we do when we discuss levels of risk is to imagine a scenario where somebody comes along as the killer is at work. But - and this is the important bit - those risks varied inbetween the venues. If the (odd) killer did for Chapman at around 3.30 as I think, then nobody would come out into the backyard. He would in all probability be left undisturbed.

He could never bank on such a thing in Buckīs Row.

Itīs only when we make the assumption that he would be caught out, that the cul-de-sac murder spots begin to look like the risky ones. In fact, it stands to reason that he chose them since he thought they were LESS risky than other spots, weighing all parameters in and prioritizing getting time with the victim over having more than one flight opening.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

In Kelly's room the ripper was boxed in...he would want to get out of there as fast as possible because if anyone came to Kelly's he would be done for.

But if he wanted to get out as fast as possible, Rocky - then why did he stay long enough to inflict all that damage?
He could have cut her throat and left if he felt he was in a hurry.
He could have gone for the uterus only if he felt he wanted to eviscerate, and then legged it.

Instead he meticulously cuts away anything that is there to be cut away, and spends a lot more time with this victim than with any of the others, arguably. Boxed in. By his own choice. Not rushed for time, for once.

So instead of using the opportunity to get out as fast as possible, he instead chooses by his own free will not to leave.

Could he have achieved this out in Dorset Street? Not very likely at all, is it? No, he needed a place that was boxed OFF, and didnīt mind being boxed in there as long as that applied.

I think you are putting yourself in the killers position and feeling that it makes you very uncomfortable. Donīt. It was the other way around with this killer - he was where he wanted to be, did what he wanted to do, and celebrated having all the time he needed for once.
Thatīs how it looks to me.

This is what this thread is all about, in essence - YOU feel it was a tremendeous risk, but if you ask me HE felt it was as good as it gets. He felt a lot more safe killing and eviscerating in that room than he could do in most other spots.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

5.30

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Actually, the kill at Hanbury was done around 5.30. Phillips originally thought 4.30 but acknowledged he could be mistaken due to special factors that morning.

Cheers.
LC

[Hakeswill]

Accepting the problems of making comparisons between separate murderers, looking at a similar case like that of Robert Napper could be useful here. What might be considered extraordinarily risky to a normal person could simply be a culmination of opportunism and psychotic behaviour (like Napper on Wimbledon common), but when the opportunity arose to operate indoors there was (lie JTR) an escalation in behaviour.
Personally, I think that it was a combination of "need" and opportunity that resulted in the JTR locations; when these factors outweighed caution then he struck.

[Fisherman]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Actually, the kill at Hanbury was done around 5.30. Phillips originally thought 4.30 but acknowledged he could be mistaken due to special factors that morning.

Cheers.
LC

No, Lynn, Phillips did not "originally think" that the murder was perpetrated at 4.30.

George Bagster Phillips saw the body at 6.30. At the inquest, when the coroner asked how long Chapman had been dead as he first saw her, he said:

"I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

So he never thought that she had died at 4.30 - he clearly says that she probably died earlier than that. To the best of his knowledge, Annie Chapman died somewhere BEFORE 4.30.

You can read the testiomy to suit your purposes if you wish, but this you cannot alter - Phillips opted for a time before 4.30.

Then you try a sly semantic trick. You say that he originally gave one estimation and then changed his mind. But he did all of this in one sentence and at the exact same remove in time! Here it is again, same quote:

"I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

So what is it that Philliops acknowledges? Exactly, he acknowledges that although he feels that Chapman died MORE than two hours before he saw her, it COULD BE that it actually was that late (4.30).

Once again, nobody challenged his estimation of at least two hours, and no doctor would state his view firmly like Phillips did (an absolute, but not very probable, minimum of two hours), only to in the next breath, three seconds later, overrule what he had just stated, based on his long experience and careful deliberations.

AT LEAST two hours, thus, BUT PROBABLY MORE. Long and Cadosch never saw or heard Annie Chapman on that morning. And the police certainly never worked from any admittance on behalf of Phillips. They instead said that if Phillips was right, then Long MUST have been wrong. If Phillips DID allow for a TOD at 5.30, why did the police not just say that BOTH could be right?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Haha! Well, you would pick up on that, Mr Barnett!

And yes, I think we all know that Buckīs Row was very sparsely trafficed at the relevant hour - but there was nevertheless always the risk that somebody would pass through it. As evinced by the odd carman and that other carman!
There was also a couple of guys in Brady Street at around that time, roughly.

Nobody would walk through the backyard of Hanbury Street to reach their jobs, though, and no PC would come through it. So in this respect, it was a much safer and less risky place to kill than Buckīs Row.

Other parameters also speak of Bucks Row as being a worse choice - there were people quite close inside New Cottage and Essex Wharf who could overlook the spot. In Hanbury Street, you would need to lean out of the windows to see what was going on, more or less.

What we do when we discuss levels of risk is to imagine a scenario where somebody comes along as the killer is at work. But - and this is the important bit - those risks varied inbetween the venues. If the (odd) killer did for Chapman at around 3.30 as I think, then nobody would come out into the backyard. He would in all probability be left undisturbed.

He could never bank on such a thing in Buckīs Row.

Itīs only when we make the assumption that he would be caught out, that the cul-de-sac murder spots begin to look like the risky ones. In fact, it stands to reason that he chose them since he thought they were LESS risky than other spots, weighing all parameters in and prioritizing getting time with the victim over having more than one flight opening.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

It feels comfortingly retro to be discussing Lech after all that shawl malarkey.

Aren't you forgetting the privy in the Hanbury St backyard? Isn't it just as likely that someone would use that as that someone would stroll along Bucks Row at 3.45?

Similarly with Dutfields Yard, there was a privy, a side door to the club and the printing works further down that made it a dangerous place in which to operate. And he compounded the risk there by attacking much earlier. And, if we are talking Lech, he made the possibility of detection even greater by acting in the area of the East End where he was best known.

Obviously we don't want this to morph into a Lechmere thread, but I wonder at what point you think the killer decided upon the locations. Did he already know them as a result of previous dalliances or did he make the decision on the spot?

Personally I think the latter is more likely. His blood was up, the immediate area was dark and secluded,and his first thought was whether he could kill and mutilate without disturbance. Subsequent flight was a secondary consideration.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Accepting the problems of making comparisons between separate murderers, looking at a similar case like that of Robert Napper could be useful here. What might be considered extraordinarily risky to a normal person could simply be a culmination of opportunism and psychotic behaviour (like Napper on Wimbledon common), but when the opportunity arose to operate indoors there was (lie JTR) an escalation in behaviour.
Personally, I think that it was a combination of "need" and opportunity that resulted in the JTR locations; when these factors outweighed caution then he struck.

Yes, Hakeswill, exactly so. It is that simple.

What we do is to confuse our own way of looking on it with how the killer worked. We would have chosen Bucks Row since it would allow us to run like the frightened rabbits we are.

A refreshing way to look upon it would be to view the question from another angle. Letīs say that we were forced to undress for ten minutes. What venue would we choose to do so, Buckīs Row or the Hanbury Street backyard?

I think we would all choose the backyard, since we would bank on it being more secluded. And once the crime was not as sinister as killing and eviscerating, we would be able to see the advantages that came with seclusion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Hi Fish,

It feels comfortingly retro to be discussing Lech after all that shawl malarkey.

Who would have thought it?

Aren't you forgetting the privy in the Hanbury St backyard? Isn't it just as likely that someone would use that as that someone would stroll along Bucks Row at 3.45?

No, I am not forgetting one single privy - there was one in Dutfields Yard too. But people normally donīt use privys at three o clock in the morning. They MAY, but normally, they donīt.

Similarly with Dutfields Yard, there was a privy, a side door to the club and the printing works further down that made it a dangerous place in which to operate. And he compounded the risk there by attacking much earlier. And, if we are talking Lech, he made the possibility of detection even greater by acting in the area of the East End where he was best known.

There were risks, but I want you to look at it the other way around: what better opportunity would there have been if he wanted to kill in Berner Street? What other venue was out of the way, dark and secluded? I think we must work from an assumption that the killer may not have known about the side door, thinking that the clubbers had a useful front door leading directly out to Berner Street.

Obviously we don't want this to morph into a Lechmere thread, but I wonder at what point you think the killer decided upon the locations. Did he already know them as a result of previous dalliances or did he make the decision on the spot?

I think he on each occasion allowed the prostitute to lead the way, only to evaluate risks and chances as he arrived to the chosen spot. Maybe he at some stage said, "Hey, what about the backyard behind here?", whoīs to say?

Personally I think the latter is more likely. His blood was up, the immediate area was dark and secluded,and his first thought was whether he could kill and mutilate without disturbance. Subsequent flight was a secondary consideration.

It always had to be. He could never know what the venue would look like after the kill, could he? Somebody could have arrived in for example Hanbury Street, outside nr 29, and yelled "I am Jesus, gather round everybody!". That would have changed the game.

Then again, he could just have walked out of the front door, taken a sharp right turn and walked on - Jesus and his disciples would have no reason to move into the back yard.

On the whole, though, I totally agree: "...his first thought was whether he could kill and mutilate without disturbance". Thatīs exactly what I am saying. He prioritized seclusion over flight openings.

But with this, it also followed that he actually chose the safest places to kill. That is synonymous with places where he could kill and mutilate without disturbance.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

same

Hello Christer. Thanks. Did not think you could resist.

"So what is it that Phillips acknowledges?"

That the other witnesses COULD be correct after all. Correct?

"Exactly." (heh-heh)

Seriously, you've gone down this dubious path before. And nothing has changed.

No offense. I recognise your need for an early kill.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. But if the BS story be true, and, as you seem to suggest, he killed Liz, what was happening between 12.45 and 1.00?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Personally I regard Schwarz as a reliable witness and so did the police at the time. However, I also believe that Stride must have been killed very close to 1:00am. This is supported by the fact that, when Eagle et al. closely examined the body, it was noticed that blood was still trickling from the neck. Moreover, according to Spooner Stride's face was still warm to the touch.

The question then is whether Schwarz witnessed a separate assault on Stride. I would argue that this is very unlikely because it would mean that Stride must have been attacked twice, in more or less exactly the same location, within the space of a few minutes. Frankly, having been attacked by Man A I can't see Stride hanging around for a quarter of an hour or so, on the same spot, waiting to be attacked by Man B or a repeated attack by Man B! And if she did she must have been extremely unlucky!

A far more likely explanation is that Schwarz was wrong about the time. As I noted on another thread there is no evidence that Schwarz had a watch, or evidence that he referred to a watch at the time of the assault. Even if he had a watch as he was a poor man it probably wasn't very expensive, and therefore very accurate.

And it is worth noting that, in terms of estimating the time, Edward Spooner reckoned that he arrived at the murder seen at around 12:35am. Now considering that Stride's body had already been discovered by then, and around 15 people had already assembled in the yard, he must have been around half an hour wrong with his estimate. In fact, what is all the more remarkable is that he still gave 12:35am as his ETA when subsequently questioned at the inquest!

Cheers,

John

[Fisherman]

lynn cates: Hello Christer. Thanks. Did not think you could resist.

It was you, I think, who could not resist - but who ought to.

"So what is it that Phillips acknowledges?"

That the other witnesses COULD be correct after all. Correct?

No, wrong - he acknowledges that although he opts for more than two hours, it could actually be that little.

Seriously, you've gone down this dubious path before. And nothing has changed.

Nope. Nothing at all. Iīm still correct and you are still wrong.

No offense. I recognise your need for an early kill.

I have no such need. Why would I? Lechmere could have moved through Hanbury Street at any time during working hours too. So there goes that argument of yours.

Now, my question: If the police agreed that Chapman could have been killed as late as 5.30, then why do they say that Phillipsī estimation rules out Longs testimony? Why not just say that Long was right, and Phillips allowed for it - if that had ever been the case?

Any answer to that one, Lynn?

The best,
Fisherman