How "safe" were the respective murder sites?

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[Bridewell]

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

[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]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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

[Bridewell]

After all, this was the first and only time in JTR's reign of terror that anyone had actually witnessed a direct assault.

The first that we know of. There may have been others who witnessed a direct assault but kept silent.

[Fisherman]

Doubtless, Hanbury was the riskiest of all.

Cheers.
LC

No, I donīt think it was. I think Bucks Row was by far the riskiest.

But it all boils down to what kind of risks we are discussing.

In Hanbury Street, he ran a great risk of getting trapped. He did not run that risk in Buckīs Row.

But he ran a much greater risk of being disturbed in his work in Buckīs Row than in any other place! Thatīs because Buckīs Row offered least seclusion of all the sites.

In Hanbury Street, if I am correct, he killed Chapman at around 3.30 - as per Phillips. At that time, the chance that somebody would come into the yard was very small. So he had seclusion and he stood a very good chance of being left alone for whatever time it took him to butcher Chapman.

In Buckīs Row, he had no seclusion, and he needed to accept that he would be disturbed sooner or later, either by the odd carman on his way to work or by a passing PC.

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.

All the best,
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

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.

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

I don't think that we need to jettison profiling. It can be useful as long as we don't take it as Gospel.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

human behaviour

Hello CD. Thanks.

So, in other words, jettison the profiles and social science texts and study human nature through behaviour? I like it.

Cheers.
LC