Organised or Disorganised?

[Sam Flynn]

Surely the discovry of 'any' body by anyone is inadvertent.

Exactly my point, Jeff - and it's a very simple one. Kelly was found, just like all the rest, and she would have been found at some point, just as the others were.

The killer wasn't going out of his way to make sure that she'd somehow "have to be" found, and Kelly's more enclosed location doesn't materially differentiate her from the other victims along that dimension. See what happens if one applies the same logic to the other murders:

* The murderer could have killed Polly Nichols on one Brady Street, Baker's Row or Whitechapel Road, but instead led her into the back-street that was Buck's Row, to ensure that someone would have to find her;

* He could have killed Annie Chapman on the street, outside 29 Hanbury, but "chose" to lure her into the backyard to "force" people to find her;

* He could have felled Liz Stride on the pavement outside IWEC, in busier Fairclough Street or on Commercial Road, but "chose" to drag her into the shadows of the gateway, to make sure that someone would have to go "looking for her";

* He could have waited for Lawende & Co. to depart, before slashing Eddowes in Duke Street, or taken her a little way further into Mitre Street - instead of which he kills her in the darkest corner of secluded Mitre Square, so that someone "would have to find her".


... as I said, there are varying degrees of open and closed spaces and - even in the most "exposed" victim of all, Polly Nichols - there were other, more "public" choices the Ripper could have made, but seemingly "chose" not to. Kelly's murder is no different in that regard.

[perrymason]

Exactly my point, Jeff - and it's a very simple one. Kelly was found, just like all the rest, and she would have been found at some point, just as the others were.

Sam,

Youve obviously missed my point....circumstantially, Marys discovery varies by location and restriction of access to the body. Its not a smoking gun about anything, ...its just the facts here. She was locked in a room from the inside...all others were not. You may not see location as a factor for your Jack theories, but indoors locked in and outdoors left in public splayed are not the same. The philosophy of location relevance to the killer is not a factor when reading this.

Your making an argument to dismiss the relevance, not to discount the simple facts...or are you? Not sure these days what people here are thinking.

Cheers

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

As I've suggested before, the killer would probably have preferred to delay the discovery of the bodies if he could, but known single prostitutes living alone would have been something of a rarity in the district. The fact that he left his victims on the streets where he killed them may say more about the limited "disposal" options he had available. In this scenario, the psychology wouldn't be different at all; he'd simply found a more suitable venue in #13 Miller's Court.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Sam,

Our posts crossed.

I couldn't agree with you more (and you too Ben! ) I don't think we can conclude that the ripper chose where to attack or to leave the bodies on the basis of how soon or how easily they would be discovered.

To put it crudely, Perry, imagine if condoms used by prostitutes and their clients had always been five feet long. They would soon be discovered by someone if discarded wherever the "business" had been conducted: indoors, outdoors or in my lady's chamber. It wouldn't mean the client had made a special point of choosing a particular location so he could advertise what he'd been up to there and as soon as poss. And there'd be no way to distinguish between clients if one five foot condom was left in Mitre Square and another in the locked room of a known prostitute.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

To put it crudely, Perry, imagine if condoms used by prostitutes and their clients had always been five feet long...

...you mean to tell me they're not normally that size, Caz?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,

Your making an argument to dismiss the relevance, not to discount the simple facts...

The former, and not the latter, Mike. Indeed, I'm pointing out the simple facts about the other murders so that they don't get overlooked.

Youve obviously missed my point....circumstantially, Marys discovery varies by location and restriction of access to the body.

And you've missed mine - namely, that there were differences between the locations and degrees of access to the other bodies, too. The one thing they have in common is that they were found in rather more secluded spots than some much busier locations nearby.

[Ben]

Agreed, Caz and Gareth.

It was suggested a while back that the killer may have headed towards the stable-yard in Buck's Row with the intention of dispatching Nichols within the gates, but that upon finding them locked, was forced to made do with a spot just outside them. Had he been successful in that scenario, there would have been even more "delay" in discovering the body than if she'd been found in Miller's Court.

Best wishes,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Perry,

Restriction of access to Mary's body would only come into it if you could provide some evidence that this was an issue for whoever killed the others.

But as some of us have explained, there is no evidence for this being an issue, and no reason why it should have been one, for a killer who merely goes with the flow, but the only "service" he is actually interested in is a free "damage unlimited" session in exactly the same sort of places where other clients would pay for a rather more limited range of activities.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hi Sam, Ben, Caz, all....

All very interesting perspectives.

Im not going to continue trying, particularly when I may be attacked from 3 sides if I do, but Ill just say that if you re-read your responses to me, you'll see... "the killer would probably", "it just happens that..", "the killer wasnt",..."the murderer could have", .....

I think that youve all assumed much of what the habits and patterns are, that all 5 are a single killer, and in some cases even why he does this or that.

So Ill leave with the same premise...." the killer may have preferred the outdoors, and the fact that it was indoors could mean that it wasnt the outdoor killer", and it was probably someone who knew the occupant based on accepted data, the murderer could have imitated another killer, and wasnt suspected due to the automatic assignation of the victim to the Ripper.

Hmm...Its kind fun that way.

Cheers.

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes it looks like I'm with Caz and Sam here completely.

The victims all simply choose their own place of death. That place being wear they did business.

Personally I think Jack felt happier on the street but things had gotten hot on that front since the double event with less opportunity.

The last victim being indoors may well just have been a result of cut in supply on the streets. Jack was an opportunist. We will never know how many came close and got away?

As for the locked door, I spent some time working with Andy Aliffe, some years back on the interior of the room. As far as I remember we concluded that the lock (given the age and construction of the building) was probably spring loaded, and would have locked altermatically when the killer left if he pulled the door closed behind him. Which i guess is an altermatic responce when leaving a house. However by reaching through the window the latch could be opened as the door wasn't fix locked or 'chubbed' as we would say today.

As to the idea that MJK was displayed, I think we should be careful using that term. It buys into the old theatrical idea of Jack. The 'Dear Boss' jack or saucy Jacky. Jack did not write any letters or wander around in a cape or top hat.

We are dealing with someone suffering from mental illness, most probably a form of schizophrenia. Much of the reasoning behind the crime therefore I see as internalized and without rational explanation. The results being largely as Sam is saying 'The consequence of his actions'

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

if you re-read your responses to me, you'll see... "the killer would probably", "it just happens that..", "the killer wasnt",..."the murderer could have", .....

I think that youve all assumed much of what the habits and patterns are

With respect, Mike, you've previously done the same thing - albeit far more subjectively - e.g. when you assume some deeply significant difference between a secluded space with a ceiling versus a secluded space near a gate.

At least when I suggest that Jack had choices of location that were far more open than where he dispatched his victims (e.g. killing Eddowes in Duke/Mitre Street rather than the darkest corner of a secluded Square), I'm being objective. It's a self-evident truth that anyone can check on a map, and assumption and interpretation doesn't enter into it.

So Ill leave with the same premise...." the killer may have preferred the outdoors, and the fact that it was indoors could mean that it wasnt the outdoor killer"

So far so good, although there's nothing - seriously - in the evidence that points definitively to either. At least the phraseology in both statements is more "open", which is nice.

and it was probably someone who knew the occupant based on accepted data

Oooh! Lose a point there, Mike! It's about as probable as the data are "accepted" - i.e., not very much. That only becomes vaguely "probable" if you've already decided that Kelly's murder was perpetrated by someone known to her; but that's teleological reasoning, and a strict no-no.

Still, two open statements out of three ain't bad.

the murderer could have imitated another killer, and wasnt suspected due to the automatic assignation of the victim to the Ripper.

Back on track! Three out of four

[caz]

Hi Perry,

I think your troubles might be fewer if you don't assume you are being 'attacked' when people are merely debating the ins and outs with you, just as you are doing with them.

If the facts all spoke for themselves, there'd be no need for opinions or debate and you wouldn't be coming here airing bold statements and then feeling hard done by when they don't go unchallenged.

I, for one, prefer to take a position of 'the evidence isn't strong enough to reach such and such a conclusion about the killer's thinking or his victim's circumstances' rather than 'the evidence - or lack of it - points strongly to this or that being the case'. That may be why we tend to clash quite a bit.

Yes, the killer may have 'preferred the outdoors', but equally he may have been glad of any opportunity to do his thing undisturbed, or equally he may have longed, by the November, for the chance of a more sheltered, comfortable and private place in which to operate. The evidence doesn't tell us which it was.

Yes, Mary's murderer could have known her, although the whole history of crime is littered with killers who have quickly come unstuck for deciding to do away with someone close to them in that person's own home and making no attempt to cover up the crime.

Yes, someone could have taken full advantage of the unique crime drama series that had recently been playing on this tiny stage to packed houses right across the globe, all gripped by the gruesome details of mutilated unfortunates of the Dorset Street kind, and this someone could have chosen to imitate the star of this show, if he just happened to have an unfortunate playmate of his own at centre stage, who had just outlived her usefulness to him at exactly the right point in history to provide the audience with a truly gripping finale.

But he didn't choose to 'imitate' the outdoor acts that had gone before, but did her in under her own roof, which is presumably one reason why an early press report referred to a suspicion that this one was not like the others but a domestic one-off. So actually, if you stick with the evidence, what you suspect today was suspected initially and Mary wasn't 'automatically' assigned to the ripper. But it did come to that in the end - after the curtain had fallen and the glare and noise had died down, and when the various professionals had got to grips with all the information in their possession.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hello again,

Let me say first to Caz, maybe you've missed a few shots lately, but trust me, "attack" is plenty predictable lately.

You touched on some key issues also Caz, primarily in the interpretation of data differences, and I believe they stem from differing levels of acceptance of data as likely fact.

If I can be so bold as to suggest that you, Ben, and Sam believe that there was a serial killer who craved mutilations running around the East End in the Fall of 88. You feel he likely lived in the area, and was probably "working" poor. Ben has doubts about Liz, but you and Sam less so, and essentially none of you would have a problem with tentatively accepting the Canonical group. You feel his motivations were based in his mind. Caz and Sam feel that the killer of Millers Court was Jack, Ben thinks he was Jack and maybe a known man to Mary.

I feel that there may be three deaths that are linked to one killer by what evidence Ive seen, I believe his motivations probably included a focus on a region and organ group, I dont see any evidence to restrict his means, nor that prevents a man from walking into the East End and then back out to go home, I believe the evidence on Liz Strides murder points more towards a domestic or street assault than it does the WM, I think its possible there were motives for some murders that may include rage, or possibly for financial gain, I dont believe that the evidence dictates the inclusion of victims 3 and perhaps 5, in the case of the 5th, I believe the evidence regarding the likely means of acquisition insinuates a personal relationship of some kind with her killer.....and probably the one that separates us more than any other, I am not convinced that the likely triple killer didnt know any of the women he kills.

I dont think I put words in any of your mouths, and I do believe what I wrote about myself.

We are investigating different events based on the perception differences...thats why I disagree so much with what is in my opinion, unfounded "truths".

The truth is that Jack may have killed a few and others may have killed the others, or that Jack killed dozens and none were "feature matched" beyond the C5, or that Jack wanted to own organs from the female abdomen, ......the point of course is that there is in my opinion no evidence that exists that can support some of the assumptives being used....and plenty of possibilites that dont include killer of 5 or a mutilation fetish.

We dont know who he killed for sure, where he lived, what he did, why he killed, what he wanted, which way he went when leaving crime scenes, and what happened to him.

Some of you might believe that we "know" more than that, or that your guess is better than others, but we dont "know"....and therefore the premise of your guess is only better if you happened to guess better. Which cannot be proven either way based on known data.

Before you tell someone why they are wrong, consider that they may not be seeing these events or evidence as you are, and that you cant prove they are wrong anyway.

It would cause far less anger if anyone who posts, senior members and juniors, remember that unless we are reviewing new evidence together, the existing evidence is far from conclusive about any aspect of the possible killer or killers.

Im sure Sam has felt pushback lately due to those kinds of issues, as Ben has, and Im guessing you as well Caz...at least from me anyway.

Dont jump to post back...consider the points.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Well let me jump in here and state an obvious point that seems to be overlooked. I am not aware of anyone on these boards (myself included) who has stated that the C5 are written in stone and cannot be questioned in any way. Nor are those who support the C5 able to offer absolutely conclusive evidence that it was Jack's hand who did them all.

Nor can those who disagree with the C5 offer absolutely incontrovertible proof or evidence that their position is correct.

Does anybody disagree with this?

c.d.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I haven't followed the debate on this thread but I have to say that I agree with absolutely everyting in Michaels last post.
It's probably one of the most sensible analysis I have ever read in along time and well put.

Caz is right, though, it appears as the Miller's Court murder might initially have been perceived as something else than a Ripper murder (although I am not sure the 'indoor' factor is the sole reason for this), one of them being the long interrogation of Barnett.

My only question is: what happned to the organized-disorganized issue?

All the best