Was "Jack" a thief?

[Phil H]

Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't trace a relevant thread to resurrect.

A couple of commets over the last 2 days - one from richardnunweek suggesting that her killer may have stolen whatever money MJK had, as there was none apparently found in her room.

A response to a post of mine, I think from Lynn Cates, also suggested that Isenschmidt may have retained trophies such as brass rings. We know, of course, that Chapman appeared to have had rings wrenched from her fingers.

I also seem to recall reading somewhere (I think in a recent book) a theory that the killer first robbed his victims then killed them, again I think citing the Chapman murder in particular.

So - what do people think, did "Jack" steal from his victims as well as kill them? Certainly, I recall no mention of money being found on any victim - though one would suppose that these women would ahve wanted to have "cash in hand" before commencing their business with a client. Yet some of the woman SHOULD surely have had money - MJK if her activities and liaisons that night are fact, Stride who is supposed to have started the evening with 6d.

I must confess that I had never previosuly seen the killer as thief - it would certainly change my idea of his MO if I was convinced otherwise. Should we see him as stealing first and then killing, and what does that do for the "suddenness" of his attack. Was there not a chance for the woman involved to scream?

If he searched them afterwards I see no sign in the case of Nichols, but Chapman and Eddowes are possibles. But Stride has no momey, but where is the time to rob if this was a disturbed crime as so many believe?

I'd be fascinated to hear the views of others on this - or to be directed to another thread where the issue is discussed.

Phil

[lynn cates]

the sincerest form of flattery

Hello Phil. The Colney Hatch attendant claimed that Isenschmid had a piece of paper where he kept studs and other worthless trinkets. He thought them valuable. I suggest that, after killing Annie, JI saw her worthless rings and took them. He then rifled her pockets.

If my conjecture is correct, Kate's slayer went through her pockets in order to emulate the Chapman killing.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Hi Phil,
I have always been convinced that JTR was also a thief.

I don't believe that thieving was his main motive, but that he was poor and
would not let any jewellery (Chapman's rings) or money 'go to waste'.

He would not have had to lose time searching the women, since he would see where they secreted their cash when he paid them.

We know that all the women would have had at least the killer's own money to take back, but Mary and Liz probably had a bit more as well, having money from previous punter's on them.

I would think that that he killed in a surprise attack, then robbed them, and then mutilated in that order -because he didn't know how much time he had,
and he didn't want to be forced to take off without the cash.

Therefore, he may not have had time to mutilate Liz (if indeed that was his intention-I have a question mark over whether he didn't intend to kill two women all along). but he did just have time to rob her.

Personally, I don't believe that BSM was 'Jack' -but there is also a question mark (for me) over whether BSM didn't relieve Liz of her earnings, just before
Jack killed her. Two unrelated incidents.

[Luke111]

Hi Phil,
I have always been convinced that JTR was also a thief.

I don't believe that thieving was his main motive, but that he was poor and
would not let any jewellery (Chapman's rings) or money 'go to waste'.

He would not have had to lose time searching the women, since he would see where they secreted their cash when he paid them.

We know that all the women would have had at least the killer's own money to take back, but Mary and Liz probably had a bit more as well, having money from previous punter's on them.

I would think that that he killed in a surprise attack, then robbed them, and then mutilated in that order -because he didn't know how much time he had,
and he didn't want to be forced to take off without the cash.

Therefore, he may not have had time to mutilate Liz (if indeed that was his intention-I have a question mark over whether he didn't intend to kill two women all along). but he did just have time to rob her.

Personally, I don't believe that BSM was 'Jack' -but there is also a question mark (for me) over whether BSM didn't relieve Liz of her earnings, just before
Jack killed her. Two unrelated incidents.

It could be that. But couldnt Jack take those things like some sort of trophy?
Many serial killers take something from their victims.
What do you guys think?

[Sally]

I would think that that he killed in a surprise attack, then robbed them, and then mutilated in that order -because he didn't know how much time he had,
and he didn't want to be forced to take off without the cash.

Hi Ruby - I would have thought the robbery came at the end. It appears to me that the mutilations were the main focus of these murders, so I would expect them to take priority over theft.

As to whether any theft was for the purpose of financial gain or trophy - why not both? If his victims had money on them, he could have used it - unless one is very wealthy, money is always handy. And he could have had further pleasure after the fact of his 'work' knowing how he had obtained that money.

If he took personal itmes from his victims; he may have kept them as trophies, or sold them, deriving a similar sort of pleasure.

I think whether he took objects for trophies depends a bit on whether he took organs for trophies; or as part of the process of his act - maybe for consumption.

Sorry, a bit grim!

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Ruby - I would have thought the robbery came at the end. It appears to me that the mutilations were the main focus of these murders, so I would expect them to take priority over theft.

Obviously this is all speculation, and we'll never know..

Still, I stand by my original statement.

I think that it is clear that the mutilations had increasingly become the main focus for the murders, nevertheless I don't think that Jack' killed in a mad frenzy nor was blind drunk when he was killing -he was quite methodical.

I can't see him wanting to stop the mutilations before he heard someone coming, or he knew that the Policeman would pass. I can't see him taking the time to collect money, once he heard bootsteps either. I think that he
got the cash as soon as the women were dead, and then he he got down to the mutilatating for as long as it was safe to do so..

[Lechmere]

I would suggest that initially he strangled them either to loss of consciousness or death.
If he did rob them, on a practical level it would surely have taken place immediately after this. Subsequent to slashing the throat and abdomen with his knife, any rummage and robbery would be somewhat messy.

[Versa]

To be honest if no money was found on them by the police I doubt the women did have any money on them, I think they were probably spending any money they did get on a quick glass of gin and then having to go back out onto the street for more (none were particulary sober when they were murdered) and this was a circular thing for each of them on the night they were murdered...

[Adam Went]

It's a good question, and it probably comes down to how you define a "thief". A thief to me would be somebody who steals something for financial or otherwise useful gain - if Jack stole from his victims, it was most likely more to do with the bits and pieces being "trophies" from his kills, as with the removal of the organs, than any typical out-and-out thief behaviour. Certainly I don't believe it was a prime motive for any of his kills.

Liz Stride is the particularly interesting one, being that we know she had earned sixpence on the day she was killed and appeared to have not been drinking before she was murdered, so where did her money go? Obviously though there's numerous possibilities for that and without a comprehensive, recorded sequence of events for her that night, it's impossible to know.

Having said that, I've pondered the possibility in the past that Jack may well have started out in his younger years as a petty thief, robber or commiter of assaults and other smaller crime, eventually building up his criminal drive and confidence into what became the Whitechapel Murders. I know it CAN happen but I just don't buy that he wandered out into the streets one night and decided that he'd rip some women to pieces, just out of the blue.

It really is all just speculation though....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil H]

By way of clarification

...it probably comes down to how you define a "thief". A thief to me would be somebody who steals something for financial or otherwise useful gain - if Jack stole from his victims, it was most likely more to do with the bits and pieces being "trophies" from his kills...

Just to be clear, when I wrote the first post, I had in mind whether "Jack" robbed his victims, nothing more. That is, did he take money from them.

I was not thinking particularly of body parts (though that needn't and won't stop discussion of that).

I find Adam's question of whether or not JtR began as a thief of interest though.

I'm grateful for all the responses to date - very useful.

Phil

[Mascara & Paranoia]

As someone who believes the Ripper to have been a local bloke just as poor as the rest of the Whitechapel residents, I can completely buy into him stealing his victims' money and, in the case of Annie Chapman, her ring - more so for financial reasons than as a souvenir.

I don't think it would've changed his m.o. to what we generally think to be the case though, and that he probably would've robbed the victims once he was done with them - or during (whilst lifting their clothes he might've rooted through their pockets).

[Sally]

I find Adam's question of whether or not JtR began as a thief of interest though.

Perhaps it would be more the case that theft was amongst his misdemeanours? I would expect less of a linear progression in types of crime than a progression in severity of cirme.

I think an awful lot of people living in extreme poverty in the East End probably stole, but there are degrees. Personal robbery, for example, carries with it the strong possibility of violence. So perhaps Jtr (I'm assuming he existed for the sake of argument!) once got off on forcibly robbing the prostitutes he used; and it went on from there.

Maybe?

[Phil H]

So perhaps Jtr (I'm assuming he existed for the sake of argument!) once got off on forcibly robbing the prostitutes he used; and it went on from there.


Sally, on the basis of this statement, do you think "Jack" might have been involved in the 3-some that attacked Smith? Or if more than one person was involved, in the murder of Tabram?

Phil

[Lechmere]

Stride seen in the Bricklayers Arms, Settles Street not long before she was killed so she could easily have spent her money.

[Sally]

So perhaps Jtr (I'm assuming he existed for the sake of argument!) once got off on forcibly robbing the prostitutes he used; and it went on from there.


Sally, on the basis of this statement, do you think "Jack" might have been involved in the 3-some that attacked Smith? Or if more than one person was involved, in the murder of Tabram?

Phil

Phil -

I do think 'Jack' was responsible for Tabram - for which I have my own reasons (which I, at least, find compelling). The question of whether he operated alone on that occasion is very difficult to decide.

I don't know about Smith - perhaps; I wouldn't go further than to acknowledge the possibility.

I don't buy multiple killer theory really. As I'm sure I have said ad nauseum, unless we accept conspiracy, the odds are against it.