Why did the victims leave the victims where they were?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Errata;190143]

See, in my mind if it were primarily a shock thing, he would have killed them in or dragged them to more trafficked areas

.
It probably wasn't his 'primary' concern to shock. We can guess that he didn't want to get caught (otherwise, he would have been), and 'dragging' a victim to a more visible spot (in an area of London teeming with people) would certainly have increased his chances of being caught.

Annie Chapman was killed in someone's back yard, and the opportunity for public viewing was pretty limited

.
It was practical for not being caught (since 'public viewing' was not his primary concern but, rather, not being caught), and of course money was soon being charged to view the murder spot directly. Sketches and descriptions of the spot were in the papers
[

QUOTE]Of course killing people in a high traffic area is insanely risky, but serial killers who care about making that statement find the risk to be worth the reward. They tend not to half ass it.[/QUOTE

Unless, of course, it is not their 'primary concern', but a necessary by-product that they find that they increasingly enjoy.

[FrankO]

I definitely think that the shock/horror factor was upmost in his mind when leaving his victims where they were. Perhaps also to show his contempt for them as well. Think that there was a good chance that he came back and mixed with the crowd afterwards.

Like Errata, I don’t think he necessarily left his victims like he did to shock, C4. That he killed out in the streets in such a relatively short time span might tell us something about how pressing his need was to kill & mutilate, and that he probably didn’t think ahead too much. In other words, the way that he did it was the easiest & quickest way to get his fix. That’s how I see it. I agree that the way he left his victims may have meant something to himself (it probably did), but was not necessarily done with an audience in mind.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Always remember Jack would not have to leave victims where they would not be found, only where they would not be found while he was with them.

Good point, TTK. Back in those days, it would be very difficult indeed for the police to track down a murderer who got away from the crime scene without being noticed and who didn't give himself up eventually.

Best,
Frank

[Malcolm X]

why did he leave them where they were?

so he could escape detection! he killed and mutilated them and simply walked off, as briskly as possible, because he only needs to worry if he's seen right by the body; or worst still, trying to hide it.

he has to kill, mutilate and get the hell out of there without being seen, especially Eddowes.

JTR doesn't need to worry if he's seen close by, it's being seen right by the body that'll get him Swinging on the end of a rope.

it could go something like this... ``hallo mate, it's great to see you, what have you been up to tonight?``.....``hi, i've just returned from Romford, i've been out drinking with a few friends``

[HelenaWojtczak]

"the victims leave the victims" ? Weird!

I agree with Errata.

[Errata]

Although it occurs to me, with at least a couple of the victims Jack had the option of delaying discovery a little bit longer. Without moving the bodies. Chapman was killed a few feet from a cellar entrance, and it certainly would not have hurt to put her body in that hole. I don't think it would have done much good, daylight coming and all, but he could have. Eddowes was killed in an area littered with refuse, that had some blind spots. If he had dragged her body into a corner and dumped trash on top of her, conceivably he could have delayed discovery until morning. And if he had thrown a blanket over Mary Kelly, or shoved her under the bed, she wouldn't have been discovered until either the landlord came in to remove her things or someone complained of the smell. That could have been days.

I think it has to be considered that since he made no efforts to either reveal or conceal that his relationship with society was fractured, or completely beyond consideration. He left the bodies where they were because they were useless at this point, and his gaze was so turned inward that he did not take simple steps to avoid detection. I think it's possible that he was astonished that anyone cared, any more than society cares about a quarrel between a married couple, or how a man chooses to dispense with extra kittens. Something like Dahmer, who clearly understood why the police were reacting they way they did, but could never really get past the idea that it was really none of their business.

[Rubyretro]

I think it has to be considered that since he made no efforts to either reveal or conceal that his relationship with society was fractured, or completely beyond consideration. He left the bodies where they were because they were useless at this point, and his gaze was so turned inward that he did not take simple steps to avoid detection. I think it's possible that he was astonished that anyone cared, any more than society cares about a quarrel between a married couple, or how a man chooses to dispense with extra kittens.

But you are trying to 'understand' Jack, and psychoanalise a person that we don't know ! That is not a critisism, because myself and every other person on Casebook, is surely guilty of it at one point or other.

It is a purely practical point that he would have had a hard job hiding the bodies quickly.

Not chucking the body into the cellar might only point to the fact that it was dark at the time, and he didn't know the cellar was there (so casting doubt on the TOD).

Thinking that Jack was increasingly liking his own publicity seems to be more supported by the circumstances surrounding subsequent murders, rather than that he was a navel gazer.

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;191056][QUOTE=Errat
But you are trying to 'understand' Jack, and psychoanalise a person that we don't know ! That is not a critisism, because myself and every other person on Casebook, is surely guilty of it at one point or other.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no. It's not psychoanalysis, and it's not even really an analysis of Jack specifically. It's trying to figure out if he left the bodies as is because he was pressed for time or if it was because he was a "body abandoner". One implies a relationship ( or lack of) with the corpse, the other does not. One is significant to the inner workings of a killer, the other isn't. The identity of Jack the Ripper doesn't interest me nearly as much as what goes on in the head of a serial killer. The head of this particular kind of killer. The name of the man is trivia. The reasons he killed are significant, and possibly useful.

I don't say "it has to be considered" and mean "this is what happened". I mean it has to be considered because it is worthy of consideration. If abandoning the body as it lays is part of the murder ritual, that's a whole different kind of suspect than the guy who abandons a body for purely practical concerns. He had a few opportunities to further delay detection, and he didn't take them. Sure it could be a time factor, but if it's not, that says some important things about the mindset of the guy. And it's worth noting.

[FrankO]

It is a purely practical point that he would have had a hard job hiding the bodies quickly.

Hi Ruby,

I look at it in the following way. He could have just cut his vicitms’ throats in a few seconds and left the scene, but he didn’t. He remained with the bodies for a couple of minutes to mutilate them, thereby increasing the chance of being caught red-handed – and being hung. This may tell us that the mutilating of the bodies of the utmost importance to him.

He knew he was pressed for time and didn’t need to waste time trying to hide the bodies, as long as he saw to it that he wasn’t caught in the act or seen fleeing the scene. If he managed to do so, there would be a very good chance he would never be caught. So, my guess (which is just that) would be that he just wasn’t willing to trade precious ‘mutilating time’ for unnecessary ‘hiding time’.

All the best,
Frank

[Steelysama]

The best answer RipperNoob is probably that he had no choice. He probably had no horse-and-buggy and no private residence. If he could have whisked them away to a private dungeon he probably would have. But he was most likely a poor local where the streets were his killing field. That is why MJK's nasty little room probably seemed like the jackpot...

With that said, I think he likely also "got off" on the danger and the shock value of how he left the victims..........


Greg

You make a very good point here. It does seem that the Ripper probably did not have much money. It also seems even less likely that he had access to private transportation or a private room of some kind.