So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[Pierre]

Abby

never a truer comment made, All have weaknesses.

Some are stronger than others, but that is only relatively speaking.

Even the strongest have a status of:

"could possible be" rather than "could probably be"

Steve

Hi Steve,

I like this post.

Which "suspect" do you think is the strongest one, given the "evidence" available?

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

A few things to discuss here. First, we don't know to what extent anyone (Cross or Paul) pulled Nichols' clothing down. It is supposition that her clothes were partially pulled down (by the killer) in a hurried attempt to cover the wounds. We don't know how much of Nichols body was exposed or how much Paul covered up.

I thought it was reported Nichols skirts were pulled up to just below her abdomen when Paul pulled them down?

Second, we know that it was very dark. Dark enough that the men did not notice the wound to Nichols' neck (which had nearly decapitated her), even though Paul bent low enough to her to have touched her. They didn't notice any visible blood. If we believe Cross, it was dark enough for him - from just a few feet away - to have confused her body with a tarpaulin. Thus, the wounds may have been exposed and simply not observed due to darkness.

The thing that bothers me is that they didn't notice she was almost decapitated. Her head should've been in an awkward position because of the weight of the head shifting from lack of support

Third, serial killers evolve, progress, take advantage of opportunity and environment. If Tabram were JtR's first victim, then we see a substantial change/evolution in how the Nichol's murder was carried out. The same can be said for Chapman. Nichols was handled quite gently compared with Chapman. Here intestines were removed and place above her shoulder, etc. Of course, the killer was afforded more privacy this time around. A lesson he likely learned from his first murder, whether he had he been interrupted or simply found the lack of privacy in Buck's Row to constrictive. Eddowes' face was horribly mutilated, something not found with Tabram, Nichols, Chapman. We know the killer had privacy and time with Kelly. And we saw the results there were quite different indeed.

That makes sense but I think Hanbury would be a bit more risky then Buck's Row because of the potential of being cornered. I'm sure that's another thread.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Correct. "Fisherman" maintains he was a psychopath because "IF" he killed Nichols and stuck around Buck's Row to engage Paul, went looking for Mizen, showed up at the inquest, then continued his career as JtR and the "Torso Killer of Pinchin Street" then he was a psychopath. And since "Fisherman" believes there is an overwhelming probability that he DID do all those things then he WAS, clearly, a psychopath.

I think considering Lechmere as the Torso Killer is a bit of a stretch. I think even Fisherman would agree that is a very tenuous connection and is complete speculation. But those murders are another thread.

I equate Lechmere\torso killer to Steve Hodel accusing his father George Hodel of being the Black Dahlia killer (which he was suspected) and then accuse him of being the Zodiac Killer when his father was out of the country from the fifties to the nineties.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I like this post.

Which "suspect" do you think is the strongest one, given the "evidence" available?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre
this will obviously take us a little off topic, but for one post I hope others will forgive me.

I think I have said this several times, you may have missed it. and to be fair my view does change as new "evidence" either appears or gets shown to be faulty.

my present top suspects are:

Kosminski:

1. Named directly by 2 separate sources and indirectly by 1 (Anderson did not give name) from the period. All by senior officers.

2. Two of those sources mention a partial Id. while this is indeed possible that is all one can say.

3. Possibility no more than that that he could be the individual watched by Cox and Sagar


Jacob Levy:

1. Reportedly absent from home at night, including nights of murders
2. Knew how to use a knife.
3. Good fit if MJK is last victim due to date of entering asylum and death.
4 The point above about Anderson's suspect could be applied to Levy, as could point 3 above.

Tumblety, following the new research done has to be looked at again in greater depth too.

However Pierre, none of those are more than a possible!.

I have yet to see any evidence against any person or persons which I consider allows me to move them into the probably status.

Kosminski is reasonably close to that, but there are still issues about the Id and the person observed by Cox and or Sagar, which do not allow that.

I hope that helps.

[Patrick S]

That makes sense but I think Hanbury would be a bit more risky then Buck's Row because of the potential of being cornered. I'm sure that's another thread.

Columbo

I didn't say anything about risk. I said that Hanbury street afforded a greater degree of privacy. More to the point, I think the killer PERCEIVED that Hanbury Street afforded more privacy for what he was about.

I think that it's rational to conclude that the rear of dwelling, in the dark of the wee hours, would be perceived by most as more private than the middle of a street. Whether that was the reality or not is another question, and in the end irrelevant. Although, I'd point out that the backyard did - in practice - offer more privacy than Buck's Row in that Cadosh passed within a few feet of the spot where Chapman was killed. He saw nothing due to the fence that separated Nos. 27 and 29. Its true also that others felt that the back of 29 Hanbury offered some degree of privacy, as it's residents testified immoral business was often transacted there.

As well, I'd suggest that - unlike Lechmere's alleged solution for avoiding capture (i.e. the Mizen Scam, etc.) - the killer was prepared to go to more extreme lengths involving his "very sharp knife" to avoid capture. Further, I think that it's demonstrable that the killer sought privacy - not for the purposes of escape - but in order to fulfill his desires, to do what he was compelled to do.

Thus, he had the opportunity in Buck's Row, it suited him well enough. Very dark. Deserted as far as he could tell (although people were sleeping mere feet away). I think he felt that No. 29 afforded him a greater ability to avoid being seen by passersby, etc. Thus, more mutilation.

If we believe Stride was a victim, then I think that he was felt that he had some privacy in Dutfield's Yard. Diemschutz said that the yard was "very dark". Of course, as he was unfamiliar with the goings on in and around the International Working Men's Educational Club, he didn't count on Diemschutz arriving with his cart.

Thus, he sought out Eddowes and took her to very dark corner of Mitre Square. Again deserted (to the naked eye - we know that Morris was awake and working just yards away), and dark (Watkins called the spot where she was fond the 'darkest' part of the square). Again, a close call as Watkins came around with his 'bullseye' lamp likely moments after the deed was done. Of course we know that Eddowes was "ripped up like a pig in the market".

Then, on to Kelly. She was essentially dismembered. The killer obviously spent a great deal of time doing what he did. He owed that time and the indulgences it allowed him to the privacy afforded by being indoors, in Kelly's room. Alas, it was risky. Anyone could have pulled the curtain aside and peeked due to the broken window. He was either unaware of the window, or simply unconcerned. I'd suggest risk avoidance was not much of a concern. Doing what he had to do was. Privacy, even if it came with risk, gave him the opportunity to do what he had to do.

I'm interested to know why you are "bothered" by both Paul and Cross not noticing the wounds neck would to Nichols? Do you believe both men are lying? As the simplest explanation is - at least in my view - usually the most likely, I assume it was - as they said - simply too dark to see. What's troubling you?

[Patrick S]

I think considering Lechmere as the Torso Killer is a bit of a stretch. I think even Fisherman would agree that is a very tenuous connection and is complete speculation. But those murders are another thread.

I equate Lechmere\torso killer to Steve Hodel accusing his father George Hodel of being the Black Dahlia killer (which he was suspected) and then accuse him of being the Zodiac Killer when his father was out of the country from the fifties to the nineties.

Columbo

Consider him as the "Torso Killer" he does. In a recent post he alluded to a "strong connection" between the Lechmere family and Pinchin Street. The allusion there is obvious: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer".

It is part of his theory and I would suggest it's vital because it answers the VERY QUESTION posed in this thread: WHY DID HE STOP? As serial killers rarely stop killing if they are able to do so and we know that Lechmere, hale and hearty, lived until 1920 then he likely kept killing. And since JtR, as we know him, stopped killing in 1888 (or some short years later depending on your preferred list of his likely victims), his becoming another killer (albeit of lesser renown) helps answer the question (i.e. he did NOT stop).

[Pierre]

Pierre
this will obviously take us a little off topic, but for one post I hope others will forgive me.

I think I have said this several times, you may have missed it. and to be fair my view does change as new "evidence" either appears or gets shown to be faulty.

my present top suspects are:

Kosminski:

1. Named directly by 2 separate sources and indirectly by 1 (Anderson did not give name) from the period. All by senior officers.

2. Two of those sources mention a partial Id. while this is indeed possible that is all one can say.

3. Possibility no more than that that he could be the individual watched by Cox and Sagar


Jacob Levy:

1. Reportedly absent from home at night, including nights of murders
2. Knew how to use a knife.
3. Good fit if MJK is last victim due to date of entering asylum and death.
4 The point above about Anderson's suspect could be applied to Levy, as could point 3 above.

Tumblety, following the new research done has to be looked at again in greater depth too.

However Pierre, none of those are more than a possible!.

I have yet to see any evidence against any person or persons which I consider allows me to move them into the probably status.

Kosminski is reasonably close to that, but there are still issues about the Id and the person observed by Cox and or Sagar, which do not allow that.

I hope that helps.

Thanks a lot, very generous of you. And if I haven´t missed anything here, what I think about your view about the possibilities here is:

There are no sources for a motive, a trigger, a chronology at micro level, a coherence (for example established through sources connecting them to each murder), no explanations for known problems (GSG or other communications), no explanations (hypothetical even) for their escaping the police at each murder site, and no explanation for the victimology, MO or signature.

I do not say this to oppose you, believe me. And I know that the theories about Jack the Ripper are no good.

And this is also why you say they are possible. But I wonder if they are even possible. Depends on how you define that.

Thanks again, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Consider him as the "Torso Killer" he does. In a recent post he alluded to a "strong connection" between the Lechmere family and Pinchin Street. The allusion there is obvious: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer".

It is part of his theory and I would suggest it's vital because it answers the VERY QUESTION posed in this thread: WHY DID HE STOP? As serial killers rarely stop killing if they are able to do so and we know that Lechmere, hale and hearty, lived until 1920 then he likely kept killing. And since JtR, as we know him, stopped killing in 1888 (or some short years later depending on your preferred list of his likely victims), his becoming another killer (albeit of lesser renown) helps answer the question (i.e. he did NOT stop).

Yes. And I would really like to hear Fisherman´s explanation of the established fact that one torso was placed in the new Scotland Yard building and also of Arnolds story about a police inspector telling him about a murder in Backchurch Lane a year after the murder of Annie Chapman.

But of course, he has also chosen to call Lechmere´s sighting of a policeman in Buck´s Row a "Scam".

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

I didn't say anything about risk. I said that Hanbury street afforded a greater degree of privacy. More to the point, I think the killer PERCEIVED that Hanbury Street afforded more privacy for what he was about.

I think that it's rational to conclude that the rear of dwelling, in the dark of the wee hours, would be perceived by most as more private than the middle of a street. Whether that was the reality or not is another question, and in the end irrelevant. Although, I'd point out that the backyard did - in practice - offer more privacy than Buck's Row in that Cadosh passed within a few feet of the spot where Chapman was killed. He saw nothing due to the fence that separated Nos. 27 and 29. Its true also that others felt that the back of 29 Hanbury offered some degree of privacy, as it's residents testified immoral business was often transacted there.

As well, I'd suggest that - unlike Lechmere's alleged solution for avoiding capture (i.e. the Mizen Scam, etc.) - the killer was prepared to go to more extreme lengths involving his "very sharp knife" to avoid capture. Further, I think that it's demonstrable that the killer sought privacy - not for the purposes of escape - but in order to fulfill his desires, to do what he was compelled to do.

Thus, he had the opportunity in Buck's Row, it suited him well enough. Very dark. Deserted as far as he could tell (although people were sleeping mere feet away). I think he felt that No. 29 afforded him a greater ability to avoid being seen by passersby, etc. Thus, more mutilation.

If we believe Stride was a victim, then I think that he was felt that he had some privacy in Dutfield's Yard. Diemschutz said that the yard was "very dark". Of course, as he was unfamiliar with the goings on in and around the International Working Men's Educational Club, he didn't count on Diemschutz arriving with his cart.

Thus, he sought out Eddowes and took her to very dark corner of Mitre Square. Again deserted (to the naked eye - we know that Morris was awake and working just yards away), and dark (Watkins called the spot where she was fond the 'darkest' part of the square). Again, a close call as Watkins came around with his 'bullseye' lamp likely moments after the deed was done. Of course we know that Eddowes was "ripped up like a pig in the market".

Then, on to Kelly. She was essentially dismembered. The killer obviously spent a great deal of time doing what he did. He owed that time and the indulgences it allowed him to the privacy afforded by being indoors, in Kelly's room. Alas, it was risky. Anyone could have pulled the curtain aside and peeked due to the broken window. He was either unaware of the window, or simply unconcerned. I'd suggest risk avoidance was not much of a concern. Doing what he had to do was. Privacy, even if it came with risk, gave him the opportunity to do what he had to do.

I'm interested to know why you are "bothered" by both Paul and Cross not noticing the wounds neck would to Nichols? Do you believe both men are lying? As the simplest explanation is - at least in my view - usually the most likely, I assume it was - as they said - simply too dark to see. What's troubling you?

It must've been very dark or she was bundled up to the neck in clothes because a cut throat to the spine makes an awful big gap when the head rolls. I don't think they're lying but at the same time Paul had enough light to see the position of the skirt and decided to pull it down for proprieties sake. Just struck me as kind of odd.

You're right on the other part. Of course we don't know how much JTR directed his victims to the spot they were found, so it may not have been up to him at all. Even MJK took him to her room.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

Pierre if you want to go into details, not here please. Its a thread on a different topic.

Its not fair on those people posting on its topic

I will briefly reply and then no more on this thread regarding this subject..

There are sources for a trigger on levy, the GSG is not a problem if you don't think the killer wrote it. Neither is victimology a problem, and I have offered no explanation for "escaping" as you call it because I was only giving a brief summary, but one can be made for both.

I have to say I do wonder, having read the reply, if you have looked into either of the two I mention in any detail at all .
I accept that this is not opposing me, as I am not actively arguing either at present.

There you go again, making a generalization:

"And I know that the theories about Jack the Ripper are no good."

Yes they are both certainly possible.

Both "suspects" are proposed solely on sources from the time, none of those sources are from newspapers, other than the reports from Cox and Sagar, the reliability of which has certainly been questioned.

happy to discuss both with you, but not on this thread , is that ok Pierre

Steve

Thanks a lot, very generous of you. And if I haven´t missed anything here, what I think about your view about the possibilities here is:

There are no sources for a motive, a trigger, a chronology at micro level, a coherence (for example established through sources connecting them to each murder), no explanations for known problems (GSG or other communications), no explanations (hypothetical even) for their escaping the police at each murder site, and no explanation for the victimology, MO or signature.

I do not say this to oppose you, believe me. And I know that the theories about Jack the Ripper are no good.

And this is also why you say they are possible. But I wonder if they are even possible. Depends on how you define that.

Thanks again, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

It must've been very dark or she was bundled up to the neck in clothes because a cut throat to the spine makes an awful big gap when the head rolls. I don't think they're lying but at the same time Paul had enough light to see the position of the skirt and decided to pull it down for proprieties sake. Just struck me as kind of odd.

You're right on the other part. Of course we don't know how much JTR directed his victims to the spot they were found, so it may not have been up to him at all. Even MJK took him to her room.

Columbo

Good point. I have always felt that JtR didn't choose the victims or the locales so much as the chose him. That is to say that these women sought him out and took him to their favored spots. I still maintain that's most likely. But, the Lechmere business has had the affect of causing me to think differently about many aspects of the crimes, the players involved. And I've become intrigued to some degree about the escalation the mutilations, culminating with Kelly. I began thinking about Nichols, Bucks Row. The comparatively minor mutilations (there is a theory that Nichols was extensively mutilated, but that the press didn't report it as it was deemed distasteful and too salacious for Victorian times; the press subsequently abandoned such discretion with Chapman, et al), and the comparative lack of privacy. With each crime it seems as if the killer either was afforded by the victim or sought more private environs (or at least the most private possible that specific spot). May be coincidence and spots were chosen by the victims. Maybe the killer influenced them. We'll never know. Interesting to consider.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;379638]Pierre if you want to go into details, not here please. Its a thread on a different topic.

Its not fair on those people posting on its topic

I will briefly reply and then no more on this thread regarding this subject..

There are sources for a trigger on levy, the GSG is not a problem if you don't think the killer wrote it. Neither is victimology a problem, and I have offered no explanation for "escaping" as you call it because I was only giving a brief summary, but one can be made for both.

I have to say I do wonder, having read the reply, if you have looked into either of the two I mention in any detail at all .
I accept that this is not opposing me, as I am not actively arguing either at present.

There you go again, making a generalization:

"And I know that the theories about Jack the Ripper are no good."

Yes they are both certainly possible.

Both "suspects" are proposed solely on sources from the time, none of those sources are from newspapers, other than the reports from Cox and Sagar, the reliability of which has certainly been questioned.

happy to discuss both with you, but not on this thread , is that ok Pierre

Steve

Sure, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

It must've been very dark or she was bundled up to the neck in clothes because a cut throat to the spine makes an awful big gap when the head rolls. I don't think they're lying but at the same time Paul had enough light to see the position of the skirt and decided to pull it down for proprieties sake. Just struck me as kind of odd.

You're right on the other part. Of course we don't know how much JTR directed his victims to the spot they were found, so it may not have been up to him at all. Even MJK took him to her room.

Columbo

I was in the Bahamas last month, a rather rustic island called Eleuthera. Beautiful place. The house our family rented was on some cliffs above the beach. One night the moon was full and it seemed as if were daylight at 3am. Amazing. Conversely, one night we had thick clouds, no moon or stars. There is virtually no ambient light from cities (there are none on the island), no street lights, no neighbor's lights (we had no neighbors), and no lights on in our house. It was black. You could not make out your feet below you. I assume that the level of darkness in Buck's Row, with no street lights (save one at the end of the street), no lights from the surrounding flats, was along the same lines.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;379640]

Good point. I have always felt that JtR didn't choose the victims or the locales so much as the chose him.

Excuse me, Patrick, but:

Have you "felt"? How could feelings have anything to do with the sources from 1888?

That is to say that these women sought him out and took him to their favored spots.

Sure. So the favourite spot of Polly Nichols was in a street where people were going to work. And the favourite spot of Elizabeth Stride was just outside the International Working Men's Educational Club?

No. Those places were with very high probability the choice of the killer. And the choice were high risk murder sites.

I still maintain that's most likely. But, the Lechmere business has had the affect of causing me to think differently about many aspects of the crimes, the players involved. And I've become intrigued to some degree about the escalation the mutilations, culminating with Kelly. I began thinking about Nichols, Bucks Row. The comparatively minor mutilations (there is a theory that Nichols was extensively mutilated, but that the press didn't report it as it was deemed distasteful and too salacious for Victorian times; the press subsequently abandoned such discretion with Chapman, et al), and the comparative lack of privacy. With each crime it seems as if the killer either was afforded by the victim or sought more private environs (or at least the most private possible that specific spot). May be coincidence and spots were chosen by the victims. Maybe the killer influenced them. We'll never know. Interesting to consider.

Mitre Square had three entrances. And there were a lot of windows.

Kelly stayed on the ground floor in a small room with a broken window. Anyone could have put his hand through the window and he would have seen the killer.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379647]

Mitre Square had three entrances. And there were a lot of windows.

But comparatively few occupants to look out, certain when compared to Hanbury Street for example, And while 3 entrance mean people can come from any direction, it equally gives a three routes for escape too.

Steve