Arrangement at her feet

[mariab]

She would have been on her guard and not at all compliant. In this type of situation the woman will feel as though she is in charge. Jack couldn't have that for obvious reasons. He would need to take charge asap, and these were not blitz attacks.

It appears that his was a “nochalant“ approach followed by a blitz attack. It wouldn't have worked so well otherwise.
Obviously the women would have not felt “in charge“, as they were not Lara Croft/Sigourney Weaver types (for lack of a better word). Still, someone attacked and threatened can react in a very aggressive/reckless way under andrenaline rush.

Originally Posted by c.d.:
Also, if the Ripper used the robbery ruse and decided for some reason to abandon his murder attempt, he has now committed a crime and left a witness alive.

Yes, but not a murder witness. And this has probably happened. Perhaps we can think of a suspect who would in fact attack prostitutes on the street without fear of the law?

I agree that this might have happened, and I can imagine the Ripper having had some dry runs, approaching an unfortunate and changing his mind about attacking. And yes, we know of your favorite suspect with the fancy French name, Tom. ;-)

[Tom_Wescott]

And yes, Baxter mentioned the possibility of a crude imitator.

Baxter did? I know that Dr. Phillips, his assistant, and Superintendent Arnold felt that Eddowes was an imitation, but I'm not sure Wynne Baxter was of that opinion.

The robbery ruse is an interesting theory but I see some problems with it. First, why is it even necessary? Wouldn't the victim be even more at ease if she believed that this was a simple act of prostitution?

She would have been on her guard and not at all compliant. In this type of situation the woman will feel as though she is in charge. Jack couldn't have that for obvious reasons. He would need to take charge asap, and these were not blitz attacks.

The rational response to having a knife at your throat and being told to keep quiet is to do just that. But could he guarantee that every victim would act in a rational manner? Too much chance that they could scream anyway.

No one is arguing that the Ripper didn't take huge risks. And yet, there's five or more victims, so the risks were clearly minimized.

Also, if the Ripper used the robbery ruse and decided for some reason to abandon his murder attempt, he has now committed a crime and left a witness alive.

Yes, but not a murder witness. And this has probably happened. Perhaps we can think of a suspect who would in fact attack prostitutes on the street without fear of the law?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

different

Hello Jon. The Algate butcher's row was not a horse slaughter yard. (See post.)

Notching a bone is not notching cartilage.

You may also wish to review Baxter's summary. Kate's mutilations were very much less skilled.

And yes, Baxter mentioned the possibility of a crude imitator.

Try again?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Absolutely, C.D., completely agree with you. Prostitute-john is the simplest scenario here, and it would have worked perfectly.

[c.d.]

The robbery ruse is an interesting theory but I see some problems with it. First, why is it even necessary? Wouldn't the victim be even more at ease if she believed that this was a simple act of prostitution? The rational response to having a knife at your throat and being told to keep quiet is to do just that. But could he guarantee that every victim would act in a rational manner? Too much chance that they could scream anyway. Also, if the Ripper used the robbery ruse and decided for some reason to abandon his murder attempt, he has now committed a crime and left a witness alive.

c.d.

[mariab]

Knife is negotiable, gun is a big problem. Obviously the idea is not to let anyone approach you at such close range.
(Incidentally, once some guys grabbed my beanie, as in hat, on a motorcycle and drove away, but I run after them and got it back. It helped that they were driving in rounds around the 'hood and they were pretty lame. I was 17. After I got my beanie back, I thought they were cute. Before, they came off to me as as*holes. Obviously not quite a Ripper situation, though.)

[Tom_Wescott]

Then as now, if someone holds a knife to you and says 'scream and you die', you won't scream. Try it some time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

“Secure“ muggings at knife-point would have gotten old quickly after Chapman's murder, Tom, as unfortunates were getting increasingly insecure. The strange personal items randomly thrown around the bodies can be explained by a quick going through their pockets postmortem.

I'll read Examiner 6 soon (I haven't yet managed to read Examiner 5!).

[Tom_Wescott]

Jon Guy's article on Coles is the best I've ever seen on the subject.

To address Raoul, people being mugged at knife point do not cry out. Their objective is to keep from getting stabbed. That would be the whole point of the robbery ruse, NOT because the killer needed money, but to assure the compliance of the victim, who would not feel her life was in danger if she complied. This is how he would have kept them silent until he was in position to blitz them with the attack. I was looking for a theory that would explain the strange personal items in the three subsequent murders and this is the best I could come up with.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I think the idea that the ripper stole items, in particular money off victims, a very good one. But I'm not sure I buy the idea of it occuring prior to the murder.

Completely agree with this. In my opinion and without wishing to appear irreverent to the deceased, the most fuss-free MO to conduct these killings would have been: approach, perhaps pay, grab and slice their neck, empty pockets off valuables, mutilate, flee.

I don't need to answer Lynn Cates' and Phil Carter's phantastic theory, as Jon Guy took care of it, and very competently. By the by, I can't wait to read Mr Guy's article in Examiner 6, about which I've heard the best comments imagineable.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Note also that Polly and Annie both died near a horse slaughter yard, Kate did not.

Kate was found just around the corner from Butchers Row, Aldgate.

Polly and Annie had notched vertebrae, Kate did not.

Dr Brown on Kate: The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages.

Polly and Annie both had mutilations described as skillful, Kate did not.

Dr Brown on Kate: The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.



Regards
Jon

[Phil Carter]

one, two three O'Leary...

Hello Dr H. Indeed. But what if there were NOT the self same assailant in both those cases? I grant the similarities in both cases were striking, but there were also discrepancies.

Look at the sketch of Kate lying in Mitre sq, then compare that to the notes on both Polly and Annie who had their dresses raised.

Note also that Polly and Annie both died near a horse slaughter yard, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie had notched vertebrae, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie had double throat cuts, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie both had mutilations described as skillful, Kate did not.

What if Dr. Baxter were correct in his question at the Stride inquest (whilst comparing Liz to Polly and Annie on the one hand, and Eddowes on the other), and Eddowes' slayer were merely an imitator?

(my emphasis Lynn, not yours)

Hello Lynn,

Then my friend, if the emphasised question from your posting is honestly answered, we have the possibility of two different murderers, and as Liz Stride's murderer hasn't got a comparison because it was basically a quick throat slashing, you have the possibility of three different people having murdered four different women.

That, of course, will be seen as some sort of made up nonsense by some. Rather destroys theories, doesn't it? "Jack the Ripper, five woman killer de-luxe".. goes out of the window. I see that possibility, you see it too, a few others see it. And the galling thing is.. this is BEFORE Kelly comes into the equation. Even if Kelly was a victim of one of the three possible murderers as noted above, after 5 murders, three killers are not arrested, still on the loose, and the police chiefs who instruct their men are not doing the job the rest of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, nay, the whole of London are crying out for..namely "Catch the killer!!"

That is why I believe it is important to see this possibility in context. What sort of reputation did the police chiefs have at this time? Bad enough not being able to capture one lone killer... what about three? One is lead to a conclusion that the reputation of the top brass in the police force is on the line.
Does that mean that they would "save their necks" by dampening the problem and rolling all the murders into one set.. one "Jack"..one lunatic, one deranged doctor, one man etc etc etc?

The arrangement or nay around the body is an important point indeed. There is much to be gained from seeing things as not being unanimously the same each time, as Dr Hopper says. Very much could hang on it.

But then again, to some, the idea will be wafted away because it doesn't fit their lone suspect's theory.... again.....

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

food for thought

Hello Dr H. Indeed. But what if there were NOT the self same assailant in both those cases? I grant the similarities in both cases were striking, but there were also discrepancies.

Look at the sketch of Kate lying in Mitre sq, then compare that to the notes on both Polly and Annie who had their dresses raised.

Note also that Polly and Annie both died near a horse slaughter yard, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie had notched vertebrae, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie had double throat cuts, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie both had mutilations described as skillful, Kate did not.

What if Dr. Baxter were correct in his question at the Stride inquest (whilst comparing Liz to Polly and Annie on the one hand, and Eddowes on the other), and Eddowes' slayer were merely an imitator?

Cheers.
LC

[DrHopper]

Hello Raoul.

Perhaps. But what if Dr. Phillips were correct and Annie's possessions WERE arranged and Catherine's were strewn about? What then?

Cheers.
LC

This is an important point. We are assuming that at each murder the same thing happened - the same series of events. He may have decided to do thing differently each time.

Also, whilst I still maintain that the objects were not arranged in the true sense of the word (i.e. carefully placed with deliberation and meaning), rather Phillips used the word to describe their location in a specific area, not randomly strewn all over, I must confess to not having thought about robbery. I had assumed that the Ripper would be so obsessed with killing that he would not worry about the petty. But then, even the Ripper has to eat, and thus, having handed over the money, he would want it back, possibly with interest - which explains the missing items. Any that were left - the small leather case for example - can be explained by speed and carelessness on the part of the Ripper.

This raises a couple of interesting questions, particularly regarding money. If, as I believe, the Ripper was a local, and was relatively poverty stricken, can we discern a pattern to the killings that suggests when he got paid from his job - after all, he can only give money to a prostitute if he has it. Also, as I say, the Ripper has to eat and sleep, and so would need some form of employment - what kind of job could he hold down? Especially given his apparent mental issues and penchent for evisceration. If we assume he has a menial job, what sort of wages can we expect, and what does it cost for a 'knee-trembler' in LVB? How often would a menial labourer be able to afford one?
Sorry for the stream of conciousness folks... I've got a stinking cold, and have had waaaaaay too much coffee so far today!

[lynn cates]

what if?

Hello Raoul.

"I also wonder why, if after getting Eddowes to empty her pockets for robbery, he leaves her with a small leather case with white metal fittings. Numerous authors have questioned what such a valuable object was doing in her possession, so why wouldn't the ripper take that? I'm probably in the camp that suggests these objects were rather more carelessly strewn than Dr Phillips evo[c]ative language suggests. Maybe he was just reading rather deeply into some coincidental events."

Perhaps. But what if Dr. Phillips were correct and Annie's possessions WERE arranged and Catherine's were strewn about? What then?

Cheers.
LC