Lack of blood on No.29 Hanbury Street doors

[Bridewell]

Mugging?

Why on earth would a killer, intent on mutilation, bother to rob a living victim, rather than kill first and rob a dead one?

I like the point made earlier in the thread about the killer having his own cloth, but needing to improvise when killing for the second time in one night, something which he had presumably not anticipated. If he learned from experience, he would presumably have carried several cloths thereafter. The man seen with Kelly gave her a red handkerchief, which would not show blood stains, except on close examination.

Something which occurs to me, as I write: the yard of 29, Hanbury Street had, I believe, a privy. There was probably newspaper or something similar kept there for the usual purposes.

[Tom_Wescott]

Simple answers

Chapman's rings were taken from her fingers while she was alive, folks, so regardless if your inability to understand the mind of a criminal (and this seems to plague most), that's how such a mind works. For starters, it's much quicker to get a live person to hand you their stuff than it is to dig around a dead person's pockets. Considering a woman like Chapman would have 30 different places of concealment on her person, her money often in the most obscure one, this would have been the ONLY way to assure he got what he wanted. Secondly (or for the Ripper, perhaps firstly), mugging at knife point would be a method of control to guarantee compliance from the victim until HE was ready to strike.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hardly, ...but in any case, "live" only means before he cut her throat, whether her repose was vertical or horizontal cannot be determined by ring marks...

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

She was conscious, so most likely upright.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Chapman's rings were taken from her fingers while she was alive, folks, so regardless if your inability to understand the mind of a criminal (and this seems to plague most), that's how such a mind works. For starters, it's much quicker to get a live person to hand you their stuff than it is to dig around a dead person's pockets. Considering a woman like Chapman would have 30 different places of concealment on her person, her money often in the most obscure one, this would have been the ONLY way to assure he got what he wanted. Secondly (or for the Ripper, perhaps firstly), mugging at knife point would be a method of control to guarantee compliance from the victim until HE was ready to strike.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, this post sure makes sense, I like it. On the other hand (and you'll see there will soon be too many hands in my sentence), I believe (or have always believed) JtR used first his two hands to suffocate the victims and lower them to the ground, and then, only then, took the knife out of his pocket.
Another question I have is : do you think your suggested MO works for all victims ? all silenced first at the point of the knife ?

Dvvvv

[K-453]

Annie Chapman was not one to shy away from a punchup

No, but also dying from tuberculosis, half starved, and possibly overtired that late at night / early at morning.
She was also only five feet tall.

[Hunter]

From the testimony of Dr. Phillips at the Chapman inquest as reported by the Daily Telegraph:

...On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the bend of the first joint of the ring finger, and there were distinct markings of a ring or rings - probably the latter. There were small sores on the fingers.

There may be a bit of a misconception here, in regards to this testimony. The markings of a ring can be apparent even if it was removed after death; especially if it had been long worn and was a tight fit. The abrasion on the first joint could have occurred after death also, much as the abrasions that were later noticed on Kate Eddowes' face. They could have occurred in some encounter before death as well, but would have bled a little. Phillips did not indicate this if that was the case. An abrasion is a place scraped or worn by rubbing.

The small sores on her fingers would not be uncommon for a woman such as Annie Chapman.

Her killer may have feigned robbery with his victim, but I see no indication of it from the evidence presented; nor do I see a need to do so, given the apparent objective of the murderer. Her expecting to do a 'business transaction' would be sufficient enough to catch her off guard and implement an attack.

Alerting a victim to possible danger exposes the perpetrator as such and invites unpredictable reactions that could rapidly get out of hand. These women had likely faced this kind of situation before and had learned how to deal with it.

[DrHopper]

Excellent post Hunter

I don't see why we need to think along the lines of a mugging, followed by a murder. All that messing about pretending to be one thing just gives more chance that the victim will get away or you will be discovered.

It makes more sense that the rings were taken post-mortem as trophies, or perhaps by other people after the fact - I'm sure not all of the onlookers and people wanting to 'have a look at a body' were honest upstanding citizens.

Indeed, can we be sure that Annie was wearing the rings as she was murdered - perhaps she pawned them earlier in the evening?

I'm just not convinced that, even as a means to an end, JTR was a mugger and a murderer.

[Hunter]

Hi Dr. H... and thank you for your response.

I'm not sure how long the impressions of rings would be left if the wearer had removed them at some earlier point and I doubt that any onlookers would have taken them from a mutilated corpse with the police on the way... but back to the mugging scenerio...

The perpetrator would have to produce a weapon- in this case, a knife- to entice compliance from the victim. This seriously handicaps him if he then intends to throttle or strangle her. He needs both hands free to be effective.

If we can imagine such a scene, the assailant would have to immediately use the knife to put her away; either stabbing her or attempting to cut her throat while she is still standing and able to resist. There is a reason why these women's throats were cut after they were on the ground.

[Tom_Wescott]

My take

Hi all,

Chapman's hands were found reaching for her throat and tightly clenched. This is the position they were in when she died, ergo the right was removed before she died. The abrasions on her hand would not likely have bled, and WHERE they appear are indicative of being wrenched from a living, flexible finger. She was standing when the Ripper demanded she empty her pockets. She had no money and her items were knocked to her feet, except for a torn piece of envelope that would have naturally nestled between her thumb and forefinger, as would a paper bill if you were pulling change from your pocket. This is why the the paper ended up under her head, as that's where it was dropped by her hand just after being lowered and prior to dying. The medicine and lotion she'd been given earlier that day were not found on her person. Either she used it all up in hours or it was taken by her killer.

Likewise, the tissue wrapped cachous were lodged in the hand of Stride, and the thimble in Eddowes hand. They had emptied their pockets just prior to being attacked.

Not only does this simple scenario fit perfectly with a Victorian criminal, which the Ripper was, but it answers many of the nagging mysteries (personal items near or in hands) better than any other theories put forth. Why concoct numerous different explanations for the personal items of the various victims when a single one does it nicely?

DVV,

Maybe the guy with the knife isn't the one who did the strangling. And no, I don't think Mary Kelly was mugged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

Chapman's hands were found reaching for her throat and tightly clenched.

Dr. Phillips described the left hand..

"...On the left side the stiffness was more noticeable, and especially in the fingers, which were partly closed."

Only partly closed?


This is how Insp. Chandler found her arms laid...

"...The face was turned to the right side, and the left arm was resting on the left breast. The right hand was lying down the right side."

Please describe, in as many words as you choose, how her hands can be said to be reaching for her throat?

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Cuz they were, Wick. Keep researching.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Edward]

Mugging? I don't think so ...

Hello All,

So, we have a mugger who murders his victim and then mutilates them? Hmm.

I believe the primary objective of these attacks was to mutilate the victims. These crimes were violence against women. Motive: provide your favorite motive. I believe that any objects taken from the victims were “added value” for the killer. (trophies, retrieving the up front fee for service, etc.) Mugging a live victim before murdering them only complicates the situation and makes the handling of the situation more tenuous and unpredictable.

Surely, the 3rd and 4th victims in a series of murdered women were aware that a serial killer was in their area. Confronted by an aggressor in the middle of a series of murders would elicit a defensive response. Box cutters on an airplane would only work once (the first time). After that, the passengers would react differently. The residents of the East End knew that someone was serially murdering women. It is hard for me to believe that confronted by an aggressive person, they would not raise a ruckus. They would have to figure that they would be killed anyway, even if they complied with the “mugger’s” demands.

Best Regards,
Edward

[Barnaby]

Hi all,

Not only does this simple scenario fit perfectly with a Victorian criminal, which the Ripper was, but it answers many of the nagging mysteries (personal items near or in hands) better than any other theories put forth. Why concoct numerous different explanations for the personal items of the various victims when a single one does it nicely?

DVV,

Maybe the guy with the knife isn't the one who did the strangling. And no, I don't think Mary Kelly was mugged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Very interesting. Reminds me a bit of the Old Nichol gang theory. Do you suppose the killer(s) knew the victims and was trying to extract payment or that it was random violence?

[RedBundy13]

Hello All,

So, we have a mugger who murders his victim and then mutilates them? Hmm.

I believe the primary objective of these attacks was to mutilate the victims. These crimes were violence against women. Motive: provide your favorite motive. I believe that any objects taken from the victims were “added value” for the killer. (trophies, retrieving the up front fee for service, etc.) Mugging a live victim before murdering them only complicates the situation and makes the handling of the situation more tenuous and unpredictable.

Surely, the 3rd and 4th victims in a series of murdered women were aware that a serial killer was in their area. Confronted by an aggressor in the middle of a series of murders would elicit a defensive response. Box cutters on an airplane would only work once (the first time). After that, the passengers would react differently. The residents of the East End knew that someone was serially murdering women. It is hard for me to believe that confronted by an aggressive person, they would not raise a ruckus. They would have to figure that they would be killed anyway, even if they complied with the “mugger’s” demands.

Best Regards,
Edward

Totally agree! This just goes to show that each and every victim was taken completely by suprise, they didnt see what was coming at them.
And also if I was a mugger: overweight, older, missing teeth, ratty clothed prostitutes would not be my victims of choice. I mean seriously, how much are you actually expecting to get from them?