Kates Cuts

[Sam Flynn]

Wouldn't you consider getting away with murder "absolutely necessary" Sam? The extra eviscerations set the direction for the investigations that followed, making someone look down the wrong street or in the wrong direction?

If he wanted to make it look like a Ripper murder, he could just have "ripped" her belly open ā la Polly Nichols. Instead, he excised a uterus, a section of colon and a kidney - in near darkness!!! - thereby exceeding anything the Ripper had done up to that point. This was Jack the Ripper, alright, make no mistake.

[Michael W Richards]

That is another matter - and it does not predispose that you live in the area, only that you are well aquainted with it. Take a cab driver, for instance; he will certainly be better versed in area geographies where he works than many people who actually live in the areas.

Jack the Ripper was almost certainly always on foot, which requires a lot more intimate knowledge of an area than driving around it does. In my own life I know several walking paths that shorten the distance between 2 points rather than using streets or roads, and they are also less visible as a result.

[Michael W Richards]

Indeed, but a non-Ripper wouldn't necessarily know that, whereas whoever eviscerated Annie Chapman would know pretty well what he could get away with in a given time. Why would a non-Ripper "hitman" bother with wasting any more time than was absolutely necessary?

Wouldn't you consider getting away with murder "absolutely necessary" Sam? The extra eviscerations set the direction for the investigations that followed, making someone look down the wrong street or in the wrong direction?

[Michael W Richards]

Im confused about the Geographic Profile. Doesnt the algorithm assume JTR chose the murder locations?

I think its likely that 1. He chose, 2. She chose, 3. spur of the moment, 4. he chose, and 5. it was chosen for him.

[DJA]

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

Reckon he once resided in the area and was very familiar with Hanbury Street,Spital Square,Primrose Street,etc as it was his way home at the time.
The expertise shown and the locality of the first two C5 suggests he worked at the London Hospital.
Reckon the victims chose the first three locations.
When he worked late and couldn't get home to his wife in Kent,a bolt hole in Mitre Street would have been handy.Alternatively a stay in one of the pubs in Hanbury Street,depending on his mood.

[Sam Flynn]

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

Of course, if the killer and his victims were based in the same small area, then whoever chose the locations becomes somewhat academic. Unless he had private transport, the murders were always likely to happen within easy walking distance of where both killer and victim lived.

[Fisherman]

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

It is actually not a fact that he DID live in the area, Observer.

[Fisherman]

I believe Fisherman that the strongest arguments are for someone who lived in that same area, not someone who came and went each day.

I donīt agree, however. The presence in the area as such is what counts. Being resident there does not in any shape of form lead to a wish to kill and eviscerate, as you will surely understand if you give it some little afterthought; it all boils down to an urge that does not go away just because you move to a different address.

The killer in some of these cases had to have specific street/lane knowledge, and most probably could get off the street quickly.

That is another matter - and it does not predispose that you live in the area, only that you are well aquainted with it. Take a cab driver, for instance; he will certainly be better versed in area geographies where he works than many people who actually live in the areas.

[Observer]

Im confused about the Geographic Profile. Doesnt the algorithm assume JTR chose the murder locations?

I believe it points to the fact that the killer lived in that area. The chances are he worked in that area also. However. I believe that the victims chose the the locations

[Leather_Apron]

Im confused about the Geographic Profile. Doesnt the algorithm assume JTR chose the murder locations?

[Sam Flynn]

I agree that none of what was done other than the deep throat cuts was needed to silence her Sam, but many people including yourself have said you feel there was little time needed to cut Kate up

Indeed, but a non-Ripper wouldn't necessarily know that, whereas whoever eviscerated Annie Chapman would know pretty well what he could get away with in a given time. Why would a non-Ripper "hitman" bother with wasting any more time than was absolutely necessary?

[Michael W Richards]

Similarly, the maps do not take into account those who did not live in the area but perhaps worked there - meaning that they may be every bit as likely as those with addresses in the area to have been present in that area during the murders.

I believe Fisherman that the strongest arguments are for someone who lived in that same area, not someone who came and went each day. The killer in some of these cases had to have specific street/lane knowledge, and most probably could get off the street quickly.

[Leather_Apron]

Its possible that the Ripper had intended to send the piece of apron to Lusk in lieu of an ear. Maybe he cut it such a way as to be absolutely sure police could match it up. Later he may have seen the GSG by chance or knew it was there or just decided it wasnt worth holding on to the apron piece. Or was frightened enough to ditch it. Why not ditch the kidney also? Maybe the kidney was the most important thing to him. If he sent half a kidney to Lusk and ate the other half then it certainly was more important than the apron piece.

[Michael W Richards]

I agree that none of what was done other than the deep throat cuts was needed to silence her Sam, but many people including yourself have said you feel there was little time needed to cut Kate up, so whats a few minutes in the big scheme of things. And for me the opportunity to put this murder on the unknown man who was then known as The Ripper...might be very attractive. If he is a killer anyway, some extra cutting might not be a problem.

I will say again though, Im not thoroughly convinced that Kate wasn't killed by Polly and Annies killer. I am with Stride, and in the case of Mary Kelly, pretty much so. In the latter case it appears as if she was killed by someone she knew and trusted enough to be in her room while she was drunk and or hungover, and almost undressed in the middle of the night. A man who seeks out strangers randomly, by opportunity, doesn't seem to be the same fella in room 13.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, that seems the case with Kate, however we also have evidence that another more common and mundane motivation may be present. To silence her.

We could just as easily speculate that the killer(s) of the other canonical victims wanted to silence them, too. Not everyone who wants to shut someone up signifies their motivation by cutting off part of their victim's nose.

The elephant in the room with the majority of the C5 is the opening up of the abdomen, with the obvious intent (not always successful) of obtaining one or more internal organs. There was no earthly need for the purported "silencer" of Catherine Eddowes to do anything more than cut her throat, precisely as happened to Liz Stride. Wasting time on an alfresco "hysterectomy" in a dark public square patrolled by no less than two policemen was an absurd and risky luxury that anyone other than a determined Ripper could ill-afford.