Time of Death Analyzation

[c.d.]

Hi Fisherman, Michael,

Does Kate belong in the C5? Her face was horribly mutilated. That is a deviation from what occurred with Polly and Annie, the two preceding murders (for your benefit, I am not counting Liz). Since that is such a significant deviation, how can we attribute her killing to the same hand that struck down Polly and Annie?

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Well, c.d, since Kate Eddowes had her throat cut to the bone, and since she was ripped open and eviscerated, it would seem that she fell prey to somebody who enjoyed such things. And as I have stated numerous times now, SUCH THINGS ARE AS RARE AS FROGīS TEETH!

Would you not say, c.d, that these elements are in all probability specific to the same killer? Or do you yourself detract Eddowes on grounds of her having another element added to the frogīs teeth?

I should think not.

Of course there are differences inbetween each and every killing.

Then again, if we had had a murder on the East end streets where a woman had been clubbed down by somebody wielding a poker or distributing electric shocks - would the reasonable thing be to accept her as a probable victim of Jack the Ripper, since we should be generous and keep an open mind?

What was it, c.d, that got Jack named "the Ripper"? What was it that was significant in his killing method? Would you say that he differed somehow from the ordinary knife slayer?

Or would you merrily suggest that just about any knife deed perpetrated against a woman in the East end that autumn must have been Jacks?

Wait a minute ... thatīs exactly what you are doing, is it not...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I think that Colins analysis shows us that the murders did occur and were most likely to occur during the hours that a traditional streetwalker would be most active

Alternatively - and perhaps more accurately - the hours during which the more desperate vagrants of the East End were still wandering the streets; evicted, and with little prospect of finding a doss for the night. Perhaps Jack was one of their number.

[perrymason]

Hi Fisherman, Michael,

Does Kate belong in the C5? Her face was horribly mutilated. That is a deviation from what occurred with Polly and Annie, the two preceding murders (for your benefit, I am not counting Liz). Since that is such a significant deviation, how can we attribute her killing to the same hand that struck down Polly and Annie?

c.d.

I know youre asking with a foregone conclusion in your own mind cd, but since you did.... ....I think that the methodology in Kates case coupled with some significant features including the ability to extract a kidney "carefully" says that she could well be a victim of the same man or men that killed the first 2 Canonicals.

If for example the killer had extracted a uterus and the facial wounds were still there I would be inclined to think that he is getting cocky now demonstrating that he has "extra" time to do some less functional cutting. Id bet it was the same man.

But he didnt do that, he takes a new organ and adds new features. And she is killed while figuratively surrounded by City Policemen, by my count at least 7 active or retired policemen were within shouting distance when she is killed.

Those are the things that make me wary of the categorization in more concrete terms....and the neatness of the witness timings...one exits, one enters,... the ones that are in the square are unaware of any goings on, the ones already searching city lanes... before the murder discovery, just a few streets over....something seems to me to be amiss.

It may be just me, but Philips thought that the murder may have been by an imitator.

Best regards

[perrymason]

Alternatively - and perhaps more accurately - the hours during which the more desperate vagrants of the East End were still wandering the streets; evicted, and with little prospect of finding a doss for the night. Perhaps Jack was one of their number.

Thats not bad Gareth, the after midnight streets are like channels of the nomadic desperately poor...maybe he was among them. There are a lot of questions that I would want answered before I would accept he was homeless though....there seems to be a need for him to have a "home" even if its a makeshift one somewhere. And there seems to be evidence that suggests he kills when working class people wouldnt be working. If hes homeless and jobless, why not some daylight murders?

Best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

If hes homeless and jobless

I wouldn't (actually, I didn't) say "jobless", Mike - nor "homeless" for that matter, except in the sense that most of his victims were technically "homeless" when he met them. The victims wouldn't have been the only transients in that category, and occasionally lacking money for one's doss was not a situation exclusive to women alone.

[celticsun]

Dutfield's yard was more in keeping with the Ripper's MO than Millers Court, that's for sure. 29 Hanbury Street also only had one entrance/exit, and in both locations the killer chose to kill his victim right next to the exit to allow for easier escape should the need arise. Obviously this need did not arise in Hanbury Street. Both locations were a yard. In the case of Berner Street, the occupants of the building had not yet gone to bed. In Hanbury Street they were just waking up.



Quite the contrary, Dr. Phillips, et al, felt that Stride's killer used a sharp knife. You're being confused by the knife Thomas Coram found the next day, which was not the murder weapon, but was discussed much at the inquest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

It would appear that JTR had a 2nd means of escape at 29 Hanbury Street as at the Chapman Inquest it was stated that "The front and back doors were always left open, as was the case with all the houses about there, for they were all let out in rooms." (The Ultimate JTR Companion - Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner - Pg. 85. Am I missing something here? (honest question - no sarcasm meant). Although the totality of the circumstances surrounding the Stride murder lead me to the conclusion that she was not a JTR victim the most compelling reason is that the location and the many people nearby would have deprived JTR of the ability to mutilate which seemed to be necessary to satisfy the inner demons that possessed him.

[JennyL]

It would appear that JTR had a 2nd means of escape at 29 Hanbury Street as at the Chapman Inquest it was stated that "The front and back doors were always left open, as was the case with all the houses about there, for they were all let out in rooms." (The Ultimate JTR Companion - Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner - Pg. 85. Am I missing something here? (honest question - no sarcasm meant). Although the totality of the circumstances surrounding the Stride murder lead me to the conclusion that she was not a JTR victim the most compelling reason is that the location and the many people nearby would have deprived JTR of the ability to mutilate which seemed to be necessary to satisfy the inner demons that possessed him.

What do you mean by "2nd means of escape"? The back door at Hanbury was "always left open", yes-but into the closed yard, so there was no easy means of escape from 29 other than through the front door or jumping a fence if in the back(which of course is possible and could have happened at Dutfields Yard). It was left open mainly so the occupants could access the outhouse, as well as the pump in the yard.

[celticsun]

What do you mean by "2nd means of escape"? The back door at Hanbury was "always left open", yes-but into the closed yard, so there was no easy means of escape from 29 other than through the front door or jumping a fence if in the back(which of course is possible and could have happened at Dutfields Yard). It was left open mainly so the occupants could access the outhouse, as well as the pump in the yard.

If the back door of the house really opened into a closed yard (I take your word for it and I don't have a map of the location - only a picture) then I stand corrected. Originally, I was trying to support is my belief that Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim because, along with other reasons, that the Berner Steet location did not provide an adequate means of escape. It was a trap that the Ripper was too cunning to fall into.

[Jon Guy]

If hes homeless and jobless, why not some daylight murders?

Hi Michael

29 Hanbury St?

[lynn cates]

time of day

Hello Jon. You are right that, if AC was killed at 5:30 AM it was a daytime killing. In fact, that was 7 minutes AFTER sun up.

But I think you will agree that fixing this time depends on some testimony which may require a further explanation.

The best.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

True enough, but there was enough light for John Richardson to see all around the place at 4.45 am, even though this was nearly an hour before official sun up .

I think we can safely say that Annie was killed at a time when it was light, and people were rising and going to work.

[lynn cates]

Richardson's testimony

Hello Jon. Quite possibly so. Of course, that depends heavily upon WHICH version of Richardson's testimony one cares to accept.

The best.
LC

[Supe]

Lynn,

that depends heavily upon WHICH version of Richardson's testimony one cares to accept.

No it doesn't. He was quite consistent in saying he saw no body. For that matter, John Richardson's story itself was not inconsistent. In contrast, even today with all the medical forensic advances available, time of death determinations are not gospel and medical examiners readily admit that.

Don.

[lynn cates]

yes I did; no, I didn't

Hello Supe. Hmm. You don't see a logical inconsistency between:

(P) I cut the leather off my shoe sole (and tied it up with a cloth).

and

(not P) I did NOT cut the leather off my shoe sole (the knife was too dull)?

Well, you force me to drag out one of my many logic text books and review the Principle of Non-contradiction.

I agree, by the way, that he saw no body. Perhaps it would have been different had he actually looked left rather than just at the lock.

The best.
LC