Jack The Creeper

[Chava]

This thread arises out of the discussions on the Broken Window Pane thread in Mary Jane Kelly's area.

An early Daily Telegraph report, which was found clipped and in the police files, suggests that when Bowyer reached through the broken window at 13 Millers Court and drew the pilot coat back that was hanging there as a curtain, he was prompted to do so because he noticed blood on the broken pane of glass. Now we don't know for sure that this was true, and it doesn't seem to have been picked up elsewhere, but Bowyer gives it as his reason for looking into the room and so finding MJK's body. If the sighting of blood is true, I don't see any way it could come from MJK. She was lying across the room, arterial spurt was directed towards the far wall, and any other blood in the area of the window would have been blocked and absorbed by the pilot coat hanging over it as a de facto curtain. The coat blocks the jagged glass of the window completely. So no blood transfers to the glass. Even if the killer pulled the curtain away to see how dark it was or whatever, he's still a fair way from the jagged glass. So if there was blood there, I believe it came from the killer, who gained access to the room the same way Barnett did--by leaning through and reaching over to the lock.

So let's follow this train of thought a little. Because it leads us to a random and opportunistic killer who prowls around at night, sees a possible victim, and acts immediately. In Canada we've just heard all about the serial killer Russell Williams who did exactly that. A killer such as this would not just be found in more prosperous neighbourhoods. In fact a place like Millers Court would be perfect for him. If he creeps around there in the small hours, he might well notice the broken window and look inside the room. Where he sees a woman alone and asleep.

If the Ripper is also a stalker and an opportunistic killer, it's possible this is how he finds his other victims. I've always thought that Chapman took her killer back through 29 Hanbury Street to the back yard because he'd said he wanted 'business'. This is still entirely possible. Elizabeth Long identified Chapman talking to a man outside the house at 5.30 am. However her timing and that of Albert Cadoche's don't jibe. It's possible she saw someone else. And it's also possible that Chapman went by herself through into the yard, probably in order to relieve herself somewhere in the garden. The Creeper spots her heading that way and follows her. You see, the thing is, we don't know for sure that Nicholls, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and MJK had any contact at all with their killer ahead of his killing them even though there are witnesses that describe them with men. They were prostitutes after all, and that's how they made whatever money they had. He could have picked them up in the normal way and chatted for a while. Or he could have simply followed them until they arrived at a quiet and private enough area and jumped them.

I'm not saying this is for sure what happened. But I am saying it's a possibility I've never really considered. I'd love to know if there was someone at that time who was going into houses and stealing underdrawers and petticoats etc.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Chava,
There was a belief if I am correct that the killer actually left the room via the window, and that was the reason the door was locked, that of course may explain why blood was evident, but would that have been possible?, surely exiting through the door would have been easier, or did the door jam?, and the police had no alternative but to have McCarthy wedge it open.
lots of questions...
The creeper theory personally I find plausible, its possible that the Ripper was the type of creep that observed women with men, and moved in on them after they had left. that scenerio could work well with Tabram. Chapman, Stride, Eddowes. Kelly, and even Mackenzie, we simply do not know with Nichols,.. did she meet a customer after she and Holland departed , possible taking the time lapse into consideration.
Good thread.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

Hi Richard

R Harding Davis reports Inspector Moore as saying that the Ripper exited through a window - but through the larger one, not the smaller.

Inspector Moore also reportedly said that the Ripper hung bits of Kelly all around the room, including on the back of a chair, so I can't help feeling that something had got garbled somewhere.

[Defective Detective]

It is almost a certainty to me that the Ripper, whoever he was, would have begun his campaign against the female sex by degrees, and that he likely would have begun with a 'harmless enough' transgression like peeping at women in states of undress. Consider the case of Jerry Brudos, who had begun stealing women's shoes and underwear as a preteen and only escalated to murder after his marriage - he had a long track record of sexual misconduct well before he took his first life. I would definitely include Jack the Ripper's crimes under the German umbrella term lustmord along with Brudos, except that his trophies had a much greater immediacy for his victims than did Brudos' shoes and stockings. I often speculate that, if we somehow were able to find a list of such criminals in the Whitechapel area immediately preceding the Ripper slayings, we would be that much closer to having our man.

[richardnunweek]

Hi DD
I would say that if the Ripper had no personal motive, which was aligned to only his self, then a moden day investigation would have searched initially. for people that would have fitted the profile that you have described.
But alas we are none the wiser..
Richard,

[kensei]

[QUOTE=Chava;152831]

He could have picked them up in the normal way and chatted for a while. Or he could have simply followed them until they arrived at a quiet and private enough area and jumped them.

QUOTE]

It has always been my strong impression that the Ripper did approach his victims pretending to be a client, and walked and talked with them for a time prior to attacking them, rather than stalking them and then pouncing like a leopard. And I think the witness descriptions in the cases of Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes of the men they were with are similar enough considering the conditions- a man not too young and not too old in a dark overcoat and a peaked cap- that they most likely all refer to the same man who was wearing the same general outfit in at least those three cases. If any of the witnesses in the Kelly case saw the killer then he was wearing something different that night (and if he was Astrakan Man, VERY different) but basically I don't think Jack was a skulking prowler but instead someone who blended into the Whitechapel night life.

[Rubyretro]

I think that jack just blended in, rather than creeping around.

It brought it home to me watching the film of Petticoat Lane 1903 on another
Thread http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...7FSg&vq=medium
just how impossible it would be to pick out a man glimpsed fleetingly in the dark, from another East End man.

[kensei]

As an afterthought, I should add that in the police dragnet immediately following the Double Event the Ripper did pour on the stealth practically to the level of a ninja in how he avoided capture, but I feel that would not have been his method in approaching his victims.

[Chava]

It has always been my strong impression that the Ripper did approach his victims pretending to be a client, and walked and talked with them for a time prior to attacking them, rather than stalking them and then pouncing like a leopard. And I think the witness descriptions in the cases of Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes of the men they were with are similar enough considering the conditions- a man not too young and not too old in a dark overcoat and a peaked cap- that they most likely all refer to the same man who was wearing the same general outfit in at least those three cases. If any of the witnesses in the Kelly case saw the killer then he was wearing something different that night (and if he was Astrakan Man, VERY different) but basically I don't think Jack was a skulking prowler but instead someone who blended into the Whitechapel night life.

You're right, and I've recently thought that the descriptions could have matched Blotchy-Face, who is my main 'named' candidate. However we don't know how those women were approached and that was my point in the starter post. We've always assumed that the Ripper approached his victims as a trick, or maybe even as a friendly face. He could have known and done business with all of them. There are certainly enough precedents for that including the Ipswich killer who was done for killing 5 women a few years ago. All of his victims had had prior safe dealings with him.

However we only assume this. We don't know for sure. It's possible he ambushed them, and there is nothing in the files to prove otherwise. I was simply pointing out that Chapman, for example, could have gone up that yard by herself and been followed. Likewise the others. Stride could have gone into Dutfields Yard for a quiet piss. Nicholls was in Bucks Row which may well have been deserted at the time. Eddowes was found in Mitre Square beside a warehouse I believe, and again, could have been jumped from the shadows. An attacker who does this does not risk being seen with the woman ahead of time.

[Rubyretro]

As an afterthought, I should add that in the police dragnet immediately following the Double Event the Ripper did pour on the stealth practically to the level of a ninja in how he avoided capture, but I feel that would not have been his method in approaching his victims.

I would be surprised if he had to sneak about to avoid the 'drag net'.

It takes about 15 -20 minutes to get to Mitre Square from Berner Street, and he could just stroll there, looking like everyone else on the street. If he went back to his lodgings via Goulston Street (and we all know that I think that he lodged in the Victoria Home), as soon as he got within the immediate vicinity of his lodgings, then he might become a well known face in the area and just stop and chat to people he knew. If he often worked away from the area, he
could just leave the area, as he would normally do, and not even be there when the Police checked the Lodging Houses.

Why would he need to be a 'ninja' to avoid capture ? He could just carry on as normal. As I've said before, without CCT cameras to capture someone at at a specific point of time and place, and given that you can move between places in a very short timespan, it can't have been that difficult to fade into the background.

[Rubyretro]

There would be alot more risk attached in jumping someone from the shadows , Chava..

Imagine that you were approached -let alone jumped -by a man whilst having a quiet piss..?

There would be a strong chance that you would scream or call out if you got an inkling that someone was stealthily approaching in the dark

Much less risk in getting the women to unwittingly collude in going somewhere hidden and dark with you, with a false sense of security, I'd say..

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

It's obviously not impossible that he did just pounce on the victims from the shadows without having any social intercourse of any kind with them, but I think it seems very unlikely in my opinion for various reasons.

Firstly in the case of some of the victims, they shouldn't have logically been where they were when they were killed.

For instance if a killer was looking for a prostitute to murder, using the method of jumping out on a passing victim from the shadows, he wouldn't have been standing in the corner of Mitre Square at that time of the morning. He'd have more chance of mugging a passing Wilder Beast.

The square was absolutely deserted at that time of the morning, and there would have been little or no through traffic of any kind, let alone a prostitute, who just happened to fit into the same demographic as the most of the other victims. It's far more likely that he picked her up somewhere around Aldgate High Street or St Botolph's and walked through with her to the square for some privacy.

The same is true of Polly Nichols really. There was no reason for a prostitute to be in Buck's Row at that time, and the chances of finding a victim up there accidentally are pretty slim. The killer certainly wouldn't have been hanging around there waiting for a pick up. He would have gone to somewhere he knew he could pick up a victim easily and quickly, like the area along Aldgate High Street, and the main roads, where they were literally ten a penny - or at least one a fourpence. He may have been in the area anyway, spotted her, followed her and jumped her, but I don't think he was waiting there specifically for one to come along, like a number 9 bus.

Liz is a much stronger case for a Jack the Pouncer.The killer could have seen Liz go into Dutfield's Yard with the intention of using one of the loos at the back of the yard and followed her, waiting for her to return and jumping her. There was a small recess just along from the kitchen door, which would have made a fairly good place for someone to wait and it was literally just by where she was killed, so that is possible, although as Rubytro pointed out, bloody risky.

With Annie, if the killer just followed Annie through, then he must have been quite certain of what he was going through to, as he could well have been walking into anything. I do think it more likely though that Annie led him through to the back, because she knew the property and had been inside before. There are a couple of newspaper reports that indicate that Annie used to sell her crochet work at the house, and that the homeless used to use the passage to sleep in, so that's got some support.

With Mary, I think it more likely that she either just let her killer in, or fell asleep and forgot to lock the door in her drunken stupor and he simply walked in. Of course he could have seen her use or know of the window trick, but he must have been pretty certain that she was alone, or out like a light before he attempted to break in.

If the farthing dip candle was still alight at the time, (and I've spent hours trying to work out how long that candle was alight for that night!) then he might have been able to see in - if not, I don't think much of his chances of seeing anything inside that room. He must have known she was in there alone and asleep.

Incidentally, there was a gas lamp alight right outside Mary's door until 3 am, so if he did break in, then I think that it would likely have been after it was put out. I wouldn't fancy breaking in with a spotlight on me.

All in all though, although he may have been an opportunistic killer and just picked victims at random when he saw a likely candidate, I do think that in most of the cases he did have some interaction with the victim before he killed them.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Garry Wroe]

Also, with the exception of Kelly, the lack of defence wounds mediates against a leap from the shadows, blitz style mode of attack.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Chava]

Also, with the exception of Kelly, the lack of defence wounds mediates against a leap from the shadows, blitz style mode of attack.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

But that's where I disagree with all of you. I think a surprise attack would have been more easily carried out than otherwise. A prostitute picks up a client. She knows there is a possibility he's a rough trick and she is at least a little bit on the watch, even though she might be drunk. Yes, she's easily overpowered. And, yes, if she has her back to the client for anal sex or whatever she's extremely vulnerable. But a woman who is taken completely off-guard is just as vulnerable in my opinion, if not more so. I don't believe in any of the letters except From Hell, but the one who said he gave the lady no time to scream was accurate. If he grabbed her out of the blue and throttled her/cut her throat, she really would have no chance to struggle or cry out against him. She's more likely to be on her guard while she is with a client than she is when she's on her own.

I'm not positing a killer who just kind of hangs around waiting for a possible victim to stroll along. In fact I'm not positing anything, because this is a thread dedicated to the 'what if'. But a killer who creepy-crawls around at night like a Peeping Tom, a killer who notices a likely victim and stalks her without approaching her directly cannot be ruled out.

[Sally]

I think I tend to the idea that he probably did have social intercourse with his victims before striking, although the idea of a suprise attack lurker is an interesting one to consider.

I agree that social intercourse before striking would be the easiest way to get his victims where he wanted them; presumably somewhere he judged to be low risk in terms of being caught in the act.

I wonder if perhaps he let his victims lead the way? They, if we accept that all were local, and at least sporadic prostitutes; would have been able to lead him to a suitably secluded spot for sex.

With the promise of money behind them, they may have been quite willing to lead the way for him.