Did Jack only kill 3?

[Tom_Wescott]

in Hanbury Street the murder took place in the backyard, accessed through the house, it was a fair distance to a safe street to use. In Berner Street she was 18 feet from the side door and only a foot or 2 inside the gates.

The yard was empty at the time, far more private, and in distance, would be comparable to the distance from the street in Hanbury.

Best regards,

Mike R

Distances are irrelevant. The point is that the killer in both Hanbury Street and Berner Street made sure that he was NEXT TO THE EXIT in the event he had to flee. Had Stride been killed far into the back yard, he would be deviating from his behavior in Hanbury Street. The location of this murder is yet another point of similarity between the Hanbury Street murder and the Berner Street murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

And Brown, Mortimer, PC Smith, Diemschutz - Schwartz possibly.

The daylight point is irrelevant where there is no one around to observe what is going on.

Richardson alone comes forward to say that he entered that yard - in a 4 hour run up to the discovery of the body. At Berner Street, there are several people in and around the vicinity of the gates within an half an hour period.

This alone suggests he was more likely to have been disturbed at Berner Street than he was at Hanbury Street, or any other of the murder sites.

Edited to add: it is open to debate whether or not she was killed with daylight approaching.

I dont know what you mean by several people by the gates over a half hour period Fleetwood, after Lave and Eagle leave that area at 12:40ish there are 15 minutes when its likely no-one was anywhere near the gates.

Also, it is not open for debate whether daylight was approaching based on Cadosche or Long, whomever your choice. Check the sunrise time.

There is in fact no evidence that the killer was disturbed at Berner Street, not in the demeanor of the deceased anyway. The interruption scenario is only applicable to those that believe that the Ripper killer Stride, the least ripped of any Canonical Victim.

Pragmatism suggests caution accepting that premise, since again, there is no actual evidence for that conclusion.

The absence of evidence here is enough, we dont have to imagine we knew the mindset of the individual and his intent....hardly a sound investigative technique I would say.

Cheers Fleetwood,
Mike R

[Michael W Richards]

Like he did in Hanbury Street? Oh wait, he killed Chapman right to the side of the doorway...the only exit out. Same as Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

in Hanbury Street the murder took place in the backyard, accessed through the house, it was a fair distance to a safe street to use. In Berner Street she was 18 feet from the side door and only a foot or 2 inside the gates.

The yard was empty at the time, far more private, and in distance, would be comparable to the distance from the street in Hanbury.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Fleetwood Mac]

In fact Fleetwood the statements of the witnesses indicate that the yard was empty, and the street in front was empty for some time until Goldstein walked by. Lave and Eagle were 12:40...Goldstein was 12:55..thats 15 minutes where no activity is reported the morning of the murder. Of course that night activity abounds with Israel coming in.

One of their(Club) key premises is that on that night, unlike the majority of meeting nights when conversation and low men were in the yard often past 1am, the yard and passage were empty from about 12:40 on.

The Hanbury murder was at almost daylight in the open backyard of a house that had some 17 or so people in in at the time, many with windows open, many waking for work. If the killer of Stride was that same guy he would have gone further into the yard and cut more.

Best regards,

Mike R

And Brown, Mortimer, PC Smith, Diemschutz - Schwartz possibly.

The daylight point is irrelevant where there is no one around to observe what is going on.

Richardson alone comes forward to say that he entered that yard - in a 4 hour run up to the discovery of the body. At Berner Street, there are several people in and around the vicinity of the gates within an half an hour period.

This alone suggests he was more likely to have been disturbed at Berner Street than he was at Hanbury Street, or any other of the murder sites.

Edited to add: it is open to debate whether or not she was killed with daylight approaching.

[Tom_Wescott]

If the killer of Stride was that same guy he would have gone further into the yard and cut more.

Like he did in Hanbury Street? Oh wait, he killed Chapman right to the side of the doorway...the only exit out. Same as Stride.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Not comparable.

There were people coming and going, standing at doors, walking past with black bags, sat singing in a club etc at Berner Street.

At Hanbury Street, no witness came forward to say they'd entered that back yard except Richardson.

In fact Fleetwood the statements of the witnesses indicate that the yard was empty, and the street in front was empty for some time until Goldstein walked by. Lave and Eagle were 12:40...Goldstein was 12:55..thats 15 minutes where no activity is reported the morning of the murder. Of course that night activity abounds with Israel coming in.

One of their(Club) key premises is that on that night, unlike the majority of meeting nights when conversation and low men were in the yard often past 1am, the yard and passage were empty from about 12:40 on.

The Hanbury murder was at almost daylight in the open backyard of a house that had some 17 or so people in in at the time, many with windows open, many waking for work. If the killer of Stride was that same guy he would have gone further into the yard and cut more.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Ally]

On this minor detail Ally I must disagree, a girl spotted Bundy leaving the building in a cap and carrying a large stick. She identified him in court.

I stand with your basic idea completely...


Greg

You are right. I was mostly speaking about no one hearing or witnessing him in the next room striking the women with the bat but you are absolutely correct that he was witnessed leaving by the girl (I forget her name) arriving home. I really have always found it chilling that someone could be murdered in the next room, and you'd sleep right through it though, that's why the idea has always stuck with me.

[Bridewell]

We Believe

Sorry Phil,

How do we know the 'Jack the Ripper' epitaph was a newsmans invention? Have I missed this conclusive fact?
Monty

Hi, Monty,
You beat me to it!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Ally]

Thanks again Ally. Good parallel with Bundy and Jack. Why take that risk of possibly getting stuck inside?

You may as well ask, why take the risk of murdering women and getting caught, period. You cannot fathom why someone would risk such a thing except for the basic premise: in the moment, that was what their compulsion required them to do.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Anyone who claims that the killer of Polly and Annie wasnt preoccupied with the mutilations that occurred immediately after the death strokes would be incorrect.

Anyone who claims a man who kills so he can mutilate does so only sometime, hasnt been doing enough reading and is missing the point.

Dutfields Yard had a few quiet deserted spots, moreso than the passageway to it, and the man who killed Kate did all he did to her in 5 or 6 minutes. If the same man came from Berner Street, then the time needed and privacy was there for him. But a serial killer who kills to mutilate wasnt.

Best regards,

Mike R

The time and privacy was only there for Jack providing no one came along to spoil it - a factor that he had no control over.

As far as he knew, no one was going to walk past in those 5/6 minutes - agreed in that it's not a great deal of time.

Perhaps he got lucky at Mitre Square and not so lucky at Berner Street.

Regardless, is it a coincidence that the scene of the crime where he was most likely to be disturbed, i.e. Berner Street, is the scene where he appears to have been disturbed. Or is it cause and effect reasoning?

[Michael W Richards]

Anyone who claims that the killer of Polly and Annie wasnt preoccupied with the mutilations that occurred immediately after the death strokes would be incorrect.

Anyone who claims a man who kills so he can mutilate does so only sometime, hasnt been doing enough reading and is missing the point.

Dutfields Yard had a few quiet deserted spots, moreso than the passageway to it, and the man who killed Kate did all he did to her in 5 or 6 minutes. If the same man came from Berner Street, then the time needed and privacy was there for him. But a serial killer who kills to mutilate wasnt.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Fleetwood Mac]

I say the bottom because there is no evidence that her killer was interrupted and there is no evidence that the privacy afforded him in the passageway was insufficient. Take the backyard of Hanbury at nearly dawn as proof of that.

Best regards all,

Mike R

Not comparable.

There were people coming and going, standing at doors, walking past with black bags, sat singing in a club etc at Berner Street.

At Hanbury Street, no witness came forward to say they'd entered that back yard except Richardson.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks again Ally. Good parallel with Bundy and Jack. Why take that risk of possibly getting stuck inside?

Simon,

Every decision is underpinned by the principles of risk and reward.

As human beings, we instinctively balance the risk of losing with the reward associated with winning.

Jack will have made an instinctive decision on whether or not it was worth it.

A risk averse person will tend to minimise the risk at the expense of the reward (or at least choose the option that garners the most reward from options of equal risk); a risk seeker will tend to maxmise the reward at the expense of risk.

I think it's fair to say that Jack was a risk seeker in that he placed himself in a situation where he could hang for his passions.

Put simply, Jack was enamoured with the reward to an extent that the risk was of secondary importance.

And, it is open to debate whether or not Jack placed himself at an increased risk by killing in a home unlikely to have had anyone but the victim in it beyond midnight. Personally, I would say it was a less risky option.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

With respect to the proponents of the philosophy that serial killers can and often do change their methodologies, thats acceptable by most everyone I think,.....but the reason the serial perp kills in the first place likely remains constant no matter how many he kills. Outdoors, indoors, knife, hammer, saw, in the Library with a lead pipe,.. none of those characteristics within a series of unsolved murders excludes a single killer.

If it were obvious within the physical evidence that all the Canonicals were killed simply to satisfy the delusional needs of a single mentally ill man...that they all definitively revealed a single Motive by their murderer,... then I would agree with looking for one man.

Thing is, I can think of a vast number of reasons a woman got just her throat slit in the East End at that time that have nothing to do with a mental illness. Jealousy, Spite, Anger, Retribution, someone feeling betrayed, someone judging her to be a bad person for working for Jews, or maybe dating one...someone who hated the Club or Socialists, someone seeking to Blame the Jews for her murder, someone shutting her up because she could expose or ruin them, suspicion she was a spy on the club, suspicion by the Club she was a police spy....there are lots of possibilities. I also believe that the climate that Fall could lead a simple killer to rip his victim so that he would avoid suspicion and put the blame on the phantom.

Another possibility, near the bottom of the list, is that Liz was killed by a mentally ill man bent on mutilation after cutting throats, but he was deprived of the time and privacy to fulfill his desires. I say the bottom because there is no evidence that her killer was interrupted and there is no evidence that the privacy afforded him in the passageway was insufficient. Take the backyard of Hanbury at nearly dawn as proof of that.

Best regards all,

Mike R

[Simon the Whitmore]

I do not subscribe to the modern perception that serial killers always follow a logical progression, that their MO never changes, that their locale never changes. Time and time again, we have had proven that serial killers do absolutely change even the most significant details about their crimes.

Let's parallel Bundy and Jack. Bundy selected and killed most of his victims out of doors. Then he moved his attack indoors. But he was still the perpetrator in both cases. By your logic, moving indoors would have excluded him from the running. And he took even more of a risk in the sorority house, killing people with other people just down the hall! There were 30 plus women in that house and no one heard/witnessed a thing! Kelly absolutely cannot be ruled out based on her location. Her location is entirely irrelevant to her candidacy.

Thanks again Ally. Good parallel with Bundy and Jack. Why take that risk of possibly getting stuck inside?