'Self inflicted' - seriously?

[Ausgirl]

Maybe "uncle jack" was planning some sort of kidnapping for ransom, but something went wrong... Or maybe he'd been ordered to kill the child as some sort of terrorist act, anti-middle class, whatever... But like the Wicked Queen's Huntsman, he couldn't go all the way through with the murder.
It would make a difference if we knew the girl's socioeconomic status, certainly.
But remember, Victorian children were seen and not heard, and far, far more trusting of adults than ours are.

Was just typing this very thing.

And look. The "I'm your Uncle [insert name here]" is the oldest pedo abduction trick in the book, for a reason. That being -- it works.

[Pcdunn]

Maybe "uncle jack" was planning some sort of kidnapping for ransom, but something went wrong... Or maybe he'd been ordered to kill the child as some sort of terrorist act, anti-middle class, whatever... But like the Wicked Queen's Huntsman, he couldn't go all the way through with the murder.
It would make a difference if we knew the girl's socioeconomic status, certainly.
But remember, Victorian children were seen and not heard, and far, far more trusting of adults than ours are.

[Errata]

Yes, very good! And my first thought was "Albert Fish.." hehe. And hey, I think his first known murder was just a couple years after this, he slashed the throat of a disabled boy as I recall, about 1920. Being as he was kind of old by then, and I do not believe his stories about hallucinations (he was killing even before the time he claimed he got his visions from God..) - it's really just a matter of geography as to whether Fish is a feasible contender for these crimes. The taunting letters are certainly his style.

Thanks for that.

I too thought of Fish.

But I always considered him a narcissist, so adopting another name just seems unlike him.

[Errata]

I've had my own 5yo. They're a nightmare to take anywhere they don't want to go, even for a parent. That said, at 5, they're also extremely vulnerable to a kindly face, a quiet lie and promises of sweeties, which is probably why there's so many missing and dead kids in that age group. No particular sophistication needed, just a basic MO that works sometimes.

The thing I've noticed about 5 years olds is they are without a doubt the most embarrassing age. I've been with little cousins who have started screaming and pointing at anything that is "other". They loudly ask whether the Indian man is part tree (what?) because he's a "weird" color. My little cousin walked right up to a guy in a wheelchair and asked if his mommy was a car. And another little cousin started jumping up and down screeching about the guy eating out of the trash like he was a monkey in the zoo. And I took both little cousins to the Science Museum, saw an albino coming and tried so hard to get them back downstairs before they saw her and it's like they KNEW. They flipped their **** because they though she was a ghost. I blamed it on too much Scooby Doo. It's that age, their little brains are starting to find their community and it starts with "like" and "other". "Like" is good. "Other" is bad. They start school and they sort it out almost immediately. But in the meantime I just wanted the ground to swallow me whole every time I had to watch a family member under the age of six.

Does anyone know what kind of neighborhood she was taken from? I get the impression it was solid middle class, but it makes a difference if that's not so.

[Ausgirl]

Same question re Annie Millwood, really - why stab her all over her legs and not kill her? Very strange. Maybe that's why they doubted her.

[Ausgirl]

Re our poor young girl in the alley - I'm still thinking 'stranger'. A local with everything to lose by being seen with a child he plans to attack wouldn't risk walking miles with her. That's a lot of open, populated area in which the chances of being seen are huge. So in my mind, he didn't a give a crap if he was seen or not. Implying, not a local. Unless the guy was a bit dim and simply was not able to fathom the notion of witnesses not from his own street mattering to the police.

He knew she would not ID him, so he left her alive with her injuries. Like Annie Millwood's attacker left her alive. Very strange.

I've had my own 5yo. They're a nightmare to take anywhere they don't want to go, even for a parent. That said, at 5, they're also extremely vulnerable to a kindly face, a quiet lie and promises of sweeties, which is probably why there's so many missing and dead kids in that age group. No particular sophistication needed, just a basic MO that works sometimes.

What does my head in is why he waited so long to attack her. And why he then left her alive.

[Ausgirl]

Martin,

I was browsing in the Library of Congress's Historic Newspaper collection, and found an American story of two children (Lennore Cohn, Charlie Murray) murdered in 1915 with a MO similar to the Fordham attack.They said letters signed "Jack the Ripper" had been sent to the mothers of the two young children.

New York Tribune, May 6, 1915
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lc...arRange&page=1

Hi all

Thanks PC Dunn, that was a fascinating, if disturbing read. points of interest were the frustrated attack on Louise Neidig, the police consultation of psychiatrists and the opinion that it the perpetrator could have been from a 'family of refinement'. and of course the letters, reminds me of Albert Fish a little bit. One to follow up on, brilliant find.

All the best.

Yes, very good! And my first thought was "Albert Fish.." hehe. And hey, I think his first known murder was just a couple years after this, he slashed the throat of a disabled boy as I recall, about 1920. Being as he was kind of old by then, and I do not believe his stories about hallucinations (he was killing even before the time he claimed he got his visions from God..) - it's really just a matter of geography as to whether Fish is a feasible contender for these crimes. The taunting letters are certainly his style.

Thanks for that.

[Errata]

Hi Errata.

I have to say, whilst agreeing with you that the vast majority of child abuse/ violence happens within the family/extended family I tend to think like Ausgirl that this was a stranger.
To vulnerability I would add opportunity, this was a little girl standing alone at the front of the house in the dark. Wrong time, wrong place. It may suggest hunting behaviour on behalf of the perpetrator, something that may have a bearing on the WM and the concentration of murders in the same area, he went there because that's where he found the most vulnerable victims?

All the best.

Kids are better judges of people than you think. She went with him because he connected with her. He looked like her. Same race, same class. He didn't just walk up and say "I'm Uncle Jack " and haul her away. He convinced her to go with him in such a manner that no one thought it was strange. At no point did he have to grab her and clap his hand over her mouth or anything until he actually attacked her. Given that they walked for hours before the attack, and she was a five year old girl, she was chatting the whole way, and he was interacting with her without freaking her out. That's a level of sophistication that does not especially occur in the lower class uneducated crowd. And in order for her to feel as comfortable with him as she did, he had to know something about her. Not necessarily a lot, but something.

I've baby sat in my time. Do you have any idea how hard it is to haul a five year old around for HOURS? This guy was committed to finding some building some yard, that he could go in. I think his lack of preparation and his unwillingness to take her home (which the vast majority of pedophiles want to do) is a little suspicious. Not a lot, but a little. He finally could wait anymore and threw her into an alley sort of across the way from a pub. And he knew he wasn't going to kill her. And it's possible he chose the alley because he knew she would likely be found there. He certainly didn't pick an alley in a warehouse district where she may never have been found. And he had been exceptionally patient. It's an odd combination. He won't kill her. He won't take her home. He possibly makes sure she has a chance of being found. And he searches high and low for a place to take her. He does not love her.He stabs her.

The only thing that makes sense is that he knew her. She didn't know him, but he knew her, he knew what she looked like, he knew it was a bad idea to take her to anyplace she could identify as his, he knew he wasn't going to kill her, he didn't particularly want her dead, he had a greater than average fear of being identified. He was the same race as the child, same class, likely had some education if he could interact with her. He knew her. He had a weird obsession with her, and when he saw the chance he took her. Which is not that different from a stranger abduction. But a stranger has no fear of being identified. He won't be. A stranger could take her home, or to his place of business. A stranger wouldn't walk for miles looking for a place to do this. A stranger likely would not care if she lived or died. It's not a concrete thing, but I think it leans towards a family friend, a business partner, the husband of a friend. Someone who looked like Joe Anybody, but who lived somewhere or worked somewhere that could be immediately identified by the parents. Someone who didn't want to watch the family go though the death of their daughter.

[Pcdunn]

1915 New York cases

Hi all

Thanks PC Dunn, that was a fascinating, if disturbing read. points of interest were the frustrated attack on Louise Neidig, the police consultation of psychiatrists and the opinion that it the perpetrator could have been from a 'family of refinement'. and of course the letters, reminds me of Albert Fish a little bit. One to follow up on, brilliant find.

All the best.

I'm glad you liked it. I did see a later story describing policemen following someone who was seen apparently trailing some boys by omnibus and foot. The city seemed gripped with terror while this went on. Nothing gets to people more than attacks on children, seen then, as now, as the most innocent and vulnerable of victims.

Interesting that the very name "Jack the Ripper" seemed to frighten people, much as horror movie characters do now.

[martin wilson]

Hi Errata.

I have to say, whilst agreeing with you that the vast majority of child abuse/ violence happens within the family/extended family I tend to think like Ausgirl that this was a stranger.
To vulnerability I would add opportunity, this was a little girl standing alone at the front of the house in the dark. Wrong time, wrong place. It may suggest hunting behaviour on behalf of the perpetrator, something that may have a bearing on the WM and the concentration of murders in the same area, he went there because that's where he found the most vulnerable victims?

All the best.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Thanks PC Dunn, that was a fascinating, if disturbing read. points of interest were the frustrated attack on Louise Neidig, the police consultation of psychiatrists and the opinion that it the perpetrator could have been from a 'family of refinement'. and of course the letters, reminds me of Albert Fish a little bit. One to follow up on, brilliant find.

All the best.

[Ausgirl]

Stabbed children don't run when their attacker takes their hands off them for a minute. It also obscures the pain of rape. He wanted to see blood and he wanted the child conscious or he would have beaten her and risked knocking her out. But most likely this was a family friend she didn't know well enough to recognize. And he was smart enough to act in a fashion that ensured he would not be identified. Without there being the chance of him being recognized, the attack would happened differently.

The vast majority of sadistic pedophiles I've looked at have no problem whatsoever with attacking kids they don't know. Statistics support that the majority of child rape is committed by non-strangers. But there's the Derek Percys of the world, too, and this looks a lot like something a monster like him would do.

As for it being unlikely there could be age group crossover -- that happens, too. Not often. But people like JtR and the sod who hurt this child are not your average rapist/killer/pedophile either.

Not saying I really think this was JtR who slashed the girl, but vulnerability might play a bigger role in victim choice for someone akin to him, rather than (or as well as) some fixated "type".

I am not arguing it, but it *could be* feasibly argued that JtR started out with attacks like the child one and Annie Millwood with her legs all stabbed but alive, and moved steadily on toward the horror of Mary Kelly's murder. While occasionally interrupting this progress with a 'lesser' crime.

It's not like no-one has ever done such a thing.

[Pcdunn]

Hi all

I've only got a couple of press reports to go on in the Annie Fordham case, and they are pretty much identical. Any more info would be appreciated.
I'll check for missing children, attacks on children etc, although it is grim stuff obviously, the sick b*******.

All the best.

Martin,

I was browsing in the Library of Congress's Historic Newspaper collection, and found an American story of two children (Lennore Cohn, Charlie Murray) murdered in 1915 with a MO similar to the Fordham attack.They said letters signed "Jack the Ripper" had been sent to the mothers of the two young children.

New York Tribune, May 6, 1915

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1915-05-06/ed-1/seq-14/#date1=1915&index=0&rows=20&words=Charlie+Murray&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=New+York&date2=1915&proxtext=Charlie+Murray&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

[Errata]

Hi all

Yes, Ausgirl, it took me a while reading through other cases before the penny dropped what assault in this context meant.
I agree this is a very strange man indeed, and like you am puzzled by his actions after he tried to assault the child.
One possibility other than the obvious one is that he was sexually dysfunctional, although that does risk giving Patricia Cornwall conniptions.
Another is that he gained some kind of sexual gratification from the act of cutting, we will never know. however it may explain why he simply didn't kill her, and why it doesn't appear to be a frenzy or rage attack.
File under weird and disturbing?

All the best.

Btw, I've found an unsolved murder thread, so I'll be posting any other cases on there. Cheers.

Stabbed children don't run when their attacker takes their hands off them for a minute. It also obscures the pain of rape. He wanted to see blood and he wanted the child conscious or he would have beaten her and risked knocking her out. But most likely this was a family friend she didn't know well enough to recognize. And he was smart enough to act in a fashion that ensured he would not be identified. Without there being the chance of him being recognized, the attack would happened differently.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

Yes, Ausgirl, it took me a while reading through other cases before the penny dropped what assault in this context meant.
I agree this is a very strange man indeed, and like you am puzzled by his actions after he tried to assault the child.
One possibility other than the obvious one is that he was sexually dysfunctional, although that does risk giving Patricia Cornwall conniptions.
Another is that he gained some kind of sexual gratification from the act of cutting, we will never know. however it may explain why he simply didn't kill her, and why it doesn't appear to be a frenzy or rage attack.
File under weird and disturbing?

All the best.

Btw, I've found an unsolved murder thread, so I'll be posting any other cases on there. Cheers.