The Grisly

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you for the reply Simon,

Take away the all-important time element and what are you left with?

To tell you the truth, I don't know what you are asking me.

Since this is a Nichols thread, are you proposing that Polly Nichols was not murdered right before her body was found? If you are, that's OK. In that case, I would be glad to hear your alternative scenario.

Roy

[Henry Flower]

Hi Simon,

Our whole JtR concept is founded upon his split-second timing.

Who is this 'our'? My concept of JtR is founded upon his being rather a flukey, lucky git or gits who would undoubtedly have been caught had he carried on killing.

I agree with you re the near-uselessness of the modern profiling fad, but split-second timing was never more than a sign of his disorganised luckiness as far as I was concerned.

His split-second timing belongs in the same box as his swirling cape and top hat as far as I can see.

Michael

[Cogidubnus]

Of course it does. Take away the all-important time element and what are you left with?

Five to eight possibly linked killings with no idea whodunnit...exactly where we are now!

Dave

[Lechmere]

I think people did know the time more exactly than we think.
Robert Paul seems to have known he was late for work - by what? 5 minutes, 10 minutes?
Mizen was on knocking up duty - knowing the timwe would have been important to him.
How much did a clockwork alarm clock cost?
How much did a pocket watch cost?
I suspect that an average regularly employed working man could afford a watch.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

" . . . the victim was found dead within minutes of their being murdered."

Therein lies the whole concept of JtR, the mysterious lightning-skilled, split-second assassin who allegedly haunted the East End.

"The time was noted, yes. But whether it was accurate or not doesn't really matter, does it?

Of course it does. Take away the all-important time element and what are you left with?

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Our whole JtR concept is founded upon his split-second timing.

Odd, don't you think, in an age of inaccurate public clocks and witnesses without timepieces?

No I don't find it odd at all. It follows the same thing people thought at the time. And rightly so. At least in the case of Polly Nichols, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. In these three, the victim was found dead within minutes of their being murdered. This was obvious to all involved. Civilians, police and doctors. No clock was needed. The time was noted, yes. But whether it was accurate or not doesn't really matter, does it?

Because knowing the victims were recently murdered when their bodies found did not help the police make an arrest. Just like it doesn't really help us now.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Our whole JtR concept is founded upon his split-second timing.

Odd, don't you think, in an age of inaccurate public clocks and witnesses without timepieces?

Regards,

Simon

[curious4]

Hi Henry,

The box isn't lost. The box is empty.

We're all familiar with the story of how PC Neil found the body, signalled his fellow policemen, sent one off for an ambulance and the other for Dr. Llewellyn.

East London Observer, 1st September 1888—

"Constable Neale [sic] at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary.’

"Accompanied by Mr. Edmunds, the keeper, our reporter visited the temporary resting place of the victim on Friday morning. The first evidence seen of the tragedy on arriving in the yard was a bundle of what were little more than rags, of which the woman had been divested, and which were lying on the flagstones just outside the mortuary. They consisted of a dull red cloak already mentioned, together with a dark bodice and brown skirt, a check flannel petticoat which bore the mark of the Lambeth Workhouse, a pair of dark stockings, and an old pair of dilapidated-looking spring-side boots, together with the little and sadly battered black straw bonnet, minus either ribbons or trimmings.

"Contrary to anticipation, beyond the flannel petticoat, and with the exception of a few bloodstains on the cloak, the other clothing was scarcely marked. The petticoat, however, was completely saturated with blood, and altogether presented a sickening spectacle."

It's a fantastic story; one it is hard to believe a reporter either misinterpreted or invented, and which has dramatic and puzzling implications. Suddenly there were no PCs Thain and Mizen flashing answering lanterns, no PC Mizen fetching the ambulance, no Dr Llewellyn conducting a kerb-side examination, no slaughtermen standing by the body in Buck’s Row, no Inspector Spratling lifting up Polly Nichols’s clothes at the mortuary to discover she had been disembowelled, and no apparent evidence of Polly’s ulster and long dress having absorbed the blood so conspicuously absent from outside Mr Brown’s stable gates.

Regards,

Simon

Hello all,

She was wearing a flannel petticoat.

Flannel as a material is extremely absorbant, would have soaked up much more of the blood than the other clothes.

Best wishes,
C4

[Cogidubnus]

It seems to me the original people who worked this case moved the goal posts -- which might somewhat account for the mess this is.

Considering time -- Perhaps because they did not have reliable clocks and watches they could tell time in other ways. I suspect this is a farfetched thought for city folks, but people's education once included telling time by the sun and movement of the stars. My dad was terrific and always very close. I was thinking right on the dot, but perhaps it was more like within 15 minutes. I found this ability of his fascinating. He was an old farmer at heart, so I'm guessing city folks might not have learned the same skill. But people of different eras had different skill sets from what we do today.

So, did city folks ever learn to tell time by nature?

Don't know about that but my paternal grandmother (not the London one) lived in Dyke Road Drive in Brighton right under the embankment of the main Brighton to London Railway Line (near Lovers Walk Signal Box where drivers used to whistle up the signalmen). She reckoned on being able to judge time by the trains, but I don't know quite how good she really was at it!

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The 1988 FBI Ripper profile [made for TV] is a real hoot.

It's up there with the mid-2000s Laura Richards [made for TV] profile.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

F B I

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

I have seen far worse theories. Of course, this is largely FBI profile. (If you wish my take on "FBI" you might have a go at "Hopscotch"--Walter Matthau, Glenda Jackson, et al.) So it stands or falls by this late 20th c theory.

Broken home? May be the rule, not the exception.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Lynn
The trial and error is in how he performed the attacks. There is more than one way to skin a cat – as they say.
A non medical person may not appreciate the signs of strangulation.

If I was conducting the investigation at the time I would hope that I wouldn’t rule out any possibilities however unlikely.
However I would focus my meagre investigative resources in what most likely be the more fruitful areas.
With the benefit of historical hindsight I would say that the culprit is likely to be a nondescript local man who is familiar with the streets, who does not have the realistic capability of killing further afield and who had the ability to commit these crimes in the early morning without being missed.
He would seem to be normal yet if his background were to be investigated there would probably be something there which would give the culprit an internalised excuse for his own actions (the standard one being coming from a broken home).
I would be looking for one culprit for all the unsolved violent attacks on women in the surrounding area over the few years involved (including the non canonical and non fatal attacks) although I would be prepared to accept one or two may not be down to the culprit. But until he was caught and questioned I would expect them all to be ‘his’.
I would certainly not expect the culprit to be an overt lunatic as such killers invariably commit their crimes openly and without regard to getting caught – and invariably get caught straight away as a result. Also I do not believe that the victims would have gone off to a secluded spot with an overt lunatic. I believe it is almost certain that the victims took their murderer to the place they were killed as part and parcel of their soliciting activity.

[Lechmere]

'Twerp'? I haven't heard that term of abuse for at least 35 years...

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

A good serial killer - or a good bad serial killer.

Evidently a well good baaaad serial killer...twerp.

[lynn cates]

punctus contra punctum

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

"Do you mean the first two cases being Nichols and Chapman?'

Yes. I should have said, "canonical."

"I would say Tabram was almost certainly the first case."

But she makes no difference to my question. And she was never slashed.

"I see trial and error and progression."

OK. Trial and error in WHAT? Killing? Well, they all were successfully killed.

"Maybe the throat cut was to obliterate evidence of strangulation?"

Perhaps. But it did not work as Polly and Annie were easily seen to have been strangled.

"Who knows. I would not presume to exactly know the mind of a serial killer!"

Indeed. But "serial killer" is merely an assumption.

"With Nichols I base my assumption that the abdominal wounds were committed first, on Llewellyn's judgement and on the lack of blood from the throat wound compared to the abdomen."

Well, given her strangulation, I'm not sure there should have been much blood anyway.

"I also base my assumption on an examination of what would make sense on the ground.
I think the Ripper would have been more concerned with being discovered from a westerly direction – from the direction of the School where there was dead ground just 50 yards away."

But why assume that the assailant had ANY fear? He may have been a lunatic.

"Polly lay parallel with the gate to Brown’s stable yard with her feet to the west and her head to the east."

Correct.

"I think he faced west standing above her head lifted her skirts (which were loose about her body and so will have risen clear giving access to her stomach) which will have acted as a shield from splash.
I think then he cut her throat facing the same way – hence the confusion over whether the cuts were carried out by a left-handed person."

Perhaps the confusion lay with Llewellyn himself in reconstructing the murder?

"This is why I think he did not notice Paul until he was dangerously close."

But why assume he noticed Paul at all?

"If you prefer this is why he didn’t notice Cross until he was dangerously close – the difference being that Cross didn’t notice the Ripper’s departure. This is why he didn’t leave the stomach wounds on display (which I am fairly sure was an important part of the process for him)."

But again, that depends on a late 20th c psychological analysis pertaining to a serial killer. Again, why assume one?

"After cutting the throat he noticed someone approaching (Paul or Cross) and wiped his blade, and threw the dress down in the process."

Not bad, but this is purely conjecture based on a certain type. Not bad, but . . .

Cheers.
LC