No Trophies

[K-453]

Everytime a serial killer is found to be "sane", I think we should reconsider our definition of "sane".

[Michael W Richards]

Everytime a serial killer is found to be "sane", I think we should reconsider our definition of "sane".

The fact is K453 that we do not have enough evidence to conclude that these murders were the work of a serial killer. We can however safely conclude that the man that killed Mary Ann and Annie was the same person. Due to the startling similarities in Method and Madness displayed. Plus, these first 2 women seem to match each others physical state. One impaired, one impaired by poor health. Both, in their own words, seeking to earn money after 2am to pay for that same nights bed.

Its why I believe we have evidence of an interruption in the Nichols murder. The work that was done on Mary Ann was essentially the same prelude cutting that the killer in that Hanbury backyard did,...particularly the double throat cut to kill and opening the abdomen. Since we have a good case for pairing these murders, and since its obvious and supported by the medical experts who examined the women that the objective of the killer was to obtain internal abdominal organs...most probably only female ones, since he could have just cut a man open at anytime for a kidney easily enough...it would seem the murder of Mary Ann was not completed.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

Everytime a serial killer is found to be "sane", I think we should reconsider our definition of "sane".

Every time a board determines a suspect to be 'sane', one member of that board must accept this 'person' as a tenant into their home for one month.

Then we'd see who stands behind their credentials.

.

[Errata]

Every time a board determines a suspect to be 'sane', one member of that board must accept this 'person' as a tenant into their home for one month.

Then we'd see who stands behind their credentials.

.

There is a difference between legally insane and actually insane. Since legally insane allows a defendant to plead mitigating circumstances, thereby reducing the severity of their sentence, I would think that most people would feel far more comfortable with the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world being judged to be not insane, and therefor fit to stand trial.

[Wickerman]

Apart from the fact I was being facetious (while still making a point). The real problem lies with judicial systems which are too lenient, and guidelines which allow for widespread abuse of the system.

.

[Bridewell]

[B]
But the location of the backyard at No 29, is, IMHO DIFFERENT to the others.

From Hanbury St, the yard lay through TWO doors and along a narrow passage. The house was FULL of people. Buck's row and Mitre square had multiple means of escape that were evident. A stranger could not know what he was entering at No 29 - he either had to trust the woman, or take a chance. in fact there is no EASY exit from the yard save by clambering over fences.

There was only one real exit which was back out through the passage. If the killer was rational he must have found a way of reducing the risk to an acceptable level. The fact that there was only one exit has to be balanced against the fact that there was therefore also only one entrance. If the killer found a way of barricading the door he may have thought he was highly unlikely to be disturbed. Alternatively, he may have been someone whose presence in the yard would not, of itself, arouse suspicion. In those circumstances he could conceal the knife and pretend to have found the body. The only risk would be if he was actually seen causing death or injury.

The yard is also heavily overlooked by windows No 29 itself and neighbouring houses - Buck's row and Mitre Square much less so.

If the murder took place close up against the wall of the house where the body was found he would be hidden from view unless someone opened a window and looked directly downwards.

there is a privy in the yard which people might get up to use (Cadosche demonstrates that). So IMHO risks were HIGH (higher than other locations).

Wouldn't most people use a chamber pot rather than venture out into the yard during the night?

What is curious to me though is we have absolutely no mention of bloodstains in the passage, on the door handles etc. How did he manage that?

Good question. Very good question. Trophy in a poacher's pocket and gloves over the blood on his hands perhaps?

[Bridewell]

Just on the subject of trophies generally, we can't be sure that the killer took no trophy from Nichols because we don't know what she had in her possession at the time of the murder. We only know what she had when her possessions were listed later, not whether there was anything missing or not. We can only say that, if he did take a trophy, it wasn't a body part.

[DRoy]

Bridewell,

If the murder took place close up against the wall of the house where the body was found he would be hidden from view unless someone opened a window and looked directly downwards.

I agree.

However, In looking at the photos, it doesn't look like there would be much room where the murder took place. It seems it may have taken place as soon as the yard was entered or in the alternative, on the way out of the yard. Wouldn't the killer be making things more difficult for himself? Yes, he'd out of view but against the fence right at the steps and door seems almost "cramped".

Since there were obviously people awake at that time of morning, you'd assume they'd have candles burning or something for light. How could the murderer see the lights in the windows around him and still feel that confident that he could do this up against the fence, steps and door in a one exit one entrance back yard? That's pretty daring!

If he was that daring, you'd have to think he either didn't require any body part trophies from her or he was disturbed.

Good idea for a thread Chava!

Cheers
DRoy

[Chava]

What is curious to me though is we have absolutely no mention of bloodstains in the passage, on the door handles etc. How did he manage that?

That's why I'm convinced he came prepared with some kind of an oilcloth pouch or whatever. He intended to take Chapman's organs. Perhaps he found killing Nichols to be...unsatisfying.

I do have a theory about the locations and have posted it in a thread somewhere on this board many moons ago. I believe the victims self-select by leading him through a narrow passageway into a more open area to conduct their business. The vagino/uterine implications are really clear in all but the Nichols murder. Chapman takes him through the passageway into the garden. Stride through the alley off Berner's Street into the yard. Eddowes through Duke's Passage into Mitre Square. MJK through the narrow entrance of Millers Court into her room. If you look at it that way, Nichols is the only one who does not take the Ripper through this process. Perhaps that's why he did not appear to attempt to take internal organs from her.

[Errata]

That's why I'm convinced he came prepared with some kind of an oilcloth pouch or whatever. He intended to take Chapman's organs. Perhaps he found killing Nichols to be...unsatisfying.

I do have a theory about the locations and have posted it in a thread somewhere on this board many moons ago. I believe the victims self-select by leading him through a narrow passageway into a more open area to conduct their business. The vagino/uterine implications are really clear in all but the Nichols murder. Chapman takes him through the passageway into the garden. Stride through the alley off Berner's Street into the yard. Eddowes through Duke's Passage into Mitre Square. MJK through the narrow entrance of Millers Court into her room. If you look at it that way, Nichols is the only one who does not take the Ripper through this process. Perhaps that's why he did not appear to attempt to take internal organs from her.

That is a very complex birth metaphor, one which I totally support. But it should be pointed out a: Stride didn't have organs taken either, although the argument is made that he intended to, and b: if the guy had a subconscious that complex, and was so attuned to it that the slightest nuance change altered his killing method, he was either the smartest man to walk the earth, or the craziest.

[caz]

Hi Chava,

If the answer is the part I put in bold, then we dont need to look for too much evolution between kills. He may have been perfectly capable and eager to do what he eventually does with Annie, but his poor choice of venue....understandable for a first offense of this type...teaches him that he needs to be off the streets to do this properly and complete his goals. I believe thats why Annies murder was in some respects the most skillfully done of the lot. He found his method...get the prostitute to lead you somewhere dark.

Ive wondered, based on the above, if he was indeed prevented from achieving his objectives, then why isnt that a Double Event Night as well? It seems many believe the new wounds on Kates indicate his frustration at being foiled with Liz. And its why he kills twice, to get the satisfaction he craves.

So why not kill again after Polly? I think its an interesting question myself.

Cheers Chava

Hi Mike,

If you believe Nichols was his first attempt, it could well have knocked the stuffing out of him a bit and he simply had to call it a night. It was also a lot later into the night than when Stride was killed, and we don't know how long Nichols's killer may already have been prowling the streets before encountering her. In late August it might have been too light to go looking for another one.

If the same man killed Stride, but couldn't/wouldn't mutilate her for one of several plausible reasons, the night was young so he could head off and try his luck elsewhere.

Of course, if Lechmere killed Nichols he'd have been very late for work if he'd tried for a double event instead of waiting to bluff things out with Paul.

Love,

Caz
X

[GregBaron]

Aerial view...

That is a very complex birth metaphor, one which I totally support. But it should be pointed out a: Stride didn't have organs taken either, although the argument is made that he intended to, and b: if the guy had a subconscious that complex, and was so attuned to it that the slightest nuance change altered his killing method, he was either the smartest man to walk the earth, or the craziest.

Yes, this is a remarkable literary metaphor and would work well in a fiction. Astute observation. My pragmatic thinking though leads me to believe it was simply a case of best place to do the deed. If alleyways leading to yards is a metaphor for vaginas into uteri then the designer of Whitechapel was an obsessive gynecologist.....Tumblety didn't happen to design Whitechapel did he? Ha Ha

One wonders what Bucks row then is.........The Road Less Traveled?


Greg

[Chava]

Yes, this is a remarkable literary metaphor and would work well in a fiction. Astute observation. My pragmatic thinking though leads me to believe it was simply a case of best place to do the deed. If alleyways leading to yards is a metaphor for vaginas into uteri then the designer of Whitechapel was an obsessive gynecologist.....Tumblety didn't happen to design Whitechapel did he? Ha Ha

But there were plenty of other alleys that didn't lead into open areas. They led into other alleys/turned into dead ends/opened out onto larger streets. The whole East End was a maze of alleys, only a few of which led into larger enclosed areas. Yet our boy was basically 4 for 5. I don't think this is a conscious decision on his part. But I do think his mind turns to murder in those circumstances. My understanding is that the Yorkshire Ripper had normal transactions with prostitutes throughout the period when he was killing. The Ipswich murderer was a known punter as well. But something triggered both of these men to turn homicidal. I've no idea what it was but empirical observation suggests that it exists and it could be the reason for the gaps between murders. If he picks up a prostitute who takes care of him down a back-alley he isn't driven to killer her. It's just a thought, but I do believe he was triggered somehow and the similarities in location are striking.

As for Liz Stride, I was always under the impression that he was startled just as he cut her throat so didn't have time to do anything else.

[Errata]

To be honest, I always thought Ripper murders were more targeted at a woman's generative abilities rather than her sexuality. Like it's an obsessive mommy thing rather than an obsessive sex thing, though the two aren't mutually exclusive.

But while a conscious birth metaphor would be extraordinary, the truth is that once we get in a state of mind, we see what we want to see. Say he sees a woman who reminds him of his mother, and the hatred and resentment start simmering. He propositions her, confirming she's a prostitute, possibly like his mother was, and now he can't distinguish this woman from his mother. She leads him through the alleys to an open space, and the whole time he is getting angrier and angrier at is mother for ruining his life, for even having him in the first place. The feeling of confinement in the alleyway irritates him, so now he is at a full boil, so when he comes out into the open he suddenly feels free to do what he needs to do. Which is punish this stranger for what his mother did to him, whatever that was.

While it's a birth metaphor, it's not a literal birth metaphor. Struggling with feelings of confinement, feeling pushed, feeling like someone else is in control, and then open spaces and freedom. As opposed to "gee I feel like I'm being born here...". Because the truth is, until he and the victim arrive at their destination, he isn't in control. She might pick a place that doesn't suit his needs, and there's nothing he can do about that. It's actually extraordinary that he allows them that control, no matter how needful it might be. It's once they arrive and he has determined that there is a modicum of safety that he is free. That he is the one in control. And if Nichols didn't take him to a location he was wholly comfortable with, he never gained complete control. He could kill her, he could cut on her, but he couldn't take her uterus because he wasn't free to do so. He didn't feel secure enough to confront his demons, which I think was his mother, but could be anything really. I mean, if he had an Ed Gein mother, he would literally have to be the most powerful he has ever been to exact revenge on this mommy substitute he has found. If he loses even a little of that power, he can't do it. She would loom entirely too large in his mind. He couldn't break her control.

[Phil H]

I don't agree the hypothesis re the going through a narrow passage into a larger enclosed area, BUT

With Nicholls:

What if she took him through the passage under Wood's Buildings? Logical if he met her in Whitechapel High Street/Whitechapel Road.

The area of Bucks row/Durward St in front of the Board School (before Buck's Row and Winthrop St divide) is broad and open but also would have seemed enclosed in 1888. She simply took him a few yards around the corner to her death - and again the wharehouses in that narrower part of bucks row could almsot have seemed enclosed.

Just a thought, though as I say, don't count me as a supporter of your theory.

Phil