No Trophies

[Errata]

Boy am I not an expert on horse behaviour! But I must respectfully disagree with this. There were abattoirs all over the area, animals being treated horribly on their way to them. Herded and whipped with no effort to allay the animals' panic and fear. Blood seeping out from the killing floors into narrow streets. Working horses would have encountered this all the time. Cavalry horses went into the thick of battle. Police horses were used to quell riots. Hunt horses witnessed the bloody end of foxes Cart horses would have been used to sounds and smells that may have been unpleasant but they kept on working through them. A sheltered horse who spends his time in a paddock and being ridden by nice people in the countryside may well have reacted badly to the smell of blood and fear. But I suspect a working cart-horse would have kept on plodding through unless something sudden happened close to him. Which is why I think he shied at the Ripper getting up fast and running like hell.

Yeah, it doesn't work like that. It's complicated interspecies herd behavior, a slightly ruthless philosophy regarding other prey species, and the basics tenets of training. I can explain it if you like, pm me, I'm just pretty sure it would bore the crap out of everyone else, and is technically off topic. But as a biological aside, if the Ripper popped up right in front of him, the pony would have reared up and brained him with his hooves. They can't see in front of them. Which is why they tell you never to walk in front of a horse, or behind a horse unless you are sure the horse knows you are there. They are literal blind spots, and horses attack because if they can't see you, you are too close for them to get away. Number one reason horses kill humans. Well, the first is throwing inexperienced riders, but that's really an accident.

[Chava]

If so, he must have vaulted over Liz to have gotten out.

There's nothing to say he didn't. I don't suggest he waited until the horse was right on him. By the way, thanks Errata! You know a lot more about horses than I ever did!

What I think happened in the Stride case was that he killed her and settled down for a nice time when he heard the horse and cart approach and realized it was coming right into the yard. That is when I believe he got up sharply and bolted. I remember a long time ago a member of our Ripperologist group coming up with an old map that showed a very narrow passageway between two buildings leading out the other end of the yard and that's where I'm guessing he headed. However the horse would have been aware of a rapid movement not far from underneath him and would have shied.

[Errata]

There's nothing to say he didn't. I don't suggest he waited until the horse was right on him. By the way, thanks Errata! You know a lot more about horses than I ever did!

What I think happened in the Stride case was that he killed her and settled down for a nice time when he heard the horse and cart approach and realized it was coming right into the yard. That is when I believe he got up sharply and bolted. I remember a long time ago a member of our Ripperologist group coming up with an old map that showed a very narrow passageway between two buildings leading out the other end of the yard and that's where I'm guessing he headed. However the horse would have been aware of a rapid movement not far from underneath him and would have shied.

Out of self defense. Yeah I worked with jouster horses for about a minute and a half, but then I dated a horse vet for three years. Horses are really not as awesome a conversational topic as he thought they were. Sure love your job, but don't malign my cat because she's not a horse, because I like her more than I like you. At least my cat let's me talk about what I want to talk about. Rant over.

[caz]

Hi Caz...

...And thats the primary reason I discount Stride....above all the other good reason to do so...her killer did not show any interest at all in mutilation.

That is our killers signature. When its absent, to me its more probable that we have another killer than we have a killer who changes his overall objectives. Whether its just to kill, to watch someone die, to cause suffering, to obtain organs, to silence a threat, to feel superior, to exert power over someone, to see peoples eyes as life leaves them....whatever the reason these freaks feel the need to kill, its why they keep killing in the case of serial killers.

Many aspects may change, but not their goal.

Cheers Caz

Hi Mike,

I don't really understand your reasoning here. You seem to be saying that 'these freaks' are limited to a single overall objective when they spy a prospective victim, and that if one was active in Whitechapel his objective would have been solely to mutilate freshly killed corpses in order to obtain organs from them. But this supposes that no mutilations would have been performed for the sheer hell of it, ie they would all be made in the attempt to remove body parts. What informs such a view? Which cases are you basing it on?

Moreover, if you believe Chapman's killer only mutilated her in an attempt to remove an organ, and you believe he also killed Nichols, then you have to concede that something beyond his control prevented him from achieving his goal in Buck's Row. So why couldn't something similar happen on another occasion, when perhaps the same man isn't able to attack at all, or if able to kill, is spooked by some sight or sound before he can proceed to the next stage? Why do you find that so difficult to imagine?

Alternatively, why could removing body parts not just be the icing on the cake for one of 'these freaks' if and when conditions allow? As in the case of Robert Napper and his indoor murder of Samantha Bisset? Why do you imagine 'these freaks' are incapable of having multiple objectives, taken from your own list if you like? Why can't one man kill to feel superior to his victim; to silence a threat; to exert power over her; to see the life ebbing away; and to mutilate the body afterwards and take organs? Why couldn't all these factors apply, and why wouldn't they all be subject to what the circumstances allowed this 'freak' to get away with?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

I think the greater flaw here is divining that the killer wasn't interested in mutilation simply because Stride wasn't mutilated. That's an incredibly silly argument. It's like saying I'm obviously not interested in dessert because I only ordered a cheeseburger and a beer. Apologies for a "tasteless" analogy.

Mike

[caz]

The Motive for killing Annie was apparently to mutilate her abdomen after her murder, and at least in part, to obtain a specifically female organ. Could that same killer have changed to an indoor killer? Sure. Could he have changed targets and started killing and mutilating men or children? I suppose so. Could he have left London and done murders involving mutilation and organ extractions elsewhere?. Possible.

Can we say that we have any evidence to suggest that he might also just kill someone as his Motive? Actually..we dont have that evidence. We have that supposition.

Best regards

Hi Mike,

Are you conceding here that the freak who killed Chapman could have had two objectives: to mutilate her abdomen and obtain her uterus? Slippery slope if so, because he may of course have had more than two, and one could have been to exert his undoubted power over this sick woman's life and death. If he gets to mutilate her that's a bonus; if he removes a body part before someone gatecrashes his party it's a gold star. But you don't seem able to accommodate such a possibility and I don't understand why not.

It becomes even more curious when you insist on sticking rigidly to the evidence and not allowing Chapman's killer any possible reason for killing Stride, yet you are perfectly willing to suppose that such a man might change targets and start mutilating men or children, or leave the area and commit similar murders elsewhere. Where's the evidence for any of this? The ripper would never have killed a woman in Whitechapel and left her unmutilated for any reason under the sun, but he could have gone on to mutilate men or children, or do his thing somewhere else entirely? How do you reach such conclusions about an unknown killer, particularly when you don't even accept that one of 'these freaks' murdered more than two of the victims?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz,

I think the greater flaw here is divining that the killer wasn't interested in mutilation simply because Stride wasn't mutilated. That's an incredibly silly argument. It's like saying I'm obviously not interested in dessert because I only ordered a cheeseburger and a beer. Apologies for a "tasteless" analogy.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Oh I agree entirely. Although there was no apparent attempt to mutilate Stride (which allows for a different killer with a different motive), there is nothing in the evidence that can tell us that her killer wouldn't have done so - and gone on to remove an organ - if the conditions had been more conducive.

And since even Mike concedes that the conditions were not conducive (either because Stride wasn't soliciting, or wasn't willing to move to a location that would have allowed the ripper enough time and privacy to achieve his organ harvesting objective) then why would anyone expect any mutilation if the ripper killed her?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Caz,

I think the greater flaw here is divining that the killer wasn't interested in mutilation simply because Stride wasn't mutilated. That's an incredibly silly argument. It's like saying I'm obviously not interested in dessert because I only ordered a cheeseburger and a beer. Apologies for a "tasteless" analogy.

Mike

Mike, its more appropriate to associate the "silly" adjective to someone who believe something occurred to prevent any further damage to the corpse...without having any evidence at all to support the notion...or to surmise that a man who kills almost identically 2 times before, with a definite and medically supported penchant for the activities that take place after the throat cut, would then be satisfied..while taking the same risks as the previous kills...not having any post mortem mutilating.

And if you order a cheeseburger and a beer you may be ordering precisely what you wanted. You may have assessed the possibility you may want dessert and dismissed it before ordering....people can decide what to do without leaving indecision room Mike,....just like Strides killer seems to just have wanted her dead.

Some may prefer wiggle room nonetheless.

Cheers

[caz]

....just like Strides killer seems to just have wanted her dead.

Hi Mike,

But this would only be a valid conclusion if the conditions would clearly have allowed the killer to have mutilated her and removed an organ in the location where she was found, if that had been his objective.

Since it is screamingly obvious that nobody could have done all that without enormous risk, you are merely left with your speculation about the ripper's limited objectives, and your opinion that 'these freaks' will simply walk away when the goal you have set for them is not achievable, because bang goes their 'need' to kill.

It's all pie in the sky.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

And if you order a cheeseburger and a beer you may be ordering precisely what you wanted.

But it doesn't mean I don't enjoy dessert. You can't surmise that from this one order.

Mike

[c.d.]

I think that we need to keep in mind that if Jack was indeed Liz's killer he was in a much different environment than the previous murders. In those instances, he was more secluded and less likely to be interrupted. Had he been it may have simply been one individual in which case he could brandish his knife and run off. Five or six club members emerging from the door to investigate a scream or being alerted by one member who stepped outside and saw him bending over the body of a woman would be a completely different matter.

c.d.

[caz]

Indeed so, c.d.

Imagine if Nichols had earned her doss money again and decided to call it a night when she bumped into the ripper along the Whitechapel Rd, for example. He couldn't have mutilated her right there on the main road, if she had done soliciting for the night and refused to go off with him somewhere quieter. But he could have cut her throat in a heartbeat and walked away, if he'd had a mind to do so.

Fast forward a month to Berner St, and he'd have faced that very situation if he came across Stride outside the club, apparently trying to pick up a member or three, but found her unwilling to leave its comparative safety to go off with him. I'd imagine that might make such a man hopping mad.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

back yard

Hello Caroline. It could indeed.

But if he does not stick at killing in a back yard, why worry about a club?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I suppose I side with those arguing that he was interrupted with Nichols and not with Chapman. While it is true that there might be a tight timeline with Chapman, it either wasn't that tight or he didn't need much time, as we know he was not caught. Maybe it took him but 5-10 minutes; perhaps he was just unluckily interrupted with Nichols.

In my opinion, the Nichols/Chapman mutiliation issue reminds me of the Double Event mutiliation debate, just on a slightly longer time scale. The killer strikes and if all goes well (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly) there is an extended cooling off period. If his is interrupted (Nichols, Stride) he gets to work shortly thereafter. There are too few data points to make any definitive case, but to me this is suggestive.

I agree, Barnaby. That week, between Nichols and Chapman, must have seemed like a year to the ripper, if something or someone had spooked him in Buck's Row before he could really get stuck in, and his next opportunity only came in the early hours of the following Saturday, when he encountered Chapman on her last legs and she went meekly into that backyard with him. We don't know if he was able to go out looking on other nights that week, or how many women would have made such easy targets.

If he found his opportunities limited, perhaps because of work commitments or the women were becoming more wary with each new atrocity, it could explain an earlier start on the last Saturday night of September, and the brutality shown in Mitre Square, immediately following a disappointing outcome in Berner St.

I could understand the tendency to exclude Stride as a ripper victim if Eddowes had been first, because it could then have been argued that he would not have had the desire or the energy to go after a second victim. But if he set out that night to mutilate, and his first opportunity came to nothing, the whole night's grim work makes too much sense to put down to two unconnected crimes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caroline. It could indeed.

But if he does not stick at killing in a back yard, why worry about a club?

Cheers.
LC

Well, c.d. offered a few reasons, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X