No Trophies

[Chava]

Polly Nichols was mutilated but no organ was taken out of her body. Could have been because the Ripper was still new to killing and hadn't developed his method yet. Could have been because he heard someone coming and ran before he could accomplish his aim.

But.

If he's new to this, he smartens up right quick. He achieves everything he wants to achieve on Annie Chapman's body one week later. And if he was almost found because someone was coming too close, where in hell did he find the confidence to kill Chapman in what amounts to a bottle-neck situation. If someone walked out of that back-door at the wrong moment he was trapped and it would have been extremely difficult to get away.

I don't have any answers for this but the timing interests me. He goes from fumbler to polished killer inside a week. And I have to say I find that somewhat unlikely. Did he have any kind of mentor or accomplice? I've never considered that to be at all likely but now I'm looking at Nichols and Chapman and thinking it's possible. There's simply too steep a trajectory. He's 0-60 mph in basically a nano-second.

[Phil H]

With Polly "Jack" was almost certainly disturbed and did not complete what he intended. He had more time with Annie.

The situation at No 29 has led me to consider that the murder was probably committed significantly earlier than usually thought - around the same hour as Polly was murdered, and in more complete darkness. I also wonder whether he knew in some way, the layout of the yard from previous visits - perhaps as a dosser on the stairs who had used the privy.

Phil

[lynn cates]

sane?

Hello Chava. Good idea for a thread.

The killing at Hanbury certainly does not look like the work of a sane man, being so risky. What do you think?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Davis

Hello Phil. Davis was awake from 3 to 5, by his inquest statement. If the murder were around 4.30, I wonder whether he would have not have heard it? Or possibly have heard people in the passageway?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

The murder of Nichols could have been a step on the road to what he did to Chapman. Not that he was not capable of doing what he did to Chapman when he killed Nichols, he just had a different goal, or different needs. Maybe he knew how to open up the abdominal cavity, knew what he was looking for, but didn't know what the best way to go about it was. On Nichols there were essentially three kinds of cuts. He may not have known how the musculature was going to cut, so he essentially did a dry run. Back then surgeons used a vertical cut to enter the pelvic cavity. Nowadays it's a horizontal cut. And there are benefits to both methods. He may have felt like a horizontal cut would be the easiest way, but found he didn't have as much control as he liked. Nichols cut's are of varying depths so he may very well have been experimenting with different grips and pressures. To make a horrible comparison, Polly Nichols looks a lot like a sampler. Which may be exactly what she was to him.

On the other hand, I think his trophy for every kill was his knife. The murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes clearly show someone who is very cut happy. None of the killer's apparent goals required even half of the knifework that went into these murders. There were easier ways, more efficient ways. And it would be easy to say that means he didn't know those more efficient ways. But he did. He lifted an intact uterus out of a woman. He knew the more efficient ways. There was no reason for him to start at the sternum, there was no reason to cut through the clothing, there was no reason to take as many cuts as he did. He did it because he wanted to. Since his victims were already dead, it wasn't sadistic. It was fetishistic. And it was the cutting and the carving and the stabbing that he wanted. And the instrument that facilitates that is the trophy. That's the bright shiny object for him. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he used a different knife for every murder.

[Damaso Marte]

Hello Chava. Good idea for a thread.

The killing at Hanbury certainly does not look like the work of a sane man, being so risky. What do you think?

Cheers.
LC

How was your boy Isenschmidt identified? I must say I know next to nothing about him, everything seems to be in paywalled sources.

Whoever killed Nichols and Chapman (universally considered by the same hand, even by the likes of you) was able to get out of at least two murder scenes without leaving much in the way of evidence or being detected. At the very least, he was aware enough of his surroundings and of the difference between good and evil that he knew he should be taking certain precautionary measures.

Mentally disturbed, sure, but the Whitechapel killings strike me as the work of somebody who remained procedurally rational.

[Phil H]

Whoever killed Nichols and Chapman (universally considered by the same hand, even by the likes of you) was able to get out of at least two murder scenes without leaving much in the way of evidence or being detected.

The discussion to which you refer (The killing at Hanbury certainly does not look like the work of a sane man, being so risky) relates to the Chapman murder, so it might be unwise to cite that as an example of "Jack's" cleverness.

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

On the other hand, I am convinced that "Jack" allowed the women to lead him to the murder sites, as all are eminently suitable for their purposes (gates or hoardings with "give").

So I believe that the risk factor allows us to consider some logical options:

a) Jack was prepared to take extreme risks by going willingly into the unknown; trusting Annie;

b) he did not go into the unknown - he had been in the yard before. Possibilities are that he had dossed on the stairs, which we know happened); his work took him to the yard; he lived in No29! (I discount the last.)

c) if he killed in daylight, or as people were preparing for work (the usual assumption) he took extreme risks; BUT if he killed at the same hour he killed Polly, it would have been darker and less risky - in terms of use of the privy; people looking through windows etc. Had he dossed on the stairs he might have learned something of the rythms of the house and whether people did use the privy in the dark from personal experience.

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?

Phil

[lynn cates]

precautionary

Hello Damaso. Thanks.

"At the very least, he was aware enough of his surroundings and of the difference between good and evil that he knew he should be taking certain precautionary measures."

I disagree. If this were so, why did he not whisper to Annie before going into the back yard at Hanbury?

"Mentally disturbed, sure, but the Whitechapel killings strike me as the work of somebody who remained procedurally rational."

Agreed--in the cases of Kate and "MJK."

Cheers.
LC

[K-453]

If someone walked out of that back-door at the wrong moment he was trapped and it would have been extremely difficult to get away.

Yes ... but Jack had a big, sharp knife, he was mad, he didn't mind killing people, and likely he was pretty strong and quick. That encounter would probably ended worse for the person coming out of the door than for him.

Back to topic: When murdering Polly, his goal might have been to cut her open, shove his hand in and touch her innards. Discovering how much he liked that, he decided the next time to take some of the stuff home with him to prolong the - for him - nice experience.

If we count Martha Tabram as Ripper victim, I see a development from attacking the women externally, and wounding the parts that were his favourite target, to opening them up and turning them inside out.

[Michael W Richards]

Polly Nichols was mutilated but no organ was taken out of her body. Could have been because the Ripper was still new to killing and hadn't developed his method yet. Could have been because he heard someone coming and ran before he could accomplish his aim.

But.

If he's new to this, he smartens up right quick. He achieves everything he wants to achieve on Annie Chapman's body one week later. And if he was almost found because someone was coming too close, where in hell did he find the confidence to kill Chapman in what amounts to a bottle-neck situation. If someone walked out of that back-door at the wrong moment he was trapped and it would have been extremely difficult to get away.

I don't have any answers for this but the timing interests me. He goes from fumbler to polished killer inside a week. And I have to say I find that somewhat unlikely. Did he have any kind of mentor or accomplice? I've never considered that to be at all likely but now I'm looking at Nichols and Chapman and thinking it's possible. There's simply too steep a trajectory. He's 0-60 mph in basically a nano-second.

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

[Phil H]

And not a new question.

But only relevant IF there was a double-event. On the whole I think the evidence against one.

It is also possible that the taking of body parts from Chapman was a spur of the moment inspiration. That having her there, and time, something caught his interest - texture, or just opportunity - so he removed the organs. I don't see the abdominal/genital mutilation as necessarily a fore-runner/precursor to organ taking. It could have had its own clear and ready motivation.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Mentally disturbed, sure, but the Whitechapel killings strike me as the work of somebody who remained procedurally rational.

I'll drink to that...

"The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane" observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

.

[Wickerman]

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

It is an interesting question, but in many respects he did. The very next week.

Later, in the Stride case, if he was interrupted, he killed again but this time the very same night.

Is this is more evidence of escalation?

.

[Michael W Richards]

It is an interesting question, but in many respects he did. The very next week.

Later, in the Stride case, if he was interrupted, he killed again but this time the very same night.

Is this is more evidence of escalation?

.

Hi Jon,

The point was obviously that the 2nd kill would happen on the same night, not within the next fortnight. Just as has been speculated as a driver for the actual "Double Event". If this man who killed Polly also killed Liz, why then the kneejerk reaction to his frustration at the Stride interruption and no evidence of it at the first attempt? He was in fact much closer to an overall objective of accessing organs with Mary Ann, one would think being that close might be more distressing if interrupted.

You mention escalation, and there is ample evidence within the Canonical Group of that, but do all 5 have the same characteristics and apparent motive, is the escalation consistent, and can we say that there is no other murder motive possible for any of them? There is understandable and reasonable escalation from C1 to C2. Its like he took a 75% success rate, learned from it, and modified his behaviors slightly to achieve 100%. Within a relatively small window of time.

I fully believe that if he hadnt heard approaching footsteps on Bucks Row, given another 2 or 3 minutes, we would have seen the first organ extractions. From the abdomen....a very important feature of the first 2 crimes...and those 2 only. And I would expect nothing less and likely more next time out.

Cheers Jon

[Errata]

Mentally disturbed, sure, but the Whitechapel killings strike me as the work of somebody who remained procedurally rational.

I like the phrase disturbed. Mentally ill gets tossed around a lot, and there's really no evidence of that at all. People assume that a serial killer has to be mentally ill, but that isn't true. In fact few are. I mean, if you are eviscerating women something is definitely wrong with you, but to say "mentally ill" is both incorrect and insulting. Disturbed is good. It speaks to abnormal desires or methods without speculating as to cause.