No Trophies

[Chava]

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.

I'm not sure it's a conscious response. This could be completely subconscious. But once it's occurred, it generates a huge rage that can only be assuaged by this level of violence. He's not aware of the implications of walking through a narrow passage with a woman who takes him into a wider confined space. He is simply aware of an overwhelming rage and desire to wreak havoc on that woman, and he acts on that desire which could well be uncontrollable. Mayhew in the 1840s reports on children in Whitechapel being sent out to run the streets in all weather from dusk to dawn because their mothers were on the game and needed them out of the way. Really young children. I'm sure that kind of stuff was still going on in the 1860s and 70s and beyond. What effect does this have on a kid? Does it lead to this kind of murderous rage? Probably not. Most kids will grow up relatively normal despite a horrible start to their lives. But do that to the right kid at the right time and he might well turn into the Ripper.

[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.

Sorry, Michael. I missed this! And it's an excellent question. It may be that he was under some kind of time constraint. Perhaps a job at the market that he had to go to. Also, it was probably his first kill or his first pre-meditated kill (if, in fact, he killed Tabram and I am completely on the fence about that one!) So I don't think he was nearly as polished as he was a few days later when he killed Chapman. It's interesting that we accept Nichols as a Ripper victim where many don't accept Stride. There are anachronisms of location and wound pattern. He doesn't take anything from her. I'm not saying she wasn't a Ripper victim. But if further evidence suggested he didn't kill her I wouldn't be surprised.

[lynn cates]

startled

Hello Chava.

"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."

What startled him?

Cheers.
LC

[Chava]

Wasn't it the guy with the pony and trap coming into the yard? I've reread the inquest evidence and it's not clear, but Diemschutz's horse shied at something and I've always thought that what he shied at was a man getting up in a hell of a hurry from right underneath his hooves...

[Phil H]

If Stride's killer was kidney, then he may not have been disturbed - he cut her throat and ran.

The horse and trap would have made a heck of a noise coming down the cobbled road, so it is likely the killer had warning (assuming he was still there) of a possible interruption.

The pony probably shied at the presence of the body, or the smell of blood, rather than that of a man. I believe that a horse will not willingly trample of a body.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

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

Hi Caz,

The thing is that we know the killer has no objections to killing and mutilating in near early morning daylight, so I dont see the late hour a factor with Mary Ann. I see the venue an immature choice for a killer...its why we see a much more suitable site next time round, ...within 2 weeks. I do see the early timing being an issue with Liz Stride however. And the fact that any form of mutilation, based solely on the physical evidence there, is absent and without suggestive physical evidence to support a suggestion of its intention.

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

[lynn cates]

shy

Hello Chava. Thanks.

"Wasn't it the guy with the pony and trap coming into the yard?"

Dimshits didn't come into the yard until 1.00 or slightly after. Liz was most likely cut at least 5 minutes before.

"I've reread the inquest evidence and it's not clear, but Diemschutz's horse shied at something and I've always thought that what he shied at was a man getting up in a hell of a hurry from right underneath his hooves."

Actually, it was Liz's body.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Mike you wrote

Unfortunately Simon Caz is determined to search for the answers in the revelations uncovered in the analysis of serial killer interviews and investigations. I wish everybody would start with the presumtption that they are studying 5 unsolved murders that occurred in a small section of London in 1888 over approx 2 months and to ONLY consider the most rare of all killers if it is warranted based on the evidence.

and then rather contradictory

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..

Whats it to be Mike, you ask us to start from scratch, and to discount any study that has been carried out regarding serial killers, and then ask us to consider signature when considering whether Elizabeth Stride is a Ripper victim.

And then low and behold you quote very modern ideas regarding accepted theory as to why these killers do what they do.

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.

If we're going this way Mike, might I point out that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, displayed signature which would suggest the same killer. Stride had her throat cut, and in all probability would have been mutilated had the killer not been interrupted.

Regards

Observer

[Damaso Marte]

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?

It's not as if he was shouting. Only part of the conversation was overheard. I think that chatting up the victim is a must in the ripping business.

"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."

Is it your position that Nichols was killed earlier than we think? Whoever killed Nichols was rational enough to flee the scene, and whoever killed Chapman was rational enough to, as others have pointed out, take basic precautions around not leaving blood around.

Are we to believe that it was pure luck both times that the killer escaped without leaving any evidence at the scene?

[Damaso Marte]

If we're going this way Mike, might I point out that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, displayed signature which would suggest the same killer. Stride had her throat cut, and in all probability would have been mutilated had the killer not been interrupted.

It's a levels of details issue. At some point you have to pick the level of detail at which you're defining the MO. If you define the MO as "throat cut, mutilation, presentment", then pretty much all of the canonical murders fit the bill. If you make other things required, you multiply the number of killers needed.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Michael. I missed this! And it's an excellent question. It may be that he was under some kind of time constraint. Perhaps a job at the market that he had to go to.

... or some other job Sounds very plausible to my ears!

Then again, had I not been the sworn Lechmereian that I am, I would point to the fact that many serialists gain in confidence as they go along, feeling more and more undefeatable with each victim.
Maybe he had worked up a daring with Stride and Eddowes that was not fully in place as he killed Nichols, quite simply.

... but I do prefer the explanation that he was en route to work, and did not have the time ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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...

Love,

Caz
X

There ya´go, Caz!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

It's not as if he was shouting. Only part of the conversation was overheard. I think that chatting up the victim is a must in the ripping business.

We don't really know that the woman Mrs Long/Darrell saw was Chapman. We have no idea whether "Jack" spoke to her or not. IMHO the likelihood is that by the time Mrs Long passed by, Annie had been dead some considerable time - as I believe she was more probably killed during the hours of greater darkness when the risks were less.

That is not to say that I believe "Jack" did not speak to the women, I think he had to. Just that we don't have no reliable evidence that he did so to Chapman, any more than we can be absolutely certain that Lawende saw "Jack" with Kate. It COULD have been him, but we cannot be sure - it is not impossible that "Jack" was already at work in the Square when Lawende saw a different couple.

Phil

[lynn cates]

details

Hello Damaso. Thanks.

"It's not as if he was shouting. Only part of the conversation was overheard. I think that chatting up the victim is a must in the ripping business."

Indeed. But the conversation was described as "loud." Make of that what you will.

"Is it your position that Nichols was killed earlier than we think?"

No. I think it was about 3.30--give or take.

"Whoever killed Nichols was rational enough to flee the scene . . ."

Or just leave? Whence the fleeing?

". . . and whoever killed Chapman was rational enough to, as others have pointed out, take basic precautions around not leaving blood around."

But even a humble butcher might do that, not leaving an excessive mess.

"Are we to believe that it was pure luck both times that the killer escaped without leaving any evidence at the scene?"

We? Neither of us can speak for any but ourselves.

What to believe? Whatever you like. I am not the commissar of doxastic states.

No evidence? A tad too strong. He rifled Annie's belongings. Her effects were NEATLY arranged. He seemed oblivious of danger and hence his surroundings. Make of that what you will.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

"Is it your position that Nichols was killed earlier than we think?"

No. I think it was about 3.30--give or take.

LC

Aha. And at what approximate time do you have Mizen looking at Nichols, noticing that blood is still flowing from her neck, just as Neil had noticed the same thing a few minutes before...?

Maybe you should give instead of taking.

All the best, Lynn!
Fisherman