No Trophies

[lynn cates]

shortly

Hello Barnaby.

Difficult to see how a week and two days counts as shortly thereafter.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I don't see a problem UNLESS she were dead when cut. If she were still even faintly alive when Cross (oh, very well) and Paul saw her, then even 3.55 is OK.

Cheers.
LC

So letīs turn it around, Lynn! If Paul and Lechmere saw her around 3.45, and if she had been cut at around 3.30 - how would she still be alive fifteen minutes after she had had her neck severed down to the bone, cutting off the blood supply to the brain? And are we to accept that Paul felt her heart beating, pumping blood around in her body, whereas it had gushed out of her neck for a quarter of an hour?

How would she still be bleeding at 3.55, if every vessel in her neck had been severed 25 minutes earlier?

What examples do we have of people who have managed these remarkable feats?

To me, 3.30 is totally out of the question.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

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.

[lynn cates]

unless

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I don't see a problem UNLESS she were dead when cut. If she were still even faintly alive when Cross (oh, very well) and Paul saw her, then even 3.55 is OK.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I thought the issue was, "we" tend not to look down.
Had anybody chosen to do so, we might not be here today.

.

[Errata]

As anyone who has lived in a high rise apartment knows, it is astonishing how many people never consider "up". I lived in a building that overlooked a blind alley. People dealt drugs there, they used the bathroom there, prostitutes brought customers there... and not a single one of them make any attempt to shield their activities from above. I had a professor who said that we were not a sufficiently technological society to look up. And most of us don't. When we walk around, we don't look up, because there is no major threat to us that is up. People looked up after 9/11, but that fear faded. My neighbor was a vice cop who made a TON of arrests in that alley, and it never failed that a: these people had absolutely no idea how he could have seen them and b: evidently forgot and came back again and again. I don't think the Ripper ever considered up. I don't think it occurred to him. I don't think it occurred to the prostitutes who used that yard, or they wouldn't have kept taking clients there. We don't take up into account in our daily dealings. It's not surprising that Jack would not. Which means he was more lucky than smart.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"A "few minutes" after 3.30?"

Yes. A problem?

3.55 seems a bit late, eh?

Cheers.
LC

3.55 does not necessarily sound late to my ears. If we accept that Paul was correct when stating it was exactly 3.45 as he walked down the street, then we must keep in mind that he said that it took around four minutes to reach the intersection of Hanbury and Bakerīs Row, where Mizen was, that takes us to 3.49. Then it could have taken a minute, perhaps, for Lechmere to speak to Mizen, that takes us to 3.50, and after that Mizen proceeded to knock up people by his own admission, adding perhaps one or two more minutes to the tally, and ooops itīs 3.52. Then he walked down to Buckīs Row, and that would have taken two or three minutes, presumably.

Which takes us to...? Ah, yes - 3.55!

Of course, the give and take mechanism chimes in here too, but all in all, we may not be very far off the mark. I find it hard to believe that Mizen could have been in place before 3.50, and that would still leave a twenty minute gap between your 3.30 estimation for the cutting business and the instance when Mixen saw blood still flowing form Nicholīs neck. To me, that looks like a problem.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

late

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"A "few minutes" after 3.30?"

Yes. A problem?

3.55 seems a bit late, eh?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry to intrude, Michael (I hadn't realised these threads were exclusive property).

neverthless, I not only question the time of death, I also question Richardson's testimony as suspect. Questioning is NOT to deny or have a closed mind - it is an intellectual exercise to help us consider options.

Again, apologies if alternative views offend.

Phil

Feigning manners isnt as convincing as having real ones Phil...but you are welcome to question any and all of the data that you read regarding these murders. And any witness account. By all means.

Just as it is within my power to present facts that dispute the alternate view expressed.

I had thought many members had supposedly studied these events long enough, and from enough angles, that they can feel comfortable about making some conclusions about the validity of the data and the truth of situation. Like in the case of Packer, Schwartz, or Hutchinson.

But of course everyone is free to continue to explore whatever avenues they are interested in, and whatever sources they believe. They may not always get polite responses in return however...many who have studied for over 20 years tend to tire of the baseless questioning and the blind embrace of myths.

Best regards

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

A few minutes after that.

Cheers.
LC

A "few minutes" after 3.30?

And if I say that Mizen would have been in place around 3.55? Ten minutes after 3.45, that is, when Paul passed down Buckīs Row. Or do you have him there at 3.35?

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Sorry to intrude, Michael (I hadn't realised these threads were exclusive property).

neverthless, I not only question the time of death, I also question Richardson's testimony as suspect. Questioning is NOT to deny or have a closed mind - it is an intellectual exercise to help us consider options.

Again, apologies if alternative views offend.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

The crime scene allowed him to relax for a few minutes and indulge himself.....yes, of course there were 17 people in that house that could have interrupted him, and yes, many windows of the neighbours looked into that yard....but it would seem he didnt care about that or the rising sun....and we know its the only near daylight kill.

Unless of course, the murder took place, in near darkness, around the same hour as Polly was killed - when the risks would have been appreciably lower. At least one estimate of the time of death would allow for that.

Phil

Am I debating this with someone who truly believes Annie was killed nearer to 3:30 am than 5:30am? So what...did the next prostitute and her client just step over Annie when Cadosche hears a voice from that yard? Richardson, without having any reason to do so, is a liar?

"[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her."

Phillips stated that when he arrived at half past 6 she had been dead about 2 hours but noted that the cold may have affected the body's cooling as well as the extreme loss of blood.

It is well within his given opinion that she had been dead over an hour....since right about when Cadosche hears the "no". It is not within his comments to suggest a death at around 3:30am. For one..thats 3 hours before the medical expert arrived, not 2...as he stated, and secondly, we have the doctors own words concerning the estimate, the temperature and the blood loss.

Best regards

[Phil H]

The crime scene allowed him to relax for a few minutes and indulge himself.....yes, of course there were 17 people in that house that could have interrupted him, and yes, many windows of the neighbours looked into that yard....but it would seem he didnt care about that or the rising sun....and we know its the only near daylight kill.

Unless of course, the murder took place, in near darkness, around the same hour as Polly was killed - when the risks would have been appreciably lower. At least one estimate of the time of death would allow for that.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

And, in my humble opinion, the bloke was oblivious of time and space. But why not? All things belonged to him.

Lynn, if you have reached the point where you can perceive Jack's world-view and psychological view of things - you have clearly gone further than I believe anyone can go. Where is the evidence for that, especially your last sentence?

Phil

In the case of Annie Chapman, you need only look at what was done to and with her and note the time of day and the location. Lynn's observations are spot on...the killer in the backyard at Hanbury Street had his privacy...lacking in Bucks Row...he had his prey, who led him there...and he has an opportunity to complete what he could not the first time out. He arranges items around her....he takes stomach flaps instead of just slitting her open like Kate...more time consuming. He takes rings from her fingers, and cuts open her inside skirt pocket. And he at least according to Phillips removes her uterus carefully, with some skill and knowledge,.. not like the slash and scoop in room 13.

The crime scene allowed him to relax for a few minutes and indulge himself.....yes, of course there were 17 people in that house that could have interrupted him, and yes, many windows of the neighbours looked into that yard....but it would seem he didnt care about that or the rising sun.

Thats why Lynn addressed his state of mind...oblivious to the dangers around him and content with his "win". This murder could have been the longest time he ever spends with any victim for all we know..and we know its the only near daylight kill.

Best regards

[Errata]

Errata - that approach would lead us all to writing novels about JtR which might be insightful, perceptive, even revealing (if you accept the initial hypothesis), but which would not IMHO be remotely convincing.

We know NOTHING of "Jack's" psychology beyond guess work.

Phil

Of course we don't know anything. But at the time everyone was looking for a lunatic to be the killer, and they didn't find him. There are many reasons why that might be, but one of them is that he wasn't a lunatic. It is entirely possible that they had him in some form or fashion, but dismissed him because he was not a raving madman. What was needed was a change in perspective. And we can arrive at a change of perspective in many ways, but the most popular way is through speculation. And speculation is nothing more than a conclusion derived from a series of "what ifs" based on the facts. What if Liz Stride or Mary Kelly were not Ripper victims? What if he wasn't a poor Jew? What if he wasn't local? What does that mean? How does it change our perception of the facts? How can we prove or disprove this theory? It doesn't result in a novel. It results in a change of perspective.

For example. I would bet you money that if I had records of asylums from 1888-1900, I could find three guys who would be outstanding candidates for being the Ripper, and none of them would be Kosminski. But in order to do that, I would have to believe that Kosminski is a terrible candidate for this crime (which I do) but that Jack the Ripper would eventually end up in an asylum. Which is not a bit out of the realm of possibility. So saying "what if" could lead to new suspects. Viable ones.