Did Mary know her attacker?

Dont worry Tom, Ill not bring the swedish physician into this, but I was thinking in broad terms that IF there was any credibilty to the story from Teaching hospitals that had the American Doctor offering bounty for uteri to accompany research papers back to America, at least one source didnt deny that when questioned directly later...then in a long shot look I wondered could a student get access to Hospital records concerning known unfortunates medical histories. Like for study or a paper.

And eager to get the 20 pounds per uterus offered, and being a bit of a surgical freak, a cold young fella who cared less about cutting, seeing blood and guts or the lives of poor whores....might he look for either histories of uterine dysfunction or damage, or the opposite.

Not any theory. Just a question to explore a random, highly unlikely, idea. Sam mentioned the sum would be the equivalent of 1100 pounds or so today. Not chump change in Victorian London.

Cheers.

[Tom_Wescott]

Sam,

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I understand the observation but regrettably cannot agree with it.

Cox had no qualms about admitting she was a prostitute. If she brought clients home, it naturally follows that she'd have no qualms about admitting that either, but since no clients are mentioned, it seems reasonable to infer that she didn't bring any home.

Hi Glenn,

No offense taken, but I have always believed that comparisons with other serial killers are essential when contemplating unsolved cases, with JTR being no exception.

Best wishes!
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That of course is based upon Random Selection by the killer, which is not what is being suggested, nor is it proven. Had he desires for specific organs, the evidence exists in at least two victims to counter that view, and his choice of outdoor venues is therefore fine... if only interested in obtaining abdominal organs that would be easiest under the circumstances to obtain.

That's the point, though - "IF"! - in other words, we can only speculate. It's next to worthless using speculative or unverifiable criteria as "benchmarks" in comparing the crimes. Compiling lists of such criteria only compounds matters, especially when one considers that many of these features weren't even verifiable at the time!

"We've been here before, but the same rules apply - namely that it's important to consider which factors were indisputably within the killer's gift to influence,"....


Like when he kills, where he kills, who he kills, what he does and what he takes you mean?

Indeed - those are good places to start. The trick is to stop there, to keep it simple, and avoid explicit (or unconscious) attributions of significance.

For example: "Victim X was 47 years old, victim Y was 43; therefore it's significant that Jack had a thing about 40-something women; ergo the age of the victims is a significant factor when comparing the crimes". Note that the attribution of significance to the victims' age is in itself a speculation, which is derived from another speculation that Jack had some predilection for women over forty.

It's fine to speculate or theorise about such things, but it's inappropriate to include such speculative criteria in any objective list of the features of the crimes.

What it leaves us with Sam, is absolutely none of the information that any investigator worth a pinch of salt would consider some of the most relevant information concerning the murders.

It leaves us with just about the only truths we have at our disposal, and there's nowt wrong with that in my book

Michael writes:

"Fisherman, You must be tired of writing "may have"..."

On the contrary, Michael - it is when you write "must have" or "would have" that you are in for some real fatigue. Besides, "may have" applies well here, since I am not uninclined to believe her testimony. Could all be true, of course.
Then again, it is not as if raided brothels and freshly caught hookers have a tradition of spilling the beans by handing over customer lists and helping out to identify punters, is it?

As for Cox being a reportedly unattractive woman, I fail to see why such a prerogative should mean that customers would accept to live with her looks on the street but not inside her room...?

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

Fair points my friend. Heres another salient point in the street/room prostitute debate. Many East End Brothels were being subjected to an anti-vice crusade by a rich local brewer, and perhaps a few dozen were closed during 1887-1888.

It was said that every brothel in the East End had a portrait of the man, being someone they feared trouble from more than the police. According to the mans biographer, Guy Thorne, he personally shut down 200 brothels across London during that period.

Many women displaced moved away. Many though, of the brothel standard variety, walked the East End streets that Fall, having been turned out due to the closures.

Now....Wonder why the guy looked for street walkers that Fall? There were more than ever, even with 62 operating Brothels in the area according to H Division constables. Leaving roughly 1200 women working the streets in the area.

Its not how did he find them, its more like how could he not find one outdoors?

Cheers again F man.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Fisherman, You must be tired of writing "may have"..."

On the contrary, Michael - it is when you write "must have" or "would have" that you are in for some real fatigue. Besides, "may have" applies well here, since I am not uninclined to believe her testimony. Could all be true, of course.
Then again, it is not as if raided brothels and freshly caught hookers have a tradition of spilling the beans by handing over customer lists and helping out to identify punters, is it?

As for Cox being a reportedly unattractive woman, I fail to see why such a prerogative should mean that customers would accept to live with her looks on the street but not inside her room...?

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

Fisherman,

You must be tired of writing "may have", especially about Cox. She was reported to be quite unattractive for one, no customers we know of may be her regular Thursday night, despite her efforts. And the police reverted to her statements about Blotchy Man no later than Nov 16th, as their suspect, last seen with Kelly.

They replaced a story by a man Abberline thought had to be telling the truth, to that of someone more trustworthy.

I dont see any reason why we should doubt her testimony.

Cheers bud.

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe Liz had at least one abortion in Sweden. Perhaps her uterus wouldnt be target for a uterus hunter. Does anyone know of the others?

Unless Stride's killer was her hometown physician fresh in from Sweden, I think we can rule out her alleged abortion as a motive for not having cut her open.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Right you are, Fisherman, but at the same time, it's clear that Mary Cox was out soliciting that night without bringing any clients home. If Mary Cox solicited on the streets and "serviced" them there despite the availabilty of a private room, then it's more then reasonable to infer that Kelly may have done similarly."

...which makes me think that you may have missed out on a few posts, Ben; for what I have done is to suggest that Cox may well have had nocturnal visitors in the court that night - but omitted to say so to the police.
We have only Cox´s own words to go on in this matter, and she may have left out a name or two, keeping customers from being scrutinized by the police. It is just a guess, but I feel that there is at least a chance that we may be too eager to swallow Cox´s "warming up-sessions" as being non punter-related.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

Question:

How many of the C5 victims had either abortions or miscarriages that we know of...and which ones?

I believe Liz had at least one abortion in Sweden. Perhaps her uterus wouldnt be target for a uterus hunter. Does anyone know of the others?

"...the items in bold are almost certainly irrelevant for various reasons, the primary one being that most of them were outside the killer's control or had nothing to do with the physical act of murder itself - e.g. what happened in the victims' past, including when they were born; the doctor's later opinions; whether the victims had a room to their name; etc."

Sam, contextually it doesnt matter what specific items I mentioned you consider not relevant, since its most....but I believe who he kills, what he takes, and what their immediate circumstances were the night they are killed are the central questions of the stories. You have no serial killer unless you can weave those 5 women into that "tapestry"...and it cannot be done by excluding key data.

"The other apparent differences aren't very compelling either: Kelly, too, had abdominal mutilations - pretty major ones;"

True, her entire gut is emptied, not too discriminating..and he takes nothing from it.......

"... the removal of a heart from a semi-naked corpse in a private room is a tricky enough proposition, and infinitely more tricky when attempted in the open air with a fully-clothed victim; apart from the uterus, bladder and kidney there are no "portable" lower abdominal organs at all - therefore the removal of them from the scene of the open-air murders is hardly remarkable; the fact that the others had no room of their own makes the fact that they were killed in the open air almost inevitable; etc."

That of course is based upon Random Selection by the killer, which is not what is being suggested, nor is it proven. Had he desires for specific organs, the evidence exists in at least two victims to counter that view, and his choice of outdoor venues is therefore fine... if only interested in obtaining abdominal organs that would be easiest under the circumstances to obtain.

So why would that man then move to a venue that increases his privacy ease and time constraints to get those very organs,.... forget any fascination with the taking of abdominal organs, cut them out but not take them ...and instead, leave them all, placing them in funny places?

"We've been here before, but the same rules apply - namely that it's important to consider which factors were indisputably within the killer's gift to influence,"....


Like when he kills, where he kills, who he kills, what he does and what he takes you mean?

"..... and which weren't, before we deem a difference to be significant. We must also weed out those features which could have more mundane explanations, before we can even entertain the thought of using them a some sort of "benchmark". I know that leaves us comparatively little to go on, but at least it provides a more even playing field."

[/QUOTE]

What it leaves us with Sam, is absolutely none of the information that any investigator worth a pinch of salt would consider some of the most relevant information concerning the murders.

Cheers Sam.

[Chava]

Sam, it looks as though he was disturbed in the Nicholls and Stride murders so we can't conclude he didn't intend to take anything. He certainly took from Eddowes, so I believe that was his intent with Stride.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, he's 2 for 2 taking uterus (I'm assuming that 'uterus' is 4th declension so the plural is 'uterus' as well!). He's got the means and the opportunity. I can see him taking her heart as well as her organs of generation. Hell, he could have stuffed a breast or two in his little packet along with all the rest.

But he didn't.

I see no definite issue with this. It's dangerous, from such a small sample, to attribute much in the way of significance in the finer points of the previous murders. Even then it's worth recalling that the Ripper left uteri, kidneys and bladders behind in those as well.

[Chava]

Sam, he's 2 for 2 taking uterus (I'm assuming that 'uterus' is 4th declension so the plural is 'uterus' as well!). He's got the means and the opportunity. I can see him taking her heart as well as her organs of generation. Hell, he could have stuffed a breast or two in his little packet along with all the rest.

But he didn't. And it's not like he wouldn't have been able to find it, what with Kelly having been disassembled into component parts as if she were a Mercedes in a chop shop.

[Sam Flynn]

I hope Colins squeezing civility out of me has appeased any anger you might have had towards me regarding this thread.

I harbour no anger towards you, Mike - I really don't.