Soliciting or night attack.

[Garry Wroe]

Just to endorse one of Ben’s earlier observations, I would point out that Bundy’s final victim was a twelve-year-old girl who was killed and disposed of, then revisited and subjected to fresh indignities. Bundy not only decapitated her, but used the severed head to facilitate fellatio.

Unlike clockwork toys, the sadosexual serialist’s motivations and behaviours evolve over time. Techniques are adapted and refined, sometimes for practical purposes, but often simply to elevate the excitement of the killing experience. Some posters have questioned the logic of the notion that the Whitechapel Murderer might have stalked Mary Kelly, entered her room uninvited, then commenced the attack as she slept. I would suggest that those posters familiarise themselves with the case of Jose Marcelino, a Mexican serialist for whom killing simply wasn’t enough. He required the additional frisson of physical and psychological torture, and delighted in instilling terror in his victims as he described in graphic detail what was about to unfold. For other serialists, it is the act of stalking that really excites them. Some have even intimated that, when compared to the thrill of shadowing of a victim, killing came as something of an anticlimax.

Jack the Ripper was neither a clockwork toy nor a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out. His killing episodes were enactments of a deep-seated fantasy that was not only years in the making, but subject to refinement as the killing episodes progressed. It is only when this element of his psychopathology is understood, I would suggest, that one can begin to make informed judgements as to his motivations and behaviour relating to the death of Mary Kelly.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Septic Blue]

… The women led their killer to the place they were killed.

This is far from proven. It's equally possible that the killer chose some if not all of the locations.

Indeed, it is! It is "equally possible", and perhaps somewhat probable that "the killer chose some if not all of the locations".

Why, after all, would we assume that 'Jack the Ripper' employed a 'hit-or-miss' strategy of waiting to see where each of his hopeful 'targets' led him, before knowing that the time was right, to carry out his 'mission'?

---------

I fail to understand our widely-spread adherence to certain 'Ripperological' conventions, for which there is no historical basis:

The price of a trick was roughly the same as a large glass of gin--3 or 4d.

These street prostitutes usually serviced their costomers from behind rather than from the front ...

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

… these two being, of course, contradictory; but each being a 'Ripperological' convention, in its own right.

Either way; …

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

So a fair assumption is that they did the deal, and then led the client to a place of their own choosing.

And again, …

The women led their killer to the place they were killed.

Why do we presume to know these things? We might as well presume to know whether these women preferred to hang each of their blouses with the front facing the left of their closet, or the right; … or whether they preferred to unroll their toilet paper over the top / from the front, or instead down the bottom / from behind!

There is no historical basis for any of the aforementioned tidbits of 'Ripperological' conventional wisdom: None, whatsoever!

It's equally possible that the killer chose some if not all of the locations.

… both a prostitute and a prostitutes' killer need the same kind of spots.

Again; …

Are we to assume that 'Jack the Ripper' employed a 'hit-or-miss' strategy of waiting to see where each of his hopeful 'targets' led him, before knowing that the time was right, to carry out his 'mission'?

I mean they could easily share the same knowledge regarding dark alleys and corners, etc.

Why should 'Jack the Ripper' have been any less familiar with Buck's Row, than was Polly Nichols; … any less familiar with the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, than was Annie Chapman; … etc …?

[Hunter]

All right. Maybe I am one who has bought into some worthless "Rpperologists" myths, passed down to their heirs like the canonized books of the Bible. Maybe I know nothing about the behaviors of Prostitutes in the East End in 1888.

Consider this, If any witnesses are to be believed, Polly Nichols was last seen walking in the direction of Buck's Row. Annie Chapman was seen outside No. 29 Hanbury St. Liz Stride was seen by PC Smith outside Dutfields Yard. Kate Eddowes was seen at the entrance to Church Passage, which led into Mitre Square. Mary Kelly was seen in and out of 13 Miller's Court. All of these women's bodies were found not far from the last place they were seen alive. With the exception of Nichols, they were seen talking to men. If the killer was the one who chose the location to kill, and not the woman choosing the place to do business, his good fortune went far beyond his ability to evade the police.

He was really fortunate on the night of the double murder- to take two women to his chosen spot within 45 minutes. Oh ! that's right though, scratch that last comment because he didn't kill Stride anyway. I let that old "Ripperologist " myth slip out.



'

[Septic Blue]

Maybe I am one who has bought into some worthless "Rpperologists" myths, …

I described each of the following assertions …

The price of a trick was roughly the same as a large glass of gin--3 or 4d.

These street prostitutes usually serviced their costomers from behind rather than from the front ...

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

So a fair assumption is that they did the deal, and then led the client to a place of their own choosing.

The women led their killer to the place they were killed.

as …

... 'Ripperological' conventions, for which there is no historical basis: ...

Not as "myths"!

It is distinctly possible that each one of these assertions (excepting either one of the two, which are contradictory) is accurate. Therefore, they cannot possibly qualify as "myths"!

What is, in fact, mythical; is the notion that we know anything at all about the manners, in which Victorian 'dollymops' 'TYPICALLY' conducted themselves.

Maybe I know nothing about the behaviors of Prostitutes in the East End in 1888.

You don't!

Neither do I!

Neither does anyone else who posts to these boards; and neither do the likes of Stewart Evans, Donald Rumbelow, Paul Begg and Martin Fido!

Consider this, If any witnesses are to be believed, Polly Nichols was last seen walking in the direction of Buck's Row. Annie Chapman was seen outside No. 29 Hanbury St. Liz Stride was seen by PC Smith outside Dutfields Yard. Kate Eddowes was seen at the entrance to Church Passage, which led into Mitre Square. Mary Kelly was seen in and out of 13 Miller's Court. All of these women's bodies were found not far from the last place they were seen alive. With the exception of Nichols, they were seen talking to men. If the killer was the one who chose the location to kill, and not the woman choosing the place to do business, his good fortune went far beyond his ability to evade the police.

He was really fortunate on the night of the double murder- to take two women to his chosen spot within 45 minutes.

I truly do not understand the point that you are trying to convey.

Oh ! that's right though, scratch that last comment because he didn't kill Stride anyway. I let that old "Ripperologist " myth slip out.

I don't recall having ever suggested that Elizabeth Stride was murdered by someone other than 'Jack the Ripper'. Considering my inclination to believe that she and Catherine Eddowes were indeed murdered by the same person, …, I seriously doubt that I ever …

[Sox]

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

I would, if I felt that way inclined, point you towards the numerous studies & interviews conducted during the Victorian era, regarding prostitution. But since you are so adamant that there are none, I must have dreamt the whole thing.

How does, 'get off your arse and find out' sound? Another one for the ignore list methinks.

[Septic Blue]

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

Let's place that quotation in its proper context. OK?

These street prostitutes usually serviced their costomers from behind rather than from the front ...

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

… these two being, of course, contradictory; but each being a 'Ripperological' convention, in its own right.

Either way; …

By whom; and by what means would such 'intelligence' have been gathered, … in the Victorian era?

…

I would, if I felt that way inclined, point you towards the numerous studies & interviews conducted during the Victorian era, regarding prostitution. But since you are so adamant that there are none, I must have dreamt the whole thing.

How does, 'get off your arse and find out' sound?

Please! Please educate me!

Please "get off your arse", and point me toward one of the "numerous studies & interviews conducted during the Victorian era, regarding prostitution" that will provide me specifically with this 'intelligence' …

The method most often used by these women was to grasp the skirts and raise them, facing the client, with her back to a fence or wall.

I'll bet you can't! Actually, … I know you can't!

Another one for the ignore list methinks.

I would have thought that I was already on your ignore list!

I recently addressed a mistake that you had made, while discussing Emma Smith, …

And Emma Smith is lying, even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887.

"… even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) …" (my emphasis)

"… and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887." (my emphasis)

The intersection of Burdett Road / Farrance Street, Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, was (and still is) approximately two miles from the "the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane", ... in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields.

... but you ignored me; and then proceeded to address David (i.e. DVV), by stating that he was being "utterly" ignorant.

You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area on December 8th 1887, …

I then addressed your mistake, once more; …

You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area on December 8th 1887, and that she even lodged in the same place as Smith, and that she was so badly injured she spent over two weeks in hospital. You also ignore the fact that Hames was attacked again, on the same night as Smith, by two men, a mere thirty minutes or so before the assault on Emma Smith.....and no PC reported that either.

"You utterly ignore the fact that Margaret Hames was attacked in the same area …" (my emphasis)

Again; …

And Emma Smith is lying, even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887.

"… even though a witness testifies to being assaulted in the same place only hours before (oooh and the police didnt see that either) …" (my emphasis)

"… and even though a similar attack had taken place in the same area in December 1887." (my emphasis)

The intersection of Burdett Road / Farrance Street, Parish of St. Anne Limehouse, was (and still is) approximately two miles from the "the pathway opposite No. 10 Brick Lane", ... in the Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields.

"two miles"

As David has just stated …

YOU ignore the fact that it didn't happen in Whitechapel.

"… didn't happen in Whitechapel."

That being the two attacks reported by Margaret Hames.

… but when there came no reply, I thought that perhaps you had put me on your 'ignore' list.

What's that? You didn't have the courage to publicly acknowledge your mistake? I see!

[Hunter]

Though I would like to comment on the previous threads, I will try to keep this post on topic. The other discussion may warrent its own thread.

Garry,

Your point about Bundy is valid and I stand corrected. Indeed, a serial killer can change his MO, as Bundy did. If I am to believe that a single murderer was responsible for the C5- and I would probably add Tabram to that list- I would have to accept the obvious deviations in the way these women were dispatched and their post mortem injuries. We are fortunate, in analyzing Bundy's behavior, that he was caught and interviewed. Of course we don't have that with JTR. All that we do know is that these women were killed without an apparent motive; the murders were sudden and furious and that they were either full or part time prostitutes. I believe there was a reason that he chose prostitutes and that reason has previously been stated. As far as I know, Bundy didn't kill this type of woman. But, some other serial killers did choose protitutes and I would be curious if there is evidence that their killers stalked and subsequently attacked their victims as opposed to using the inherant vulnerability of these women-i.e- seeking customers- to locate and murder them.

Since we don't know anything about the Whitchapel murderer, we can only present theories about his behavior. Any one could be possible, for sure. I have only tried to propose what, to me, is probable. Even at the peak of the Ripper scare these women were still plying their trade. We can correctly assume that Mary was as well.

[Chava]

Well there is no doubt whatsoever that, at the height of the Yorkshire Ripper terror, prostitutes were working in all the areas where prostitutes were killed despite the fact that the police begged them to move indoors if they could. If those women worked during that time then it makes sense that the women of Whitechapel did as well. And Sutcliffe started out by murdering prostitutes but ended up murdering at least three 'straight' women as well. Have murders of straight women ever been considered as part of the Ripper series?

On another topic, I checked Lewis's original statement via the invaluable Handbook. She does not mention a drunken couple in her police statement or in the inquest statement. However she does describe a young man and a woman walking in Dorset Street as she went into Millers Court. It does not sound like this couple went into the court, so as far as I'm concerned that is another nail in Kudzu's coffin.

[Sox]

Sutcliffe varied his attack methods though, some were blitz attacks, and during others he conversed with his victim. I would contest that Sutcliffe was a killer of prostitutes to be honest, I think that was something he concocted so that he could justify his actions to himself.

William Suff is most likely closer to our killer.

[Chava]

I'd disagree. All we know about what Sutcliffe did with his victims before he killed them comes from Sutcliffe himself. I agree that he wasn't only a killer of prostitutes, however the first four women he killed were prostitutes and of the first nine victims, only one wasn't. I believe Sutcliffe killed women, and chose women who were the most vulnerable to him. There is no reason to believe that the Ripper was any different. You can't say that, just because he killed prostitutes, that prostitutes were the only women he would have killed. That's why I asked about 'straight' women murders in and around this time.

[DVV]

Hi Chava,

you are both right, in fact.
Jack killed these women because they were prostitutes.
And killed prostitutes cos they were women...

Amitiés,
David

[Garry Wroe]

Your point about Bundy is valid and I stand corrected. Indeed, a serial killer can change his MO, as Bundy did.

I’m not sure that we have to think in terms of a change in modus operandi, Hunter. To my mind, as the offender becomes more competent and confident as a predator, he simply introduces more exciting elements into his fantasies and his crime scene behaviour evolves accordingly.

I believe there was a reason that he chose prostitutes and that reason has previously been stated. As far as I know, Bundy didn't kill this type of woman. But, some other serial killers did choose protitutes and I would be curious if there is evidence that their killers stalked and subsequently attacked their victims as opposed to using the inherant vulnerability of these women-i.e- seeking customers- to locate and murder them.

If you mean that the Ripper elected to kill prostitutes because they represented a comparatively easy target and could be found when the streets were largely deserted, Hunter, I would agree entirely with your reasoning. I would also happily concede that, because most prostitute murders occur outdoors, they are apt to be ‘random’ crimes rather than pre-planned forays undertaken with a specific victim in mind. The difference with the Miller’s Court case, however, is that Mary Kelly was killed indoors. No-one forced the killer to change from an outdoor to an indoor venue. He adopted this tactical shift of his own volition. To my way of thinking, this was an operational refinement suggestive of an evolving psychopathology – an indication that this man was seeking something more than had been afforded him by his previous hit-and-run killings. He was looking for the time and privacy to give full vent to his sadistic urges. Hence, when viewed in these terms, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Mary Kelly was targeted in advance, and that her killer awaited the opportunity to find her alone, then entered her room as she slept and unleashed a level of savagery that had been impossible with the outdoor victims.

Again, I am only suggesting this as a possible scenario. But the escalating level of violence running through the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders, together with a similarly burgeoning desire for body parts, renders it a very real possibility.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

I agree wholeheartedly with all of the above, Garry.

There have certainly been cases involving prostitute-targetting serialists who have demonstrated a propensity towards adopting both false "client" guises as well as the stalker-intruder approach. In the early 1990s James Jones was arrested and sentenced to 27 years for a string of sex attacks on prostitutes in the Manhattan area that included two murders. Although his preferred approach was to pose as a normal customer, a survivor reported that she had noticed him stalking her for some time before attempting to enter her apartment.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Absolutely, Ben. All of which highlights the importance of evaluating Mary Jane's behaviour immediately prior to her death. So is it likely that a drunken and at best semi-coherent Kelly would have rid herself of Blotchy and gone out into the cold and rain in search of punters who had largely abandoned the streets as a consequence of the prevailing weather conditions?

Personally, I think it unlikely.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Lina]

Hi everyone.

She may have been asleep or recently tucked in. I think the Ripper quietly waited the other client out from somewhere nearby. He may have known her a little and gone to seek her out. Her injuries seem personal to me. Especially the inflictions on the face.
After "partying" with her friend/client and he went out she was probably too tired to remember to lock her door after undressing (rather neatly btw, folding everything) and putting on her nightgown (alternately leaving her chemise on). And I don't believe she would have folded everything like that before sex. The Ripper snuck in when all was quiet, throttled her with one hand so she wouldn't scream, got untop of her to hinder further movements, cut her throat and got blood all over him. Her hands and arms would have been free and she would probably be clasping his arm when she awoke thus getting several cuts on the lower arms.
Or she may have opened the door after hearing a tap on the window, thinking it was her friend returning, but that would have made it more risky and she would have had time to scream or at least say something (oh, murder?), and there would perhaps be a noisy struggle as he dragged her to the bed.
I believe what you see in the photograph is not a sock or garter but an incision. He was trying to bare her entire leg of flesh but decided he didn't have the time to finish.
Afterwards he wiped blood from face and hands with his shirt and fueled the fire with it to avert suspicion when going home. His coat and trousers were probably dark-colored for this reason.
I don't think it has to have been the man she sang to. It seems a bit risky after she had been calling attention to them all night by continuous singing. Could still have been, of course. All the murders were risky.
If I was the man she entertained before being murdered I would not have come forward.