Why Ada?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

To a sociopath it is another thing, but how sure can we be that Jack belonged to that group? I would once again like to stress the fact that what the killings seem to evince is not primarily a wish to kill, but instead a wish to procure organs from the abdominal cavity.

Naturally, there can be no certainty either way, but as ever I'm led by knowledge evinced from other cases. The majority of eviscerating/extreme mutilating killers do not start out on such a lofy scale, but rather progress to that stage after starting off small. Sure, it can be argued that JTR might have been one of the rare gems whose criminal activity started off with full scale mutilation, but I couldn't possibly agree with it. Of the eviscerators we know about, none of them appear to have made organ retrieval their primary goal. It was just one heinous aspect of the mutilations that they discovered along the way, just as I believe JTR did. We don't know that he was a sociopath either, but the majority of serial killers fall into the sociopath/psychopath catergory.

We are in all probability not looking at the same thing when it comes to Wilson as we do in the canonicals. A stab to the throat cannot reasonably produce what a severing of it can do. A stab may or may not pierce the windpipe, and it may or may not do harm to the arteries.

Exactly, and the fact that she screamed as a consequence would have awakened the killer to the reality that a direct stab is unlikely to do the trick, and that if he intended any more killing, he would have to refine his technique. That's why the Ada Wilson attack must be regarded as a compelling possibility for an early attack by the ripper. Like the vast majority of serial killers, he didn't start off with his MO perfected and polished, so he learned and improved as he went along.

What we should ask ourselves is if there is a top-ten list of knife-inflicted damage when we look for a Ripper victim, and yes, there is something like it.

Well, no, we shouldn't ask ourselves that at all because we could end up prioritizing one "cut" over another for no good reason. Are we prioritizing them in terms of what his ultimate goal was, or his preferred order of cutting? Since we appear to be in agreement that the throat was his first port of call, we see an obvious incongruity between Wilson and the canonicals, and since we know we was interrupted, he could have had further designs upon her corpse had she not screamed out. The only difference lay in the varying degrees of success that resulted from that cut, and in the earlier cases, a lack of success can be chalked up to inexperience.

If Wilson was stabbed in the chest, then naturally there would be less compatibility with the "canonicals" because we know the throat cut occured first, but even then, we'd still have good reason to view the attack as a possible early attempt by an inexperienced ripper. We're not "getting ahead of ourselves" when we surmise that JTR probably had criminal experience before becoming a full scale mutilator, nor are we being "trigger-happy". Quite the reverse; we're taking advantage of established historical precedent.

I think this is the focal point for our need to excersise caution. Lots and lots of it.

Absolutely, which is why demonstrably incautious statements akin to: "I see no reason to spend much time or effort on Ada Wilson" are best avoided, especially when we know that history has taught us that an attack of this nature is precisely what we ought to be looking for when contemplating earlier attacks by a serial killer, and it is significant that every expert on the topic and every criminologist would agree.

Travelling too far backwards in time and type of damage dilutes the material way beyond recognition.

Five months cannot possibly be construed as "too far back in time". In terms of most serial killers' criminal activity and diversity, five months is nothing. Nor is there anything wrong with "diluting the material", if that means allowing for more criminal range, especially with regard to the earlier attacks of a serial killers, which will often bear little resemblence to his later crimes. Much better than "restricting" it. Ruling out earlier knife attacks on the basis that they didn't have injuries to the abdomen is doing the polar opposite of learning from the past.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You write:
"I consider it very likely that Martha Tabram was the first actual murder, but I'd be very surprised if she was the first ever attack with a knife."

Well, Ben, since you know how I see things, you may realize that I am not having the same trouble as you with that specific issue in this particular case. Thatīs not to disagree with you, however: generally, you would be right on this kind of matter. But thatīs generally and not specifically, I feel.

If our man was the second man to sink his knife into Tabram that night, like I suggest, then there is a clear possibility that he had refrained from using a knife on people before. Social norms can be quite restraining, and to take the step of endangering another persons life is not a small thing to all of us. To a sociopath it is another thing, but how sure can we be that Jack belonged to that group? I would once again like to stress the fact that what the killings seem to evince is not primarily a wish to kill, but instead a wish to procure organs from the abdominal cavity.
Killers can cross the line in many a fashion, Ben. To some of them it will be no big deal, whereas to others it will be something quite, quite different, and if we put our money on the Ripper having had a prehistory of cutting and stabbing before he took it to the level of killing, we may well be getting ahead of ourselves.

This insight may be useful in the light of your saying "I think we need to exercise caution when assessing what may or may not be "important". Caution is a healthy thing, and as you can see it can be applied to fields where you yourself may have been a bit trigger-happy.

When it comes to my specific suggestion that it was unimportant that Wilsons assailant went for the throat, I would say that since we have a history of cut throats in the Ripper case, I will remain at my stance, but for one small remark.
We are in all probability not looking at the same thing when it comes to Wilson as we do in the canonicals. A stab to the throat cannot reasonably produce what a severing of it can do. A stab may or may not pierce the windpipe, and it may or may not do harm to the arteries. A throat severed down to the bone will take arteries, windpipe and all with itself in the process. That points to the purpose being something else in the canonical cases. The small point I mentioned lies in the fact that Wilsons attacker actually may have stabbed her after she had cried out the first time, in order to silence her. It would not be the most logical of approaches, since a hand over her mouth or a severed windpipe would have ensured it better, but the possibility remains there. To me, it is not enough, though, to make my mind travel to the canonical throat-cutting for a comparison.

What we should ask ourselves is if there is a top-ten list of knife-inflicted damage when we look for a Ripper victim, and yes, there is something like it.
On first place comes a cut to the abdominal region - if there is a functioning agreement among Ripperologists, then that agreement tells us that the Rippers main focus lay there.
On second place comes the throat wound - he did cut necks, but it may have been a practicality more than an urge, so we neeed to prioritize it somewhat lower than the abdominal cut.
Now, what comes third? Well, who knows? My suggestion is that any cut to any place will do for a third place, and furthermore, I would say that if Ada Wilson had been stabbed in the chest, that would not have stopped people telling me that she is a good match for an early Ripper attack. Nor would a stab to the shoulder do that. Or to the thigh, the hip, the hand or the back. It is not the wound that leads on the suspicion, it is the knife per se - and keeping in mind just how common knifes were, I think this is the focal point for our need to excersise caution. Lots and lots of it.

Wilson was attacked by a man with a knife half a year before the Ripper canonicals started loosing their lives, and since she was, she somehow makes a schoolbook example of what a fledgling Ripper would have accomplished at that stage.
I donīt buy it for a second, Iīm afraid. If it had been in the early summer, and if she had been subjected to a cut or stabbed abdomen I would say that we should be very wary of it, but as it stands, I see no reason to spend much time or effort on Ada Wilson. Travelling too far backwards in time and type of damage dilutes the material way beyond recognition.

The best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I see Polly as the first sloppy step, the next is much better...first, being off the street

It would be unusually proficient for any serial killer's first attempt, though. The sort of efficiency evinced by the Nichols murder was more than likely to have been preceded by earlier, markedly less successful attempts. Take Sutcliffe, for example. He didn't start off with the sort of brutality that characterized his later crimes, but went off clumsily bashing women over the head with unwieldy socks filled with gravel.

Thirdly, he kept her quiet enough to not be heard by any number of surrounding windows and between 10 and 20 people or so in that very house

He didn't. She was heard by Albert Cadosch a few feet away on the other side of the fence. He was able to hear the word "No" and apparently some prior conversation, to say nothing of the thud against the fence. He took an enormous risk and got undeservedly lucky on that occasion - more so, I'd say, than on any other occasion that we know of.

I can see that she might be an infantile stage of JTR...but there is virtually no more practice until Polly, and she is the first that shows the recurring MO seen in murders 1, 2 and 4. Thats a big leap without itermediate stages

Unless that "intermediate stage" arrived in the form of Martha Tabram which enabled him to bridge the gap between relatively clumsy attacker who had to abort the mission on account of the victim screaming, and more successful attacker who by then had figured out how to subdue his victims properly before getting slashy.

I don't think you need to posit the existence of animals to practice on when the historical record is capable of churning up two attacks on humans that represent almost pefect examples of a knife-using serial killer's MO in its comparative infancy.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I do see your argument Ben, but I dont believe that there has to be any "beginning" prior to Pollys murder. In fact, it was an ill chosen spot and arguably, if he was the abdominal mutilator, he perhaps wasnt able to complete an organ theft. I see Polly as the first sloppy step, the next is much better...first, being off the street, (regardless how risky the yard in Hanbury was, in wasnt almost in the street for god sakes) ...and secondly, he did get an organ and change, assuming that may have been an ultimate goal with Polly. Thirdly, he kept her quiet enough to not be heard by any number of surrounding windows and between 10 and 20 people or so in that very house....I cant recall specifically, was it 13 or 18? Something like that. Anyway, a confidence builder for him almost certainly. Thats why he feels he can take on 3 entrances in Mitre Square....a cocky move that almost cost him big time. But it shows the increasing efficiency, and with that, his confidence.

If the story of Ada is actually that she brought a client in, I can see that she might be an infantile stage of JTR...but there is virtually no more practice until Polly, and she is the first that shows the recurring MO seen in murders 1, 2 and 4. Thats a big leap without itermediate stages.

Thats why I think he began killing people when he was ready to do so, and already had a rough sequence in mind. He may have practiced on animals first....and as a result perhaps found that it was easier to direct arterial spray when the victim is lying down, and the head can be tilted away from the killer. It may be how he knew how to get the uterus out easily, or a kidney, through the front of the person.

All the best Ben.

[Ben]

the guy who was called Jack, there is nothing that he needed to do to improve his success rate outdoors unless you include a victim that has only an element or two of what he has pre-established was his objective

That depends when he first started attacking women, Mike.

There's no reason to suppose he had the ability to be "successful already" in February of 1888, but reason aplenty to suppose that he became successful after a few rather more haphazard attempts, such as Millwood and Wilsom. You have to ask yourself why he became as successful as you believe him to have been, and any explanation that relies on him getting it all pefect from Nichols onwards with out any of the clumsy earlier attempts adopted by other serial killers is not one I would personally endorse because it miliates very heavily against what we've learned from other cases.

He almost certainy became successful after being markedly less so when he first started out.

in Ada Wilsons story, he knocked on the door, forced his way in, tried to rob her, she declined, he stabbed her in the throat and left

It seems fairly obvious to me that Ada Wilson heavily embellished and altered the details of the attack to preserve her respectability. For the true version of events, I'd be inclined to consider Rose Bierman's account, which mentioned Wilson returning home in the company of a man and being attacked ostensibly indoors. The killer was indisputably interrupted, whichever version you chose to believe, because she screamed out. There's nothing remotely incompatbile between the behaviour of the man in question and the presumed approach of the killer at both Mitre Square and Hanbury Street, except perhaps the level of criminal experience involved.

Jack is not that difficult to see, hes the one the picks women up he doesnt know outdoors, leads or follows to someplace discreet, overwhelms them...and then, when they are on the ground, uses a knife to cut the throat, and mutilate the abdomens.

That's what he ended up doing, most likely via a few faltering mis-steps. No reason to think that's what he always did.

Why would he even risk interruptions, and why would we assume he might, when he is undefeated?

He did risk interruptions all the time. In fact, it was at Hanbury Street that he made himself the most vulnerable to the risk of interruption, although that possibility was very much present at Buck's Row and Mitre Square.

As Jonathan noted, there was no evidence of any attempt at false guises or acting performances when the Zodiac killed Darlene Ferrin. He simply approached the car and fired into it. The torch wasn't an acting prop or an attempt to be a policeman, but something to dazzle their eyes with to conceal both his weapon and his face (in the event that one of them survived, presumably). The fact that they believed he may have been a cop doesn't mean that it ever entered into the Zodiac's head to pretend to be one.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi JM,

Point (s) taken, ...but so Im clear, what I meant was that he used their impressions against them, because he could predict the reaction of two lovers having a car pull up behind them and approach them waving a flashlight...that they were caught by a cop making out.

But enough Mr Z, as you rightfully suggest, and back to Mr JTR.

Cheers JM

[jmenges]

Hi Mike,

Without turning this into a Zodiac discussion, I would just comment that it was the victims who perceived that he initially, was most likely a cop, given that the only person who could be expected to pull up behind you while you are sitting in your car with your mate is a patrol officer. Identifying him at first as a cop was their mistake. I don't believe there is any evidence that the killer intended to portray himself as such.

JM

Hi gents,

Fair enough on the comparison of Stride and Wilson cases Ben, but my mentioning of Zodiaks deceipt as an integral part of his MO I would stick with, because in the case of the young couple, he approached them as if he had the right to do so, thats why they didnt get up and run....he gave off the air of authority, or safety. And he used that. They probably saw him as a plain clothed cop.

You mentioned that the evolution of a pattern through "trial and error" if you will means that we cant be sure that when an MO is missing it indicates a new, different killer....some parts of that Id agree with, but in the case of this particular killer,....the guy who was called Jack, there is nothing that he needed to do to improve his success rate outdoors unless you include a victim that has only an element or two of what he has pre-established was his objective...including post mortem mutilation. Refining a technique to someone who is successful already just means increased activity or enhanced productivity each successive kill, and that is evident with Kates murder,... when... Annies is the one that precedes it.

Catherine Eddowes is a completely expected 3rd victim profile, all the signatures that worked were still there, plus some new tricks.

Hi JM,... the case where he uses the flashlight to, as you suggest, blind the victims temporaily makes sense if he only used it when at the car and pointing the flashlight in their eyes, ..but from what I understand, since the boy did survive, was that he was waving the flashlight at their car when he gets out of his behind them,...and thats using an impression of a safe authority figure to drop their guard...otherwise they would run. Anyone would believe it was a cop...even without the red light.

Maybe you dont agree, but I dont see that successful killers need to change anything neccesarily...other than maybe a victim profile, or as I said, increasing the activity period, or at each murder scene....due to increased efficiency via practice.

My point on suggesting interruptions for any of these kills is that its pure speculation, because not one killer was caught in any act,.... nor is there any evidence that was the case.... in Ada Wilsons story, he knocked on the door, forced his way in, tried to rob her, she declined, he stabbed her in the throat and left. Theres nothing in that alone to suggest interruption of anything, let alone mutilations....and the approach is completely inconsistent with the approach that Jack showed when killing Polly, Annie and Kate....maybe Liz might be similar, if BSM tried to rob her....but that doesnt make him Jack by a long shot.

Theres not enough to suggest that Liz was actually killed by Jack, let alone that an assault and attempted robbery in someones house was how he started.

Jack is not that difficult to see, hes the one the picks women up he doesnt know outdoors, leads or follows to someplace discreet, overwhelms them...and then, when they are on the ground, uses a knife to cut the throat, and mutilate the abdomens. Alice MacKenzie is a better bet than Ada, although the neck was stabbed also not sliced, and the mutilations superficial, but they were abdominal...but Pollys...and Annies, ....and Kate's were a logical, repetitive pattern and escalation "series".

Why would he even risk interruptions, and why would we assume he might, when he is undefeated? Even with Kate he had enough time to get done and gone. Liz's killer may have had 10 minutes or more with her...for a single wound.

All the best JM, Ben.

[jmenges]

Right,

Ted Bundy may have been a better example for Mike to use in that he regularly posed as a man in need of assistance. But it still goes to show that not all serial killers exhibit the same "certain traits".

JM

[Ben]

Agreed all round there, Jonathan.

The Zodiac case serves as a welcome cautionary note against fine-tuning a serial killer's MO too much when addressing unsolved cases. As you mentioned, it wasn't as if Z was putting his acting abilities to the test.

Best regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

Heres what I mean...Zodiak killed a bunch of different ways and had differing victim profiles, but it appears his approach was always some form of deceipt....he acted like a cop, or acted like a passer by, ....I think elements like that do not neccesarily change

Hi Mike, all,

Quickly I'd like to chime in to somewhat disagree with the above example. Zodiac never really acted like someone other than who he was. He was perceived, wrongly, to be a cop by his victim in one case just because of the way he pulled his car up behind the victim's car. But this technique was a part of his overall strategy of blitz-attack. He drove up, parked near his victim's vehicle, got out and started shooting. His use of a flashlight was I believe intended to temporarily blind his victims as opposed to consciously being part of a policeman's uniform. He used a gun in 3 cases and a knife in 1, but all of the weapon attacks came on suddenly.

In 2 cases, he did possibly mislead his victims by not sharing his true intentions. One, that he was only going to tie them up and rob them (he never said he wouldn't kill them), and another, that he was simply a passenger in a taxi (which could, I guess, be labeled as acting like a passer by). But in all cases, the actual attempt to murder his victims sprang suddenly out of nowhere and with no deceit, that we know of, purposefully acted out by the offender.

Quiet day, just thought I'd inturrupt with this off-topic observation.

And mine and Ben's posts crossed...

Carry on,

JM

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Day's going fine so far, thanks! I hope all's well your end.

When you mentioned that its hard to know whether he might have intended to cut abdomens, because he may have been interrupted, I spilled coffee. That is too often suggested here in order to preserve "possibilities"

You say that as though the preservation of possibilities is a bad thing. The comparison between Wilson and Stride isn't quite a fair one. In Stride's case, it is only speculated that the killer may have been interrupted, whereas in Wilson's case, we know for certain that he was; by the victim crying out in pain and fear, and by an alarmed neighbour hurrying down the stairs. There's no ambiguity here as far as her being "interrupted" is concerned, and it naturally allows for the realistic possibility that he may have intended more "knife-work". I think you may be wasting nice coffee for no good reason.

The Whitechapel Murderer, I think it is safe to suggest that the manner in which he acquires his victims, likely posing as a "john"

Quite possibly, although there are indications that the Wilson's attacker did precisely that. It isn't quite true to say that the Zodiac always used some form of false guise or deceit. Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau were simply approached by a stranger with a gun and torch and shot several times - no false pretense there. So on that basis, it is by no means established that a serial killer must always be consistent in the manner in which he approaches his victims.

and the fact that he doesnt use a knife until they are subdued are essential parts of his pattern.

But again, patterns are developed through discovery and pratice on the job. It is only through finding out what works and what doesn't that a "pattern" can be allowed to develop, and the Wilson attack strikes me as an excellent example of that discovery phase characteristic of other serials.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Fisherman,

I consider it very likely that Martha Tabram was the first actual murder, but I'd be very surprised if she was the first ever attack with a knife. Serial killers will usually start on a much smaller scale, and make various mistakes with their first attacks. The case of Ada Wilson (and Annie Millwood, for that matter) strikes me as an almost perfect example of a serial killer's MO in its unschooled, unpolished infancy.

They also follow an exploratory pattern. He had failed to murder Millwood and Wilson (and complete any post-mortem mutilations he may have intended) because he couldn't prevent them from screaming, obliging him to rectify that problem next time around, perhaps by resorting to strangulation or suffocation. He learned the hard way, and improved as he gained experience, and with experience came the confidence to explore.

The desire to procure organs may not have been a major component of his fantasy from the outset, but rather something that he "tried out" once he had improved upon his methods, and which he decided he liked enough to keep doing afterwards. The same may well have been true of the facial mutilations. He experimented on the corspe of Eddowes, and evidently decided to retain that aspect of the signature next time around.

It's very important if the "ripper" did so on later victims. Whether the throat cut was a component of MO or signature, it was clearly something the killer of the others did, and must be considered "important" for that reason, doubly so if there is ample reason to suppose that the killer did so under the guise of client with a prostitute, as was likely to have occured in the Wilson case. If it was carried out in the vicinity of the other murder by an attacker whose broad physical particulars are in allignment with those of other suspect descriptions, all the better still.

I think we need to exercise caution when assessing what may or may not be "important". An interest in the abdominal region isn't needed to demonstrate that the Wilson attack is prime candidate for an early attempt by an inexperienced ripper. The Millwood attack is also a probable early ripper attack, but since you've been highlighting the importance of "MO", then the absence of a throat would is surely just as significant? As I mentioned before, we don't what what further evisceral steps Wilson's attacker would have taken were he not interrupted.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben, hope the day is going well.

On the above, I think it is safe to ascribe certain traits to a killer when faced with similar, multiple victims, and I dont know that all change their MO per se, but some change the weapon..or the victim profile, or the location perhaps.

Heres what I mean...Zodiak killed a bunch of different ways and had differing victim profiles, but it appears his approach was always some form of deceipt....he acted like a cop, or acted like a passer by, ....I think elements like that do not neccesarily change, and in the case of The Whitechapel Murderer, I think it is safe to suggest that the manner in which he acquires his victims, likely posing as a "john", and the fact that he doesnt use a knife until they are subdued are essential parts of his pattern. And missing from some Canonicals murders.

When you mentioned that its hard to know whether he might have intended to cut abdomens, because he may have been interrupted, I spilled coffee. That is too often suggested here in order to preserve "possibilities", and implies that the killer known as Jack would have taken victims without being semi-sure that he could finish.

The case of Liz Stride is a perfect example. Over three weeks had gone by since his last kill, maybe he went looking some nights and decided against it. Maybe he waited until the urge was too great. But by the time of The Double Event, it is assumed he has not killed since Ms Chapman. To include Liz Stride assumes that the man who needed to kill and had waited, or been denied, for over three weeks suddenly jumps at a woman just inside a yard with open gates, and is then interrupted by a horse and cart. Ill give him more credit than that...particularly when the later killing is precisely what would be expected for his next kill.

We dont know that anything other than what actually happened, would have happened.

Best regards Ben.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I consider it very likely that Martha Tabram was the first actual murder, but I'd be very surprised if she was the first ever attack with a knife. Serial killers will usually start on a much smaller scale, and make various mistakes with their first attacks. The case of Ada Wilson (and Annie Millwood, for that matter) strikes me as an almost perfect example of a serial killer's MO in its unschooled, unpolished infancy.

They also follow an exploratory pattern. He had failed to murder Millwood and Wilson (and complete any post-mortem mutilations he may have intended) because he couldn't prevent them from screaming, obliging him to rectify that problem next time around, perhaps by resorting to strangulation or suffocation. He learned the hard way, and improved as he gained experience, and with experience came the confidence to explore.

The desire to procure organs may not have been a major component of his fantasy from the outset, but rather something that he "tried out" once he had improved upon his methods, and which he decided he liked enough to keep doing afterwards. The same may well have been true of the facial mutilations. He experimented on the corspe of Eddowes, and evidently decided to retain that aspect of the signature next time around.

It was not important that he went for the throat - no reproductive organs are hidden within it.

It's very important if the "ripper" did so on later victims. Whether the throat cut was a component of MO or signature, it was clearly something the killer of the others did, and must be considered "important" for that reason, doubly so if there is ample reason to suppose that the killer did so under the guise of client with a prostitute, as was likely to have occured in the Wilson case. If it was carried out in the vicinity of the other murder by an attacker whose broad physical particulars are in allignment with those of other suspect descriptions, all the better still.

I think we need to exercise caution when assessing what may or may not be "important". An interest in the abdominal region isn't needed to demonstrate that the Wilson attack is prime candidate for an early attempt by an inexperienced ripper. The Millwood attack is also a probable early ripper attack, but since you've been highlighting the importance of "MO", then the absence of a throat would is surely just as significant? As I mentioned before, we don't what what further evisceral steps Wilson's attacker would have taken were he not interrupted.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Iīll take my pick here, Ben, and answer two points:

"it's even more rare to encounter a serial killer with a ready-polished MO with they act out to perfection first time"

It is. But I donīt think that the Ripperīs first victim was Nichols, and even if she HAD been, I think that the MO was not totally in place in Buckīs Row - no organ-procuring took place.
I say Tabram is the first, and I also say that the cut to the abdomen may well have been the very first blade-inflicted damage he did to anyone. The second would have been the thrust through the sternum and heart, led on by the fact that Tabram proved alive - something that he had not suspected.

Such a scenario - of which we have no proof whatsoever - is one that tallies with what we know of the Ripper: He was extremely keen on owning inner organs from a woman. When he was forced to stab her through the heart and flee the scene, he provided us with exactly what you are looking for - a botched Ripper job, that in itself suggested to him that it would mean a major improvement if he cut the neck of next woman, thus ensuring that she would not vocalwise be able attact the attention of potentially threatening persons.

"I wouldn't agree with that either. I'd say they were about equal."

It all comes down to what you deem important in the traits evinced, does it not?

To me, it was not important that the victims may all have been prostitutes. He was not after prostitutes, he was after that half part of humanity that carries reproductive organs withing them - women. Preferably vulnerable ones, since they make for easier prey.
It was not important that he went for the throat - no reproductive organs are hidden within it. My contention is that the cut throats were practicalities, ensuring silence and death. It was not urge-connected.

These are actually the only two circumstances that seemingly tie Wilson in with the Ripper victims, MO-wise. And as you see, they may well carry very little importance.

A third MO-connected trait is the interest in the lower abdomen. And THAT is something that we KNOW carries importance, as opposed to the two details I already mentioned. And we KNOW that this area was targetted by Millwoods attacker. Thus we also know that when it comes to the MO part, Millwood is the only victim of the two that can safely be ascribed to the category MO-related victims. And that is of monumental weight and importance, of course.

Both victims lived in the "right" area, one of them having the advantage of being situated close to the area where one Joseph Fleming was active as a burglar sixteen years earlier, whereas the other has the advantage of an adress that ties in very well with the actual Ripper deeds, and I see no immediate reason to choose the one advantge over the other. And the fact that Wilsons man answered to a description that seems superficially comparable to that given of a man who may have been the Ripper, whereas Millwoods assailant is only described as a man with a clasp knife tells precious little - Millwoods man may have been two and a half metres high, bald and outweighing a hippo for all we know - but he may just as well have been the twin of Wilsons man.

Adding it up, the one and only really crucial pointer lies in the MO. And in that respect, Millwood had already crossed the goal line before Wilson heard the starting shot, as far as Iīm concerned.

Itīs not that I deem the rest uniteresting - it is not. It offers possible likenesses and compatibilities. Going for the abdomen, though, makes for a sure and definite link to the Ripper.

All the best,
Fisherman