Why Ada?

[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

[perrymason]

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]

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

[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. That´s not to disagree with you, however: generally, you would be right on this kind of matter. But that´s 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 don´t buy it for a second, I´m 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 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 writes:

"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..."

Who´s looking for "no good reason", Ben! It´s good reasoning I propose, and arguably we can reach certainty only about one area of prioritized focus in the Ripper´s case - the abdomen.
And actually, I do not agree that the throat was his first port of call as he set out with Tabram - it was the outcome of that business that made him change his priorities, if my suggestion is correct.

"an attack of this nature is precisely what we ought to be looking for when contemplating earlier attacks by a serial killer"

Again, Ben, I will press the point that there is a very awkward "exactly" involved in this sentence of yours. It stands to reason that all attacks involving knife-accompanied violence are of interest, but then again if you back down to the summer 1887, one year before Jack, and if you regard all knife-accompanied violence directed towards women as "exactly" what we are looking for, then we end up in the diluting business again!

"Five months cannot possibly be construed as "too far back in time".

This time I will pick another wording, Ben: "cannot possibly". Of course it is possible that it was too long a time. It all depends on the development of the killers incentive and urges. Just as it may have been within reasonable time limits, it may have been well without them too. I think that the period should be seen in relation to the pace Jack used as he set out, leaving only a few days inbetween Nichols and Chapman. Seen in that perspective, the "cannot possible" may well absorb a trait of "possible", I´d say!

Off for now! All the best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

then we end up in the diluting business again!

We're not in the diluting business though, Fish.

We're in the "using our knowledge of other serial cases to pinpoint viable examples of early attacks on the part of the ripper" business, and it's a good business to be in because we've both historical precedent and a known event from history on our side. As I mentioned, five months isn't a very long time in which to contemplate his next move. Obviously, if he was seen and described by Wilson, it's only reasonable to surmise that he may have allowed a realsitic interval of time to elapse before striking again.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"We're not in the diluting business though, Fish.

We're in the "using our knowledge of other serial cases to pinpoint viable examples of early attacks on the part of the ripper" business, and it's a good business to be in because we've both historical precedent and a known event from history on our side. As I mentioned, five months isn't a very long time in which to contemplate his next move. Obviously, if he was seen and described by Wilson, it's only reasonable to surmise that he may have allowed a realsitic interval of time to elapse before striking again."

Yes, it would be nice, would it not, if we could actually pinpoint the Wilson attack as a viable Ripper deed, as you propose, Ben. And furthermore, if we could use "historical precedent and known events from history" to put us on firm ground.

I am not saying that this sort of approach does not work. I am only saying that what it provides is an ice so thin that I won´t join you on it. Being a fisherman I have experienced what an ice-cold soaking does to you, and so I remain a little more careful.

As for your repeated assertion that the time interval was a suitable one for him to contemplate his next move, I still say that the generally accepted opportunities when he struck speaks to me of something different. Of course it can be reasoned that it would be logical to leave nigh on half a year before striking again if you know you had been seen. But if he was seen at the canonical sites, that obviously did not apply later. Therefore I am much more inclined to deduct that the interval after Wilson was too long to suit my logic, though it´s fine by me if it satisfies yours.

We see the Ripper differently, you and I, and I of course go by my own convictions when I try to assess what is viable or not. Where you add to the measure of boldness, cheakyness, stealth, criminality and evil on Jack´s behalf, I tend to deduct. The simple reason for this is that it is the only way I can come up with a Ripper who responds to all the vital questions about his mentality, incentives and character traits that I ask. I have tried it your way too, Ben, hundreds of times and dozens of years, and it did not produce the goods for me. Vitally, I think that every Ripperologists own personal mindset will colour the picture of the Ripper he comes up with. We need our respective Rippers to respond to our own ways of thinking, our own logic.
And my logic tells me that Ada Wilson had nothing to do with the Ripper killings, just as it tells me that Tabram was the first victim and Kelly the last, since it effectively put an end to his previous urges. It also tells me that the conglomerate Hutch/Fleming is way off the mark, psychologically - the masquerading you suggest is something that is totally implausible to me. But it is quite simple to see that it fits in very well with your take on things - the Ripper you are putting together is a viable one, and one that tallies very well with the general public apprehension.

Putting it differently: I won´t call you stupid for staying with your wiew if you will extend me the same courtesy. And as a bonus, in that manner we can both look foward to celebrating Christmas in a spirit of good will!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I am not saying that this sort of approach does not work. I am only saying that what it provides is an ice so thin that I won´t join you on it.

That isn't the case at all, though. Judging by the earlier attacks of other serial killers when their methods were in their infancy, I don't think there can be any valid reason for ruling out the Wilson attack, which is precisely the sort of faltering early attempt that we ought to expect from a knife-using serial killer's MO in its infancy. To rule out all early attacks on the grounds that they didn't involve abdominal wounds is the opposite of being "careful".

Of course it can be reasoned that it would be logical to leave nigh on half a year before striking again if you know you had been seen. But if he was seen at the canonical sites, that obviously did not apply later

The crucial difference here, Fish, is that the victim herself provided the description at extremely close range, rather than an independent witness who saw the victim in the company of a man who may or may not have been her killer. He would also have been less experienced by that stage, and so less confident.

And my logic tells me that Ada Wilson had nothing to do with the Ripper killings, just as it tells me that Tabram was the first victim and Kelly the last, since it effectively put an end to his previous urges. It also tells me that the conglomerate Hutch/Fleming is way off the mark, psychologically - the masquerading you suggest is something that is totally implausible to me.

And my logic tells me the precise opposite in both cases. I naturally accept your point that our differing mental images of that the ripper will result in differing opinions as to what "works" physchologically, although I like to think my impressions are bolstered by evidence from this and other serial cases.

Putting it differently: I won´t call you stupid for staying with your wiew if you will extend me the same courtesy. And as a bonus, in that manner we can both look foward to celebrating Christmas in a spirit of good will!

...And to you, Fish.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Fish & Ben,

After hearing a bit more about this Robert Napper character, I agree and disagree with you both.

I agree with Fish, in that I don't see how Hutch and Fleming can be spliced to become Jack.

I agree with Ben that Jack was very likely to have attacked others like Ada, and in ways that were not all going to be carbon copies of a Polly/Annie/Kate attack.

I also think his bodily trophies (among others eg Annie's rings) were not the primary goal, but almost certainly taken to remind him of something he considered akin to a sexual conquest.

I agree with both of you that Fleming sounds on the surface like a potential ripper, if Napper's case is anything to go by.

However, in this regard, maybe we need to look further at whether the ripper (Fleming, Hutch or Flem/Hutch) was a cunning psychopath, with little or no outward appearance of insanity, or had the kind of mental instability that Napper has, or the type of illness which put Fleming away. I imagine it would be rare to be a psychopath and have other more obvious mental problems, but is it totally unheard of? I really don't know.

I disagree with the notion of a serial offender going to the considerable trouble of obtaining trophies if he knows he doesn't have anywhere more private to take them back to than the Victoria Home.

I also disagree with the notion that the ripper is any more likely to have been one of Mary Kelly's associates than someone who encountered her pretty much as he encountered his other victims.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Napper is indeed an interesting comparison study with Jack, and I've mentioned his case a few times on the board prior to his admission of guilt yesterday.

Just a quick point on the issue of Hutchinson/Fleming. Just so Fisherman's position is not misunderstood, his rejection of the identification of GH as JF is based on his personal interpretation of Jack's psychology, and as such I can't argue against it, except inasmuch as I interpret the psychology very differently and don't see how the identification can be seen as incompatible on those grounds. Since we're not on the appropriate thread, I won't repeat here the similarities between the two characters that don't relate to psychology, but suffice to say I find them quite compelling and I'm not alone in that belief.

One of the most interesting aspects to have emerged from the Napper investingation is the fact that he used to stalk his victims outside their homes for prolonged periods, conducting prior surveillance before seeking the opportune moment to strike. That piqued my curiosity, having formed the impression for some time that the killer gained access to Miller's Court this way. It perhaps obliges us to take Lewis' loiterer more seriously, and by extension, anyone who claimed to be that individual.

This suggests some cunning and opportunism on the part of Napper (who also meticulously marked his crimes on the A-Z) which clearly isn't at odds with the other details that we know to be true of him; that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia etc. There's no mutual exclusivity between a killer suffering from some form of psychosis and one who is capable of cunning and manipulation.

I disagree with the notion of a serial offender going to the considerable trouble of obtaining trophies if he knows he doesn't have anywhere more private to take them back to than the Victoria Home.

A location that enabled him to blend into the masses unnoticed didn't need to be "private" though. Privacy was a very scarce commodity in the East End; he may have desirded it, but it's unlikely that he could have obtained it, so he had to make do with cultivating the habit of passing unnoticed. In many respects, it was almost better than a private house or room; any evidence left in such a set-up would lead right back to the offender, but that wouldn't have been the case in a 400+ strong dodgy doss 'ouse where people came and went with no lasting record of their presence.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Just so Fisherman's position is not misunderstood, his rejection of the identification of GH as JF is based on his personal interpretation of Jack's psychology"

My rejection of GH as JF is to a significant extent based on this, yes. But it would be careless not to mention the fact that statistics are on my side big time too - the average serial killer will not go to the police and inject himself into an ongoing investigation.

Caz, you write:
"I agree with Ben that Jack was very likely to have attacked others like Ada, and in ways that were not all going to be carbon copies of a Polly/Annie/Kate attack."

I don´t start out with Polly, Caz - I start out with Tabram, and that was an attack that was NOT a carbon copy of the three you mention.
I have nothing much against a suggestion that there may have been other attacks before the Tabram slaying, but I don´t think we can point to a single attack, radically different from what was evinced later on, and say that - for example - the Wilson incident was exactly what we could expect from a fledgling Ripper. If we are to accept radical differences, then we had better be very openminded about it all, and admit that we are at a loss to describe just HOW such an attack would have differed to "fit in".

The fact that I don´t feel any need to have a predecessor to Tabram lies in the fact that I think that Jacks role in the Geaorge Yard deed may well have been that of a scavenger, and as such, there are implications that he did not strike until this opportunity offered itself. It pushed him over the edge, so to say. The chance is thus there, that he may have been reluctant to cross the border before, the way I see it.

The best, both of you!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

But it would be careless not to mention the fact that statistics are on my side big time too - the average serial killer will not go to the police and inject himself into an ongoing investigation.

Hi Fisherman!

I hope you don’t mind me butting in.

Although the above is true, that doesn’t mean that therefore the chances are very slim that it’s true in this case. Not that I’m inclined to believe that GH was JtR (that not being on account of those statistics), but I keep the door to that possibility ajar, if you will. After all, the simple fact of the matter remains that we do have a man here who loitered close to a crime scene and probably close to the time a murder was committed. And we do have a man who could very well have been that loitering man and who came forward with a story that wasn’t your average witness account, to say the very least.

The fact that I don´t feel any need to have a predecessor to Tabram lies in the fact that I think that Jacks role in the Geaorge Yard deed may well have been that of a scavenger, and as such, there are implications that he did not strike until this opportunity offered itself.

I’m not sure, but I don’t think that there have been many serial killers in the last 150 years who started out as scavengers (and were caught). In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read about any. So, I’m afraid that statistics certainly aren’t on your side in this instance, Fish. In fact, I think they are rather on the side of the opposition. It remains an interesting idea, though.

The best!
Frank

[Fisherman]

Frank writes:

"I hope you don’t mind me butting in. "

Never did - never will!

"Although the above is true, that doesn’t mean that therefore the chances are very slim that it’s true in this case. Not that I’m inclined to believe that GH was JtR (that not being on account of those statistics), but I keep the door to that possibility ajar, if you will."

Of course, Frank, it can be reasoned that every case should be judged by it´s own merits. And Hutch´s entrance on the stage does raise questions, there is no doubt about it. Therefore, much like you, I don´t close any doors. Though I am having all sorts of trouble to buy Hutch as a disguised Fleming, I can´t say with any certainty that it didn´t happen.

"I don’t think that there have been many serial killers in the last 150 years who started out as scavengers (and were caught). In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read about any. So, I’m afraid that statistics certainly aren’t on your side in this instance, Fish."

Of course I´m at a statistical disadvantage here, Frank! Then again: each case on it´s own merits applies here too, and history will not be littered with potential eviscerators ho have had opportunities served on golden plates, will it? It stands to reason that such a thing will be extremely rare, but the lack of serialists ho have been scavengers at one time or another probably owes a lot more to the scarce opportunities offered than to any lacking willingness of the potential killers to take advantage of such situations!
And if we are to seek out the perfect opportunity, it will be hard to beat the Tabram case - it may have taken place in a very public spot, and we know that two different blades were used. I really think it has the possibility of a scavenger deed written all over it. Statistically probable or not, the circumstances are so odd that it has failed to find an explanation that covers all aspects in as credible a manner as does the scavenger angle, I feel!

The best, Frank!
Fisherman

[caz]

One of the most interesting aspects to have emerged from the Napper investingation is the fact that he used to stalk his victims outside their homes for prolonged periods, conducting prior surveillance before seeking the opportune moment to strike. That piqued my curiosity, having formed the impression for some time that the killer gained access to Miller's Court this way. It perhaps obliges us to take Lewis' loiterer more seriously, and by extension, anyone who claimed to be that individual.

Hi Ben,

But did Napper know any of his victims personally, as Hutch claimed to know Mary Kelly who, like Ada Wilson, was attacked in her own home?

I think you have to be careful about grabbing hold of elements from the Napper case that would appear to support your ripper theory if there are also elements that are in stark contrast, eg this supposed one-off stalking of a close associate, followed by the decision to face the cops with a cover story after several successes killing complete strangers, whereas Napper was conspicuously absent on at least two occasions when the police called round, and then failed to show up despite messages left for him to contact them.

My point about the trophies is that a killer with no fixed abode, who had to make do with a packed lodging house as and when he was in funds, would have known beforehand that he had next to no chance of enjoying any spoils undisturbed. It's one thing being able to cook and eat bodily parts, or fondle the rings etc in his pockets, under the noses of his fellow lodgers. Maybe that would have been enough for him. But it could have been a compromise that the ripper would never have made, especially if the trophies were his compensation for having so little time alone with the victims.

Now we had better get back to Ada!

Love,

Caz
X