Open Mind

[Curious Cat]

Hi RD,

Debra Arif's post from JTRforums:

Charley Mitchell and another boxer gave an interview in the US for the newspapers there, and the press produced a large article even describing their dress. Both wore tie pins and diamonds and Mitchell had an astrachan trimmed coat. It was a popular style of dress for pugilists of the era, they were very smart men but a little loud in their dress sense and always had the jewellery to go with it. I've also posted pics of Jem Mace in his astrachan trimmed coat and one where he sports a rather large thick gold watch chain and I think horse shoe tie pins were very popular among sportsmen connected to boxing and racing.

Hutchinson seemed to indicate that MJK and Astrachan Man were known to each other. Was McCarthy using boxer's as muscle for difficult rent collections? This would also explain why he was game enough to enter Dorset St.

Cheers, George

IF the man Hutchinson was describing was a boxer would that not indicate a level of celebrity? Even if just in local circles? Hutchinson is either very brave or very stupid to point the finger at a locally known bit of muscle unless he's safe in the knowledge the person he's describing isn't going to seek him out for retribution for putting him in the frame. Let's not forget, the man had as good a look at Hutchinson under that lamp.

Funny how the police never did track him down.

[Sam Flynn]

Some studies have found earlier crime locations to be closer (I believe Rossmo has published such a finding), but other studies have failed to find this. For example, in Snook, Cullen, Mokros, and Harbort (2005), where they examined case of serial murder in Germany, they found no difference in the home-body recovery location over the series length

The problem with many such modern studies is that they're based on killers whose mode of transport extended beyond a pair of hobnail boots, which was the preferred "vehicle" for the vast majority of the working class in the Victorian East End.

[Wickerman]

Ordnance Survey map/VII.57/1938 - London Picture Archive
Ordnance Survey map/VII.57/1914 - London Picture Archive
Ordnance Survey map/VII.57/1894-1896 - London Picture Archive

The point is, it doesn't actually matter where the lamp was exactly if he's making up his story about seeing Mary and the man. It only matters because he said he watched them walk up Commercial Street from that position but in practice it could not have been the case.

He doesn't quite say that though, it must be a while since you read it?

He tells us he was walking north between Thrawl & Flower & Dean when he met Kelly, then she walked on south and met the stranger at Thrawl, they began to walk towards Hutch.
Which means they were less than one block apart. Hutch walked on ahead of them as they followed behind, something like 150 ft apart, or less.
The distance between Flower & Dean and Thrawl is about 150-175 ft, so the distance between Hutch & Kelly is less than that.
So, your claim that he said he could see down Commercial street is your exaggeration, he was watching them less than 150 ft away from him, less than one block.

From the footpath outside the Queens Head pub, a distance of 150 ft is less than the Flower & Dean street, so they were not that far away.

The other issue, about the maps. You must have noticed the tram lines are nowhere near the lamp where Hutchinson said he was standing. no tram lines go around that corner into Fashion street, they only run down the center of Commercial Street, well away from the footpaths on either side.
There was no reason to relocate that lamp, not forgetting the gas pipe supply under the footpath.

Municipalities began to relocate street lamps from corners after the First World War when delivery vehicles got larger & longer. The longer trucks that were replacing the common horse & cart were knocking over or damaging street lamps installed on the corner of many streets, so they had to move them back.
You seem to want to move that lamp to fit your story, but you have not shown either where it was moved to, or when it was moved.
The only definite proof we have of a lamp positioned right where Hutchinson said it was is in the 1873 map.

I hope you see where you are making your errors, in first misquoting his story (they were nearer than you claim), and second by claiming on your own hunch, that the lamp must have been moved (in order to fit your story).

[JeffHamm]

The problem with many such modern studies is that they're based on killers whose mode of transport extended beyond a pair of hobnail boots, which was the preferred "vehicle" for the vast majority of the working class in the Victorian East End.

Yah, but often they will try and look at what sort of transport offenders had available. The Snook study, for example, did look at modes of transport, one being "on foot". The patterns were similar, only the distances involved changed (if I recall, those on foot, on average, lived within 2 km of the murder locations, while those using a car I think it was 5 km).

There was one interesting bit, though, the average distance to the crime scene from the offender's residence increased as the offender's IQ score increased. I think they also found older offenders tended not to travel as far as well, but that might have only been for body dump sites, which doesn't really apply to the JtR series as he didn't move the body but just left it at the primary crime scene.

- Jeff

[Curious Cat]

He doesn't quite say that though, it must be a while since you read it?

He tells us he was walking north between Thrawl & Flower & Dean when he met Kelly, then she walked on south and met the stranger at Thrawl, they began to walk towards Hutch.
Which means they were less than one block apart. Hutch walked on ahead of them as they followed behind, something like 150 ft apart, or less.
The distance between Flower & Dean and Thrawl is about 150-175 ft, so the distance between Hutch & Kelly is less than that.
So, your claim that he said he could see down Commercial street is your exaggeration, he was watching them less than 150 ft away from him, less than one block.

From the footpath outside the Queens Head pub, a distance of 150 ft is less than the Flower & Dean street, so they were not that far away.

The other issue, about the maps. You must have noticed the tram lines are nowhere near the lamp where Hutchinson said he was standing. no tram lines go around that corner into Fashion street, they only run down the center of Commercial Street, well away from the footpaths on either side.
There was no reason to relocate that lamp, not forgetting the gas pipe supply under the footpath.

Municipalities began to relocate street lamps from corners after the First World War when delivery vehicles got larger & longer. The longer trucks that were replacing the common horse & cart were knocking over or damaging street lamps installed on the corner of many streets, so they had to move them back.
You seem to want to move that lamp to fit your story, but you have not shown either where it was moved to, or when it was moved.
The only definite proof we have of a lamp positioned right where Hutchinson said it was is in the 1873 map.

I hope you see where you are making your errors, in first misquoting his story (they were nearer than you claim), and second by claiming on your own hunch, that the lamp must have been moved (in order to fit your story).

How would you then account for the lamp being moved away from the edge of the pavement and nearer to the corner of The Queen's Head before the First World War? Regardless of the tramway's route that lamp was relocated after 1873, as shown on the maps. It's still outside The Queen's Head - where Hutchinson says it is - but its position has been shifted.

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him."

Hutchinson's statement to the police.

"They both then came past me..."

Hutchinson's statement to the police.

[Wickerman]

How would you then account for the lamp being moved away from the edge of the pavement and nearer to the corner of The Queen's Head before the First World War?

Excuse me for pointing this out, but you have not shown that it was moved before the First World War, or if you have, which post was that?

Regardless of the tramway's route that lamp was relocated after 1873, as shown on the maps.

Which maps?
The last three maps only show where the Hydrant was, and that is still in the same place in the modern photo's. (it's a square plate in the footpath closer to the pub).

It's still outside The Queen's Head - where Hutchinson says it is - but its position has been shifted.

"I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him."

Hutchinson's statement to the police.

"They both then came past me..."

Hutchinson's statement to the police.

Yes, he stood under the lamp and they walked past him.
Think of it, if the lapm was moved further back up Fashion St. (away from the main road), why would they walk past the lamp, they are going in the other direction, they need to cross Commercial St. at that corner, not go slightly up Fashion st. away from the corner.
That makes no sense - if you see what I mean.

[Curious Cat]

Excuse me for pointing this out, but you have not shown that it was moved before the First World War, or if you have, which post was that?



Which maps?
The last three maps only show where the Hydrant was, and that is still in the same place in the modern photo's. (it's a square plate in the footpath closer to the pub).



Yes, he stood under the lamp and they walked past him.
Think of it, if the lapm was moved further back up Fashion St. (away from the main road), why would they walk past the lamp, they are going in the other direction, they need to cross Commercial St. at that corner, not go slightly up Fashion st. away from the corner.
That makes no sense - if you see what I mean.

Crossing back and forth, the positions of other lampposts in in the area in old photos and current street view appear to correlate with those same positions on those maps. As such, I have to go with those marked positions as giving where the lamppost was when the maps were drawn. The hydrants are either next to or very close to the lampposts where they're marked. However, just to frustrate things a little further perhaps, the cover for the water hydrant by The Queen's Head is actually a bit more north than any of the maps indicate. So not only has that particular lamppost been removed completely from that spot but the water hydrant is also not quite in the place the maps suggest. What is marked on the corner of Fashion Street may be the lamp rather than the hydrant.

Never said or suggested the lamp was further up Fashion Street, just closer to the corner of The Queen's Head. It would be still in Commercial Street as indicated on the maps. Hutchinson against the lamp, Mary and the man pass by him while still on the pavement. They cross the junction of Fashion Street rather than walk down it. Has this not been obvious the whole time?

[Wickerman]

Crossing back and forth, the positions of other lampposts in in the area in old photos and current street view appear to correlate with those same positions on those maps.

When you say "those maps", are you referring to your post No.59?, that is where you gave the links for maps dated to 1914, 1938 & 1894/6.
None of those maps show Lampposts, they only show a fire Hydrant almost beside the Queens Head Pub.

This is the link for the 1873 map.

https://maps.nls.uk/view/229950164

As such, I have to go with those marked positions as giving where the lamppost was when the maps were drawn. The hydrants are either next to or very close to the lampposts where they're marked. However, just to frustrate things a little further perhaps, the cover for the water hydrant by The Queen's Head is actually a bit more north than any of the maps indicate. So not only has that particular lamppost been removed completely from that spot but the water hydrant is also not quite in the place the maps suggest. What is marked on the corner of Fashion Street may be the lamp rather than the hydrant.

The map indicates 'H' for Hydrant.
It is true some hydrants were located at the foot of a streetlamp, but this is not true in all cases.

They cross the junction of Fashion Street rather than walk down it. Has this not been obvious the whole time?

Yes, they do cross Fashion Street but today there is an old lamp by the side of the pub about 20+ feet? up Fashion St., I wasn't sure if you were talking about that one.

As we are, I still cannot see why you are suggesting, as if it is a certainty, that there was no lamp on the corner where the 1873 map shows there was one.
It is as if your guessing is your only justification for calling Hutchinson a liar.
I've been hoping there was more to your accusation, than guessing.

[Curious Cat]

When you say "those maps", are you referring to your post No.59?, that is where you gave the links for maps dated to 1914, 1938 & 1894/6.
None of those maps show Lampposts, they only show a fire Hydrant almost beside the Queens Head Pub.

This is the link for the 1873 map.

https://maps.nls.uk/view/229950164

The map indicates 'H' for Hydrant.
It is true some hydrants were located at the foot of a streetlamp, but this is not true in all cases.



Yes, they do cross Fashion Street but today there is an old lamp by the side of the pub about 20+ feet? up Fashion St., I wasn't sure if you were talking about that one.

As we are, I still cannot see why you are suggesting, as if it is a certainty, that there was no lamp on the corner where the 1873 map shows there was one.
It is as if your guessing is your only justification for calling Hutchinson a liar.
I've been hoping there was more to your accusation, than guessing.

Other nearby lampposts are in the same position of other marked hydrant's on the maps in old photos.

The hydrant cover by The Queen's Head is actually further north than indicated on the maps.

The hydrant cover is still away from the edge of the kerb both on the maps and in reality.

The conclusion therefore is that the marked hydrants on the maps were the lampposts they were near by.


The old lamppost currently to be found in Fashion Street is a reproduction and is a 21st century addition.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The problem with many such modern studies is that they're based on killers whose mode of transport extended beyond a pair of hobnail boots, which was the preferred "vehicle" for the vast majority of the working class in the Victorian East End.

Transport availability would certainly dictate (to an extent) whether or not an offender travelled farther or stayed within a particular region, but it wouldn't be problematic for geographic profiling.

The reason being, geographic profiling is underpinned by assumptions on human behaviour, no matter the distance travelled; and that means geographical information systems can be adapted to fit different scales, including confined areas for an offender's series of crimes.

One such assumption on human behaviour, is that the crime sites would belie rational choice on the part of the offender. Distance decay is one such concept and empirical studies have demonstrated that the distance decay concept is in fact supported by the actions of known serial offenders.

The supposed limitation in this case is the number of data points that most would consider i.e. five. Then again, recent empirical studies of serial killers and their behaviour suggests that the WM killed more than five women, and the idea that all crimes within a series display the same behaviour, including 'signature'; is an erroneous assumption borne of theory but not supported by the empirical studies. It has been demonstrated that the behaviour of serial killers during a crime series is highly complex and does not follow rigid patterns.

So, sufficient data points are probably there also.

[Fleetwood Mac]

To get back to Alice.

Similar type of woman, similar location, post mortem mutilation, skirts lifted, whatever fight Alice put up it wasn't sufficient for anyone in the vicinity to know about it.

The murder of strangers in the street is extremely rare.

Whatever else was different about this murder, there is enough there to say probably the same man.

[The Rookie Detective]

To get back to Alice.

Similar type of woman, similar location, post mortem mutilation, skirts lifted, whatever fight Alice put up it wasn't sufficient for anyone in the vicinity to know about it.

The murder of strangers in the street is extremely rare.

Whatever else was different about this murder, there is enough there to say probably the same man.

Thank goodness someone mentioned Alice, I was a bit worried that this thread would end up dominated by lampposts.

RD

[Curious Cat]

Thank goodness someone mentioned Alice, I was a bit worried that this thread would end up dominated by lampposts.

RD

Sorry, that may have been the divergence from my line of thought about The Queen's Head being a place of focus.

My thinking had been around the thought in the opening post about murders after Mary Kelly being viewed as copy cat rather than the same killer of the earlier victims. If Hutchinson is more involved with what happened that night is Mary really a victim of the same killer or is she targeted by a copy cat? Alice is more in line with the previous murders before Mary Kelly.

Take Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Stride out of the equation, where does that place Alice next to the remaining victims murdered in similar circumstances?

[The Rookie Detective]

Sorry, that may have been the divergence from my line of thought about The Queen's Head being a place of focus.

My thinking had been around the thought in the opening post about murders after Mary Kelly being viewed as copy cat rather than the same killer of the earlier victims. If Hutchinson is more involved with what happened that night is Mary really a victim of the same killer or is she targeted by a copy cat? Alice is more in line with the previous murders before Mary Kelly.

Take Mary Kelly and Elizabeth Stride out of the equation, where does that place Alice next to the remaining victims murdered in similar circumstances?

No need to ever apologise, your posts are always welcome and it's not for me to determine the line of conversation. Your posts are always well thought out and balanced and I find your opinions on the case very interesting.
I agree with your post entirely and the murder of Alice McKenzie is indeed more like Nichols than Kelly.
If we look at the murders of McKenzie and Nichols in unison, it's almost certain they were committed by the same hand.
The reason why McKenzie has not been officially included as a canonical victim of the Ripper comes purely down to the timing.
Some are of the illusion that Kelly must have been his final victim because she was obliterated beyond recognition and the victims that preceded her didn't receive the level of wounds as she did.
On that basis it has been assumed that because of the severity of wound inflicted on Kelly, that she must have been the pinnacle of his murder spree.
But this has been one of the most misleading viewpoints to have impacted on the case as a whole.
In reality, psychopathic serial killers don't have a pinnacle kill, they don't follow a linear path of increased violence. They DO often experiment on their victims, but that's not down to a growing confidence, to be more daring, it's for the power and control they feel over their victim.
The reason why McKenzie is not a canonical victim is because it is inconvenient to the case.
Rather than reject her as a victim because she didn't suffer as much as Kelly and so can't be a Ripper victim, we must instead look at WHY she didn't suffer as much.
The reasons - a lot less TIME, less PRIVACY, and perhaps...the killer wanted to go back to what they knew when murdering McKenzie. The comparison between McKenzie and Nichols should not be ignored, it's a clear sign that the killer reverted back to his relative comfort zone.
Kelly was the exception, and not the pinnacle of his killing spree.
Another reason why McKenzie is not a popular choice is because it eradicates many key suspects in one go.
The obvious question then is..."why did the killer stop?"
Now its true that killers don't just stop for no reason, but if we choose to believe that Kelly was his last victim, then it goes against the idea that killers don't stop.
In other words, by including McKenzie and Coles, then the killer didn't just stop, because then he has murdered women over several years and not just in the "autumn of terror."
It's difficult to look at the case objectively and that's just human nature, but if we look at the McKenzie case with an "OPEN MIND," then the evidence strongly suggests that Alice was a Ripper victim.
If we exclude McKenzie, then we should also exclude Nichols as a Ripper victim.
Of course, psychologically, another reason why some people are adamant that Kelly was the Rippers final victim, is because it brings some form of closure and finality. It's a way of processing the terrible crimes that were committed and gives us a degree of understanding over matters beyond our control.
Sadly, there is no closure to this case and on that very basis alone, we shouldn't discard McKenzie or others like Coles, because it gives those Ripper victims a great disservice.

As for the idea of a Copycat killer...that's also another way for us to quantify certain aspects of the case that go against the grain or are inconvenient in the scheme of things.
The idea of a Copycat is a cop-out, because it aims to give an explanation to something that doesn't need to be categorized in that manner.
If we look at the potential murders from Millwood to Coles then it broadens the timeline horizon.
And if we also look at the Coram Street murder on Christmas Day 1872, it adds another ingredient into the melting pot.
By choosing to remain within the constraints of 1888, we are missing the bigger picture and playing into the hands of the Ripper by closing our minds off to many of his other victims.
There's also an argument about the inclusion of the Torso Killer due to the location of the sites that he chose to dump the torsos. There are links between the 2 cases and I wouldn't write off them being the same man.
Of course, the counterargument is that serial killers do NOT change their M.O
What a load of codswallop!

Serial killers DO and CAN change their MO.
It may not be the case in a majority of cases, but it is still possible and does happen.

There was a recent documentary concerning a relatively recent confirmed DNA connection discovered between different unsolved cold case murders that had never been attributed to the same killer.
One of his victims was a teenage schoolgirl who he hit with a blunt object, threw her over a wall and then raped her. She died of blunt force trauma.
The other a woman was murdered in her flat, stabbed multiple times, bound, raped and then strangled.
On the opposite side of London.
The MO was completely different BUT it was the SAME KILLER.
The DNA doesn't lie and the 4 billion to 1 odds can't counter the DNA evidence from being wrong.

That's just one example of course, but the fact is that killers ADAPT and vary their attacks accordingly to achieve the same goal. The feeling of power, control, satisfaction and fulfillment.

Tabram, Stride, Kelly, McKenzie...all.different and yet most likely the same killer.


Lots to ponder


RD

[Wickerman]

Thank goodness someone mentioned Alice, I was a bit worried that this thread would end up dominated by lampposts.

RD

I sympathize with you, it's one of the rabbit-hole situations. I had kept the thread title in mind - Open Mind. Which did not exclude topics concerning other victims; Kelly, Stride, etc., in fact they were given consideration in the very first post.
Ironically, it was from the perspective of Open Mind, that I was trying to pursue this question of why Hutchinson was not believed by C.C., I just couldn't seem to get to the root of it, so where is the Open Mind?