Location of Annie Millwood's attack

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I'll have to read up on the Jackson case, and yes, from what you've said, the dismemberment doesn't sound "of the practical kind".

I think I'm not being very clear with regards to what I'm thinking with regards to JtR and trophy taking. I don't mean to suggest that prior to the attack JtR was thinking "I'll get a heart today", or any such thing - I don't think trophy taking was a motive at all. Rather, the trophy taking was something that happens after the primary purpose is fulfilled, which with JtR appears to be the mutilations themselves. Taking of a trophy is just the taking of something as a reminder of the event, or even an act of total possession of the victim. What is taken is entirely situational rather than by design - recognizing, as you say, taking of internal body parts as trophies is rare. I can think of some examples of body parts being taken, Ed Kemper and Ted Bundy, both of whom took victim's heads (making the doctor's evidence of signs of attempted decapitation of Chapman, at least, interesting), but I can't off the top of my head recall another example of someone who took organs (which goes to linkage of Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly given the rarity of that particular behaviour). I would not be surprised if JtR did take some small item, like Chapman's rings, from other crime scenes. However, given it would be something which might go entirely unnoticed as missing, there's no evidence that he actually did. Anyway, as I say, I don't think his primary goal was "get a trophy then stop", rather the train of thought might be more like "I'm finished and leaving now, I'll take this with me", and he takes something he can conceal. The fact that in Kelly's case in particular he had such a lot to choose from then if in that case he had taken the uterus then that might suggest that particular organ was of particular interest - but he didn't, leading me to think there was nothing in particular about the uterus other than JtR has a mindset to take a bit of the victim with him that he can conceal.

Other trophy collectors, for example, might take victim's underwear from their dresser. They don't take all of them, just one pair. Or they take a piece of jewelry, not all of it, etc. While these are objects and not body parts, it gets to the point that a trophy is a reminder of the main purpose, not the primary purpose itself and the specific item category might be informative (taking underwear vs jewelry vs body parts), the specific item taken is less important (i.e. JtR took body parts, but I don't think he had designs on uterus, kidney, or hearts in particular). I think those that would want "all of the body parts", tend to abduct the victim and get the body somewhere they can revisit (i.e. Dahmer, who kept the bodies in his flat, etc).

anyway, thanks for the info on the Jackson case. I'll have to look into that.

- Jeff

My advice would be to think practical - if the killer did take out all organs from Kelly fon whatever reason NOT tied to trophy taking, only thereafter deciding to choose one item that he "could conceal", as you put it - why take the rather bulky heart? Surely the uterus, a kidney, even the spleen would be easier to conceal?
The Kelly scene is normally described as utter mayhem. Why is it then, that we do not read about half kidneys, a liver hacked to pieces and so on? Or about half organs left inside the body? Instead it seems the organs were neatly taken out intact and placed on the bed, some of them even tucked away under her head. Is that utter mayhem? Is cutting the eyebrows away mayhem or examples of dexterious, neat knife work? I´ll leave you to ponder those questions.

And yes, do look into the Jackson case - as well as the other torso cases, and begin in 1873. In the Jackson case, you will find that she resembles Kelly very closely on many points. A London prostitute killed half a year after Kelly, who had her abdomen cut open from ribcage to pubes just like Kelly, who had her heart cut out from her body, a heart that went lost just like Kellys heart did, who had her uterus cut out and discarded and found, just as in the Kelly case, who had her abdominal wall cut away in large flaps, just like Kelly had. Given how rare these creatures are, I´d say that the possibilities of two killers is miniscule.
I agree with what you said about the same kind of damage sometimes having different underlying reasons, but I strongly believe that it all hinges on the parameters involved. If we have two women killed by knife in the same city, then it may have had different reasons - it can be one robbery and one sexual assault that led it on, and that can be hard to tell after the events, depending on what happened. Of course, the larger the city is, the larger the chance of two perps.
But once the parameters involved become A/ more and more specific and B/ more and more odd and C/ more and more rare, the odds that we have two killers start to rise dramatically. As has been said before, there are no other examples of two simultaneously (more or less) acting eviscerator serialists in the same city, and that is not something that should surprise us - these people do not surface often. When they do, we can read about them in the papers and ask ourselves if ten or twenty years have passed since we last heard about these kinds of atrocities. Dahmer. Fish. Haarmann. Sort of. They come from differing times and differing venues, and they did things to their respective victims (of differing gender) that allows us to realize who killed which victim by looking at the damages inflicted.
But in THIS case we have the same time, the same city and the same damage to a very large extent. And we have extremely rare inclusions. We have the same organs targetted.

There is - the way I see it - virtually no chance at all of two killers. So of course I must encourage you to read about the Torso murders if you are interested in the Rippers deeds.

[JeffHamm]

First of all: I know the mechanisms behind trophy taking. I am very much aware that trophies are chosen items. However, what cases can you point to where numerous innards are neatly cut out of the body, but only one of them taken as a trophy? If he only wanted to have the heart as a trophy, why did he cut the rest out? Why the extra work, if he didn´t intend to take advantage of it, adding to his trophy collection? As I said, where are the examples of other trophy collectors doing this?
In my experience, those who choose innards as trophies - and they are extremely rare! - do not cut out all innards available, and then leave them all behind but for one piece.

The Torso killer went a lot further than dismembering for practical reasons. He cut out Jacksons heart and uterus, for example - how does that facilitate transport? What we must realize is that we are looking at another reason being at play - which is normally referred to as mental illness in the books, or putting it simpler: he had an urge to cut up a body, and THAT was what lay behind what he did.

That said, I think that there were cuts that were "urge cuts" as well as practical cutting in the Torso cases. He FIRST cut open the belly of Jackson, from ribs to pubes, and THEREAFTER he divided the trunk into three pieces. So he quite possibly went from urge to practicality: He did what he WANTED to do, and then he prepared for discarding the body. There was never any need to open the body up before dividing it, let alone to dig heart and uterus out - if it had been about facilitating transport, he would have emptied all of the stomach contents, right?
And yes, the Ripper tore the rings from Chapmans finger, and that may or not be an example of trophy taking - just as it may or may not be an example of trophy taking when the Torso killer tore Jacksons ring from HER finger.
I would suggest that this killer - the combined one - was a mutilator, an eviscerator, a ring-stealer, a cutter from sternum to pubes, preying on prostitutes, and cutting them up for the exact same reasons in all cases. An extremely rare creature, as it were, one that is not likely to crop up in pairs by any standards - let alone in the same town and at the same time. And I do not recognize trophy taking as any primary reason in this context, although it cannot be excluded that there was such an element involved too.

Hi Fisherman,

I'll have to read up on the Jackson case, and yes, from what you've said, the dismemberment doesn't sound "of the practical kind".

I think I'm not being very clear with regards to what I'm thinking with regards to JtR and trophy taking. I don't mean to suggest that prior to the attack JtR was thinking "I'll get a heart today", or any such thing - I don't think trophy taking was a motive at all. Rather, the trophy taking was something that happens after the primary purpose is fulfilled, which with JtR appears to be the mutilations themselves. Taking of a trophy is just the taking of something as a reminder of the event, or even an act of total possession of the victim. What is taken is entirely situational rather than by design - recognizing, as you say, taking of internal body parts as trophies is rare. I can think of some examples of body parts being taken, Ed Kemper and Ted Bundy, both of whom took victim's heads (making the doctor's evidence of signs of attempted decapitation of Chapman, at least, interesting), but I can't off the top of my head recall another example of someone who took organs (which goes to linkage of Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly given the rarity of that particular behaviour). I would not be surprised if JtR did take some small item, like Chapman's rings, from other crime scenes. However, given it would be something which might go entirely unnoticed as missing, there's no evidence that he actually did. Anyway, as I say, I don't think his primary goal was "get a trophy then stop", rather the train of thought might be more like "I'm finished and leaving now, I'll take this with me", and he takes something he can conceal. The fact that in Kelly's case in particular he had such a lot to choose from then if in that case he had taken the uterus then that might suggest that particular organ was of particular interest - but he didn't, leading me to think there was nothing in particular about the uterus other than JtR has a mindset to take a bit of the victim with him that he can conceal.

Other trophy collectors, for example, might take victim's underwear from their dresser. They don't take all of them, just one pair. Or they take a piece of jewelry, not all of it, etc. While these are objects and not body parts, it gets to the point that a trophy is a reminder of the main purpose, not the primary purpose itself and the specific item category might be informative (taking underwear vs jewelry vs body parts), the specific item taken is less important (i.e. JtR took body parts, but I don't think he had designs on uterus, kidney, or hearts in particular). I think those that would want "all of the body parts", tend to abduct the victim and get the body somewhere they can revisit (i.e. Dahmer, who kept the bodies in his flat, etc).

anyway, thanks for the info on the Jackson case. I'll have to look into that.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi jeff
i doubt the ripper was “very poor”. From the witness descriptions, the times of the murders being on weekends and holidays indicating steady employment, and the apparent ease in which the ripper was still able to lure wary prostitutes at the height of the ripper scare, seem to indicate to me that he was actually probably more “lower middle/working class”. The taking back of money he gave them is probably more for psychological reasons.

That's entirely possible, and I think there is a good argument to make along those lines as JtR does, if he's posing as a client, have to at least appear as if he's got the money to pay it. I guess very poor, given the context, was not a great choice. I think he had employment of some sort, so was not in the poorest of the poor, as the victims were, rather suspects like Barnett would qualify (employed enough to rent a flat, etc) but I'm thinking not someone like a medical doctor, who would be well off. Perhaps "working poor" might be a better description? And while you could be correct, and the retrieving of the money is a psychological thing, but it seems to me a practical thing, that he can't afford to abandon it. These are, of course, all hypothetical.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Some other thoughts on a few random topics, but I'll put them here nonetheless.

I believe it was Baxter who suggested a possible motive for the crimes, specifically that someone may be deliberately harvesting uteri. This was based upon some information that a doctor had been making inquiries as to obtaining samples to go with an article/book he had written, and he was willing to pay a fairly high price per specimen. Apparently, some of the medical schools had been approached but this was over a year prior to the murders, and the person making the inquiries had by then returned to the States and was considered beyond suspicion. However, Baxter believed that someone may have heard of this, and if of unsound mind in particular, might have seen this as an opportunity to make a lot of money.

This hypothesis frames the murders, and the attack upon the abdomen's, as serving a functional/practical purpose - in order to obtain the uterus from the victim. The uterus was taken from the scene for both Chapman and Eddowes, and if Charles Cross coming down Buck's Row resulted in the murderer leaving the scene prior to obtaining her uterus (similar explanation for Stride and the lack of any attack on the abdomen fits here too), then at first blush the hypothesis seems to hold.

However, that explanation does not account for why Eddowes' kidney was taken or why the murderer would engage in facial mutilations. None of these serve the purpose of obtaining the uterus, and simply increase the risk of getting caught (and we're now talking about someone who, to make this work, had to almost have been caught twice - or at least once if you discount Stride). Finally, there is no purpose to the extensive and prolonged mutilations performed upon Kelly, no purpose to the taking of her heart, and most importantly, her uterus wasn't taken from the scene.

Baxter's hypothesis, therefore, is disproven by the actions of the murderer as they repeatedly and increasingly engage in behaviors that are not consistent with this explanation, and indeed, end up not even taking the organ in question despite having the opportunity.

----------------------------------------------------

Money: No money was found with any of the victims. The polished farthing's at Annie Chapman's feet are not listed in the reports and only appear in later newspaper reports, or in memoirs of police not involved in the investigation at the time - they are a myth according to Sugden. If, as seems the case, JtR was posing as a client, then presumably money had exchanged hands prior to being led to the location to complete the transaction. Either JtR attacked the victims before giving them payment, or he recovered his money before he fled. It seems to me, if JtR recovered his money, which may explain the placement of personal belongs at some scenes (while searching for his coins), then JtR is most likely to be very poor and the few pence offered are of sufficient value to him that he takes the time to get them back (but I do not believe robbery is the primary motive).

----------------------------------------------------

The "From Hell" / Lusk Letter:

I realize the letters could all be hoaxes, but I think the Lusk letter is often argued as the most likely because it contained part of a kidney, which was thought to be human and from Eddowes.

JtR takes organs from the scenes, which is a form of trophy collecting that other serial killers have been known to engage in. These "trophies" are highly valued by such killers. It seems unlikely to me that JtR would give up a trophy in this way. Something about that doesn't seem right to me, and I can't think of another case where that's happened except for BTK, when Rader mailed in one of his victim's driver's licence but even then he sent a copy of it, not the original. The Zodiac did send in a piece, but not all, of Stein's shirt though. So, I could be wrong, and perhaps it is not as uncommon as I believe, but the very fact the kidney was included almost strikes me as indicating it wasn't from the trophy hunting killer. On the other hand, given the kidney portion was described as showing signs of Bright's disease, which apparently Eddowes also showed signs of, is a point in favour of it being genuine (and would certainly over-ride my hypothesizing above). It would be wonderful to find a slide containing a tissue sample, to determine if, at least, it was human and female. And if DNA could be extracted, to compare with descendants of Eddowes. I would be great to have a pony too, since I'm wishing.

- Jeff

Hi jeff
i doubt the ripper was “very poor”. From the witness descriptions, the times of the murders being on weekends and holidays indicating steady employment, and the apparent ease in which the ripper was still able to lure wary prostitutes at the height of the ripper scare, seem to indicate to me that he was actually probably more “lower middle/working class”. The taking back of money he gave them is probably more for psychological reasons.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Trophy collecting isn't about taking everything - it's about taking something from the crime to remind them of the crime. Photos, for example, are a modern form of "trophy collecting" and it requires nothing physically be taken. When Dennis Rader (BTK) took Wagerle's driver's licence, for example, it's a small thing among many possible things he could have taken. With JtR, taking parts of the body, any part, not every part, is just something he did to remind him of the event. For JtR, I think the primary purpose was the mutilation, or the destruction, the trophy he chose to take in Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly's cases happened to be body parts, but I don't think he cared what part they were before the event (I don't think he thought "this time I'll take the heart", for example.

I don't know the Elizabeth Jackson case, so can't comment.

And yes, two killers can do very similar things, but for entirely different reasons. Dismembering a body is often (when it's done, which is rare), simply a method to ease transport. It often just serves a functional purpose, as disturbing as that may sound. With the JtR murders, the mutilations do not serve a functional purpose, but require additional time and therefore increase risk, so they must serve some other purpose to the killer. Why he didn't just take some less disturbing item, like a bit of cloth, or whatever, probably speaks more to the nature of JtR than it does to reason. With Chapman, for example, he does seem to have also taken her rings - those are far less incriminating trophies than a uterus.

- Jeff

First of all: I know the mechanisms behind trophy taking. I am very much aware that trophies are chosen items. However, what cases can you point to where numerous innards are neatly cut out of the body, but only one of them taken as a trophy? If he only wanted to have the heart as a trophy, why did he cut the rest out? Why the extra work, if he didn´t intend to take advantage of it, adding to his trophy collection? As I said, where are the examples of other trophy collectors doing this?
In my experience, those who choose innards as trophies - and they are extremely rare! - do not cut out all innards available, and then leave them all behind but for one piece.

The Torso killer went a lot further than dismembering for practical reasons. He cut out Jacksons heart and uterus, for example - how does that facilitate transport? What we must realize is that we are looking at another reason being at play - which is normally referred to as mental illness in the books, or putting it simpler: he had an urge to cut up a body, and THAT was what lay behind what he did.

That said, I think that there were cuts that were "urge cuts" as well as practical cutting in the Torso cases. He FIRST cut open the belly of Jackson, from ribs to pubes, and THEREAFTER he divided the trunk into three pieces. So he quite possibly went from urge to practicality: He did what he WANTED to do, and then he prepared for discarding the body. There was never any need to open the body up before dividing it, let alone to dig heart and uterus out - if it had been about facilitating transport, he would have emptied all of the stomach contents, right?
And yes, the Ripper tore the rings from Chapmans finger, and that may or not be an example of trophy taking - just as it may or may not be an example of trophy taking when the Torso killer tore Jacksons ring from HER finger.
I would suggest that this killer - the combined one - was a mutilator, an eviscerator, a ring-stealer, a cutter from sternum to pubes, preying on prostitutes, and cutting them up for the exact same reasons in all cases. An extremely rare creature, as it were, one that is not likely to crop up in pairs by any standards - let alone in the same town and at the same time. And I do not recognize trophy taking as any primary reason in this context, although it cannot be excluded that there was such an element involved too.

[JeffHamm]

Bear in mind, also, that our source for the Bright's Disease story are the questionable memoirs of Major Henry Smith.

Ah, I should brush up on that. I'm working from a failing memory I'm afraid.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, Just a couple of thoughts. From Wiki, It is now known that Bright's disease is caused by a wide and diverse range of kidney diseases; thus, the term Bright's disease is retained strictly for historical application. With this in mind, Bright's could have been fairly common, thus a kidney taken from a mortuary room could have had a decent chance of having the disease.
I completely agree with your conclusion regarding the money, or lack of, found on the victims.
Regards Darryl

Oh, that's news to me (Bright's disease, etc), thanks for that.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I don´t think that we can conclude that it was about trophy collecting in the Rippers case. If it had been, then why did he carve out numerous organs from Mary Kelly´s body - and then leave them in the room?
Of course, a liver could be regarded as too bulky to carry away, perhaps - but the uterus (taken away from the Eddowes and Chapman sites, thereby hinting - true or not - at an interest in this particular organ) was left under Kellys head together with a few other odds and ends. How does that fit the trophy taking thinking? It doesn´t, simple as that.
In this context, please note how the Torso killer also took out a uterus that he subsequently discarded, that of Elizabeth Jackson.

So these two (well...) killers both are into cutting out uteri and discarding them shortly after having done so. That means that we must look at alternative takes on why this was done - because here, it certainly was not about trophy taking.

Hi Fisherman,

Trophy collecting isn't about taking everything - it's about taking something from the crime to remind them of the crime. Photos, for example, are a modern form of "trophy collecting" and it requires nothing physically be taken. When Dennis Rader (BTK) took Wagerle's driver's licence, for example, it's a small thing among many possible things he could have taken. With JtR, taking parts of the body, any part, not every part, is just something he did to remind him of the event. For JtR, I think the primary purpose was the mutilation, or the destruction, the trophy he chose to take in Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly's cases happened to be body parts, but I don't think he cared what part they were before the event (I don't think he thought "this time I'll take the heart", for example.

I don't know the Elizabeth Jackson case, so can't comment.

And yes, two killers can do very similar things, but for entirely different reasons. Dismembering a body is often (when it's done, which is rare), simply a method to ease transport. It often just serves a functional purpose, as disturbing as that may sound. With the JtR murders, the mutilations do not serve a functional purpose, but require additional time and therefore increase risk, so they must serve some other purpose to the killer. Why he didn't just take some less disturbing item, like a bit of cloth, or whatever, probably speaks more to the nature of JtR than it does to reason. With Chapman, for example, he does seem to have also taken her rings - those are far less incriminating trophies than a uterus.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

JtR takes organs from the scenes, which is a form of trophy collecting that other serial killers have been known to engage in. These "trophies" are highly valued by such killers. It seems unlikely to me that JtR would give up a trophy in this way.

- Jeff

I don´t think that we can conclude that it was about trophy collecting in the Rippers case. If it had been, then why did he carve out numerous organs from Mary Kelly´s body - and then leave them in the room?
Of course, a liver could be regarded as too bulky to carry away, perhaps - but the uterus (taken away from the Eddowes and Chapman sites, thereby hinting - true or not - at an interest in this particular organ) was left under Kellys head together with a few other odds and ends. How does that fit the trophy taking thinking? It doesn´t, simple as that.
In this context, please note how the Torso killer also took out a uterus that he subsequently discarded, that of Elizabeth Jackson.

So these two (well...) killers both are into cutting out uteri and discarding them shortly after having done so. That means that we must look at alternative takes on why this was done - because here, it certainly was not about trophy taking.

[Sam Flynn]

With this in mind, Bright's could have been fairly common, thus a kidney taken from a mortuary room could have had a decent chance of having the disease.

Bear in mind, also, that our source for the Bright's Disease story are the questionable memoirs of Major Henry Smith.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Jeff, Just a couple of thoughts. From Wiki, It is now known that Bright's disease is caused by a wide and diverse range of kidney diseases; thus, the term Bright's disease is retained strictly for historical application. With this in mind, Bright's could have been fairly common, thus a kidney taken from a mortuary room could have had a decent chance of having the disease.
I completely agree with your conclusion regarding the money, or lack of, found on the victims.
Regards Darryl

[JeffHamm]

Some other thoughts on a few random topics, but I'll put them here nonetheless.

I believe it was Baxter who suggested a possible motive for the crimes, specifically that someone may be deliberately harvesting uteri. This was based upon some information that a doctor had been making inquiries as to obtaining samples to go with an article/book he had written, and he was willing to pay a fairly high price per specimen. Apparently, some of the medical schools had been approached but this was over a year prior to the murders, and the person making the inquiries had by then returned to the States and was considered beyond suspicion. However, Baxter believed that someone may have heard of this, and if of unsound mind in particular, might have seen this as an opportunity to make a lot of money.

This hypothesis frames the murders, and the attack upon the abdomen's, as serving a functional/practical purpose - in order to obtain the uterus from the victim. The uterus was taken from the scene for both Chapman and Eddowes, and if Charles Cross coming down Buck's Row resulted in the murderer leaving the scene prior to obtaining her uterus (similar explanation for Stride and the lack of any attack on the abdomen fits here too), then at first blush the hypothesis seems to hold.

However, that explanation does not account for why Eddowes' kidney was taken or why the murderer would engage in facial mutilations. None of these serve the purpose of obtaining the uterus, and simply increase the risk of getting caught (and we're now talking about someone who, to make this work, had to almost have been caught twice - or at least once if you discount Stride). Finally, there is no purpose to the extensive and prolonged mutilations performed upon Kelly, no purpose to the taking of her heart, and most importantly, her uterus wasn't taken from the scene.

Baxter's hypothesis, therefore, is disproven by the actions of the murderer as they repeatedly and increasingly engage in behaviors that are not consistent with this explanation, and indeed, end up not even taking the organ in question despite having the opportunity.

----------------------------------------------------

Money: No money was found with any of the victims. The polished farthing's at Annie Chapman's feet are not listed in the reports and only appear in later newspaper reports, or in memoirs of police not involved in the investigation at the time - they are a myth according to Sugden. If, as seems the case, JtR was posing as a client, then presumably money had exchanged hands prior to being led to the location to complete the transaction. Either JtR attacked the victims before giving them payment, or he recovered his money before he fled. It seems to me, if JtR recovered his money, which may explain the placement of personal belongs at some scenes (while searching for his coins), then JtR is most likely to be very poor and the few pence offered are of sufficient value to him that he takes the time to get them back (but I do not believe robbery is the primary motive).

----------------------------------------------------

The "From Hell" / Lusk Letter:

I realize the letters could all be hoaxes, but I think the Lusk letter is often argued as the most likely because it contained part of a kidney, which was thought to be human and from Eddowes.

JtR takes organs from the scenes, which is a form of trophy collecting that other serial killers have been known to engage in. These "trophies" are highly valued by such killers. It seems unlikely to me that JtR would give up a trophy in this way. Something about that doesn't seem right to me, and I can't think of another case where that's happened except for BTK, when Rader mailed in one of his victim's driver's licence but even then he sent a copy of it, not the original. The Zodiac did send in a piece, but not all, of Stein's shirt though. So, I could be wrong, and perhaps it is not as uncommon as I believe, but the very fact the kidney was included almost strikes me as indicating it wasn't from the trophy hunting killer. On the other hand, given the kidney portion was described as showing signs of Bright's disease, which apparently Eddowes also showed signs of, is a point in favour of it being genuine (and would certainly over-ride my hypothesizing above). It would be wonderful to find a slide containing a tissue sample, to determine if, at least, it was human and female. And if DNA could be extracted, to compare with descendants of Eddowes. I would be great to have a pony too, since I'm wishing.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Sorry, in cutting and pasting the above, some apostrophes, quote marks, and hyphens have been replaced by squares. I tried to edit some of them, but it appears my time limit for editing has expired and I can't get the rest.

Anyway, I was going to go on and re-iterated some of the suspect priorities here too, but as that's already covered earlier in the thread, I won't repeat it here. The only addition I would suggest is that the spatial analysis often highlights the area around the graffiti, and if JtR dropped it there after leaving Eddowes (something that is not without detractors), then that area might be an interesting area to look for potential new suspects.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Ok, this might be a bit lengthy, but having had a bit of a play with the geographical profiling routines I'm exploring, and given the number of person's of interest (POI) that interpretation of that analysis point to, I thought I might engage in a bit of overall JtR thinking. But, before I do, I want to make it clear that while I'm going to at some point evaluate different POI, I am not betting on any of them actually being JtR (I'm not suspect driven ), rather I'm just giving my opinion based upon the information I have with regards to whom I think are more, or less, worthy of investigation. Prioritising, if you will, where time might be well spent.
I'm also going to make some decisions that many will disagree with. However, to prevent this from becoming a book, I'm going to have to start somewhere. The first necessary step is to decide what offenses are linked as a series. If you are of the belief "there was no Jack, they're all by different hands, etc", then I've already lost your interest. However, if you're still with me, good linkage analysis is critical to the analysis of the spatial information, especially when we are dealing with relatively few locations.

So, we have:
A1) Annie Millwood (25/2/1888; sometime prior to 5:00 pm; Sugden, pg 31):
A2) Emma Smith (3/4/1888: 5:00-6:00 am; Sugden, pg 32)
A3) Martha Tabram (6/8/1888; 3:30 am – based on testimony by Alfred Crow; A-Z, page 445)
C1) Polly Nichols (31/8/1888; 3:40 am – Sugden, pg 36)
C2) Annie Chapman (8/9/1888: 5:30 am – based on Richardson, Long & Caddosh) Sugden, pp 96;
C3) Elizabeth Stride (30/9/1800; 1:00 am – Sugden, pp 167)
C4) Kate Eddowes (30/9/1800; 1:45 am – Sugden, pp 247)
C5) Mary Kelly (9/11/1888; before 10:45 am; 1-2am? Sugden pp 321; Dr. Bond’s guess)
A4) Alice McKenzie (17/7/1889; 12:50 am; A-Z pp 266-8)
A5) Francis Coles (13/02/1891; 2:20 am; A-Z pp 83-4 )

I'll start with the C5 other than Stride (so C1, C2, C4, & C5) as all by Jack the Ripper, recognizing that I'm going to lose those who question Eddowes and/or Kelly at this point. My decision to include these as "definates" (using that word cautiously), is because of the following similarities:

1. All were either known to engage in prostitution, or were seen talking with men shortly before their murders at a time when they were known to be without funds for lodging. Prostitution was common in this area, and many women at least occasionally engaged in it due to having no other means of income at the time.
2. All murders occurred in highly risky locations, where there was a serious chance of being heard by nearby residence.
3. Given #1, it appears the location where the murders occurred were locations selected by the victims themselves in order to service a client.
4. Despite #2, no sounds (with the possible exception of Kelly), were reported by anyone in nearby buildings. Given there is medical evidence consistent with strangulation, and given descriptions of the blood pattern at the crime scenes, all appear to have been strangled at least to unconsciousness first in a rapid blitz attack, followed by a cutting of the throat in a way that would direct blood away from the killer (again, Kelly may be different on this point)
5. Kelly's location being indoors is consistent with #3. The indoor location, with a bed available, would change what behaviour's Jack could perform; his blitz attack may not have been as easy to execute, allowing for a call of "Murder" from Kelly (of course, if that call was not from her, we don't even need to worry about that). I believe there are reports of what may have been defensive wounds, but this could mean for Kelly the strangulation involved one hand on the throat preventing her from crying out, and the knife attack starting a bit earlier than in the others. In short, while Kelly appears different in some respects, it seems to me that those differences may reflect the change in the location (indoors rather than outdoors) influencing the specifics of JtR's behaviours. Given the locations were probably chosen by the victims, including Kelly, this change doesn't indicate a change in the offender's thinking/actions, he went where they took him and the murder occurred there.
6. All victims had deep cuts to the throat (down to the spine?), with most (all?) showing two cuts, the deeper one all the way around, and another not as long. This looks like a shorter cut, with the head turned away to first direct blood away from the attacker, followed by a second cut to ensure immediate death.
7. All victims had mutilations directed to the abdomen and genital area, with later murders (Eddowes and Kelly) also having mutilations to the face.
8. All victims were left with legs up and spread, and their dress pulled up (Nichol's dress was pulled down by Croaa and Paul when she was first found).
9. Three of the victims had body parts missing (Chapman - uterus, part of bladder, and flap of skin containing the navel; Eddowes - kidney, uterus; Kelly - heart). Given the possibility that Nichol's killer may have fled when Charles Cross was approaching (her body was still warm to the touch when found), the fact that her abdomen was opened could indicate that such trophy hunting was intended.
10. While murder of prostitutes is not uncommon, post-mortem mutilation of prostitutes is (Keppel et al, 2005; found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jip.22) indicate that in the 3359 murders spanning 1981-1995, only 1 case of this are recorded, and that did not involve posing of the body (legs spread, clothing up), so there were 0 cases similar to those of JtR. In fact, not limiting victims to prostitutes, there were only 6 cases of female victims being mutilated. While caution is required to extrapolate from modern criminal behaviour to Victorian, if mutilation was common then the JtR crimes would not have been seen as so extraordinarily unusual – as mutilation murders still are today.

While copy-cat theories exist, I tend to believe that the extensive nature of the mutilations is well beyond what a copy-cat murderer is likely to do. It's not impossible, and I seem to recall reading a thread where someone suggested an example of this, I'm going with the balance of probabilities here that weigh in favour of it being highly improbable that a copy-cat is involved in those 4 of the C5.
C3) Stride

When I used to post here years ago, I would waffle on a daily basis at times about Stride. I'll try to avoid that here and, though I won't hold myself to this tomorrow most likely, I'll present here why I think she should be included. I'm entirely sympathetic to arguments for her exclusion as well.

There are 2 major points against:

1. There was no post-mortem mutilation activity,
2. it seems remarkable that JtR could have then found a 2^nd victim (Eddowes) so shortly afterwards

I’m going to deal with the 2^nd of these first because it's a bit simpler. If JtR took the route, or something more or less like it, when he left Stride’s location, he would have ended up in a location that makes meeting Eddowes by pure chance quite likely. No complex proposing of planned meetings, etc. And, if we take the Eddowes - graffiti vector as an indication of where JtR was eventually heading, the blue route would suggest he was heading to a point where crossing Whitechapel, and so over a busy street, less risky than if he went north, to Commerical Road first. So, while the meeting of a second potential victim seems improbable, we know Edddowes' movements took her to that location after being released for drunkenness, and if JtR fled his first murder with the intention of getting to the other side of Whitechapel and heading northward, then the blue route does seem like one that would both avoid the riskier, but more direct choice, and it also shows that he would have a very high probability of a chance meeting with Eddowes. Yes, it’s speculation, we don't know the route he took, but we do know there is a plausible route that affords JtR to 1) minimize the risk during escape from Stride by avoiding more heavily trafficked roads 2) is a fairly direct route away from the location of the first murder 3) allows him to then achieve his apparent goal of crossing Whitechapel to get access to routes that take him in the direction he eventually appears to be going and 4) results in him meeting Eddowes without having to add any further assumptions (we know she was around there, so her being in that vicinity is a given, it’s only JtR we have to account for).

[IMG]file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cangus%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoh tmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_image002.jpg[/IMG]
We all know of the explanation given for 1, that JtR was interrupted, or disturbed. And if he was, the route proposed above seems to me to be even more plausible (because of the risk avoidance; he knows attention will be drawn to that location, and so staying on less travelled roads would be attractive to his immediate needs).
Apart from that theoretical suggestion, what evidence do we have that supports the "interruption theory"?

1. descriptions of the blood are initially described as “flowing” from Mrs. Deimshutz’s statement that the blood was flowing, and Spooner's was similar, both saw the body before Const. Lamb’s arrival). Const Lamb is the first to mention clotting, and the time of his arrival is estimated as about 12 minutes before Dr. Blackwell’s arrival at 1:16 (checked his watch), so Lamb arrived at 1:04ish so clot was first noted at 1:04. Apparently the usual time for clot to form varies between 5-15 minutes, so we could estimate Strides death at 12:49-12:59, which (given the variation in human recollections and estimation of time, etc), puts the ToD very close in time to when she was discovered, which is almost, by definition “interruption”. This is a summary of a more complete post I made back in 2011 on this, found here https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-time-of-death
2. Deimshutz does indicate he couldn't even see the body until he lit a match. If JtR was on the ground beside her, he too could have been missed (the ally would be dark, Deimshutz wasn't looking for people, and his eyes, having passed lamps, would not be completely dark adapted, in other words, Deimshutz, who appears to have discovered the body at about the ToD, could very well have not seen JtR..
3. Stride's location is on the same level of risk as the other victims, and less risky than Chapman’s. (similarity)
4. There was no major disturbance heard by anybody in residences or the club, similar to the other murders (though if we accept Schwartz’s testimony, an attack in front of people, that did not immediately appear to be an attempt to strangle, is a point against - sigh, I'm doing it already)
5. Stride may have been engaging in prostitution (she had arrests in Sweden for prostitution), and so would have chosen the location (similar)
6. The wounds to her throat (describe) sound very similar to the wounds to Eddowes, of the same night (describe), and so appear to be by the same person.

So we have:
1) Stride as a victim and the location of the murder share important similarities with the other victims and locations

2) the interruption explanation, while apparently convenient to explain the lack of mutilations, is not unique to Stride and could be made in the case of Nichol's and the lack of taking body parts as trophies

3) the time sequence of the blood clotting evidence suggests Deimshutz did arrive at the time she was killed (quite a few years ago now I wrote a fairly detailed post on this analysis, found here: https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-time-of-death ); the key points are a) Deimshutz's wife describes the blood as still trickling,(probably within a minute or two of Deimshutz’s discovery of Stride) b) A fellow Spooner descibes the blood as still flowing - so not clotted, c) Const. Lamb (who reports arriving shortly before 1, but also as approx. 12 minutes before Dr. Blackwell’s arrival at 1:16, making Const. Lamb's arrival around 1:04 ) reports the blood is no longer flowing, some slightly congealed blood (clotting beginning) d) Dr. Johnson arrives between Officer Lamb and Dr. Blackwell and reports blood has stopped flowing and clot is noticeable up the yard (where Deimshutz's wife reported it was still flowinge) Dr. Blackwell arrives at 1:16, checked his watch, and he reports a large pool of clotted blood by the body (about 1 lbs of clotted blood). Blackwell estimated the murder took place sometime after 12:46, and very possibly after 12:56 (Sugden, page 173). Basically, these statements, which we’re lucky to have, indicate when Stride was first found the blood was still flowing from the body, and over the course of a few minutes, clots and stops. The murder does appear to have occurred about the time Deimshutz arrived (he states at 1:00; and note, that corresponds to Blackwell's very possibly after 1:56). Interruption, therefore, seems to fit the little physical evidence we have to work with and so rendering as unfounded arguments that interruption is just a convienient story for those who want to include Stride; interruption is, in fact, in line with the testimony and what little physical evidence we have. However, all that really allows us to say is that Stride’s murderer may have been interrupted, not that Stride’s murderer was, in fact, the same person as who murdered Eddowes.

4) the only wounds we can compare from Stride to others are described such they sound almost identical to the throat wounds on Eddowes: Compare - Stride: …a clean cut incision 6 inches in length, incision commencing two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw. Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck, the cut being very clean, but indicating a slight direction downwards through resistance of the denser tissue and cartilages. The carotid artery on the left side, and the other vessels contained in the sheath we all cut through save the posterior portion of the catotid to about a line or [of?] 1-12^th of an inch in extent, which prevented the separation of the upper and lower portion of the artery. The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages are more superficially cut, and the cut tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. It is evident that the haemorrhage, which probably will be found to be the cause of death, was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.” (Sugden, pg 198/9) and Eddowes: (Sugden,”The throat was cut across to the extent of 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and ½ below the lobe and about 21/2 inches below behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lob of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal cord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery had a fine hole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened an inch and a half, not divided. The blood vessels contained clot. All these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife and pointed. pg 240/1). Similarities; both wounds almost identical in length (similar lengith); both wounds start shallow ending up much deeper on the left than right (similar trajectories); both wounds about 2.5 inches below the jaw (similar anatomical locations); both cuts clean (sharp knife). In short, the wound to Eddowes, though deeper than Stride’s, has a very similar description. Finally, a large pool of clotted blood is found next to Eddowes’ throat (Sugden, pg 178, as per Stride). This similarity of the only wound we have in common sounds like someone doing the same thing for a second time.

5) finally, there is a route of escape that JtR could easily have taken if he was interrupted, was trying to avoid high traffic areas, and which results in him meeting Eddowes without adding further complications.

While I fully accept that this is not definitive proof, to me the above points currently tip me towards including Stride as part of the series (I won't commit to having this opinion tomorrow) as blood clotting evidence does indicate murder occurred very close to time of discovery making interruption viable explanation for incomplete sequence of intentions. There is a plausible escape route that leads to Eddowes on the same night, explains 2^nd murder of double event without complication, and could account for increased severity of mutilations performed on Eddowes. There are enough similarities between the wounds to suggest they were committed by the same person.

Conclusion: Part of the series; some room for doubt.

Now, let’s look at the alternates (A1-A5):

A1) Annie Millwood (25/2/1888; sometime prior to 5:00 pm; Sugden, pg 31):
Is admitted to hospital with multiple stab wounds to her legs and lower region at 5:00 pm. Reports she was attacked by a lone individual, who pulled a clasp knife from his pocket and suddenly attacked her, then fled. Millwood survived her attack, died later from a natural, and unrelated, cause. The exact location of her attack is unknown as far as I’m aware.
There is no signs of strangulation, but there is a blitz attack, and a knife is employed, and the parts of the body attacked focus on the lower regions (abdomen and upper legs, so in the vicinity of the genitals). Victim is also a known prostitute (ref). Stabbing and “slicing”, while different types of use of a knife, could both be associated with what is referred to as picquerism; gaining sexual pleasure from cutting, stabbing, and/or slicing another person, or watching these occur. Given the attack was focused around her midrift, which could suggest a sexual motive, there is some, but not strong, reason to consider this offense. However, there are sufficient dissimarlities that without something else to connect this fairly fumbled attack to the highly efficient attack on Nichols, then this attack seems unrelated.

Conclusion: Not part of the series, but open for reconsideration (see A3: Martha Tabram).

A2) Emma Smith (3/4/1888: 5:00-6:00 am – Sugden, pg 32):
Emma Smith, believed to be a prostitute (ref), reports being attacked by a gang of 3 men who demanded money from her. A blunt object of some sort was thrust into her vaginal cavity, which eventually led to her death a few days later due to the internal injuries.
This attack is unlike any of the series. The motive is robbery, no knife is used, she is not killed quickly, or subdued to be silent. In fact, her death may have been unintentional as it appears she was left knowingly alive. While the attack did involve an attack on her genitalia and she was a prostitute, the entire crime bears little resemblance to the others.

Conclusion: not part of the series.

A3) Martha Tabram (6/8/1888; 3:30 am – based on testimony by Alfred Crow; A-Z, page 445)
Martha Tabram was known to be actively soliciting on the night of her murder. Tabram’s murder location in the George Yard Building’s stairwell is at least as risky a location as Chapman’s murder in the backyard of Hanbury street (where one could at least possibly attempt to escape over fences – though they were high). Yet again, despite being committed inside a populated building, no sound was heard by the residence. Her tongue was protruding slightly, and face swollen, so strangulation may have occurred. She was stabbed with, possibily, two weapons, one wound suggested larger knife/dagger/bayonet (which I’m assuming was the first wound inflicted) and followed by a smaller knife being used to stab her 39? times in the breasts, abodoment, (ref). Her throat was not cut.
There does appear to be a roughly similar sequence to the murders in the sequence of the C5. Posing as a client, being led to a location by the victim under this guise, strangulation followed by a wound intending to kill immediately, followed by multiple additional knife attacks on sexual parts of the body. Stabbing results in blood being carried from the victim and being scattered, meaning the offender would have been covered in blood spatter following this attack.
If we look at the series, starting with Tabram, then there is one major change in the offenses. Rather than stabbing his victim, throat cutting and slicing is employed as the method of murder and post-mortom activity as opposed to repeated stabbing. Offenders learn from prior offenses, and the likelihood that blood spatter from Tabram’s attack would have covered the offender’s clothes to some extent, then changing from stabbing to cutting reflects an offender learning from past mistakes.
Moreover, given the marked similarities between Tabram’s murder and Millwood (A2), the strangulation, followed by ensuring death before engaging in the multiple attacks on the sexualized regions of the body, would again suggest an offender learning from past mistakes.

There are, however, marked differences in that moving from repeated stabbing to cutting with abdominal mutilations may be sufficient different for exclusion.

Conclusion: Ambiguous – but if included then Millwood should be as well, and if excluded then Millwood likewise should be excluded. A2 & A3, therefore, should act as a pair, and analysis should considered results based upon both their inclusion and exclusion. Any suspect, who is “cleared” for either Millwood and/or Tabram, should only be viewed in analyses where the exclusion choice has been made.

A4) Alice McKenzie (17/7/1889; 12:50 am; A-Z pp 266-8)
Found in Castle Alley, at 12:50 am, blood still flowing from 2 stabs to the throat. Clothes pulled up, abdominal cut from left breast to navel; 7 or 8 superficial cuts towards genitals, one cut over genital region. Between being found and Dr. Phillips arrived (shortly after 1:10), blood went from “flowing” to “clotted” (so over course of 20 minutes the description changes, noting importance of this in particular with Strdie).

This has some similarities to the series. The location is very risky, but one the victim may have led a client to in the course of prostitution. Clothes pulled up, attack on the abdomen and genital area, and knife wounds to the neck. However, the neck wounds are stabs not deep slices, and the abdominal/genital wounds much less severe than in the series (no opening of the cavity, or removal of organs). Being found almost at the time of the murder is similar to possibly Nichols and Stride. Stabbing is similar to additional victims Tabram and Millwood.

If one includes Tabram and Millwood, then McKenzie’s murder should be considered highly probable. However, the reduction in the mutilations, and the reverting to a previously abandoned technique does suggest caution, and consideration of possible copy-cat warrented.

Conclusion: Unlikely part of the series unless Tabram and Millwood included. If the latter is adopted, there is still sufficient doubt that analyisis should be performed both with and without this location.

A5) Francis Coles (13/02/1891; 2:20 am; A-Z pp 83-4)
Found in Swallow Gardens by PC Thompson with her throat cut, bleeding, but still alive. Footsteps heard running away. She died shortly after being found.
Interruption similar to possibly Nichols and Stride (pending on your view), indicating the high risk location. Throat was cut. (I haven’t come across inquest testimony, so I don’t have any descriptions of this).

Conclusion: Too little information to include as part of the series as not all throat cutting murders are going to be JtR.

So, in short, I would suggest the analyses I’ve presented in this thread based upon the C5, and the C5+Millwood & Tabram, to be the two most worthy of consideration. While it might be of interest to include McKenzie in the latter, I tend to think there are sufficient differences to be concerned, but as it might be worth doing I’ve had a look and it is similar enough to the analysis without her (though Officer Sagar’s suspect in Butcher’s Row is now in Zone 3, rather than Zone 1), that it is considered on the whole safest to exclude her.

Also, in closing, while I present the wound similarities between Stride and Eddowes including similar locations on the neck, it may simply be that anybody holding a knife to cut somebody’s throat will, given the size of the hand, end up cutting the throat in about this location. That similarity may, therefore, mean nothing.

And please, if you've made it this far, in no way am I firm on any of this linkage in the sense of thinking "if you disagree with me I think you're wrong." This is just what I think is a defendable position, but it is not the only defendable position.

• Jeff

[Fisherman]

Indeed, especially when the police presence in Whitechapel was massively boosted with reinforcements. Under such circumstances, why not kill in an adjacent district where police and civilian vigilance would have been significantly lower, and potential victims more readily caught off their guard?

This is where some added information about Charles Lechmere is much needed.
Why did he not take Gareths advice and kill in "adjacent districts" in order to take some heat off himself? Well, to begin with we can see that the case against Lechmere leans heavily against the Nichols murder - that is where we can place him at a murder site at a remove in time and under circumstances that readily allow for us to accept that he could have killed Polly Nichols.

If he did kill her, what does that tell us? It tells us that he did so en route to work. That he took advantage of his early morning job trek.

So why did he not trek through other districts to fool the police? There are two answers to that question. The first and most obvious is that he would simply not get to work if he walked in any other directions than through Whitechapel and Spitalfields. If he indeed did take advantage of his early morning job trek to kill, then this was where he would kill.

When we try to establish whether a resident of the area is a more likely killer than a commuter, we must also weigh in that much as we must suggest that other suspects like Bury, Druitt, Sickert etcetera commuted to the area in order to be able to entertain suspicion against them, Lechmere does not come with that problem. We KNOW that he commuted into the area on a daily basis, given that it was the exact area he needed to pass through in order to get to work. So on this score, he is just as viable as any person living in the area: his roaming the area is in evidence. He was there. And not only that, he was logically there at the relevant hours too!

I wrote that there were two answers to the question why Lechmere did not search out other areas to kill in if he wanted to obscure his tracks. Answer number two is of course that he DID just that when killing Eddowes in the City and Stride in St Georges.
These two murders were outside Whitechapel and Spitalfields. And once we ponder them, we find that there are two parameters that could either strengthen Lechmere´s candidacy or make it less strong.
The first parameter is the question whether the carman did or did not have any links to these two murder sites. The answer is that he did: Stride was killed smack, bang in the middle of the many houses where he had grown up, in an area where he would be extremely well versed. The murder site was a stone´s throw away from his mothers lodgings in Mary Ann Street, lodgings where his own daughter also stayed. That makes for a very good reason for Lechmere to visit the area, but there may have been many other reasons too - this would be the area where he knew the pubs, where he had friends and so on, his stomping ground for most of his life until he moved to Doveton Street a few weeks before the murders began.
As for Mitre Square, it was adjacent to his old working route from James Street to Pickfords in Broad Street, and so he would be well aquainted with that site too.

The second parameter is the time issue. If, as I suggest, he made use of his early morning job trek to kill women, then we need to have a correlation between the sites, the timings and his trek. And it can easily be suggested that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly all were killed in spots that correlate eminently with the logical routes that were open to him, for the quickest routes to Pickfords from Doveton Street were the Hanbury Street route and the Old Montague ditto. We cannot prove that he used them - or even that he went to work - on the murder mornings, but logic dictates that he reasonably did.

One more things points a finger at the carman in all of this. If he was the killer, then, as I have shown, he DID employ other districts than Whitechapel/Spitalfields. And so we must admit that Stride and Eddowes point away from Lechmere - how could he be in Berner Street and Mitre Square if he killed en route to work? Those sites were not en route to work for him!

True - but these victims were killed on a Saturday night, and that was the night when the common labourer was normally off work. And sure enough, neither victim was killed at hours that correspond with Lechmere´s morning trek. Instead, they work a lot better with the suggestion that Lechmere was free from work since it was a Saturday and that he was visiting his old grounds and chose to kill there. This would explain why these murders happened much earlier.

Now, let´s imagine that another man was the killer, a man with no occupation, like, say, Aaron Kosminski. In that case, he would be viable to have been at the murder sites at any time of the night - or day, for that matter. And so he could have killed them all at any hour. Since we know zilch about his whereabouts and habits, we can place him wherever we want to and whenever we want to do it. Convenient!

Lechmere? Well, the information we have on him tells us that four out of six victims may well correlate to his morning treks. And the other two may correlate to him visiting his old grounds.

But once we alter one single victims' circumstances, he is out. If Eddowes or Stride had been killed around 3.30 in the morning on a working day, then Lechmere would not have been there - he would be traversing Whitechapel and Spitalfields at that stage. Similarly, if Tabram, Nichols, Chapman or Kelly had been killed at 1 AM or thereabouts on working days, Charles Lechmere would be sleeping in Doveton Street.

It is interesting - to say the least - that the murders all happened in places and at times that so readily offer themselves up to support the idea of Charles Lechmere being the killer. One has to be a firm believer in coincidences and a strong supporter of a forbidden admissibility of commuter killers (he lived seven minutes walk from Bucks Row, so that´s how much of a commuter he was) not to put one and one together in Lechmere´s case.

Of course, identifying the killer is spoiling the fun, I know that. But surely it cannot be any real fun to claim that all of this is of little or no interest for the case..?