Ripper Victim?

[Sam Flynn]

But we'd better return to Tabram!

Indeed. Please. For pity's sake!

Good call, Ben.

I think it cuts both ways, Jane. It can be argued that, precisely because she hadn’t been allowed or able to take a client back to her room before Maria Harvey's last sleepover a couple of nights before her murder, she would want to take them there while she could. It would be much more comfortable and maybe she could charge a bit more for a 'missionary', or a lot more if he was willing to spend the night in her room. By prostituting herself she indeed put herself at risk, but since the Ripper up to then had only killed prostitutes out in the streets, taking back punters to her room might just as well have seemed safer to her with all her neighbours close at hand.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thats a valid perspective, but as we both know, the only man we know she did bring home after Maria had left was Blotchy Face, and I cannot see based upon what we have heard regarding their time in the room while noise was heard, how that time could be considered as "work" time for Mary.

Had she always worked when she needed money, she wouldnt be behind in the rent, nor would she have been evicted from prior residences for the exact same issue.

By Marys description, I assume she could get clients as easily as Polly or Annie for example, and we know both of those picked up clients the night they are killed....so unless Mary had a hairy mole on her forehead that we dont know about ,.... my guess is when she worked, she could expect to get clients.

Which is very telling when considering that we know she was behind in the rent and that Bowyer came Friday morning to collect any if he could from her. Yet we have no evidence at all that says she solicited that night.

All we do have is a witness who said she arrived home hammered, and she was heard to sing off and on for over an hour.

All the best Frank, all.

[The Good Michael]

You could argue, I suppose, that she was drunk that night and thus less careful than she might have been under sober circumstances, but on the other hand, she could have accommodated a client on the streets, surely?

But Crystal, why is this important to you? You think Hutchinson did it, don't you?


Mike

[Jane Welland]

Frank, I see what you mean..

Yes, what you suggest is possible, certainly. Do you also consider that the hiatus in murders - particularly following the 'double event' might have given 'unfortunates' such as Kelly a false sense of security - persuaded them to let down their guard a bit in the belief that it was over?

I think that's possible - but I confess I don't know to what extent the popular press kept the story going - as usual, there are so many variables!

All the best,

Jane x

[FrankO]

I think it cuts both ways, Jane. It can be argued that, precisely because she hadn’t been allowed or able to take a client back to her room before Maria Harvey's last sleepover a couple of nights before her murder, she would want to take them there while she could. It would be much more comfortable and maybe she could charge a bit more for a 'missionary', or a lot more if he was willing to spend the night in her room. By prostituting herself she indeed put herself at risk, but since the Ripper up to then had only killed prostitutes out in the streets, taking back punters to her room might just as well have seemed safer to her with all her neighbours close at hand.

All the best,
Frank

[Jane Welland]

Yes, I agree.

How he met her and the pretext of their walk home is unknown, but Ill just say it doesnt have to have anything to do with solicitation. Since we know Mary has been alone in the room only since Maria got her room on around the 3-4th of November, and since Barnett objected to her line of work, we can safely assume that Mary, before the night of the 8th, had likely never taken a client to her room.

That's a good point, Michael. I also wonder whether she would have taken a client back to her room considering the circumstances in Whitechapel that Autumn. She must have realised that she was at risk due to her profession.

You could argue, I suppose, that she was drunk that night and thus less careful than she might have been under sober circumstances, but on the other hand, she could have accommodated a client on the streets, surely?

Jane x

Why change perfection? Why stalk Kelly, and run the risk of detection? It dosn't make sense. What does make sense (onsidering the murders that were commited prior to Kelly's)is that Kelly took her murderer back to her room after having picked him up on the street

all the best

Observer

I was hoping for the best when I saw the first 2 sentences........at least your post suggests that Blotchy is a far better suspect than anyone else at this point,...as we have a witness to his escorting Mary to her room.

How he met her and the pretext of their walk home is unknown, but Ill just say it doesnt have to have anything to do with solicitation. Since we know Mary has been alone in the room only since Maria got her room on around the 3-4th of November, and since Barnett objected to her line of work, we can safely assume that Mary, before the night of the 8th, had likely never taken a client to her room.

All the best.

[Jane Welland]

Interesting...

Perhaps there was a hiatus between Eddowes and Kelly because the killer was stalking Kelly during that time?

Just a thought - not original, I'm sure.

Jane x

[Ben]

Hey Observer,

Which is why I'd find it very unlikely that Mary Kelly was murdered by an intruder. Why change perfection? Why stalk Kelly, and run the risk of detection?

Any number of reasons really. He might have decided that it would be perilous to risk another street attack, or he might have discovered that an opportunity to murder indoors had finally presented itself. In such a scenario, a different crime venue will often call for a different approach, as we learn from other cases of serial attackers and killers.

Take Robert Napper for example. His earlier crimes consisted of attacking women outdoors in a "blitz" approach, culminating in the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common, but he afterwards targetted Samantha Bissett in her home. After keeping her under discreet surveillance from a vantage point and engaging in "Peeping Tommery", he finally "intruded" upon the home and murdererd Bissett and her young daughter in a mutilation frenzy very similar to the Miller's Court episode.

But we'd better return to Tabram!

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Gareth,
but history has taught us time and again that serial killers are certainly capable of changing, often to an appreciable extent, and often as a result of their haphazard inexperience eventually giving way to a more polished technique.

Thats true, and by the time Catherine Eddowes had gasped her last breath, JTR had perfected his art. Which is why I'd find it very unlikely that Mary Kelly was murdered by an intruder. Why change perfection? Why stalk Kelly, and run the risk of detection? It dosn't make sense. What does make sense (onsidering the murders that were commited prior to Kelly's)is that Kelly took her murderer back to her room after having picked him up on the street

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

in which case the sorts of behaviours they exhibit would, on average, be less likely to change.

Pehrpas not to a Klosowskian extent, but history has taught us time and again that serial killers are certainly capable of changing, often to an appreciable extent, and often as a result of their haphazard inexperience eventually giving way to a more polished technique. While I'm not suggesting for a moment that you personally subscribe to the mindset, there seems to be a general misunderstanding that serial killers are robotic in their adherence to an "MO", and it tends not to reflect reality very often.

Hi Mike,

I said, and stand by, the severity of the throat wound suggest that the killer was ensuring death rapidly....Marthas "dozens of stabs death" does not.

Most probably because the killer was less experienced at the time of the Tabram murder. If Annie's killer had anatomical knowledge or surgical skill, he would have known that death could be ensured very "rapidly" by making a beeline directly for the crucial artery, rather than severing all the way down to the spinal column and failing to seperate the vertebrae.

Point being.... the throat cuts do not eliminate a very skilled man with a knife, or someone with sound anatomical knowledge.

Agreed, but they don't exactly point in the direction of one either.

He didnt miraculously acquire those in the 3 weeks between Martha and Polly

Well no, he wouldn't have done if he had medical knowledge, but if he didn't, as the preponderance of medical knowledge indicates, then he could easily have learned the limited "skills" evinced from the Chapman mutilation as a result of progression and while "on the job" of murdering and mutilating prostitutes.

Thats why the deep cuts, and thats why stabbing someone to death while they struggle isnt in keeping with the above sensibilities.

But it is in keeping with the comparatively haphazard methodology of an inexperienced serial killer whose subsequent crimes appeared more sophisticated on account of lessons learned and discoveries made. As such, an acknowledgement that the "sensibilities" appeared different in the Tabram and Chapman kills would not permit us to attribute the two murders to two different killers.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Frankly I didnt like how you twisted my post to suggest that I was saying that the woman were murdered for health concerns....thats not what I wrote.

I said, and stand by, the severity of the throat wound suggest that the killer was ensuring death rapidly....Marthas "dozens of stabs death" does not.

One of those 2 examples knew how to cause rapid death, the other didnt know or was too emotionally charged to remember how.

Point being.... the throat cuts do not eliminate a very skilled man with a knife, or someone with sound anatomical knowledge.

He didnt miraculously acquire those in the 3 weeks between Martha and Polly,...nor did Pollys murder assist him in what he next does with Annie....aside from changing venues so he could complete the task he set out for, with Annie.

In terms of "people changing behaviours",... I dont see learned skills being somehow forgotten, successful ventures not being emulated in some form in subsequent ventures, and when faced with imminent peril and danger, I dont see self preservation being abandoned either.

Thats why the deep cuts, and thats why stabbing someone to death while they struggle isnt in keeping with the above sensibilities.

Best regards Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Thought processes can change though, Mike, and often do when it comes to a serial killer's psyche.

This is true of all of us, I daresay. In fact, one would think that a serial killer was more likely to suffer from obsessive/compulsive traits than most people, in which case the sorts of behaviours they exhibit would, on average, be less likely to change. There are exceptions to almost every rule, of course.

[Ben]

Thanks for the kind words, Aristocles.

Hi Mike

The actions taken reflect the immediacy of the health concerns

I don't think the killer of Annie and Polly appeared to be too concerned for their health when he murdered and mutilated them. I'm equally uncertain that a field surgeon would ever have found himself in an emergency in which the removal of a head was an immediate priority!

Clearly 2 different thought processes at work

Thought processes can change though, Mike, and often do when it comes to a serial killer's psyche.

All the best,
Ben

Hi all,

I had a thought on the issue of whether the throat cuts on Polly and Annie in particular show signs that the killer was knowledgeable in the use of a knife in such matters as cutting through flesh.

I liken the throat wounds to a field surgeons removal of a limb when a wound cannot be repaired onsite, without blood loss causing death or risk of a potentially fatal infection. The actions taken reflect the immediacy of the health concerns, not necessarily the extent of the damage caused to the body. Many soldiers would have had damaged limbs saved had they access to sterile, surgical, secure medical attention.

The cuts are so severe in Pollys and Annies case because there wasnt time to perform cuts that might not kill them immediately. Which shows us that Overkill can take a few different forms.....overkill by stabbing 39 times to merely cause death, when one cut could do the same.....and Overkill by the severity of the throat cuts....to ensure death.

Clearly 2 different thought processes at work.

All the best.