|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 523
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 4:08 am: |       |
Glenn,
I agree....to everything you say.
Please dont get me wrong. Hanbury st yard wouldnt be my choice if I planned these murders.
I feel that there has to be a bit of give here. Maybe a lulling of the victim into thinking they were in control by letting them choose the site.
After all, he could have departed at anytime.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 288
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 4:48 am: | |
Guys,
Hang on, let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that he didn't plan the murder sites (which I happen to agree with) but Monty you also say that he weighed them up as he was taken there. I don't see that. What if he didn't like where the prostitute took him? Would he just have had sex with her and not killed her? He'd already agreed to her "business proposition" as it were for her to lead him anywhere but I don't think he would have gone through with it as he only wanted to kill them not have sex with them. Considering Hanbury Street wasn't ideal I'd say he just killed them where they took him no matter where it was, although prostitutes usually take their clients to back alleys anyway so I suppose he thought that wherever a prostitute took him would be a good enough place.
Hope that made sense.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 6:47 am: | |
Hi All,
I don’t think you can necessarily equate even the maddest risk-taking moments of Jack’s short series with low intelligence.
Many of the world’s greatest physical achievements have only come about because exceptionally intelligent human beings took risks that lesser mortals would consider foolhardy, if not suicidal, and definitely not worth taking. I’m sure everyone here can immediately think of several examples. Not all, by a long chalk, have resulted in disaster, although the longer a mountaineer, racing driver or astronaut carries on, the greater the chances that their passion will do for them in the end.
What if Jack only felt really alive when he was alone with a victim, mutilating her and taking a souvenir of his own great achievement? Might it not then be easier to see him taking the kind of risks that we never would, in the process of doing what a man’s gotta do?
None of us, I hope, would be out there on the streets of Whitechapel, hunting for whores, whether there was every chance we would swing for it or whether the place was suddenly deserted apart from our quarry. It’s not something we can easily imagine. But it was Jack’s thing, and therefore only for Jack to decide whether to do what he most wanted to do and to hell with the risk.
How can we know that Jack didn’t have a small voice in his head telling him 29 Hanbury Street was sheer madness, but the thrill of what he was about to do, and the possibility of getting away with a trophy or two, made the fear of dying for it recede, or even add to the adrenaline rush?
And I know it’s been said before, but Jack only had to spend the same time alone with a victim as any regular customer would be spending alone with a prostitute, and in surroundings chosen by the latter. If anyone had been heard approaching the scene while Jack was in a far more compromising position than a regular punter, he had his sharp knife, his legs and his adrenaline to call upon.
As it turned out, he never needed the first.
For me, this would explain why Eddowes was found so quickly after Stride had to be abandoned, for whatever reason. Jack wanted to prove something to himself that night and knew he still had it in him. I bet he was absolutely knackered hours after reaching base, when he finally came down from that high.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 292
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 7:14 am: | |
Caz,
If Jack got such a high out of mutilating women then why did he stop after Mary Jane? This is another reason that makes me think of Joe, but that's not really the issue here. If he was killing for pleasure then why stop after Mary Jane? Why not kill more and more?
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 787
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
We can't know why -- I for my part don't think he DID stop, I believe he either died or was put away, that is, I don't think he stopped at his own choice. But then again, who knows? There have been cases where serial killers for several different or unknown reasons at least have had lengthy periods of "breaks" from the killing.
We can't, of course, automatically exclude the possibility that he DID stop, but I don't find it that probable for this kind of killer.
And no, I don't believe in Joe Barnett...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 294
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:18 am: | |
Glenn,
And no, I don't believe in Joe Barnett...
Next you'll be saying you don't believe in Santa!! 
Dan,
1) I think reporting that they had seen the dead woman up and walking about several hours after she was supposed to have been murdered is relevant.
2) Mrs Maxwell would have heard about Mary Jane being murdered on that morning on the same day so it's not very likely that she would confuse that very morning with a previous morning. I could understand if weeks had passed between the murder and Mrs Maxwell finding out about Mary Jane but not the same day.
3) This point is true, however it seems highly unlikely that this happened here unless Mrs Maxwell and Mr Lewis were in on it together.
4) This is also true to a point, but Mrs Maxwell told of her sighting at the inquest so how can the newspaper have made this up?
I'm sorry, but if you put all this together and you can see that it is very rational to think that Mary was seen alive in the morning by these people, at the very least by Mrs Maxwell. If you can't see it, then I can't help you there.
Sarah |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 10:19 am: | |
As to Jack's intelligence -- as I have stated on another thread it might be useful to refer to an animal paradigm. Foxes have raided the farmer's henhouse night after night and made good their escape. Does this make them fuzzy red geniouses? Rats hide in tenements and emerge only to feed on garbage. Residents who find their droppings often have a major challenge on their hands to catch/get rid of them. Does this indicate that rats have great perspicacity, or only a set of neuromediated hide/escape programs that come with rat DNA (commonly referred to as cunning). I suspect homo sapiens has a few of those programs too. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 527
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:21 am: | |
Sarah,
If he didnt like where they took him then its just thanks but no thanks time. Its easy enough.
Hanbury st was ideal enough wasnt it ? The yard was a known place used by prostitutes.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 300
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:30 am: | |
Monty,
The prostitute wouldn't be too happy if Jack followed her to the place and then decided not to continue with their business transaction. Anyway, all prostitutes knew very secluded spots so I can't see Jack having to turn any opportunity down. I don't see Hanbury Street as for all he knew someone could walk by or look out their window seeing it was the back of someone's residence. Although I suppose if they heard noise they might presume that it was another prostitute at it but it's still a risk I think.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 529
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:36 am: | |
Sarah,
The prostitute can go jump.
But my point is that a murder DID occur in the yard of No 29 Hanbury st.
Its all ifs and buts. He did carry out this attack. He did get away.
Sheer luck or judgement ?
Both.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 301
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Monty,
I know a murder took place there but my point is that is was quite risky but then so was Buck Row in my opinion. It was an open road and anyone could have turned round the corner. Even though they were risky places the murders still occurred.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 530
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Sarah,
I know a murder took place there but my point is that is was quite risky but then so was Buck Row in my opinion.
Exactly...all the sites were.
But he had to weigh up which site was worth comitting a murder in and which wasnt. I reckon for every success this guy had there must have been a number of failures.
Seeing as the bodies were not dumped they we can assume that this guy didnt have any private room/s or business premises to commit this act.
So we are back on the streets again....very risky....so why make them any more risky by killing in a spot you cannot get any from?
If he just killed wherever they took him every time then his reign would have been ended at some stage Im fairly sure.
He may have been mad but he aint stupid !
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 302
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:00 pm: | |
Monty,
I'm not saying he's stupid. To clarify, all prostitutes knew secluded areas where they could carry out their business without people walking past so they must have taken him to safe spots all the time.
I don't think he'd risk letting any prostitutes go, if they thought he was acting peculiar then he might worry that they might go to the police. I mean, didn't Sarah Lewis go the police because some guy looked at her funny?
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 531
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:08 pm: | |
Sarah,
That was just Sarah Lewis....and she didnt go to the police...she ended up in hospital....we think anyway.
I bet there were many he picked up who he didnt even get to that stage with.
I bet they didnt even think there was something odd about him.
They may have chosen the site but if it didnt feel right to him then its a no go.
Why would it be a risk for him to let them go...just walk away ?
PS Like I told Mullins...the is my trademark...get ya own !!!
PPS My apologies...I got confused with Ward. Im off now to drink beer. Catch you Thursday.
(Message edited by monty on December 16, 2003)
(Message edited by monty on December 16, 2003)
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 304
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
Monty,
Woldn't they wonder why he didn't want to go any further? Anyway if he didn't like where they were and asked them to go to a more secluded spot they probably would have done so as I'm sure it wasn't uncommon for clients to ask this as engaging in sex acts on the streets wasn't exactly legal.
Sarah  |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 791
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 1:39 pm: | |
Monty,
"PS Like I told Mullins...the is my trademark...get ya own !!!"
So... you own the copyright to it, then...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 92
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:11 pm: | |
Hi Monty Glenn Sarah;
I think he might have got a buzz out of killing in the open air just as he might have got a buzz out of taking a hell of a risk[-like" I can get away with anything if I can get away with that!"].
and showing off his quarry -in the open air for all to see[and be shocked and horrified by-another thrill] before he slips off into the night with his trophy.[to remind him of his bliss?].Its all possible because he actually did just these things to his victims.And this brings us back -again to whether he was mad or just bad.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:30 pm: | |
Good evening Glenn & Don (Souden),
Of course you’re right: there can be but little doubt that in the Hanbury Street case the Ripper only escaped through sheer luck. By the way, I never argued he run little or less risk in this case than in any of the others, in fact I said it was quite the opposite and that this was mainly due to the timing. Funny thing is that Annie Chapman’s case is the only known case in which the Ripper took at least two of Annie’s personal’s belongings (two brass rings) with him, which is generally known as an organized trait.
This timing puzzles me like it puzzles many of us. In addition to the fair explanation Caz offered, another explanation I can think of is that he had set his mind on killing that night and wasn’t able to let go of this thought until he actually found himself a suitable victim and killed her – whatever ‘suitable’ may have meant to him - which only happened after it was already getting light.
Besides not being able to think and speak coherently and act chaotically to some extent, to me ‘confused’ also means not being able to focus on one thing. If my explanation of the timing is about right, Jack wasn’t confused in that sense at all, in fact it was quite the opposite, for he was mainly focused on one thing. That’s why I think Annie Chapman’s case doesn’t definitely show Jack was confused.
Glenn, these are some of your remarks in an earlier post:
“…the fact that there were some fifteen to twenty people sleeping or at home, and with their windows facing the yard open…”
“…and when the murder occurred, some of the residents had started their daily work at the ground floor…”
Or you’re trying to make the risks look even bigger than they actually were, or I missed some things, because I read somewhere on the site that Mrs Richardson told the press that several persons slept at the back of the house, and that only some had their windows open, and if memory serves me well, no residents or any other people had started their daily work at the ground floor at the time of the murder. The one about the windows may be a minor point, but the other one is quite important - that is, if I’m correct.
“…I agree he had a methodical MO, but who knows where and how he learnt that?”
It doesn’t matter where and how he learnt it - if indeed he learnt it beforehand, it’s important that he used the knowledge to avoid getting much blood on his clothes.
All the best,
Frank
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 65
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
Hello All -
I've been doing since about... 90 or 91.. Though I think sir Monty believes me to have intruded upon his turf, tis not so. It's become second nature to me... Of course, I wouldn't call it my trade mark.. more like a very good way to show some emotion in a very small space..
And back to the topic at hand.. has anyone taken and broken down all the crime scenes? The reason I ask is because I plan on doing it, but, I'd hate to redo something that someone already has done. When I say 'broken down' what I mean is to take one crime scene, and try to see all the possibilities? Like the one who was killed on the side of the road (the name eludes me right now for some reason). To me that's a very public place, though it was at night and very dimly light. Even if he was caught red handed, dressed in dark clothes and with swift feet, and depending upon how far away the person spotting was, there is a good chance that he could have gotten away.. at least from the scene.
I could be wrong however...
Something else that has occurred to me and I am positive has occurred to others is: How does one perform these mutilations and then just simply walk away?
It's not as if he wouldn't have some trace of blood on him. Even if he wore thick dark felt and gloves (though they might be fairly restrictive). Isn't it a safe presumption that whomever committed the crimes had a place to go to afterwards and clean up? It's not like one could come home to a family or friends and not be questioned about his blood on his/her person.. even if he had an excuse. Perhaps the first murder or so, but after a few, someone would have to become suspicious.
To me, it seems that someone, somewhere had to have known (other than the killer(s) and the victims) what was going on. In my head I just don't see how someone could get away with it unless they lived alone or had put the fear of god® into whoever they lived with so as to ensure they were not handed over.
But, then again, I didn't live in those times.. I don't know how good or bad a thing it would have been to have called him out (presuming he was a relative or friend). I don't know what kind of ramifications it might have (other than the killer being apprehended of course).
I suppose it's also possible that they guy lived alone, and just went crazy one day. Decided to do the killings in a very public place so as to get caught, yet never did. Some among us believe that the killings were political in nature, and that they were carried out in very public places so as to thumb noses at very high powered officials. Personally, I feel that doesn't add up. Perhaps location was chosen for a bigger reason other than convenience, perhaps it was chosen because the voices in his head told him to go there. That, I fear, we'll never know.
Though, if I wanted to scare a few whores (for whatever reason.. church, state, mental issues.. pick one)and had no quams about killing.. it might just make sense to kill a few in 'well known' spots. Kinda ensures that no one will use that 'spot' for at the very least, a short period of time. It also ensures that you get your message out to the intended recipient, in this case, whores.
Rambling again.. sorry
Thoughts?
crix0r |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 3:52 pm: | |
There were a lot of slaughterhouses in the area so it wasn't unusual to see people on the street with blood on them. |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 71
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:02 pm: | |
Frank,
Yes, the missing rings has always seemed to me to be an anomaly in terms of Jack's behavior. So much so that I have wondered for some time that perhaps Jack had simply removed them and placed them on the ground, as was done with her other few possessions, and they were later snaffled by one of the gawkers.
The inquest evidence is not very detailed, but there is a sense that there was a good deal of milling around the passageway and steps between the time John Davis found the body and Inspector Chandler arrived. Those who were questioned were rather circumspect and, except for Henry Holland, denied even entering the yard. Holland did admit to that, but was careful to say he "did not touch her or her clothes."
However, I am left wondering if there may have been others as well who wanted a closer look, noticed the rings and, with everyone's attention on the body, seized the main chance, plucked the rings off the ground and disappeared. They may have looked as if they were gold and even if not they would probably fetch a few pence.
Certainly, Jack seemed to prefer that his souvenirs be of a more corporal kind.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 793
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:06 pm: | |
Natalie,
I see what you mean, but personally I don't believe that is the case.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 794
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:27 pm: | |
Tjena Frank!
"...another explanation I can think of is that he had set his mind on killing that night and wasn’t able to let go of this thought until he actually found himself a suitable victim and killed her – whatever ‘suitable’ may have meant to him - which only happened after it was already getting light."
That could be one reasonable explanation, I agree. But then that would indicate even stronger to me that he was a man who was very much driven by his needs/instincts/voices (whatever one prefers) rather than being able to think rationally. Wouldn't it?
"If my explanation of the timing is about right, Jack wasn’t confused in that sense at all, in fact it was quite the opposite, for he was mainly focused on one thing. That’s why I think Annie Chapman’s case doesn’t definitely show Jack was confused."
I disagree, Frank. If he was only focused on carrying out his mission, whatever the conditions or consequenses, I'd say he wasn't thinking rationally at all.
"Or you’re trying to make the risks look even bigger than they actually were, or I missed some things, because I read somewhere on the site that Mrs Richardson told the press that several persons slept at the back of the house, and that only some had their windows open, and if memory serves me well, no residents or any other people had started their daily work at the ground floor at the time of the murder. The one about the windows may be a minor point, but the other one is quite important - that is, if I’m correct."
I actually think you may be correct, I don't remember the details that much. I really didn't bother to look it up beforehand, I just wrote it as I fairly remembered it. Perhaps my description could be considered a bit exaggerated, but it really doesen't change the vital points. Of course not all of the residents would have their sleeping areas facing the yard (that would be a strange layout of the apartments of the house), but it doesen't matter; facts remain that the house was full of people, some were asleep (some with their windows open to the yard), some were getting out of bed and some had already began working (like the people on the ground floor), with an open access from the door facing Hanbury Street and through the passage-way to the yard. The morning activities had already started to some extent, which made the site in itself extremely dangerous.
"It doesn’t matter where and how he learnt it - if indeed he learnt it beforehand, it’s important that he used the knowledge to avoid getting much blood on his clothes."
Well, why shouldn't he, if it was the method he knew and felt comfortable with? That would only be natural. I don't see the methodical or calculating issue about that detail.
All the best, mate.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 305
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:17 am: | |
Diana,
There were a lot of slaughterhouses in the area so it wasn't unusual to see people on the street with blood on them.
Yes but what about the people who didn't work in the slaughterhouses? Unless JTR worked in a profession which he would normally get blood on him, I don't understand how people who knew him never questioned the blood on him, that is if he didn't live alone or bumped into people he knew in the streets afterwards. Of course, there is always the carriage option but I don't know how feasible that is. It would explain how he could get away unseen and quickly.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 288
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2003 - 6:49 am: | |
Glenn/Frank
First floor back was Mr Walker, a maker of lawn tennis rings (whatever they are) and his "feeble-minded" son.
Second floor back was the Misses Cooksley (no information as to how many of them there were)
Top floor back was Mrs Sarah Cox, a little old lady being kept by Mrs Richardson out of charity.
Prior to John Davis getting up the only people moving about on the ground floor had been John Richardson when he came to check the cellar door and Mr Thompson from the second floor front who had got up to go to work at ten minutes to four. Prior to that the Misses Cooksley had been the last people to go to bed at about 12.30 after they had been talking with some young men in the passage. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
