|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donato Fasolini
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:45 pm: |       |
Hi
Day by day I think to find the answer to a problem: why Jack kills Polly in this site?
I search to explain better my idea. The others victims (Now I don’t want come into the wasps’nest about the identity of Liz’s murder) were killed in specific places, in places more hidden than a street as Buck’s Row, I think. A little resume for clearness (I know the men and women on this board know better then me these facts)
Anne Chapman: in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. Sure a place less bare than a street
(although many people was going in and out in this place by night)
Stride: Dutfield’ Yard. Three wall and a pair of wooden gates.
Eddowes: Mitre Square. A place with the space to hidden a murder
Mary Jane Kelly: A room. No comment.
Then, why Polly was killed in a place so dangerous? It’s the first action of a inexpert murder, a naif criminal who is trying to “learn” his “art”? If we accept that the doors of the buildings in the street were all closed, how we can explain this risk?
Donato Fasolini
PS: Sorry for my grammatical mistakes, I hope that the subject is clear.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:28 am: | |
very clear -- a good question, but I think you answered it yourself, it was inexperience. For all we know he may have had a couple near escapes and become more cautious as a result. Lets say he nearly gets caught right after Nichols. He makes sure that Chapman is done in a back yard. That's hardly better because a lot of windows looked on that yard, but then if he was drunk he might not have thought it through. Same thing with Stride, it was an enclosed yard, but a public meeting was going on in the building with comings and goings. And in fact it is probable that Diemschutz nearly saw him. At that point he would have been consumed with frustration that he couldnt do the mutilations and fear because he nearly got caught. The frustration was clearly the stronger of the feelings because he went on to do Eddowes and her location was less secluded in some respects than Chapman and Stride. But afterward he had time to think about what nearly happened. He probably got a good scare once he came down to earth long enough to think. After that he gets a lot more cautious. That would explain the long time gap between the double event and Kelly. He rejected a lot of opportunities as unsafe -- ones he would have accepted with ease a month before, and finally when he kills again it is in a room. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 638
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
Donato
It should be remembered that the Ripper more than likely killed in locations to which the women led him. They would likely have had certain known locations where they would know that they were unlikely to be disturbed. The girls also tended to be very knowledgeable about police beats. So the first thing to remember is that PC Neil's beat took him approximately half an hour to patrol. Plenty of undisturbed time in the area then.
Secondly, Buck's row was a long, narrow alley, not frequently used at that time of night. It was very dark as there was only one lamp in the row, and high warehouses on the northern side cast quite a shadow. The gateway in which Polly was found was recessed several feet from the line of the adjoining buildings.
From the point of view of anyone entering from either the Brady Street or Baker's Row end, a person well back in this entrance would not be seen, but would have plenty of opportunity to hear the footsteps of anyone approaching from a long way off, and thus plenty of time to "adjust themselves" after a bit of the old "immoral purposes" before the approaching person arrived. Thus, this gateway was a perfect location for Polly's purposes. It was probably also a good location for the Ripper, with several routes of escape, either through Baker's Row or Brady Street, through Woods Buildings onto Whitechapel Road, or onto the railway embankment.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 304
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
It is true that the prostitutes probably selected the locations to do their business, but then after getting there Jack had to decide whether the area was safe enough for him to do his. So the issue of who selected the spot does not have to be an either/or one. I would say the prostitute selected the spot and then Jack decided whether he could safely kill there before proceeding. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Alan.
You write:
"..The gateway in which Polly was found was recessed several feet from the line of the adjoining buildings."
I was under the impression the gateway was relatively flush to the line of houses, what gives you the impression the gateway was set back several feet?
Thanks, Jon
(I'm looking at a contemporary sketch from the Illustrated Police News) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:05 am: | |
Hi ,
I am of the opinion that the killer when in killer mode was oblivious of danger, he simply attacked anywhere.
In george yard building , he could have been disturbed by anyone entering or leaving.
In bucks row or Brady street where she was attacked first he could have been observed from people from their houses, in Hanbury street he was right under several windows and people were abundant in the street a few feet away.
In Dutfields yard, he killed stride just yards away from a club , which people could have exited at any moment.
In Mitre square, he killed right opposite a open warehouse door, and a regular police patrol area.
And in Millers court he took the biggest risk of all, for he could have been disturbed at any time, and he would have been trapped.
So you see our killers fear factor was non existant, he simply ventured out on preplanned nights, and when a suitable victim showed he waded in with no remorse or fear of capture.
Regards Richard, |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 639
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:40 am: | |
I was under the impression the gateway was relatively flush to the line of houses, what gives you the impression the gateway was set back several feet?
I take this information from Ivor Edwards book. I am not a big fan of the theory in this book, but his research on the crime locations was impeccable.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Guys,
Acoustics, as my Pal Alans states, would have been a major factor.
I do not think he would have been totally oblivious to the risks. If he was then he would have been caught. The fact remains he wasnt. Cross and Paul, Neill, Purkiss, Smith, Diemshutz, Harvey, Watkins (to name off the top of my head) were close calls. Was Jack that lucky ?
Jon,
Alan is correct. The pillar (entrance to the stables) where Pollys body was found is still there. Its wide enough to stand flush next to without being seen from either exit on the row. The problem would be if someone was to actually walk by the site. This is why I believe acoustics played an important part for both Jack and his victims in terms of business.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
I'm confused about the acoustics being an issue. How do you mean? How could he test this without appearing odd?
Also, I think that women may have gone to the police if some strange man came up to them and then changed his mind at the last minute during the ripper scare. People seemed to be reporting anyone who seemed slightly strange.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Monty.
Are we talking about the same thing?.
Alan suggested the gate to the yard opposite where the body of Nichols was found was set back "several feet" from the forward line of adjacent houses.
Regardless which publication I turn to, be it the 'Sourcebook', Letters from Hell, even back to Odell's 'JtR in fact and fiction, in each and every case the contemporary sketch shows the gate flush to the line of houses.
I was asking what made you think it was otherwise.
Can either of you poste a picture supporting that statement?.
Thanks, Jon
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 4:20 am: | |
Jon, Sarah,
Jon,
There is a photo on the boards of how the Bucks Row site looks today that Im currently trying to locate. This picture will help me explain.
If anyone can find it please post it here.
Regarding Alans statement I feel 'several feet' may be an slight exaggeration....but only slight. Id say around a foot or so. If you check Stewart Evans 1960s photos you can see that though the garage has been built the actual line of the entrance, which I believe was then as it was in 1888, is set back maybe a foot or so. Certainly enough for a body to stand flush against without being spotted from either of the two entrances to the Row.
Check out these series of photos.
http://casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-bucks.html
PS POSTE ? You havent written a diary by any chance? 
Sarah,
He didnt test it...it just happened. With hard soled boots and shoes coupled with the beat officers habit of checking if premises were secure (as sometimes requested by those who had property) by turning knobs and pulling on doors (thus making a rattling sound,) sounds were rife.
If you listen you can pick up a lot of movement. These sound would be more amplified if you were in a built up area....say Bucks Row for example or Mitre Square.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 283
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Hi Monty, Alan
I have to agree with Jon, and that the gate was just about flush with the wall and New Cottage. I would guess the gate was about 2 or 3 inches set back from the wall. The pillar is all that is left of the garage that was built in the late sixties.
I had a conversation with a poster last year (I think it was Jeff Hamm, but I could be wrong) about the location in Bucks Row, and he suggested that the yard itself was the intended murder spot, but the little gate leading into the yard was locked.
Rob
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Rob,
I think that conversation was with me. On the YARDS thread if I remember correctly.
Im sure I have seen somewhere something regarding this issue.
It maybe in Ivors book but I feel Sugden holds the key.
I am away for a fortnight but shall try to look and post any findings on this when I can.....if I can !
I thought the pillar was part of the connecting wall to the school and was way before the 60's.
But I shall hold my hands up if Im incorrect.
Monty....who never trusts those sketches !
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 284
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Monty
I was close
The two earliest photos I have seen of Bucks Row are one from 1938 in William Stewarts book, and one from 1965 in Robin Odell's book.
The William Stewart one, there has been some renovation done, and I couldn't tell you if that included moving the gate back to allow room for the iron shutters. It is this picture Ivor uses in his book, Ivor's scale is a bit out otherwise Nichols and her murderer would have to be about two foot nothing.
This is Stewarts
Robin Odell's photo shows no garage at all, and New Cottage and the house next to it are missing.
All the best
Rob
P.S. If you are going on holiday have a good one. The work you do makes it a well deserved one. And remember be good if not be careful. |
Donato Fasolini
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
Thank for the answers, very convincing, really the places was not so hidden as I mean.
But I have another question: Do you are sure that Polly met the murder?
If Polly was drunk that night and her was searching customer, can have walked into Buck’s Row alone (maybe her was going at random through the streets) without see that a man was following her, a man that can easily kill a drunk, confused woman? When Emily Holland see Polly she was, according to the testimony of Emily, “very drunk and staggered against the wall” at 2.30. Emily met Polly on the corner of Whitechapel Road and Osborn Street. Than, Polly walk east down Whitechapel Road. Differently the others victims, I am not sure that Polly met his man. I am not sure that the begin of this murder was a agreement with a false customer.
My first idea about the choise of this place is ties at that doubt.
What do you think about?
Donato Fasolini
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 6:38 am: | |
Rob, Jon,
Chaps,
If Roberts (or rather Mssrs Stewart and Odells) piccies are correct, and I see no reason to doubt them (though they were taken 50 and 77 years after the murder) I must apologise for stating there would be enough room for anyone to hide against the door posts and not be seen.
That said, I still feel there would have been enough cover that you wouldnt be noticed from either entrance to the row.
Nice photo search Rob. I have not seen Odells photo before.
Cheers
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 398
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Is it at all possible that the Ripper actually strangled Polly inside the gates of the yard?
I don't mean that he performed the mutilations there, but strangled her inside the yard, in solitude in case she made a sound? Once she was dead he could drag her out onto the street, and begin cutting her up.
Not likely, I admit, but is it possible?
-K |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2841
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Hi Kris
I think the gates were found to be locked. But even if they weren't, surely it would make more sense for the Ripper to mutilate her in the yard, and only drag her onto the street to put her on display once he'd finished?
Robert |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 399
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 11:26 am: | |
Robert,
That's very true.
It's also been ruled out, has it not?
-K |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi Kris,Robert et al
At the risk of agreeing with everyone! The possibility of Pol being 'done' in the yard where most of the 'mess' would have been and then dragged into the street seems very likely to me ,it would explain the 'wine glass' business with the lack of blood,is there any record of more unpleasantness being found in the yard or was it never checked....not that we'll be able to be totally sure of that though. However if Pol had been beguiled into the yard and then strangled prior to her throat being cut then maybe the blood in the yard issue wouldn't arise....The'I say old chap ' fellow may be able to shed(!) some light on this maybe.
Cheers
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2843
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi Kris, Suzi
I feel sure that Polly wasn't killed in the yard. The fact that she was found outside the yard, though, makes me wonder whether either she or Jack led the way to the yard, not expecting it to be locked.
Robert |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 290
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
Hi Suzy
I think Polly's clothes would have soaked up a lot of blood, which would explain the lack of blood in the gateway.
Rob |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Robert is correct, we have testimony that her clothes were saturated at the rear, the blood must have run underneath her body and soaked into her clothes.
As for the location, the original question of this thread.
I suspect, that she had not arrived at her 'place of business'. I join with those who believe that a prostitute takes her client to the chosen spot, not the other way around.
This may have been the yard inside the gates, a reasonable choice but we will never know.
I think her killer struck prematurely, they had not completed any transaction, they were still en-route to her 'place', wherever that was.
I find a subtle hint at this because she had no money on her, these women would surely require the 'fee' to be paid upfront.
Likewise, neither Chapman nor Eddowes had any coin on them, but both of their 'pockets' had been either ripped or cut open.
As they appeared to be at their places of business then we might assume the killer had handed over his 4d, possibly the ravaging of their clothing was for no other reason than to retrieve the 4d.
Nichols, being killed in the street and without her pockets being ravaged tends to suggest he may have struck prematurely, before they had completed the transaction.
I'm intrigued though by that statement of Mrs Colville, which appears to suggest Nichols (assuming it was her) was being chased by someone intent on murder. It seems a bizarre componant which does not fit our usual impression of a smooth-talking quiet killer.
Regards, Jon |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
Robert, I think Jeff Hamm is spot on regarding the fact that Nichols was intending to take JTR into the yard behind the gate in Bucks Row, and upon finding it locked JTR murdered her there in the street.
I also think this is true regarding the Eddowes murder. I think Eddowes was going to use the area behind the double gates in Mitre Square, but again they were locked.
I posted sometime in June, in the thread, (General Discussions,)(Help Requests) (What was in the yard behind Polly) the fact that three of the victims of JTR, were in my opinion, using these yards, Bucks Row, Mitre Square, Berner Street, on a regular basis.
Regards Cludgy.
|
Donato Fasolini
Police Constable
Username: Fasdo
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Hi All
none here thinks that Polly don't met her murder?
I am not so sure that this Jack's work is very planned.
Donato Fasolini
I'm not the kind of person you think I am |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Just for info....
...Eddlestones Encyclopediya states that PC Neil Checked the Stable Yard gates and found them to be locked.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 458
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Hi Cludgy,
It wasn't me who suggested that the intended location was through the gate, but Monty. And, though we can't know for sure if that's true, it makes a lot of sense. What we do know for sure is that the Ripper attacked and killed Polly where she was found.
So, if the Ripper picked the location, that means:
1) he didn't check the gate before finding a victim
and
2) he wasn't concerned that his chosen location was unavailable
This would indicate a spur of the moment kill, or a killer who planned to kill someone, but didn't really know where and/or when he was going to find a victim. Although he knows the area reasonably well (knows of the gated yard area), he hasn't really checked them out all that carefully to know such things as when they are opened. Finally, when his plans failed (gates are locked), he kills in a very risky location anyway. These kinds of actions suggest poor impulse control, poor planning skills, and a willingness to engage in high risk behaviour to satisfy his need to kill. In contrast, he's brought a knife, took it away with him, is choosing victims who will be difficult to trace, indicating he's doing a lot of things to lower his risk as well (whether these are by design or by chance... well, that's for us to figure out really).
Of course, if Polly picked the location, and it was the gated yard, no big problem. We know she didn't have time to check the yard, and for her purposes, the gateway would be "good enough". Also, this tells us that:
1) Jack isn't picking his locations, rather he's solved that problem by letting the victim chose the location (figuring, she'll know of a spot where we're unlikely to be disturbed)
This tells us Jack knows something about the workings of prostitutes. Which would mean he probably knows he has to pay her first (hence the cut open pockets on some victims, in order to get his money back maybe?); that they will have about 10 minutes before a cop shows up; that some noise won't draw attention, but a lot will; etc.
This might suggest that the killer does have a bit of a plan, but it's an awful risky one. The locations are not suited for murder, and how he didn't get caught is still amazing. Regardless, if he does have a plan, it's minimal and still high risk. So, Jack might not be completely off his rocker, but he's not one with great reality testing skills. He might know he has to minimise risk, but he doesn't seem to appreciate the size of the risks he's still taking.
In fact, the risks he takes don't really seem to decrease until the Kelly murder, when he finally does get off the street. But that may be chance if he's letting the victim lead him to the location, because indoors is where Mary would have taken him. That would mean Mary's indoor murder scene is not a difference, but exactly the same as all the other victims: Jack let's them pick the spot and Mary is the only one who had the oppertunity to pick an indoor location.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2863
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Hi all
I suppose there's also the possibility that Jack waited until Polly had finished with a customer, before moving in. Maybe with Chapman and Kelly too.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 462
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I think with Polly, Annie, and Mary that could work. But with Kate, we're dealing with a pretty small window of opportunity as it is. I think Jack waiting for "things to be over with", would not have given him the amount of time he needed. And, if Kate was not a prostitute (as some suggest), then Kate would not have had a customer; so why would he waste time waiting for her? Wouldn't he figure the fellow she was with (spotted by Lawende and co.) was her boyfriend, and unlikely to leave her? I suppose one could suggest the "but he saw them separate, and followed her" idea.
Hmmmm, if he was waiting for them to finish with a customer, how did he get Annie back into the back yard? I think there are some difficulties with this idea for at least Annie and Kate. And maybe even Mary. It does appear she was killed while in her bed and under the sheets. If he waited for a customer to leave, one would think she would have locked the door. Making it hard for him to get in (unless he waited for her to fall asleep?)
I don't know. One might be able to suggest ways around each of these issues. I still find it easier to explain all the encounters as variations on the "Jack poses as customer and victim selects location". But, my ease of seeing things that way doesn't make it so.
- Jeff |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 3:47 am: | |
Hi Jeff,i think I"ve posted this somewhere here before but as its a factual case I think it"s worth posting here again.Quite a while back there was a case in Chester Assises concerning a Dutch Seaman who was found quilty of the murder of a seventeen year old girl living as a maid in a fairly large house in the Menai Straights,Angelsey.He had apparently first seen her getting off a bus.She had then walked to the house she was living in and gone to bed at about 11pm.At around 2am that night he got into her house through at first opening wider a small window above a bigger window which he was able to free.His finger prints were found on these windows
so they were able to prove his guilt.He had somehow managed to pull these windows to after him so that it wasn"t until the police came that they realised just how he had managed to get in.
He strangled the girl.
This man had been found guilty of the murder of other women in several other ports and had served several years in jail already.
I think the case shows to what lengths such murderers will go to trap their victims.Havig learned of this case I can quite see the ripper going back with Mary on a previous occasion,noticing how she let herself in and doing it for himself when the time came.
Best Natalie |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
Jeff, Cludgy,
Whoa there Jeff, it wasnt me that stated that the intended location was through the yard but Robert.
For what its worth I agree with him.
I dont mind taking the credit......but only when its due
BTW Jeff, excellent post (23/8/04 4.52pm). Pretty much sums up my view also.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 464
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Ooops! Misinterpreted a few posts between you and Robert earlier and thought you were the one to make the original suggestion. There you go, always check your facts! ha!
It occurs to me, if Jack is familiar with the workings of prostitutes (where he lets them lead him to a location, etc), then that knowledge would most likely have been gained rather directly I would think. This would suggest that Jack might have been a regular John (which is not uncommon for serial killers of prostitutes). I wonder if there are any surviving police records prior to the murders that might list some convictions for "indecent public activity", etc, and provide some names of some potential "Johns turned Jack"? If nothing else, it might provide some fresh new suspects to look into?
- Jeff |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Jeff,
It occurs to me, if Jack is familiar with the workings of prostitutes (where he lets them lead him to a location, etc), then that knowledge would most likely have been gained rather directly I would think.
Thats something which I believe is true. Not just the workings of prostitutes but police, vendors, geography and life in general in that area. In short, he has a link serious with Whitechapel.
I would also feel its worth looking at not only Johns in Whitechapel but other areas such as Kings Cross. After taking a gander at some of the Police Files it seems the police were following this idea up at the time.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
Hi Jeff/Monty.
Any logical avenue is worth pursuing, naturally.
For what it's worth though, don't you think the working's of prostitutes would have been common knowledge to the local residents?.
Failing that the killer could have picked up their practices via general conversation in any pub or ale house. He would not have had to have practical experience with them, likely every male in the neighborhood knew how they operated.
I think it's a travesty that the killer uses the victims experience to choose the best place and time to commit murder, they unknowingly lead him to a suitable spot because they know the times of the police beats better than anyone, and they alone know the best location for privacy, like lambs to the slaughter.
But I do join you in thinking that the killer's name is likely written somewhere in previous arrests, either in police reports which may be long-gone by now, or more likely in newspaper accounts, but that is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Regards, Jon |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 3:13 am: | |
Jon,
For what it's worth though, don't you think the working's of prostitutes would have been common knowledge to the local residents?.
Oh yes, without doubt. After all didnt John Richardson state he had often shifted on prostitutes from the yard of 29 Hanbury street?
.....and yeah, needle in a haystack. But Im sure he would have previous.
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:18 am: | |
Jeff, Robert, Monty.
Some very good points there.
I would favour the victims leading Jack, rather than Jack leading the victims.
The fact that he lets his victims lead him, and let them take control,would make them feel at ease, let them think that he was just another customer.
If this is the case, it could point to the fact that he may have possesed a certain amount of charm.
He seems (especially with Eddowes)
to have engaged his victims in quite a bit of conversation. Was he playing cat and mouse with his victims? Was this a part of his makeup?
I think there is also a strong possibility, that he had used prostitutes on occasions, before embarking on his killing spree. This man, it seems to me, knows how to pick up prostitutes.
Regarding the money for his pleasure Jeff, I think you are right, the money would have had to have been paid upfront, a regular customer would know this.
I have said in the Annie Chapman thread, that the reason why I think her posssesions were found on the ground beside her, was due to the fact that the killer was looking for the money that he had given her earlier on. The first thing a prostitute would do of course, when given money, would be to put it in her pocket out of harms way.
Risk taking. In my mind, once JTR decided to kill, risks didn't enter into it.
Indeed was he capable of even knowing that he was taking risks?
I doubt it.
Was alchohol fuelling this disregard for danger, Alcohol is certainly capable of having this effect.
As for the searching of known users of prostitutes on police books in London, I would certainly look further afield than London, although JTR certainly knew his East End.
That would be nigh on impossible would it not?
Regards Cludgy. |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 466
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 6:45 pm: | |
Hi,
The idea of looking for convicted "Johns" would either lead to a very long list, or a very short one (due to lost records). To start investigating each and every person on that list would be highly ineffective, but having such a list would be useful for cross-checking individuals who may turn up on the radar screen as potential suspects for some other reason. And, based upon census data, one might be able to isolate or order the potentials (meaning, people of interest); let's say people who show up a couple times, live within some maximum distance of Whitechapple, etc.
I forsee huge problems, such as use of false names and addresses, though, so it's highly unlikely that such a list would be the "key". But having information and not needing it is always better than not having information and needing it.
Other lists that would be curious to have, but one's that probably do not exist, are things like "restaraunt reservation lists"/Doctor's appointments, etc, based upon some of the current known suspects. For example, wouldn't it be interesting if it turned out James Maybrick was found to have a dinner reservation at some Liverpool restaraunt on one of the key nights; or if he had an appointment with his Doctor, or some such thing. Other suspects, like Druitt, would need to be located away from London (having dinner at 8 doesn't really clear you for a murder at 1 after all). Sickert is another suspect where a dinner reservation in France would clear him up.
Anyway, lists don't and won't solve the case, but they can remove suspects. Also, finding someone on multiple lists flags them as "interesting" (I think Ted Bundy showed up on a few such lists before he was identified; this placed him high on the suspect list and he would have soon been focused upon but then he was arrested for a failed abduction attempt). Anyway, putting this kind of information together is time consuming, expensive, and would not necessarily lead to a solution. But, it would be interesting to have. Who wants to volunteer? ha!
- Jeff |
Dark_Intent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 8:27 pm: | |
Pizer (possibly Mr Leather Apron) had an indeceny conviction.
DI |
Adam Went
Police Constable
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
Polly Nichols always seems to me to be the "Forgotten victim." It may not be right, but it just seems like it. So many people are focused on the mutilations and location of Annie Chapman's body, the double murder of Stride and Eddowes and the events surrounding it, and the horrific mutilation and events surrounding Mary Jane Kelly. After reading through quite a lot of JTR material since I first began researching, I just get the feeling that Polly, possibly the first victim of the Ripper, has been somewhat thrust aside compared to events like the double murder. Does anyone else get that feeling?
Anyway, my personal opinion on how the Ripper operated is simply that he stalked the streets at night looking for prey, and once he found one, alone, in a secluded area, he proceeded to make conversation with them to sooth them about what he wanted, and then they would lead him off to a quiet place to conduct business. There, he would kill them.
Now, with Polly, he would at that stage be inexperienced and perhaps unsure of himself. So as soon as he thought nobody was around, he would kill her and flee as soon as possible. Remember, when she was first found, she was still alive - just. So he hadn't even succeeded in killing her straight off.
But after Polly, he would be more sure of himself and only kill in more sensible places. If you look at it, the places he killed slowly increased in safety, excluding Catherine Eddowes. But in her case, I think he was so blinded with rage from what happened when he tried to kill Liz Stride that he didn't mind where or how he killed her.
Once he had committed the double murder, he rested for over 5 weeks, and let out all his rage built up over that period on Mary Kelly. After that, he was most likely either arrested, was put in an asylum, died, committed suicide, became incapable of committing more murders (perhaps through health decline, mental and/or physical) or moved somewhere else.
To me atleast, that seems like the most logical explanation. You will notice that, excluding a few minor exceptions, the murders increased in severity with each victim, and with each victim, the safety of the killing zone increased. It may be that he became more paranoid. Killing Polly where she was found though was a very dangerous move. In the case of Liz Stride, though the alleyway seems perhaps the safest place next to Mary Kelly's room, there were more witnesses to her murder than any other. This may also have scared him off for a while.
Personally, I consider Martha Tabram to be a Ripper victim too, and if she is included, you will notice that she was stabbed repeatedly, not cut as in the other victims. Perhaps another sign of inexperience.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents on that issue.
Regards,
Adam. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 281
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 2:30 pm: | |
Adam,
Interesting post, and I do agree somewhat that Nichols is not the subject of discussion as much as the other women - a comparison of threads on these boards bears that out - though I think 'forgotten' is a bit of an overstatement.
As for Nichols having been alive at the time she was found, I don't think that's very possible, given that her throat was cut so severely as to almost decapitate her. Paul thought he felt movement, but given that Cross was handling her at the same time, it's likely Cross caused this movement. On top of this would be that, in Paul's mind, it would be more likely that he had found a drunk woman than a dead one (the last thought he'd WANT to consider, no doubt), so he was probably expecting to feel movement when he touched her. In any case, I'm not sure it's possible that a woman with such a severe wound to her neck could remain living many seconds following receipt of the wound.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 8:01 am: | |
I wasn't aware that Polly was still ALIVE when found. Her body was found still quite WARM by Cross and one of the policemen, but with her throat cut as it was, I am sure she was dead. though probably not long since.
Phil |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 1:38 am: | |
Hi Tom & Phil,
"Interesting post, and I do agree somewhat that Nichols is not the subject of discussion as much as the other women - a comparison of threads on these boards bears that out - though I think 'forgotten' is a bit of an overstatement. "
True, perhaps I exaggerated a bit by saying 'forgotten', but still, I don't think she's given near as much attention as the other victims are. Of course, that's not surprising, because she has the fewest mysterious circumstances around her death than the other victims. Even I am more interested in the cases of the other 4 victims than Polly's, but still, in general, she just strikes me as sort of the lone one out of the other victims.
"As for Nichols having been alive at the time she was found, I don't think that's very possible, given that her throat was cut so severely as to almost decapitate her. Paul thought he felt movement, but given that Cross was handling her at the same time, it's likely Cross caused this movement."
According to Philip Sugden's 2002 book "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" , Cross discovered Polly's body at around 3:40 AM. He couldn't hear her breathe, but when he touched her breasts, he thought he could feel slight movement. When Dr. Llewellyn was called for, he didn't arrive until just after 4 AM, and he apparently thought that she hadn't been dead for more than half an hour. That fits quite closely with the 3:40 AM time slot, so it is completely probable that Polly was still just alive, in her final death throes when Cross found her and thought he could detect slight movement. She must have been dead for a very short amount of time when she was found, though, if that was the case.
Phil:
"I wasn't aware that Polly was still ALIVE when found. Her body was found still quite WARM by Cross and one of the policemen, but with her throat cut as it was, I am sure she was dead. though probably not long since. "
Most likely quite close to death, but just hadn't quite given up yet, I'd say. She wasn't as horribly mutilated as the other victims, so she may have lingered on for slightly longer than the rest. See my full explanation above.
Regards,
Adam. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 2:26 am: | |
Hi Adam
I do agree that the Nichols murder is somewhat overlooked since there do not seem to be as many lingering questions about that murder as with the others.
You state: "Now, with Polly, he would at that stage be inexperienced and perhaps unsure of himself."
Well, now, Adam, we just don't know experienced or inexperienced he may have been. A number of students of the case believe the Martha Tabram murder in George Yard on 7 August, three weeks earlier, may have been by the same murderer.
In any case, it is possible that he came to Whitechapel fully formed as a murderer, that he had committed crimes elsewhere that did not get the publicity he got when murdering on the streets of London. If he was from another country or, say, was a sailor who visited other lands, it is possible that he had killed before.
I am not saying you may be not be right, but just that you should bear the "experienced" as well as the "inexperienced" option in mind.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 13, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 3:46 am: | |
Hi Chris,
"Well, now, Adam, we just don't know experienced or inexperienced he may have been. A number of students of the case believe the Martha Tabram murder in George Yard on 7 August, three weeks earlier, may have been by the same murderer.
In any case, it is possible that he came to Whitechapel fully formed as a murderer, that he had committed crimes elsewhere that did not get the publicity he got when murdering on the streets of London. If he was from another country or, say, was a sailor who visited other lands, it is possible that he had killed before."
Well, I think it is pretty clear that murder by murder, he became more confident of himself. The murder of Martha Tabram as well as Polly Nichols seemed to clearly be unplanned, spurr of the moment attacks. I doubt very much he, who ever he may have been, was involved in anything more than robberies, assaults, pickpocketing, etc before.
It is of course possible that he had killed before, somewhere else. But then again it is just as likely that he lived in Whitechapel/the East End all of his life, and, as I said above, had been involved only in minor occurrences.
I do think, however, that he must have been subject to a life of crime in order to do what he did. He didn't necessarily have to be insane, though I think he must have either moved, committed suicide or died shortly after Mary Kelly was killed.
I am no expert of the criminal mind, far from it, but it just seems likely to me that Martha was his first and only first victim, and he was unsure of himself at that stage. If you look at it, as I've said before, with each killing came an improved hiding spot for the bodies, and more mutilations, if you excuse a few minor exceptions, of course.
Views on how he operated have differed for over a century now, and it's unlikely there will ever be a total agreement, but that's my view of it anyway.
Regards,
Adam. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 5:00 am: | |
Hello all,
"Now, with Polly, he would at that stage be inexperienced and perhaps unsure of himself."
If you have ever seen TV footage of a Cheetah chasing a herd of Gazelles, you will often see that the cheetah goes after one that is injured, limping, or otherwise weak or slow. This is common... predators seek victims who are vulnerable and perceived as weak. In this context, it is perhaps interesting to note also that Polly was extremely drunk and probably staggering down Whitechapel Road when she encountered the Ripper. As he was at this time, probably inexperienced, he may have been actively "hunting" for a person like this.... drunk, alone, and willing.
Rob |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Rob,
"...it is perhaps interesting to note also that Polly was extremely drunk and probably staggering down Whitechapel Road when she encountered the Ripper."
This is why Susan Ward (or whatever the actual name may be) interests me. Very similar to Nichols to the point that the story may be about Nichols herself....except in the story Jack was unsuccessful.
Monty
PS During your visit to Mitre sq did you see the pavings in line with the original passage of Church passage ?
Fear. Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Monty,
Who is susan Ward? I don't know what you're talking about...
No, I didn't notice anything like that at Church Passage? Is there something there that you have seen? I am under the impression that Church Passage was quite a bit more narrow than the current St. James's passage.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Who is susan Ward? I don't know what you're talking about
Monty I agree with Rob he took the words right out of my mouth!!
Jenni |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 333
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Jen & Rob,
Monty, surely, can fill you in more, but Susan Ward is considered a possible victim of a failed Ripper attack in the middle of September. Check your Jack the Ripper A to Z.
Don. |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 4:22 am: | |
Hi Rob,
I fully agree with what you said above. Predators will look for the easiest prey, even in the animal kingdom.
So, the Ripper sees Polly, probably at some point before Buck's Row. He starts to follow her, and realises that she is staggering, perhaps slurring or mumbling to herself as she walks along. He moves in closer, and attacks her. Being in the drunken state that she was, it would be safe to say that she would have been bleeding or atleast incapable of screaming before she even realised what was going on, if she did at all. Can you imagine a drunken, sick, and probably by that stage quite weak women fending off a physically strong man with a knife and capable of such horrific mutilations as in the other victims?
That's my theory on what happened to Polly. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
By the way, that also might seem a sign of inexperience, to hunt for the weakest victim he could find. Take Mary Kelly, she was 20 years younger than the other victims, and probably quite healthy/fit at the time of her death, since she was so young, and even living in her own room. She certainly would be much stronger than someone like Polly. Thus, that also seems like a perfect sign that he gained confidence in himself as he continued killing too.
In any case, when you closely scrutinise Polly's case compared to the other victims, it isn't hard to see why she would be chosen as a possible first victim, or atleast an early one.
Regards,
Adam. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
