Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 04:45 pm |        |
I'm just looking for a few opinions on what people think someone like Jack would have done if he had been caught in the act.
Depending on who your favourite suspect is, you may think he was disturbed in the middle of a murder, or you may think he was scared off.
Do you think a killer like Jack would have fought off an interloper? Or do you think someone like Jack would have been scared and run away?
Jack didn't seem to take much care when killing his victims, he didn't take many precautions against discovery. Even in the case of MJK a very good point has been raised in the past that Jack was in a small room with an exit of one door, in a courtyard with an exit of a narrow walkway.
So what do you think? Would Jack have stayed to fight? Or would Jack have 'runaway to fight another day'? Does this tell us anything about Jack? Does it 'rule in'/'rule out' any particular suspect(s)?
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Diana
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 05:55 pm | |
| In the case of Stride, the most popular view is that he did not eviscerate her because he was interrupted by the arrival of Louis Diemschutz whereupon he hid behind the gate until Diemschutz went inside the IWMC and then ran. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 06:55 pm | |
Hi Peter,
My hunch, at it is only that, is that Jack would have fled - especially if the person who stumbled upon him happened to be male.
I think Jack was basically a frustrated coward. Again, that is just my hunch.
Rich |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 04:41 am | |
Peter,
I guess a lot would depend on who came upon him,and where.Would it be a Man or a woman,as sex might make the difference of whether he ran or turned on the person.
Friend or stranger could have a different reaction,and the possibility of someone who recognised him would be something to think about.
There are a lot of possibilities.He was armed with a knife,which was some advantage,and the reaction of the interloper would surely determine what followed.
Having once been confronted by a person armed with a gun,I can only say the outcome is largely determined by the person who is armed.I surmise that Jack would have made an attempt to escape,in whatever manner that best suited the circumstances.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 07:25 am | |
Hi All,
I picture Jack much like the Boston Strangler(DeSalvo). DeSalvo had been interrupted once by a woman and subsequently killed her, so she would not be able to spread the tale. Later DeSalvo followed a potential victim home and was caught by her husband as he tried to pick the lock to her apartment. He was chased several blocks before he was captured.
Later it turned out that DeSalvo had 'blackouts' during the murders, and was completely unaware of his other side.(Much like his wife, children, and co-workers.) So I feel that maybe Jack has the same problem.
Then again, I could be wrong. 
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: maria giordano
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 10:21 am | |
Good morning, Everyone,
I agree with those who say he would have run away.
But if it were the police who caught him, I think he would have disintegrated into a quivering mess, possibly even begging not to be harmed.
I believe that Jack was an inadequate personality and that while in the "fantasy" state he inhabited while stalking and killing his prey he believed himself to be invulnerable. But had reality in the form of police intruded into his fantasy, I think his whole facade would crumble and he would revert to the weak,cowardly nothing that he really was.
Maria |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:07 pm | |
Thanks for all the comments.
I too tend to think Jack wouldn't have stopped around for too long if disturbed, although I'm not basing that on the Stride murder.
So, where do you think that leaves us in relation to suspects? Would Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski, Maybrick have run away if confronted?
Can you think of anyone we can rule out as a suspect on the basis that they would have stayed to fight?
Chris
Thanks for your comments and the comparison with De Salvo, but popular opinion seems to be that Jack would have fled.
Regards to all
Peter. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:35 pm | |
Peter,
I wouldn't compare JTR to the Boston Strangler - my hunch is that DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler but that he was the Measuring Man.
Rich |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 01:56 pm | |
Off topic. Wasn't De Salvo executed? Didn't they find DNA evidence that proved he couldn't have done the Boston Strangler murders, or am I getting him confused with another American Psycho?
Peter. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 03:08 pm | |
Hi Peter,
Yes, its a bit off topic. But here goes, De Salvo was murdered in prison. There was absolutely no physical evidence to connect him to the murders. Many investigators today believe he confessed to crimes he did not commit.
Rich |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 05:06 pm | |
Hi All,
Yeah there was NO evidence against De Salvo. The only thing that put it into his corner was that he was caught attempting to break into a woman's apartment right after she got home. And that according to his work schedule he was supposed to be at jobs during the murders, but never showed up at them.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 05:22 pm | |
Chris,
That's not exactly what my reading of what occurred - but that is probably more appropriate for another thread.
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 07:39 pm | |
| According to the police at the time of the murders they believed Jack would "try to make short work of them" if they ever disturbed him in the act of murder.Common sense dictates that this would happen because if caught it would be the noose for him. He might just as well get hanged for a sheep as well as a lamb. He had nothing to lose by such action and all to gain. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 09:08 pm | |
Given that his weapon of choice was a knife, he
probably would have made an attempt to use the
knife to wound or kill any constable who confronted him alone. Only a decade earlier,
the infamous burglar and murderer Charles Peace
had been captured by a constable after a desperate
fight on a roof, and after Peace wounded the
constable with a pistol (and earlier in his career
Peace had shot and killed a police constable,
who had tried to apprehend him single-handedly).
In 1882, Thomas Henry Orrock had not hesitated to
kill P.C. Cole (again with a pistol)when interrupted in a burglary attempt.
Of course, if several constables or men or women
came upon the Ripper while at work, the situation
would have been different. He might have held them at bay for a moment, but then he would have
been in fairly desperate straits. Even if he
escaped there would have been several living
witnesses to his appearance.
Jeff |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 08:42 am | |
| It seems to me that his purpose included that the victims be found in a short time.He had investigated the police beat times so that he was not worried about them.The other sightings are confused.I don't think the killer worried a lot about being interrupted before he was finished.Has it been determined that Stride was a botched job, and he was unable to complete what he began?With these murders the killer was setting up a series of scenes that he choreographed, and what he meant those scenes to convey have not been fathomed-certainly these killings were meant to be more than just murders.Though he walked a tight rope in those murders I don't believe his being caught was one of them--I don't believe that he thought he could fail.If he was all that nervous he would have attracted attention in getting away, and that is not in evidence. I can't remember which but there is an interpretation that he directed a man to one of the murder scenes, and it is not impossible to think of him in the crowd of onlookers who were on the sidelines watching. Jack seems to have been cool as a cucumber.He had a plan-he stuck to it-he was mighty successful. Being caught never entered his mind. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 10:35 am | |
I quite agree with you David (for the purpose of letting find the bodies in a short time), except for Kelly.
For he, apparently, closed the door with the key.
I know that many would not agree with that point, but if he did, it could suggest that, in this case, his purpose would have been to delay the time of the discovery of the body.
I also agree that there wasn't any nervousness shown, with a possible exception for Eddowes, where the removal of the uterus was a bit "messy".
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 10:57 am | |
| A big fire and delay. hmm |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 01:41 pm | |
| Dear Graziano;Thanks for your reply though the locked door was really not much of an issue since the person who wanted to could just look through the window which is the way she was found.The room was so tiny and the window in such a shape that you could see through it would still limit the discovery to anyone who wanted to look through the window.David |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 01:50 pm | |
It has been questioned why Jack murdered his victims in the places that he did, my answer thus far has been that four of the five canonical victims were murdered outside because that was where they plied their trade. Kelly was murdered indoors because that was where she conducted her business.
Now I am wondering if Jack was taking a chance by murdering Kelly in a small room down the end of a narrow alleyway, a room to/from which there was only one entrance/escape/exit?
Maybe Jack murdered his victims on the streets so he would have "options" for escape. Look at Mitre square, for instance, he could have gone any one of a number of routes.
Wouldn't this suggest that Jack would run rather than fight?
Maybe Kelly's murder was the most daring of them all in Jack's book, maybe it was the one where he thought he was most at risk of being caught?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 04:07 pm | |
Hi Peter,
You make a good point. It appears to me that the Ripper murdered his victims wherever they led him.
My personal view is that the Ripper frequented prostitutes and that he only murdered when he felt safe - except for the Stride killing which was unusual.
Rich |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 07:45 pm | |
Dear Graziano,
Focal length and l-o-n-g exposure?
Rosey :-) |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 11:54 pm | |
Hello Robert,
I know, but not having myself big ideas about the closed door/the missing key/the blazing fire I try to understand what could have been the more logical behavior of the murderer(s) in such circumstances.
If they acted as to minimize the chances to be caught on the act, they would have certainly not set the fire alight while performing (giving hint that someone was inside and offering the possibility to someone peering through the window to look at his/their face), so probably he(they) set the fire alight just previous to leaving.
We know from the other murders that he/they could perform without a lot of light anyway.
If he/they did just before leaving, the only reason is because he/they had to.
If he/they had to, the only reason is because something had to be destroyed.
But I repeat, this is only trying to explain all that in a "normal" way and I totally agree that it could fall short of what really happened.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 12:14 am | |
Hello David,
well there is a small difference between looking through the window and entering through the door.
Bowyer saw what he saw because it was in the late morning, when the daylight was in full swing.
Peering through the window at 3.00/4.00/5.00 a.m. on a morning of November in a small but dark room I am not sure it would have been easy to discern whatsoever.
Nevertheless, when Catherine Picket, satisfied with her night trade which allowed her not only to earn some money but also left her enough time to sleep and recover, woke up at 7.30 a.m., she decided that for this celebration's day she would afford herself some flowers.
Half an hour later, going out in the court, since it was raining and quite chilly, passing the door of 13 she thought she would borrow for going to the market Mary Jane's shawl as she already did some other times.
She knocked the door and, having no reply and finding the door closed, she thought Mary was asleep.
Then she went off the market.
No doubt that if the door had been opened we would today know more about Mary Kelly's time of death.
How can we be sure that someone did not try to get in the room earlier in the morning.
From the site we know that it would have been easy for the murderer(s) to be very soon out of sight.
So, I think the question remain valid to be answered, if the door was closed by the murderer(s) while "escaping", why was it necessary to delay the time of the discovery ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 12:22 am | |
Peter and Richard,
I doubt Mary Nichols used to perform on the pavement of Buck's Row.
There is not a scant of an evidence that Eddowes resorted to prostitution.
Since I asked it already to Chris George but he was unable to answer with a solid evidence or with some kind of evidence at all I would be grateful to both of you if you could provide with an article or whatever describing the usual performing of prostitution in the open streets/yards/landing or/and against fences in London pre-dating the murder of Annie Chapman.
Thank you.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 03:37 am | |
One possible time for the Ripper to have left Stride (with the obvious assumption that Stride's a Ripper victim), is just after scaring Schwartz off. He may have killed Stride because she could identify him, but fled in case Schwartz had gone to summun a constible. Pure speculation, but it gets the Ripper away before Deimshitz shows up and gives him a bit more time to make it to Mitre Square. Since Schwartz possibly witnessed the assault, then this is the closest to him being "caught in the act". So it appears he would "try and finish" the job if he could scare the witnesses away. If it was the police who caught him, he would probably just try and make a break for it and escape. His "confrontation" with Schwartz was just to yell at him, so I doubt he would be physically confrontational with the police.
- Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 04:04 am | |
Hi Jeff, All,
I think Jeff has offered a very plausible explanation for why Jack would have needed to finish Liz Stride off quickly and get away from there, in case Schwartz intended to fetch the coppers.
And is it possible that Jack did not know Mary Kelly was leading him to a room at all? Is there any reason why he had to know beforehand that she had her own room in Miller's Court, and that she would not be attempting to service him somewhere in the court outside? Would Mary need to use the fact she had a room as a selling point right from the start? Mightn't she have led clients there first, and then told them they would have to pay more if they wanted the extra privacy and comfort and time her little hovel provided? It might not have been what Jack was expecting; it might all have looked terribly risky to him; but obviously he took her up on it anyway. Would that have been because by that time he was already worked up into a state of feverish anticipation, and the deal was just too good to pass over? Or might he have thought his prospective victim would be suspicious if he refused to follow her into no.13 and went off without doing the deed? If he had by this point given Mary enough to identify him by, that could have been a problem if she went to the police with her tale of the man who wouldn't do it inside.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 05:15 am | |
Schwartz,according to the interview with a reporter,did not see an assault on Stride.
He saw a man place a hand on her shoulder,saw her twist and fall,and having passed,heard the sounds of arguement as he moved away.
As there were no witnesses to any of the killings,it can reasonably be assumed that they occured at a place and time when no one except victim and killer were present,short as that period may have been,and that the killer was fully aware of the situation and of his chances of being successful in both killing and mutilating,and then leaving unobserved.
I feel sure such a person,confident and resourceful as he must have been,would not be distracted by the thoughts of bloodstaining,but perhaps bolstered by the knowledge of a safe refuge within a short distance of each crime.
A person without doubt both resident and familiar of Whitechapel,of its citizens and night life,and most particular of Millers court and its inhabitants.
H.Mann. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:04 am | |
Graziano, would you agree that Jack prominently displayed his first victims for anyone and everyone to see, but seems very reluctant and
furtive about showing off his ultimate work,- his killing of Mary Kelly,--seems to me he took pains over her killing which he didn't with the others. If the killer had been JtR wouldn't he have torn down the overcoat from the window, left whatever light there was in the room burning, and left the door WIDE OPEN, as he left, to say "what do you think of my latest work". My belief is that it was either some one who wanted to be sure the killing couldn't be mistaken for anyone other than JtRs work and locked the door to give himself time to gather his wits and alibi together ready for police questioning,-- or was Jack in a little bit of a quandry after killing a person it was never his intention to kill, and so used amienities that were to hand, such as a key!!
Or perhaps the door just closed and locked, auto.
Why didn't Jack take Kelly's kidney or uterus,why the heart?. Why didn't Jack take the previous victims hearts?
Rick |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:33 am | |
Hi Graz,
The only evidence that I can give about Eddowes being a Prostitute would be the fact that she was drunk on the night of her death. Eddowes left Kelly penniless, looking to get money from her daughter. Of course she never found her daughter, and no one stepped forward stating they had seen Eddowes before she was found drunk, nor stating they had given the woman money. So whoever gave her the funds wasn't a friend, otherwise he/she would have showed up and given police his/her story. It is possible Eddowes sold something, however, it couldn't be a pawn, because we've already accounted for the pawn tickets. Also she's only got 4 hours to sell something and get drunk, so her selling flowers or the like probably wouldn't get her the sufficient funding for her booze.(Then again she could have been a 'cheap drunk'.) So how else did she get the money for her liqour? Possibly selling her body?
Hi All,
Something just occurred to me. How do we know Jack wanted his bodies found? Just because he killed the victims in the street, doesn't necessarily mean he wanted them found. It could mean that he wasn't crazy enough to bring them to 'his place'(that is if he had one), to commit the murders. Rather he just followed where they led him, then murdered them, mutilated them, and then left. There are many cases of Serial Killer's dumping bodies so no one could find them.(Which of course someone always did stumble upon them.) So maybe Jack wasn't a 'displayer', but just didn't have the opportunity to take them anywhere else?
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:50 am | |
Hi Chris,
We've already accounted for the pawn tickets found on Eddowes' person. That doesn't make it impossible for her to have had others when she encountered Jack. We don't know what he could have taken from his victims, for gain or simply as souvenirs, unless we know everything they had on them at the time and what was missing when they were found. If he had to pay any of them first, for instance, he made sure he took the money back.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Robert Maloney
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 08:01 am | |
Hi Graziano,
Actually, I totally agree with you about the fire and the delay I just haven't fully warmed up to a particular idea I had as of yet. :-(
Also, I was wondering, was there anything ever noted as unusual in the photographs of "Mary Kelly" regarding her left hip?
Thank you.
Rob |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 08:12 am | |
Graz,
I think Jack struck Nichols as he was being led to a discreet site.
Nichols was found outside yard gates (they may have been locked but I wonder if Nichols knew that), Chapman was found in a yard frequented by prostitutes, Stride I do not feel is a victim and Im with you on Eddowes. Didnt Sutcliffe start attacking any female who was in the wrong place (right for him) at the wrong time ? He didnt just focus on prostitutes did he ?
Monty
 |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 08:31 am | |
An old chestnut has once more raised its head once more here. Was Kate Eddowes a prostitute or wasn’t she? Given the flow of this discussion, I'll poste a response on the appropriate Victims topic.
Regards, V. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 09:42 am | |
I have often wondered about the clothing fire in MJK's room. In a previous post Graziano wrote...
"If they acted as to minimize the chances to be caught on the act, they would have certainly not set the fire alight while performing (giving hint that someone was inside and offering the possibility to someone peering through the window to look at his/their face), so probably he(they) set the fire alight just previous to leaving.
We know from the other murders that he/they could perform without a lot of light anyway.
If he/they did just before leaving, the only reason is because he/they had to.
If he/they had to, the only reason is because something had to be destroyed."
Several weeks ago I attended a wedding reception. While seated for dinner, I turned to the gentleman next to me and said "So,... what do you do for a living". He said, "I raise and train bloodhounds". Over the next several hours we talked about bloodhounds. I acquainted him with JTR, MJK, Barnaby and Burgho. He said that the police should have at least tried to use the dogs. He went on to say that it would have been difficult for the dogs to track a scent unless they had an article of the murder's clothing for the dogs to sniff. JTR must have known that the police were at least thinking about using bloodhounds. Did he burn the clothes to confuse the dogs?
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: maria giordano
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 01:48 pm | |
Chris,
I think you are very right to wonder about the assumption that Jack wanted to display the bodies.
These women had nowhere but the streets to transact their business. It makes sense that he left them there because (if I'm making myself clear) those spots were where the victims
took him, what alternative did he have?
I think it's always good to apply Occam's Razor to this case.
Maria |
Author: P. Ingerson
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 02:07 pm | |
Maria, Chris,
Good point about the bodies. Modern serial killers have cars to take their victims' corpses to a hiding place. JtR didn't have that luxury. He had to leave them near where he killed them, or he would've looked very suspicious walking around the streets carrying a dead body!
|
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 04:36 pm | |
| Thinking on, perhaps Jack was not a display killer, if his first victims had had their own homes they would have been killed in the privacy of those homes in the same way as Kelly,-- Oh well! theres another myth shot up the bum |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:13 pm | |
Hi Caz,
I didn't think of it like that. Maybe it is possible that Jack took a pawn ticket from Eddowes? Only problem is that he was quite rushed in his work, so would he have had time to search through her pockets?
Hi Kevin,
Interesting thought about Jack wanting to fake out the bloodhounds. Never thought of that myself. But I do feel Jack needed the fire for light. Abberline stated that there was a candle in the room, however, it had seen very little use.(This is probably the one Mary bought the day before from McCarthy.) So unless Jack has a lamp, or if the mutilations to Mary were done VERY quickly, then Jack would have needed the fire to provide at least a little light for the room. Maybe Jack also decided to use the fire instead of the candle to trick the bloodhounds?
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:28 pm | |
I would suggest that JTR used the firelight not because he needed it in order to 'operate', but because he wanted to see the results of his awful work. The need was psychological, not utilitarian.
Regards,
Mike |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 11:51 pm | |
Hi Graziano,
In Donald Rumbelow's book "The Complete Jack the Ripper" there are details about how prostitutes frequently engaged in sex in alleys, behind fences, sometimes in the streets, etc.
I believe the Ripper murdered his victims where they led him - not vice versa. I assume the Ripper frequently was led to places by women where he did not feel comfortable and therefore did not attack them. I acknowledge that this is speculation.
Hi Harry,
You may be correct that a press report indicated that Schwartz saw Stride encounter a man and that the event did not constitute an attack. However, the home office file, ie police report, which I consider a superior source, said that Schwartz witnessed a man trying to pull Stride into the street and as she resisted he pushed her down to the ground.
Hi all,
Was Stride a prostitute? That cannot be said definitively but her wanderings are suggestive. Perhaps she was not and her killer made the mistake in assuming she was (hence the struggle witnesses between her an assailant by Schwartz).
Like so many areas of this case the answers are unclear.
Rich |
