Why so early?

[JTRSickert]

As we all know, Annie Chapman's most likely time of death was around 5:30am, just as daylight was beginning to show it's face over London. The killer was taking a considerable risk for this murder because:

1. He killed, technically, during the daytime
2. He was in a residential dwelling, in the back yard; anyone could've came out for whatever reason (for example, Richardson came out at 4:45, Cadosch came out at roughly the exact time of the murder in the next yard, and Davis came out and discovered the body) and interrupted him and, possibly, captured him
3. He was in plain view of not just the windows of that building, but also the windows of the neighboring buildings as well.

my question is: Why would he wait so long to commit a murder that morning, at roughly the time of dawn when it would've been more convienent to kill a random prostitute in the darkness with less chance of being captured? Did he get off on the thrill, similar to the way certain people get turned on by engaging in intercourse in public places but the fear of possibly getting caught increases their lust rather than diminshes it? I just don't get why he would've waited to kill at half past five in the morning. I'm sure there were plenty of other pros out earlier that evening. He could've chosen any one of them but he landed on Annie at a very dangerous area in a very risky place. My question is....why?

[Sam Flynn]

Good points, JTRS. My view on this is that, in order to kill Chapman at that time of the morning, the Ripper must have felt confident that he could reach safety within a very short space of time. To me, the Chapman murder strongly suggests that the Ripper's "home" was in the very heart of Spitalfields.

[Adam Went]

Good question JTR, and I've wondered this before myself - especially since all the other murders took place considerably earlier in the night.

It could be that Jack had infact been out looking for victims earlier in the night but hadn't been successful - perhaps he had been frightened out of it by passers-by or policemen on the beat.
Or, if he was a working man, he may have worked late into the night of the 7th-8th and couldn't get out until then.

Another possibility is that he knew it was going to be a market day, so best to leave the killing until as late as possible, that way when making his escape, once he was into the main thoroughfares, the traffic of people making their way to the markets would easily mask him and help make good his escape.

I think if anything the lateness of this murder proves that he didn't leave the murder sites absolutely drenched in blood - slaughterman or not, if you get caught walking away from a murder site covered in blood, you're going to get stopped. I think the worst of it would have been on his hands, which he could just wipe away with a cloth, and nothing more than just a few drops on his clothes.

I do agree with Sam though, JTR could well have lived in Spitalfields - I really believe he lived close to the murder sites, but not TOO close.

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Not only is it a pretty good question to begin with, but what else might it be telling us about the Ripper ?

While Sammy and AW tackle the original question...as well as others who might want to pitch in....let me add three ideas ( old ones to be sure in most cases) to discuss along with JT's original question :

*** Does this murder exhibit or demonstrate a sense of fearlessness not present or at least more evident than in the other murders ( Tabram to Coles ) ?

*** Anyone sense that this particular murder indicates a "need" to kill on the part of the Ripper considering the time of day...or simply an act of spontanaeity with reckless abandon ?

*** Is this the murder that indicates to the Ripperologist that the killer was a local man ?

***

[Adam Went]

Speaking just on the fearlessness factor, I would say that out of all the murders, the Eddowes murder in Mitre Square shows the most of this. Chapman's was risky, sure, but so were all of them - the Mitre Square murder takes it to a new level because it was a double event, he had murdered Liz Stride an hour or less before, police were everywhere looking for him, and somehow he managed to kill, mutilate and escape in less than 10 minutes (between the Lawende sighting at 1.33 - 1.35 and the discovery of the body at 1.44) - this was the main display of fearlessness from him. The Kelly murder, not so much, because it was indoors.

I don't believe that JTR just killed in random places at random times - I believe he was cunning enough to suss out the area, get a feel for how often the police passed by, areas where he was most likely to meet up with a prositute without suspicion being brought on him, when and where his best chances were to escape, etc.

Likely that JTR was a local man, but one who didn't live too close to the sites. I've got no doubt that he lived in the East End somewhere, but it's possible, even likely, that he lived a couple of suburbs away but travelled to Whitechapel-Spitalfields to kill because he knew those were basically the absolute slums, where the poorest of the poor lived and the prostitutes frequented, and he was more likely to be successful there. If he lived right in the heart of the murders, he was risking getting spotted by a neighbour or colleague, not to mention getting busted in the house to house searches and enquiries by police.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Mags]

I've always pictured him roaming endlessly around the area both day and night, as so many homeless/ derelict men do today. I think that and having lived all his life in the area account for his intimate knowledge of the place.


The time of the murder could simply be based on bad luck-- he felt like killing and for whatever reason didn't get the right opportunity until then. I do believe that he was up against a need to kill, but also had some sense of self preservation. In other words, he wasn't a mad slavering automaton.

Look at Richard Chase- he broke into houses in broad daylight. And he was certainly the picture of the wild eyed maniac. Very noticeable. I think Jack was craftier than that. If not fearless, he was focused like a champion athlete.


I think surely a local man. He was in a "box" behind No.29 yes but he was also in a box in Mitre Square and certainly in Miller's Court.

[Magpie]

Or, of course, the murder could have occurred much earlier....

[JTRSickert]

Does anyone think that, rather than walking back the way he came, maybe he made his escape by jumping over the fence(s) so that no one would see him? I mean, if someone spotted a guy walking out of a passageway where a mutilated body occured, odds are suspicions would be raised. So, if he wanted to be careful, maybe some hopping was necessary. lol

[Mags]

That's very interesting, JTRS. If you look at the murder scenes there are a plethora ( that means "a whole lotta", Howie) of fences.

There has been speculation that the women preferred to lean against wood rather than brick. But I've always wondered if the killer didn't jump the fence in Mitre Square then hide in that empty house next door.

[How Brown]

Mags

Plethora thanks for that.:thumbsupbud:

[How Brown]

I believe that A.P. brought up the possibility that Chapman was in the backyard and that the killer hopped a fence as she came outta the hopper. There's no guarantee that the Chapman and the man seen by Mrs. Long actually went in the backyard together

Food for thought.

[Mags]

Always thinking of you, luvvie! :love:

[How Brown]

I know, I know, sweetheart. I think of you plethora times too.:thumbsupbud:

[Adam Went]

Have to agree largely with what Mags said. Some local knowledge was vital to make good his escapes and also to know where to look for his victims in the first place - having said that, with the amount of tiny alleys, dark corners and dimly lit streets in Whitechapel-Spitalfields, he could have almost chosen any street he liked and there would have been somewhere he felt safe in commiting a murder.

This might also indicate that he was a travelling man, someone who knew the area well by means of travelling to and from it for work regularly?

It's possible that Chapman was killed earlier than 5.30 but that provides 2 problems - first, the testimony of Mrs. Long who saw the couple outside 29 Hanbury Street at 5.30, and who positively identified her body as that of the woman she'd seen. Second, John Richardson, who had actually sat on the steps into the yard at around 4.45. This means that he would have literally been inches away from the body had it been there then, and yet he didn't notice it - difficult to believe.
I know that Dr. Phillips thought she had been there for longer, but this was based on body temperature and the onset of rigor mortis, and both of these can vary a lot depending on the place the body is lying, the temperature and the person themself.

Also, the killing didn't take place in broad daylight, it was just starting to get daylight when the body was discovered.

Cheers,
Adam.

[JTRSickert]

Adam,

Was there enough daylight (or any light at all, for that matter) for him to see what he was cutting and what he wanted to cut out and take with him?

[Adam Went]

JTR:

Difficult to say. Sometimes, as strange as this sounds, I find it's just as difficult, if not more so to see clearly in half-light than it is in full darkness. There must have been enough light for him though because he was able to do the same in the Nichols and, in particular, Eddowes cases which did occur in total darkness.

It depends entirely on what time you personally believe Annie died.
If it was at 5.30 am, I think he would have had enough natural light to be able to see what he was doing, but any earlier than that would have been in darkness. Also, because this murder took place in a fenced-in yard, as opposed to in the open street, the first hints of daylight and the rising sun were probably largely obscured by the fence, leaving it more in darkness for longer. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Adam,JT.

A person out and about at night in the dark for a while becomes adjusted. The killer wasn't working in complete darkness and even if it was very dark, he'd be able to adapt to the light...more so if he had been out in it for a while. JT and I both know that from playing football or hockey or that old favorite, wireball, in the street even around 7 PM here in Philadelphia, visual acuity isn't impaired that much. People walking by kids at late hours probably wonder how they can see the ball, but the kids can because they've been in the dark long enough in order to adjust.

[Adam Went]

How:

Yes, I know what you mean. Many late nights have been spent in the cricket nets - even though cricket balls are usually a dark red colour and incredibly difficult to pick up at night time even if your eyes are adjusted.

Having said that, there's a bit of a difference between hitting a ball and removing bodily organs. Is it possible that Jack was carrying some sort of light with him? He seems to have done this in the MJK case where he lit the fire by which to provide the light to see what he was doing.

Although any light he carried such as a lantern, etc would have made him stand out to anyone who had a cursory glance in his direction. It could be that Jack was regularly out at night time even if he wasn't killing and so, from a long time doing that, could have adjusted better to little or no light than your average person.

And let's not forget the possibility that any moonlight there was on the nights of the murders would have benefited him.....

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Is it possible that Jack was carrying some sort of light with him?

Personally, I doubt that he carried anything AW. Matches,perhaps, but its a little bit of a stretch to think he went out with a lantern.

He seems to have done this in the MJK case where he lit the fire by which to provide the light to see what he was doing.

Even Robert Linford or Robert "Blind Owl" Anderson could find the fireplace in Kelly's joint,AW. Again, I would doubt ( just an opinion ) he took some sort of device for illumination.

[How Brown]

Having said that, there's a bit of a difference between hitting a ball and removing body organs.- AW

There is ???:loco:

Where there's a will, there's a way AW.

[Adam Went]

How:

I agree, pretty unlikely he would have been wandering around with a lantern. Doubt he used matches either, or there would have been some mention in the crime scene reports of having found used match sticks close to the victim.
He must have just used whatever natural light was available to him and that, combined with being adjusted to see reasonably well in the dark, and a decent amount of medical knowledge, allowed him to kill when and how he did.

Cheers,
Adam.

[SirRobertAnderson]

[I]
Personally, I doubt that he carried anything AW. Matches,perhaps, but its a little bit of a stretch to think he went out with a lantern.

After seeing Monty demonstrate his police lantern at night and witnessing how little light the thing throws off, I feel comfortable saying it would be next to worthless for Jack's purposes. In fact, it would only have had carried the risk of catching someone's eye towards the scene if even that. Think of a really really weak flashlight and you have the idea.

[Nemo]

After reading the following article by Wolf Van der Linden, I am more inclined toward the medical evidence being correct

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

Considering that the onset of rigor mortis occurs after approximately two hours,and that cold temperatures delay the onset, the time of death would be greater than two hours previous

The later reports from Swanson etc seem to discount Long's evidence, and also Richardson's and Cadosche's evidence is suspect

Thus the Ripper may have been in the yard with Chapman sometime between 1.30am and 4.30am

This is consistent with the general timing of the other murders and indicates a Ripper who selects and kills at probably the quietest and loneliest time of night

[Adam Went]

Nemo:

I've heard of cases where rigor mortis has started to set in within a matter of 10-15 minutes. It's entirely subjective to the temperature the body is in, what position it is in and on the person themselves. It's a very broad range for Phillips, or any doctor for that matter, to estimate on. In any case, if I remember correctly, wasn't there slight warmth still found to some parts of her body?

The testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long combined, with a couple of minor tweaks, places Annie's time of death at around 5.15 AM. Phillips did not arrive on the scene until 6.30 AM. Conducted his examination and decided she had been dead for atleast 2 hours, maybe more. If we use the 2 hours margin, he was only half an hour out anyway. Half an hour is not a lot when you're using just pure educated guesswork.

The problem with Annie Chapman is that, unlike the other victims, nobody seems to have seen her for about 3 1/2 - 4 hours before her death. If we had some witness who knew her and had seen her at, say, 4.30 AM, it would make things a lot clearer. This extra time allows, unfortunately, for extra speculation and theorising.

Cheers,
Adam.

[How Brown]

Adam:

I am going to set up a parallel thread for this long discussed issue of when rigor sets in.

Here's a comment that might be worth considering in relation to your post about the onset of rigor ( I also found a source that stated it can occur within 10-15 minutes ).

Temperature is an important factor in determining the time of onset of rigor. In normal circumstances and at room temperature rigor is complete in about three to six hours. If the temperature is higher the onset is more rapid — perhaps no more than an hour in tropical temperatures

Being a lot of things but not one of them a medical professional, I'm curious as to whether the reference you found or heard of involved a tropical case.

From what I gather and again, I'm simply asking not being a medico...it appears that the opposite of what many people might think is true in that rigor sets in when the ambient temperature is warmer than cold(er).

Is this true...anyone ?

[Adam Went]

How:

Funnily enough, being heavily interested in military history as well, my reference actually comes from the death of none other than Adolf Hitler. Conspiracy theories aside, Hitler, along with his wife Eva Braun, committed suicide at 3.30 PM on April 30, 1945. This took place a long way underground in his Berlin bunker, shielded from the air raid attacks above. Conditions down there were relatively cold and damp. His aides were told to wait outside for 10 minutes after hearing the fatal shot, before entering the room. They did so, and when they entered the room, having checked that life was extinct, proceeded to carry the bodies up the stairs and into the garden to prepare them to be burnt.

Now, Hitler was not a big man, in height or weight. Infact, he was probably less so than he would have been a few years earlier, the stress of slowly losing the war and repeated attempts on his life having turned him into more or less a frail old man. And when it came time to carry the bodies out, it took just one person to carry the body of Eva Braun, still limp and apparently not suffering from rigor at all at that stage, to the garden. Hitler, however, already beginning to suffer from the effects of rigor, needed no less than FOUR men to carry him to the top.

There is a book called "The Greatest Illusion: The Death (?) of Adolf Hitler" by Fred McKenzie which goes through all of that, and as the title suggests it's a bit of a conspiracy theorists book, but the testimony of Hitler's own officers who were in the bunker that day states the difference in difficulty between carrying the body of Eva Braun and Hitler out of the bunker.

So, how this relates to Annie Chapman's murder is this:
Where Annie's body was found, it was cold and damp. Much like the Berlin bunker, then. In both cases, rigor started earlier - much earlier really - than would be expected. This is just one example of such a case, I'm sure there are plenty more out there for anyone who has the interest in searching for them. Again, it is entirely subjective to the person themselves and the conditions they are in - Dr. Phillips made an estimate based on educated guesswork, and with so many varying factors, can hardly be blamed for making an error by 30 minutes or so. Also a question for the medical experts, would dampness/water increase the quickness of the onset of rigor? Cold is one thing, damp is another.

Cheers,
Adam.