|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:56 am: | 
|
Rob, Glenn, Frank and Phil...God rest his soul !
Glenn,
"Monty, never underestimate the intellectual importance of a picky Bugger"
Mmmm, intellectual?? Youse taken the pis...anyway. Another thing I forgot to add to Phils point 1) Paul actually felt for Nichols life signs while Cross refused to. He detected a faint heartbeat. Like I said before, who do we believe?
Frank,
Yes, another ponderer from Llewellyn.
Rob & Phil,
Cheers however, I would like to hear both your views on the 10 questions.
..and Dear Kitty,
If you are still around, please I mean no malaice. Rather than run to Spry behind peoples back I post my views for all to see.
I just wish you would post more on the topic in hand rather than wage war against those that have slighted you. Dave Radka is (IMHO) slated too often. True sometimes he is his own worst enemy yet even he contributes meaningful, on topic posts.
If you feel picked on and maligned then rise above it by posting more relivant and positive posts.
I dont hate ya.....honest.
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 136
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 4:15 am: |
|
Hi all,
Wow, this thread has certainly taken off in a huge proportion since I first replied on here. Some quite interesting answers!!
So Phil, when does the next round of interrogations (i.e. Questions) come out? Can't wait! 
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 264
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Let's stick with Nichols for a while. Let's do it to death--as it were.
There just couldn't have been a pulse with that throat wound, running down to the vertebrae.
I think we have to assume that the victims led the killer to their favored places of business unless good evidence suggests otherwise.They were killed on the spot.
I think this is an "immature" MO and I don't rule out Tabram as a victim although the lack of throat cutting is the big problem there.
This was an unusual killing for Whitechapel.
Here's a queston, and an oldie but goodie at that:
How did Jack make the original attack, which must have rendered the victims unconscious right away,and do it so swiftly and quietly?
Mags
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
OK
1.Have I ommitted anything important?
Probably, but I am not sure what.
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
I agree with Monty, probably Whitechapel Road. But it could have been anywhere really. Take where she was last seen (on Whitechapel Road at Osborn Street walking east) and where she was found murdered... somewhere between these two points probably.
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
I think she led him there. I think this aspect of JTR's M.O. is pretty consistent.
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
Good question. I would say a little of both. May have been "immature" in the sense that he was nervous, and heard footsteps approaching, so he left rather quickly. Yeah, so I would say either one or possibly both is probably true.
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
Yes definetly. As was Tabram's killing.
6. How did the killer escape?
I defer to better judgement, but I think Woods Alley Buildings.
7. Was the bonnet of any significance?
No idea.
8. Was polly killed where she was found?
Yes.
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
No.
10. Any other questions?
I'll get back to you if I think of any.
Rob
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
My apologies for not having been on line for a day or so - I have been away on business. I will provide some positive responses and hopefully take things further, tonight.
Thanks for all your support - interruptions apart - this seems to have taken off even better than I had hoped.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 428
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Hi Mags,
That's a very good question.
IMHO Jack the Ripper didn't waste much time, if any. He probably struck as soon as the first opportunity presented itself. This may have been the first moment she wasn't focusing her attention all that much on him but on something else, like the lifting of her skirts, as is suggested elsewhere on Casebook, or, like I suggested above, the getting ready to put away the money (she thought) he was to give her. In Nichols' case that may have been the taking off of her bonnet.
In Nichols' case (as well as Chapman's) there's evidence of strangulation, which would indeed account for the silence these murders were surrounded with. I feel that the Ripper attacked from in front. What I in turn would like to know is how long it would (approximately) take to strangle someone into consciousness at least. Also, wouldn't manual strangulation leave its marks on the neck?
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
pf arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
I've no 'expert' knowledge on the case but would agree with what seems to be the general consences from the above posts that Polly was murdered where she was found probably by someone she thought was a customer. Whether or not there were similar brutal killings previously the newspaper responses shows this was something (along with Tabram) out of the norm.
As to anything left out, i think the fact that Polly suffered two stabs wounds is relevent in the context of looking at potential previous victims. |
hkev
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Here's a question for the serial killer experts.
The first murder may be the most important in terms of where it happened.
Is there a pattern in a killer's first murder in relation to the distance to his home ?
Can't decide if would would be more likely to be far from home (to divert suspicion)
or close (to benefit from local knowledge and allow a quick return home)
Thanks
Kev.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 265
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
As far as geographical profiling goes,I find it interesting that if we exclude Stride-and I do- all the murders including Tabram occured north (above)the Whitechapel /Aldgate Road line.
Mags
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
As far as the heart beating after the throat is slit I am about to bore you with more stuff from my anatomy class last summer.
The pacemaker of the heart is the sinoatrial node. It is located in the heart and not the brain. It will send out electrical signals to beat whether the throat is slit or not. That is why a person bleeds out after their throat is slit. The heart does not stop immediately. I once saw a chicken killed by decapitation. Not to gross anyone out, but the blood literally squirted out for some time. (By the way, I hope never to repeat that experience, I threw up!)
The vagus nerve carries sympathetic and parasympathetic impulses down from the brain to speed or slow the heart, but it is capable of beating independent of this. If the spinal cord has not been penetrated the vagus will not have been cut anyway.
As the person bleeds out and blood pressure falls the brain and heart both begin to lose blood supply. As oxygen and nutrients are cut off, cellular level death begins.
If as seems likely the throat slitting would result in obstruction of the airway (blood in the trachea, etc.) the process would be hastened although I suppose one could hypothetically breathe through the cut end of the trachea as one does in a tracheotomy.
In the last few instants of consciousness these women would have been terrified. Therefore the adrenal glands would have pumped out a lot of epinephrine and norepinephrine (fight or flight) which would have speeded up the heart.
This is all based on what I understood in my anatomy class. If anyone has more expertise please correct me. |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
Hi all, my two cents, for what it's worth:
1.Have I ommitted anything important?
Maybe, but, as Rob House has said, I'm not sure what.
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
Again, as Rob House has said, it could have been anywhere, really. But if she was last seen walking along the Whitechapel Road, then I suspect that that may be where.
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
Hmm.. I'm just not sure... I suspect that she led him, rather than the other way around, if she was looking for a john, and believed him to be one.
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
Well, I'd have to go with Rob, once again. Maybe he did hear footsteps approaching, and took off in a hurry. Or maybe just hadn't mastered his MO.. you know what? I'm going for the "he heard footsteps".
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
Yes, from what I've read, it seems so.
6. How did the killer escape?
No idea! Wish I had.
7. Was the bonnet of any significance?
Probably not. It may have been a "gift" from a previous client. I doubt that "Jack" gave her the bonnet and then arranged another meeting. I just don't see Jack doing that.
8. Was polly killed where she was found?
Yes.
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
No.
10. Any other questions?
Not at this time, no. But if any crop up, I'll let you know.
Bestest,
Lyn
(Who has absolutely no idea what she's talking about most of the time, and thanks you all for bearing with her)
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 267
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
I've though of another question we should probably ask in each case: is there anyone who had a grudge against the victim and who should be considered a suspect in her murder?
I wish I hadn't thought of this as I hate the can of worms it opens up but if we were investigating this case now it would be the first thing we asked.
Any reason to suspect this wasn't a "stranger" murder?
Mags
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2741
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Mags,
You are quite right, such a question is of course one of the first to ask in a police investigation (along with checking up on the closest male persons in relation to her) -- at least if it was a case fitting in a domestic environment like Mary Kelly's (since Polly and the others were street-walkers, this naturally leaves other angles to investigate as well, considering their hazardious working situation).
But since this is a murder in a serial context, it wouldn't explain the other murders.
Unless the victims had a personal connection to each other -- and then I believe we're opening up a can of worms! (We wouldn't want to beam Richard up here with the 39 theory, would we... no offense, Rich )
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 08, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 9:19 am: |
|
Mags, you wrote:
I've though of another question we should probably ask in each case: is there anyone who had a grudge against the victim and who should be considered a suspect in her murder? ... if we were investigating this case now it would be the first thing we asked... Any reason to suspect this wasn't a "stranger" murder?
I'm unaware of anyone in Nichols' background who might have had a motive - or of any suggestion of one. Unless it's Emily Holland, of course, who followed and slew Polly to get that jolly bonnet. Then failed, because she was disturbed by Cross and had to leave the hat at the scene... |
Alison
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Hello everyone, I have been reading these boards for quite some time but this is the first post. I felt I had to help out on the medical questions since I am an RN.
Mags - As any good nurse knows, there are plenty of other places to check a pulse besides the neck/corotid artery. You can check the: inside wrist/radial artery, back of the knee/popliteal artery, inside arm/brachial artery, etc. You can even put an ear to the chest to hear the heart beating.
Frank - manual strangulation would leave marks on the neck (especially if it was by something thin like a cord or even a hand) but they may have been obscured by the cut. I believe the killer came up from behind and cut off the air supply/trachea and blood supply/carotid arteries using the insides of his arm. That would stop any loud noises coming from the victim and only leave faint bruising or redness. This would cause the victim to pass out within a minute or so.
Anyone - maybe this was answered before but; is there a difference between the knife used in this killing and in any of the others. Exactly what type of knife was it?
Alison |
Vanessa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Vanessa.
Criminology Student.
In my opinion Polly was not a Ripper Victim. Is there anything to suggest she was? I would like to have your opinions. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 1:39 am: |
|
I'm finding the focus on a single murder quite helpful. Here are some additional points on the Nichols Case that ocurred to me and might have a bearing:
WEATHER: It had been raining, there seem to have been frequent heavy showers and a thunderstorm - but was still summer (although 1888 was one of the colest on record). I suppose the weather might have some bearing as we consider other murders.
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES: The serious fire at the docks - South Quay wharehouses - which created large crowds of spectators and was visible from a long way away. This has two implications for me:
a) there might have been even more people on the streets that night than usual. Polly said nothing recorded about even registering there was a fire to see - perhaps she was too drunk. I doubt she was reeling off eastwards at 2.30am to see it!! BUT
b) could Jack conceivably have been RETURNING from watching the fire - hence why he was on the streets at that hour? What would the reasonable direction for him to walk have been?
I have always personally seen him as walking eastward as was Polly. But what if he was returning westward? Could the two of them have "collided" in Buck's Row if he was using back streets and she was too? He then continued westward after the murder? Just a thought.
DAY: The events took place in the early hours of Friday 31 August. Is there significance in that? Jewish sabbath begins at sunset on Friday, I believe, so even a Jew would have been working on a Friday - ie Jack could not "lie in" after a late night. Friday was not a day of leisure for anyone - the "weekend" in those days would not have started until Saturday afternoon/evening and may just have been Sunday.
For more leisured classes - thinking of Druitt - did Courts then sit on Fridays? Would his school have been on holiday or was this term time.
As Cross and Paul were on their way to work at that hour in the morning, could the same have been true of Jack? That is, that he killed Polly not on a nighttime foray, but did so while en route to his job? How does that tie in with Barnett or Hutchinson?
Does a Friday fit with any other suspect?
Do these points give any one else pause for thought?
Questions always questions...
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
SUMMARY
Here is the first (Swansonesque?) summary of your contributions so far. I thought this might be useful, particularly in view of the digression half-way through the thread. Further comments are welcome as we progress.
I hope I have attributed views to the correct posters and pardon me if I have not mentioned every name.
1.Have I ommitted anything important?
The concensus seems to be that my summary was reasonably comprehensive. However, the question of whether those who discovered the body felt a heartbeat was raised. On balance, the view seems to be that Nichols could not have been other than dead, given the nature of her throat wound, but that the body was still warm, the assumption being that life was not long extinct.
It was also pointed out that after a more minute examination of the body Dr. Llewellyn found that the wounds to the abdomen were in themselves sufficient enough to cause instant death, and thought that they were inflicted before the throat was cut. That seems to reinforce the basic premise that she was dead (but not long so) when discovered.
In my view this is beyond question the simplest of the “canonical” murders to summarise. We actually don’t have much to go on.
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
All seemed agreed, and I concur, that this was a question impossible to answer other than by surmise.
Adam, does not believe that unlike later murders, Jack spoke to his victim in this case (do you have evidence for that?) and takes the view that the attack on Polly was a surprise one. His view is that the Ripper met Polly somewhere around Brady Street and proceeded to follow her - for some 5 minutes - down Buck's Row, where he grabbed her. Adam is of the opinion that Jack met Polly at around 3:20 AM.
Glenn looked at other cases and sees it as beginning as a client-prostitute deal, and that Nichols led him to the spot by Nichols. He believes it to have been a “blitz-attack” and that death was more or less instant, since her eyes were open.
Frank sees a similarity between Polly’s murder and the attack on Ada Wilson (on the other side of Mile End Road, about a mile farther east and about as close to it as Polly Nichols. So, they may have met on Whitechapel Road, and probably no more than minutes before he killed her. Monty, also thinks Whitechapel Road (or maybe Old Montague St) but with a chance that the spot was the Woods Building alley/Whitechapel Rd junction.
Jfripper places the meeting close to the junction of Whitechapel Road and Bakers Row, because Whitechapel Road was the main thoroughfare, and therefore probably more populated at that hour. Also, the last reported sighting had her wondering off eastward along Whitechapel Road. Maybe her killer spent some time trailing her along Whitechapel Road and finally accosted her when the road was deserted. (Echoes of Adam here.)
For what my view is worth, I think they may have arrived, and Jack departed, via Court Street. Unless, JtR was a local, in which case the Woods building Alley might have been known to him.
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
Adam sees Polly as staggering ahead when the Ripper snuck up on her from behind. Frank suggests that Jack may have deliberately used the rough knowledge his victims must have had as prostitutes, of the police beats in the area where they were intending to service him. Monty agreed. Jfipper thinks Polly may have known about the gateway in Bucks Row and probably expected the gates to Essex Wharf to be unlocked, with the possibility that it was her killer who knew not forgotten. Elise too sees Nichols as leading her killer.
My personal view is that she led him to the spot, and he struck as she turned her back and lifted her skirts, but I have no evidence to back that up.
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
Adam sees this as Jack’s first attempt at an actual mutilation murder, and his 'inexperience' meant that the mutilations were not as severe as later on. He does not believe JtR was interrupted (or “disturbed”). Glenn thinks it could be either way, but that the short time span to her discovery could suggest interruption. He sees the abdomen being cut as an attempt to open her up (deninitely more than an ordinary cut since some of her intestines were protruding). The direction of the large cut seems a bit different and goes slightly to the side instead directly upwards (which could indicate a first, unsure attempt in this manner). we see in the others. Thus, apart from the awkward attempt in connection with main wound (which might be expected from a first attempt of this kind), I think the cuts, the focus on the lower parts of the body, the intentions of the crime and also the identical neck wound fit with at least Chapman and Eddowes.
Frank agrees with Dan that Jack was possibly interrupted, but doubts that it was his intention to take organs away with him.
Monty (and I) think that Cross’ and Neil’s testimony suggests disturbance, although I see the technique as developing.
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
Jfripper thinks it was, especially when the brutal and vindictive mutilations performed upon her body after death are taken into account. Moreover, the killer then left Nichols’ exposed body in full view of anybody passing.
Others (Adam, Glenn) take the same view to some degree. Glenn provides the information that there had been at least one mutilation murder in Whitechapel earlier, and some others in the rest of England as well. He points out also that people began to see this (rightly or wrongly, at this stage, I assume) as part of a series. Glenn can you give more details please?
Frank too sees the killing as unusual and refers to the Coroner’s words in Tabram’s case - it was one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine and that the murderer had to have been a perfect savage to inflict such a number of wounds on a defenceless woman in such a way. Indeed, Frank continues, the local inhabitants were so shocked that only a few days after Tabram’s murder a vigilance committee was appointed. He thinks Nichols' murder was even more shocking. Monty agrees, and says he knows of no other murder like Nichols’ prior to her demise. The effects of not only the locals but the authorities (you just have to read the Police reports to see the impact this murder had on them) rattled them, and also the press and later the Government.
Dan thinks that, the nature of the wounds (which in his view were NOT similar to the way Chapman, Eddowes and MJK were opened up) don't appear to be an attempt to open her body cavity but rather to inflict harsh wounds. In this respect I think it's clear that, while probably Jack, the killer didn't have a full plan of what he wanted to do. Dan sees Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as more clearly linked than Nichols is. The nature of the lower wounds seems to me like they could be related to the Tabram murder, but the neck cuts are new. Again, Dan sees the murder as unusual enough for the police and public to freak out, the first instance of full on panic in this series of Whitechapel crimes.
To me, reports at the time suggest that various people began to see this murder as part of some sort of series (linking rightly or wrongly Smith and Tabram) – so Nichols was a third. In that sense then the murder was not “unusual”, in terms of being the “first”. But the abdominal mutilations certainly shocked at the time, and this was seen as newsworthy.
Does this make colleagues want to draw conclusions, weigh evidence again, or add further comments?
Part 2 to follow.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
SECOND SUMMARY
6. How did the killer escape?
Adam - back through Brady Street.
Frank - through Wood’s Buildings seems the most logical way.
Monty - Woods Building alley seems the most logical. Cross coming from Brady St and Mizen in the west...also the need to mingle fairly rapidly.
Jfr - probably down the alley of Woods Building's or some similar narrow, deserted side street. First and foremost to get away from the 'kill zone' as quickly and as witness free as possible, and secondly, to be able to clean away any incriminating bloodstains.
Court St for me, unless he knew the area well. Kaminski couldd just have gone home, of course!!
7. Was the bonnet of any significance?
Adam, Glenn, Monty, Jfripper think it had nothing to do with her murder or her killer at all.
Frank – suggests that, as it was found beside her, she may have taken it off with the intension of putting away the money she got from him or thought she was going to get from him. He believes it wasn't unusual for women to keep their 'valuables' there. Indeed, Jack might have launched his attack as she was focusing her attention on the bonnet and not on him. This might be the link to the pockets found in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes,
When I started out on this case, i thought the bonnet might be a clue, now i think it a red-herring.
8. Was Polly killed where she was found?
There is almost complete consensus that she was. I agree too.
Dan – agrees, but offers the thought that someone her size and inebriation level could have lost consciousness elsewhere (on her own or with help) and been carried there for some unknown reason and then killed (but I can't see a logical reason why someone would, when they could have picked a location with less foot traffic if they were already carrying her). Elise counters that it would have been most dangerous for JtR to carry a murdered woman over his shoulder to dump her in the most convenient spot.
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
Again pretty complete consensus that there were not.
I would just offer that the man who spoke to the nightwatchman and called him "old boy" would be worth bearing in mind when we consider Druitt and other "toff" suspects.
10. Any other questions?
A) "Was her murder the first of 'Leather Apron'?"
My response: We’ll look at Leather Apron soon.
B) Who were the neighbors? How close did they live to the crime scene and were their windows open? I'm interesed in whether the killer was as silent in this instance as in others.
This was answered as: There were occupants in the row of buildings towards the street, on the same side where the murder occurred but they had heard nothing. A person also lived in Essex Wharf, which is just above the murder scene but had heard nothing either, so I assume he in this case managed to uphold his reputation for being silent more than ever.
C) Could this murder of Nichols be connected to that of Martha Tabram/Turner three weeks previously. (Remember we are in 1888, so this possibility has to arise at this point in the investigation)"
My response: We’ll tackle Tabram’s killing in its own right, shortly.
D) From Monty - Why was this murder site excluded from the Met search area that was performed later in the year (19/10/88) ?
I suggest we park that one for now and come back to it.
F) Where were the nearest public sinks in relation to the 'Kill Zone'?
G) How did Jack make the original attack, which must have rendered the victims unconscious right away, and do it so swiftly and quietly?
H) An issue rather than a question, from Dan, about age:
“Some people said Nichols looked like she was 34 years old or so. Some people assume that, because the next three were in their 40s and so was Polly, that Jack purposefully sought out 40 year old women and that that somehow is evidence against Mary Jane Kelly being a Ripper victim. There's no meaningful evidence that Jack targeted a specific age range. “
I) In Nichols' case (as well as Chapman's) there's evidence of strangulation, which would indeed account for the silence these murders were surrounded with. How long (approximately) would it take to strangle someone into consciousness at least. Also, wouldn't manual strangulation leave its marks on the neck?
To add to the first summary, Robert W House’s (Unless otherwise indicated), and Throb’s views. I think these tie in pretty well with what has already been concluded.
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
Probably Whitechapel Road. Take where she was last seen (on Whitechapel Road at Osborn Street walking east) and where she was found murdered... somewhere between these two points probably.
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
Polly led him there.
Additional point from Frank: Jack the Ripper didn't waste much time, if any. He probably struck as soon as the first opportunity presented itself. This may have been the first moment she wasn't focusing her attention all that much on him but on something else, like the lifting of her skirts… or getting ready to put away the money. In Nichols' case that may have been the taking off of her bonnet.
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
A little of both. May have been "immature" in the sense that he was nervous, and heard footsteps approaching, so he left rather quickly.
Throb - PC Neil saw nothing at 3:15 am but Charles Cross found her around 3:40/3:45 am, this would give the murderer at 20 minute window, to throttle, slit, throat perform slight abdominal mutilation then disappear
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
Yes, as was Tabram's killing.
6. How did the killer escape?
Woods Alley Buildings.
Throb - The idea of an initial quick getaway then a mingle or merge into a crown or busy road does sound good. What would have been the nearest street the murderer could have blended in with a crowd. Any chance that he might have had a bolt hole near by ?
Was Polly killed where she was found?
Yes.
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
No.
So, if we were the coppers in 1888, where would we want to go from here. What did they do in 1888? Were they sensible things? Would we have done different?
Over to you again guys and gals,
Phil |
Elise
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Many people have been wondering..well, how did he do it so quickly and without noise? Has anyone considered that he might have used some sort of chemical, much like today's choloform, to knock them out before he set to work? He could have easily waited until they were lifting their skirts, gotten closer like he was going to begin intercourse, and put a hand up quickly to their faces either to stifle their screams or to drug them. Would finding a chemical that would work this way have been totally impossible? I'm not, despite what it may sound like, going with the theory that he was one of the doctors. I personally find that theory to be too easy, and truths are often stranger and more complicated than any fiction we could imagine to explain them. Also, my theory could also work with the alternate theory that she did not lead him to the scene of her death, but that she was stalked and attacked. Since this was one of Jack's earlier crimes, I assume that could be the case. He might have stalked and attacked her, then feeling let down by his method he might have switched to picking up the girls and then killing them. He might have felt that by stalking and then killing he wasn't feeling the full effect of killing and would have wanted a more intimate feeling with his victims. Also, consider this: I learned in my karate class that it can take less than 5 seconds for a person with a knife to reach you from a short distance and brutally attack. If he had come up from behind, even if she looked over her shoulder she might have just seen a man checking her out and thought nothing of it as she was a street walker, either that or just seens a man walking along looking in a hurry and also thought nothing of it. It would be easy for a man to overpower a woman from behind, no matter how street hardened she is, put a hand over her mouth and then proceed to business. If I am totally off base, please let me know. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 268
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
I don't like the chemical idea because I think it would leave room for struggling and at least moans if not screams. I favor some kind of physical stunning (whether from in front or behind) to cut off blood supply and quickly render the victim at least semi-concious.
But I've been thinking about the two parallel cuts to the neck in some victims and I haven't got my book here to verify if Nichols was one of them. Anyway, the first cut could be to quickly "bleed out" the woman so that he could then lay her on the ground and apply the second cut, which was the very deep,almost decapitating one which was "for fun".
Mags
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Phil,
I admire what youre doing here. But...
"We’ll tackle Tabram’s killing in its own right, shortly. "
I see a train wreck coming.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2744
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Phil,
A great idea with these points for people to answer and then a summary is provided. It gives a good over-all view of the facts and the opinions on the matter. A good initiative.
"Glenn provides the information that there had been at least one mutilation murder in Whitechapel earlier, and some others in the rest of England as well. He points out also that people began to see this (rightly or wrongly, at this stage, I assume) as part of a series. Glenn can you give more details please?"
I can refer to the thread about the so called "Whitechapel Murder" in 1875 (a crime I have pointed earlier at in relation to other threads), when Henry Wainwright murdered his mistress in a gruesome manner and then kept the body under a house on Whitechapel Road. Because of the smell, he then dug up the strongly decayed body and cut it to pieces and wrapped them in news-paper parcels.
I know you have seen that thread already, but just for information to other readers of this thread.
Then we have the case of James Greenacre who in 1837 (I know, quite long before 1888) killed and mutilated Hannah Brown in Edgeware Road with whom he was supposed to marry, and dismembered her body. He was hung in Newgate 2nd of May 1837,
The Weekly Chronicle had spectacular coverings of this case, illustrated with more or less graphical engravings about the events.
Both crimes are not completely Ripper-look-alikes, but rather more comparable to the Whitehall and Pinchin Street torsos, but they show that spectacular murders involving mutilation (and more spectacular than those of Emma Smith, Millwood and Tabram) had occurred in London before the murder of Nichols. Although there is a long time span between Hannah Brown's murder in 1837 and the Ripper, and 13 years between Wainwright's crimes and the Ripper's, they were widely covered.
As far as Nichol's murder is concerned, police documentation reveals that the police saw it as a part of the series (and possibly already the murder of Tabram -- right or wrong), and the records also reveal that the police was not altogether unfamiliar with the concept of perverted mutilation murders. The crimes above could partly be the reasons for this.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2745
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Phil,
"We’ll tackle Tabram’s killing in its own right, shortly."
I agree with Rob; I have a feeling that issue might take over the whole thread...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Mont!
Never thought Id agree (baby!) but I do for God's sake this is getting out of very lengthy control here......
Meet ya down the pub!!!!!!!
Hee 
Suzi x
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Robert - "We’ll tackle Tabram’s killing in its own right, shortly. " ...I see a train wreck coming.
How any thread develops is up to the participants. If it wrecks, it wrecks. We clear up the debris - try to find out what the issues are and move on. If the whole things fals apart - it does. No one gets hurt - but let's see how far we can get before the crash. After all, I might run out of energy first.
|
Elise
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Also, good point Maria. I also have another idea. Bear with me. During my New Years party, everyone was drinking. Over the course of the night I and a male friend decided it would be fun wrestle. I am 5'1" tall and weigh about 115 pounds, he is about 5'9" tall and weighs almost 200 pounds. That was my first mistake. I thought of this incident after I had posted the chemical theory. While we were wrestling, he employed a move he had learned in his wrestling classes in high school. I noticed it took him about 3 seconds to rush me, knocking me on my back to the ground. He then using one hand held my jaw firmly shut under the chin, not choking me but holding my mouth closed as I tend to bite when I am wrestling with friends. It's sort of an unconcious defense reaction I have. I noticed that I could not make any noise to let him know he was being too rough, and I also was having slight trouble breathing just from the way he was holding me. Mind you, he wasn't meaning to hurt me at all, we were just supposed to be having fun. After a few seconds of panic when I realized I couldn't make a sound or let him know I couldn't breath I began to vehemently "tap out". Having wrestling training he realized what was happening and jumped up and apologized. I was reading some of the case files, and noticed many of the women had bitten their tongues. They also had a bruise on one cheek. This reminded me of the method in which my friend had held my mouth closed with his hand under my chin, and his thumb on one cheek. Assuming the Saucy Jack might have had the same build, weight, strength of my friend who is by the way not a "large" man, he might have held their mouths closed in this way for the few seconds it would have taken him to slit their throats. They might have opened their mouths to scream only to have them forced shut, locking their tongues between their teeth. I also tried to scream when this was being done to me, but I COULD NOT get my mouth open and because I was so stunned I couldn't make a noise even if I had thought to. Also for note, even though my friend is of average height, and almost 200 pounds he appears to be a slim, average looking guy doesn't appear to be very muscular but in good shape. I usually tend to gravitate to the realistic side of my theories, so I do think this could also be a very good idea of what happened to these women during the beginning of their attacks. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Vanessa
Polly has long been regarded as the first "canonical" victim of JtR, with Tabram (and for some - but not me - Smith) as candidates as predecessors. More recently other "early" victims have been proposed.
Now it seems to me that there are a number of possibilities:
a) JtR struck several times (we don't know precisely how many times) but had an evolving technique - so that Tabram was stabbed, Nichols "ripped" but less drastically than Chapman etc, culminating in the glut at Miller's Court;
b) that there was no one murderer (there is at least one book proposing this) and all the victims were killed by different people, but mistakenly lumped together as serial killings;
c) that some of the "canonical"/previously proposed victims were not killed by JtR but some were.
Those three options will serve to make my point - there may be more.
My point is, that it is up to each of us to decide, and justify to our own (and other's?) satisfaction that what we say is logical, how many victims JtR had and who they were.
For myself, I accept the possibility of some early attacks as proto-JtR work; Tabram possibly; Nichols' Chapman, Eddowes and MJK as relatively certain, and Stride as definitely not. Other's will have different lists.
Indeed, I started a thread a few weeks ago that attracted quite a few posts, on exactly this subject. You might like to look it up.
Why don't you tell us why you think Nichols was NOt a JtR victim?
Oh, by the way, Vanessa - you don't have a friend called Kitty do you? A recent poster had a similar technique to you, of making "challenging" statements without citing any evidence herself. Interesting that you should post in such a similar way, so soon after she departed . |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 271
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Elise, I think your wrestling scenario is much more likely.
Hi, Phil. I've been a member of a message board on an entirely different topic for about 4 years now. Every 6-9 months someone comes over and starts flaming people, calling them rude names, telling us to get out of threads if we don't agree with her and generally being an utter bore. After a couple of days of this she would then come on with a couple of aliases who would make posts "supporting" her.
Silly girl, she doesn't know that it's very easy for the board administrators to find out who any poster is.
Mags
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Phil,
I have been involved in rather lengthy debate over certain issues on these boards - Tabram, Stride, etc - where there is generally a pretty healthy and interesting exchange of ideas. But it just makes my head spin to imagine revisiting all those same arguments again. They do not resolve. I will give my opinions on any aspect of the case, but I think there will not be much agreement.
For example, take the Stride murder. There are a LARGE number of factors involved. So your list of "relevant questions" will be rather long, and will probably also expand and change over time. And people will never agree on them.
Instead of rehashing all these same things, it might make as much sense to simply go through the old threads and summarize those.. (?)
That being said, I applaud your motivation in doing this, but I am not sure the methodology is the right one. I think maybe a more scientific approach would be better (I am just winging this so bear with me).
For example, the way modern police would do this is to get all the evidence and case data into a database somehow. There is an ENORMOUS quantity of information on the casebook website... in dissertations, documents, AND not least of all on the message boards. But the problem, in short, is that the information is spread all over the place, information is duplicated in multiple places (often with subtle differences or variations). And this is not even addressing the issue of "differing opinion".
The issue of differing opinion might be addressed (in a very non-scientific and rather dumb fashion) by using a simple vote concept. We all know who the regular contributors and posters are... each one of these people can be allowed to vote for each facet (or issue) that is presented. Then this would be stored somewhere, and ideally people would be allowed to change their vote at any time, and we would have a running, percentage based tally of everyone's opinion regarding multiple facets of the case. For example, "48% believe Tabram was a victim of Jack the Ripper".
I realize I am just throwing an idea out there, but in general (and I think this is in a sense the spirit od Phil's original concept) I think our ability to comprehend and make sense of the entirety of the case evidence, would be greatly facilitated if the evidence was organized in a rather clear, centralized, and logical manner. I am not sure what is the best way of doing this however.
I am now bothering my housemate, who is a PhD in Operations Research (ie applied mathematics) to see if there is a way to interpret the evidence into a mathematical "probabilities" model to determine the most likely "facts" based on cause and effect relationships, etc. We'll see... this will probably not go anywhere...
Rob
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Robert, I'm always open to new ideas, and if it will help sort things then databases etc sound good. But technically they are beyond me.
We all have our preferred methods - maybe this isn't yours. I'll press on with my approach for the time being - I'm finding it useful at least. If interest from others peters out, or we go off the rails - then OK, we stop.
In all sincerity, feel free to contribute or not as you wish.
Thanks for the suggestions though,
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 436
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Alison,
Thanks for the information on the strangulation!
As to the knife: although the information on the knife used in Nichols' case is rather thin, Coronor Wynne E. Baxter stated that according to the medical witnesses the one used on Nichols and the one used on Chapman were not so different.
Dr. Llewellyn had said that a long-bladed and moderately sharp instrument could have been used, while Dr. Philips in Chapman's case said that he thought a very sharp knife had been used, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least 6 to 8 inches long, probably longer.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jfripper
Police Constable
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 1
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Hi Everybody,
Regarding Nichols clothing, can anyone confirm that the brass buttons on the coat she wore that night had a pattern etched on them?
It is stated that it was a figure of a horse with a man standing by its side. True or False?
Cheers,
Michael |
Alison
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Frank,
Thanks for the info on the knife but I have a further question. How common was this type of knife back then? Would it be more commonly found used by a butcher, fish porter, etc.? Would a common home have one in the kitchen?
Alison |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 139
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 3:38 am: |
|
Hi all,
Sorry I haven't been in touch for a couple of days, the discussion here has grown even more since I last checked. That's great!
Phil, you wrote:
"Adam, does not believe that unlike later murders, Jack spoke to his victim in this case (do you have evidence for that?) and takes the view that the attack on Polly was a surprise one. His view is that the Ripper met Polly somewhere around Brady Street and proceeded to follow her - for some 5 minutes - down Buck's Row, where he grabbed her. Adam is of the opinion that Jack met Polly at around 3:20 AM."
Well no, I don't have any evidence for that belief.
However, I really can't see the point in why the Ripper would have wanted to try and start a conversation with a very drunk Polly, when he was only opening himself up to be spending longer with her, and thus potentially being spotted by someone. If he could attack Polly without her knowing, and with less danger to himself, why would he take another path? Chances are that he wouldn't have been able to get much sense out of her anyway. And that would also create noise from the voices, in a quiet street such as that.
The alternative is to sneak up behind her, and grab her. There is no noise, Polly is too drunk for her reflexes to respond in time. He commits his business in the gateway, and then runs off, without a trace to be found of him.
That's my theory. I just can't see why he would open himself up to so many more dangerous possiblities, when he could do it so much easier and quicker.
I think I've covered all of my opinions on Polly Nichols and her death. I will now wait patiently for (or maybe not so)for the discussion on Martha Tabram. I for one believe she was struck down by the Ripper, but that can wait!
Great discussion guys!
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Adam, Polly was found by the gate to a stableyard. Annie was found by the door to a backyard. Liz was found by the gate to a side yard. Kathryn was found by a hoarding (which I found out was a fence and fences have gates). I have wondered in the past if he didn't hide and spring out kind of like the cuckoo in a cuckoo clock. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 14
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
But Diana, in the Buck's Row and Mitre square cases the gates were securely locked.
How do you see him "springing out" in the case of the backyard in Hanbury St?
Some cuckoo, some clock as Winston might have observed!! |
George Hutchinson
Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Could it have been Spring-Heeled Jack, perhaps?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Elise
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
What is funny about that theory, George, is that I had heard a report once that some policemen at the time were equating Spring-heeled Jack with Jack the Ripper and believed they were one and the same. |
Jane
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 104
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Just waiting for some textures to render, so I thought I'd catch some other threads.
Phil, (Hill) not Hutch. The summary was really helpful. There has been a lot written, but sometimes it's hard to find and I really liked it all being put together like that, also very good for new members who could never catch up otherwise.
Good idea as well if anyone wanted to go over the old threads and put a summary of those together on related threads. There has been a lot of new stuff there that has put a new slant on the case and which might turn on a few light bulbs when they are collated.
Just an idea, don't shoot me!
love Jane
xxxx |
Jane
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 105
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Just read another post above and had another thought. Any comments on that will be severly dealt with!
When I get a chance, might not be a bad idea to do a sort of identity parade of all the suspects as described by the witnesses, a summary of them if you like, but visual, rather than words. I've always got muddled up between who saw who and what they were wearing etc., If they were put in visual form, it might be easier to see similarities and differences and which seemed plausible and which less so.
Then (thinking on my feet here) What about doing the same for the known suspects to see how closely they fit the descriptions when they are side by side? Might be interesting and probably couldn't do any harm.
Just a thought. Might be fun!
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Jane,
That is actually a good idea, one tends to read these descriptions without any great idea of a visual appearence.
it would give us the suspects and the witnesses side by side, and may give us all a insight.
Richard. |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 55
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Jane - great idea. Willing to give any/all help I can.
Your work is so fantastic that I can hardly wait to see the results.
Thanks,
Phil |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 408
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Jane,
With all due respect, it seems to me that the witness-sketch project would be a waste of your talent.
To begin with, we have no witness description of JtR. What there is are a few descriptions of people seen in the vicinity of an alleged Ripper murder either before or after the crime and that is all. Some police officials may have thought they had a good witness, but since we don't know who that witness was then his/her description eludes us.
Moreover, almost all the witness descriptions available are so vague and fleeting as to be useless for anything besides probably excluding those at the margins (i.e. the very tall or short, the very old or young and so on). Nor would they be very helpful in producing any sketches since they are silent on almost all those details that enable today's police to put together identikit likenesses. You know, things like the shape of a face, size and shape of the nose, how the eyes are set, fullness of lips, type of chin and so on. All we really have are a few references to some facial hair.
Indeed, the most important element in all the descriptions (even of George Hutchinson's strangely detailed one) has to do with clothes. Time and again even the victims were identified by witnesses by their clothes.
In the real world, eye-witness descriptions are often at variance with the truth, even under ideal conditions, so I have often wondered why so much stress is placed on the vague, fleeting descriptions of men for whom we have no real reason to believe were Jack the Ripper anyway.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Don,
i agree with you we cannot know for sure that any of the people described were Jack. and further more the descriptions don't all overlap which would indicate they were either misremembered or that they weren't all him, and indeed like you say none of them might have been!
Phew!
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
But having a talented artist like Jane assemble the descriptions, would:
a) show in a different way just how much/little information they provide. A drawing of each would literally "show the gaps";
b) allow us to see perhaps where there were distinct similarities of dress etc.
Even the discussion, if that on the murder scenes has been an example, would be instructive and throw up new points.
I believe that the exercise would be far from time wasted, and would encourage Jane to try her hand (but only if she has time and inclination). Then, I am a highly visual persona and would find such an approach useful.
Phil |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 411
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 9:40 pm: |
|
Phil,
Clearly, we disagree. That said, I would be interested in knowing which witness descriptions you consider relevant. No question that the witnesses are controversial.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 61
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 1:54 am: |
|
Out of disagreement can come progress - creative tension can be good and positive.
Suffice to say that if it is a potential source of information, I am interested.
But the men described variously by Mrs Long, Lawende, Schwartz, Hutchinson would be interesting to see brought to life. Just for starters.
Phil |
Carolyn
Police Constable
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Anyone,
What happened to this and the other two threads on the eariler victims? As a new member, I was finding going over the imformation very helpful.
Has it all been covered before? I have ordered the casebook so I can get the old discussion boards. But, as time goes on, maybe some of you have changed your views, and would like to share and discuss them.
Thank you,
Carolyn
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 115
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Carolyn - I intend to continue the series, but have been very busy with work. More soon, I promise.
Phil |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 276
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi All.
Just caught up with this thread again. I always seem to miss all the fun and start rumpus' without realising I've done it...... hee hee.......
Don actually has made a good point, in that it is very unlikely that any of the men seen by witnesses was JtR, and also that the descriptions are so vague, that the best that could be put down would be an outline with a few salient features, showing colouring, clothes and size. So what he's saying is quite valid and on that level I agree with him.
But on a personal level, having read the reports over and over, I still get muddled up about who saw who. where and when and it makes it difficult for me to fathom out what was actually going on a lot of the time.
The phrase ' who the b***** hell are they talking about now.' is my general thought. 'A moment ago it was a short fat man with a moustache, now it's a big bloke with funny hat on....'
I think there are probably a few people out there that would benefit from a route map of who was seen where and when. Really a memory aid.
As Philip said, it might just trigger some thoughts, or even dispel a few erroneous ones, so I will do it when I get time.
I did start and the two I did ended up looking like Laurel and Hardy, so back to the drawing board I think..... mind you..........no let's not go there!
love Jane
xxxxxxx |
Carolyn
Police Constable
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Phil,
Thanks for your response. I am glad that the series will continue, as I found the way you had set it up very helpful. It is terrible that work sometimes gets in the way.
That's life...
I feel a song coming on, but I guess that is better for another thread!!!
Carolyn
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 443
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Jane,
Laurel & Hardy? "Another fine mess you've gotten us into." Now, Oliver Hardy was a Georgia boy but as I recall Stan Laurel was English born. Too young, though, I'm sure. Oh well, as the saying goes "Back to the old drawing board."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4095
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Ollie looked at the shattered mess that lay on the bed before him, fiddled with his tie, and said : "I appear to have made a faux pas."
Robert |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 185
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 2:25 am: |
|
Just read this board through and one question came to me regarding the MO. At some of the crime scenes it appears that items were removed from the victims' person and placed on the ground. I have always wondered why. The discussion on Polly's bonnet and perhaps her keeping money in it made me wonder the following. Does anyone know if Jack (or any client) would have had to pay for the services he was about to recieve up front? If so, this probably means he retrieved his money after the victim was subdued, and might explain why other items were also placed on the ground. Am sketchy on the exact details but I can only recall one instance where coins were found at the murder site or on the victim. (Hanbury Street?)
Paying them might be necessary in his MO to get the victim to initiate the sexual act and to turn their back to him.
I'm not sure about this whole sneaking up on Polly idea. I think that sneaking up would be a much harder thing to do than might at first be thought. If they are the only two in the street she would surely hear him. I assume rubber soled shoes are out of the question and the street would have been cobblestone. I would have thought the easier way would have been to approach in a non threatening manner as a potential client.
Any thoughts?
Scotty.
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 499
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Hi Scotty,
"If so, this probably means he retrieved his money after the victim was subdued, and might explain why other items were also placed on the ground."
For some time I've been thinking along the same lines. It might indeed explain the bonnet, pockets and items found on the ground close to the victims.
"Am sketchy on the exact details but I can only recall one instance where coins were found at the murder site or on the victim. (Hanbury Street?)"
At Alice McKenzie's inquest Inspector Reid deposed that underneath the victim's body a farthing, similar to those found in the Champman case, was found. He was not mistaken about the farthing in the case at hand, but there had not been any in Chapman's case.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3157
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Scotty,
I totally agree.
To "approach in a non threatening manner as a potential client" would seem much easier and much more natural indeed, and less risky of course. I have never really given that sneaking thing much credence.
Shoes with rubber soles culd of course be practical while leaving the scenes, in order to run away as quiet as possible, but otherwise...
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dr L.A. Reid
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Hi
Im new to the site buut not to JTR (used to live round the corner from one suspect - Wm Henry Bury - 90 odd years after they hanged him ! )
In newspaper accounts of his trial a neighhbour of his made the comment that he had gone out shopping in his slippers ; and I have seen a 'Ripper' era cartoon lampooning the fact the police were issued rubber soled shoes. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page