|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |       |
As a newcomer to Casebook, I don't know whether anything of the sort I am about to suggest has been undertaken here before.
I was partly inspired by the recent thread on methodology. My proposal might be a "project" for 2005 which everyone could take part in.
The idea is this - that we go "back to basics" in an ordered way, considering each murder chronologically, with structured asides to look at suspects, other possible victims etc. the aim being to see what evidence is reliable and what not - whether there is any concensus, and what questions might arise for further study.
Tell me I am being a fool if you want, but I would suggest separate threads, started one at a time as the process rolls on, in this sort of order.. I would start off by giving a brief summary in the first post (unless there were volunteers for the job on particular threads) which others could challenge or add to. We can then go on to discuss the evidence, specific theories and options, and see what conclusions we arrive at. there might be disagreement, but we might achieve some consensus too.
The Buck's Row Killing (Nichols) - a nice easy starting point!1
Possible earlier murders
Tabram (might warrant a separate thread)
The police investigation - first steps
Police personalities
Leather Apron
Hanbury street
Early suspects
Possible descriptions of the Whitechapel Murderer
That's enough to go on with.
Does it give an idea of what I am proposing. I recognise that each element has probably got its own threads here, but this would be a chance to draw thinking together - cross-refering to existing threads if appropriate.
Just an idea - if you think it's rubbish that's Ok with me. But anyone else interested in taking part?
Thanks for reading this:
Phil
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 124
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 3:40 am: | |
Hi Phil,
We don't agree on too much, you and I, but I think you have thought up an excellent idea.
I often find it difficult to jump through various threads to look at just 1 singular aspect of part of the Ripper case, so I think to put all of our thinking together would be a very good idea.
I'll take part, provided you kick off the discussion. There's the deal! Good thinking, though.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:44 am: | |
OK Adam - here we go!
Imagine you are back in 1888, considering the case for the first time.
The summary of the Buck's Row killing is as follows:
On the evening of 30 Aug 1888, mary Ann (Polly) Nichols was turned away from her lodgings in Whitechapel because she did not have her 4d doss money. At some point, however, she seems to have acquired a bonnet new to her. The last sighting of Polly as at around 2.30am on 31 Aug, by her friend Emily Holland. Polly told her she had earned her doss money several times over that night, but spent it on drink. As she tottered off eastward along Whitechapel Road she was clearly the worse for drink.
At 3.15 am PC Neil tramped his beat down Buck's Row and saw nothing. Just before 3.45 (about 3.40 maybe) a market porter, Charles Cross, later joined by another man, John Paul, discovered Polly's body by some stable gates. She was dead, but the body still warm - the assumption was that life was not long extinct.
As Cross and Paul sought a policeman, at 3.45, PC neil again passed down the Row and found the body. He called aid. It was not until later, at the mortuary, that the police discovered that Polly had abdominal mutilations as well as a cut throat and marks of strangulation.
Initial enquiries ascertained that Nichols had probably been killed where she was found. Police saw no evidence of tracks of a trap or other vehicle in the road. Although there were reports of a chase and shouts of murder, these do not seem to have added up to much. Those living in nearby houses had apparently heard nothing.
Enquiries at a local slaughterhouse suggested none of the workers had noticed anything unusual. However, a nightwatchman in the parallel lane (Winthrop St)said he was told of the murder by a passing stranger who used the phrase, "old boy".
The woman was identified by meas of workhouse markings on her clothing. She was small, middle-aged and had been an alcoholic for a considerable time.
QUESTIONS
1.Have I ommitted anything important?
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
6. How did the killer escape?
7. Was the bonnet of any significance?
8. Was polly killed where she was found?
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
10. Any other questions?
Over to you.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 464
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:32 am: | |
Hi Phil,
One thing I consider somewhat important is that some people said she 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.
As far as the MO goes, based upon the nature of the wounds -- which were not similar to the way Chapman, Eddowes and MJK were opened up -- I don't think anyone can say that if he weren't interrupted that she would have looked more like the later ones. The cuts 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 either he didn't have a full plan of what he wanted to do yet or that the killer was not Jack. Based upon the neck wound and the other aspects I'd say it is almost certainly Jack though, but Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly are 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.
Polly almost certainly was killed where she was found. I suppose it's possible 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. The reports of a chase and screaming seem highly spurious, as the details were originally at completely the wrong time to be Polly and then later changed in news reports, so likely either the journalist or the witness modified facts to make a better story.
The murder was unusual enough for the police and public to freak out, the first instance of full on panic in this series of Whitechapel crimes.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 132
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 5:33 am: | |
Hi Phil,
"Imagine you are back in 1888, considering the case for the first time."
Oooh, this will be fun. OK.
"1.Have I ommitted anything important?"
No, I think you've wrapped up the foremost details in a nice little bundle there.
"2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?"
I do not believe this was reminiscent of the later murders, where the Ripper almost certainly spoke to his victims first. I believe the attack on Polly was a surprise one, her being drunk making it that much easier. My belief is that the Ripper met Polly somewhere around Brady Street, at which point he proceeded to follow her down Buck's Row - stalked her for a while, if you will. Then when he felt he was in the clear, he grabbed her, her reflexes being significally slowed down and distorted at the time, preventing her from screaming, or atleast not screaming very loud. Thus, I believe the Ripper was following her for some 5 minutes - my guess is that he met her at around 3:20 AM.
"3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?"
As I said, in this case, I don't believe they conversed. Polly was staggering ahead, the Ripper snuck up on her from behind, I think. Once again, her drunken state would have been an advantage for him.
"4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?"
I don't believe he was interrupted, my opinion is that this was his first attempt at an actual mutilation murder, and so he was 'inexperienced', to put it one way, and therefore her mutilations were not as severe as they were in other victims later on. But I don't believe he was interrupted, no.
"5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?"
No. Killings of these kind had occurred sometimes before, but a lot not quite so serious as this. It wasn't too much of an advancement on some of the murders in the area, though. Polly was not completely unique.
"6. How did the killer escape?"
In my opinion, back the same way he had came in the first place, back through Brady Street.
"7. Was the bonnet of any significance?"
No. I feel it was just something new that she had picked up in her travels, and had nothing to do with her murder or her killer at all.
"8. Was polly killed where she was found?"
Yes. She was caught outside the gateway, and that's where she died. I don't believe she was moved anywhere, at any time. Unless it was just a little closer inside to the gateway, but no more.
"9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?"
No, I think her's was the only murder which didn't produce atleast 1 reliable witness, which is quite unfortunate.
"10. Any other questions?"
One more.
"Was her murder the first of 'Leather Apron'?"
In my opinion, no. I believe Ada Wilson and Martha Tabram were both victims of the Ripper too (though the former survived), and wouldn't be too surprised if Jack wasn't in some way linked to the murder of Emma Smith either. All in all, I believe the Ripper had 8 victims, possibly nine. The other one is Alice Mackenzie, but since we are sticking to thinking at the time, I won't get into that until later on.
Well there's my first lot of answers. Till the next round!
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 776
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:19 am: | |
And also to add that we don't know what MJK's age was either. We are assuming her to be in her mid-twenties but it ain't necessarily so. The ME states that she was approximately 25 but most likely he got that info from Joe who would have gotten it from..who? MJK herself. She would not be the first woman nor the last to think it more becoming to be a in her mid twenties rather than over the 3-O mark. She wasn't in any real fit state to do physical exam on her to determine age and I sincerely doubt they were able to or even tried to date her based on her bones (if that was even done back then which I am too lazy to research and see).
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 257
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:58 am: | |
Another question I have is: 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.
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2703
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:24 am: | |
Phil,
It's hard to say where she and her killer met, and it depends very much on his approach. Looking at the other cases, it usually began as a client--prostitution deal, so if that's the case I'd say he was lead to this spot by Nichols, since the women in general led their customers to more or less secluded places. I don't know if Buck's Row could be considered an ideal spot for making sex, though, but then again it doesen't differ that much from the spot in Mitre Square. I'd say it was a blitz-attack, but I do think she first was approached -- or he approached -- in order to make a sex deal like the others. But it was a fast attack, and I'd say death was more or less instant, since her eyes were open.
Regarding him being interrupted, or the wounds representing an immature MO (or rather: signature), I'd say it could be either way. What mostly could suggest an interruption is the short time span from her murder til she was discovered.
The abdomen was cut open, so I'd say it was an attempt to open her up; it was 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), but otherwise it is a clear attempt to open up at least a bit of her body and the incision is still a jagged one as we see in the others.
The small, straight cuts just inside and above the legs also correspond quite well with the ones on Eddowes (on Chapman there are non or else they are not visible, since such a large portion of her abdominal area was opened up and cut away).
So, 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 fits perfectly with at least Chapman and Eddowes.
There had been at least one mutilation murder in Whitechapel earlier (and some others in the rest of England as well), linked to another case -- can't remember the name of the victim at the moment -- but otherwise I'd say this was scary and remarkable enough for the police and the general public to recognize as something extraordinary, and especially in relation to the earlier killings. What I think freaked people out the most was the fact that they started to realise that it might be a part of a series, which was something completely new.
I don't think the bonnet was of any significance, and I find it hard to believe why it would have.
I do think she was killed where she was found; a lot of blood had been soaked up by the back of her clothing, and i can't see any real signs or evidence of her being moved.
And as far as I know, there are no reliable descriptions on the killer, since we have no witnesses seeing her with someone prior to the murder as in the other cases.
Mags,
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.
I am not sure about those accounts mentioning hearing a woman running and screaming for help. They seem rather dubious and does not corroborate with some of the facts.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 06, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 424
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Phil,
1. Have I omitted anything important?
Nothing that I can think of just now.
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
I don’t know, but I can’t help seeing a similarity between Polly’s murder and the attack on Ada Wilson. Ada Wilson was attacked on the other side of the same road (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.
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
I’m inclined to think she did as that was normal procedure. The Ripper 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.
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
I subscribe to Dan’s view. He was possibly interrupted, but I doubt if it was his intention to take organs away with him.
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
Yes, I believe it was. The Coroner’s words in Tabram’s case suggest that such murders were not usual in the East End. He said 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.
The inhabitants were so shocked that only a few days after Tabram’s murder a vigilance committee was appointed. I think Nichols'murder was even more shocking.
6. How did the killer escape?
I really don’t know. Through Wood’s Buildings seems the most logical way.
7. Was the bonnet of any significance?
I don’t think it was important in the sense that it was new to her. I have been playing with the notion 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. I believe it wasn't unusual for women to keep their 'valuables' there.
He may 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 – although I haven’t given it that much thought.
8. Was polly killed where she was found?
Yes.
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
Unfortunately not.
10. Any other questions?
Not at this point.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:13 pm: | |
Hi Phil,
1. Have I omitted anything important?
She was dead, but the body still warm - the assumption was that life was not long extinct.
Not omitted but being the picky Bugger I am. When Cross and Paul came across Nichols Cross believed she was dead yet Paul stated he felt the faint beating of her heart. Who do we believe? When Neil came along then Id go with Neils version that she was dead...yet this was some minutes after Cross and Paul...so the possibility she was alive is higher than some think.
Like I said, picky Bugger me.
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
like Frank, Whitechapel Road for me. That or Old Montague st. Whitechapel Rd makes more sense. More likely to Pick up there and a good view of the Bobbies coming and going. Just for fun dare I suggest the Woods Building alley/Whitechapel Rd junction? Well I just did.
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
Again, Franks speaks for me there also.
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
Judging by Crosses and Neils testiments then Id say disturbed the more likely
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
Hell Yes. I know of no other murder like Nichols prior to her demise. The effects of not only the locals but the authorities (you just read the Police reports to see the impact this murder had on them) rattled them....and also the press and later the Goverment.
6. How did the killer escape?
On another thread I stated to the two Robs (House & Clack) that Woods Building alley seems the most logical. Cross coming from Brady st and Mizen in the west...also the need to mingle fairly rapidly.
7. Was the bonnet of any significance?
Nope.
8. Was polly killed where she was found?
Evidence indicates yes.
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
At that time? No.
10. Any other questions?
Yes, an old dull question of mine....why was this murder site excluded from the Met search area that was performed later in the year (19/10/88) ?
Cheers,
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 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 177
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:29 pm: | |
I have just received two e-mails from members of the public who suggest that for Phil to go back to basics, it might be an idea if he learned some basic manners and understood that when women ask to be left alone, he ought to do so? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:33 pm: | |
Spry,
The joke is wearing thin now Mate.
Cheers,
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 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 178
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:39 pm: | |
For Phil's information, no, his rendition is in fact inadequate. Also, he seems to be cadging other people's ideas . I merely point this out as he loves making this allegation about others. As for back to basics, I can advise him better as I am no a member of his slap the back mutual appreciation society who are too afraid to contradict him. He has indeed left out a great deal of important points. If he got to work and researched the material himself, he would at last be able to obtain an overvew of the case. Blunt but honest advice. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:43 pm: | |
Monty,
yes do i second that
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2706
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:44 pm: | |
And what are those points?
Since he asked if anyone had further questions or points to add, it would be great (sincerely) for all of us if you could provide those missing elements, if you really want to contribute to the subject of the discussion (instead of the personal arguments).
Please give some examples. I for my part am all ears.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 179
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:50 pm: | |
Spry, Monty, Kitty merely but firmly asks that people stop gunning her down from now on and leave her alone to debate on her board, or with people who have shown (as some have shown ) an interest in her ideas. Phil's and a small few others' behaviour to Kitty has been horrendous, and she would be extremely grateful if it would simply stop. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2707
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 12:56 pm: | |
Well, Kitty, if you have nothing valid to add to the discussions here on this thread, I don't know what you are doing here. This thread is not about you -- we are actually having a discussion here about facts in the case and we would like to go on with it.
So: I ask again -- because I am actually genuinely interested -- what are those points that are missing and you would like to add?
You as well as any other are invited to add your thoughts on this, if it's relevant to the htread.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 180
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:01 pm: | |
Might I aslo add that I have dealt with the abuse I have recieved- as anyone can see- with my usual relaxed humour. It's simply that I don't want a certain few harassing me and gunning me down whenever the opportunity presents itself. That's all.
Indeed, Glenn, I am very happy to leave people to discuss, and I certainly hope they do the same for me. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2708
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:07 pm: | |
OK, so it was just another crank call, then. As usual. Nothing to contribute with.
Well, no one can say that I didn't try -- and with good will and only good intentions.
I agree, Monty and Jen. This is getting tedious. Back to the discussions.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 181
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:12 pm: | |
Glenn, I appreciate your genuine interest. But valid points I have would just be wasted here due to a tendancy Phil has to gun them down on sight. I may well discuss them at a later date, however, elsewhere, in which case you'd be welcome to participate, as long as interest is genuine, and you don't desire to gun the discussion down. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 467
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:24 pm: | |
Kitty,
People with "usual relaxed humour" don't invade threads to make childish attacks on other posters. That's called stalking. In more than one thread you have accused Phil of sexual problems based upon no evidence. You need to stop harassing people, and you need to do it now.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 182
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:28 pm: | |
I haven't harassed anyone atall, but rather, have recieved a huge amount of verbal abuse. It's plain to see. Furthar, Dan, I have asked you not to approach me. Phil's mails serve to confirm he has been extremely agressive and abusive to me, long after being asked to stop. |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 183
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:31 pm: | |
On the board I set up, 'Evidence for or against a conspiracy', Phil is the most aggressive of all his mails. It's been horrendous. Anyone can see that. It was kind of me to respond to this behaviour with humour. |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 184
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:33 pm: | |
guys:
When a woman asks you to lay off and leave her alone, stop the abuse, and cut it out, she means it. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2711
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:35 pm: | |
CAN WE GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD, PLEASE!!!????? 
Spry, how long is this supposed to go on?
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 185
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:39 pm: | |
Glenn, I've no desire to hang about where guys are uneducated and abusive.
I'll return when it looks like people know what they're doing. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 777
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:57 pm: | |
Glenn,
WHy not email Spry with a formal complaint against the daft dimwit. I think the proof that absolutely every thread she posts on devolves into pointless bickering should be enough to at least get her warned.
|
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 186
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:01 pm: | |
Ally, it is me that has been abused by afew. I think everyone can see that. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2712
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:02 pm: | |
Ally,
I know that, but it's not really something I usually prefer to do (especially since I am not always Mr Personality myself). But I've been thinking seriously about it, so maybe I'll do just that, since this is getting ridiculous.
As far as I know, there have actually been a couple of formal complaints already.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 187
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:05 pm: | |
I have mailed Spry, and asked him to please servey the abuse directed at me and other newcomers, and prevent it from happening in the future. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 778
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:26 pm: | |
Glenn,
You know, I wouldn't be for emailing Spry if she was at least entertaining but after the twelve posts of "hot air" I find that even her dimwit entertainment value has waned. If you can't be an original dimwit, you have no place on the boards! At this point, she's just sad with her pathetic need to feel as if she is supported ( I love the constant references to "we" and all those fan emails she receives--I wonder how all those people in the public are finding out her email address?) Her lame excuses for why she is being treated as she is are just sad and self-delusional--there are many new people on the boards and many of those who are "against" her are newer than she is! I am reminded of an internet quote that was passed around regarding flame wars that went something like this-
If everyone is against you, it can't possibly be because you are a f***head, can it?
Words to live by, my friend.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2713
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:28 pm: | |
NOW, can we get back to the subject of the thread?
Frank, Monty,
Interesting points there.
Monty, never underestimate the intellectual importance of a "picky Bugger".
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 189
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:36 pm: | |
It's not everyone who I've had to complain about. Just a small cleak, who've been asked, and asked, and asked, to stop abusing newcomers. But, like I said very clearly, I am not interested atall in hanging round where some people are uneducated and abusive . |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:36 pm: | |
Wow, this WAS an interesting thread. Kitty, as an outside observer who has no idea what's going on, you seem out of line to me to change this thread out of the blue into a personal attack. also, what's a cleak?
-K
Sorry to interrupt, back to the original subject of the thread please.
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 426
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:47 pm: | |
Hi all,
Coming back to question no. 1 "Have I omitted anything important?" - like Monty, I've thought of another thing that might be worth mentioning.
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.
And as for question no. 4, Monty, 'disturbed' was the word I was actually looking for. To me, that seems a better word than 'interrupted'.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 191
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:49 pm: | |
Kelly, the attacks on me have been going on a while, but Spry has been mailed about it now. Thanks for your concern. |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi Phil
I think this is an excellent idea too, I am a relative newcomer and find trawling through the archived threads a nightmare, it's really hard to find what has and has not been covered before, bringing all current thinking and new ideas on one specific topic together on one thread would be useful!
Thanks
Debra |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 8:20 am: | |
Hi Phil,
Count me in.
Okay, here goes:
1.Have I ommitted anything important?
As to the scenario, no.
2. Where and when did Polly meet her killer?
The most likely place, IMO, is at, or very close to the junction of Whitechapel Road and Bakers Row. Why? Because Whitechapel Road was the main thoroughfare and was therefore probably more populated, even at this time in the morning, than most of the smaller streets. Also the last reported sighting on Nichols 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.
3. Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her?
A bit hard to say. On the one hand, I would say she led him to the murder spot because she knew about the gateway in Bucks Row and probably expected the gates to Essex Wharf to be unlocked.
On the other, maybe the killer knew about the gateway and convinced Nichols that they could conduct their business behind the gates.
4. Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO?
I don't believe that the killer was interrupted and I regard this murder as a maturing, not an immature MO by the killer.
5. Was this an unusual killing for Whitechapel?
Yes, especially when you consider the brutal and vindictive mutilations performed upon her body after death. Even more so, when you consider that the killer then left her exposed body in full view of anybody passing. No doubt he knew it would not be long before she was found.
(Cross and Paul may have spoilt his plans however, when they pulled her skirt back down.)
6. How did the killer escape?
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.
7. Was the bonnet of any significance?
Probably not.
8. Was polly killed where she was found?
Yes. I need say no more
9. Were there any reliable descriptions of the murderer?
No. Not with this murder.
10. Any other questions?
One.
Could this murder of Nichols be connected to that of Martha Tabram/Turner three weeks previously. (Remember we are in 1888, so this possibility as to arise at this point in the investigation)
Two.
Where were the nearest public sinks in relation to the 'Kill Zone'?
There's my tuppence worth for now.
Cheers,
Michael (DownUnder) |
Elise
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hello everyone. I just discovered this website, and have found the posts here very interesting. I wouldn't mind throwing my two cents into this discussion, if you don't mind. Thank you. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2715
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:34 pm: | |
Hi Elise,
Of course we won't mind.
Go for it!
All the best
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2716
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi Michael,
"10. Any other questions?
One.
Could this murder of Nichols be connected to that of Martha Tabram/Turner three weeks previously. (Remember we are in 1888, so this possibility as to arise at this point in the investigation)"
Well, I have previousy not been exactly appluded for this view and that subject has a tendency to turn this whole thread into a Tabram thread, but I would say no. I don't think the murder on Tabram was connected to either Nichols or the Ripper.
I don't find the similarities in Mo that many, and I think three weeks is a little short frame of time in order to develop into the mutilating method and throat-cutting as we see in Nichols (traits that are important to the Ripper, but also more or less consistent for at least three murders).
But more importantly: The attack on Tabram was a frenzied attack without any sign of methodology whatsoever (referring to the methodology we see in the mutilations on at least Chapman and Eddowes); the attack was concentrated to the breast area just as much as the lower part of the body and she was stabbed, not cut. Not to mention the fact that her throat wasn't cut, something I would believe the Ripper would do first of all even on a "practice" victim. I don't think Tabram has any connection to the Ripper, but I cant prove it. In my mind the evidence speaks against it, though.
Just my two cents.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 189
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 5:02 pm: | |
Kel...You ask what is a cleak?
A Cleak is a groop of peeple.
Whatsamattaforyou?
And you call yourself a "genius" ? |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 404
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:08 pm: | |
Howard,
I thought it was a No. 1 iron. Yeah, I know . . . cleek.
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." |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 22
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:17 pm: | |
Hi all,
It is curious that, in French, we say "clique" and the sense (and the pronunciation) is exactly the same. Do you know the etymology of this word "cleak"?
Olivier |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 739
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:26 pm: | |
Olivier, it's clique in English as well. Don't worry about it, they're having a kind of private joke.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 193
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:46 pm: | |
I've chosen to leave the boards for a while, at the very least. Goodbye from Kitty is on the 'Conspiracy' board; for the 'clique', good luck with it all, but really, do get a life outside of these boards.
clique
clique
clique
clique
clique
clique
clique
feel better?
|
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 23
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:47 pm: | |
Thank you, Alan. I had to look at Howard's spelling and see that his post was not serious. When I read texts in English, I am never sufficiently attentive.
Olivier |
Elise
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:43 pm: | |
Also, to answer the last question:
Did they ever have any idea of exactly what sort of knife or other tool he was using on these women? I have never heard an exact theory. If the cuts were jagged, either his hand was shakey, or it was not a very sharp instrument. Any ideas? |
Throb
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 7:42 pm: | |
Its clique/click in England.
As Phil points out that 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 throtle, slitt, throat perform slight abdominal mutalation then disapear. 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.
Ny chance that he might have had a bolt hole near by ? |
Elise
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:39 pm: | |
Interesting question, J. I am very young and not very experienced on this subject, but have been fascinated with these cases for a few years. I don't think I've heard anyone bring this question up before. As I do not live in England, and can only look at maps for references, I wouldn't know the answer. Maybe someone could help us out with that! I only feel compitent to put an answer to a few of these questions you have posted, so forgive me if you all feel let down by me.
Where and when did Polly meet her killer? I don't think we can ever really know the answer to that question. Sometimes I wish time machines existed, then we could go back and find out!
Did she lead him to the murder spot, or he her? I would have to agree with the afore mentioned assumption that the lady would have led her "John" to a location of her choosing, as was mentioned earlier based on her knowledge of the police beats, least opportunity to be interrupted by passersby, etc.
Was the killer interrupted, or was this an immature MO? That would all depend upon wether we can go with the theory that this one of J's first crimes, or wether he had commited murder before. However, as I feel might be illustrated by the incident with the apron and graffiti, I can almost picture J hiding about if he got interrupted watching the scene waiting for any moment he might be able to sprint back for a few more quick jabs or any other devilry he might have been interested in if he were interrupted. After all, most killers such as this will return to the scene of their crimes or keep a close watch over said areas.
Was the bonnet of any significance? I would have to say that, as a woman who is also extremely happy whenever I can come upon any extra money that I can use on myself and also scrimps and scrounges for the rent, that it wouldn't have any significance to the crime, that she probably did what I would have done..passed by a window, saw something pretty, realized she had some money in her pocket and impulse spent only to realize later she had overspent and couldn't pay her rent. Darn it!
Was polly killed where she was found? I would have to say so, as I can most probably imagine Jack hunting on foot it would have been most dangerous for him to carry a murdered woman over his shoulder to dump her in the most convenient spot. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
