|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3908
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:34 pm: | 
|
Helge,
"...sit through hours of police questioning,followed by the inquest and the clamour for interviews by the international press"
No, not 'most' of them, but - again - it happens and it is not as uncommon as we would like it to be.
"'Such a bloke just doesn"t seem real.'
No, he does not, does he!"
Oh yes, he does.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 253
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"Fingers" Freddy was a supposed associate of Smith who vanished around the time of her murder. No one was quite sure of his full name. One explanation is that he was killed to keep him quiet about a blackmail scheme and/or who killed Smith.
Goodies,
Stan |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2278
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:18 pm: |
|
I understand that Joe Barnett could have killed and mutilated Mary and that there are examples of such murders to prove the point.However,imagine the scene where Joe has had enough of the disputatious Miss Kelly and her libidinous trade.
He kills her in the room they once shared,cuts off her breasts and places one under her head etc etc.
Next day he is up and washed and off down to the police station to "answer some questions" -just like that.
Its always possible I agree-I just dont think its very likely in the case of Joe Barnett.After all the ones who tend to get away with such murders often have a definite motive-another lover,money,the need to be free of the victim etc. Such killers have little regret but usually a lot to gain from their freedom.
In Joe"s case the most likely reason for him to have killed Mary would surely have been a "crime of passion "-an end of tether explosion for all the pain she had caused him and once such crimes as these have been executed the killer more often than not breaks down and confesses amidst tears and remorse,especially under intense police questioning.We know Joe didnt do that.He did his best to co-operate with all the questioning, all the time being observed to be acting absolutely appropriately and understandably given what was happening to him.
I know you Glenn and AP too ,have studied many of such cases but the story of Mary and Joe seems to me unlikely to have ended with him tearing her to pieces and then staying cool as a cucumber when asked about it by the police and reporters.
Best
Natalie |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3910
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Stan,
Very interesting! I didn't know this.
I love that kind of extra info. Thanks a million.
Natalie,
All I can say is -- it happens.
If he would break down or not - and he would not be the only one who hadn't - is not possibe to either exclude or accept. We do not have enough information about his personality in order to make such conclusions, Therefore him being capable of it can not be ruled out.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 220
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Glenn,
"'Such a bloke just doesn"t seem real.'
No, he does not, does he!
Oh yes, he does."
What is interesting from my point of view is that the police did not have a clue.. The actual questioning was probably one area where they actually KNEW what they was doing. I cannot dismiss the police so easily for being totally inept.
At the same time I agree that they MIGHT have been blinded because they were looking for the Ripper.
But then again. Would they be that unprofessional?
(Don't answer that, please. I know they COULD have)
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3914
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Well, I don't think it would be fair to call them unprofessional, Helge; they pretty much had their odds against them, although I believe they did some unnecessary sloppy mistakes even considering their difficult situation.
I would rather say, that they were under a large amount of pressure and thus began to suffer from tunnel vision. Considering the context and the conditions they had to work under, it is really not that surprising.
Sorry, I apparently answered anyway... 
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 222
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I'll definitely buy that as a possibility. But still would call it unprofessional, since every case should have been considered on its own merit.
Just HAVE to disagree, you know 
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Regarding the influence of press reports regarding the Whitechapel Murders on sensitive and impressionable individuals, I have found a very provocative case from the February of 1887 where a very young man, Henry Wiltshire, had absorbed numerous press reports about the Hoxton Murder of the same year, and actually created some kind of scrap book from the reports and his own written- down thoughts… then gone out and obtained a gun and shot himself.
But I do believe, influenced by the case which involved the shooting and murder of a woman, that he actually planned to shoot a woman in similar circumstances.
His bottle ran out of juice though.
Very complicated case which I am still looking at, but it does show conclusively that in the LVP young men could have been influenced in the manner that has been discussed here. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2284
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
This seems a plausible scenario you are pondering on.But as far as we know Barnett in particular never obsessed about the murders beyond what was reasonable at the time,living as they did in the centre of the ripper"s murder zone and probably correctly fearing for Mary"s safety if she resumed prostitution. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Thanks Natalie
but please do not mistake my intent here.
For I still believe the only thing Barnett was guilty of was gutting some old cod.
I fry different fish here. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3918
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I think we know too little about Barnett in order to make such deductions of his character or intentions. Most of the things we know comes from himself. It's true there are no evidence of him being obsessed with the murders, but on the other hand we don't have enough information in order to exclude it either. At least he had a possible motive and we can assume he was the one male closest to the victim. It doesn't prove anything, but it makes it worth considering, as far as I am concerned.
AP,
Who is it you refer to? I am curious.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2013
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Just as when Colin Pitchfork murdered two girls who backed away from him when he was exposing himself.
They were - in his peculiar vacuum - supposed to walk past him and ignore him, just like hundreds of other girls did, but they did not do that, instead they recognised what he was doing and the vacuum exploded and he killed them.
The escalation was prompted by the victim’s response not by the killer’s learning curve.
Who is your source for all this? Not the dead girls presumably. So how do you know this wasn’t Pitchfork deluding himself, and/or trying to fool his audience, into believing his violence was only triggered because of the girls’ behaviour, and that this behaviour was somehow out of the ordinary - when in truth, his was the only abnormal behaviour? Why couldn’t this have been total b****cks, and simply a refusal to admit that the girls could have turned cartwheels and not had the slightest bearing on whether or not he felt the need to attack at a particular moment. Any suggestion from a killer that his victims would not have been targeted but for their own reactions to his behaviour deserves to be treated with a brandy bottle full of caution.
Regarding the tragic case of Henry Wiltshire, I agree about the unhealthy influence murder can have on the young and impressionable. Having watched a recent documentary on OCD, in which one sufferer’s life was dominated by the fear that he would confess to crimes he hadn’t committed if he didn’t take certain precautions, I wonder if a similar obsession may have afflicted young Henry. Could his obsession with this murder case have spawned another obsession: a morbid - but irrational and groundless - fear that he too was destined to become a murderer if he didn't stop himself in time?
Hi Glenn,
But I'd say the Ripper did his mutilations for reason and not because he wanted to take someone apart just for the sake of it. The mutilations inflicted on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are all done with a very focused intent, and as I see it, the 'indoors' argument does not suffice in Kelly's case and it certainly doesn't impress me one bit.
But what about the placing of flesh on the table, when your domestic killer, taking MJK apart, could have thrown it all on the floor? What about the placing of each breast at opposite ends of the body? What about the uterus and kidneys being removed (shades of Eddowes), but left with one breast under the head, when a copycat would have done better to take them away? What about the extraction of the heart through the severed diaphragm? Was this a spur-of-the-moment decision, by a close friend of Mary’s and first-time killer, spurred on by the fiendish stranger who had recently preyed on other drunken and impoverished unfortunates?
You keep claiming that you have ‘seen a number of similar cases’ that were domestic in nature, but they can’t be similar enough to be significant because all your cases by definition were solved.
…Buck Ruxton did his mutilations because he wanted to conceal the victims' identities and in order to erase the traces. I for my part can't see why this can't be the case in the Millers Court murder…
What? If a close associate of MJK’s killed her and wanted to conceal her identity or erase the traces, he made a complete pig’s ear of it by leaving MJK’s ‘traces’ in MJK’s own room. And your reasoning would eliminate Joe Barnett, because he identified her as his Mary! How many of your solved domestic cases involved the victim being left in bits in her own room, by a murderer who stupidly believed his efforts would prevent the traces being identified as someone known to him, yet who was also smart enough to satisfy the police initially of his non-involvement?
Although I still give Mary Kelly a 40% chance of being a Ripper victim, the murderer in Miller's Court is in my view definitely not Jack or a work of a serial killer at all.
Which is it? A 60% chance, in your opinion, that MJK was not a ripper victim, or ‘definitely not’ a ripper victim - as in no chance at all? If you can’t even agree with yourself, how can you expect others to? 
You write about the police’s apparent inability to spot that MJK was not one of Jack’s:
I would rather say, that they were under a large amount of pressure and thus began to suffer from tunnel vision.
But in fact there was at least one newspaper report suggesting that MJK’s murder was being considered as possibly unconnected with the previous outdoor killings. Whether this was true or made up, it shows that if the press could conceive of this possibility, the police surely did. And still they concluded that Joe was not involved, and that this was indeed another opportunistic and daring ripper crime. If they were wrong, I’d like some evidence.
John Christie was a serial killer whose wife ended up a victim. But I have always believed that she was killed because she either knew too much, or Christie was afraid that she might. After all, he killed his victims on the premises, while living with the missus - not exactly sensible.
I think it most unlikely, but if MJK was killed by someone she knew, the only thing that might make sense to me is if he was the ripper and she had implied that she knew. But that smacks of the rumour that Eddowes knew and was planning to claim a reward. And I believe Barnett is much more Evans than Christie.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3922
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
"But what about the placing of flesh on the table, when your domestic killer, taking MJK apart, could have thrown it all on the floor? "
I don't get this. Why would it be simpler to throw it on the floor? If a table is standing near by, it would indeed be practical to put things there, wouldn't?
Some have interpreted the items placed on the table as 'evidence' of some sort of design, but that is nothing but pure rubbish. It could just as well be a mere practical thing to do, simply because the table was there.
"What about the placing of each breast at opposite ends of the body? What about the uterus and kidneys being removed (shades of Eddowes), but left with one breast under the head, when a copycat would have done better to take them away?"
That is actually just my point. Those kind of anomalies makes it more credible to me that the murder is based on the Ripper's design but not quite pulled off, and the end result brought on by someone who thought what a Ripper murder would look like, but sidn't grasp the dull details. I just explained that in other posts.
You are basing your objections on that a copy-cat is aware of all details and aspects of the murder he tried to copy. That is not how it works, especially if it's performed by someone who's inexperienced and in emotional affect.
You can't expect a copy-cat murder to be an exact copy, and they seldom are, unless we're talking about professional killers.
"How many of your solved domestic cases involved the victim being left in bits in her own room, by a murderer who stupidly believed his efforts would prevent the traces being identified as someone known to him..."
Quite a few actually. Not many, but they exist.
"..., yet who was also smart enough to satisfy the police initially of his non-involvement?"
None. As I just said in a post above (no wonder it is getting repetitious)... I havent come across such a case where the perpetrator hasen't been caught, but once again... we must remember the context here! This was 1888!!! And the police were desperate to find the Ripper and catch him, and it is quite obvious from how they handled witness statements and conducted their investigation that they were very focused on the Ripper, and although some paper thought it may have been committed by someone else (that is correct - some paper actually said that) I think it is rather obvious that they couldn't disregard it as a Ripper murder.
As for these types of domestic killers not being caught, that is - as I also pointed out - based on the assumption that all such domestic murders are known to us. As with serial killings, we can't know about those who haven't been discovered and it is quite fair to assume that there may exist domestic mutilation murders that actually wrongly have been attributed to serial killers.
"But in fact there was at least one newspaper report suggesting that MJK’s murder was being considered as possibly unconnected with the previous outdoor killings. Whether this was true or made up, it shows that if the press could conceive of this possibility, the police surely did."
No, there is nothing in the police documentation that actually shows that the police saw it as a domestic murder. They might have thought about it in the early beginning, but it is quite clear that they rather quickly - probably as a result of pressure from other directions and the general public - that they had to treat it as a Ripper murder. And the papers DID see it as such, although there apparently were one or two that were broad-minded enough in their thinking.
"If a close associate of MJK’s killed her and wanted to conceal her identity or erase the traces, he made a complete pig’s ear of it by leaving MJK’s ‘traces’ in MJK’s own room. And your reasoning would eliminate Joe Barnett, because he identified her as his Mary!"
Well, just because a woman was found in a room doesn't necessarily prove that the room is hers, is it? But yes - for once I agree with you, if he wanted to conceal her identity, he would be stupid to confirm it at the morgue. That is absolutely true. So I have to say, that in Mary Kelly's case the facial mutilations probably had personal, emotional reasons, unless it wasn't Barnett who killed her, but another one she knew (like Flemming).
"Which is it? A 60% chance, in your opinion, that MJK was not a ripper victim, or ‘definitely not’ a ripper victim - as in no chance at all? If you can’t even agree with yourself, how can you expect others to?"
No offense, Caz, but now you're just being childish for the sake of it. How can 60% mean 'definitely' or 'no chance at all'? I didn't write 100%, did I?
I have never said that I definitely think she was NOT a victim of the Ripper.
60% means that I think it is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that she wasn't. Not that she absolutely couldn't be!
Where do you get all this stuff??
"And still they concluded that Joe was not involved"
Yeah sure, and I can't say I place the highest trust in their conclusions at the time. I think they did a lot of mistakes, especially as far as how they handled their witnesses and interrogations (which can be indicated on several occasions), so I am afraid the fact that they 'believed' Barnett doesn't mean a single squat to me.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Caz
Excellent points which I am to a degree unable to respond to, as you are clearly right in what you say.
However Pitchfork’s long - and officially recognised - obsession with exposing himself in cleverly created scenarios was a matter of police record… they were looking for him a long time before he ever killed anyone.
He was in fact interviewed by police at an early stage of the murder investigation because of the evidence of a young girl.
But was dismissed as a ‘flasher’ and nothing more.
I know what you are saying, about the grovelling attitude a lot of these killers adopt to their crimes when facing police questioning, and I do go along with you… to a certain extent.
And yes, I think you to be exactly right concerning your thoughts about Henry Wiltshire.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 793
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Hi all,
AP - in the 1925 case of Norman Thorne for the murder of Elsie Cameron, among the items found by the police in Thorne's hut (on his chicken ranch) was a scrapbook, which included many clippings dealing with the 1924 "Crumbles" Murder of Violette Kaye by Patrick Mahon. To be fair Thorne's scrapbook also included articles concerning other events in his area of Sussex (he was near Crowsborough - ironically one of the local inhabitants was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), but it was interesting that Thorne followed the Mahon case (also a dismemberment case) so closely.
In THE WOMAN WHO KILLED BLACK SATIN, Albert Borowitz discusses the 1849 murder of Patrick O'Connor by Maria and George Manning. At one point it came out that George Manning had a talk with a friend about the recent "Stanfield Hall" murders near Norwich of Isaac Jermy and his son by James B. Rush.
In a forgotten murder from 1856, that of his wife by one William Dove, it turned out that Dove was impressed by the confusion of experts on the poisons used by Dr. William Palmer in his series of killings at and around Rugeley. Dove (who could read and write, but still comes across as a weak-minded type), poisoned his wife and was amazed to find that the scientific community now could analyze for strychnine. He was hanged.
I'm afraid in an age of mass communications, people are quite aware of other killers when they may be inclined to commit crime themselves.
And frequently it does lead to influence.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3923
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Jeff,
A very good post and I absolutely agree with you.
Actually, the case of Norman Thorne was one of the examples I had in mind, but unfortunately had forgotten since I have no access to my files and notes at the moment.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 674
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Sorry for the delay on replying. I agree there are differences between MJK and the other murders. However, one could find differences between any two murders committed by the same person on two different occasions. And, obviously, there will be differences between two murders committed by different people on two different occasions even if one is trying to copy the other.
Evaluating the "risk factors" of any two Ripper crimes is difficult, because it is difficult to quantify "risk". For example, MJK's murder in doors increases the "no-where to run to" aspect of rish, but reduces the risk of being spotted in the first place. Nichols murder location was highly risky because it was in an open street location, and there is some suggestion that the Ripper may have been disturbed in his work (demonstrating the risky nature of that location). Chapman's location, in a backyard, may have reflected that change in "situation evaluation" (I'm not in the street anymore), Eddowe's being in a more secluded area, with multiple exit routes, may be yet another "improvement", with indoors being considered the "best". Of course, if we go with what I suggested earlier, since I'm working from the premise that the victim's chose the locations, then perhapse what we're seeing is the locations that the Ripper then decides are "suitable". This has the implicit assumption that the Ripper could decide when the situation was "right". Not all would accept that, and I, of course, do not know if that is true.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that in order to evaluate risk, one has to "evaluate risk from a particular point of view", which means we have to try and figure out how the Ripper evaluated the risk of the situation. And, there's the rub. It becomes circular with our ideas about how the Ripper interpreted the situation.
The medical testimony for Eddowes murder indicates that at the time at least one doctor felt that the mutilations in that case could be performed in 5 minutes. And that time span seems to fit the other testimony between the time she was last seen (if that sighting was truly her of course), and when she was found.
So, if Eddowes could have been mutilated in 5 minutes, then I would suggest that MJK's mutilations could have been performed in about 10 minutes. Even 15 minutes could be considered "not too long" if (big if), her killer felt that he was in a relatively safe location.
Now, what are the differences between MJK's mutilations and others in the series?
Removal of her breasts.
Removal of flesh from her legs down to the knees.
Similarities:
Facial (similar to Eddowes)
Organ removal (similar to Eddowes and Chapman)
Opening of abdominal caviety (similar to Eddowes, Chapman, and Nichols)
Throat cut to spine (similar to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Stride; last included with caution)
Victim similarity:
All prostitutes (with possible exception of Eddowes)
All intoxicated (or appared to be so in the case of Chapman)
All known to be seeking money on the night of their deaths (possible exception of Stride?)
Even Kelly's single cry of Murder (if from her) is not "unique", as Chapman is reported to have been heard saying "No" (and her killer did not flee the scene), Stride is reported as yelling out 3 times (though not very loudly, and Stride may not be a victim of the same killer). As for the others, all we know is that nobody reports hearing anything, we obviously cannot know if they too got out a brief yell, that was later ingnored and likewise not responded too.
Prior to the deaths of Chapman, and Eddowes (possibly Stride), it appears that the victim was spotted in the company of their killers. Being seen, which means possibly being identified later, was not considered by their killer(s) to be sufficient to prevent the later murders.
What I'm getting at, is that I find it very difficult to see MJK's murder as being different from any of the other's in the series in any substantial way. That doesn't mean she "has" to be a Ripper victim, as you are correct in that there are domestic murders where the violence done is equal to (or exceeds) the violence performed on any of the victims. All I'm suggesting is that her murder, as far as I can see, has nothing so different about it so as to indicate that a "caution flag" need be put in specially in her case.
By that, I mean in contrast to Stride. I think Stride requires huge caution flags all over the place. But if one is willing to link Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes and from those suggest a series is warrented, then MJK seems to me to fit into that series as well as any of the others.
If Kelly's murder should be cautioned as a possible "domestic", then I think one would have to argue that "all of the murders (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, & Kelly)" have to be similarly cautioned, with none of the individual murders requring special mention. Stride, of course, stands out as requiring special caution in the usual list, because of the obvious differences between her case and the others. The other 4, however, all seem so very similar that to link any two of them seems to link all 4.
Anyway, I know you view Kelly's murder as different, and I know you've indicated why many times (so I'm not asking you to simply repeat yourself). I just thought I would indicate why I do not see hers as different. In the end, I suspect, our difference of interepretation comes down to the fact that we just get different impressions from the whole of the evidence.
- Jeff
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 224
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:51 am: |
|
Jeff,
A very good post indeed.
Just to give one example to show how a serial killer may change his behaviour in seemingly random ways, one might mention Richard Ramirez. Compared to this case, Jack seems uncannily consistent!
Personally I think Jack spent much more time in Millers court than the ten to fifteen minutes you indicated, partly because I think he relaxed more in what I perceive as a "safer" location. But that is my interpretation, not facts. However, it would make sense that he also spent as much time as he needed "freshening up", making sure he had no visible blood on him, etc.
This would be a good investment, since I imagine his escape from Millers Court through the patrolled streets would have been considered potentially more dangerous than actually staying a tad bit longer.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3925
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
Hi Jeff H,
Yes, it's true. I think I have gone over my arguments too many times already, and I think my thought on this is known.
As for the 'cry' of murder, Chapman's 'uttering' of the word 'No!' was no cry and is quite not the same as a scream heard all over a courtyard. It is really not the same thing. Besides, the statement that those cries of 'murder!' was not uncommon is under debate and not confirmed as accurate. We should take that at face value. You have some good points as usual, but I can't agree with some of it and some of the points can be argued both ways actually. So I remain unconvinced.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Yes Jeff,
much to think about in your posts.
I'm going through the reports on the murder of women in general and prostitutes in particular whenever I get some spare time, working back from 1888 to 1887 to begin with; and then going back till 1885. After that I'll go forward from 1888 to 1901.
Time consuming stuff though, but already the few results I have are a tad interesting, especially from a statistical point of view.
I have to say that the main reason for my sometime reluctance to accept Mary Jane as a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer is the intimacy of the crime, which does seem to be lacking in all the other accredited murders.
As soon as I've worked through the data I'll post it, year by year. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Glen,
You made reference to the fact that the statement "cries of 'murder!' were not uncommon" is under debate. (Sorry for the awkward sentence structure). I am not clear on this. Was that supposedly an expression heard frequently at Miller's Court? Was there testimony to that effect? Does it actually mean that the person who utters it thinks that he or she is being killed or was it an expression used in Victorian times that simply meant "Help!!" Any help you could give me in clearing this up would be appreciated.
It seems strange that since the Ripper was focusing on prostitutes and that there were a number of prostitutes living at Miller's Court that Mary's cry didn't bring a response. Someone, particularly a woman, might hesitate to respond for fear of encountering the Ripper but you would expect someone to investigate at some point.
My feeling is that a cry was heard in the night (possibly related to Mary's profession if you get my drift). In the morning, upon hearing of the gruesome details of her murder, the cry is remembered which makes people "think" that it sounded like "Oh murder!". |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 675
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I agree that Annie did not yell out loudly, but since it was heard by the fellow next door, it must have been sufficiently loud to attract attention. Now, either Jack was not aware that the neighbor was in the yard, or he was willing to take the chance that he would not come to investigate. Option 1 suggests that Jack had poor risk assessment, so whether or not indoors is more or less risky becomes moot because Jack must be poor at realising when he is in a risky situation. Option 2 leads to much the same conclusion, only now Jack knows he's taking a chance, but he's willing to do so. Basically, what I'm getting at, is that the person who killed Annie Chapman was obviously someone willing to take great risks, whether they were aware of it or not. As such, I do not feel that the risk factor of MJK's murder can tell us much about whether or not Jack was involved.
As for the additional mutilations in MJK's case, this could simply reflect the fact that MJK was not wearing the clothing that the others were. In the other murders, the clothing would restrict the area of the body one which Jack could work, whereas with MJK, no such obsticle was in his way. With freer access to the body, this might reduce the time required for the mutilations.
The fumbled initial attack may simply reflect the fact that he attacks her while she's in bed, not standing in front of him with her guard down. The question becomes whether or not he was initially in bed with her (an idea I've tossed around before, and without getting a lot of support for it either I admit), or entered the room while she was asleep, is at this time unknowable. But, either work and neither rules out Jack.
Anyway, to me, the similarities between MJK and all the rest outweigh any differences, which to me look like circumstantial differences rather than substantial ones. However, I realise there is nothing to preclude the possibility that MJK is not part of the series, but since I would admit that for any of the victims, I see no special reason to single out MJK for such caution.
Anyway, if I thought I could convince you simply by presenting information that is merely intended as food for thought, well, I have a bridge to sell you! ha! It boils down to an evalution of the similarities and the differences. Since there are both, and there is no objective way to make this evaulation, it is not surprising that people come to different conclusions. By listening to how each person evaluates the information, we get to see things from different perspectives. We don't have to agree that any particular view is best, but we're foolish if we don't try and see things from all perspectives. How else can we tell if we like one view over another after all?
- Jeff |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 226
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
c.d,
The cry of "Oh! Murder!" was heard by Elizabeth Prater, a prostitute living in the room above Kelly's, just as she was woken by her pet kitten Diddles. She said:
"..the voice was a faint voice - the noise seemed to come from close by - it is nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder, so I took no notice."
Sarah Lewis, the woman that probably saw George Hutchinson waiting outside the court that night, also heard the cry:
"The sound seemed to come from the direction of the deceased's room, there was only one scream - I took no notice of it"
So only two women heard the scream, and it seemed like a common enough occurrence. Prostitutes lived a dangerous life, and IMO the cry of "murder" was probably used too often. The boy that cried wolf, and all that..
In any circumstance, I would think neither women would have had much desire to check out things that went bump in the night.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 676
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
It's sad, but apparently in self defense courses for women, the instructions are to yell "Fire" rather than "Rape". The reason for this is that more people will come to help if they think there's a fire than a rape happening; because of fear for what might happen to themselves. I suppose, cries of "murder" whether or not they might have been common, would draw fewer people willing to help than if the person had yelled fire instead. I'm not sure exactly what that says about us as a species, but it's unlikely to be very positive.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 723
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
“Option 1 suggests that Jack had poor risk assessment, so whether or not indoors is more or less risky becomes moot because Jack must be poor at realising when he is in a risky situation. Option 2 leads to much the same conclusion, only now Jack knows he's taking a chance, but he's willing to do so.”
Very good points! Here are some ideas of mine on the subject. On the one hand, the fact that he killed again only 8 days after Nichols and that he proved willing to do it in near-daylight seems to indicate a very needy or desperate Jack, while on the other he seems to have done a good enough job monitoring his surroundings while he was working on Nichols and Eddowes.
But who knows, maybe he actually was too needy to care, maybe he was aware of Cadosch’s presence but was just cool enough to wait what he would do, and maybe in addition to this he just murdered and mutilated Chapman at that time of day because he wanted to see what he was doing. I think it’s important to remember here that the Ripper’s driving force was his want/need to kill and especially mutilate.
But you make a good point: Cadosch did hear someone saying ‘No’ and something or someone falling against the fence. And just like Prater and Lewis he didn’t think anything of it.
Good post, Jeff!
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3934
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
c.d.,
One (or maybe two, I can't remember) gave the opinion, that it was not uncommon for those cries of murder to occurre. This can't be regarded as a stated fact, though, and personally I find it strange that cries of 'murder' should be ringing through the air on occasion. Cries of 'Help' or cries in general - yes, but cries of 'murder!'? I don't care how dangerous the area was or how much prostitutes there were - it just doesn't seem credible in my eyes.
I don't think we should regard this opinion from a witness as some sort of fact in the case that is indisputable. The fact that Prater and Lewis didn't investigate probably had other reasons, as I see it, namely that they didn't want to get involved and that you simply minded your own business. I for my part do not believe that people were shouting 'Murder' each and every night in East End, although there probably were a lot of shouting from fighting, rows and drinking in general. Still, just my opinion.
"My feeling is that a cry was heard in the night (possibly related to Mary's profession if you get my drift). In the morning, upon hearing of the gruesome details of her murder, the cry is remembered which makes people "think" that it sounded like "Oh murder!"."
That is an interesting point, but I think it falls flat, unfortunately, due to the fact that BOTH witnesses said it sounded like 'Oh murder'. The nature and the wording was in other words corroborated by another person. If only one of them had said that it sounded like 'Oh murder!', then I could consider this possibility. But I find it less plausible that both would make the same mistake.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 677
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
I was thinking something similar about Jack "staying cool" when Annie says "no", but in a way whether he "stays cool" or "doesn't realise the risk" aren't really completely different. Being able to "stay cool" and mutilate someone when there has just been a good chance that someone may have heard your victim (in this case someone apparently did), and may come to investigate at some point (in this case they did not, but how was Jack to know), seems to indicate that Jack simply did not evaluate the risk he subsequently took in mutilating Annie properly. Even if he knew there was a risk, and was "willing to take it", that still seems to me to require that the individual simply does not realise just how big of a risk they are taking.
As for "how was Jack to know nobody would come to investigate", here's an example, let's say Cadosch's presence was known by Jack, and he heard Cadosch moving away from him (as he goes to the outhouse), after Annie says "no". Now, Jack may have concluded that Cadosch was not comming to check things out. But, how could he be sure that Cadosch was not going to come check things out after going to the outhouse? If he fled upon hearing Cadosch returning, then Cadosch would surely have seen and heard the door opening and closing as Jack left the back yard. If he then saw Annie's body, he would raise the alarm, and Jack would at most just be leaving the front of the house. The house would now be "raised", Cadosch may also run to the front of his house, spot Jack fleeing the scene, give chase and call for help all along the route. This, of course, did not happen, but only for reasons that Jack could not ensure would not take place. He took the risk that something like the above was not going to happen.
In addition, how could he be sure that nobody in the house had heard her? Just because Cadosch wasn't comming to check things out over the fence doesn't mean that someone in the house wasn't going to "look out their window." Again, had they done this, the alarm goes up, and Jack would have been caught. There were so very many things that, had any one of them happened, Jack would have been caught that I'm amazed that he wasn't caught with Annie. The amount of risk taken with Annie Chapman appears so large that the fact that he wasn't spotted during that murder seems to suggest that at least in this case, he was operating on luck alone.
I agree, that his risk taking would indicate that his desire to mutilate must have been very strong, and this was what was pushing him to take such risks. And if he was willing to take this amount of risk, I find it hard to see MJK's murder as amounting to taking "more", rather, MJK's murder appears to be the least risky, but of course, I do not mean it was without risk. All such murders would have risk associated with them.
As for Nichol's murder being better monitored, I'm not entirely sure. It was darker, and that would lower the risk. But it was in an open street, which makes it very risky. There is support for the idea that he spotted the carman comming down towards him, so he could have fled towards Flower & Dean (not indicating a destination here, just a direction), and there would be lots of twists and turns to take quite soon, which would make tracking him difficult. But if someome came from that direction, then his escape route would require a long flight up Buck's Row, where he would be quite visible for some time. Again, if he was spotted, he was lucky that he was spotted by someone comming from the "best direction" for him to escape.
And Eddowes was killed in the one corner of the square that did not have an immediate exit. No matter which exit from the square he takes, he has to cross the square. So, if someone were to enter, he can't just "duck out of view" and flee, he has to run some distance "while in plain view". Again, the location in the square was probably the worst location in terms of escape routes (although, in its favour is the fact that it was the darkest corner).
It seems to me that Jack took extreme risks in all of the crimes, especially if you include Stride (and consider the man spotted attacking her as her killer; meaning Jack under all of these assumptions). Stride apparently yells out, if not loudly, he's spotted by two people attacking her (pipe man and Schwartz), and so on. Of course, if any of those previous assumptions are wrong, then our "risk evaluation" analysis is based upon incorrect information in Stride's case. However, if we accept for the moment the above idea (Stride was killed by the man seen attacking her and he was Jack), then we come to the same conclusion. Jack the Ripper took extreme risks when committing murder. On the other hand, what was it that caused him to leave in Stride's case and fail to continue to "push his luck" by mutilating her? Diemshutz's arrival is what is usually put forth, which then means he would have had to 1) heard/saw the pony entering, 2) maybe sneak by as the cart comes in (Diemshutz had to strike a match to see what was on the ground, indicating how dark it was, so maybe it was dark enough for Jack to get by without being noticed by Diemshutz, who wouldn't be looking for anyone after all), etc. Just random thoughts here, but again, such "sneak" behaviour is in line with someone who appears to take extreme risks that we might consider unreasonable. This, however, should not be taken as me "including Stride" though. I have no idea, and at the moment I'm just thinking along the lines of "does she fit", and one explanation for why she was not mutilated does seem to require that her killer be an extreme risk taker, which the other crimes seem to suggest that Jack was.
My, that was a long winded ramble about a crime that may or may not be part of the series! ha!
And finally, with Annie and Eddowes, he's apparently spotted with the victim shortly before he kills them. Similar thing can be said about Stride (under the above assumptions, which are not proven) and Kelly (if you take Hutchinson's word for it anyway). In other words, the possibility that someone may recognise him later (a risk) did not modify his behaviour. More risk taking - although this kind of risk taking is not uncommon. A lot of killers are later tracked down because they were seen in the presence of the victim. Knowing they have been spotted with their intended victim does not seem to prevent a lot of killers from killing.
Anyway, from what I can tell, whoever killed Annie Chapman was somebody who was willing to take extreme risks. I see little evidence in the other crimes of a concerted effort to reduce the risks taken (apart from the rest being at times when it was very dark outside). If, as I suggest, Annie Chapman's murder was the most risky, then the same individual could hardly be said to be unwilling to "take the chance" associated with any of the other crimes no matter how risky they might have been. Remember, by the definition I've given above of Annie's being the most risky, that chance must be lower than the chance taken with Annie Chapman.
If, however, one does not agree with my suggestion that Annie Chapman's murder shows the most risk taking, then one would not be bound by the above logic.
- Jeff |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Helge and Jeff,
Thanks for your responses to my post. They helped clear things up for me. Elizabeth Prater's explanation certainly gives us a glimpse into life in the East End. Jeff, as you pointed out, human behavior doesn't seemed to have changed much after all these years. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 227
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Once again I am surprised that facts, or in this case, statements, from the actual events are so easily dismissed.
Granted that we today have no way of knowing if what was said was true or not, but we have no reason to doubt it either. Certainly no one remarked at the time AFAIK that these statements seemed out of place. To dismiss them is pure speculation.
And we speculate enough here (me included)! Why speculate about the things we do "know"?
I agree none of the women in question would want to be "involved", and for a very good reason. They were women. It was dark. It was a tough neighbourhood.
But let me follow your line of reasoning for an instant. Maybe shouts of "murder" were not that common after all. Maybe Elizabeth Prater lied. Maybe Sarah Lewis also lied when she said she took no notice.
Maybe both actually feared something was going on, but dared not do anything about it? Surely that must have been a factor in their reasoning under the circumstances? The killer, on the other hand, could not have known if anyone heard anything at all. It seems reasonable that he may have been apprehensive. If he was you or me, that is..
But then again, maybe he simply assumed everyone would be sleeping? But even so..? Point is, Jack did what he did..
Or, if one prefer other scenarios: The random killer did what he did. Or, alternatively, the copycat did what he did. Or the lover\friend (domestic) did what he did. There is one given fact here that we cannot dismiss. SOMEONE killed Mary Jane!
AND that someone carried out substantial mutilations even after the cry of "murder". (Given that this cry was related to the incident at all, we don't even know that for sure!)
Why should Jack have been more scared than any of the other alternatives? We KNOW Jack took some incredible risks. I have pointed out before that he must have been incredibly lucky. (btw, good post Jeff)
So we have a killer at large known for taking risks. We have a pretty good similarity in MO and signature. Why should it be necessary to consider another guy at all? Possible, sure, but likely? Certainly not IMO.
Anyway. Why should we make liars out of two witnesses here? Both claimed the same. Both claimed that they took no notice because it was a common occurrence. Who are we to say today that they were wrong?
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 16, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 745
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
I was born in 1945. I can remember the usage as a child of the expression, "murder". I haven't heard it in quite awhile now. It usually was an expression of extreme annoyance or dismay.
Your house is a mess. You look out the front window and see your mother-in-law coming up the walk. You exclaim, "Oh, murder".
Of course between 1888 and the 1950's other evolution in the meaning of the word might have taken place. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Well, just because a woman was found in a room doesn't necessarily prove that the room is hers, is it?
But the example here, that you are comparing with solved domestic killings, is MJK, and it wasn’t too hard to establish that she died in her own room, was it? That was my point, that if a close associate of MJK wanted to make her unrecognisable, so he wouldn’t immediately be a prime suspect, leaving her in her own room (which was known to everyone locally as MJK’s room) rather undermined his little plan.
You wrote:
‘I have never said that I definitely think she was NOT a victim of the Ripper.
60% means that I think it is MORE LIKELY THAN NOT that she wasn't. Not that she absolutely couldn't be!
Where do you get all this stuff??’
From you!
You wrote, on the glorious 12th:
Although I still give Mary Kelly a 40% chance of being a Ripper victim, the murderer in Miller's Court is in my view definitely not Jack or a work of a serial killer at all.
I even quoted it back to you to remind you. It made me laugh because ‘definitely not…at all’ usually means 0% chance. Or at least I hope it does, I’m working in the accounts department this week, so God help them if I’m wrong.
Hi Diana, All,
I’ve said it before, but I’ve never been convinced that, faced with Jack’s shiny knife, one’s instinct would be to form the words “Oh murder”, or that the words would come out clearly enough to be heard and distinguished outside that room. My first reservation is that, if she had very little time to react at all, I would have thought a piercing scream, or some attempt to scream, would have been more likely, and the former certainly more effective.
My second reservation concerns the two ear witnesses. We know that whatever they heard, they did nothing about it at the time. If they both lied about how common the cry was, and suspected their neighbour might be in terrible trouble, they would have been shivering with fright for the rest of the night and would surely have said or done something by daylight. And if they told the truth, then surely MJK herself would have known how common it was to cry “Oh murder”, for no particularly life-threatening reason, and I am back to asking why she thought those familiar words would save her this time.
My mum used the word “murder” on all sorts of non-fatal occasions. (She was born in 1917.) The traffic was murder, her migraines were murder, Les Dawson’s jokes were murder and so on. I can easily imagine a drunken Mary Kelly knocking herself against the table in that tiny room and exclaiming “Oh murder, not again!” Jack could even have been there at the time, before she had reason to fear him.
And wouldn’t there be a huge difference in tone, depending on whether you had just bruised yourself on the furniture, touched a boiling kettle, or realised you were about to be carved up by Jack the Ripper? The witnesses evidently believed it was the common sort of “Oh murder”, and not the rarest kind - announcing the presence of the notorious cut-throat of late.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 17, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3936
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
"So we have a killer at large known for taking risks. We have a pretty good similarity in MO and signature. Why should it be necessary to consider another guy at all?"
Because we have
a) one or two male characters in her close personal circuits that may have had credible motives, in contrast to the other victims (with the exception of Stride):
b) because the extent of the mutilations and the depersonalisation of the vicitm reminds me of other domestic cases I've seen.
but more importantly:
c) because Kelly's killer had a rather different approach towards his victim then the Ripper has. A serial killer generally chooses an approach because he feels at ease and comfortable with it, not that often because of the conditions on the site. The Ripper had prior to this murder killed two or three people (the latter if you count Stride) using the same initial approach, while the Millers Court scene shows another approach. I don't think the conditions indoors would make him change his approach, I rather think he would choose a situation and location that would fit the approach he preferred, not the other way around, and therefore I don't think he would choose such a situation as that in Miller's Court in the first place.
Kelly's murderer probably attacked her with the knife first, thus allowing her to scream and fight back (regardless if Kelly did so or not), which I absolutely don't think the Ripper would do. Still, just my opinion. I don't think it fits.
"Why should we make liars out of two witnesses here? Both claimed the same. Both claimed that they took no notice because it was a common occurrence. Who are we to say today that they were wrong?"
Itis just that, if this expression really MEANT 'murder' as we know it, then I find it very hard to believe that such cries were echoing through the night now and then. The area was hardly dangerous enough for murders or threats of murder to occure some times each week.
To suspect that they didn't want to get involved is not unfounded speculations - that is in fact a pretty common and frustrating fact in connection with witnesses in general.
However, in this particular case... if it is true, as Caz and Diana points out, that the expression of 'murder' in fact could have meant something else, (which is an interesting point) then that pretty much explains it. The only problem I have with this, is that the police seems to have been placing it in the context of murder as a crime, not as anything else. There are no indications in the documentation implying that it could have referred to something else than what was relevant for the murder context.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
I think he changed his MO because all of Whitechapel was in an uproar. The WVC was marching all over the place in patrols, police had also stepped up patrols, and all a woman on the street would have to do is point to a man and say, "Jack the Ripper" and an insane mob would immediately arise out of nowhere. He had to move inside.
I pointed out what "murder" meant in the 1950's. It was an exclamation. I wonder though if it evolved from a different meaning? |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 836
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
I can't believe there are people still arguing about how common shouting "murder" was. All one has to do to see how common it was is read other reports from the period. "Crying bloody murder" even became a proverbial expression.
Heck, even if you don't stray from the Ripper books we have other reports of people shouting it, like the woman who called it out to get the police to come running when she just saw a man who had a knife and assumed he was threatening. But if you expand your horizons a bit you'll find it popping up everywhere pretty much throughout the 19th century into the early 20th. The later the reference the less likely anyone was to pay any attention to it, because it had expanded to being used so often that it was meaningless.
Read some Victorian books, search the Times online, or just hop over to Google. It's easy enough to find if you take a little time to look.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3937
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
That may be so, I admit I am ignorant about that.
But if it was that common and accepted to such an extent, then why was it empathized in the police files and the press as something that might be a vital detail in the murder context? Even authors and researchers have treated it as something important (like for determining Kelly's time of death) and like something more than a general expression, for God's sake. A literary and daily expression is one thing, but 'common' in the sense of being screamed out at night now and then?
If so, what does this mean? That the cry might NOT have derived from Kelly (Yes yes, I know, it has been debated to death, but it is essential)?
OK, as people know, I am no stranger to coincidences...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 228
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Glenn,
It all boils down to the fact that I don't really agree with your assessment here at all.
Neither your a) nor b)
I consider the fact that the Police at the time dismissed the "two male characters" as suspects indicates they probably was innocent (probably I said..) Several other objections in regard to these men being involved has been raised, and I'm not going to repeat that again.
However, "that may have motive" does not sound like enough to convict anyone, IMO. In fact the case is rather weak.
With all the good will I can muster, I see no case against either one, only speculation.
I agree we might look a bit closer into these people, but so far I see no smoking gun (or should I say dripping knife?)
Put up against this speculation is Jacky boy, a KNOWN killer at the time.
I don't buy the "different approach" bit at all. Clearly other serial killers have deviated much more from their initial MO than Jack ever did (assuming he killed all canonicals). This argument is just as strong as your "domestic killers mutilate". Yes they do. And SK's actually DO change MO once in a while.
Often because they feel the heat from the police.
In fact, I see no big change at all, but even if there were, that proves nothing. It was a different situation altogether. The pressure was on, and honestly.. If Jacky was "needy", do you honestly think he would turn down Kelly just because she wanted him indoors?
That makes no sense!
This new(?) situation for Jack might have complicated things a bit. He might have lost his "rhytm" so to speak. Only speculation, but so is the notion that he had a sort of "indoor phobia": With Whitechapel as it was, an "outdoor phobia" seems much more likely!
Actually now I begin to consider that the "Oh, Murder" was totally unrelated to the murder. I remember that when we where kids, we used to shout "Mord!" (Murder!) at times when the playing got to rough. If this can be shown to have been in use in similar circumstances (and used by adults, obviously) in the East End 1888, I think it is more likely to have been part of a "normal" brawl somewhere in the vicinity.
On learning that MJK got killed, both ear-witnesses migh very well think it might have been related, and "remember" that it came from "the direction of" MJK's room. (and that need not be untrue per se)
Anyway, if this is true, the killer was considerably more stealthy than we may have presumed. Of course, this does not weaken the case for Jack as the killer..on the contrary IMO.
P.S.
Dan, I first posted before I read your post. I take your word for it. And I do know the expression "Bloody Murder", etc. Actually, the expression "Mord!" is also used in Norway.
And actually, if someone screamed "Mord!" in one of the teenage parties (pretty loud affairs full of testosterone and drunken kids..) that now and then occur in the neighbourhood, I would not have taken any notice.
If anyone screamed "help!", or "fire!", now THATS another story.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 17, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2837
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Hi all
OK
Have made a stab at reading through this lot and some wonderful stuff here.but back to Mrs P and Diddles and the cry (CRY!) of "Murder!".we have "Oh Murder!","Some Murder!" "Lawks Murder" no doubt the cry was a common one.
Anyway despite that this line from Saki is worth a look...
'The man is a common murderer'A common muderer possibly,but a very uncommon cook'
Food for thought!
Suzi |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3938
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Helge,
Indeed, we totally disagree, on every point regarding a), b) and c).
(By the way, how can you dispute b)? - have you researched domestic murders?)
I couldn't disagree more with you, I am afraid. But what else is new?
As for the cry of 'Murder' - yes, there is a chance that it could be unrelated to the murder. Quite possible, although - considering the timing (in the sense of the same night as a murder is being committed) and the direction - a hell of a coincidence.
Sure the witnesses could 'remember' and 'recreate' in retrospect (which is quite a common occurrence in connection with witnesses) the direction and it's connection with Mary, but with BOTH of them saying the same thing and corroborating each other?
I must admit, though, that - although our native languages are practically the same - 'Mord' has never been used in Sweden in another context than just murder, which is probably why I find it very strange as a general expression. I admit this is total news to me.
But that is not the issue. The issue is how common it would have been to hear CRIED OUT AT NIGHT!
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 680
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Hmmm,
After all this talk of "Murder" being shouted for annoyances, an idea just clicked in my head. Since it just popped up, I'm sure it's wrong, but here goes.
I've suggested before that it's worth considering that Jack may have engaged the normal services of prostitutes on occassion (or even frequently). It is not uncommon for serial killers of prostitutes to be well known "Johns". So, Jack may be John as well. Now, Mary being reported as being very pretty, may have been approached by Jack as John. This notion gets Jack inside, and if Hutchinson did see someone, might explain why he heard nothing that sounded suspicious. Also, since Mary appears to have been killed while over next to the wall, her position may be due to another person in bed with her at the time (Jack as John). You get the idea.
Now, what if Jack is a rather, ummm, amourous John? And insists on engaging her services very frequently (or roughly) during the night. At some point, he wakes her up again, she's now annoyed at this insistant John, and yells out (not screams, but just exasperated like) "Oh murder", expecting yet another insistance from John. Now, John becomes upset at this refusal and John is now Jack.
So he grabs his knife (pretending he's insulted and is going to leave, so grabs his clothes, gets out his knife, and attacks her in her bed, or some such.) Mary's awake, so she can defend herself. But, it's dark so she can't see the knife until the last minute (or at all). Jack is able to get close to her without setting off warning bells, he's in the room, it explains the additional fury in the mutilations (if one feels these need extra explanation over and above the trend that seems to have been developing), it explains the cry of "oh murder", it explains the apparent original position of Mary on the bed, it explains why she would have defense wounds, why she's in her night clothes, he heats the kettle to get some hot water to wash up, which empties the kettle, so the spout melts, leaves out the door, which Kelly had on "lock" because she had a customer, which locks the door without Jack realising he's locked it.
It all sort of fits, but unfortunately, it's probably more likely wrong than right, but something like this sort of rings right to me. Anyone else?
- Jeff |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 229
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Oops, I did not read b). That is, c) was b) when I read it. Did you change that?
Anyway, If it was my mistake, I was somehow talking about c) and forgot about b)
Ok, I do not dispute b) We actually agree on that. But I still see the statistical probability for it being Jack as greater than it being a domestic. I need not repeat my arguments for why I do that, I suppose. Therefore I don't
But I'm willing to look into those gents a second time!
Jeff,
I once though more or less the same thing as you. Now that you mention it, it actually sounds even better. It could be spot on.
Or not.
PS. In my theorethical scenario I also wondered if Jack used the clothes found smoldering to clean up.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 17, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 230
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
By the way,
This thread should possibly be renamed "Statistical likelihood of multiple Jacks, focusing VERY little on actual statistics but compensating by focusing very much on Millers Court"
What do you think? Too long?
hahah
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 231
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Glenn,
"I must admit, though, that - although our native languages are practically the same - 'Mord' has never been used in Sweden in another context than just murder, which is probably why I find it very strange as a general expression."
And I haste to add that the expression "Mord!" is used in the context I explained only in some areas in Norway, AFAIK. And in no way can it be mistaken for the "real thing", as it is articulated in a "playful" manner, and mostly used by kids.
But, I agree, what is important is how it would have been used in the East End, London, 1888 (at night). But then again, we do have two witnesses describing that, don't we?
Maybe MJK simply called out the wrong thing? Maybe she was unaware of the real danger she was in until it was too late?
Stranger things have happened!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on August 17, 2005)
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
I think we all forget too easily the report I posted very recently which had an East End rough practically attempting to murder two women at one of the very sites we classify as a Ripper murder.
The severe battering the women received was only prevented from something much worse by the arrival of a police constable who actually saved the women.
And what happened next?
The police constable was himself attacked by a gang of around 100 men, concerned to protect the man, not the women.
So here we have the local male populace actually supporting the unprovoked and violent assaults on women in the local Whitechapel area.
Less than a year later a prostitute was stabbed 39 times by an unknown male at exactly the same address.
History is speaking to us here. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 232
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Thanks for the reminder, AP.
So there we have yet another reason for why Prater and Lewis did nothing. IF they interpreted the incident as significant at all, that is. But would they also feel guilty about it and lie?
Anyway, do anyone know if Prater and Lewis had a chance to collaborate their stories?
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 681
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Indeed, such responses I'm sure would have reduced the chances of anyone comming to help. The assault witnessed on Stride, whether Mr. Broad Shoulders was her killer or not, indicates that at least one, and possibly two, people who witnessed her attack also left her to the hands of her assailent. Perhaps Pipe Man never identified himself because if he truely was such a tall fellow, he might be viewed with scorn for not helping out (Mr. Broad Shoulders is supposed to be shorter). Scorn is often delivered by the very people who would have done exactly the same thing, but who were fortunate enough not to be placed in the situation, allowing them to claim they would have done otherwise.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Hi All,
It's easy to see why the cry of "Oh murder" was considered a potentially big clue, in a case where clues were as rare as hen's teeth.
But I still think the women would not have judged it an ejaculation of the all too common kind had the tone sounded as desperate and hysterical as it surely would have done if John had suddenly turned into Jack.
Talking of ejaculation, I can see where Jeff is coming from, regarding his John/Jack scenario - unless Jack had no normal sexual appetite whatsoever. Given Mary's youth, and the opportunity to be with her in a private room with a bed, the John part of him may have stirred initially, overcome by biological temptation, only to be taken over by Jack when disgust and self-loathing hit him. With the previous victims, Jack let his disgust have free rein.
Interesting discussion, thanks all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 141
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:42 am: |
|
I too lived through a time when the word'murder'was a common expression,but in all the times it was used,there was never an occasion when it was followed by an actual murder of the person who expressed it.And certainly never at about 4AM in the morning. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
But presumably you never lived surrounded by 'women of the night', who kept different hours from most people.
Jack was the rarity here, remember, causing murder to be on everyone's mind and lips - including the women who still didn't equate the sound and tone of those words (at that time of the morning remember) with an actual murder, until they knew one had taken place.
If the expression was common enough before Jack's series, it seems reasonable to think it would have been even more so during and after.
Love,
Caz
X |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:12 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Hi. I dropped an "n" off of your name the first time. My apologies. Your response was very detailed and very well reasoned as usual and much appreciated. I agree with your reasoning. However, if the residents of Miller's Court were interviewed in groups and one individual gave evidence that they heard a cry of "Oh Murder!" then I still think there is the likelihood of the power of suggestion at work. But as you stated, it is more in the realm of of possibility than probability. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2310
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I dont see Jack like this myself.
For me he was either carrying out the killing and mutilating
in response to the "command voices"type of thing
as in certain psychosis
or he was using the killing and particularly the mutilating in response to a compulsive, sexual perversion.
Jack,when it came to his sexual needs, wasnt remotely interested in "coitus"-with either young or middle aged prostitutes or any other young or middle aged women-IMHO.
When I think of that film "Belle de Jour"I can begin to see a Jack not that far removed from the kinky lawyers and Doctors in Bunuel"s film who went to the part- time prostitute,[Belle de
Jour,played by Catherine Deneuve]and always arrived in their business suits carrying a small parcel containing all sorts of bits of rope etc
In this case the parcels contents were for various forms of sado macochism-none of them wanted any other more ,shall we say "conventional service" .Now if you take such perverted/compulsive behaviour
somewhat further you begin to understand how Jack"s perverse needs, horrible as they were may only have been a long way further down the sado/masochistic route than anything that these men wanted ie it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything "regular" or "normal" but have had a lot to do with him "acting out" his gruesome fantasies involving the mutilation of dead women.
Natalie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
