|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 49
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 5:53 pm: | 
|
Hi Natalie, thanks for your post...I can understand you mentioning that Eddowes could have chosen a different path of lifestyle in poverty as she did, but considering that most prostitutes have suffered sexual abuse in their early life or also in childhood, i think in view that she was very young when she married Thomas Conway ( and he was very old), i would side with the belief that she had been a victim of child sexual abuse and this unfortunately spelled out the type of life she led, especially being also in poverty. It's very sad, but unfortunately victims of sexual abuse, either it takes years and years to overcome, or they just do not overcome it at all ( by years and years i mean 20-30 or more, the crime is that serious).
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley,I agree.I understand that child sexual abuse can lead to a hatred of men and that strangely can lead to prostitution-a continual re-enaction of that abuse it would appear.
As regards Catherine Eddows though I think she had a fairly successful relationship with john kelly who was described by journalists as having an intelligent appearance [and despite the grinding poverty they both suffered a nice manner to thoes he spoke to.Catherine herself was reputed to have been scholarly by which I take it that those who knew her at school noticed that she did well in her lessons.But Alas Shelley Catherine was cursed by her predilection for the booze.I am convinced that this was actually what led to her murder.She got dead drunk on the day/night of her murder,so much so that she had to be taken into custody.Also it was cited as being the reason she and Conway parted company.in fact she had already lost everything-daughter,sons family by the time she met John Kelly.But he at least seems to have understood her and tried to stand by her.But she was reaching "rock bottom again by the sound of things,if she had money she seems likely to have blown it on drink.All the women were similarly afflicted and only Annie Chapman seems to have seriously tried to give it up....but failed eventually.
Nice to talk to you Shelley[and yes she could ofcourse been a victim of child abuse too-very possible I think'
Natalie |
Justin Sherin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:05 am: |
|
Just to reaffirm this -- as a contributor to this site, I'm contributing to a sober, scholarly community. I'm proud of that. But there will always be quacks. Perspective will protect against those who would reconstruct full-scale murder scenes, etc. (remind anyone of the contemporaneous 'wax bodies' in the Whitechapel Road?). |
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Dear Pete Whitehull:
I think a JTR museum is a great idea and Whitechaple would be the only appropriate location since Whitechaple and Jack the Ripper have become synonymous. It could turn out to be a meeting place for ripperologist from all over the world to gather and exchange ideas and theories.
Perhaps the curator of the Black Museum in New Scotland Yard could be persuaded to donate their JTR items to the new museum. I have heard that the Black Museum has the knife and the piece of cloth cut from the skirt of Catherine Eddowes that was found on Goulston Street. The Black Museum is opened only to police officals but I feel that these items should be on display for viewing by the general public. What do you think, any chance?
Regards,
Thom |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Thom and welcome,
I've read that Donald Rumbelow has some sort of knife in his collection, but I don't know much about it. As far as I know, the Goulston Street apron hasn't survived. Maybe it's in an attic somewhere, but how would you know what it was?
The Black Museum was supposed to have had a shawl purported to have belonged to Catherine Eddowes in its collection. Awhile back I got a bug to see what it looked like, so I wrote to Scotland Yard on a long shot, hoping to snag a photograph. I was told that their crime museum, which is private, doesn't contain any JtR artifacts. They said they were offered a shawl but returned it to the sender because there was no provenance.
Wasn't a total loss, though--I learned that Scotland Yard's museum has its own curator. It sounds like a solid working museum as opposed to a collection of stuff in boxes, which is kind of how I'd imagined it.
Cheers,
Dave |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 5:48 pm: |
|
hi Matt,I have just read your last posts and want to say that I for one agree with you about being mindful that these people were real,not fictional characters.I think most posts though are aware of that and try to avoid all the issues you are concerned about.In fact I think this site does a great service to the victims mostly by making them moreaccessible as characters with individual personalities,rounding them out so that we gradually get to know them.In this way the activities of the ripper can be seen as the ghastly crimes of murder they were and not just as vague numbers from the past.
I do appreciate it too when you say you have heard people talking about them who were alive at the time and remember how devastating the murders were to the east end community.I think we need to know more about this side of things actually.It helps understanding of the case and its characters.
Natalie |
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Dear Dave,
Thank you for your warm welcome. I've read somewhere that Donald Rumbelow was once the curator of the Black Museum, or was it Tom Cullen. If Mr. Rumbelow has Jack the Ripper's knife I wonder if he pinched it, if so I say good work Don.
Sorry to hear that the Goulston Street apron has not survived. I was hoping that someone with influence could persuade Scotland Yard to allow DNA testing on it since it supposedly had blood stains on it. The accepted throry is that the Ripper used it to wipe the blook of Catherine Eddowes off his knife, however I believe that the blood on that piece of apron is not that of Catherine Eddowes but of ol'Jack himself. I believe that he accidentally cut himself during the attack and cut a piece of her apron to use as a temporaty truncate or bandage; because if he just wanted to clean his knife all he would have to do is wipe the blade on any part of her clothing and then just leave. Why carry such incriminating evidence as a blood stained cloth with you as you are fleeing the scene of a murder?
I wrote a letter to Ms Cromwell to see if I could interest her in such a project since she did a lot of DNA testing during her research of the case and she also gained a good bit of influence with some British officials during the creation of her book. But surprise, surprise she didn't respond to my letter.
Oh well, I can only hope that the apron has actually survived and that maybe someone someday may hear of my theory and think it is logical enough to warrant some close investigation hopefully in the form of DNA testing. IF DNA can be obtained from that apron it may not tell us who was Jack the Ripper but it may eliminate a lot of suspects and we have more than enough of them
Regards,
Thom
PS: I find it hard to believe that the Black Museum doesn't have any JTR artifacts. Maybe someone pinched them all.
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Hi, Thom
No problem, it's good you've joined us. I don't know Donald Rumbelow, but from what I hear he's a fine gentleman and not likely the thieving type (laugh).
You never know--maybe someone kept that old apron piece as a keepsake.
Have fun and keep a thick skin!
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2882
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Hi Thom
Welcome!
I've wondered that myself, about the Ripper cutting his own hand. But re DNA : you can't get DNA samples from blood, can you?
Robert |
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Sergeant
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 12:14 am: |
|
Hi,
Thom, that's a very interesting theory about the blood and the cloth. You never know, that piece of missing cloth could be the evidence that would solve the Ripper case. I'm not surprised by Cornwell's lack of interest, though. She had only one suspect in mind from the time her book was first conceived and the only evidence that she was interested in was that which would perpetuate her theory- I think she was closed minded to any other possible suspect from beginning to end of her book. At any rate, I think you are right about the cloth; your argument is very convincing.
This is why I think that a museum/library venture is a good idea. It should include some sort of a database, where Ripperologists both established and amateur could post various theories. Though the case is very old, I think that some Ripperologists still come up with things that no one else might have thought of before.
It does not have to be presented as some sort of amusement. What needs to be remembered is that these victims were very real and as human as you and I. In fact, I think such a museum would be a great tool to educate other as to charactoristics of a serial killer, how they operate and how to avoid falling prey to a serial killer. Certainly, there have been many serial killers since JtR. Perhaps, if this were part of the museum, visitors would be reminded of their own mortality and would be less apt to treat these victims as less than human.
To raise revenue for this, there could be a bookshop where books of all of the various Ripper theories could be purchased. Proceeds would go toward the maintainance to the museum.
I realize that there's no perfect way to present murder to the public, even for educational purposes. There will always be a few who will see the case as merely some source of amusement. I think that those of us, who post here, have genuine interest in seeing the case solved. The bottom line is that JtR got away with murder. So long as he remains undiscovered, he will continue in the veil of mystique that has surrounded him for all these years and, so shall continue to be romanticized by some. I, for one, do not wish to see a cold blooded killer maintain immortality.
Well, thanks for letting me ramble.
Bonedigger
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 186
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 1:16 am: |
|
Matt, please reread both my and Chris' posts. Neither of us said you were "ignorant". I just got abit hot under the coller about your statement about people who go to a RipCon and the statement that Mr Ryder "panders" to the baser interests. My biggest reason for attending RipCon 04 was to meet the people Ive met here over the years. I dont have a JTR costume, nor do I know anyone who does. I observed mainly good people at the con with maybe one oddball.
As far as where Chris and I are from...yes, Im US born and bred, but Chris is from Liverpoole, in merry olde England.
As far as the games and diversions section...lighten up. We aint doing rocket science here, and most of us tend to have a black sense of humor. Besides, a newby to the case could learn alot about the case at the trivia.
Finially I must say Mr Ryder didnt start this site or keep it going for any reasons other than research and a quest for the truth. (he got interested thinking Maybrick was the ripper.) There has been several times he has seriously thought of shutting this site down because its an expensive and possibly litigious pain in the ass. He has a real job, this is just a hobby. I for for one am glad to share in this hobby and am grateful to him for the field to play on.
Oh, and one more thing Matt, chances are that if a final solution is found, it will be because of this site.
Respectfully yours, Brad. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:58 am: |
|
Hi Thom,I think Donald Rumbelow was given the knife by a lady who curated the Soane Museum.She told him she had been given it by someone who I seem to remember as being interested in collecting military paraphernalia[I"m away from the books so will look it up in a few days].Doubt very much it was acquired in any dubious way.I know the man who passed it to the curator "thought" it had belonged to the ripper but Donald himself had reason to think it might have been kept because it was one of the knives used in the Phoenix Park murders.I think Scotland Yard has another matching knife.
Brad,I agree with what you are saying.As regards any research its nearly impossible when looking for clues of which the crime scenes are an important part to avoid looking at the sacrilege
and wanton destruction which can be upsetting if you let it-which I tend to shut down on.I think its a great site and like you am hugely grateful to Stephen for the access it gives to so many aspects of our history,to the mysteries and secrets of the East end of London and the buildings that witnessed the events.
As for the ghoulish stuff it can be a tricky one this because as Matt says we are talking real people here who suffered enough at the rippers hands not to have to be remembered in their epitaphs as something less than human or people who dont deserve to be cared about.Nobody would want to be remembered like this for all eternity
after all.But like I said in the post above I believe this site because it avoids being sanctimonious or censorious and encourages in depth research and challenges b*llsh*t when it happens achieves a fantastic experience,better than any history book or detective novel[or film].It has the kind of participatory energy
that our politicians,from whichever camp,couldnt achieve in their wildest dreams!And it does all this by standing back and trusting people to be decent and respectful.By letting people free to disagree and find their own "spirit level" we really have something very special and instructive thanks to Stephen[in the first instance!]
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2886
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 7:28 am: |
|
I just want to say (though I've said this before) that this is a fantastic site. It contains cutting edge research, a chance to debate with experts, all kinds of Victorian history info, humour, and much more besides. A suitable moment to thank Stephen once again for the tremendous job he's doing.
Robert |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 111
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
If anyone is interested in the scarf , which may well have belonged to Kate Eddowes , theres a great picture of it in the Parlour's ' The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders book ' if you can find it. The possible provenance of the scarf , along with photos of Amos Simpson and his descendents , are also there. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Hi,
I would be surprised that any artifacts concerning the ripper murders exist today, when these murders occured they obviously were considered seriously, but at the time they had no way of knowing that a web site would exist 116 years later, and any evidence, if it was collected would be long gone.[ unfortunetly]
Richard. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 263
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 6:11 pm: |
|
I don't know, Richard. The people at the time knew the case was famous world-wide already. Lots of people squirreled away items that might be connected to the case for their personal collections. Some of them may turn up again. The Dear Boss letter that started the whole Jack the Ripper legend did. The Mary Jane Kelly crime scene photos did. Who knows what else might be out there?
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Dear Dave,
Yes, I was a bit 'tongue in cheek' regarding Mr. Rumbelow, however I looked into an old paper back that I purchased over 25-years ago, namely; "The complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow. On page 95 there is a picture of a knife, the inscription under the picture reads in part; "There is strong evidence that this contemporary post mortem knife may have belonged to Jack the Ripper." It has been years since I've had to refer to this particular item but I thought that somewhere in the book it also stated that the knife was in the Black Museum. On the last page of the book (I have a 1976 edition) "About the Aurthor", it states that Donald Rumbelow is a London policeman and curator of the Black Museum.
If Mr. Rumbelow can be contacted I am sure he would know something about the knife, the piece of bloody apron and any other Ripper artifacts that may still be in the Black Museum. If any one reading this post may know how to get in touch with Mr. Rumbelow I'd appreciate if you would post a message to me with that information.
Regards,
Thom
|
Opal Elaine Small (Moyer)
Sergeant
Username: Bonedigger
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:57 pm: |
|
Thom,
London Walks has a JtR walking tour, whose tour guide is Donald Rumbelow. If you are unable to find a way to contact him directly, you might be able to contact him through London Walks. The link to this page is http://londonwalks.com/ripper/index2.html.
They have a link here to contact them and perhaps they could get you in touch with him. Good Luck; I hope you can reach him.
OPAL
Bonedigger
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 270
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 1:57 am: |
|
Thom,
I'm not sure why you want to contact Rumbelow. His book explains the knife, and there are no artifacts to speak of in the museum. As far as other items offered up as Ripper artifacts (diary, watch, shawl, letters), those are discussed in one or more books as well.
And if you look around this site you'll find lots of info on them also. Check out the Search box on the left of the screen.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Hi, Thomas, Dan, et al
First, Don Rumbelow has long retired from the City of London police and is now a full-time author and walking tour leader. He actually owns the knife. It is not in the Yard's so-called "Black Museum." The knife in question is a period amputation knife. Don obtained it after it had been used by a lady to chop weeds and bushes in her garden, which is how the blade got broken in two.
The story is that the knife was found at one of the murder scenes, but not at one of the canonical murders, a later East End murder. So in other words, it may or may not have been used by Jack the Ripper, depending on whether or not we think Jack committed any murders after Mary Jane Kelly.
The maker of the knife was Weiss and it is believed to be of the same type as the knives used by the Irish nationalist assassins in the Phoenix Park murders of Lord Frederick Cavendish, chief secretary of Ireland, Lord Frederick Cavendish, and his undersecretary, Thomas Burke, in Dublin on May 6, 1882.
Have a look at the following site which shows period amputation knives, where types 4, 5, and 6 most closely resemble the type of knife Don owns:
Notes on Anatomy and Dating of Amputation Knife Blades
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 879
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Hi again all
The piece of material in the Black Museum and the "shawl" that Andy and Sue Parlour own are two different items. They might have both belonged to the same shawl but that is not certain. The cloth that the Parlours own has michaelmas daisies on it which I believe in some respects corresponds to some of the descriptions of one of the skirts Kate Eddowes was said to have worn which is described as a "skirt . . . patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies" but note that was not a shawl but a skirt.
It also cannot be explained how, in regard to the Parlours' possession, a policeman apparently came by the "shawl" and had it in his private possession. Could he have taken it during the time Eddowes was lying in Mitre Square? Surely not. See the article here on the Casebook "Shrouded in Mystery: Stephen White, Amos Simpson and 'Catharine Eddowes' Shawl'" by Andrew L Morrison. Since some doubt the whole Stephen White story this line of possession might be doubtful at best.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on August 31, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 2:29 am: |
|
There appears to be a bit of a misunderstanding here. The Crime Museum ('Black Museum') is at New Scotland Yard, headquarters of the Metropolitan Police. Donald Rumbelow was an officer with the City of London Police, not the Metropolitan force. Rumbelow was curator of the City of London Police Museum, not the 'Black Museum'. The knife owned by Rumbelow has nothing to do with either museum, Rumbelow having obtained it privately. |
Robert J. McLaughlin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 3:33 am: |
|
Hi Thom,
You may be interested in The Black Museum by Bill Waddell. An excellent history of the museum that includes a Ripper chapter. Bill is an ex-curator who also explains how the victim photographs were returned along with papers that include Dr. Bond's report on the injuries to Mary Kelly.
I quite agree with Dan regading Don Rumbelow. All the information about the knife is in all the editions of his book. It's one of those stories that even Don knows is too good to be true - like the "Eddowes" shawl.
Cheers,
Robert |
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Dear Robert & Dan:
Robert, thank you for recommending Dan Waddell's book, I'll try to find it. Since he's an ex-curator like Rumbelow he'd be a good source. I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth so-to-speak that there is no knife and no bloody apron in the Black Museum then I'll let get of the subject.
Dan, I hope to find time to re-read Donald Rumbelow's book and to hear what he says about the knife.
Best regards to both of you,
Thom
|
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 5
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Dear AIP/Unregistered Guest:
Thank you for the clarification regarding Mr. Rumbelow and his post as curator. It appears to me that the confusion was created by the fact that in his book; "The Complete Jack the Ripper", in the 'Author Notes' at the end of the book, it states that he was a "London policeman and curator of the BLACK MUSEUM of the City of London Police Department". Since the only Black Museum I know of is in New Scotland Yard I assumed that that was the museum to which the note was referring. Thank you for clearing this up.
Regards,
Thom |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 8:55 am: |
|
Hi Thom
I should think the term "black museum" could be applied to any crime museum, and probably is the informal name for the museums of both the Yard and the City of London police.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 5:42 am: |
|
One thing that has never ceased to amaze me is people’s ability to read a posting on a message board, then interpret it in their own way without recourse or reference to the original statement. Brad pleas reread MY post and you will see I said you ‘inferred’, I was ignorant not “said” I was, “You are new here am I right” and “anyone who has been around these board for any amount of time would know blah blah blah…”
BOTH inference that my opinion was based on lack of knowledge and/or familiarity with these boards and this site. Lack of knowledge the literal meaning of .........ignorant.
And I don’t know how many time or in how many different ways I have to say it - I think this site is excellent I like this site. Hello can anyone hear me?!?!? Just because there are a couple of fleas on my dog doesn’t mean I don’t love my dog. For god sake stop rushing to Steve’s side like I am some sort of playground bully. Stop defending the site from me there is no need.
If an answer to this case is forthcoming from this site, (which I havt to say is not all that likely) I hope it is researched by people with a hell of a lot better talent at assimilating and understanding statements than I have seen evidence of here.
I appreciate that some people have a higher tolerance for the banal than I do. Fair enough, but I will not ‘lighten up’. I go back to my earlier point – would jokes about Belsen and skinny Jews be appropriate on a Holocaust web site? A 3rd Reich dot to dot? It is my opinion that some parts of this web site do indeed pander to the more base interest in the case. It is my opinion and I am going to keep it. Yes some of us have a dark sense of humour but it has no place here that kind of thing belongs sub rosa.
|
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Dear Chris:
You're right, I've always known of the Black Museum in Scotland Yard, it didn't dawn on me however that there might be other black museums elsewhere.
I am still courious if there are any authentic Ripper artifacts anywhere. Of course the first possibility that comes to my mind is again Scotland Yard.
Regards,
Thom
|
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 7
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Dear Robert:
Sorry for not responding to your message earlier, however to answer your question if DNA can be obtained from blood samples; I was watching a police TV show and they were investigating an actual murder. In one particular scene they showed how they lifted DNA from a blood sample. So I guess it can be done.
I'm glad that some one other than myself has thought that the Ripper may have cut himself during the attack on Catherine Eddows. Now, if only we could find that piece of apron or the knife.
Regards,
Thom |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3008
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Hi Thom
I can't imagine why I wrote that about the DNA  . Of course they can DNA-test blood. I was probably thinking about the red cells and platelets having no nucleus.
I have wondered whether the gap of 40 days before the Kelly murder was simply due to Jack's hand being badly cut and extremely tender.
Robert |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi Thom
Your theory that Jack might have cut himself during his mutilation of Kate Eddowes might hold some water. Your explanation of why he took the piece of her apron sounds reasonable--
"I believe that he accidentally cut himself during the attack and cut a piece of her apron to use as a temporary tourniquet or bandage; because if he just wanted to clean his knife all he would have to do is wipe the blade on any part of her clothing and then just leave. Why carry such incriminating evidence as a blood stained cloth with you as you are fleeing the scene of a murder?"
I suggest that another scenario could have Kate Eddowes biting the killer and drawing blood, which might be in character for Eddowes who seems to have been a feisty woman who might not have succumbed easily to a killer.
As for your thought to have DNA testing done of the shawl (presumably) to see if it might contain blood that could have been Jack's, of course that is not the same thing as the fabric that we know the murderer removed from the murder scene, which was a large piece of plain white apron, reportedly about half of the swathe of the waist-to-ankles apron these women wore. Unfortunately, the piece of apron appears to have been lost. Thus this would seem to leave your suggestion, though interesting, in limbo, wouldn't it?
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on September 14, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3017
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Short of finding the apron and testing it to see if there were two different blood types on it, the only other thing I can think of would be if a hospital report should turn up, showing that a man claimed to have been attacked by someone who slashed his hand with a knife.
But Jack would have had to be a very cool customer to try that one!
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:54 pm: |
|
But what about the feces, which I believe only appeared on the Goulston half of Kate's apron?
Cheers,
Dave |
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:07 pm: |
|
TO: Robert & Chris
Robert: The 40 day gap; that's a very good observation. Now if any one had the time and ability for research to see if any of the major suspects was somehow reported to have had a badly cut hand during that time. Your idea about hospital reports is excellent, but how can we obtain records back from 1888, do you think that hospitals would have archives with such old records?
Chris: A bite is very probable. A human bite can leave a very nasty wound which can lead to infection. A hospital report (Robert's idea) would be very helpful. As I asked Robert; do you think that hospitals keep records from back as far as 1888?
Regards,
Thom
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3019
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
You mean he only took the apron to wipe the mess off his hands? Yes, but Long seemed to be saying that the apron was wet. Those aprons look pretty absorbent to me, as if it would take a lot to wet them.
Maybe if he didn't cut his hand, he wrapped the organs in the apron to begin with?
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi, Robert
Well, my point was just that there was more than blood on the apron. I favor that he used it to wipe his hands, but I've seen others post that they thought it was used as a container.
Somewhere I remember reading that there were smudges that were indicative of a knife being wiped clean. I can't find it in Sourcebook, so take that for what it's worth 
You're right about it being wet, at least a portion of it was, according to Long. So maybe it was used as a container, although it seems like he would have brought one along (unless taking the kidney and uterus was a surprise).
Just thinking aloud,
Dave
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3020
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
Yes, in the Sourcebook Brown is reported as saying that Phillips brought a piece of apron that had smears on one side (it's just before the Eddowes funeral report). This does seem to suggest a wiping scenario with the blood, rather than a wound-staunching or organ-carrying scenario, where we might expect the organ to have been wet all through. how wet must a smear be before it ceases to be a smear? 
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3021
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Apron to have been wet all through, I mean. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Hi, Robert
Thanks, that's what I was thinking of--Brown: "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it."
As far as wetness goes, Long said that only "a portion was wet". It's a juror, I think, who said that it was "wet with blood", which to me, gives the impression that it was drenched with blood. But in the light of what Long said, maybe I'm reading too much into the juror's statement.
Anyway--it's nothing to do with a Ripper Museum Sorry!
Cheers,
Dave |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 3:56 am: |
|
Thom,
I doubt if records would still be kept that far back, but i guess its worth a check!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3026
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 9:01 am: |
|
Thom, I should think that realistically it would only be if a police report was made, as in the Susan Ward (?) case or the Smith case. Not much chance.
Robert |
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 9
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 6:30 pm: |
|
To: Robert & Jenni
Dear Robert,
I think if there would be a police report that would mean that someone was arrested, that's what police reports are; reports of arrests. And if a man was arrested in London/Whitechapel at the time of the 'double event' with a severe cut on his hand I believe the police would have had their man and we would not be searching for the Ripper today. I could be wrong, what do you think?
Dear Jenni,
If you think it's worth a check where would we look first? Hospital records are doubtful and I don't think we'll find any police reports for reasons that I mentioned to Robert. That leaves only personal records such as letters from family members of suspects. Do you have any suggestions on where to start?
Best regards to both of you,
Thom
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:33 am: |
|
Hi Thom,
I guess that in fact I do not have any suggestions. Sorry to be unhelpful,
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3072
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Hi Thom
Well, even if the police and hospital records are largely missing, there's always the Press reports. Not to be taken as Gospel, though.
Robert |
Thom Bratt
Police Constable
Username: Thom
Post Number: 10
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 10:12 am: |
|
Robert,
You're right, the press would be a good source since they keep better records than the police or the hospitals. The problem for me is I'm in the U.S. and the records are in London. Of coures personal letters and correspondence from families of known suspects would be invaluable.
Regards,
Thom
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 2:40 am: |
|
I come late to this discussion, but it seems to me that an important point has been left hanging.
I am not sure that I find the "Jack slashed his hand" theory at all convincing - sorry. Since several posts seem to support this idea, I think it is right to insert a strong objection if only to set the record straight.
The simplest explanation of the apron scrap is that the murderer got his hands dirty with both blood and faeces and needed to clean them up somewhat before leaving. It's a natural reaction - get your hands dirty in that sort of way and the immediate response is to want to clean them (smell and stickiness). To save time (a major consideration) he cut a piece of cloth and used it as he walked, discarding it in Goulston Street when he was satisfied that his hand was relatively clean.
The descriptions of the object (cloth); the place where it was found; the things said about it at the time all support this conclusion.
A relatively severe cut to the hand would have, I think, produced a different pattern of blood (a spray from an immediate shaking of the hand, a different form of drops to that produced by the victim. The cloth would have been stained in a different way. The police at the time were not fools and would have noticed that. Recall the thought given to whether the body had been moved in the Buck's Row killing based on alledged blood stains at a distance from the body.
To conclude, there is absolutely no evidence that the killer was injured. Occam's razor (accepting the simplest explanation unless there are real grounds for doing otherwise) is perfectly satisfied by the need to cleanse hands. There is no reason to indulge in further (baseless) speculation.
The Whitechapel Killings are cursed with waters muddied by similar non-evidence based theorising. Let me say at once, that I have no objection to anyone fantasising as they wish, but it simply adds to the confusion and takes us no closer to determining what happened.
As for a "Ripper Museum": what would it contain? The existing books contain most of the photographs which could be reproduced. there is a paucity of objects and many of those (Abberline's walking stick) would be tangential.
I am not sure what the reaction to such a proposal would be in London either. In 1988 the 10 Bells pub was known as the "Jack the Ripper". Even in centenary year it had its name changed back to the original - suggesting that specific publicity for what were ghastly crimes was no longer felt appropriate. There has been no other pub opened with the JtR name - which suggests that no one sees it as a money-spenner. Just my opinions and recollections, of course. I'd be interested to hear other views and memories.
There was also, as I recall, a great deal of protest in 1988 from feminist groups who were concerned about the motives behind celebrating these crimes. I would think that view might have strengthened, not diminished with the passage of time.
Finally, independent museums in London have a poor track record. To give just one example - an exhibit on the British monarchy (near Barbican) failed in the 80s. On the other hand the vastly successful "London Dungeon" celebrates exactly the sort of things I would have thought any serious student to the Whitechapel murders wanted to avoid!!
A practical alternative - if one was wanted -might be to suggest that the very serious and wonderful Museum of London hold a special exhibition bringing together all the extant objects. The museum authorities might have the connections and leverage to do something - although why they should would be a different discussion (no JtR centenries of note foreseeable).
Hope what I have said is not too great a damper on enthusiasm.
Phil |
Nicholas Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 30, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Oh, and don't forget that we can get the bodies exhumed and put them on display as well. Not!
Jules |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page