|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 11:59 am: |       |
Hi Glenn
I meant, repeating in Britain. I don't know whether Sweden plans to show it.
The programmes were originally made for commercial TV, I think, but the BBC are now showing them!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 685
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I have them all on tape. Quite enjoyable stuff, I never get tired of them. Yes it was the British television company Granada that produced it. Sweden hasn't shown it for quite some years now, I think they are quite expensive to buy for the Swedish network, like most British quality drama productions.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
You wondered if Jack would have found himself sexually aroused by the sight of Mary, naked apart from a chemise, lying in or on her bed.
Well, he was a man, so of course he would have! 
No, but seriously, although there’s no way of knowing it, it’s imagineble that he was aroused – but impotent, and that he killed her because his self-esteem was threatened.
I myself wondered if Mary Kell would have gone to bed wearing next to nothing without a client, while the cold November air flowed in through the two broken window panes? I must admit I don’t know what women in the East End usually wore in bed in those days, but it seems strange for her to have done this on what must have been a cold night. Of course I know a fire had burnt in the fireplace that night and I realize she might have fallen asleep like that after servicing a client who then slipped away, but still…
All the best,
Frank
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 4:14 am: | |
Hi Frank
If Mary wanted something to wear in bed, there were :
Her clothes (which presumably were damp)
The pilot coat. But that would have let the wind in.
The men's shirts left by Harvey. If she was cold, she could have worn these.
Maybe she was just too done in by the drink to bother to get up and put anything on.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 4:32 am: | |
Hi,
I doubt if Kelly would have wore her clothes to bed, as you say they were proberly damp, also the evidence points to her taking a pride in her appearence, note her clothes neatly folded.If the fire was lit, i feel sufficiant warmth would have occured for her to just have a chemise on.
One intresting point to make is.
If for arguments sake, Maxwell was telling the truth, and she was alive 8am that morning, then I Feel that she did not go back with a client, for the simple reason,if she had , and she undressed and got into bed, she would hardly have folded up her clothes in a orderly fashion , if she intended to get dressed again afterwards, I feel that if she did return to her room that morning , she returned alone, and she got into bed , either on her own intentions, as she felt bad, or on the say so of someone who was waiting in her room. I Feel that she was returning to bed, as one does when poorly, and she was killed shortly afterwards.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 57
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 8:55 am: | |
The only problem with her murder taking place in the morning would be the killer spending all that time with the body and hoping no-one would happen to approach the room. It also happened to be rent day and Joe, who had lived there not that long ago may have known this (if you believe Joe was her killer). Also, if it wasn't Joe, then someone who didn't know that area was taking a huge risk to suddenly kill her during daylight when anyone could have turned up looked through the window if Mary hadn't answered. If Mrs Maxwell saw Mary alive in the morning then I maintain that she probably survived, but if she was mistaken then she was killed during the night which a more acceptable idea. He killed the others at night, so why kill Mary in the day. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 2:32 pm: | |
Hi
In a way it seems to make more sense if Kelly wasn't killed just after servicing a client - for why would she be wearing anything at all?
But one explanation for her being in her chemise might be if she accompanied a client to the door, saying "Come again" or some such remark. As she would be standing at an open door, she might wrap the chemise round herself.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:59 pm: | |
Hi Robert & Richard,
Women in general are often cold (cold feet, cold hands, cold nose), even if the heater or open fire’s on, so I tend to think Mary wouldn’t have gone to bed alone almost naked, certainly when she must have been extra cold (on top of the November cold, if you will) from the damp clothes. If she was very drunk and alone when she retired, I think there’s every chance that she wouldn’t even have bothered taking anything off, although anything’s possible. And Richard, I don’t think that taking pride in one’s appearance would have any effect on someone going to bed naked.
So, assuming Mary didn’t go to bed alone almost naked, there are two possibilities: Jack entered Mary’s room posing as a client or he gained entrance to her room not long after a client had left. If Jack entered as a client he must have waited for Mary to undress, which indicates (self-)control. And if he let himself into Mary’s room he must have planned it. Either way, if you look at it this way, Jack seems to have shown more organized traits in the case of Mary Kelly. Of course, there's the third possibility: Jack killed Mary with her clothes still on and afterwards he undressed her - but it seems as though she was killed only with the chemise on.
Another thing about Mary's case is the pile of neatly folded clothes. Of course, anything's possible and we don’t know just how neatly the clothes were folded, but they were – like you suggested, Robert – probably damp and it’s very likely that the pile was composed of a lot of clothes.
If Mary was still drunk when she undressed I would say that it’s unlikely for her to have neatly folded her clothes, she probably wouldn’t have bothered doing that (I know I don’t – in the, of course, very occasional case  ). If she had sobered up enough I would say she would at least have hung the most outer layer of clothes to dry over the chairs. Regardless of this, it would probably have taken a couple of minutes to have neatly folded the clothes and I think it’s at least a bit questionable if Mary would have taken this time in the presence of a client.
All in all, I have doubts about Mary having folded her clothes, but again, anything is possible. Any thoughts?
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 428
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hi
With regard to Marys drunkeness, I have serious doubts that she was drunk, that is to the point of being out of control,
Did not Hutchinson remark she was just a bit , Spreeish'
Kelly was used to drink, that is what she could afford, she may have felt rough from over indulgence, or even a November cold, but at 3am that morning , apart from being tired as one does from a few, i would say she was not intoxicated, what intrests me is 'If she was so concerned about her future, doing away with herself etc.., and had enough of the life she was living, How come the singing, surely a few gins[ mothers ruin] would have send her in a depressive state, and gin was her tipple.
I would suggest that at midnight that night she was feeling good about herself, and for some reason things picked up.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 5:45 pm: | |
Hi Frank and Richard
Phew! It's complicated!
The question of the clothes on the chair perplexes me. Whether or not they were "neatly" folded, at least they were on the chair! (like you, Frank, in the very occasional case, I don't even take mine off, or else they end up on the floor).
Now if Mary was very drunk (or hungover, Richard) she would have been unable or reluctant to do this tidy clothes business, so I guess she wasn't totally gone. But I feel she would have been very tired and feeling lazy. I think it's possible that she stripped to her chemise for an (innocent) client (though why either he or she would want the chemise left on, I can't imagine).Then when the client left she couldn't be bothered to get up and latch the door. Then someone - perhaps a total loony - entered her room...
Another possibility might be that she accompanied her client to the door (which would explain the chemise) and then enticed someone hanging around in the court outside, into her room.
I did recently suggest that it's also possible a man saw her client leave, deduced she was alone, and then entered later. But I see now that's unlikely, because if she got as far as the door to see off her client, she probably would have latched it. He'd have had to knock to get her to open the door, and then I feel she'd have been killed standing up.
Frank I doubt if Jack was a client she'd brought home. Why would he wait for her to get undressed?
I've wondered why the clothes weren't drying before the fire. Maybe there was a risk that they'd scorch and catch fire, with Kelly asleep and no fire guard protecting the fire?
Richard, I wouldn't necessarily say that her singing meant she was happy. Have you heard "Only a violet" on Casebook? I think it's a lovely song, and very well performed, but happy it isn't...more maudlin, really.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
One last thing before I'm off to bed. You said:
"Frank I doubt if Jack was a client she'd brought home. Why would he wait for her to get undressed?"
I think you don't support this way of thinking, however, I can think of two advantages: if she were undressed he would have had easy access to her whole body and in this way he would avoid having to undress her himself after he had killed her, which would have been much more difficult.
By the way, it's funny to see how you seem to approach this from the viewpoint that Jack was a disorganized killer, whereas my starting point is the way in which she was found, which to me seems to indicate that he killed her with only her chemise on.
Goodnight,
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 26
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:23 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
One last thing and then I'm really off.
"All in all, I have doubts about Mary having folded her clothes, but again, anything is possible. Any thoughts?"
These were my own words, but I've left an important word out and perhaps this is why I didn't get the reaction I sort of expected. But perhaps you just didn't see much point in commenting. Anyway, it should have been: I have doubts about Mary having folded her clothes herself.
Goodnight again,
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 7:34 am: | |
Hi Frank
I don't rule anything out. I just think that if Jack killed for sexual gratification (or some other twisted pleasure) and met Mary, posed as a client, and was taken back to her room, then I find it hard to imagine this man who hadn't killed for forty days patiently waiting while she went through the laborious business of undressing.
I don't see how her clothes would have presented any impediment to him - he'd have ripped them to shreds. I can't imagine him folding her clothes, either. Why do you think Jack might have folded her clothes, Frank?
To me it seems that he was used to attacking without warning, strangling the women where they stood, then kneeling by their right sides to cut their throats and mutilate them. Why would he deviate, allowing Mary to lie down, and having to cut her throat from her left side?
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi Robert,
"I find it hard to imagine this man who hadn't killed for forty days patiently waiting while she went through the laborious business of undressing."
Good point, I hadn't considered that.
"I don't see how her clothes would have presented any impediment to him - he'd have ripped them to shreds."
I agree. I think it would have been easier to 'work' with a naked body than to have to 'plough through' maybe five or more layers of clothes, though.
"Why do you think Jack might have folded her clothes, Frank?"
If he did this, of which I’m far from certain, it could be considered an more organized trait. Some weeks ago, on the Discovery Channel, I saw a programme about an American serial killer of Mexican origin – I can’t remember his name – and he displayed (in my view) several disorganized and organized traits. He travelled great distances by train, then got off and picked a house near the tracks, broke in and killed whoever was inside with whatever he could get his hands on (hammer, baseball bat). He kept on beating his victims even after they had already died. Then he went to the kitchen and ate something without trying to conceal any evidence of this, and before making his escape in the car belonging to his victims, he searched for driver’s licences or other ID’s and placed them where they would easily be found.
So, this killer did not leave the house immediately after he killed, he remained there for a short while to eat and put the driver’s licences on display. According to the expert on the programme he had some purpose for this and I don’t remember this well, but I think he said something like the killer wanted to know that he had made an effort to get to know his victims. Anyway, if Jack folded Mary’s clothes this might have been a similar attempt to make some sort of statement.
What might also be considered in this light is that in the case of Annie Chapman (besides the probability that Jack took her ring(s)) three items probably belonging to Annie were found near Annie’s feet and one near her head. Furthermore, in the case of Catherine Eddowes a ‘piece of intestine of about 2 feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design’ (according to Dr Brown).
This is how I came to think Mary’s clothes might not have been folded by her but by the man we call Jack.
All the best,
Frank
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 88
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Richard,
Just one thing. You say that all evidence points to her taking a pride in her appearance. Could you just explain what that has to do with what she was wearing or not wearing in bed? I take pride in my appearance and yet when it comes to bedtime, if it's cold out I don't particularly care what I wear in bed. What is the point? Unless she was with a client, but then why would she be dressed at all? If you're on your own there isn't much point in glamming yourself up in bed. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Yes, there do seem to be certain features - i don't know whether you'd call them ritualistic, or just plain tidy. Intestines are placed on shoulders, not just tossed anywhere. And Kelly's organs etc (apart from her heart) were all left on the bed and table, not scattered round the room.
It reminds me of a kid opening his Christmas presents. He may quickly lose interest in each present and pass on to the next, and he may leave his presents carelessly on the floor, but he doesn't just toss each one over his shoulder.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:53 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
What really struck me as odd and got me thinking in the first place is the contrast between the tidiness of the clothes and the mess Jack made of Mary’s body.
I don’t know either what to think of the fact that Jack didn’t seem to just carelessly throw the intestines and organs anywhere after plunging his hands into his victims and taking out whatever he could get his hands on. There are just too many things to consider in this whole case, and to sometimes confuse you.
By the way, nice comparison you made…
All the best,
Frank
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 94
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
Robert,
That is a great comparison. To the Ripper, the human female body was a sort of present. He was a bit tidier at the beginning of his killing spree but by the end he couldn't care less what sort of mess he made.
I don't think Jack folded Mary's clothes, I believe she must have done this. Although, having said that (I'm gonna contradict myself now, I can feel it) it would depend on whether or not Jack was a schizophrenic. If he was then he would have more than one personality.
Ok, just had a thought so better write if down before I forget it. If Jack was a schizophrenic, it was possible that he didn't know what he was doing. If someone has multiple personalities then while one is active the other one(s) can remain dormant. It can be like they are asleep and are unaware of what it happening. Perhaps Jack was never caught because the killer wasn't aware that he was a killer.
These are just my thoughts A.K.A the ramblings of a mad woman.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 408
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
Guys,
Just a pointer.
Chapmans Muslin,combs ect.
Eddowes buttons.
Kellys clothes.
Myletts scarf.
All left in a neat fashion.
I believe he was a tidy man. A sort of order.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 98
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 8:44 am: | |
Maybe one of his personalities was a tidy person Monty. That's sort of what I was trying to say in a very round about way. Although I thought that Chapman's things weren't so much put in an orderly fashion but that they were more of a pile. I'm not saying they feel like that but that he didn't tidy, just put them to one side. |
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 8:48 am: | |
Hello all,
Can this point to a ritualistic type murder?
-Peter- |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 100
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:08 am: | |
Peter,
Well the whole thing about the removal of the organs, etc. has indicated a possible ritual taking place but we are not sure. It does sound like it but there is no real evidence for this. I'm not sure about the arranging of possessions though. I haven't heard of a ritual involving that.
Sarah |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:08 am: | |
Monty, I'm with you (although I have doubts about Mylett).
Hi Sarah,
Schizophrenics don’t have more than one personality, it’s more like having a split mind. They may have delusions (thoughts that don’t agree with reality) and hallucinations (perceptions are disturbed), and they may be incoherent (unable to concentrate on one subject), which makes it seem as though the train of thoughts and speech aren’t under control. As long as a schizophrenic doesn’t talk, you might not notice that he or she is ill.
Schizophrenia progresses in phases. It consists of at least two psychotic episodes, which are interrupted by a stable phase. Each phase can take from a week to several years. Generally the patient is active in the psychotic phase and passive in the stable phase. The transition from one phase to another may not be very clear. One person may suffer from a mild form of schizophrenia, while another suffers from a very serious form. Schizophrenics may be unaware of what they're doing, but they don't have a personality who's aware and one that isn't. If Jack suffered from schizophrenia, it could in my view not be much worse than a mild form.
All the best,
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Hi again Sarah,
In Annie Chapman’s case the envelope containing two pills was lying near her head, while three other items were lying near her feet. I don’t know if these three were lying in a pile there, but the fact that the envelope was lying somewhere else seems to suggest that the possessions were placed rather than just tossed.
All the best,
Frank
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 104
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Frank,
You say "Schizophrenics may be unaware of what they're doing, but they don't have a personality who's aware and one that isn't."But isn't it possible then for one personality to take over. It is also for Jack the Ripper to have been a sufferer of MPD or Multiple Personality Disorder. I think this is more what I am leaning towards.
Sarah |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
