|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:44 am: |       |
KILLED IN BED -- It is certain that Mary was killed in her bed. She was rolled over close to the partition with the sheet over her head.
On the face of it it appears that scenarios IA, IB, IIIB, IIIC1 and IIIC2 are eliminated leaving only II which is very weak and IIIA which has problems.
Looking again at IA it is possible that she undressed down to the chemise, they both got in bed and then he whipped out the knife. That is the only possibility I can see.
IB,IIIB,and IIIC would present a problem because
you have to explain how she wound up in the bed with the sheet over her face.
Going back to the Stride murder, Israel Schwartz tells us that a man siezed Stride and threw her down in the footpath. If the man was JTR we have a glimpse of how he initiated an attack (MO). If his method was to sieze a standing victim and throw her down then we can picture how Kelly wound up on the bed. There is one other parallel with Stride. Schwartz says she cried out three times not very loudly. Mary was heard to cry "Oh murder".
Going on to Chapman the neighbor says he heard a thump against the fence accompanied by "No".
In each case the victim was grabbed and thrown down. It was only during this initial phase of the attack that they could cry out and at least three of them did.
What Mary did next was not logical. But she was terrified. Her motive was emotional. She pulled the sheet over her face and rolled away from her attacker, up as close as she could get to the partition. They struggled and her hand was cut before he slit her throat. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 244
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
Diana,
I wasn't aware that she had a sheet over her head at all.
The cry of "Oh Murder" I don't think came from Mary. Would you cry out "Oh Murder" or would you just scream? I think you would scream. "Oh Murder" sounds like someone discovering a murdered body.
Sarah |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
"I am sure that the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead that was nearest the wooden partition, because of the large quantity of blood under the bedstead and the saturated condition of the sheet and the palliasse at the corner nearest the partition."
"The blood was produced by the severance of the cartoid artery, which was the cause of death. The injury was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead." -- George Bagster Phillips
You're right. She did roll over close to the partition but there is no indication that she had the sheet over her head. I thought I had read somewhere that the upper sheet had cuts in it. But unless someone can find the reference you're right.
As to "Oh Murder" it isn't what we would say in 2003 but times change. We can't prove that Mary cried "Oh Murder" but the defensive cuts on her hand show that she was awake and struggling. The parallel between Stride's three cries and Chapman's "no" is persuasive.
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 468
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 11:05 am: | |
Folks,
I cannot find any reference to the clothes being soiled or damaged in anyway. Am I right ??
The only way, in my eyes, this can happen is because either Mary wasnt wearing them when she was despatched or that she was first suffocated, clothes removed then mutilated.
Any signs of suffocation?
Monty
 |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 276
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 11:23 am: | |
Monty,
Logically there is another possibility: the clothes may have been soiled and this was simply not mentioned in the reports.
However, there is mention of clothes having been found folded neatly and laid on a chair. Assuming these were the clothes Mary had been wearing, this is a strong indication that she herself disrobed -- it being unlikely that her assailant would fold his victim's clothes neatly after he killed her.
Unfortunately, it doesn't answer the question as to whether Mary disrobed for the purpose of (ostensibly) having sex or merely retiring to bed. If one takes into account the chill of the evening, one might cautiously conjecture that Mary would have chosen to sleep fully clothed.
This last point brings up yet another question. What source of heat was available in Mary's room. There was, of course, the fireplace. But here is a puzzle. Police conjectured that JTR burned clothing in the fireplace for light. This suggests that there was no firewood or other fuel available (which is likely since Mary didn't even have rent money--how could she afford firewood or coal?). On the other hand, a fire fueled only by a few items of clothing could not possibly produce enough heat to melt the spout of a teapot! This suggests either that there was fuel available (perhaps even coal to provide such a hot fire) or that the teapot spout had been melted at some previous time.
Thoughts?
Andy S.
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 471
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 11:52 am: | |
Andy,
Yes that is another possiblity.
The thing is with Jack just jumping on Mary as he entered the room is the fact that the rest of the room is intact and undamged. The beer bottles are in place and tables and chairs are upright.
Yes this could have been tidied after the event but I cannot help but feel some evidence of a struggle would have been left.
Re your fire.
The heat source is an enigma. My views ? Takes more than the burning of clothes to melt solder. I feel an excellerant was used.
Monty
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 278
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 12:10 pm: | |
An excellerant? That's interesting. I'd never really thought of that. I was thinking of a fire fueled by wood or coal. An excellerant burns very fast, but also very hot.
So what excellerants might have been available? Gasoline? Certainly not. Kerosene? Could be available for burning in a lamp, but there was apparently no lamp in the room. How about human fat? We all know what happens when fat drips from our steak into the barbeque. No human remains were found in the fireplace, but could he have burned just the fat?
Andy S.
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 473
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
Andy,
A idea that Ive been toying with is the possibility that he may have wanted to 'prasarve' something.
Its highly improbable but if he was carrying a medical spirt of some kind.....
Monty
|
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 49
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
The reference you've been looking for is to be found in The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook (paperback) on page 401. In a letter dated November 10 Dr Bond states: "In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right or the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack."
This is why I said in my post that there could be but little doubt that she was lying in bed when she was attacked.
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 5:21 pm: | |
Dan,
The basis of my post of December 1 was the (near) fact that Mary was killed while lying in her bed, to which I added a probability (that she was conscious or awake) and a very good possibility (that Jack and Mary were known to each other). Furthermore, I tried to keep it as simple as possible, which means I left out all the ‘ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’ and didn’t add any extreme viewpoints in whatever direction. And I think this simplicity is what made me see clearly that Jack probably was a mixed type killer.
"In conclusion, judging by the earlier murders I don’t think Jack could have suddenly developed into a completely organized killer." (my own words)
With a completely organized killer I actually meant a type like Ted Bundy or Ed Kemper, who – like other organized killers – did display disorganized traits such as necrophilia, decapitation and cannibalism, so maybe I didn’t express myself well enough here.
“And I don't think there's anything in the previous killings that should make you think he "suddenly" became organized, as he was quite organized all the way through.” (your reaction to my words)
A good point Glenn Andersson raised some months ago against the Ripper being an organized killer was that if he would really have been one, he surely would have tried to find women with private lodgings earlier on. I still think this is a good point. Another good point is that Jack took quite a bit of extra risk in the case of Annie Chapman, because it must have been fairly light at about 5:30 in the morning and people were rising. It had already started dawning when John Richardson called in at 29, Hanbury Street at about 4:50 am.
"Besides, the mutilations on Mary show clearly that he wasn’t." (my own words)
Maybe I put this a little too ‘black and white’. However, I think in the Ripper case the mutilations are an indication that Jack wasn’t completely organized, although it must be considered that Jack didn’t throw any organs or flaps of meat away (like in a frenzy), but instead placed them somewhere, and - like I said –disorganized traits weren’t exclusively set aside for the disorganized killer.
”Uhh... that fact that he did mutilations doesn't mean that everything else wasn't extremely organized.” (your words)
Uhh… I would agree with you (really I would), if it weren’t for the points Glenn made.
“As pointed out elsewhere, if you pick one feature from a killing and focus on that as disorganized and then try to go for a mixed descriptor, …” (your words)
I didn’t focus on one feature as being disorganized and then tried to go for a mixed descriptor, I started with facts, tried to apply to Jack what is generally known of organized and disorganized killers with these facts in mind, and finally logically came to the conclusion that the Ripper probably was a more or less mixed type of killer.
By the way, I searched for what I found (‘probably a mixed killer’) because I’ve always thought that Jack wasn’t the disorganized killer he’s made out/believed to be by some.
Frank
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:35 am: | |
Then I was right after all. She did try to pull the sheet either over her head, or she wadded up the top of it in a pathetic attempt to shield her neck. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi Diana
Or maybe the killer threw the sheet over her face and stabbed her through it - particularly if she'd already screamed. Throwing the sheet over her face might have been an attempt to muffle her cries.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:49 am: | |
Hi All,
An organised killer, planning to murder women in order to mutilate their bodies, and take a sample or two away with him given the chance, would surely pick a location with which he was already very familiar, or at least one with which he could familiarise himself fairly quickly, without too much trouble and without drawing attention to himself in the process.
If the best location for him in this regard happens to be Whitechapel, he is laughing if his only other specification is a vulnerable-looking victim among the many street prostitutes he is likely to encounter after dark, who will take him somewhere quiet so he can get on with exactly what he is there for. He may not care whether this quiet place happens to be outdoors or in. There are risks involved either way. At least while he stays outdoors he can make a run for it if things get tricky. He could end up trapped if he goes into an unfamiliar building with a victim.
Couldn’t Jack have been an organised killer with simple specifications that were pretty much met in full out on the streets of Whitechapel – at least until after the double event? Even then we don’t know if it was by chance or design that he got an inside job next time, although I imagine the potential victims with no private accommodation would outnumber those like Mary by far more than say 5 to 1. So it’s possible that Jack changed his specs during October and actually went looking for somewhere, within his comfort zone, but even more comfortable.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on December 05, 2003) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Hi Caz
What you say sounds possible. I'm trying to keep an open mind about whether he was organized/disorganized. Let's suppose he was organized. Maybe there's a progression here.
Perhaps Tabram was the first, but he hadn't yet realised that he really wanted to rip, not stab. Then he kills Nichols, and finds out about ripping - and disembowelling - but is interrupted. So he does a better job on Chapman. But when he kills Eddowes, he realises that he wants to destroy a whole body - he'd started on her face and legs. He realises that for the next murder he'll need a place indoors. Perhaps the long 40 day wait was because he was having trouble finding a suitable victim?
It's all speculation, of course.
It's interesting about whether he'd have felt safer indoors or outdoors. I think different murderers would feel differently about it - it would depend on personality and temperament.
I remember a discussion about Schwartz running past his own house when he thought he was being pursued. Some people thought Schwartz should have bolted into his house for safety. Others said he wouldn't want to lead a pursuer to his house, so that was why he went past. That decision probably would have depended on the personality of the person being chased.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 6:23 am: | |
Robert,
Chapman would have to count as someone he led or was led by Jack to the place of death unless you assume he stumbled upon her suddenly in the backyard. That'd make at least three of five, and I lean toward maybe tossing Stride out and adding Tabram, which, if accurate, would make it even more self-evident that he could and did wait for the perfect time to kill when he wanted to. The only potential unrestrained chop and run attacks of the canonical five I see are Stride and Nichols.
Frank,
You are certainly entitled to accept Glenn's arguments for a disorganized killer, I was just pointing out some of several reasons why I think doing so goes against the actual evidence.
All,
Let's not get too far in making up our minds about various scenarios by assuming facts that may or may not be true, like thinking that the pot melted on the night of the murder, or that the reported witnesses were honest or correct about what they reported (recent studies show that eyewitness testimony is some of the worst evidence possible, believe it or not, and the ones we have in this case are all extremely weak to begin with).
As long as it's all weighed and used as things that may or may not be true, we can start talking about likely scenarios, but I think ruling things out based upon rather flimsy and suspect factoids is a bad idea.
And, yes, that makes it extremely hard to say anything for sure (much to the consternation of those who are pimping for their favored suspects), but I believe it's the only honest and effective way to look at the case. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 4:41 pm: | |
Hi Dan
Just seen your post. I don't understand your argument about Chapman. Why would he have needed to stumble across her in the backyard (though I admit that's possible). Why couldn't he have stumbled upon her outside the door of number 29? She may have been standing there touting for business, with her place of business conveniently at hand. I'm not saying this is true, just suggesting it as a possibility.
Re the kettle, I agree it needn't have melted on the night of the murder. I think there's a slight indication that it did, as Abberline thought so, and he'd have had a chance of checking with Barnett beforehand. But it's only a balance of likelihood.
Yes I agree about not ruling things out. In fact I've noticed (as I'm sure many others have before me) that the case seems almost bedevilled with uncertainty. If I were religious, I'd say that Someone didn't want us to solve it!
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 249
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:28 am: | |
Diana,
With regards to the cry of "Oh Murder", I just don't see someone saying that. It doesn't matter whether it's 2003 or 1888, no-one is going to take the time to put their cries into words. I still think she would have screamed upon being attacked with a knife. I'm sure there was no code of conduct for what to cry out when being murdered.
Sarah |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 12:39 am: | |
Robert,
I'm not saying that Jack couldn't have stumbled upon Chapman outside number 29. What I am getting at is that the killer waited for her to lead him (or be led) to the backyard before attacking. That would mean that he could successfully hold off on attacking until he was in a situation or location that was more suited to the act of murder. This goes against the theory that he couldn't have made himself wait for MJK to undress before attacking and points more toward an organized killer than a disorganized one.
The more I study the case the more I realize that we really can't even be certain of the few things most ripperologists agree upon. I tend to just measure things by degree of certainty, which I admit is subjective, and realize that the odds are that some of the things that seem highly likely are wrong, so don't count on all of them being right when making a theory. Of course that means my theories don't get very far... |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 9:50 am: | |
Hi Sarah, Diana;
See Rosies interesting post under the Walter Sickert thread.
If "Mary Jane" in French becomes "Marie Jeannette", then perhaps her cry was in French also; "OH, Mon dieu!"
The fancy fellow seen and followed by Hutchinson could very well have been an artist, carrying his pencils and sketching pad in his parcel that was seen in his hand.
This could explain several things;
Why he would say "You will be alright for what I have told you". He may have wanted to sketch the pretty Irish girl.
He would be able to get her to disrobe and lie on the bed to pose.
Strange then that Sickert's portrait is called "Mon dieu"?
Joan |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 12:42 pm: | |
1. "Let's not get too far in making up our minds about various scenarios by assuming facts that may or may not be true, like thinking that the pot melted on the night of the murder,..."
>>I'd rather think that the unusualness of the melted teapot spout at least roughly corresponds to the unusualness of the hearth contents. Each would seem to more or less confirm the other, absent a legitimate evidenciary proposition to the contrary.
2. "...or that the reported witnesses were honest or correct about what they reported..."
>>They said what they said. Absent a legitimate evidenciary proposition that they were mistaken or lying, on what logical grounds do you dismiss them from the case? You can't just say "Oh, pooh! Witnesses are known to be mistaken!" unless you show why these particular witnesses were. This logical fallacy has been repeatedly used in Ripperology to justify all kinds of things that contradict the evidence. For example, Tumblety's immensity.
Dissociativeness, no matter how persistent, should not be taken as intelligence, Mr. Norder.
Saddam
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 7:04 pm: | |
Hi Dan
I see what you mean about Chapman. Yes, he had to accompany her through to the yard - assuming he didn't suddenly appear from over a fence - and, if Long is correct, actually stood talking to her before entering the house.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 267
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 6:25 am: | |
Joan,
Mary Jane was Irish and not French so "Mon Dieu" would not have been the first thing to pop into her head. She wasn't in France for long anyway and she only kept using the Marie Jeanette name with clients as it sounds like she is better than she was.
Why should "You will be all right for what I have told you" mean that he wanted to draw her? I'm lost on where you got that idea from.
It seems like a Patricia Cornwall thing you are saying about his drawing entitled "Mon Dieu". You seem to be making a connection that isn't there.
I don't think Mary Jane would have cried out "Oh Murder" or "Oh Mon Dieu" at all. She would have screamed or swore or both.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
Sarah, you think Mary would have sworn? How about "Oh merde!"
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 270
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 10:58 am: | |
Robert,
That does sound more like murder, although I still don't think she would have said anything in French if anything at all. As I've said in another thread, the women who heard this cry said paid no attention to it so how could they know where it was coming from. When Mary Jane turned up murdered the next day of course they'll think the cry came from her room, whether Mary Jane heard the cry too we'll never know.
Sarah |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
Ive always wondered why Annie Chapman was murdered by the back steps of No. 29 Hanbury Street. Anyone of the inhabitants of the house could have stumbled upon them.
Surely it would have been safer to escape detection for both a prostitute, and JTR, to advance into the further reaches of the yard. Could it be that JTR's murderous intent was so strong, that he grabbed her by the neck as soon as they descended the steps into the yard.
Cludgy. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
