| Author |
Message |
    
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 2:10 pm: | 
|
When walking from Liverpool St Station for the December C&D Xmas meet at the City Darts, it occurred to Sue and I how very DARK the back streets were. Considering now in 2003, there were still very dark corners etc that someone could have been standing in and we would not have seen them. We continued this theme when speaking to Mark Galloway at the 'Darts' he agreed and said he never really thought about it much but street lighting was virtually non-existent in 1888 and lighting from houses with heavy cloth curtains pulled tight to keep out the draughts would not have provided any light at all. Any available streetlamps would have drawn prostitutes to hang around them: a, so punters could see them and b, so they would be in others company for safety. Street lamps would have drawn people around them like the proverbial moths around a flame. Not the sort of place we associate for murder. Now for JTR to have committed the mutilations, some of a very intricate nature, he would have needed light. So unless he had 3 arms (the extra one to hold a torch) or a battery operated miners helmet, who held the torch??? |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 160
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hi Andy and Sue
-moonlight/starlight?
-ability to see in the dark?
-had a small policeman"stype torch attached to belt[as they did?
-anatomical knowledge[that helped to locate organs in such dire conditions-timewise/safety wisee etc
re gaslight-it was much stronger than is supposed[my own road is lit with Victorian lamps replaced with much the same power as then and more than adequate.
Best Natalie |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 179
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Hi Andy, Sue, Natalie
Perhaps he was just familiar with the workings of the human body, and knew where everything was by just feeling his way.
Didn't you miss out carriage lamp from your list?
Happy New year to you all
Rob |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 6:03 am: |
|
Hi Rob & Natalie,
Sorry don't buy any of that! If he was working under a lamp post he would have been doing it in front of an audience.
Perhaps Jack the Ripper was the one to utter those immortal words to the first passer-by:
'Here mate got a light'.
What about the mutilations & incisions on Kate Eddowes body and face? He would have needed more than moonlight for that.
That corner of Mitre Square was pitch black.
A Great New Year To All!
A&S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Hi, Andy and Sue,
I must admit, the darkness is a mystery,the only explanation, is one must have become accustomed to the lack of light during that period, and it may not have been such an handicap, as ones eyes would have been used to that dim, exspecially in close up mode.
Richard. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Hi Richard and all;
I work night shifts in a darkened hotel and believe me, your eyes get used to it. When leaving to go home in the morning, the sunlight made me feel like a vampire and I needed sunglasses until I got to bed!
Of course, under the influence of a narcotic, the pupils could be dilated also, aiding in night vision, as well as being the cause of the maniacal attacks.
Joan
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Very useful Joan. It is quite possible then that JTR worked at nite as his eyes had become quite accomodated to the dark. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 323
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Richard is correct. People were more accustomed to seeing in the dimness in Victorian times. It is also paradoxically true that modern bright lights actually impedes our ability to see when out of the direct line of that light. The bright light constricts our pupils so that when we immediately step out of the direct light we are quite unable to see clearly. This would not have been so in the Victorian era.
Andy S.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 7:08 am: |
|
G'day,
Concerning the darkness of Mitre square: At the inquest into the murder of Catharine Eddowes, Mr Crawford butted in with: 'I know the locality. This is the darkest portion of the square. There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light. I formed the opinion that the perpetrator of the deed had no particular design on any particular organ. I do not think he was possessed of any great anatomical skill.' ('The Ultimate Jack the ripper Companion')
Those who insist that the Ripper must have had formal medical training, should take notice of that last sentence and understand that it was a VERY mixed opinion.
LEANNE |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:04 pm: |
|
I could be wrong, but I'm more apt to believe that any type of light used by the Ripper on his person would be counter-productive in his "line of work". He'd be better off trying to wing it, by seeing in the dark. A light source, would give a potential Ripper victim a good view of his face, and if she had escaped to tell the tale, it certainly wouldn't have benefited him in the least. Why take that chance, if you really don't need to? As for the Ripper needing light to remove organs, I honestly don't see that, if he was fimiliar with the human anatomy. You'd be amazed what a person can do just on touch alone. I once witnessed a soldier put together a disassembled military weapon blindfolded. The gun consisted of at least 10 pieces, and he had it assembled, locked, and loaded in under 15 seconds. My point being, the old saying "I can do that in my sleep", can mean just that. You know something so well, it becomes second nature to do it. Even in the dark. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 374
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 6:05 am: |
|
Dustin,
What are you suggesting? That Jack was what? A doctor?
I still find it irritating when some people suggest that a butcher would also know the human anatomy and I've had to say time after time that butchers knew the anatomy of certain animals like pigs but how does this give them any knowledge of a human? For someone in 1888 to have such an extent of human anatomy would suggest an educated man who is used to dead human bodies if he could "feel" his way around them in the dark.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 575
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:30 am: |
|
Like Andy, Im with Richard.
Whilst being in a degree of darkness, Rippers corner wasnt 'pitch black'.
Also, as an add on to what Andy states. Lighting in that era was nothing but dim. Street lamps were merely markers to guide you along the street. Very rarely used as illumination. Well you couldnt use them for that if you wanted to unless you were directly beneath them.
Monty
 |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 126
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
In my view the Ripper may have mutilated his victims for two things. They could have given him the ultimate feeling of power over his victims, and they could at the same time have been done because he had a fascination for the female body, because - in a very twisted way - he was curious about it. This isn't an uncommon trait of serial killers. If the latter was true, he might have read books or seen pictures about the human anatomy. However, this would of course depend on the accessibility of such books and pictures in the East End.
All the best,
Frank |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 3:33 pm: |
|
G'day Frank,
What about this thought: The ripper needed an feeling about being dominent over females?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 128
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Yes, I think he certainly needed to dominate his victims and he probably hated women in general. The anger and bitterness he probably felt since his childhood must have developed into fantasies about punishment, power and dominance and his actual murders probably give us a glimpse of these fantasies.
All the best,
Frank |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 6:09 pm: |
|
G'day Frank
He took Chapman's uterus and two thirds of her bladder. He took Eddowes' womb and left kidney, then he took Mary Kelly's heart and not her womb. Could these facts, plus the contrast in the ages of the victims, tell us something about his 'relationships' with each victim? ie: With the earlier victims he was hating the female ability to create life, and with Kelly he was hating the female ability to love!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1786
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 9:00 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
I think the wombs are suggestive, because he took two of them. But if you're going to spin theories around the heart, then why the kidney?
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 385
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 11:59 am: |
|
Leanne,
That is a great answer to something Robert asked me on another thread, can't remember which one now. I had said that it seems strange that the killer would take Mary's heart and does suggest Joe but he asked me why he would have taken Kate's kidney and what you have just said is very plausible.
Hope you're taking notes Robert.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Some time ago now in Wales, an old lady was murdered and her heart was removed by a young man who apparently had vampire fantasies.
I don’t think anyone ever suggested he was in love with her and took her heart because she had broken his, but I may be wrong.
All I am saying is that just because Kelly was young and had her heart removed, we can’t assume this is a significant pointer to a killer who knew her, loved her and lost her.
Sarah, I’m still none the wiser about the kidney. Leanne said that the ripper may have hated Eddowes’ ability to create life. So what has her kidney to do with it?
Love,
Caz
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Could he have wanted the heart all along but since it was harder to get at and he had less time, he settled for other things? Remember the stab wound on Tabram's breast bone and the cuts in Eddowes liver? He had to completely eviscerate Mary and then go in through the bottom of the rib cage to get it. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:54 am: |
|
Leanne wrote:
"He took Chapman's uterus and two thirds of her bladder. He took Eddowes' womb and left kidney, then he took Mary Kelly's heart and not her womb."
Actually, Jack did 'take' MJK's womb, but he set it aside and moved farther into the body afterwards, probably for the all too common sense reason that he had more time to do so and probably more light available in this instance.
Saying that he didn't take the womb misses the point. He took it out... then he saw (or felt) more stuff and dug farther into the body cavity. In each of the organ thefts he got deeper inside. Talk about a natural progression of the murders. And yet people typically miss that and assume some great meaning behind what was taken, and then assume it must have been a doctor if he knew where to get the things. There's no indication that he was going for anything specific or even knew where anything was, just that we went in and got what he could get.
Besides, the bladder and kidney have nothing to do with creating life. There's another ludicrous twisting of the evidence to try to support Barnett that just doesn't stand up to the light of reason.
Speaking of light, I thought that's what this thread was created to discuss. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:33 pm: |
|
The thrill of seeing his mutilations,I think, would have been part of the Rippers makeup. Why rip up someone and not be able to see your hanywork?
So I assume he was able to see his handywork to some degree, all be it in subdued lighting.
Was this the reason why he struck so late when killing Annie Chapman, in order to see more of the mutilations in the breaking dawn, but gave up the manouvre in subsequent murders because of the added danger of being caught? |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 134
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
As I get internet through cable and there were technical cable problems in the area I live in I wasn't able to come back to you any sooner.
"G'day Frank
He took Chapman's uterus and two thirds of her bladder. He took Eddowes' womb and left kidney, then he took Mary Kelly's heart and not her womb. Could these facts, plus the contrast in the ages of the victims, tell us something about his 'relationships' with each victim? ie: With the earlier victims he was hating the female ability to create life, and with Kelly he was hating the female ability to love!" This is what you said on Tuesday last.
I see that many before me have already said the things I wanted to say. For example, the Ripper had more time and probably more light at his disposal, which enabled him to explore his victim's body more than in the previous cases. Maybe he thought that taking the heart would be the cream on his cake in terms of shocking 'his audience' and to the Ripper the heart might also have been the symbol of life, not of love.
And Cludgy,
Your question/suggestion regarding the timing of Annie Chapman's killing is a good one.
All the best,
Frank |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 8:00 am: |
|
Hi All,
If he tried cooking and eating the bits he took away with him, it might make sense that he graduated from womb to kidney, and on to heart when he had a whole variety to choose from, and a bit more light so he could recognise when he had taken out an organ he had already sampled.
I wonder which organ 9 out of 10 cannibals would say they prefer.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 12, 2004) |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 79
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Hello Caz,
That's how I thought all women cooked!!!
Cannibals always ate the eyeballs first, cos they had to see 'em thro' the week!! 'Boom Boom'
ASP |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 185
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 11:40 pm: |
|
Hate to break it to you, but the human body is not all that different, at least structurally, than those of other large mammals. We have all the same organs (although cows have that extra stomach) and they're more or less in the same order. Certainly human organs are larger than those of say, a pig, but honestly, I don't think it would be any more difficult for an experienced hunter and/or butcher to locate and extract a human's "sweetbreads" than those of a deer. I don't know of any practical use for a uterus, but hey, maybe our boy just thought they were interesting. |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Sarah...
I'm not suggesting that Jack was a certified physican or surgeon. However, I AM suggesting, that it appears he did, at least, have some basic anatomical knowledge, and a degree of practice when handling a knife. Both would be a necessity, when taking into consideration not only the unlit conditions in which he committed the murders and subsequent dissections, but the short time constraits he was restrained by as well. |
Amanda Turner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
I'm not very familiar with Victorian literature of any type, but is it possible that Jack simply read and/or studied an anatomical text of some sort? |
Sergeant Charles Eyton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:57 am: |
|
Okay I held it then, happy? |
