|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 661
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 11:49 am: |       |
Folks,
Bundy had one....did Jack ?
No, not a battered VW. A murder kit.
What sort of equipment would our boy be wearing and carrying during his little jolly nights out.
I reckon usual dark, run of the mill clothing (trews, shirt, chuddies ect). I feel he would have a long overcoat of sorts with huge deep pockets. Ive also toyed with the common (though revolutionary at the time)idea of rubber soled shoes. And just for good measure a pair of gloves. Though Im not so sure what material. I get the feeling that they may get slippy !
Weaponary ? I find it hard to believe he would got out with just one blade.
Any one want to add, take away or adapt ?
Monty
 |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 205
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
I don't think he was that prepared. Probably he just carried knives around with him anyway. And an overcoat--well, it was London in the winter, so it's bound to be cold, right? Of course, a good overcoat implies that he had sufficient funds to purchase one, which could I suppose lend credence to the whole "shabby genteel" description given by some of the witnesses. Gloves, however, are another matter--who in Whitechapel had money for gloves, except perhaps a slaughterman, who used them as part of his trade?
More questions than answers here, sorry. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 482
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
I don't see that. I think he wasn't prepared at all and so only had one knife and wore normal clothes that didn't stand out.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 663
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Erin, Sarah,
No..it was London in Autumn.
Speaking of witnesses the reason I mentioned the overcoat was becasue of PC Browns statement....and Schwartz....and Hutchinsons.....and Long. The overcoats seem common enough to me so I see no reason to assume they were a luxury item. New ones aye, but old ones, hand me downs, cheap off the market/pop shop? Im not talking about a spanking new one here. Are we going on the premise of a poverty ridden Jack ? Me? A low income guy. Mainly due to the weekend killer reason. I feel he had work of sorts. But I move on from the thread.
To be honest the gloves didnt appeal much to me either.
So he carried one knife? OK.
So he carried a load of knives? OK.
All views welcome.
I just cannot see him going out to murder without some sort of equipment which 'he feels' would aid him. Ok, a disorganised killer (with a touch of mixed) but this doesnt mean he wasnt prepared. Look at Sutcliffe for example.
But what do I know ?
Monty
PS Erin, more questions is good...dont apologise !
(Message edited by monty on January 20, 2004) |
Michael Blayne Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
I agree with Monty, low income, working man, overcoat, deep pockets, 1 or 2 knives, but I would add some sort of "trinkets" like scarves or peices of unusual or brightly colored peices of fabric. Ok everybody, let's hear your views!
Mikey |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 381
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Hi all..
Chuddies???? just looked into Websters and found out what they are!!..Definately a knife or something of that sort...red hanky may be tantalising!!!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 385
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Go Monty.
Am I the only semi-sentient creature alive out here?? Come in Sarah!!!!
Love
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 6:54 pm: | |
Monty,
I believe an overcoat was fairly common as you say, even among the lower class; otherwise I agree with Erin and Sarah here. I don't think he was especially prepared -- according to how I see him.
I fail to see why he should go out with more than one blade or a "murder kit" -- considering some descriptions of the Ripper that figured in the papers, the prostitutes would most likely scream their hearts out if a man with a bad approached them during the Ripper scare.
I think, as I have stated earlier, that he carried a knife for his own protection, not necessarily to committ a crime at that stage -- but that is just speculation on my part.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 665
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 4:05 am: | |
Glenn,
Bad ?? I do not understand what you mean.
As for being approached, isnt that part of their jobs ? To be approached.
But I do understand you....says Monty contradicting !!!
Monty
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 157
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
I could be wrong, but I think Glenn meant to write 'bag'. I think the women would have been suspicious of him, but I doubt if they would have screamed their hearts out, though.
Cheers,
Frank  |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 669
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Frank, Glenn,
Frank...ahhh makes sense to me now, cheers Bubaloo. Sorry Glenn, I shoud have guessed.
Yeah, I agree, a bag wouldnt do for me.
I was thinking of a knife in his inside pocket...one in his outside...and thats about it really.
There was conjecture (regarding Mylett, yes not a popular Ripper victim I know) about a garrot. That I dont think...but...
Also, chloroform. No evidence I know but lets say yeay. A Hinderence ?
Finally, what I really want is the availability of this stuff (especially rubber soled shoes). easy to get ? Where from ? Anyone got any photos of this stuff?
I dont ask for much but when I do....
Cheers,
Monty |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Yep, sorry about that typo. I naturally meant "bag".
Thanks, Frank.
Well, since we spoke of carrying several or more than one blades -- I can believe one knife in his pocket (which I believe he had), but several??!!
That thing about the rubber soled shoes is interesting, I didn't know these things existed in 1888, but apparently they did. I have no idea what they looked like, though. I am sure it wasn't moon boots...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 675
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Glenn,
No worries. Got there in the end.
Re the rubber soled shoes. There were a few letters to the police suggesting that they wore rubber soled boots. This indicates to me that they exisited during the murder scare.
Monty
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 676
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Glenn,
No worries. Got there in the end.
Re the rubber soled shoes. There were a few letters to the police suggesting that they wore rubber soled boots. This indicates to me that they exisited during the murder scare.
Monty
PS Moon boots are metal soled. |
Michael Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Monty, found this article on the web. It sounds as though rubber soled shoes may well have been available in the UK in 1888.
Mikey
First Rubber Soled Shoes/Sneakers:
The first rubber soled shoes called plimsolls were developed and manufactured in the United States in the late 1800s. In 1892, nine small rubber manufacturing companies consolidated to form the U.S. Rubber Company. Among them was the Goodyear Metallic Rubber Shoe Company, organized in the 1840s in Naugatuck, Connecticut. This company was the first licensee of a new manufacturing process called vulcanization, discovered and patented by Charles Goodyear. Vulcanization uses heat to meld rubber to cloth or other rubber components for a sturdier, more permanent bond. |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
The following pieces about ‘silent shoes’ might be of interest.
“Worth Inquiry.
A reporter heard a strange story this morning that may be connected with the murders. A gentleman living not far from the British Museum says: - In the room above mine there is an American lodging. He professes to be a doctor, but does not look like one. In fact, if one judged by his looks, he might be – well, a perfect ruffian. No one knows anything about him. He never does any work, and always seems rather hard up, although he pays his rent regularly. He must wear something over his boots that enables him to walk silently, for no one ever hears him come in. At intervals he disappears for a time. On Saturday he went out, and has not been back since.” (The Star 1st Oct. 1888, page 3)
“"A. E. Gower," "W. S." (Derby), and "H. C. W," think the police should patrol their beats silently with the aid of "rubber boots," and "A Surgeon" (T. L.) calls our attention to the fact that "the Sheffield police are supplied with boots not only waterproof, but soft in the sole, which make no noise, and are cheap and durable."” (“Letters from the Public” Daily Telegraph, 2 Oct. 1888, page 3)
“Herbert F. Scott describes the silent boot referred to yesterday. "It is used," he says, "by the police of Leeds. The outer sole and heel, which are of leather, are pierced at intervals by studs or buttons of india-rubber, which are attached to a middle sole of the same material, the inner sole next the foot being of leather. These boots are perfectly silent, and have the additional advantage of being warm and entirely damp-proof, even in the worst weather."” (“Letters from the Public” Daily Telegraph 3 Oct. 1888, page 3)
The Times, 3rd & 6th Oct. (available on Casebook) also provide accounts of rubber-soled boots.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Michael Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Alex,
Wow! You've been busy, as usual. I think we can safely assume that the Ripper would have been able to obtain some sort of "sneakers" during his run.
Mikey  |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 203
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
Mary Ann Cox, however, does testify that at 6:15 am she heard someone walk out of Miller's court on the morning that Mary Kelly was found murdered.
If, and it's a big if, she heard Jack's footsteps as he left, then at least on this occasion it doesn't seem like he's wearing sneakers.
Just something to keep in mind.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
Monty,
"Moon boots are metal soled."
Well... I referred to those hideous boots that were popular among teenagers during the 80's. Mine were at least rubber soled -- if not rubber all over. They would have looked great together with a balck long-jacket in 1888...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 22, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
Interesting info, Alex and Michael. Thank you. The fact that they were cheap -- according to your source here, Alex -- is interesting. I actually thought they would have been expensive.
Jeff, good point. There are indeed certain indications on that we should be cautious about this.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 205
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
Hi All,
I seem to recall reading a post which suggested that the police did not patrol Miller's Court area? If this is true, which I find a bit hard to believe, then Cox's footsteps could not be a police officer.
Unless, of course, this is now close enough to day for the police to feel safe walking the streets or the whole idea of "no police in the area" is actually wrong.
Anyway, this is probably the wrong place for this post, but it goes with the rubber-soled sneakers stuff. If anyone has some ideas, or responses, in relation to this line of thought please just suggest an alternative thread where we can move this particular line of investigation.
- Jeff |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 683
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 4:28 am: | |
Alex, Mikey and Glenn,
Alex - many thanks...again ! I know I have read it somewhere...but not those articles.
Mikey - Thank you to you also. Aaaah Plimmies, I still got mine....along with Caz's leotard !
Glenn - Nope, dont remember them. I remember monkey boots though. Great for tree climbing !
Guys, again, thanks for your input !
Food for thought.
Monty
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 666
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 8:17 am: | |
Hi Monty,
You ought to force yourself to wash it, you’ve had it long enough.
Yeah, long dark coat, offally deep pockets, nise newly-sharpened knif (it would be blunt enough for Jack to ride bare-arsed to Bristol on it after the previous outing), and maybe a bit of cash for a bloom or some grapes for the ladies’ button and cake holes respectively, and he’s ready to go, I’d say.
Perhaps it was a poncing GH leaving Miller’s Court after trying to collect Mary’s takings from the previous night at around 6.15 and finding only Jack’s leavings instead…
And Monty, you know you haven’t got my leotard – I never had one to give you.
Love,
Caz
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 4:39 pm: | |
Yeah, I'm not sure what all he would have put together to be prepared. Knife, certainly, maybe a spare. Handkerchiefs possibly for clean up (though from the taking bits of apron from Eddowes it implies that he hadn't thought of bringing his own) or potentially -- though I am extremely dubious on these reports --- as gifts. Grapes - no. Bag, probably not. I could see something used as a garotte for some crimes. Bit of change. Dark clothes. Probably normal shoes.
Unless we're missing something it sounds like his kit, if he had one, wouldn't be too far afield from what a normal person of the time would have on him... which either by design or accident would help him avoid suspicion.
It's kind of neat to think of him carrying a big bag with jars for organs, 12 different knives (so he could switch around between stabs on Tabram, heh), knockout gas, spring-heeled boots, snacks, etc., makeup kit, change of clothes, but nah... |
Birgitte Breemerkamp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Didn't some witnesses saw him with a 'bundle'? That made me assume he had a bundle of cloth (a with a knife wrapped in it maybe, so he's ready to strike), which he could use to wrap his trophies in. Or choke somebody with. Or whatever other 'useful' purpose one can think of...
I don't see him running around with an arsenal of knives either.
Birgitte |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 414
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Birgitte-Welcome on board!!That post was a bit too serious for pub talk mate!!
Suzi Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh too short again!! good to see a new face(!) on the boards as I'm sure everyone will agree..subscribe now!!!! Will try to fill this up !!x  |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 533
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:02 am: | |
Birgitte,
Yes welcome to the boards. With regards to your post, he may have had a bundle, but this would be going on the basis that the men whom the witnesses saw was Jack himself but some of the descriptions are so different I don't believe they all saw him, if any did at all.
Sarah |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
If he had cloth with him when he went hunting, he would have used it to clean the knife and his hands after Stride, he would have had to improvise with a bit of apron with Eddowes. |
Nick Cook
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Its not like the stories then? Jack walking around with a briefcase of an assortment of cutting tools and knives in a moulded hold inside the case?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Hi,
"If he had cloth with him when he went hunting, he would have used it to clean the knife and his hands after Stride, he would have had to improvise with a bit of apron with Eddowes."
Interesting, Diana. Indeed, one wonders why Eddowes was the only one (as far as I know) that had a piece of her clothes torn off and used as a cloth.
Nick,
"Its not like the stories then? Jack walking around with a briefcase of an assortment of cutting tools and knives in a moulded hold inside the case?"
You were joking, right?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
The first victim with bits taken away was Annie Chapman. By the time Jack got back to his lodgings, whatever he had used to transport his trophies may have become a sodden an inadequate mess. He may not have given this problem much thought at the time, being more preoccupied with the trophies themselves.
Next time he was able to cut stuff out was just after he killed Eddowes. It probably dawned on him by the time he had the trophies in his hands that he could make very good use of her pinny, and so improve on whatever had served as Chapman's goody-but-soggy bag.
Love,
Caz
|
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
Hello All,
If you are willing to accept that JTR went through the trouble of obtaining rubber soled shoes to silence his steps, then naturally you accept that he DID take steps to prepare for the murders.
In my opinion, if he obtained the rubber shoes (which appear to have been somewhat rare) then I would guess that he did take other precautions before going out.
Clearly he carried at least one knife. He must have had some way to carry it without it being seen, especially if it was 6" or longer, as a sheath knife of this length is a decent size. I would imagine that he probably kept it in a sheath on his back or on his side.
If he bothered to get rubber shoes, then you could speculate that he also may have bought bags or sacks to carry organs away from the crime scenes.
My gut instinct is that after the first murder, he probably took more precautions. He probably carried something with him to take organs away from the crime scene, I would guess that he only carried one knife (no real need for two), he probably wore a long coat to keep warm, conceal objects underneath, and keep blood from his underclothes. Of course, all of this is pure speculation.
Tim |
RipeprHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 8:12 pm: | |
Also,
I doubt that JTR would have carried the knife around in a bag, cloth, or newspaper. All inidications are that he carried the knife around because he was paranoid (and of course also used it for the murders). This being the case he would have carried the knife in a sheath and very likely on his belt.
It would not be suspicious or noticeable on a belt and would have been in the best place to have instant access to it.
Keeping the knife in a bag, case, paper, etc would have been cumbersome and obvious.
Anybody that carries a knife on a regular basis is going to keep in in either a sheath or a long pocket (always the same pocket for readiness and assurance), not in a bundle or package in my opinion. I carry a Leatherman Pocket tool everyday (it clips inside my pocket). I always carry it in the same spot, I would imagaine that most people that carry pocket knives and such always keep them in the same place. Just my opinion, let me know what you think.
Tim |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
Considering the nature of his work, what he intended to do with the victims, the fact that he did such while walking around in full view of the bobbies, whom could have stopped and searched him at any moment, I find it impractical that he would have carried one. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
