|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Holger Haase
Sergeant
Username: Holger
Post Number: 27
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 8:56 am: |       |
This is bringing me back to my University days where the more you read philosophical tracts, the less you were really sure of anything, but I am now curious as to what can be considered undebatable truth in regards to the Ripper murders?
There's a debate as to the number of murders, as to the reliability of most witnesses, as to the letters (which ones if any were written by the killer), as to the kidney (non-human or human, male/female, or even: belonging to a victim?), as to the medical data etc etc.
I'd greatly appreciate if you could name *anything* that you feel is generally accepted as truth, i.e. not that any of you individually feel is correct, but where you know pretty much everyone would agree with.
Really curious to the answers. :-)
All the best
Holger |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 95
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 9:15 am: | |
I would say it is fairly undeniable that a lot of women died, in an extremely brutal manner, and someone obviously killed them.
Beyond that I don't think anything is proven. |
SPEARS
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi
I think at least Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman & Catherine Eddowes whould be considered my most people as murdered by the same hand.
So disregarding Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Elizabeth Stride, Frances Coles, Alice McKenzie & even Mary Kelly there was a serial killer walking the streets of Whitechapel in 1888.
Another proven fact is that local prostitutes at the time definitely were suspicous of a man known as 'Leather Apron'.
Leather Apron could be the key. Looking at other cases of Serial Killers, a common theme running throughout is that the killer brought suspician upon himself very early on in the case.It is known that some modern day killers have been questioned and then released or a very close matching description of them has been made public.
Thats not to say that John Pizer is Jack the Ripper. I believe that Pizer wasn't in fact the Leather Apron that the women were fearful of. I believe there may have been another man known by the same nickname, and this man may have been the real Ripper.
Regards
SPEARS
|
Holger Haase
Sergeant
Username: Holger
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
"I would say it is fairly undeniable that a lot of women died, in an extremely brutal manner, and someone obviously killed them.
Beyond that I don't think anything is proven."
You know what? I think you're right. And this is the reason I posted the original question. I am absolutely amazed as to how little *really* is known about the killings. Quite amazing seeing that they happened not too long ago in historical terms.
Let's see if others can name one or two other points.
Interesting point about Leather Apron BTW: You're right the ladies *were* frightened about someone. I don't want to go too far into your own conclusions, but this is the kind of point I am referring to. Let's see if we can collect more undeniables.
Holger |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 246
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
Hi Holger,in answer to your question:
Four women were murdered and mutilated in Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888.
As well as having their throats cut nearly to the vertebrae the murderer
*disembowelled the victims
*displayed the contents of their organs
around their necks and in one case all around their body
*Stole some of their organs
[as trophies?]
*displayed them in a slighltly obscene way
that made observers recognise a "signature"
The murders took place after twelve at night and before noon that day
the deaths appear to have been swift probably by strangulation followed by throat cutting and the above activities
the murderer always got away
few people seem to have noticed him come or go or indeed noticed anything particularly odd going on
apart from one such[MJK]the murders were done with great speed and outdoors
All these above victims Except for MJK were 40+
and small in stature
All are said to have drunk heavily
All except Kate Eddowes were known to the police as prostitutes and Kate may have been on the game from time to time.
All were destitute and homeless[apart from MJk who was destitute but not at the time homeless].
The police at the time had several suspects
Only one of these Kosminski was considered a prime suspect by more than one of the leading police officers
Druitt was Machnaghtens Prime suspect because of private information he later said he had about him.
Pizer also known as leather apron[some say mistakenly]was another prime suspect along
with Tumblety Chapman and as time went by a host of others including Prince Albert Victor and his young tutor Jk Stephens.
Thomas Cutbush was apparently not suspected although the police made such a song and dance about accusations in the Sun Newspaper which believed Cutbush to have been JtR that it has caused a number of researchers to wonder about this man and his uncleCharles Cutbush who killed himself in bizarre circumstances in 1895.Charles Cutbush was a senior police officer in the Ripper initial investigations.
Druitt,Kosminski and Thomas and charles Cutbush
all seem to have had severe mental health problems developing around the time of the murders
Natalie |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Whatho all,
Are actually sure Mary Jane Kelly was strangled?
Cheers, Mark
(13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 rule) |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 248
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi All, Good point.Not sure-death probably due to the cutting of the main vein in the neck.Sorry Mark but what are the numbers for starting with 13
and finishing with 24?
Cheers Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1996
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi
I too doubt if Mary Kelly was strangled. The whole thing looks like a botched job to me.
Anyway, I mustn't wander off topic.
Oh crumbs, I just have.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 350
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
I think we can also add that we know for certain whom a number of the police investigators at the time suspected as being the killer. Unfortunately, we also know that there was not a lot of agreement among these police officials.
Andy S.
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 7:15 pm: | |
Whatho Natalie,
The numbers are there to get me past the 25 word rule. Without the right number of words, you cannot post.
Cheers, Mark |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 104
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 9:04 am: | |
Andrew,
I don't think we can say that with much accuracy since Anderson didn't even name his suspect by name; and if it is Kosminski a lot of mistajes about his story are present, so it seems suspect to me at best, and possibly trying to do a bit of damage control in retrospect.
I think we should stick to what we know for CERTAIN on this thread and not bring up maybes and ifs and possibilities. That is what this thread is all about, is it not? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 352
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 11:04 am: | |
Kris,
With all do respect, I did say that we knew for certain whom "a number" of the police officials suspected. I didn't say what that number was, nor did I say that Anderson was included in that number.
For example, we know that Swanson considered Kosminski a suspect (technically, Swason identified Kos as Anderson's suspect and not his own). We know that Abberline for some reason considered Klosowski to be the Ripper. Macnaughten certainly suspected Druitt. These are indirect evidences, but they are important since these officers were much closer to the case than we are.
Andy S.
|
Johnnycannuk
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
All,
I quite agree with Natalie Severn's post above as a bare minimum of information about the murders.
One interesting observation I would like to point out to everyone (and please pardon me if you have heard this before here, I'm new...). As I read about the vitims and the way they died, it struck me that the Ripper most certainly had killed before Polly Nichols. He was able to do that in the dark and so quickly. What also struck me was how he did it. I am Canadian and I hunt. The Ripper seems to me to be filed dressing these women, much the same way we do to a deer we have just killed during hunting season - that is, kill the animal (I would shoot the deer, the Ripper would strangle the women), cut their throats to bleed them out then remove various internal organs (bowels, kidneys etc). The organs are taken out for 2 reasons: to prevent decomposition and intestinal gasses from ruining the meat and some of these organs are eaten and considered delicacies by hunters (not me!).
That being said, that was the impression I got when reading all of the victim files on this site. All of them. The only variance I saw was time. No time to finish up with Liz Stride and all kinds of time with Mary Kelly. But to me everything else was a variation on this theme - kill, bleed them out, "field dress" or mutilate.
Now I don't propose that the Ripper was "hunting" in this sense, but being a hunter of some sort is where he learned his craft and how he became handy with a knife. What ever his reasons for the killing, it appears to me that he reverted to what he knew about hunting when killing and mutilating the women...
Anyway just a thoough...let me know what you think..
M |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 114
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Andrew,
I agree, and again, I mean no disrespect, but Abberline at other times stated he thought George Chapman was the killer, and still on other occurances stated no one knew who the killer was at all.
And I still have to wonder how much Macnaughten actually even knew about Druitt, his facts were so off the mark.
I agree that what you brought up IS important to the case, but the thread was what we knew for certain, and all that is still too far into the grey area for me, personally, to include in this thread. But, again, that's just my opinion. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 354
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 1:46 pm: | |
Kris,
No offense taken indeed! I suppose we differ on just how to define "certainty." Someone earlier suggested a common killer for Nicholls, Chapman, and Eddowes should be considered a certainty. While I think that is virtually certain, I suppose I would have to grant that it is not absolutely so.
Cheers!
Andy S.
|
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 115
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
Andrew,
You're absolutely correct. I hadn't thought of that. It's odd what passes without me thinking "wait a sec . . ." and what doesn't.
Good point.
Signed, (again)
Kris
|
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 63
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
So, I guess that all we can say for certain is that a number of women were killed in a close proximity to each other in a short period of time??? Hmmm........ We are not certain about much, are we?
Mikey |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 356
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Michael,
And that is the problem with isolating only the bare facts. All we are left with is the bare fact that a number of women were murdered in and about Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888.
Detective work is an art that involves the marriage of bare facts with probabilities, possibilities, inferences, and sometimes even hunches. Yes, by all means, start with the bare facts. But then progress also to the less-than-certain.
Andy S.
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 254
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Hi Mikey,well whether we like it or not the internal police memorandum provided by Machnaghten
is a historical fact even if its contents are not.
Why Machnaghten would want to fool his own police force about an upper middle class Oxford graduate
being Jack the Ripper has always astonished me-especially since Macnaghten himself was an old Etonian and you would think he would have had some regard for the old school tie syndrome that has always existed for such people let alone
provide scandalous gossip for generations about Druitt and by default his family.Why choose Druitt as a prime suspect at all? What was it thatcaused him to make this outlandish statement
[privately to his own police force]?
I can somehow see the thinking behind the"low class Polish Jew"----an easy scapegoat[and here I am not at all saying It was not such a person just that even if he didnt exist he could almost have been invented as a scapegoat]but Montague Druitt---not a policeman like Charles Cutbush I accept,but an gentleman of the first order nevertheless,not a typical scapegoat by any stretch of the imagination.And even if we say well he conveniently died[committed suicide/was murdered etc]at around the time the mutilation /spectacle type murders ceased in late Autumn 1888 and was therefore unable to defend his reputation it still doesnt account for why Machnaghten singled him of all people out.
Anyway the point is the police memorandum from Machnaghten is about the prime suspects a few years only after those murders and we cant just
dismiss it.The very least we need do is try to find out why Machnaghten thought Druitt was the Ripper.
Another point that has long interested me is the composition of the police force at the time.Many of the senior police were from this upper middle class group---Warren was educated at Sandhurst and CheltenhamMonroe at Edinburgh and Berlin universities,Anderson married into the aristocracy
However Abberline a Dorset man does not seem to have belonged to this group-he was a clocksmith before joining the police.Andrews who was with Abberline and Moore as initial police investigators into the 1888 ripper murders committed suicide like Cutbush[Andrews in !899 and Cutbush in 1895]Both left this inquiry in 1889
I believe.All these are areas about which we can say things with certainty if we check records etc
Natalie |
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Andrew, I agree totally. We make an assumption based on the known facts and work from there. Each time we find something a little more certain, the assumption changes slightly and we build a stronger and stronger case. Unfortunately, we will probably never know for sure who it was.
Mikey |
Holger Haase
Sergeant
Username: Holger
Post Number: 31
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
"And that is the problem with isolating only the bare facts. All we are left with is the bare fact that a number of women were murdered in and about Whitechapel in the Autumn of 1888."
Interesting post. I may get you wrong here, but it makes it sound as if "only the bare facts" is something very rare and hard to find, whereas in most aspects of life and history, it is the whole meat of the matter.
I am always left intrigued as to the near complete lack of bare facts in this particular case. Can't recall any other (recent) historical subject that has such a true lack of them.
Holger
|
Rosa Divineski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
Greetings:
We also know he, assuming, was more interested in displaying the women then in torturing them. It was a quick kill and then silence. The women were just instruments on his comment to society. He wanted the women to be found. And I would guess that Kelly was his final speech. He couldn't be more outrages then he was with her body and pose. What more could he say?
I would also guess that all the other women were a build up to Kelly.
We know he chose women he felt most comfortable killing. Imagine what a uproar it would have been if it had been middle-class women in their homes or the upper class. Now there's a real threat. You need a comfort level.
Also you need to be comfortable in the area to move among it's people. Jack London's The people of the Abyss tells you how disgusting it was in 1902. And I imagine that it had improved.
We also know he didn't want to get caught.
Ridgeway wrote one letter in an attempt to put the police of his track. He never told anyone. And he was careful to separate himself from the crime. He was a cheap bastard who hated women and didn't feel he should have to pay for sex. And he would return to dump site until he "couldn't stand the flies" anymore. He hated to waste gas money to pick up a new kill. If he had a woman, dead, who he could keep returning to he knew he would have a good day.This man was very economical.
And he also resented the time it took to cover up the crime because it took him away from what he loved to do.
There was never anything more to his motive than that.
Each of us only does in our behavour what we need to do. Even exacturated behavour is done for a reason.
I also see parallels between the Ripper and the Boston strangler.
The strangler was the "measuring man", the "green man" and the "boston strangler" then he went back to being the "measuring man" for over a year before he got caught and placed in Bayswater. He stopped killing, went back to just rape. And the strangler's last victim was the one most elaboratley displayed with a happy "new year" card propped against her foot, legs open facing the door and a exaggerated bow around her neck.
He also felt compelled to compete with the Kennedy assination. He needed to be more important. Thus he wanted to create theatre, a spectical.
The day the Kelly murder was discovered was the day of the Lord Mayor parade. The Ripper wanted to be better news then the lord mayor. And he was.
Now we need a new list of suspects. The one we have doesn't work!
Rosa |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Natalie wrote:
>The deaths appear to have been swift probably by strangulation followed by throat cutting and the above activities.
That is a detail that has always bothered me. I am not saying you are mistaken. I am asking myself: why would Jack have strangled his victims before he slit their throats. To keep them from screaming, everyone will answer. However, no one can scream with his/her throat slit down to the vertebrae. Although I have never slit anyone's throat (not yet at any rate), it seems to me that physically I could slit a middle-aged woman's throat much quicker, with much less chance of screams or a struggle, with much less chance of my victim escaping, and with much less chance of being seen by my victim if somehow she did get away, if I attacked her from behind -- covering her mouth with one hand and slicing her throat with my other hand. No screams, no blood on me, no struggle, no fuss, no muss. It takes just a split second. Just like OJ and Nicole.
But how in the world do you slice a throat down to the verterbrae when the victim has already been strangled to death? Does someone else have to prop her up? While she is laying on the ground? You have to slice away from yourself -- no leverage. The whole thing seems so clumsy. OK, I guess it is possible. But why did Jack choose this very clumsy and repetitive method of killing his victims? In dark alleys in the dead of night, Jack could have waited hidden like a spider, just waiting for a prostitute to pass him by, sneak up behind her and jump her from behind, beginning with his hand over her mouth. He could have stabbed her in the back and then slit her throat. But strangulation?????
This fact does tell us something definite about the identity of Jack The Ripper. Any of the suspects (Stan Russo has collected 70) was physically capable of slitting a woman's throat with a knife. But which of these suspects was physically incapable of strangling four women to death with their bare hands? Not much of a clue, I admit. Perhaps if someone can up with a reason why strangulation gave one particular suspect an advantage over mere throat-cutting, we might get somewhere. Maybe it could be explained by their height, even more than their strength.
Regards,
Mark Starr
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Mark wrote:
"But how in the world do you slice a throat down to the verterbrae when the victim has already been strangled to death? Does someone else have to prop her up? While she is laying on the ground?"
While she's on the ground makes more sense to me than standing up, regardless of whether she has been strangled beforehand or not. Those were very deep cuts, and the most force can be applied when the ground is there as a brace.
And in that kind of scenario you can't rule out anyone for physical reasons moreso than you probably already would have anyway.
IMNSHO, anyway. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
