|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 6:26 am: |       |
Hi all,
it occured to me that whatever point out take, who was a victim, who the murderer was, who saw what, right down to things that seem less important or major, on none of these issues does everybody concerned agree.
I have been trying to think of something, especially since Chris George's excellent article on revisionist history appeared in this months Ripperologist but i can't think of anything.
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Whatho Jennifer,
I think we can all agree Queen Victoria was the monarch in 1888  .
Cheers, Mark
Oh no not that bloody 25 word rule again, grump, grumble! |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 546
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer
Lets face it.we're all looking for a ghost...who was it,when was it etc etc...isn't that just the only reason we keep doing it?? Remember the Rumbelow thing about when we get to the Pearly Gates and somebody has the audacity to say 'Will Jack the Ripper step forward' and when he does we'll all say....'WHO??'
cheers suzi |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 97
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Oh, I'm sure we can agree on plenty. However, when it pertains to this case I think we can all agree, thoroughly and with great vigor, that at least this took place: Some women died. Someone killed them. The more popular of the murders taking place during the year 1888.
Oh, and the sun came up and went down, on schedule 
Other than that, I don' think there is terribly much else folks tend to agree upon!!
But hey, that's life. Tis what makes things interesting. Hell, that's what makes this whole thing fun. How can we be expected to answer the question if we don't all take different approaches to answering it?
Though, I think if differences were put aside, and we all focused on a particular task at the same time, our results might just be astounding.
crix0r |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 690
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
Hi Jason.
I agree if we all pulled our resources, in researching one suspect fully at a time, more results, may crop up. we tend to go from one to another suspect, depending on ones own opinions.
Richard. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
HI,
I think if we could establish that we agreed on something, even if it was 'neagtively' as in we agreed that x was a load of tosh for x y and z reason then that might help.
We wouldn't have to bother keep going on about those things then.
We could concentrate on the rest!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:55 pm: | |
I think that we all agree here that Chapman, Nichols, and Eddowe's were all Ripper victims. I have not heard anybody going againsnt that yet, unless somebody speaks up.
Peter |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
Peter,
Somebody here a while back was claiming that Nichols and Chapman were by a different killer than Eddowes and Kelly. I don't remember where they thought Stride fit in. And, no, didn't make any sense to me, but then leaving Kelly off doesn't either, so what do I know I guess. |
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:20 am: | |
Hey Dan,
It would be interesting to find further information regarding that. Reason being, I have never heard that theory and I don't think many others have either. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 180
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Hi all,
I think we can agree on the assumption that the killer suffered from a very specific sexual dysfunction, if you will, which made him want to mutilate and not something else. Although Whitechapel was densely populated, I don’t think it’s likely that 2 persons in such a small area would have suffered from the same dysfunction, so I’d say that, next to Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly was undoubtedly killed by Jack the Ripper.
All the best,
Frank
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:23 pm: | |
Peter,
Wish I could remember who came up with that. I think it was one someone who got banned on the old boards, although more than one person may have had the same thought. It struck me as fundamentally unworkable so I didn't pay that much attention to it, I'm afraid. |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 12
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:20 am: | |
Hey Frank,
Don't you think Kelly's murder was a bit different than the rest? Here is what comes to mind regarding difference or the shadiness of it:
1) She was killed indoors
2) She was killed weeks after Eddowes’ was murdered. The previous murders were closer to each other in time.
3) She had an argument with her boyfriend before she was found brutally murdered
I don't agree that Barnett was the Ripper; I just think he killed Kelly.
Dan:
Thanks for the info.
Peter
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 190
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi Peter,
I agree Kelly’s murder was a bit different than the rest. As to the points you raised my explanations are as follows.
Somewhere during the month of October police activity in the area had increased, which made it very difficult for the Ripper to do anything. Although this is not necessarily true, I can imagine him, having to restrain because of this increased police activity, thinking of killing indoors, in which case he would obviously run less risk of getting caught while at the same time would’ve had more time on his hands with his victim. Of course, the Ripper might have fallen ill or might have been temporarily debilitated in some other way too, but the increased police activity seems the most likely explanation to me, for both not killing for almost 6 weeks and killing indoors.
Regarding your third point, to kill an ex-lover out of jealousy or revenge is one thing, but to mutilate and practically fillet her is a completely different thing. It would take a very, very, very determined Barnett to mutilate her if he was ‘only’ killing her out of jealousy or revenge, but even then I very much doubt if he would have been able to mutilate to the extent Mary’s murderer did. I think the argument Mary Jane had with Barnett was important to her murder case in that it caused Barnett to leave, which made it possible for her to take back clients to her room at night.
All the best,
Frank
|
Mike Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
I'm doing a GSCE in History and one of the things we are taught Nicholls, Stride, Eddowes, Chapman and Kelly are all definate Ripper victims and not that they are possible victims. Is it possible that maybe with Jack the Ripper being the supposed first ever serial killer that some of the murders were carried out by some of the first copy cat killers? |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 6:54 am: | |
Hi,
Yes it is possible. It was like my original point. we never have all agreed that these five are definants. The suspiscions are on Stride or eddowes, (not enough time theory that one person couldn't have killed both). Stride may also not fit pattern. Some also argue against the others, copy cat killings is always a pos, as is the idea that there are more!
good luck with your gcse
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1179
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:10 am: | |
Hi Frank and Peter,
I can agree on what you both say actually regarding Kelly.
Although I've always wanted to see Kelly as a Ripper victim, I think Peter's objections are valid and shouldn't be disregarded.
Kelly had no suffocation, there were blood-splatter all over the walls and the floor, the heart was taken, not the womb etc. There are numerous differences we must take into account here. Even though Kelly is terribly mutilated, there are so many differences as far as the MO is concerned that I am actually starting to having my doubts.
If the Ripper didn't do it, then I'd say Barnett must be the prime suspect for her death (but the Ripper he most certainly was not).
Frank, I used to think along the same lines as yourself regarding the mutilations, but I just recently came across cases where a husband had mutilated his girlfriend/wife beyond recognition all the way down to the skeleton, probably in order to avoid the death penalty and blame on some other killer. And this without having a prior criminal history at all. The pictures indeed startled me (I can't remember the details or the names at the moment, but I can try and find it later). We must not make the mistake to think that the Ripper's approach is that unique, because it isn't.
So it is possible. I know it could be seen as a long shot, but we can't totally exclude the possibility.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
 |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 769
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:17 am: | |
Peter,
I know it has been suggested that Barnett and Kelly had a row just before she died but I didn't think there was any proof of it. If there is though then I would love to know where it is.
Mike,
You lucky thing. I wish I had studied Jack the Ripper at school. It would have been far more interesting than "that bit in between the world wars" which is what I had to do for GCSE, what a snooze fest that was, no wonder I only got a D.
Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly are the canonical five, which means that they are generally accepted as Jack's only victims.
There is no absolute proof that these were his only victims or that he killed all of these ones but they are usually accepted as his only victims.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
As far as the row is concerned, we only have a broken window and Barnett's own account (to my knowledge), indicating it.
So we have no real evidence of that a row really took place, and in any case, for some reason I have always assumed that Kelly was the one of the two that had a temper -- not Barnett. But once again, who knows? And still, we only have Barnett's own statements to base this on.
Anyway, I would bet that a domestic row was a common occurrence in East End, so that event really shouldn't be regarded as that significant.
Even though Sarah, rightly so, points out that we have no evidence of that those victims were his only ones, or even all could be attributed to him, I would nevertheless strongly advice against anyone "accepting" those five mentioned just because someone at one time has labelled them as "canonical".
If we only look at the MO and signature, we can really only identify three with true certainty, namely Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. The rest is up to how one chooses to interpret the discrepancies in the injuries of the victims.
The more I get into the case, the more suspicious I get regarding the "canonical five" -- a term that is by no means established by objective sources. I know I am kicking in open doors here, but I just wanted to point that out.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 195
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
First of all, good to see you back after your visit to London! Glad to hear you enjoyed your stay there. Not so glad to hear you liked London better than your hometown Helsingborg and Sweden in general. A visit to London is on my list too, but I don’t know when I will actually pay it that visit.
I’m very interested in knowing more about the case you wrote about, so, if you could, please feed me with info.
You wrote“
…but I just recently came across cases where a husband had mutilated his girlfriend/wife beyond recognition all the way down to the skeleton, probably in order to avoid the death penalty and blame on some other killer. And this without having a prior criminal history at all.”
I’m sure there must be more interesting info on this case, but from what you’ve written here – which is not a lot, I know - I don’t feel compelled to think this man wasn’t disturbed in a way potential serial killers are. Him not having a prior criminal history doesn’t say all that much.
“We must not make the mistake to think that the Ripper's approach is that unique, because it isn't.”
I take it you mean his signature when you say ‘approach’. I agree with you in the sense that, as far as I know, the mutilations inflicted by different perpetrators are all quite similar, they are not that different from one another. I’m saying this judging from pictures I’ve seen of Carrie Brown, of one of Richard Chase’s victims and, of course, of Mary Jane Kelly and from reading about the cases. I also judge this from an account I’ve read about a mutilating killer, according to which Jack the Ripper would have been proud (I dedicated a thread about this case under Victims/Mary Jane Kelly).
So, I don’t think the mutilations themselves are unique. I do, however, think that the sexual dysfunction which in the end causes a person to mutilate, is quite uncommon.
On the ‘Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly’ I wrote how I’ve come to think MJK was attacked and killed in her sleep – it was an elaboration on one of your posts. Assuming this to have been the case (that she was asleep), I think a huge and major difference between Mary’s case and the previous cases was that she wasn’t unconscious or dead yet while she was lying down when JtR entered the scene. I think she woke up just as he was about to strike.
So, he was confronted with something unfamiliar and I think this aspect accounts for some of the differences between MJK’s murder and the previous ones, like the lack of signs of strangulation, the presence of splashes of blood on the wall, the stabs through the sheet, the wounds in her arms and in one of her thumbs. In Eddowes’ case he took her kidney, so, the fact that MJK’s heart was missing doesn’t strike me as a major difference.
As to the MO, I still think the increased police activity in the area forced him to come up with the idea to try and find a victim to kill indoors. I know you probably don’t agree with me here, but the fact that he might have focused on finding a victim he could kill indoors might also explain the difference between the previous victims and MJK. The previous ones all being about 40 years of age, about 5 feet tall and not specifically attractive, and Mary Jane being young, tall and pretty.
By the way, how does your possibly changed view on Mary's case influence your view on Stride's case?
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
By visiting my homeland , do i detect, a change of opinion, I agree with you , Barnett if not the killer of the other women, must be the number one suspect, for killing Kelly, if one wants to commit a murder, and you are strongly connected to the intended victim, and there so happens to be a series of murders occuring in the area, that your intended victim lives, then to kill , and mutilate, that person, similar to the fashion of the wanted killer, would give you a good chance of getting away with the crime.
Glenn.
I wish you had gone to kellys grave, you might even sensed some spitting, and I am not refering to it starting to rain.....
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:19 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I'll get back to you on that case later on -- promise.
"You wrote:
"...to kill an ex-lover out of jealousy or revenge is one thing, but to mutilate and practically fillet her is a completely different thing."
I have now seen evidence of that this actually can be and has been done. Naturally, just because one can find examples of this, doesen't mean it has to be so in the Mary Kelly murder, but nevertheless it destroys that argument just the same and therefore we must consider that as well.
It doesen't matter a bit whether the perpetrators in such cases that I've mentioned was mentally deranged or not -- that is not the point. I just wanted to point out the fact that there are examples of such cases.
I haven't really changed my mind regarding Mary Kelly, I just think we should be open to other scenarios. I have myself earlier been rather sure of that it would be impossible for a husband or man in general to hack his woman to pieces and mutilate her in such a way as can be displayed in Mary Kelly's case. Now I have seen examples of the opposite, namely that it can happen. As I said, it is a long shot, but since it obviously have been done, I would be a fool to lean too heavily against that argument when it is not correct. And we are not necessarily talking serial killing here.
Even if Barnett may have murdered Kelly (I say "may"), I don't see him as a serial killer or Jack the Ripper.
Now, if Kelly was a Ripper victim, which I admit I still really want to believe, then I think your (and my) points regarding how she was attacked are quite valid.
Still, we can make up a number of explanations of why the MO is completely different in Kelly's case compared to the other Ripper murders, and those you present I can very well agree on; I have done so in the past and I still do. But I am trying to look at it from another point of view here -- for once. I doesen't matter how we put it or how we interpret it; fact remains that the evidence show very little similarities between Kelly and the other Ripper victims and we can't totally disregard it. And if this should show to be significant, I can't disregard either that Barnett had the access, the motive and the opportunity. But that doesen't really mean that I am sure of that Barnett did it, just that it isn't impossible.
Mutilated victims in murders performed by the other party in a relationship aren't (also to my own surprise) as uncommon as we may think, and I am not so sure of that the Ripper was the only one indulging in mutilations at the time.
Still, it is just speculation and food for thoughts. I haven't changed my mind, really -- I am just trying to keep an open mind here. Although I still believe Kelly to be a Ripper victim, I think Peter is correct in his objections. It could be that yours (and mine) explanations to those discrepancies are correct and valid, but we can't know that.
I admit that my trip to London and the murder sites (and also coming across cases of similar nature quite recently) has made me reconsider some of my earlier points of view -- not necessarily changed them, but made me less assured of their superiority. This has also -- as you imply -- influenced my views on the Stride murder (see the thread "Liz Stride -- the Murder"), naturally. But as I said, it doesen't necessarily mean that I have changed my mind, just that I now am trying to see alternative possibilities as well and feeling less sure of the things I earlier felt rather cocky and self-assure about.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Well, Richard... the grave spitting... I wouldn't go that far... There are limits.
And please note, that I said if the Ripper didn't do it, Barnett would be the prime suspect. So I haven't ruled out the Ripper. I just wanted to make that clear.
I don't want it to look like I am taking the easy way out by standing on one foot in each scenario, but it is true what they say: the more you learn, the more it becomes obvious how little you really know or can be sure about.
Ah, Richard. I wish I was back already -- I hate it here. And I promise, next time I will try to find the grave sites. But you know how it is... first time in a city like London; there are a million things to do.
All the best
(Message edited by glenna on February 27, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Glenn wrote (and others have written similar things):
"we can make up a number of explanations of why the MO is completely different in Kelly's case compared to the other Ripper murders"
I can understand some people pointing out some differences, ones which I think are rather small, but "completely different" is not at all accurate.
Pretty much any set of similarities can be made to look like differences if one looks at them from a different angle.
Killed indoors is different than killed outdoors, but killed in the location that you bring johns to for prostitution is the same. By stressing indoors versus outdoors instead of where the tricks happen (or where a mostly defenseless victim was found, for the break in theory) people are assuming that the killer was specifically choosing to kill outside instead of it just happening to be outside when he found the chance. In a sense, it has to be different because the assumption was made that it was an important difference, not necessarily because the killer did anything differently.
Similarly, extensive mutilations sounds like a difference but it's actually similarity when you look at it from the angle of doing as much mutilation as possible in the time one had. Removing heart versus other organs might appear different but not when you look at it as trying to grab the tastiest bit (metaphorically or perhaps literally) you can get the farthest into the body you can get in the time you have.
Although I have to admit that it's not impossible (see Cornwell threads for how much weight I think that carries) that MJK was killed by someone other than JtR, I just can't see how someone can look at what happened to Eddowes and what happened to Kelly and say that they are completely different. Facial mutilations, redistributed innards, organ taken... what more do you need? |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Frank wrote:
"I agree with you in the sense that, as far as I know, the mutilations inflicted by different perpetrators are all quite similar, they are not that different from one another. I’m saying this judging from pictures I’ve seen of Carrie Brown, of one of Richard Chase’s victims and, of course, of Mary Jane Kelly and from reading about the cases. "
Oh, wait, it was proven that Carrie Brown and Mary Jane Kelly were killed by different perpetrators and I missed it?
LOL, I think your post made a lot of sense, just thought I'd give you a slight ribbing over that little assumption though. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 1:52 am: | |
Dan,
Before you answer my posts, I would suggest you learn how to read properly.
Where in my post do I point at the indoors--outdoors aspect as among the important differences?
Dan, I do still believe Kelly being a Ripper victim; I think I had made that clear, but if you weren't so occupied with at any cost being in opposition to everything, you would have grasped that. As always, you choose to miss the point.
I am just trying to see other possibilities here, that's all.
I thought Frank's posts made a lot of sense as well and I don't disagree with him. I thought that was obvious.
You and people like R.J. Palmer have always accused me of being too stubborn and locked in my own perceptions, but now that I am trying to see things through different angels, you react to that. One can't win with you, eh? I am just trying to see what things are impossible or not.
We really only have three victims that we with absolute certainty can attribute to Jack, looking at the MO, the rest is up to debate. The fact that we had copy killers in Coles' and MacKenzie's case further indicates this, and I don't really believe that the Pinchin Street torso was a Ripper victim.
I do strongly believe that the Ripper was disturbed in Nichols' case and had to flee the scene to avoid detection (even the police at the time were of the opinion that she had just been dead for a minute or two before she was discovered and that her body was totally warm), and that is why she wasn't as strongly mutilated as Chapman. And if she had been, we really wouldn't have that talk about en evolving killer in the first place. Still, there are signs just the same on an evolving trait later on, like the face marks and and cuttings on Eddowes, which we don't see in Chapman. So it is really complicated.
"Pretty much any set of similarities can be made to look like differences if one looks at them from a different angle."
And vice versa.
The problem with Kelly is that there are differences worth looking at -- compared to the strong similarities between Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (and I don't see them as small, as far as the MO is concerned); her age and the fact that it happened indoors, are probably the least important factors as far as I am concerned. Instead there are a lot of other things tormenting me; the immense blood-splatters on the wall and large quantities of blood on the floor (indicating that the poor woman may not have been dead before mutilated), no strangulations, no womb disappearing (remember that also a bit of the womb was taken in Eddowe's case, not just the kidney), the longer time lapse between hers and Eddowe's murder (although the increasing police activity could be a good and fair explanation -- I still buy that) etc. etc.
Still, on the other hand (to further complicate matters) one can ask this: if Kelly was murdered by someone else -- let's just say Barnett -- and mutilated in order to threw the attention to the Ripper (and himself avoid a death penalty), why the unnecessary and excessive mutilations? In doing an attempt to copy the Ripper, why not just settle to copy the things done to Eddowes and Chapman? Why filet her beyond recognition?
So, either way we toss the coin, we end up with more questions than answers. And that is my whole point. This thread is about "What do we really know?" And when it comes down to it, it really isn't that much.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
