|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 4:00 pm: |       |
Hi Glenn,
Shells again!...but eat your pizza first if you decide to reply ( i'm having pie &Mash at the mo). But did the doctor indicate that these knife wounds were attributed to the same weapon used to mutilate? because still, Kelly could have had a fight the day or so before.
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1952
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi Shells,
You made me sweat a bit here  so I had to consult The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion and doctor Thomas Bond's authopsy report.
By the way, yes, according to the doctors the reason of death was the cut of the cartoid artery.
Yes, it can't be ruled out that the cuts could originate from other circumstances, but it seems a bit circumstancial to me.
If Kelly had had a fight with someone the day before (for example) this should have been noted by some of witnesses who knew her and would also have been mentioned by Barnett, especially since it would strengthen his case. Unfortunately Dr Bond doesen't say anything substantial about the weapon used in different areas on the body of Kelly, and I guess it would be rather difficult for him anyway to claim exactly which type of weapon that was used for the rough mutilations.
This is what Bond says about the wounds in question:
"Both arms & forearms had extensive and jagged wounds."
OK. But then how do we know that this could indicate defense wounds. Well, to be perfectly honest; we don't. But then there is another passage just following the one about the arms:
"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasion of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition
That is all. Now OK, it's no conclusive proof of that a struggle did occure, but it has been interpreted as such by some.
By the way, I just love Dr. Phillips commentary regarding the sight of the murder scene:
"I looked through the lower broken pane and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed was not in need of any immediate attention from me." Go figure.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Shelley,
Pie & Mash? A typical English dish, as I understand?
A Swedish television team -- doing a tourist show -- once visited a place in East End specializing in Pie & Mash.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2760
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Could I just say this : Mary Kelly was alive when she was killed. 
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:21 pm: | |
Robert!
OK OK.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, thanks for the info,most interesting....I can understand how you would draw the conclusion that the superficial wounds could be circumstansial, but what if Barnett and some others didn't know about a fight, that the person and or witness to this fight decided not to have 'a word' with the bluebottles. If the doctor said that the cause of death had been the severed cartoid artery, then we must conclude that this was the cause of death...however Just say that your theory is correct and the killer did confront her with a knife and she tried to defend herself, her position on the bed lying down, must be that he was on top of her. I still think that the heat in the room kept her blood very warm, and that this is the explaination for so much blood found, also for the children's clothes not to have got blood on them (because he was on top of her). In view of this it doesn't neccessarily mean that she was alive when she was killed.....By the way did you ever get a TV programme about jellied eels?
Shelley
Criminology Student
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1956
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:21 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
Well, yeah OK... but I think that is to stretch it a bit, as far as speculation is concerned. I'd say it's logical to assume that those cuts were made in direct connection with the murder, since we have no account of the contrary.
She had defended her first while standing up, and then fallen on the bed with the perpetrator on top of her (whereafter he slits her throat)? I mean, there is no reason to automatically assume that those cuts -- if they really were defense marks -- were made while she was lying down, since this would occure just prior before the actual murder.
Another interesting thing is, that it was assumed by the doctors that the murderer probably covered her face with a blanket or linnet, since it was saturated with blood, while he cut her throat and mutilated her.
If this is correct and the Ripper was the perpetrator, one could once again ask: why?
That would indicate to me to a large degree that the perpetrator knew her and didn't want to see her face.
What do you mean? Jellied eels? Don't tell me... eels in jelly????????? Oh sweet Jesus...
and I don't even like eels to begin with.... 
No, I missed that one...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:58 pm: | |
Hi SHelley and Glenn,OK so neither of you think Martha was a ripper victim.
But just imagine your own block of flats houses and coming out one early August day and learning that a woman had been found of middling years,a prostitute and a heavy drinker slain clothes askew below waist and the victim of a frenzied knife attack.
Less than a month later but also at a weekend another woman with similar credentials is found slain the victim of a more measured knife attack this time at the other end of your street.Wouldnt you be likely to think the two were the victims of the same killer?
Of course its possible that the murder of Martha triggered off someone who was becoming unbalanced into racing out and starting up a murder spree of his own in a sort of compulsive copy killing-this person being the ripper.Maybe they were sparked off by each others mad actions---you do hear of this kind of thing happening in wars when people seem to develop a blood lust and go out "head hunting"---I know its different but maybe one killer can trigger off another especially among those already bordering on insanity.
Just some thoughts.
And yes Shelley points taken above-but all I was pointing out was that there was method in Hitlers Madness.
Cheers Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:11 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I think it's possible indeed.
There was also the attack on Emma Smith prior to that, which got a lot of media attention as well.
Well, we can only speculate here.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
Thats right Glenn but i"m glad you think its a possibility.Emma was as you say yet another case that may have been a trigger.
All the Best Glenn
Natalie |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:34 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I think we had better take the discussion to Mary Kelly thread (my next post will be on MJK to you), otherwise we're going to have other posters biting our heads off..perhaps along with jellied eels!....eels..yuck! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1960
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
OK, Shelley. Fair enough.
I think you're right. See you there, then.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 34
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 8:09 pm: | |
Hi Natalie, Sorry but i'm gonna have to say this... How could you possibly use Hitler as an example for Paranoid Schizophrenic serial killing...Hitler started the fuel, he had some criteria, but his henchmen played a part too and its those people individually that you should be looking at, Hitler never carried out a string of murders himself directly, and anyway hitler wasn't involved in serial killing (as it is down on the books) it was Genocide.When are you going to bring up the history of Hitler that he was Austrian born and his father was a terrible drunkard, and used to beat him frequently and was very cruel..etc..etc.
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 8:20 pm: | |
Glenn,
My posts to you are on 'Mary Kelly"...the thread who was Mary Kelly...or as we've been discussing..What happened to Mary Kelly!
Shells |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 9:56 am: | |
Hi Shelley,I gave Hitler as an example of a dangerous paranoid schizophrenis because you had stated all such killers were disorganised and lacked the capability of carrying out the ripper mutilations.As Glenn has already dealt very thoroughly with that now we dont really need to continue along this tack.However,I myself own a prestigious text on the subject of mental illness and psychosis in which Hitler is cited as a perfect example of a particular type of paranoid schizophrenic.It has been used as a basis for the treatment of this illness in large psychiatric hospitals in England and my mother left it to me as she herself was an ART Therapist in a large psychiatric Hospital and this was a standard text for her to use.I too taught Art[I wasnt a qualified Art Therapist]in the same hospital and know that the illness can take several forms including fairly harmless delusions of power to full blown murders such as the ripper executed.It could have depended on whether his "voices" told him to disfigure in this wayie a methodical cutting away of reproductive organs/throat slitting etc and the progress/course of the illness itself.If for example JtR did also kill Mary Kelly AND suffered from paranoid schizophrenia then the state of her corpse would indicate that he had a complete breakdown at this point which in those days would have meant isolation in a cell in a straight jacket until the worst of it had passed.But frustratingly we dont know for sure that he was suffering from this condition or whether he was just a sexual serial killer of the type Glenn has cited [Bundy etc].Myself I would guess he got off on these killings in some way that was sexual and if this is the case then he aint likely to be a paranoid schizophrenic!
Best Wishes Natalie |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
Hi Natalie...You can safetly be assured that the ripper was the 'Bundy' type, can i ask you have you ever come across a Paranoid Schizophrenic personality that could charm and groom his way to create a victim? Such as those who would be streetwise hookers, into gaining trust with him, i would think most certainly not. The type of mental illness that you are describing, would be enough for an unfortunate in whitechapel to avoid head on.
And as for the type of mental illness your describing these people do not have method in serial killing, Would Hitler have been capable of avoiding bobbies on the beat on the streets of London, would his mutilations and killing been as quick as the rippers on Eddowes. No i don't think so!, Anyway Hitler did not kill personally himself, besides how can you prove that the Whole system of the Nazi Rezime was created and methodically instructed by Hitler, i doubt very much with his illness that he would have been able to contribute much at all to it. People with mental illness not so severe as the one you keep mentioning find it hard to hold down a kind of life for themselves, and they are ridiculed by ignorant normal human beings, you must surely understand this.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1969
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Shelley,
Just a pointer:
I have studied a lot of cases involving prostitutes -- some of the cases nearly hundred years old -- and I can tell you this:
Yes, prostitutes were and are street-wise. But look at their social condition. They were desperate for money and their only alternative was to sleep in the open air and starve if they couldn't raise money. Besides, most of them were alcoholics, so they mainly were desperate for money for drink as well.
The Ripper would NOT IN ANY WAY have to indulge himself in conversations with his victims or lure them into anything, and definitely not charm them. This is a total misconception!
They were the ones that lead the customer to a secluded place (in order not to be disturbed by the police and risk to loose a client), not the other way around, and this was common practice.
The Ripper scare wasn't even enough in order to make them stop prostituting and put themselves at risk.
This says something about their situation. You can't compare this to Bundy. Bundy approached university girls and not ragged women on the lowest scale of society.
And no, a person like Kosminski, David Cohen or others would NOT make the prostitutes suspicious. These women were used to stinking drunkards from young age up to old men, dirty workers, people with shabby appearence and from the low classes etc. as client -- NOT charming and manipulating fellows.
Such a person would most certainly raise their suspicion; the common view of the Whitechapel murderer was a person with a doctor's bag. A couple of such encounters did happen and the men in question -- who naturally were innocent -- were immediately suspected by the women.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 01, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 40
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I have to dispute the case of whether some prostitutes did not give up prostitution, some did for a while whilst the ripper was at large.
Prostitutes did also turn a hand to theft ,if you look at Annie Chapman who had been drinking and had got into a fight and the other woman, sorry can't remember her name claimed that she had stolen money. I can say yeah ok, fair do's to the kind of enviroment that mainstream prostitutes would have grown up in, but as for taking on just any client wouldn't be on their agenda if it was a client that was to cost them their life. Also the image of the doctor's bag, yeah men carrying such a bag at the height of the murders were attacked, but it was only the medical profession, students of medicine etc that would know where major organs were in the body, could you blame the people of Whitechapel at the time for sizing up a doctor, also regarding hyped up newspaper reports at the time also. I think that the killer did charm to an extent these unfortunates, as you can see with Hutchinson's statement about Kelly, as also with Lawende statement about Eddowes, then there was Chapman also, different witness different victim on all three counts, all giving the impression that the killer groomed the victims. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
Hi Shelley
First of all: once again, I have serious doubt that the man seen by Hutchinson ever existed -- his testimony is suspicious, to say the least.
I think it is an exaggeration to say that the man seen with Eddowes was "charming" her, and we can't even be sure that this man was the Ripper.
The point is, that even if we can find such testimonies about men performing that conduct, it wouldn't at all be necessary.
I totally disagree with you here, Shelley. These women had to take whatever customers they could get, whether they liked it or not. Or else they wouldn't prostitute themselves while the Ripper were at large.
"I can say yeah ok, fair do's to the kind of enviroment that mainstream prostitutes would have grown up in, but as for taking on just any client wouldn't be on their agenda if it was a client that was to cost them their life."
Yeah, but still they had to. They couldn't afford not to do it, and even the police at the time were frustrated over the fact that they -- at the height of the Ripper scare -- took unnecessary risks and led complete strangers to secluded places (as was witnessed by several police officers).
We also have accounts from prostitutes saying that they really had no choice and that it could all matter to them -- the Ripper or starvation, it was all the same and even if they were scared there was really nothing they could do about it.
Believe me, Shelley. The Ripper would in no way need to charm his victims. No need for a manipulative Bundy type here.
Secondly:
Yes I know that the prostitutes drew back for period, but that was rather a short time and they would really have no possibility to continue this line for a longer period of time, if they wanted to survive.
"Also the image of the doctor's bag, yeah men carrying such a bag at the height of the murders were attacked, but it was only the medical profession, students of medicine etc that would know where major organs were in the body, could you blame the people of Whitechapel at the time for sizing up a doctor, also regarding hyped up newspaper reports at the time also."
Yes, I know the doctor thing was somewhat of a media hype, but it doesne't matter. They still raised suspicion. But my point was, that it was not the shabby clientel that raised the prostitutes' suspicions (because this clientel they were used to), but the neat ones.
They could hardly afford to turn anyone down anyway, no matter how they looked and how they smelled (as long as they could show some money or buy them a drink). They couldn't just pick and choose.
You must take the historical context and the social environment in consideration, Shelley,
when you're dealing with an old case like this.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 01, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 43
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for the informative post...but the witness that saw a man with Annie Chapman, her description of the man was that : he was foreign looking with a deer stalker hat, and of A SHABBY gentile, surely this would have created talk in the area of Whitechapel as well as the black doctor's bag gents. All i can see Glenn is that you base things on who may be a ripper victim or who could be the ripper himself on pure speculation...I don't understand why you keep trying to discredit a witness like Hutchinson (apart from that he exaggerated just a tad to appear a good concerned citizen upon hearing of Kelly's death).
Shelley
Criminology Student
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 258
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
Shelley,
To follow up on Glenn's earlier post, we have inquest testimony that Nicholls and Chapman were both desperate for one last customer so they could get lodging for the night and that Eddowes had no money when she left the lockup and would also likely be agreeable to service anyone for doss money. Kelly did have a place to sleep, but was deeply in debt. Only Liz Stride may not have been in immediate dire straits, but then she could be a different story so far as being a Ripper victim anyway.
Point is, street-wise or not, most of the accepted Ripper victims where not in a position to be choosy about clients on the day they died.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
"All i can see Glenn is that you base things on who may be a ripper victim or who could be the ripper himself on pure speculation.."
Hehe... no, I don't. You see, I don't have a favourite Ripper suspect. To tell you the truth, I have no idea whatsoever about who the Ripper was. My bet is that he was a local nobody, but that is as far as I am prepared to go.
I am not saying that the Ripper could NOT have been a Bundy type; I personally have my doubts, but I absolutely can't rule it out. We just simply do not have enough evidence.
What I am saying is, that we can't base the Bundy-psychopath character on the "charming client argument" in saying that that was a necessary approach for the killer, because it wasn't. It is a wrong deduction.
I am originally a historian so I can see that the social context and circumstances of East End in 1888, makes such a client approach completely redundant. Those women led a worse life than we can ever imagined, and I would suspect death would come as a saviour for some of them.
The man seen with Chapman was without doubt the Ripper. I think Elisabeth Long's testimony is quite credible; it fits the timing and the place, not to mention the fact that she saw Chapman. I'd say that was the Ripper she saw.
But that hardly proves any point whatsoever concerning "charming" the women. That conversion was hardly an elaborate one: "Will you?" "Yes"
Even Kosminski could have handled that one... :o) (just kidding)
"I don't understand why you keep trying to discredit a witness like Hutchinson (apart from that he exaggerated just a tad to appear a good concerned citizen upon hearing of Kelly's death)."
There is a very simple answer to that.
1. As I said before; his "suspect" seems a bit odd to me in Whitechapel. He would probably loose that thick gold chain in less than fifteen minutes. Besides, with that appearance, more people would have spotted that character.
2. Hutchinson didn't deliver his testimony until one day AFTER the hearings and the inquest -- out of the blue. He must have learnt through the papers that a witness had seen him standing outside Miller's Court that night and that he had been spotted. He therefore must deliver a story to the police and come forward in order not to become a suspect himself. It's all very simple; it's not my invention and that is the general idea, as far as I know.
Why didn't he come forward until the day after the inquest?
None can confirm Hutchinson's story and no other saw this man that he describes.
As far as I am concerned, Hutchinson must be treated with greatest caution and seen with suspicion. He has no credibility whatsoever.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1975
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
Hey Don!
How's it hanging?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 45
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
My last post didn't turn up!...i was rather distracted by family though, i have a teenage son and a daughter just under 2 years old, plus we had family visitors. Wer'e off to Italy on wednesday, and we've heard on the news some terrorists threats. Anyway, i too think the ripper is a local nobody, i haven't got any suspects either, but checking my notes last night: Mary Jane Kelly's fists were clenched due to strangulation, and her heart was placed on the pillow (are you by any chance getting some murder cases mixed up Glenn, because my info comes from the public records office) The fists were clenched in victims, Chapman and Stride. Facial bruising appeared on three of the victims, Nichols only had abdominal wounds, nothing indicates that she had any organs removed. Annie Chapman had organs removed, but doctor's were aware in victorian times of temperature and timing of death, as: .....The whole of the body was not present, the absent portions being from the abdomen.The mode in which these portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge.He said the deceased had been dead at least 2 hours, and probably more, when he first saw her: but it was right to mention it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from it's having lost a great quantity of blood.
Again in Catherine Eddowes, the doctor states that ..I should say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it. ...Only the kidney was removed.The post mortem of Catherine Eddowes was observed by Dr's Sequerra, Sedgewick Saunders and Bagster Philips. Also as the case of Hutchinson, he had to make a living you know he was busy too, i suspect a wise enough person wouldn't want to get involved especially with the police if possible, anyway the description that Hutchinson gave of the man he saw with Kelly, an Edward Knight Larkins confirms to the police that the description that Hutchinson gave was a man named Antoni Pricha, thinks brings to mind the man that Elizabeth Darrel saw talking to Chapman. Everyone else, ..i can understand the desperation of prostitutes in Whitechapel, but i haven't heard of any indications that any of the victims of attempting to commit suicide, so they did wish to survive most certainly. I too read in a book, i think it may have been Donald Rumbelows, that when the police told unfortunates to go home they replied, we have no home, when the police retored go and find yourself indoors somewhere or the ripper will get you, they too retorted, it's the bridge or the ripper with us we don't care, we have to make a living. Yes i am aware of this! but prostitution not only ran into the poorest of the poor but also middle classes, and even the upper classes! In fact women of the upper classes charged as much as £300-£1000 to have the pleasure of her company for the night! secluded and indoors, the ripper could have targeted these women also, but above all i think he had something against the poorer class of prostitute, which leads me to beleive that he too started from the poorer classes.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1981
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 7:28 am: | |
Hi Shelley,
Yes, kids and family can sure take alot of time and they should get first priority. I have no kids myself, though.
Your post did turn up, but on the Kelly thread and I answered it there yesterday.
Note that this first part is a copy from my answer there to the questions you arise there.
-----------------------
Hi Shelley,
No, I don't care that much for newspaper reports as sources.
1.
Elisabeth Darrell was also called Elisabeth Long. Don't ask me why, but one of the names were probably her married name. But she goes under both names, depending on which source you use. "Long" is the name she is most often referred to.
2.
I can't find anything in Dr Bond's post mortem report saying that Mary Kelly's "fists" were clenched due to strangulation, only that the fingers on the right hand were clenched. If this is enough to conclude that she was strangled (since the face and the tongue couldn't be closer examined), I have no idea -- the medical stuff is not my thing, I admit that -- but I can't find any other evidence in the reports confirming beyond doubt that she was strangled. And if she was, OK why not? That is probably the most common way to kill someone -- also prior to mutilation -- and surely not something the Ripper had monopoly on.
So OK.; it is very possible that Mary Kelly was strangled as well.
3.
I have no idea which "records" you've been consulting, but in the case of Kelly, the heart WAS abscent, as I see it, from the room (the disappearing of the heart is one of the more intriguing discussion subjects). This is Dr. Bond's last passage in his post mortem document:
"The Pericardium was open below & the Heart abscent."
Also read what this website says in the dissertation "A closer look at the victims' wounds", where it says about Kelly: "The heart was abscent from the room."
Nowhere does any document I've seen (unless it's a paper article) say that the heart was found on the pillow. I have no idea where you've read that, but you are welcome to clear that up for me.
4.
Unless I completely have misunderstood the medial reports (which is possible), it is neither true nor correct that it only was half a kidney that was taken from Eddowes; but also "The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments." (Dr. F. Gordon Brown)
In Chapman's case the womb was taken, together with part of the bladder and (as I recall) the abdominal wall.
You are completely right, though, about Nichols -- in fact, as I recall, no organ was taken from her body. The general idea (which I support), is that the murderer here was interrupted (this was also suggested at the time.
In neither of the victims the heart was taken.
But in Kelly's case it was and very important sexually charged organs like the uterus (found under her head or parts from the abdominal area was not -- although he could have easily taken them.
-----------------------------------
Finally, regarding Hutchinson. I stand by my claim that he is without any credibility. His story is more or less a fabrication. I don't buy that "he had to make a living" stuff. He was a victim in a murder case. After all, he was seen by a witness in Miller's Court the night of the murder and it is obvious that this would be quite incriminating. Several people and authors have acknowledged this. The fact that Abberline took him seriously is understandable -- from where they sat in their position, they had to take anyone seriously.
I didn't say that the prostitutes attempted to or wanted to commit suicide (there are no records of such things) -- that was just a manner of speaking -- I was just pointing out their situation. I don't see your point regarding the prostitution in the upper classes; what has that got to do with it? We have no idea why the Ripper chose low-class ones, but my personal bet is, that that was the environment he felt comfortable in and could relate to.
Regarding the anatomical knowledge: that point is meaningless and can't show us anything. The doctors were hardly agreeing on this point and a couple of them changed their minds. Some -- like Bond in his "profile" -- said he didn't in any of the cases even show the skill of a butcher -- while others said that he showed anatomical knowledge but no medical skill and yet others on other occasions said that he showed the medical skill of a professional surgeon. To this day, this is a matter of lively debate, so I really don't see the point.There really is not much consistency in their opinions.
Sorry to hear about those terrorist attack threats. I hope that Italy trip goes well; I've never been there myself.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 47
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for your post...Of course your'e entitled to your opinion as i am mine, let's agree to disagree, the records i go by are police, and doctor's etc, i don't bother much with newspaper's of the time either(perhaps just to see the mistakes and the hype to make money for themselves). The killer i think we will both agree on is that he knew the area of Whitechapel very well. My records of post mortems etc are from the public records office at Richmond Kew, it did state that Kelly's heart was on the pillow, but whether the killer did take the heart according to your sources this still indicates a trophee taking of a serial killer anyway because of close proximity to the breast. Anyway nice talking to you on posts, lets agree to disagree.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1982
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
OK Kelly.
I guess as well that we have to agree to disagree on this point. But I like these discussion since it forces at least myself to really read up and think through all the facts once again. And you had me sweating there more than once.
Let me just say, that the sources I've used are the authopsy reports and the inquests that I know of been published. For the most part I've used those that are published in The Ultimate Companion, since all the relevant document are in there. Just to clarify.
And nowhere does it say that Kelly's heart was found, not in the doctor's reports and not even in Abberline's or any other police officer's report. Believe me, since you wrote that, I went through all I had.
OK.
So let's move on to another question where we seem to agree, then.
You also -- like me -- seem to be of the opinion that Tabram (after all, this is her thread) possibly was not a Ripper victim.
I want your honest opinion; what do you think about Millwood in the Tabram context? Could Tabram and Millwood have been murdered by the same person (since there are certain similarities, like the exact location and the repeated stabbing to the lower torso).
Personally, I don't know what to think -- it could be either way. Do you have any opinion?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Sorry it has taken me so long too respond too your gang theory. I think that the more people you envolve in the murders the more likely of getting caught. When talking about payoffs to the police we start too get close to conspiracy theories and I am not ready to go in that direction. I have always thought that the idea of two men involved was interesting but I dont believe that there could have been more then two.
I believe that in the case of Emma Smith you have to ask yourself what is the odds that she was a ripper victim? She was attacked by at least three men and I think I read she was raped. People on the boards have various expertise in different fields and they can convince me that any woman could have been a ripper victim, but I always go back too the fact that the odds are against this being true.
After 115 years I think it is doubtful that anyone could be positive that Smith was a ripper victim so I like too focus on the women that most likely were ripper victims and they would be Nicholes,Chapmen,and Eddowes. I am in fact almost 100% sure that Kelly was a ripper victim but I have read various arguments on different threads that my suggest she was not, so I wont lump her in with the other victims.
I believe that Tabram is very possible and the fact that you mention trigger points is a very good point and one train of thought that I believe. It is possible that Tabram was the rippers first violent attack. In my oppinion by just looking at the photos of the victims you can tell that the murders seemed to esculate. I am not sure but I do not believe there were any facial cuts untill the Eddowes murder? I given Tabram some thought, and the fact that most of the detectives who worked the case believed her not to be a ripper victim sheds a little doubt in my mind. I relise by using this logic I totally contridict myself when I mention the fact that I dont believe Stride to be a ripper victim. I base my oppinion on the fact that there is more evidence to suggest that Stride was not a ripper victim [In my oppinion] then there is to suggest that Tabram was a victim. However, the possibilty that Tabram was a ripper victim is there and I encourage you to keep researching the possibility. I believe evey murder is diffrent and I choose not to go down the Tabram path just yet my approach is narrow partly because I have much still to learn about Nicholes,Chapman,Eddowes.
All the best,CB |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 9:01 am: | |
If JTR was under the delusion,(as has been pointed out above) that he was on a mission to destroy womenkind, (which I personally don't believe), then there is the possibility that with the killing of Mary Kelly he achieved his goal(whatever that migtht have been)and no longer needed to kill any more women.
Hence the cessation of the murders.
If this is the case, then we need to look closely at the killing of Mary Kelly and hopefully try to fathom out the differences between this and the other murders, in order to think of a way in which the murderer would have deemed it unneccessary to continue on his murderous way.
Remember that with Kelly he had plenty of time(unlike the other murders)to do whatever he liked with her.
Is there a pointer in the Kelly murder that would point to his lust being satisfied?
Were his delusions satisfied with the murder of Mary Kelly? |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 107
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Shelly:
I accept that I am likely wrong about my remarks as to Tabram's killer and Jack the ripper being psychotic. Don't understand the differences I guess.
As to soldiers being quick to kill. Yes, they are trained to perform certain actions efficiently and automatically. Normally this does not translate into making killing an easy task. the vast majority of soldiers who have had to kill in combat become physically ill if not nauseous after killing their first time.(particularly if in hand to hand combat) Hence my disputing your phrse quick to kill. If by quick to kill you mean strictly eficiently instead of prone to kill I agree. If you mean more likely to kill than the rest of the population, then I stand by my assertion made in my post above.
I have to tell you though, that I enjoy your posts thoroughly even if I don't always agree. Your arguments are well thought out, concise and logical. Just wantd to clarify my position and ensure that I adequately understand yours. Kindest regards, Neil |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 48
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 7:53 am: | |
Hi Neil, Thanks for your post (i'm back from holiday as i went away to Italy for a few days),
Yes i do agree with the combat situation that you mention in regards to soldiers in hand to hand combat, soldiers are trained to kill in the most efficent way, but weapons from a distance are also timed for use in killing (weapons such as guns and bayonets). It is however hard to diserne a time frame upon an individual soldier using a knife in any circumstance of killing. Also many soldiers are normal humane people, this is why so many suffer mental anguish during and after hand to hand combat, a psychopathic personality however lacks the anguish in killing, so the majority lies in the fact that a soldier is more humane than a psychopath.
(so your'e safer with a soldier than a psychopath, just as long as your not the enemy!) Of course i would like to mention that in the case of 'Jack the Ripper' only good old fashioned detective work would account, as with the Behavioural Dept of the FBI, the information that would have been computed would not have allowed for whether or not the killer had been disturbed and therefore left his signature unfinished, leaving only a predominatley method of say only 1 or 2 for his usual intended method. I have no doubts that the Criminal Behavioural Dept of the FBI is accurate with the information it is given, but it is unlikely that the FBI have come up with accurate information given the complexity of the case of JTR. I still hold that the killer is a psycopathic personality, as he was never caught, not heard and crept around Whitechapel and his victims almost invisibly, this takes a certain amount of awareness in being realistic mentally and most certainly of the criminal variety, rather than someone suffering a severe mental illness such as Paranoid Schizophrenia, someone suffering this type of illness would surely have been seen and caught, as they do not have the ability to sustain a long enough period of realistic awareness.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 62
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Hi Glenn sorry i didn't spot your post before now (post of Aug 2 2004), Tabram & Milwood?
It's possible that they could possibly be ripper victims, as the killer would have to have started somewhere, a mutilator killer starts by stabbing and smaller cuts, but it could be dead animals or even dead bodies as well as considering live bodies. It's hard to say, like you say there needs to be more to have any great deal of certainty, but it's just me personally that i don't think Tabram was a ripper victim , if we were to draw up all the killings that happened in Whitechapel, around the time and also past & present i reckon you'd draw a sea of blood to how many murders took place, even at the time and around the same area, so i don't think it gives any real rock solid evidence to make a good enough connection. But still to add, a customer of any unfortunate would have to have a degree of some charm (sociablity?)...I don't think it likely that the unfortunates, who would have rough characters knocking them about being uncommunative just because they have 4 pence, i'd expect they'd charge more for that type of rough treatment ( perhaps 10 times as much or they could jolly well get lost and they'd pinch the 4 pence for good measure!) Unfortunately having said that, it was a rarity( to the amount of customers the prostitutes came across) that they suffered abuse of that nature or even death. They would also have been desperate to feed any habits they had, such as drinking (which is a common habit) as well as narcotics (not that i'm saying any of the ripper victims were on narcotics, that hasn't proved evident as far as i know).Just to drop it in any thought as to The Boston Strangler?
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 63
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Glenn,
Also, the prostitutes would have been used to middle class and upper class customers, so really they wouldn't have been suspious of those types. They would have serviced Vicars, teachers,tradesmen, business men, well - educated men, toffs (even Prince Eddy had rooms in Whitechapel, i wonder what for? as i heard he was homosexual in nature, he probably went to male brothels like Oscar Wilde did), London is busy it's the capital, there's foreginers galore and both rich and poor educated and the uneducated. Also i have no doubts that the unfortunates gave Doctor's a bit of fun too, not to mention the rich artists and art students and some poorer one's too. You name the proffession i'll bet they serviced them to who ever would pay.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 61
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
I think not only Martha Tabram was a JtR victim , but also Emma Smith : as you said Shelley , Jack had to start somewhere.
Or Jacks. I think there were two men working together , at least to start with , and then at least one other person came in for the Double Event and Kelly's murder ( Druitt IMO ).
For the Tabram murder , the killers disguised themselves as soldiers. Two killers , two murder weapons. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2005
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
My main point, however, was if Tabram and Millwood could be victims of the same killer -- regardless if it's Jack the Ripper or not.
There seem to be a consistency in the modus operandi, as I see it. If we discount Tabram as a Ripper victim -- and at the same time accepts that she and Millwood may have had the same killer, then we must reach the startling (but not impossible) conclusion, that there was another multiple killer on the loose in the area, or that is just was a coincidence.
But as I said, I am not sure. However, I am inclined to believe that they were not Ripper victims. And certainly not Emma Smith, who according to herself, was attacked by memebers of a street gang, probably the Nichols gang or something similar -- there were severals of those around.
However, I think the approach is entirely different between Tabram/Millwood and the (other?) Ripper victims -- stabbing is not the same as mutilating and in Tabram there don't seem to be the same focus on the genitals and abdominal area.
In all the Ripper's actions we see a deliberate and very consistent method in both MO and signature, while in Tabram there is just some frenzied stabbing. Furthermore, Tabram didn't have her throat cut.
It's true that all killers have to "start somewhere", but I refuse to accept such a sudden within such a short period of time. In the cases of most serial killers, a change in modus operandi and signature usually evolves over a longer period, not a few months.
Most importantly: in Tabram's case, there IS NO signature whatsoever (if we disregard the position of the body, which of course could be accidental). For a killer of the Ripper's type the signature is the important part; that is, the mutilation. This is totally missing on Tabram and that is one of the reasons why I believe she was killed by someone else.
It just don't add up.
Now to the prostitutes.
No, I fail to see why East End whores -- with no teeth and not very good looking -- should be accosted by vicars, teachers and toffs. They certainly weren't. The middle class had their own prostitutes and brothels to visit in other areas and would have no interest whatsoever in using these types of women or even heading into the alleys of Whitechapel. I would say "toffs" and the more respectable middle class would be rather out of place in those districts.
What the East End prostitutes had to deal with was people from the lowest middle classes and the working class, mostly locals, drunks and more or less unpleasant characters -- customers that probably wouldn't be paying very well, while the women on the other hand would be satisfied with earning enough to rent a bed in a doss house or to get a glass of gin.
No customer of these women needed to have any charm whatsoever. These ragged prostitute -- among the lowest of the lowest, practically living on the street, had to take whatever they could get, even during the height of the Ripper scare.
To claim otherwise is to ignore the social facts, and this is why it is important to acknowledge the historical approach while dealing with old cases like this, not just straight-forward criminology. I have studied the lives of hundreds of low-class prostitutes in similar areas in Scandinavian big cities during the same period -- reading their police files and studying their life history -- and there is no doubt that these women had to do whatever they could in order to survive, and they never saw any customer from the better classes. To think that they did is to make a complete socio-historical error.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 70
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 9:41 pm: | |
Hi Glenn i respect your opinion upon the social side but heck who knows what turns which fellow on (also how desperate, and if a lot of money goes missing from housekeep will the missus get suspicious an all) I knew a chap who's wife looked similar to a famous model, but he ended up having an affair with a barmaid that looked like the back end of a bus. Above all with the individual in this sense of talk not are all in the same flock so as to speak, the odd one is a stray and any social situation could happen, as for Kelly and Eddowes as well as stride they didn't have teeth missing, and as an old famous actor friend of my father's said once in a film ' i don't look at the fire when i'm poking it'. Serial sex killers can drift to both sexes, both young and old and it will be the work of the same killer. Heck a documentry with a Doctor and serial killers the other night on tv showed a serial killer that did both men & women of all ages, animals & children all wrapped up together, not only that i've read about those sort too. Anything could be, you might be right , i might be right who knows for sure?
I can understand you mentioning that Tabrams murder was just a frenzied attack, only stabbing occured and not any cutting, plus just as you say her throat wasn't cut, nor any attempt to cut it occured either. Tabram had 5 stabs to the left lung, 2 stabs to the right lung, 1 stab in the heart, 5 stabs to the liver, 2 stabs to the spleen and 6 stabs to the stomach. More stabs were given to the lung and the stomach, if you lose a lung it will kill, the stomach is also another sure killing point if it's damaged enough ( heard of the Mayan sacrifices where they ripped the stomach out for a sure painful death?) Also a good deal of stabs were dished out to the liver (the filtering organ of toxins), this would help to ensure death with the other wounds in consideration ( her killer wanted to make sure she didn't survive) There was a cut on the breastbone, but above the breast area. I think you could well be right in all you say Glenn ( wondered why it stuck with me that she couldn't have been a sex killers victim). Having said that if you look again at the case of Peter Kurten, he started with just stabbing animals, then went on to stabbing people, girls ranging from 5 years old to in their 20's, but he didn't go into throat cutting just strangulation, but his motive was sex and the pleasure of stabbing during sex. No Tabram definately wasn't the same victim of the same killer as Chapman etc, otherwise there would have been at least some stabbing of the actual breasts, or anus or vagina, 1 both or all. But didn't Milwood have some cuts as well as stabs to the private parts? Refresh my memory Glenn, as i can't remember.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2007
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
Once again, regarding the prostitutes; we are not just talking different social classes here; these women were way beyond working class and not even comparable with barmaids or cabaret girls. No way a middle class person would "contract" any of those rags, or even stick his head into the dark and worst mazes of Whitechapel. Some streets were more respectable than others, but these particular ones where the murders took place were very much unknown country to anyone besides those who came from that very same environment.
So once again: no, a "toff" would be hardly unlikely and no smooth talk on the customer's part would be necessary; these were desperate women and they were drunk for the most part anyway.
Regarding the change in MO and signature, I am not disputing that and I am not disputing that there are evolving killers; what I have most problem with is -- like I've stated before -- the short range of time. I can acknowledge that the stabbing can be a part of a signature if it's connected to sexual pleasure.
But it is very hard for me to accept such a sudden and fast change in modus operandi -- AND suddenly obtaining and discovering a signature (and a signature and MO that after Nichols all of a sudden becomes consistent and deliberate out of the blue) -- in a period of a few weeks from Tabram was killed. It just doesen't ring true to me.
There were four months between Millwood's and Tabram's murder, while only three weeks between Tabram (August 7) and Polly Nichols (August 31).
Would Tabram's (and Millwood's?) killer really change his MO and create a signature in little over three weeks? To me that sounds unlikely, even for an evolving killer.
But I agree with you; I would also have expected more signs of stabbing on the other victims if we were to consider the same killer.
Yes, Millwood's wounds were stab wounds very similar to Tabram's, maybe a bit more concentrated to the lower torso, as far as I recall.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 71
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
So Milwood didn't have any cutting then (mind you consider that she was still alive at the time, so someone engaging in first stage mutilation wouldn't usually do it on a live body)
By the way Kurten did mutilate, but because it was on a victim that was a minor it's likely that he stabbed and caused such severe damage as to show being a mutilator (so it can be argued that he was just a stabber). Kurten MO didn't change as he was heightened sexually by violence. I still have to disagree with some social circumstances with the prostitutes, although i do respect your observations toward it, it is logical & sensible and could be applied to the majority of circumstances, but i still think mine is also valid ( remember Walter ?). Milwood although had stabs to her lower part of her torso still may not be a ripper victim, even though as you say she is a different victim to that of Tabram and her killer. But i agree that with the time space inbetween to that of the Nichols killing, is not logical for a killer developing his MO, but 6 months is a reasonable time period to change, but not without the practice of cutting (not by stabbing alone). I personally wouldn't believe that Milwood was killed by the same hand as Tabram nor that of Nichols ,Chapman etc.
Going back a bit to the social situation of Whitechapel, sexual serial killers have been known to choose very old women as old as 90 years of age then another victim could be 19 years of age, i ask you what's sexually appealling about a withered, wrinkly, false toothed old woman in comparision of a 19 year old youthful figure? but they do go for them, both at the hand of the same killer ( so your social observancy could in this case be discounted), as i've also mentioned, Eddowes, Kelly and Stride did not have teeth missing ( my last post was just an example, kind of, to show that with certain men there's no accounting for taste, they can turn around and suprise you).
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 72
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 7:43 am: | |
Glenn,
Also i am waiting to hear from a friend of mine who is a police officer, so that he can give a reputable name of a police surgeon, so that i can do my research on the Tabram killing and the debate on whether or not 2 weapons were used or not ( i'm not up on everything to do with wounding, but i think 2 weapons were used as warm flesh is still pliable, but let's see) Also, from a political census that i picked up from the net, i found an entry of a Doctor Boyle who worked at the London hospital, who was wealthy, who was indeed an 'habitual slummer' so no the poor and unfortunate were not wary of the Rich etc. All walks of life can mix perhaps not in great numbers but it is a fact. |
Jon P. Van Skiver
Police Constable
Username: Jonvs
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi Shelly,
Just a small correction; all of Liz's teeth on her lower left jaw were missing. Not sure about Kate though, I would guess some were missing due to age and lack of care.
BRG,
Jon VS |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 76
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Ok now you mention it, i seem to remember something about the sinking of a ship, was it the 'Princess Alice'? that Liz claimed she had her jaw damaged ( but still wasn't that the lower jaw and the lower teeth are easily diguised in a smile) her upper teeth were fine, not the same in Nichols & Chapman's case.
But i thought there were some mix up with the real identity of Liz and another woman as no records had been traced of Liz being in a ship accident. But still no matter, i think it can be fruitless discussing whether a male may or not be somewhat attracted to a woman with teeth as oppossed to teeth, or even whether the woman is old ugly & wrinkly as oppossed to pretty and youthful when considering the tastes of all men, men cannot be stero-typed that way, all have different preferences and tastes, one from the other. But hey thanks for your post, it's nice to have facts pointed out, it helps me , keep me on my toes Jon , ok. Keep posting
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2009
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Hi Shelley,
Note that I've never disputed that a serial killer could go for old hags or tramps; I believe we can find several examples of this. So that was not the issue with my socio-historical points. I simply tried to explain why THESE prostitutes probably were accosted by someone belonging to their own social class, and not someone from the higher spectras of society. Once again, such a person would be very much out of place in Whitechapel at the time and there would be no need to lure these women into anything. They were the ones that led total strangers into secluded places in the middle of the Ripper scare, not the other way around. These women were desperate for money and and to the point where their dangerous situation was put in second place. It's all a matter of survival.
Regarding Liz Stride:
That story about her losing her family in the Princess Alice disaster was most certainly a hoax in order to receive financial aid from the Swedish Church. Among the passenger records from Princess Alice, no names corroborating her husband or herself can be found.
Liz Stride was known for inventing stories in order to make herself "important".
My bet is that she lost those teeth in a fight or from lack of care, possibly also from the syphilis (loss of teeth is one of the characteristics of the mercury treatment) she had obtained in Sweden as a prostitute before she came to England.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 17, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 317
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Everything going well? I hope so. I’m not using my own computer (still have problems with the internet), so I keep it short.
You wrote:“But it is very hard for me to accept such a sudden and fast change in modus operandi -- AND suddenly obtaining and discovering a signature (and a signature and MO that after Nichols all of a sudden becomes consistent and deliberate out of the blue) -- in a period of a few weeks from Tabram was killed. It just doesen't ring true to me.”
I’m not saying that it’s impossible, but just using your way of reasoning, wouldn’t the change in MO and the creation of a signature have been even more sudden and completely out of the blue if Tabram wasn’t killed by the Ripper, knowing no other similar murder took place in the East End prior to Tabram's?
Take care,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 318
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
You wrote: “I still hold that the killer is a psycopathic personality, as he was never caught, not heard and crept around Whitechapel and his victims almost invisibly, this takes a certain amount of awareness in being realistic mentally and most certainly of the criminal variety, rather than someone suffering a severe mental illness such as Paranoid Schizophrenia, someone suffering this type of illness would surely have been seen and caught, as they do not have the ability to sustain a long enough period of realistic awareness.”
Paranoid schizophrenia doesn’t have to be severe, it can vary from very severe to very mild, although not in one person, which means that one person doesn’t suffer from a severe case one time and from a mild case some other time.
A good example of a mutilating killer suffering from a severe form of paranoid schizophrenia was Richard Trenton Chase. Although he probably was what most people would call a raving lunatic, he managed to kill quite a few people over a period of 2 months or so without getting caught. He was skinny, looked shabby and when he talked, probably a lot of times nonsense came out of his mouth.
An example of a mutilating killer probably suffering from only a mild form of paranoid schizophrenia or a similar mental illness was Robert Clive Napper. I’ve posted about him on the Mary Kelly thread, so if you‘re interested you can read more about him there. Although he appears to have kept to himself, he seems to have managed reasonably well socially, he finished school, was never without a job, he was neat, tidy and organized.
I certainly don’t think the Ripper suffered from a severe form of paranoid schizophrenia, but I’m not sure he was a psychopath either.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
H Glenn,Frank,Shelley etc
regarding your 2007 post Glenn and the streets the women were killed in.I have done some research into Berner Street and in fact in those days it was quite a respectable street with various "luminaries " such as William Morris lecturing in the Working Men"s Education Club.WIlliam Morris is one of our most eminent Artists /writers from the preraphaelite and Arts And Craft movement and he is said to have visited the club most Saturday Nights at the time.Much of his work can now be found in the Victoria and Albert Museum where a section of a whole floor is now given over to him and there is work in the British Museum as well.Nor is he the only one who is known to have frequeted the club for entirely respectable purposes.George Bernard Shaw and Annie Bessant are others that have been mentioned and there are more.It was a strange place for Elizabeth Stride to be too in the sense that apart from some singing and dancing after the lectures, it was mostly given over to serious matters.
Shelley,Annie Chapman was reputed to have a more or less "perfect"set of teeth.The examining doctors found only two molars[at the very back that is]were missing.They were commented on because they were so "fine".Neither did Kate Eddowes have any teeth that were noticeably missing.The only other one who had teeth missing was Polly Nichols[5] and yet.....the examining doctor and one or two witnesses thought she was very much younger than she was[about 30-35].Likewise Kate"s age was put at in her 30"s or early 40"s[she was 43].I often wonder about how they actually looked.I think its quite important in fact.Kate Eddowes for example was said to have been very attractive when she was young.Polly looks to be "even featured" even in death.And again Elizabeth Stride and what we can still see of Catherine Eddowes show women who look as though they may have still had reasonably attractive facial features.I dont doubt Kate Eddows was thin and ragged and that her clothes were dirty-likewise Chapman.However to me the only ones who look pretty unprepossessing as far as their facial appearance went were Matha Tabram and Annie Chapman.In this sense as I have previously argued this guy could have been from any class looking for "a bit of Rough" as the papers put it.I tend to agree with Glenn and Frank when they say though he is most likely to have been a local man with psychotic disturbance of the paranoid schizophrenic kind suffering from "command hallucinations".I would argue too like Frank that depending on the stage of psychosis&/or "type" he was able to evade detection through his wits and fast movements.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2010
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I am fine, thank you.
You wrote:
"...wouldn’t the change in MO and the creation of a signature have been even more sudden and completely out of the blue if Tabram wasn’t killed by the Ripper, knowing no other similar murder took place in the East End prior to Tabram's?"
Well no, actually. If Nichols were the first Ripper victim that we know of, then we just don't know what the Ripper did before that.
What's hard for me to grasp, is the change in MO and development in signature in little over three weeks, from Tabram to Nichols. And then on Nichols, he out of the blue creates a method that he after that is fairly consistent with.
If we don't have Tabram to compare with, it all becomes easier, since we have no time period to consider at all. He could have done practically everything for a long, unrestricted period of time.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon P. Van Skiver
Sergeant
Username: Jonvs
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 3:25 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
For those that are interested, there's a thread about Liz and her involvement with the "Princess Alice" disaster on her forum.
Jon |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 446
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:49 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I've wondered about this too. If Tabram is a victim of Jack, he had to decide to try something different next time round.
But, let's say Tabram was his first. Perhaps he found that by stabbing her, he got quite bloody in the face, or upper torso. The blood showed too much on his clothes.
Now, let's say after he gets away again, he relives the murders through fantasy. That gives him lots of time to figure out how to do things better, now that he has some actual experience.
So, he figures instead of just strangling her, which worked well to keep the noise down, he would "bleed them" first (hence, in comes the throat cutting).
Nichols, being the first victim after Tabram, isn't as extensively mutilated as the later victims. And, the cuts in her abdomen could be "stab then cut", which is a change but not a big one. And a change that might have been deliberate because of some previous problem with "back splash" when he drew back the knife in the Tabram murder.
And, when he relives this murder, he finds it was much more satisfying. He doesn't have as much noticable blood on him, and if his hands do get bloody, he can hide them in his pockets. Etc. So, after Nichols, the method doesn't change as much because it's working for him now.
Personally, I'm not really convinced Tabram is a Ripper victim, but she's worth thinking about. And, if she is, it may not really be that big of a change in overall signature; prostitute, strangulation, knife attack, some focus on sexual areas (breasts, genitals), etc. Given this would be "the first", one might expect the technique to evolve, then become more "set" as the tecnique becomes perfected.
Anyway, it's just one way of looking at how JtR's methods might have evolved if he started with Tabram. If he didn't start with Tabram, well, obviously this transition never happened! ha!
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2013
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Hi Jeff.
Interesting post. I can see where you're coming from and what you're trying to suggest as an alternative, but I personally don't think the "transition" occurred because of he wanted to improve his technique. The time span is still short for the rather remarkable changes in both MO and signature to evolve, as I see it.
The "only" protruding intestines on Nichols doesen't have to be a sign of evolving traits. If we consider that the Ripper probably was interrupted in the case of Nichols (which is quite possible), then her lighter form of mutilations means nothing.
I have no idea what the Ripper did before he went for Eddowes -- he most certainly must have done something -- but I don't feels right in that context.
"If he didn't start with Tabram, well, obviously this transition never happened! ha!"
And that is how I personally see it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 291
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Jeff
Glenn, do you think the change in technique from Tabrams to Nichols might be because he did not get any thrill out of killing Tabram?
What I am trying to say is, after killing Tabram he didn't get any sort of buzz out of it, and so tried something different with Nichols. Even changing the type of knife he was using.
All the best
Rob |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
