|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 8:30 pm: |       |
Here's the accompanying text from the book..
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2244
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
As evident, that text page didn't come through.
What??? Is this Hutchinson? How do we know? Is it confirmed?
Not that he looks strange, it's just that I thought he disappeared from the face of the Earth and that no one knew what he looked like.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Its through now Glenn, check back
Confirmed?, hardly.
No assurances, I'm only the messenger
Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2245
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:29 pm: | |
Interesting.
I would like to see the source behind the photo, but maybe Fairclough wasn't to particular about those things...?
It's true, the man on the photo DOES seem down-to-earth and honest -- for what it's worth.
But if the statement is correct, it puts some doubts on Hutchinson's honesty, since he is referring to the Royal crap.
It is of course no coincidence that such a statement -- naturally put in the context of a conspiracy -- appears in a book called The Ripper and the Royals...
Still, if this is Hutchinson, it's interesting nevertheless. I just love this kind of stuff.
Thanks, Jon.
And don't worry, I won't "shoot the messenger"... 
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 12, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 3:57 am: | |
Hi,
I believe it is extremely unlikely that kelly ventured out after 3am that morning, as it was raining hard, not only would she get extremely wet, but she would hardly expect to find a possible client in those conditions and at that hour.
I believe that Mr Astracan if he was her killer showed considerable restraint to wait over a hour before killing her, it simply does not fit the M.O.of the 'Ripper'.
There is no doubt in my mind that she was killed in the daylight hours, and was encouraged to undress for bed by her killer, so that it would look like she was killed in the night.
reason for this to support a alibi for the previous night.
We simply can not cast aside Maurice Lewis[ and his tale of milk] or Mrs Maxwells sighting, and conversation, and the fires heat.
The reason why this case baffles everyone is the fact that we are neglecting real valid points, on the pretence that they did not occur.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 4:24 am: | |
G'day,
Richard!!!!!
Well write down whatever's on your mind and whatever your convinced of beyond doubt, state why and I can add it to the book!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3437
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
Hi Richard, Leanne
Leaving aside for the moment the question of Joe's guilt, it's interesting that he seems to have hung around in the area on the morning of the 9th. As a fruit hawker, wouldn't he have wanted to get to the Lord Mayor's show to sell some fruit?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2249
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
Hi Richard,
"I believe that Mr Astracan if he was her killer showed considerable restraint to wait over a hour before killing her, it simply does not fit the M.O.of the 'Ripper'.
There is no doubt in my mind that she was killed in the daylight hours, and was encouraged to undress for bed by her killer, so that it would look like she was killed in the night."
I completely agree with your first statement, but I am confused regarding the latter.
You say that it would be out of character for him to keep his restraint in the way the Astrakhan man did, but still you feel that it's possible that the murderer showed enough restraint to encourage her to undress and get ready to bed. It doesen't add up.
The latter assumption is actually also very much out of character for the Ripper, Richard, You are contradicting yourself.
All the best
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
G'day Robert,
GOOD POINT! If he was totally innocent and had no knowledge that his presence would be required at Millers Court that morning, why didn't he have the great desire to earn cash for Mary?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 346
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
Hey Glenn,
”Yes, but here you are talking about where the actual knife work began. This doesen't say anything whatsoever about what happened before the knife got to work, and therefore it is not possible to deduce that this occurred on the bed from the beginning.”
OK, judging from all the evidence it’s possible they played hide and seek for a while first or that he chased her around the room for 5 minutes – if they did it silently. 
But seriously, apart from the ones I already posted earlier, there are no scenarios that I can think of that would explain her completely having lain down on the right side of the bed. So, I would be very interested in what you think (could have) happened before her throat was cut?
Now, bear with me. From the statements of both Dr. Philips and Dr. Bond we know that MJK’s throat had been slashed while she was lying on the right side of the bed with her head and neck in the top right-hand corner of it. We also know that her body had been moved from that position after death to the position she was found in. She was found lying with her head slightly lying over on the left side of the bed and the rest of her body inclined to the right, making it indeed likely that, at the time of the cut to the throat, MJK was also lying with her feet on the right side of the bed.
Now, the farther away her feet would have been from the wooden partition when her throat was slashed, the more the splashes of blood would have been directed towards the foot of the bed, the less likely that specifically the top right-hand corner of the bed would have been as saturated with blood as it seems to have been. From whatever position he attacked, standing beside the bed or sitting on in, MJK would have fallen on the bed from the side of it. At best, she could have been attacked while standing close beside the foot of the bed and with her back more or less to it. This way she would have fallen on it obliquely, but probably still not with both legs completely on the bed. Besides, falling on the bed like that, it’s questionable if her head would have reached the top right-hand corner.
So, I’m still not saying that it isn’t possible she could have ended up completely lying on the right side of the bed after a struggle prior to the knife work causing the cuts in the sheet, but as far as I’m concerned, a gap still has to be bridged with a feasible scenario. I can’t think of one since I think Barnett (if he did it) would have been guided by fierce anger and frustration, adrenaline rushing through his veins, and, in spite of possibly having given her time to raise her right hand and utter a cry, would not have wasted any time. Furthermore, the cut in the throat having deeply notched the vertebrae indicates that he was very determined to kill her. If you can provide feasible explanation for me, I will gladly accept it.
”I have never questioned that the cut on the throat and the mutilations were done on the bed.”
I know you didn’t, but the stabs through the sheet have nothing to do with the cutting of the throat or the mutilations, which is my point.
“My concern is what happened at the very beginning of the attack, before the blood hit the sheets and the walls.
An attack starts before this.”
Yes, and (for now) I think the attack started with the stabbing which also caused the stabs through the sheet.
It may have been like this: the killer walks over to the bed where she seems to be sleeping, he has to get on the bed because she lying near the wooden partition, and when he does that she wakes up and sees him and his knife. She realizes she’s in danger, but before she can do more that raise a hand and utter a cry he’s already on top of her and stabs her in the face a couple of times, shutting her up, before getting a good hold of her head and slashing her throat. The adrenaline that started rushing through her the moment she became aware of the danger, is still flowing through her veins and keep her heart beating when her throat is quickly and ferociously cut, causing the splashes of blood on the wooden partition. So, there could have been a short struggle before the stabbing, but there’s nothing to indicate that there was one.
“There is no proof whatsoever that says that Mary Kelly lay on the bed before the attack, if Dr Bond says so, he is completely in error.”
That seems a very strange remark, coming from a man 116 years later, who hasn’t seen the actual crime scene, whereas Dr. Bond was there, probably much longer than he cared to remember, and saw the crime scene and the body with his own eyes. By the way, he didn’t actually say that MJK lay on the bed before the attack, he only suggested that her face may have been covered with the sheet when she was attacked, which to me seems a feasible notion and would make it very likely that she was lying in bed already.
”Technically it is possible, but in lack of sufficient facts on this matter, I prefer to rely on the statistics and concentrate on the one she had lived there with her and knew the premises maybe more than anyone in her circle of friends.”
I agree that we’re certain Barnett knew how to get in, but now you almost make it sound as if Mary’s room was so large that it was difficult to learn how to open the door through the window, whereas earlier you wrote it was “incredibly small”.
“I would recommend that one studies the persons that we know of first hand before speculating about others we practically know nothing about.”
We know MJK took clients to her room, she would have opened the door for them, quite possibly through the window. Although we’re certain Barnett knew it and we know practically nothing about others, no elaborate studies of anyone in particular are needed to see that it’s quite possible that some of her clients or acquaintances knew how to open the door.
All the best my friend,
Frank |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2253
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Hi Frank,
It could of course be possible that your scenario is true -- that he stands by the bed, she wakes up, gives up a cry of "murder!" etc.
But if that is the case, it just further indicates that it was someone she knew and someone who knew the premises. I don't believe in any unknown intruder.
"I agree that we’re certain Barnett knew how to get in, but now you almost make it sound as if Mary’s room was so large that it was difficult to learn how to open the door through the window, whereas earlier you wrote it was “incredibly small”.
No, the size of the room has nothing to do with it. If the door only could be open from outside from the window, and possibly had a spring lock, it would take someone who had already been there and seen her doing it.
The reason for why I think it's someone very close to her, and not another one of her clients, is that the art if the mutilations are very much as those referred to as "interpersonal".
It is of course a generalization based on assumptions from criminal psychology, but to me this murder strongly bear signs of personal issues and emotions, not the ordinary lunatic.
That is my point of view, and I'll stick to it.
"We know MJK took clients to her room, she would have opened the door for them, quite possibly through the window. Although we’re certain Barnett knew it and we know practically nothing about others, no elaborate studies of anyone in particular are needed to see that it’s quite possible that some of her clients or acquaintances knew how to open the door."
No, that's not the point. The point is that if one is looking for possible suspects you must know something about them, like you must have access to victimology. Barnett is the one of them in her category of friends that she had had a relationship with and whom we actually have some information about. You can't draw conclusions if you don't have information. To just say, ah but it was probably another one of her John Doe clients, will NOT do, when one also knows that it is almost always the closest male relative to the victim that performs these crimes. Barnett could have had possible motives, based on what we can read, but the others we know nothing about.
To speculate about other people that are unknown, when he have a suspect we know a lot of things about, but his innocence is uncertain, would be crappy police work.
"That seems a very strange remark, coming from a man 116 years later, who hasn’t seen the actual crime scene, whereas Dr. Bond was there, probably much longer than he cared to remember, and saw the crime scene and the body with his own eyes. By the way, he didn’t actually say that MJK lay on the bed before the attack, he only suggested that her face may have been covered with the sheet when she was attacked, which to me seems a feasible notion and would make it very likely that she was lying in bed already."
Yes, but that is still not saying anything about what happened before that.
Once again, I am interested in what happened before the attack up to the cry that possible derived from her. The evidence on the crime scene doesen't say anything about that -- it only gives evidence of the knife attack.
You say that it would be quite unlikely for the body to get in that position if she fell down. Well, she didn't have to. She could have been thrown and pressed on to the bed by the killer in this position, and while he held the sheet over her face, he could have sat upon her.
I believe the attack with the knife was fast, but not the approach before that. The murderer's approach this time allowed her to see the knife, to cry out and to resist (if only for one or two seconds) -- I don't believe the Ripper would take that kind of chance, but it points at someone close to her actually did surprise her -- unless it was, as you say, a break-in (which I personally don't believe but can't rule out).
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 13, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
Earlier I referenced the book Crime Scene with the suggestion of clenched fingers being a stage of rigor mortis.
I may have provided the wrong reference.
I reasearched this phenomena some 5 years ago and saw that medical opinion was somewhat divided about the issue of lactic acid being the common denominator between common everyday cramp and post-mortem rigor mortis.
Today it appears to be largely accepted. As you are aware during muscular cramps the smaller musles tend to contract. If you get cramp in your arm or leg the muscle hardens but possibly due to the muscle mass to lactic acid ratio the muscle does not tend to contract the larger limbs. Whereas with face, fingers & toes we feel & see contraction taking place.
The quantity of lactic acid to muscle mass in smaller muscles may mean the effects of lactic acid overcome muscle mass resistance.
Larry Ragle explains how rigor starts in the smaller muscles, face, fingers & toes but does not specifically mention contraction. We know contraction occurs in these muscles from experience. I have not been able to find a site which discusses this specific issue that I mentioned but all the evidence is available for us to determine how lactic acid effects muscular extremeties.
I find autopsy issues facinating - maybe its the Charles Manson in me 
Regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 5:13 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Let me explain, as mentioned I would not have expected Mr Astracan[ if he was Jack] to have had the control to ponder over a attack for over a hour.
However if the murder of Kelly was premeditated, and Barnett was the murderer, it would fall into place.
By his own admission he said that on several occassions since the 30th oct, he had called on Kelly to give her money.
He did not say that he called on her daily regardless of him having spare money.
Yet on the evening of the 8th november, he calls on Mary to say 'He could give her no money'which is rather odd considering his alibi was 'I was playing cards'.
I put it to the jury 'so to speak' That the only reason he called on her was to find out if she had intentions of having a stop over, for he could hardly have murdered her if she was not alone...
We should remember that thursday night was the only night that week that she was alone throughout the night.
I believe that Barnett called on Kelly around 830am on the morning of the 9th expecting the normally late riser to be in bed, however she had ventured out so he let himself in and waited.
On kellys return at around 9am, she found Barnett in the room, but of course she was fully dressed, which was not any help to his nightime alibi.
However she may have made the same comment to Barnett as she had made to Maxwell a short time earlier, that she felt unwell, and this would have been the opportunety that he wanted.
He could then have suggested to Kelly that she should be back in bed, and she started to undress he waited patiently for her to fold her clothes and get back into bed, before moving in on her, proberly using the sheet to cover her face with his left hand whilst stabbing her with his right, her arms would have instantly tried to protect herself, and she would have received defensive blows.
I can see a lot of people thinking 'surely not'but i believe the killers intention was to give a picture of a nightime assault, which Barnett had a watertight alibi for.
The only surprise to him was kelly was not in bed when he called.
Regards Richard.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 6:24 am: | |
Richard,
I think you are dreaming, and that's why we are getting nowhere on this book! We both have different beliefs.
"Let me explain, as mentioned I would not have expected Mr Astracan[ if he was Jack] to have had the control to ponder over a attack for over a hour."
Here you are assuming that Astrakhan wasn't Joseph Barnett / I am assuming he was!
"He did not say that he called on her daily regardless of him having spare money."
You know why because he wasn't asked, and if he had have volunteered the information that he even visited Mary when empty handed, he would have given the impression that he wanted more, wanted her back, and that could have prompted them to investigate him and the relationship further.
"...which is rather odd considering his alibi was 'I was playing cards'.
It's not odd for someone who is short on money to believe they can increase it with gambling.
"We should remember that thursday night was the only night that week that she was alone throughout the night."
True, Maria Harvey was there for the first three days of that week, and Barnett knew she had gone as he was told when he visited that day.
"On kellys return at around 9am, she found Barnett in the room, but of course she was fully dressed, which was not any help to his nightime alibi."
Do you really believe that a man with such an unstable mind was capable of thinking or even worrying about an alibi?
If he was, he would have devised a more crafty, rock-solid one.
"I believe that Barnett called on Kelly around 830am on the morning of the 9th expecting the normally late riser to be in bed, however she had ventured out so he let himself in and waited.
On kellys return at around 9am, she found Barnett in the room, but of course she was fully dressed, which was not any help to his nightime alibi."
If you feel so strongly that Mary was murdered after 9a.m., write it down so I can add it as an alternative to the ten chapters that I have so far. It can be up to the reader to decide.
"..which Barnett had a watertight alibi.."
OH that's a good one...the best! 
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2258
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 7:24 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
No! YOU are dreaming! The thought that Barnett was the Astrakan man is so ridiculous it is not even worth commenting. If you put that in your book you will be ridiculed for life.
Where on Earth do you get these things? You're sometimes even worse than Richard.
Hi Richard,
OK, apart from some possible objections (as has been forward by your companion here above already), I actually think much of what you say is interesting. I am not prepared to discard it altogether.
If Barnett was her killer in a domestic murder, I think some of your ideas here might be worth-while looking into (although there are some question marks), but you will get problems with it, if you believe that Joe Barnett was Jack the Ripper. Because it's a behaviour that would be totally out of character for the man in question.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
Hi Jon,
All very interesting.
I have some crime manuals and police hand books at home, but unfortunately none that solely covers authopsy or the medical aspects.
It's not that I don't think authopsy is interesting -- because I do -- but I have never managed to get natural science in any form to work for me. Don't tell me why; i'ts like a block in the brain; say the words mathematics, physics and chemistry, and I'll get white like a sheet of paper in the face. I'm trying to learn, though.
I am a hopeless prisoner of the faculty of arts and humanities, I guess. :o(
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:08 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
"No! YOU are dreaming! The thought that Barnett was the Astrakhan man is so ridiculous it is not even worth commenting."
Please explain why this is dreaming, don't just jump up and down and say I'm dreaming!!!!!!!
Hutchinson told a reporter that he may have seen his suspect in Petticoat Lane on a Sunday morning. Having no idea what was there on a Sunday morning, I looked up Petticoat Lane on a Website that has nothing to do with JtR.
It was a big market for the exchange of second hand garments, (not necessarily OLD garments), and sham jewellery, primarily run by Jewish people for the gentiles.
Now you may still think I'm dreaming, but I think it's a suggestion worth injecting into the studies of this case.
Even if it's useless information not every single Ripper-book can be about the right suspect because not every single Ripper-book agrees with the last.
" Because it's a behaviour that would be totally out of character for the man in question."
Who are you to judge what Joseph Barnett's true character was like? Have you looked into the character of Billingsgate Market and the men who worked there then? If so, does it fit the character that he led the police and other people to believe he entertained?
I'm going to bed now, it's late here. I'll read you in the morning.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 14, 2004) |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 347
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:30 am: | |
Hi again Glenn,
”It could of course be possible that your scenario is true -- that he stands by the bed, she wakes up, gives up a cry of "murder!" etc.
But if that is the case, it just further indicates that it was someone she knew and someone who knew the premises. I don't believe in any unknown intruder.”
That you don’t believe in any unknown intruder is fine by me. I do not wish to force my views upon you. If ‘my’ scenario is true, it does indicate that it was someone who knew how to open the door, however, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that it was someone she would actually know. On the other hand, we are sure Barnett knew the trick, so it may have been him.
”The reason for why I think it's someone very close to her, and not another one of her clients, is that the art if the mutilations are very much as those referred to as "interpersonal".”
I would (honestly) like to know more about this ‘art’. Could you provide some information on it?
”To speculate about other people that are unknown, when he have a suspect we know a lot of things about, but his innocence is uncertain, would be crappy police work.”
Although I think we don’t really know that much about Barnett (I can think of some things I would have liked to ask him - if that were possible), your point is taken.
”You say that it would be quite unlikely for the body to get in that position if she fell down. Well, she didn't have to. She could have been thrown and pressed on to the bed by the killer in this position, and while he held the sheet over her face, he could have sat upon her.”
When I wrote ‘fallen’ in my previous post, I had a scenario in mind as well where he pushed her and immediately got on top of her, pressing her down. Even if she would have been pushed hard on the bed while standing close to the foot of it, it remains questionable if her head would have reached the top right-hand corner. I tried it several times, jumping backwards on my bed while I was standing right beside the bed and at about 5 ft 9 (1,75 m) away from the head of it. I’m just over 5 ft 8 (1,73 m), which would make me slightly taller than MJK, but my head didn’t reach the top right-hand corner and part of my left leg didn’t end up on the bed.
If he would have forcefully thrown her on the bed, which perhaps wasn’t much wider than 2 ft 8 (ca. 80 cm), she would undoubtedly have knocked against the wooden partition or the wooden head of the bed. This would not only make noise, the knocking would also have left its marks on her body, but no evidence of such marks exists.
If you think the cry was indeed uttered by MJK, it should also be remembered in this context that Elizabeth Prater was woken up by her cat and not by the cry, which probably followed only seconds afterwards. In other words, she was already awake shortly before the cry and must have been awake some time afterwards. At the inquest she deposed that she “could have heard her moving if she had moved.”, but also stated to have heard nothing suspicious before or after the cry.
All the best,
Frank
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2260
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
"Please explain why this is dreaming, don't just jump up and down and say I'm dreaming!!!!!!!"
Because there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe anything else, than that the Astrakhan man was an invention by Hutchinson. This is an absolutely logical assumption.
I strongly believe -- as I have said here over a thousand times -- that Hutchinson created this character in order to get the police to focus on someone else, instead of his own strange whereabouts in Miller's Court at the time of the murder. And what would be better than coming forward himself (before the police finds him and since he found out that he had been seen by others), and present a "suspect" to the police, putting himself in a credible light and at the same time delivering an explanation to why he was hanging outside Mary Kelly's building.
"Who are you to judge what Joseph Barnett's true character was like? Have you looked into the character of Billingsgate Market and the men who worked there then? If so, does it fit the character that he led the police and other people to believe he entertained?"
No no no no, Leanne. 
You didn't read me careful enough.
I didn't mean Barnett here - I meant that it would be out of character for Jack the Ripper, based on what we know about the other murders!
I don't think at all, that it necessarily could have been out of character for Barnett -- and as you say, I could not possibly be the judge of that.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2261
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Hi again, Frankie boy.
"That you don’t believe in any unknown intruder is fine by me. I do not wish to force my views upon you. If ‘my’ scenario is true, it does indicate that it was someone who knew how to open the door, however, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that it was someone she would actually know. On the other hand, we are sure Barnett knew the trick, so it may have been him."
Fair enough.
"I would (honestly) like to know more about this ‘art’. Could you provide some information on it?"
I'll be happy to, although you must give me time for this. It takes some research through my crime books here at home to get into it more in detail. It is referred to as "interpersonal violence" and often involves mutilations of this particular design.
"Although I think we don’t really know that much about Barnett (I can think of some things I would have liked to ask him - if that were possible), your point is taken."
Great. And I agree on that we don't know that much about Barnett, but at least we know something about him -- compared to the others, and therefore he would most likely be given first priority here.
"I tried it several times, jumping backwards on my bed while I was standing right beside the bed and at about 5 ft 9 (1,75 m) away from the head of it."
I would have given a lot to get the chance to see that exercise, Frank. A lovely picture.
Is your bed still in one piece?
Besides that, I see what you mean, but to me that's very much an academic reasoning, considering the factual circumstances. Some things just can't be measured and explained in full, especially since the methods and knowledge in 1888 was probably not that extensive. We can't even be sure of, that they measured correctly.
I prefer to use common sense instead and try to live myself into the situation. Besides, if her head bumped into the partition, I am not so sure it would have left visible marks. You don't always get bruises or bumps when you hit something. Besides, she was so terribly demolished that I wonder -- even if that would have been on the top or back of her head -- if such marks would be noticed.
I can't say you're wrong, but if you are right, then I believe an intruder is the most likely in this situation -- and this would, as I see it, point at someone she knew even stronger.
All the best, mate
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 14, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3446
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Are you going back to suggesting that Barnett dressed up on the night of 8th-9th, and was then taken back to Mary's room, without her recognising him?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Hi,
There is a small possibility that the Astracan man and kelly were playing a game which of course could lead the way to all sort of speculations, the fact that after only one brief encounter witnessed by Hutchinson they both roared of laughter.
One wonders what was so funny, did she reconize the person as someone dressed completely different than the norm.?.
She was apparently seen earlier by some men in Dorset street with a man laughing at the wanted poster on the wall near the court entrance.
This woman seemed to attempt to laugh everything off, although desperatly frightened.
Regarding Barnetts sanity, i believe when Kelly was killed and if.... he was her killer he could have placed all the blame for the other deaths on her, and none on himself and could have survived the rest of his life with some degree of normality.
Although i dare say many experts on murderers of that calibre will disagree with that conclusion.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 349
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Good evening, my dear ol’ Glenn,
”I'll be happy to, although you must give me time for this. It takes some research through my crime books here at home to get into it more in detail. It is referred to as "interpersonal violence" and often involves mutilations of this particular design.”
Thank you, I look forward to it!
”I would have given a lot to get the chance to see that exercise, Frank. A lovely picture. Is your bed still in one piece?”
Not to worry, my friend, my bed still stands. Although I’m also 39 (exactly one week older), it was actually fun, diving onto the bed like that! I believe it would have been a lovely picture, too. Maybe I’m going to have my picture taken like that and put it up on my profile, ‘cause I still haven’t got a good picture.
“Besides that, I see what you mean, but to me that's very much an academic reasoning, considering the factual circumstances.”
You may well be right, but besides common sense we don’t have anything else to go on as far as this particular subject is concerned. Hopefully Alan Sharp’s book (when can we expect it, Alan?) will reveal something that will be of help.
“Besides, if her head bumped into the partition, I am not so sure it would have left visible marks. You don't always get bruises or bumps when you hit something.”
To me it seems likely that such marks would have been visible, or present at least. But like you, I’m no medical expert either, so perhaps there’s someone out there who could tell us something about these things.
“Besides, she was so terribly demolished that I wonder -- even if that would have been on the top or back of her head -- if such marks would be noticed.”
I would imagine these marks, if they would have been there, to have been on her head, shoulders and/or perhaps on her elbows – places that weren’t mutilated at all. Judging from at least the cases of Stride and Eddowes I believe the doctors involved would have made a thorough examination of the whole body and it seems unlikely that they would have missed them – if they were there.
”I can't say you're wrong, but if you are right, then I believe an intruder is the most likely in this situation -- and this would, as I see it, point at someone she knew even stronger.”
I agree on the first part and respect your opinion on the latter.
Again, I look forward to your information.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I Dare not repeat your experiment, as i would do myself and our lovely bed a huge injury, as i am a 240lb man.
My belief is Kelly was sitting on the side of the bed nearest the door when attacked, and fell back on the bed, and was moved during mutalation.
I Still have the notion that she was attacked just after she removed her left stocking, and the cut like feature on her right leg was infact the hold up elastic of the right hosiery.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2264
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Interesting. I can very much acknowledge that.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 352
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I wouldn’t be sad if I would loose 5 or 10 kg (11 or 22 lb), but fortunately, my bed proved strong enough for me and my jumps!
The scenario you’re suggesting is of course possible, but the reason why I don’t think it’s a likely one is that whoever he was would have wanted to kill her quickly once he had started his attack. Adrenaline must have been rushing through his veins. So, in your scenario I think he would have slashed her throat while she was lying with her head more or less towards the wooden partition, causing the arterial blood to spurt on the bed instead of on to the partition.
The same goes for the stocking as far as I’m concerned, because, although it may look like a stocking in the photo, a stocking isn’t mentioned in any of the surviving (official) documents.
All the best,
Frank
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
The official photograph shows a cut like feature on kellys right leg exactly in the right position for a sock or stocking.
Just because Bond does not identify this on a official report does not mean that it was not present.
Added to that the photograph does show a wrap around material on what could have been a chair, which could be decifered as a stocking or sock. which obviously could have been the last item of undress.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
What the official one, but not the unofficial one?
"I Still have the notion that she was attacked just after she removed her left stocking, and the cut like feature on her right leg was infact the hold up elastic of the right hosiery."
What are the chances of a mark being left on a person's leg and remaining there, even after they are dead and have had thier blood drained?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 353
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 5:45 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
”Just because Bond does not identify this on a official report does not mean that it was not present.”
You’re correct of course, it may have been a cut just as it may have been a stocking, but to me it would just seem odd if Dr. Bond didn’t mention such an important piece of information. On the other hand, I haven’t been able to find any mention of any such circular cut just below the right knee either. So, you may be perfectly right.
Regards,
Frank
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
G'day,
GLENN:
"I strongly believe -- as I have said here over a thousand times -- that Hutchinson created this character in order to get the police to focus on someone else,"
The police at the time were heavily focused on finding someone else - 'Jack the Ripper! And the public were frustrated because they were failing to do that, and they had a number of possible descriptions to follow not just one vague one!
"I meant that it would be out of character for Jack the Ripper, based on what we know about the other murders!"
How do you even know what HIS true character was like? , (the one he had hidden behind his 'MASK OF SANITY').
If you think you do, can't a killer's character alter when the circumstances of his crime alters? When his motive for killing takes on an altered 'flavour', (from one of hatred to one of anger due to the breakup of his relationship), and his strong, unrequitted love for the victim plays a part?
Remember, the most successful spies are the ones who people least suspect!
Who's Dave, and why would he want your pegs?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 9:35 pm: | |
G'day,
FRANK: "..diving onto the bed like that!" Try this little experiment: Ask someone stronger than yourself to shove you backward on the bed, while holding a hand over your mouth so you can only manage a single scream.
They must have their other hand free to grab the sheet and pull it over your face, so they can't see who they are killing.
Whilst all this is happening, ask them to hold a large knife in their teeth, and be ready to grab it with the hand that's holding the sheet, still holding the sheet!
I dare not try this experiment myself, because I sleep on a waterbed!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2268
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 10:51 pm: | |
Leanne,
"The police at the time were heavily focused on finding someone else - 'Jack the Ripper! And the public were frustrated because they were failing to do that, and they had a number of possible descriptions to follow not just one vague one!"
Yes, but Hutch couldn't possibly know that, could he? You're making the ultimate mistake.
If he found out that someone had seen a man hanging outside Miller's Court for a longer period of time the night of the murder -- and he knew himself he was that man (he admitted himself he had been standing there) -- then it's natural for him to freak out and do something about it.
Never mind how the police thought -- that has nothing to do with it.
It's what Hutch would have thought in this situation that counts.
"How do you even know what HIS true character was like? , (the one he had hidden behind his 'MASK OF SANITY')."
Well, actually in my view, his actions tells us something about his character, which makes it possible for us to at least attempt to study his personality. Then we might not agree on the conclusions, because of personal interpretations. What Richard suggested would be totally out of character for the man who killed the other women. It is obvious just by comparing them.
But of Barnett's personality we know very little.
"If you think you do, can't a killer's character alter when the circumstances of his crime alters? When his motive for killing takes on an altered 'flavour', (from one of hatred to one of anger due to the breakup of his relationship), and his strong, unrequitted love for the victim plays a part?"
This is total crap. No, I don't think the motives and the character of a serial killer changes.
A serial killer may change and adapt his methods, but the psychological driving forces that makes him commit the crimes generally remain the same, as far as I know.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 14, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hi all,
I was just poiting out that he did not look sinistrer to me. You guys are absolutly correct there is no certain look that indicates homocidal tendencies. Bad choice of words on my part.
Hi Leanne,
Thanks for your responce. I am aware of your theory and I did not mean to suggest that you believed that the other murders were intended to cover up the Kelly murder. I was just discussing other theories that I had heard that may have suggested that Kelly was the reason for the murders. One of them being that the ripper murders were commited because of the killers true desire to kill Kelly. I think you know that I do not agree that Joe killed the other women because he wanted to scare Kelly of the street but if Barnett did kill her I think it is possible he tried to make the murder look like a ripper murder or if Barnett was the ripper then he killed the other women because he was disturbed and maybe he was lashing out at Kelly every time he killed a prostitute. When Kelly and his relationship fell apart and she may have told him of her desire to move away this could have set him off and he killed her. I do not believe that Joe killed Kelly but if he did I tend to agree with Glenn. He killed her and he tried to make it look like a ripper murder. Boris Karloff did look kind of strange dont you think? unlike Dracula he could see his reflection in the mirror and he probably should have done something about that.
Jon,
Thanks for your responce. Of course you are right. I think and I am not sure that there was a school of thought in the 1800s that a criminal type could be identified by the way he looked. Some people were judged to look like they were less evolved. So they were considerd more likely to commit a crime.
Glenn,
Thanks for your responce Glenn. It is good to know that somebody with your background in such matters finds the same things disturbing about the Kelly murder and crime scene that I do. I agree with you I do not believe the ripper would have waited around a long time before attacking Kelly. He must of had a reason for letting her get undressed but I do not have an answer to that question. I believe that the cry of murder did occure and that it came from Kelly. If George's man did kill Kelly then he not only let her get undressed but he also waited an hour before killing her. [Do you buy it?] I feel that Kelly went back out after 3:00 in the morning and met her killer sometime around 3:30 they went back to her room and she undressed folded her cloths she laid down on the bed. He attacked her staight away with the knife, giveing her time to let out a cry. This is just my oppinion. I am not telling anyone that this infact is what happend. The cry of murder may not have come from Kelly. She may have been killed by someone she knew. [Barnett] somebody may have broke in and Killed her. [Risky] I agree Glenn alot of questions about the Kelly murder that will drive someone crazy. I wonder how the detectives working the case at the time felt?
I stumbled across the picture of Hutchinson by accident. I typed in Jack the ripper and some sites were brought up. There was one site that simply said "suspects" I clicked on and they had a list of Jack the ripper suspects with there pictures. George Hutchinson was one of them. I do not know if the picture is an accurate one but it looked like a picture that would have been taken after 1888. I will point out that they had the pictures of the other suspects and they seemed accurate. some of the pictures I have seen at the casebook. I know there is away to post other sites people have performed this neat trick before but I do not know how. I still type one handed. I hope that you can find the picture.
as always, your friend,CB
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
That is the picture I saw. I am not sure it is accurate either. The people at this site never stop amazeing me. Good job Jon!
Your friend,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I am not sure but I think everyone speculates. Nothing in the official files suggest that Barnett went back and saw Kelly after he left that evening. You have in my oppinion a halve hour for Kelly to go out and meet her killer. How long was it raining Hard? I live in south Florida and hard rain may only last a few seconds. I do not know about weather conditions in England. [Suzi may know though] I believe she was planning on going to the parade but she did not let that stop her from drinking and staying out late. My speculations are based on the fact that I feel that the cry of murder came from Kelly.
Your Friend,CB |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 355
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
I’d rather be the one who’d do the pushing and the shoving in your little experiment, but first I would have to find myself a suitable victim…
But seriously, I see some ‘problems’ with the scenario you suggest.
The cry would most probably have been followed by some noise, perhaps some scuffling and bumping sounds, but at least sounds of them falling onto the bed. If the cry that was issued would have been the cry that was heard by Prater, than surely she must have heard something, since she was already awake(seconds) before the cry. However, she deposed not to have heard another thing.
Another thing would be that if Barnett – if it was him – would not have premeditated the murder, it would have been odd to take the knife between his teeth when he already had the opportunity to stab her with it. I believe he would not have thought about making the murder look like a Ripper murder at that stage.
And last but not least, if the attack would have started from the side of the bed, she would have fallen obliquely on it and he wouldn’t have wasted any time, making it unlikely that she would have ended with both her head and feet on the right side of the bed.
“I dare not try this experiment myself, because I sleep on a waterbed!”
All the best,
Frank
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
"If he found out that someone had seen a man hanging outside Miller's Court for a longer period of time the night of the murder -- and he knew himself he was that man (he admitted himself he had been standing there) -- then it's natural for him to freak out and do something about it."
Yeah, just like it was natural for all the other innocent men who were seen with each victim to come forward to clear their names. ....perfectly natural! 
"Well, actually in my view, his actions tells us something about his character, which makes it possible for us to at least attempt to study his personality."
His actions may tell us something about his character while he was in his 'Jeckle' personality! Nothing about his character while he was under his 'MASK OF SANITY'. look into the behaviour of a psychopath and you will see how much they change! And remember, in 1888 there was no help available, they hadn't yet studied this, so it's no use saying that Barnett was never treated for mental problems, locked away, or reported to be "odd" before or after. The term 'Pschizophrenia' wasn't even used until the 1920s.
C.B: "Nothing in the official files suggest that Barnett went back and saw Kelly after he left that evening."
Well if there was, it would have been a more-or-less an open-and-shut case in 1888. You didn't look for a suggestion in his own testimony, did you?
I can't get over the fact that police accepted Barnett's alibi of being at Buller's all night, even though her most likely time-of-death wasn't established until at her inquest.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2274
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
What should I do without you?
"Yeah, just like it was natural for all the other innocent men who were seen with each victim to come forward to clear their names. ....perfectly natural!"
Yeah as a matter of fact, it is -- especially if they know they were seen.
Well, Leanne, we all know your very personal surveys into psychology...
"His actions may tell us something about his character while he was in his 'Jeckle' personality! Nothing about his character while he was under his 'MASK OF SANITY'. look into the behaviour of a psychopath and you will see how much they change! And remember, in 1888 there was no help available, they hadn't yet studied this, so it's no use saying that Barnett was never treated for mental problems, locked away, or reported to be "odd" before or after."
Once again, read up on criminal psychology. You are really in deep water here, and clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
And who says Jack the Ripper was a psychopath? I believe he wasn't.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
The term schizophrenia might not have been used in 1888 but doctors were very aware of the signs.In the middle of the nineteenth century
more enlightened policies developed towards the mentally ill including those suffering from schizophrenia.Whereas previously treatment was harsh and largely dependent on mechanical restraint after the 1850"s a "moral medical"treatment was instituted with the patients being given jobs or occupations as well as medical therapy with drugs such as chloral and digitalis.[from Peter Ackroyd"s London-2000].
Anyone who suffered from schizophrenia would have been noted as rather an oddball to say the least-by neighbours and often too by family referring to such members as "not right" etc.
I agree though that if the ripper was a psychopath he may well have been capable of getting by without anyone noticing anything odd[except for suddenly finding their belongings were disappearing or they were being taken for a ride over some quack "medical treatment !".Joe Barnett may have been a psychopath-a medical definition right up to the mid 20th century included the description that: [a psychopath or "plausible rogue" ]would almost always leave a" trail of chaos" behind them !Well in November 1888 he certainly left that!
Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 4:55 pm: | |
G'day Frank,
"The cry would most probably have been followed by some noise, perhaps some scuffling and bumping sounds, but at least sounds of them falling onto the bed."
Hey, something alerted 'Diddles' the cat to wake Elizabeth Prater. Maybe it was the 'falling onto the bed', then she heard the cry of "MURDER!"
The cry must have occurred a split-second after the cat woke her, because how could she have heard anything if she was asleep?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3464
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
It's possible the door knocking against the table awakened Diddles (and Mary).
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 2:10 am: | |
G'day,
GLENN:
"If he found out that someone had seen a man hanging outside Miller's Court for a longer period of time the night of the murder -- and he knew himself he was that man (he admitted himself he had been standing there) -- then it's natural for him to freak out and do something about it."
"I strongly believe -- as I have said here over a thousand times -- that Hutchinson created this character in order to get the police to focus on someone else,"
Well lucky for him that Inspector Abberline & Co couldn't see straight through his lies, as you can 117 years later! What a risk!!!
The early Ripper victims were all suddenly attacked from behind, which gave them no time to cry out, and they were all murdered OUTDOORS. That fact represents a conscious pan by the killer, to eliminate the chances of being heard.
Mary Kelly's murder took place INDOORS and she was facing him, (either laying on the bed or standing near), when the attack began. She saw the knife and was able to let out a single scream. That represents an altered M.O., and is what I mean by the 'circumstances' being different. This murder wasn't premeditated, the above mentioned precaution wasn't taken.
Do you expect him to have asked her to turn around on her stomach, (if she was laying down), or turn around and face the wall, (if she was standing), so he could take her from behind and stick to his regular M.O!
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2275
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
"Well lucky for him that Inspector Abberline & Co couldn't see straight through his lies, as you can 117 years later! What a risk!!!"
At this point in the investigation I believe the police jumped at any chance they got in order to get some information on the killer. That is probably why he got away with it. It is probably also due to this desperation that Joe Barnett may have gotten off the hook.
But since you believe that the police did everything right and couldn't be fooled, then I guess you also assume that Barnett in fact was innocent, since they let him go?
I don't believe for a minute that the fact that the murder was committed indoors can explain the altered MO; this I think is an old misconception.
I don't think the Ripper would have put himself in that position, in order for this situation to occur.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
"At this point in the investigation I believe the police jumped at any chance they got in order to get some information on the killer."
No way Glenn. Many many people had been brought to police attension by that time, some just because they were foreign, perhaps they carried a black bag or they simply weren't liked. Police would have been sick of waisting time, and the public were getting angry because they appeared to be doing just that!
"I don't think the Ripper would have put himself in that position, in order for this situation to occur."
Do you mean: "I don't think the fact that the murderer and victim were indoors was the reason that the murderer started his attack from in front of the victim."?
Please elaborate!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2278
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"No way Glenn. Many many people had been brought to police attention by that time, some just because they were foreign, perhaps they carried a black bag or they simply weren't liked. Police would have been sick of waisting time, and the public were getting angry because they appeared to be doing just that!"
Yes, but here we are talking about a man that was standing and hanging about outside the premises where the murder occurred at the very same night!!!!
One of the witnesses saw this man, and delivered also this information at the inquest (an important part of the testimony which should have interested any police officer, if he'd still want to keep his job!), and naturally he found out about this and got nervous (whatever his reasons for being there). Waisting time??????
We are not talking about a character turning himself in or getting afraid of being brought in because he was foreign or did fit a more or less vague description!
For heaven's sake, woman. Can't you see the difference?
"Do you mean: "I don't think the fact that the murderer and victim were indoors was the reason that the murderer started his attack from in front of the victim."?
Please elaborate!"
But I have done so a thousand times already, both earlier on this thread and on others!
I think it would be out of character of the Ripper to change his approach to where it was possible for the victim to be less taken by surprise and the possibility to fight back. His main concern was to kill the women as quickly as possible. I don't think he would put himself in a position where it was possible for the victim -- on her own home turf -- to defend herself. He had committed at least three murders before of more or less completely similar design; this one doesen't fit, beacuse it means that he would have been forced to face and attack his victim en face.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 16, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 356
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Hi CB & Leanne,
Good to see you again, CB! On November 9 you wrote:
“I believe her throat had been cut from a different direction then the others. I believe this means that Kelly throat was cut from the front [I believe this to be true.] and the others had there throat cut from behind or Kelly's throat was cut from the back and the others from the front. or we have two killers one right handed and one left handed.”
And Leanne, you wrote:
“The early Ripper victims were all suddenly attacked from behind, which gave them no time to cry out, and they were all murdered OUTDOORS. That fact represents a conscious pan by the killer, to eliminate the chances of being heard.
Mary Kelly's murder took place INDOORS and she was facing him, (either laying on the bed or standing near), when the attack began. … This murder wasn't premeditated, the above mentioned precaution wasn't taken.”
Unless some conclusive evidence has recently been unearthed regarding the Ripper’s initial mode of attack, something that I haven’t heard about but would be very interested in, I was (seriously) under the impression that it has never been established that the canonical victims before Kelly were either attacked from behind or had their throats cut from that position. In fact, their throats were certainly not cut like that, as there was no blood on the front of the bodies or clothes.
CB,
MJK’s throat was cut from right to left, whereas all of the others were cut from left to right. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that one left-handed killer and one right-handed killer were on the loose at the same time. It was at least Dr. Bond’s opinion that all of the canonical victims (Nichols through to Kelly) had their throats cut while they were lying down, making it impossible to determine whether the murderer(s) was (were) left-handed or right-handed.
Leanne,
Although suddenly attacking his victims from behind may have been what he actually did – I believe it would not be uncommon for the type of killer that he was, as long as it’s not an established fact, one should be cautious in basing ones views on it.
The best to both of you,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2279
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 6:31 pm: | |
Frank,
I have no idea if the Ripper killed his victims from behind or when he was facing them.
As far as I know, it seems possible that some of them had their throats cut while lying down, considering the loss of blood spray on the crime scenes (in Nichol's case, for example, there was a pool of blood under the victim, but if they had their throats cut while standing up, I would say we would see more blood on the front of their clothing and on the ground around the corpse. But that is just my opinion, I am by no means an expert.
In my view, this is something completely different from what we see in Miller's Court, where Kelly was attacked with a knife probably stabbing first, and then had her throat cut. The rather big amount of blood on the scene indicates (unfortunately for her, poor woman) that she quite possibly may have been alive or even conscious during some of the knife work.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 357
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:00 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
“I have no idea if the Ripper killed his victims from behind or when he was facing them.”
I’m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean ‘killed’ or ‘attacked’? If you mean the latter, I’m not sure either. Both ideas are feasible.
”As far as I know, it seems possible that some of them had their throats cut while lying down, considering the loss of blood spray on the crime scenes (in Nichol's case, for example, there was a pool of blood under the victim, but if they had their throats cut while standing up, I would say we would see more blood on the front of their clothing and on the ground around the corpse. But that is just my opinion, I am by no means an expert.”
I am by no means an expert either, but I have no doubt about whether their throats were cut when they were lying down. In none of the cases blood was found on the front of either the clothes or the bodies. In Kelly’s case the splashes on the partition show that she was lying on the bed when her throat was cut.
”In my view, this is something completely different from what we see in Miller's Court, where Kelly was attacked with a knife probably stabbing first, and then had her throat cut. The rather big amount of blood on the scene indicates (unfortunately for her, poor woman) that she quite possibly may have been alive or even conscious during some of the knife work.”
Except for the ‘completely’, I completely agree with you.
Now it’s time to go to bed! I have to get up early tomorrow.
Sleep tight,
Frank
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2280
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
Well, I'd say it's "completely" different (just kidding) in regards to the approach of the killer. Maybe not otherwise on other points.
Talk to you later.
Sleep tight you as well, Frank.
All the best
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 12:54 am: | |
"GLENN:
"I think it would be out of character of the Ripper to change his approach to where it was possible for the victim to be less taken by surprise and the possibility to fight back."
'Out of character' yes / impossible No! At the time he decided to kill Mary Kelly he couldn't very well ask her to lay on her stomach so he could kill her by surprise! He had to kill her the quickest way he could under the circumstances that presented themselves at that time!
"We are not talking about a character turning himself in or getting afraid of being brought in because he was foreign or did fit a more or less vague description!"
I know we're not! No one said anything about a character being afraid and turning HIMSELF in! I was talking about characters that were dobbed in by people. Each one had to be examined, costing valuable police time!
"Although suddenly attacking his victims from behind may have been what he actually did – I believe it would not be uncommon for the type of killer that he was, as long as it’s not an established fact, one should be cautious in basing ones views on it."
Dr. Llewellyn testified at Mary Ann Nichols inquest: "There was very little blood around the neck and there were NO MARKS OF ANY STRUGGLE or of blood, as though the body had been dragged...there was a BRUISE RUNNING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HER FACE which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of fingers.....The cuts must have been caused by a long bladed knife, moderately sharp and used with GREAT VIOLENCE. No blood was found on the breast either of the body or clothes."
If that's not an official opinion that she was grabbed suddenly and pulled backwards with her killers fingers on her face covering her mouth, then I don't know what you want. To me, the doctor was saying that Mary Ann was suddenly grabbed from behind, only he said it the long way describing each detail.
When she was tilted backwards the angle she was on would have caused the blood from her neck wound to fall on the ground instead of on her breast.
I didn't look at the other victims today because I am depressed over something, and need cheering up!
GLENN:
"In my view, this is something completely different from what we see in Miller's Court, where Kelly was attacked with a knife probably stabbing first, and then had her throat cut."
Yes it was completely different! But I don't see that as proof that she was killed by another man! The police were of the opinion that the Ripper did it, and they were right!
If it was someone who just wanted to give the impression that the Ripper did it, then I believe the killer WOULD have used the same M.O. that he'd read about in the papers and we wouldn't see so much 'overkill' in the photo!
LEANNE
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
