|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2282
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 1:56 am: |       |
Leanne,
Since you feel depressed over something, I shall not go on like a roaring frieght train here, but just let me retort:
I never said it was impossible, but at least you seem to acknowledge that it would be out of character, so I'd leave it at that.
"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!"
Typical! You totally missed the whole point in that passage of my post, and focused on a small unimportant detail instead. My point was that we are talking here about a man that WAS AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME; HANGING ABOUT ON THE PREMISES THE SAME NIGHT AS THE MURDERS! This is very crucial information, from a police's investigative point of view -- quite different from the occasional character brought in on basis of a more or less uncertain description. And Hutchinson knew it! Now I am not repeating myself again. Try and get it this time! (sorry, but I am getting frustrated...)
"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!"
First of all: what proof? I never said anything about "proof".
Secondly: There you go again. Believing that the police of 1888 -- who had no experience of motiveless serial killing whatsoever -- knew exactly what they were dealing with. Today we know -- thanks to the knowledge of other cases -- that such crimes can be performed in another context than serial murder.
The notion that it was a Ripper killing was also stressed by the media and it would be natural for them interpret it as a Ripper murder, since they were in the hot seat at this point and were on a lot of pressure to show that they were able to do something about the Ripper.
OK, so they were wiz kids and did everything right. I ask you again, since you are so sure about their good judgments -- and you suspect Barnett -- how do you explain that he was released, then, since they according to you couldn't do anything wrong and (in the discussion of Hutchinson) couldn't be fooled?
"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!"
Here you are completely in error. It is quite hard for anyone to understand the nature of the mutilations unless they had seen them. To read about them (and they were not that consequently and thorouhly described in the press) is one thing, to try and perform them is something else. If it did happen like I suspect it may have, I believe the killer overestimated the nature of the mutilations on both Chapman and Eddowes and maybe also overdid it a bit, so he people would be sure of that it was a murder made by a serial killer. To me the murder in Miller's Court displays a creator that is somewhat inexperienced and sloppy and without the focus on the important details in his "work" that the Whitechapel murderer had.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
Although I feel depressed, this debate is 'healthy' because it keeps my mind on something else. Thankyou! I would like to ask you and Frank to go easy on me if I seem to miss a point or contradict something I've said previously.
"I never said it was impossible, but at least you seem to acknowledge that it would be out of character, so I'd leave it at that."
"out of character", "out of character". There was definately a change in M.O., but I wouldn't say it represented a different personality alltogether. I believe it was a necessary change in M.O. brought about by a change in the circumstances, (i.e. Kelly was laying on her back, on a bed). And I say that points to her murder not being premeditated.
Hey, if the killer wanted to fool the police he would have waited until an opportunity presented itself outdoors!
"My point was that we are talking here about a man that WAS AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME; HANGING ABOUT ON THE PREMISES THE SAME NIGHT AS THE MURDERS!"
So was the man that Elizabeth Darrell saw of "shabby gentile" appearance, the man Mrs. Long saw from behind, the man Constable Smith saw who carried a newspaper parcel, the two men that Schwartz saw, the man James Brown saw and the sailor Joseph Lawende saw. They were all at crime scenes yet none were spooked into coming forward and inventing a story just to get the police to focus on someone else!
"I believe the killer overestimated the nature of the mutilations on both Chapman and Eddowes and maybe also overdid it a bit,"
Show me the newspaper article that describes anything like the scene in Millers Court! Especially the taking of the victims heart!
Mary Kelly's killer left her uterus and both kidneys and took her heart!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2283
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
Don't worry, I'll go easy on you.
It was not just a change in MO. I have said this many times, and I'll repeat it again. This has nothing to do as such with "indoors" or "change of MO". We are talking a different personality here.
Yes, I know you and many others think that the nature of this murder was brought on by the circumstances, but I think that's bull. As I said earlier, I don't believe the Ripper would have put himself in this position in order for these circumstances to occur.
This is very much based on what kind of killer we assume Jack to be -- a psychopathic self-assured predator, or a schizoid loner, with very little social skill and who is quite unsure of himself and therefore wants to stick to the conditions and methods he's used to.
If you believe in the former, then I understand your position, but I'd say he belongs to the latter category. And therefore I feel that it would be -- yes -- out of character for him to attack a victim in her own home, under conditions where she was able to defend herself (he couldn't calculate how much risk this involved beforehand) and where he also attacked her directly with the knife in what seems a rather awkward manner. Jack the Ripper was very careful of one important thing -- that the victims were killed fast, silent and without any kind of struggle, and with a minimum demand of social contact. I don't think the approach in Miller's Court really fits that type of murderer.
As I said, the murder in Miller's Court seems -- also considering he had more time on his hands -- to be performed by a more inexperienced killer and mutilator, while Jack the Ripper nearly had turned his deeds into an art.
"Show me the newspaper article that describes anything like the scene in Millers Court! Especially the taking of the victims heart!
Mary Kelly's killer left her uterus and both kidneys and took her heart!"
And that is where the killer got it wrong, among other things.
The papers did for example put quite a bit of extra colour on the facial mutilations on Eddowes, and I don't believe the killer of Mary Kelly was that read up on the case, but only had a superficial notion about the murders, and maybe even been "influenced" by the exaggerated stories from the general man on the street.
The papers delivered quite many errors about the murders -- and they usually always does -- and this must be taken into account.
"Hey, if the killer wanted to fool the police he would have waited until an opportunity presented itself outdoors!"
Not necessary at all. I don't think he had to get everything right in order to pass it off as a Ripper murder -- as long as there were extensive mutilations and one or two organs missing, the police would jump on the Ripper train, and he would certainly be aware of that.
Stop looking at this, from the position where we sit today.
Furthermore, if it was someone she knew well that killed her, it would probably be best and more safe to commit the crime where she had let her guard down and felt safe, inside the domestic sphere, not on the open street.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
Hi all
Re the copycat business : I just don't see it.
I suppose it's possible that Jack triggered some other nutter into killing and mutilating Kelly. But the idea that anyone would start with the level of violence used on Kelly, as a first effort, seems unlikely. And then he just stops? So now there are two murderers who just stop. Hmmm...
If however it's suggested that the Kelly killer deliberately tried to make his work look like Jack's work, as a rational act, then I have to ask how could anyone in 1888 possibly imagine that Jack would have had the time to do to Eddowes et al, outdoors, what the Kelly killer did to Kelly indoors? I know that Shannon thinks the Kelly mutilations would have taken only five or ten minutes but, as Richard would say, "surely not." Plus, Lusk had received a kidney purporting to be from Jack. So why not take one of Kelly's kidneys? Plus, why not leave in the room a message to the Boss about the Juwes? (remember he's supposed to be thinking rationally at this point)
If it's suggested that Barnett killed Kelly and tried to make it look like a Ripper job (the other victims having been killed by someone else) then it seems to get worse. For in addition we have the fact that Barnett, of all people in the universe, would have known that he was top of the list of people to be interviwed by the police next day. Why would he hang around in that room, compromising his alibi and getting bloodier and bloodier, with Abberline's face looming out of the darkness at him and saying "'Ere! I want a word with you!"
PS Leanne : depressed? You're not still thinking about the Rugby, are you? 
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2284
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Hi Robert,
"But the idea that anyone would start with the level of violence used on Kelly, as a first effort, seems unlikely. And then he just stops?"
And still, Robert, it has happened and does happen -- and on several occasions in crime history. You are talking of the supposed conduct of serial killers, but you don't have to be a serial killer in order to do this kind of thing.
"If however it's suggested that the Kelly killer deliberately tried to make his work look like Jack's work, as a rational act, then I have to ask how could anyone in 1888 possibly imagine that Jack would have had the time to do to Eddowes et al, outdoors, what the Kelly killer did to Kelly indoors?"
I really have no idea what you mean here. Please rephrase or elaborate. 
"I know that Shannon thinks the Kelly mutilations would have taken only five or ten minutes but, as Richard would say, "surely not."
I disagree. I think the mutilations would not have taken that long to perform. I'd say ten minutes would be enough.
Besides, I don't see the point with the time issue. Indoors he could have taken as long as he needed, at least as long as he felt comfortable, so I donm't understand that argument. What does the time issue indicate? I don't get it.
"For in addition we have the fact that Barnett, of all people in the universe, would have known that he was top of the list of people to be interviwed by the police next day. Why would he hang around in that room, compromising his alibi and getting bloodier and bloodier, with Abberline's face looming out of the darkness at him and saying "'Ere! I want a word with you!"
Which is exactly why he (if it was Barnett) may have tried to make it like a Ripper murder. If he had killed her and NOT tried to cover it up, they would nail him anyway, since he was her closest male friend and also a former boyfriend.
To cover it up like a Ripper murder would actually make it less risky for him.
The idea would not have been to create a Ripper killing for the sake of it -- the whole idea would be to kill Kelly, and the only way he could have gotten away with it, was to blame it on someone else.
Of course, he had to take the chance of being suspected of being the Ripper, but as I said, he would be nailed anyway, because of their personal history (and the known fact that it's generally the boyfriend/husband who performs these crimes), so then it would be up to him to try and persuade the coppers that it was a Ripper murder and than he was not involved. At least he had someone to blame it on.
Quite a few husbands and boyfriends have tried this approach, Robert. It's not among the most common occurrences in crime history, but research indicates that it does happen and it's usually not a pretty sight. And for the most part the motive is sexual anger/frustration or jealousy.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3475
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi Glenn
Well, I don't see it being done that quickly. And if it took a long time, then the supposed copycat would have had to imagine Jack out on the streets taking a long time. Yet everyone was marvelling at the Ripper's speed.
If Barnett flipped and killed Kelly (and no one heard a row) then when he recovered his senses I think he'd have been better off just leaving and hoping that the police would blame it on a client-prostitute killing. By doing a "Ripper" job he's just ensured that this murder will get the maximum attention from the police, the country and even the western world.
If on the other hand Barnett did it with premeditation, then why so clumsily - throat slashed, blood up the wall, "oh murder" (that's in dispute, I know).
The impression I get is that the Ripper's crimes were a virtually new departure in 1888, which was what made them so shocking. It seems very odd if two people are capable of doing this kind of thing in the same area and the same year.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2285
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Again, I fail to see the significance of the speed issue. And besides, we can't possibly know how long it took for the murderer in MIller's Court to perform the mutilations.
"If Barnett flipped and killed Kelly (and no one heard a row) then when he recovered his senses I think he'd have been better off just leaving and hoping that the police would blame it on a client-prostitute killing. By doing a "Ripper" job he's just ensured that this murder will get the maximum attention from the police, the country and even the western world."
Well, I have to disagree with you, Robert.
I think turning it into a crime in the fashion of the most famous and feared killers at the time, would not be a bad idea in order to get the police off his own tail.
Once again, Robert, people have done this a number of times, so it just proves that people don't always make as rational decisions as we'd like them to.
"If on the other hand Barnett did it with premeditation, then why so clumsily - throat slashed, blood up the wall, "oh murder"
Because he was inexperienced, Robert!!!
Would you be able to do it?
"The impression I get is that the Ripper's crimes were a virtually new departure in 1888, which was what made them so shocking."
From a serial killer point of view, they were new, yes, but mutilation crimes like that in Miller's Court had occurred earlier.
"It seems very odd if two people are capable of doing this kind of thing in the same area and the same year."
Not at all; I don't see the point here.
Not odd at all, if the last one was directly influenced by the murder series.
It's not like we're talking about two different serial killers working independently of one another.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3476
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:15 am: | |
Hi Glenn
He might have been getting the police off his tail - or onto his tail for the whole JTR series. In any case, they'd have been giving the murder a great deal of attention.
Re his being inexperienced - no, I wouldn't be able to do it (I hope!. But that's just it : you seem to be suggesting that Joe could have stripped Kelly down to the bone in just ten minutes or so. If Joe had been a butcher, I suppose it might be possible. But he was just a fish guy.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2287
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Hi Robert,
"He might have been getting the police off his tail - or onto his tail for the whole JTR series. In any case, they'd have been giving the murder a great deal of attention."
Yes, I know, that's why I wrote earlier to Leanne that that was the chance he had to take.
He would get the number one suspect for the murder anyway, so if he blamed it on somebody else he would at least have some chance.
No offense, but I meant that if you could do it better...
Well, I am not sure about the ten minutes, I must admit, but at least as a fish porter I think he would know how to use a knife. Then besides that, what people are capable of, we just don't know. You'd be surprised...
Note that Kelly was sliced and fileted without any special care or signs of skill; if you're just slaughtering someone it takes probably less time, than to concentrate on one area and performing it by a certain scheme and being careful about details.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3478
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Hi Glenn
I used to think that he'd just gone at her hammer and tongs. But now I'm not so sure. There seems to be some sort of placement here, on the bed and the table, and I can imagine him paring off strips of flesh and putting them aside. However, I don't go as far as Leanne by picturing the killer (in her case, Barnett) stopping for a rest and having a peaceful puff on his pipe.
I was about to say that the safest way for Joe to kill her, if he really wanted to, would be for him to wait for her to take up with someone else and have a row with him, and then kill her in the hope that the new boyfriend would be suspected. And then I thought : Joe Fleming.
I don't really think it was Fleming, though!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2288
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Robert,
"But now I'm not so sure. There seems to be some sort of placement here, on the bed and the table, and I can imagine him paring off strips of flesh and putting them aside."
Yes, there is, and think this is meant to point at the Ripper.
"However, I don't go as far as Leanne by picturing the killer (in her case, Barnett) stopping for a rest and having a peaceful puff on his pipe."
Wow. Has she really said that?
"I was about to say that the safest way for Joe to kill her, if he really wanted to, would be for him to wait for her to take up with someone else and have a row with him, and then kill her in the hope that the new boyfriend would be suspected. And then I thought : Joe Fleming."
Yes, why not. Although I don't believe the Kelly murder was that much planned ahead. I think it just happened, and then the killer panicked and came up with the idea.
And it is a fact, that the police were on the hunt for Jack the Ripper and were in a desperate position.
Sure, Barnett could have tried to blame a murder on Fleming, but if Fleming could show an alibi and could be cleared, Barnett would indeed be in trouble.
Still, we don't know -- maybe the killer (if not the Ripper) really was Fleming... or Hutchinson?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 9:15 pm: | |
Hi all;
The important difference between a left to right cut or vice-versa is the location of the vagus nerve. A cut originating from the left side of the neck will sever the vagus nerve, which controls the heart function. This will immediately stop the heart.
A cut in the right side of the neck will only sever the carotid artery, which will certainly cause a spout of blood, but the heart will not stop as immediately as with the vagus nerve being severed.
Thus we have the blood spouting, and the large amount of blood as the body bled out. This may be why the sheet was pulled over her face, however, I rather think that Mary herself pulled up the sheet in a vain attempt to protect herself from the attack.
I may as well add here; If Mary was at the far side of the bed, then she was expecting someone else to fit in beside her.
If the room was cold, then the killer can easily use the ruse of lighting the fire to warm up Mary in her scanty clothing, so that he could stall in his own undressing. After all, she had promised him that he would be comfortable.
By the time she was relaxed and half asleep on the bed, he had time to unwrap his little parcel, and turn around with the weapon out.
Mary covers her face with the sheet, and shouts murder, but it is muffled by the sheet slightly.
All the time Mr. Hutchinson is waiting to see if the man comes back out,(he surely knew what they were up to) the killer is busy at his work.
The rain would be a good cover for the exit and for washing out any blood on his shoes etc.
I think something can be discovered by the defensive wounds on the left arm. Two slashes are on the upper arm and two on the lower arm, but they seem to be the same cuts but with the arm at a tight angle. We will work on that one.
Take care,
Joan
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
You Keep on bringing up an interesting point The change of mo and it has got me to thinking. I know that this can be dangerous and often leads to such incredible theories such as my Druitt Tumblety connection. Lets assume that the ripper killed Kelly. What would have made him change his MO? We know why he killed indoors. Kelly worked out of her house and she simply took him there. Kelly was much Younger and stronger woman and by some accounts I have read bigger in size then his other victims. The room was small and he may not have been able to strike her right away with out risking her being able to put up more of a struggle. Strategically it may hve been better for him to wait untill Kelly laid down on the bed before he attacked. Her actions I feel may have dictated his actions in the room. What if she came in and set on the bed right away in order for her to take of her shoes. He might not have felt comfortable attacking when she was still in a position to better fight him off?
Your friend,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 8:07 pm: | |
Hi all,
Alot of questions concerning the Kelly murder. Was there light burning in the room? What kind of shoes did Kelly wear? Would she have to sit down on the bed to take them off or could she just kick them off like a pair of tennis shoes? Would she continue to undress while setting on the bed? Why did the ripper let her undress before attacking her? How drunk was Kelly? Was she fall down drunk? Did the cry of murder come from Kelly? Did the ripper break in while Kelly was sleeping or did Kelly know her attacker and let him in or was he a client? Was Mary Kelly a ripper victim or not? Any answers?
Your friend,CB |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3481
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Hi Joan
But if the killer was GH's toff, and he killed her while GH was waiting out in the street, this gives a wrong time for the murder cry.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 562
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Although this is not a very popular idea, I think it's important we remember that it is not at all unusual for serial killers of prostitutes to also make use of prosititutes services.
In other words, if we go with the idea that Mary was a victim of Jack, Mary may have been able to undress, get in bed, etc, because Jack's original intention might have been something other than murder. Mary was younger and prettier than the other victims, had a room, etc. Her original position in the bed does suggest she's expecting someone to get in with her.
Of course, her original position could also indicate Jack's apparent ruse of posing as a client, rather than this suggestion that with Mary he actually started out as a genuine client.
Anyway, this entire idea falls apart if, as Glenn suggests, Mary isn't even a victim of Jack the Ripper but of some copy-cat. Also, there is nothing definate to indicate that the above applies. We do know other serial killers of prostitutes engaged in their services, but we can't be sure that their behaviour applies to Jack as well.
However, with all that in mind, I'm pretty sure one of the first things a modern police force would include would be to canvas the local girls and ask about any suspicious "regulars", those who like it rough, etc.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
"And therefore I feel that it would be -- yes -- out of character for him to attack a victim in her own home, under conditions where she was able to defend herself (he couldn't calculate how much risk this involved beforehand) and where he also attacked her directly with the knife in what seems a rather awkward manner."
'Out of character' yes! Out of character with the previous murders where he had maximum control over the situation!
Joseph Barnett, (who was there for quarter of an hour the previous night), would have been aware that Ms Harvey had found lodgings elsewhere and Mary hadn't yet invited someone else to stay with her. He and only he would have also been assured that Joseph Barnett wasn't going to pop in!
If her killer was an unknown, he had to have spied on her a number of times over the previous week, (to know that Barnett had left), plus to be sure that Maria Harvey wasn't going to return to the room he had to have been sure that she was gone too!
"as long as there were extensive mutilations and one or two organs missing, the police would jump on the Ripper train,"
He had any organ to choose from but chose her HEART! It would have been alot easier to take a kidney or two, a uterus, a breast...
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3487
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi Jeff and Joan
Alternatively, her original position on the bed could have been the result of her trying to shrink away from him.
If he either posed as, or actually was, a client I don't see why she would have left him a space to get in on the left side of the bed. She was expecting him on top of her, surely? They didn't go to bed for a chat.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 304
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Robert,
They didn't go to bed for a chat.
True, but we do know that, at least with Barnett, she was prone to argue. Sorry.
Don. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 563
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Yes, moving away from her attacker would work too. I tend to think that if she has enough time to move away that much, she would have had time for more than one shout of murder! Mind you, there are press reports that would support multiple shouts, or no shouts, so we pretty much have all bases covered in terms of that! ha!
Anyway, perhaps it was easier for her customers to "get into bed" first, before getting on top of her? I don't know, as I say, it's just something to consider. All sorts of alternatives are possible, I think this just might be one of them worth including.
If we want to get really risky and suggest that GH saw someone (though perhaps not someone quite as fancy as he reports), then one could suggest that Mary's last client may have intended to stay the night. Perhaps her position indicates that was what happened?
- Jeff |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
My opinion on this is as follows:
Mary was killed by JTR. Barnett was not JTR. The cry of murder was probably not Kelly. Hutchinsons "toff" may well have not been the Ripper.
I do not in any way see that Kelly's killing is in any was a departure from the MO... (can someone go over this again. Summarize the main argument here?) I just don't see it at all.
I think it is beside the point to have a debate which focuses on two sides only: namely that either a.) it was a copycat killing (possibly by Barnett), or b.) that Barnett was JTR. Both these arguments seem to be a bit far-fetched to me, and both are based on a concept that the Kelly murder was more "motive" based.
Also, a side note to Leanne's comment "If her killer was an unknown, he had to have spied on her a number of times over the previous week, (to know that Barnett had left)"...
Leanne, this doesn't make sense to me. I think JTR (or any client of a prostitute) would (correctly) assume that the prostitute would take him somewhere where they would not be interrupted.
So in short I think: JTR killed Kelly, but Barnett was not JTR.
Rob |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3488
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Hi Jeff
Well, I suppose it's possible he stayed the night. But if he killed her after doing that, then it tends to suggest to me that he wasn't the killer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes.
There were women in 1888 who, like Kelly, had their own rooms. Yet the Ripper killed on the streets. Why not in rooms?
I've felt for a long time that the method of killing on the streets suggests that either
1. He was a chaotic sort of person who was triggered into killing.
2. He was unsure with women and didn't like to go back with them to their rooms (we don't know how many times he may have been offered a trip back to a room and turned it down).
3. He was new to the area - maybe a foreigner - and didn't know where the women with rooms were to be found.
Or some combination of these.
Of course, his motive for killing on the streets may have been simply for the thrill of danger, or to provoke social reform, but neither of these seem likely.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2291
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
"Well, I suppose it's possible he stayed the night. But if he killed her after doing that, then it tends to suggest to me that he wasn't the killer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes.
There were women in 1888 who, like Kelly, had their own rooms. Yet the Ripper killed on the streets. Why not in rooms?"
Exactly. A very good point, and as far as I am concerned it raises some questions about the MJK murder.
I think you are completely right about number 1) and 2), although regarding number 3), I would say that it seem fair to assume that the Ripper actually knew the area rather well.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2292
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
Rob H,
"I do not in any way see that Kelly's killing is in any was a departure from the MO... (can someone go over this again. Summarize the main argument here?) I just don't see it at all."
Well, I'd say your choice of expression "in any way" may be a slight overstatement. There are indications that show quite serious departures from the Ripper's general approach.
I can't provide you with a summary of the arguments supporting this theory, because I've done it so many times already and it's a rather exhausting effort, since there are a lot to say about it. Recently I did it just a couple of posts ago, so I'm afraid I have to urge to scroll back in this thread a bit and you'll find loads of clarifications regarding this particular point. It's all there for you to read.
I can also recommend Alex Chisholm's excellent essay on the subject. Not to mention, that you will find a good summary of this theory in the appendix of Evans' and Gainey's book The Lodger, where it is discussed.
Let me also refer to the pages 424--425 in Vernon J. Geberth's crime reference book Practical Homicide Investigation -- Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques regarding the passage about Interpersonal domestic violence.
And no, Rob, it is not besides the point at all to discuss these ideas, not any more than other ideas. On the contrary they are relevant indeed.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 564
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 7:27 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I see what you mean, and in many ways the idea of Kelly's killer staying the night doesn't sit well with me either. I have this impression that JtR was more "chaotic" and impulsive. But then, in both Chapman and Eddowes case, he must have shown at least some restraint (to get to the backyard and too Mitre's square). If Lawende and company did see Eddowes with her killer, then he does appear to have some social skills. Admittedly, he wouldn't require a lot of skills in this situation, as Kate would still be quite intoxicated, and he wasn't doing much beyond just standing there.
With Nichols, it's hard to say what happened. If he met and travelled with her to the location, again, some level of social skills and some restraint (waiting for the right oppertunity) was shown. But, if he attacked her suddenly in the street (as is reported in the case of Stride - with all the usual concerns stated about her inclusion), then obviously this fits better with the "chaotic" individual.
Now, of course, the big difference between Chapman and Eddowes as compared to the scenerio I suggested above is the "duration of this restraint". In the first two cases, we talking about with-holding an attack for a few minutes while in a very public area, and then quickly attacking once in a semi-private/secluded area. With Kelly, one has to stretch this to with-holding such an attack until long after reaching a semi-private/secluded area. This is not a small difference, and I certainly understand any reservations one might have over accepting such an idea (as I say, I have such reservations as well).
However, that all said, I'm thinking it all might hang together if Jack is also a regular user of prostitutes. This is not uncommon amongst such killers. It doesn't require one to have a high level of confidence, or to be socially adequate. And, if that's true, then it may be that Mary was not intended as a victim when he first picked her up, with his decision to kill her being made later.
There's no proof of this aspect of Jack. He may not have used prostitutes. If he didn't, then obviously this line of reasoning all falls down. But, since engaging prostitutes for sex is not an uncommon trait of serial killers of prostitutes (including those who mutilate), it leaves this open for consideration.
As I say, I don't hold to this all that tightly, I'm just not convinced it should be discarded too quickly. It does, of course, suggest a different image of Jack than the completely chaotic and impulsive killer.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:27 pm: | |
G'day,
"ROBERT:
"Well, I don't see it being done that quickly. And if it took a long time, then the supposed copycat would have had to imagine Jack out on the streets taking a long time."
The supposed copycat would also have had to hope that the real Whitechapel murderer wasn't on the other side of town doing a similar thing!
He had a month of Ripper inactivity on his side, but the longer everyone waited / the shorter the odds
GLENN:
"(and no one heard a row)".
The single cry of "MURDER" and whatever disturbed Diddles was the row!
"Again, I fail to see the significance of the speed issue."
Stop seeing what other people want to know as INSIGNIFICANT! If we knew the exact speed that the killer was working at, that could perhaps tell us something about his character, (his state of mind at the time).
"I think turning it into a crime in the fashion of the most famous and feared killers at the time, would not be a bad "
If it was just a copycat killing, why didn't he just wait until an opportunity presented itself outdoors, where he could make a quick escape and be sure that no one was going to stick their hand in the window?
"but mutilation crimes like that in Miller's Court had occurred earlier."
Please provide some examples of mutilation crimes like this that occured before 1888.
" so if he blamed it on somebody else he would at least have some chance."
Joe had often read from the newspapers of the crimes to Mary. He could have taken her kidney or her uterus like he'd read the Ripper was known to do, but no.......he won her HEART!
I'll sign off so I can go and make coffee...then I'll be back!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
G'day Jan,
Thanks for that factual information dealing with the question of whether the Whitechapel murderer was left or right handed, but I feel it all dependes on whether he sliced his victims throat from in front of or behind his victim.
" I rather think that Mary herself pulled up the sheet in a vain attempt to protect herself from the attack. "
Oh how cute! If she had her hands free to be able to grab the sheet, I rather feel she would have brought them up to pull away the hand that was covering her mouth to prevent a second scream.
LEANNE
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 305
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 9:57 pm: | |
One thing that must be considered when talking about social skills or opportunity or many other aspects is that in at least four instances (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly) the women were all rather desperate for money. Stride may not have been so desperate and that might be another reason for removing her canonicity.
Nichols was hoping for one more john so she would have her doss money and the same for Chapman. Eddowes was probably still a bit inebreiated (or perhaps hung) but in any case (unless you want to play with the "she was going to meet him" speculation) she was broke, it was late and she wanted doss money. Kelly did have a roof over her head (for one more night anyway) but even if you want to disbelieve Hutchinson and her plea for six pence, she ought to have been desperate with the rent man arriving in the morning.
For all we know, each of them may have approached JtR rather than the other way round. Maybe it was their desperate, wheedling solicitation that activated the tic in his brain.
I don't know, but it seems the real need for one more "client" on the fatal morning is too often left out of the equation.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2293
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 10:23 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
"GLENN:
'(and no one heard a row)'.
The single cry of "MURDER" and whatever disturbed Diddles was the row!"
I think you are confused here, I have never wrote "and no one heard a row" -- it must have been somebody else. As you say, the cry of murder and whatever disturbed Diddles was a row, I agree with this.
"If we knew the exact speed that the killer was working at, that could perhaps tell us something about his character, (his state of mind at the time)."
Oh really? And how are we -- 117 years after the event -- supposed to be able to calculate the speed of the murderer? I fail to see where such speculations so long after the murder would lead us anywhere.
"If it was just a copycat killing, why didn't he just wait until an opportunity presented itself outdoors, where he could make a quick escape and be sure that no one was going to stick their hand in the window?"
Another deduction based on questionable presumptions.
You are basing this on yours and Richard's belief that Mary Kelly's murder was carefully planned. I think it wasn't. If Barnett killed her, I'd say he did this in the spur of the moment, and then panicked as he tried to find a way to get off the hook. This is usually how these incidents have occurred.
I just wrote this in reply to Robert Linford. Do you ever read any posts that are not addressed to you?
"Please provide some examples of mutilation crimes like this that occured before 1888."
I can't at the moment! I had to format my hard disk drive due to an unfortunate accident and lost all my saved information about that, so I have to collect them again. I had collected a list from the Internet, it's not something I had available in any book. But just give me some time.
"Joe had often read from the newspapers of the crimes to Mary. He could have taken her kidney or her uterus like he'd read the Ripper was known to do, but no.......he won her HEART!"
No, it is you and Richard who claim that Barnett did those things to such an extent in order to make it fit your "scare approach". Besides, the papers were hardly accurate in all their details about the mutilations. I just told you earlier that reading about it is one thing -- performing it yourself if you're inexperienced is another, and that is also why he in such case managed to exaggerate the mutilations. There were a lot of misunderstanding in the press regarding the nature of the mutilations.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT W.H:
"I do not in any way see that Kelly's killing is in any was a departure from the MO... (can someone go over this again. Summarize the main argument here?) I just don't see it at all."
ROBERT C.L:
"Yet the Ripper killed on the streets. Why not in rooms?"
ME: Because that's where most prostitutes serviced their clients, so they could rush back inside to get another one, and that's where he could find easy targets. It also provided him with an easy escape route.
Why didn't he wait for an outdoor opportunity to kill Mary Kelly? That represents one change in the Ripper's M.O. ('Modus Operandi', or 'Method of Opporation'.)
Another one is represented by the fact that he started his attack on her while she was facing him being on or near her bed, so he couldn't surprise her by starting his attack from behind. This resulted in her managing a single cry of "Murder!"
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2294
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 11:50 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
I found some of the information again.
I have put forward this at least once on an earlier occasion, but OK...
Now, I expressed myself a bit sloppy when I answered Robert Linford when he said 'The impression I get is that the Ripper's crimes were a virtually new departure in 1888, which was what made them so shocking.'"
What Robert referred to were murders performed in a mould similar to those of the Ripper, (not murders looking exactly like those in Miller's Court), and it was really that I also addressed when I answered.
Fact is, that domestic mutilation crimes and murders on husbands and wives involving dismemberment and/or mutilation in a grisly manner can be found in England already in the beginning of the 19th century, and the press made a big deal out of those events.
It was NOT un unknown phenomenon -- what was unknown was the concept of a motiveless serial killer, and that is something completely different.
Regarding those who have committed these crimes in order to blame it on a serial killer will have to go forward in time, some years after the Ripper murders, but very spectacular mutilation murders of spouses were -- as evident -- a well known concept.
The one that probably best resembles that of Mary Kelly is the case of 20-year old William Jones, who in 1823 murdered his lover/servant-girl Ann Williams -- he cut her throat and mutilated her excessively beyond recognition. The motive was that she told him she was pregnant and that she wanted them to be married. He had no medical training whatsoever and we have no other records of similar offenses on his part.
Ten years later, in 1835, James Greenacre killed and dismembered his fiancé; several parts of the mutilated body were found and the head was kept in spirit. He was arrested together with a woman called Sarah Gale, with whom he had a child.
In 1875 Henry Wainwright killed and mutilated/dismembered the body of some Harriet Lane. This case was actually referred to in the press as the "Whitechapel Murder", since it occurred in Whitechapel!
Then we have the very sick case of Adolf Luetgert, the butcher who in 1897 stuffed his wife into a sausage machine.
One of the most gruesome domestic mutilation cases is probably that of Buck Ruxton (in may ways similar to that of Mary kelly), who in 1935, Lancaster, killed his wife and his servant girl (the latter had to be silenced since she discovered the crime).
He mutilated his wife in a far even more grisly and twisted manner than that of Mary Kelly, and her head nearly all the way down to the skull bone, partly as an attempt to hide her identity but also to blame it on a serial killer at large.
The crime scene pictures from this case is horrific, to say the least.
These are just a few; the list goes on and on.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 17, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2295
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 11:54 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Another one is represented by the fact that he started his attack on her while she was facing him being on or near her bed, so he couldn't surprise her by starting his attack from behind. This resulted in her managing a single cry of "Murder!"
And this what I believe would be out of character for the Ripper to do. He didn't kill those women on the streets fast and quickly without reason -- it had nothing to do with the conditions on the sites, but with his personality.
Therefore the tiresome "indoors" and "change of MO" arguments in the Kelly context is questionable and doesen't hold up.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3491
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Hi all
Jeff, I take your point that we can't dismiss the idea of Jack staying the night. Although the Ripper doesn't seem to have had sex with the other victims, we only hear about the ones he killed - perhaps because they said the wrong thing, at the wrong moment - or even had an irritating nose.
Glenn, although I don't see anything unRipperish about the mutilations on Kelly (which seem to fit a progression) I'm with you as regards the method of killing, which seems amateurish, if I can use that word. That's why I tend to believe that the killer wasn't someone Mary had brought to her room - for I think that Jack would have attacked the instant the door was closed, probably throttling her and then laying her down to cut her throat "peacefully" (although I don't rule out the idea that he was a client, as I said to Jeff above). But whereas you tend to go for the killer not being Jack, I tend to go for Jack blundering in through the door (a possibility, if he was a paranoid schizophrenic and his condition was deteriorating). He might even have thought that he could get into the shed that way (I gather it had recently been discontinued as a shelter).
Don, interesting idea that reminds me of AP - perhaps they were pestering him and this tipped him over the edge each time. Eddowes had her hand on a man's chest - perhaps to stop him leaving? It doesn't go quite so well with the Chapman murder, though, where he had to follow her into the yard.
Leanne, I think on the whole most people, if they had to commit these murders, would feel it was safer to do them indoors, though it's a matter of taste - some people are very sensitive about being trapped.
I think the absence of a row (by which I mean shouting by a man as well as a woman) is important, because according to your scenario Barnett actually walked out in the middle of the night in the rain to plead with Kelly to take him back. Yet no one heard a row.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
"it had nothing to do with the conditions on the sites, but with his personality."
By 'condition' I mean that the fact that the victim had her back facing him was a 'condition'.
That 'condition' changed because Mary Kelly was laying on her back, facing her attacker.
That's the only reason the murderer was forced to alter his M.O., and is the reason she was able to let out a cry.
The fact that the Ripper didn't take that into consideration before he swung his knife, shows that her murder wasn't premeditated like the others. Nothing to do with his personality!There's no reason to jump to the conclusion that the killer was someone else!
ROBERT: "Yet no one heard a row." Why would there have been a row? Barnett wouldn't have been interested in starting a row, and Mary would have thought that he returned to give her money so she wouldn't have wanted to start a row too soon. Once again I'll say that whatever alerted the neighbours cat, and the single cry of "OH MURDER!" was as far as the argument got!
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2297
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
G'day Leanne.
"The fact that the Ripper didn't take that into consideration before he swung his knife, shows that her murder wasn't premeditated like the others. Nothing to do with his personality!"
Yes, it has. I think you are dead wrong here.
Serial killers act in a way that feels comfortable to them. As far as the Ripper is concerned, his crimes tells us quite a bit about the approach; he killed his victims fast and wanted as little contact and interaction as possible in order to be able to commit the crimes (in contrast to a sadist, who feels just as much enjoyment in the pre-death acts such as torture and domination as in the actual killing and mutilation) -- this tells us that the Ripper was a killer who didn't feel comfortable with other people and would have lost his nerve if the attack took too long and was met with too strong resistance from the victim.
Therefore the approach in Miller's Court doesen't fit. I tell you again: forget change of MO, it has nothing to do with it! The Ripper would probably not have been able to carry out this operation, since it was another type of location and it offered the possibility for the victim to struggle or even escape. My belief is that the Ripper would not have attacked in this way and therefore it simply points at another personality -- and another person.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3497
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
Leanne, I'm still going with my row objection, I'm afraid.
It just doesn't make sense - they row so loudly that the neighbours hear it, and Joe just goes out and leaves her to get on with it. But on the one occasion that Joe flips and skeletonises her, all we get is "Oh murder."
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Well what word/words would you yell, (or do you think she should have yelled), if you thought they could be your last?
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 358
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 3:47 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
“Dr. Llewellyn testified at Mary Ann Nichols inquest: "There was very ... 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.”
Picture this: the Ripper and Nichols stood facing each other. When she focused her attention on something other than on him – the lifting of her skirts or perhaps even the putting away of the money that he’d given her in the bonnet she’d taken off (that may have been the reason why her bonnet wasn’t on her head when she was found) – he tightly grabs her by the throat the moment she lifts her head again and strangles her into unconsciousness at least.
Than he lowers her onto the pavement, kneels at her right side, firmly grabs her head by putting his left hand over her mouth, preventing her from screaming in case she would come to and at the same time steadying her head for what he’s about to do, which is to slash her throat. When he does that, blood flows from the wound to the back of her neck and drops on the footway below it, forming a small pool.
As far as I can see this is not at all in disagreement with what Dr. Llewellyn stated. Therefore, Dr. Llewellyn’s testimony doesn’t point to Nichols having been attacked from behind.
“Although I feel depressed, this debate is 'healthy' because it keeps my mind on something else. Thankyou! I would like to ask you and Frank to go easy on me if I seem to miss a point or contradict something I've said previously.”
No need to worry Leanne, I hope you'll feel better soon!
All the best,
Frank
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3499
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Likewise best wishes from me.
Re the "oh murder" what I was saying is, that was all that was heard - no raised voices of two people arguing.
Actually, I now have no problem with "oh murder" as a last cry for someone to make. I know it may sound like an odd thing for someone to call out, but I have found examples of people actually doing this (or at least being reported as doing this).
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 10:59 pm: | |
G'day,
To show everyone that I am willing to explore both sides of the debate here, I've been reasearching: 'Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature and Staging'.
As far as I can work out the two sides of the debate are:
1. That Joseph Barnett killed Mary Kelly and was also the Ripper. and
2. That Joeseph Barnett killed Mary Kelly and staged the scene to look like a Ripper crime, but it wasn't really.
This document says 'Principally, staging takes place for two reasons - to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family.'
I can understand the first reason and it fits this case, but I'm not sure I understand the 2nd reason.
'Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like.' I understand that and can relate it to the case.
Inconsistencies which should serve as 'red flags' of staging include method of entry, offender-victim interaction and body disposition.
Investigators should look at things like: if a crime scene appears to be a burglary, did the offender take inappropriate items from the crime scene, (i.e. did the burglar to take the victim's purse with little money in it, and leave a jar by the phone with $100 worth of coins in it?)
'Another factor to consider is the point of entry. Did the point of entry make sense?
(i.e. was there a ladder leading from outside to a second floor window, when it would have been much more believable had a 1st floor window been broken?')
'Investigators should also consider whether the offender put himself at high risk by committing the crime during the daylight hours, in a populated area.'
As it was the morning of 'Lord Mayor's Day' and people were up and out of bed early, it would have been a perfect opportunity for Barnett to secure an alibi after committing the crime very early in the morning. To murder her later in the morning would have been way too risky! Whether he was the Ripper or not!
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2305
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:16 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
Hope you're feeling better.
Interesting post!
As far as I can see your document is corroborating quite well my sources on this matter and I agree with it (and I naturally also can relate those points to the case) -- I mostly use Geberth's FBI crime manual Practical Homicide Investigation -- Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques as a reference along with some Swedish police hand books.
Staged crime scenes are very common (although the most popular "staging" is probably turning a murder into a suicide).
"This document says 'Principally, staging takes place for two reasons - to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family.'
I can understand the first reason and it fits this case, but I'm not sure I understand the 2nd reason."
Yes, regarding the first one (which is the one that applies here), the most logical suspect would be Barnett himself, which is also why Barnett was brought in first hand due to normal police procedure.
And you're right -- I absolutely don't understand the second one either.
Now, mind you -- that Barnett may have staged the crime scene is just ONE alternative (although I often stress it); it could also be the case that Barnett just simply was just another cuckoo alongside the Ripper (without being the Ripper himself) and mutilated for personal sexual reasons or had been influenced by the Ripper for kicks -- although I think that's a real long shot, especially as we don't know anything about his personality for sure.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
If he killed Mary Kelly first then planned to stage it like a Ripper crime there was probably a short cooling off period before he butchered her, that's why I pictured him stopping to light his pipe and leaving it on the mantle piece! But we'll never know because no one stated whether it was completely empty or not.
LEANNE |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1237
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
I am coming in late to this discussion I know but the thing that always sticks in my mind are the words "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer".
And this to me means
a]he planned his attacks carefully beforehand and may even have worked out how to "blend in" or not to "arouse suspicion".Or he may have ,in the case of those murders committed outside,have ensured his invisibility-dodged rapidly out of sight if he heard footsteps etc.
b]when he got the chance to kill and mutilate indoors it might have been a mighty catharsis for him
he was able to do everything he had ever dreamed of doing....but he may not have realised how
ghastly he would feel once he had sated himself with all the killing,blood, gore and the monumental uproar that he knew would ensue-and therefore killed himself shortly after Mary Kelly"s murder.
But even in the case of Mary Kelly ,in my opinion he calculated it down to the last drop of blood.He had worked out how to escape unseen[which he seems to have done in every case.
I dont really think ANYONE ever saw him.I doubt it was JtR that Lawende saw-JtR was probably lurking in the shadows-ready to slip himself quietly into Kate"s cosciousness with some mild request such as "Do you have a match?
I doubt too that Mrs Long saw Annie Chapman with JtR-that was probably another man who JtR watched leave and then slid in on Annie with some similar request.
And I agree with Glenn that the behaviour of Hutchinson"s man with a gold chain seems too obvious and noticeable.Again,I think JtR would have been likely to move in once the coast was clearie after such aman had left[if he had ever existed.
Just my opinion.Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2320
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
Natalie,
I think there is no doubt whatsoever that the man Mrs Long saw actually was Jack the Ripper. The timing is perfect, and so is the location.
I am not sure about Lawende, but I am convinced that Mrs Long's witness description is the only credible one we have of the murderer.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1238
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 5:55 pm: | |
Glenn,well you may be right about the timing although it conflicts withDr. Phillip"s statement that Annie Chapman had been dead for two hourswhen he examined her body at 6.30 am.
Alao if Mrs Long was careful enough to observe the time as being 5.30 am it does seem odd that she never bothered to turn to look at the face of this man who had aroused her interest sufficiently to note the time of the sighting so carefully.In fact her statement is quite vague.Like Lawende she doesnt think she would recognise him again.she "thought" he wore adark coat.She couldnt say his age but "thought" he looked "over forty".He "appeared" to be a little taller than the woman/ and again "appeared" to be a foreigner.She also did say with a bit more certainty that he was dark skinned and wore a brown deerstalker hat.
Albert Cadosch who claims to have heard a voice saying "No!" at 5.30 am may seem to be giving evidence that corroborates this sighting-he also says he heard something falling against the fence that separates the yards----but he doesnt appear to have heard the sound of blood splashing on this dry night or any other sound at all.After all the sound he heard could easily have been someone coming across the body half drunk and lurching against the fence shaken up by the sight.
I think it just as likely that the ripper had been and gone by then.
But you may be right Glenn
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 366
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 7:48 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
”Also if Mrs Long was careful enough to observe the time as being 5.30 am it does seem odd that she never bothered to turn to look at the face of this man who had aroused her interest sufficiently to note the time of the sighting so carefully.”
At the inquest Mrs Long stated that the couple didn’t particularly draw her attention, she just saw them as she walked by. It wasn’t an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking, Mrs Long had seen lots of them standing there at that hour of the day and that’s why she didn’t take much notice of them.
By the way, although she had heard the Brewer’s Clock chime, which is why she was able to give a time, it seems quite probable that she was mistaken about it. She lived at Church Row, which was about 2100 feet from the junction of Hanbury Street and Brick Lane and she said she left her home at about 5 o’clock.
If she left home only 4 to 5 minutes past the hour, would have walked at a speed of about 2,2 miles per hour and wasn’t detained much along the way, she would have reached Hanbury Street very shortly after 5:15 a.m. instead of half past five. This time would be completely in agreement with Albert Cadosch’s testimony, who stated to have heard “No” at about 5:20 a.m. and the sound of something falling against the fence a couple of minutes later.
“Albert Cadosch who claims to have heard a voice saying "No!" at 5.30 am may seem to be giving evidence that corroborates this sighting-he also says he heard something falling against the fence that separates the yards----but he doesn’t appear to have heard the sound of blood splashing on this dry night or any other sound at all.”
The falling sound didn’t arouse his suspicions, as at times his neighbours were early risers. So, because he didn’t think much of it, he probably didn’t stop to listen for other sounds and went back into the house. By the time that blood was flowing he may already have left his yard, as I think that this didn’t necessarily follow immediately after the falling.
I don’t know if you’ve already read it, but you may find this an interesting dissertation: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-yostlong.html
All the best,
Frank
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2327
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Well, I would be very cautious to rely too much on Phillips' statement regarding time of death.
Even today, time of death is probably one of the hardest and most difficult things to determine in forensic science (and is often just referred to as general estimations, not exact times), and in 1888 the doctors didn't have the knowledge, nor the tools like those we have today. They used the method of touching as way to determine the time of death, which is a very inaccurate method.
Therefore the witnesses have stronger bearing.
There is no reason for why Mrs Long should have investigated more closely; she couldn't have seen the man more clearly even if she wanted to; you see, the man stood with his BACK against her, so she actually gave a rather good description.
Furthermore, since Cadosch's experience in the neighbouring yard corroborates with Long's statement, I see no reason to reach another conclusion. Cadosch heard the word "No" and a bump against the fence at an approximate time that fits Long's sighting.
To me it fits perfectly.
I must admit I can't see why there should be any sound of blood spray (although I think it was rather spots or smeering rather than spraying). It is probable that the throat cutting and the mutilations were actually done after Cadosch had went inside. After the bump to the fence, Chapman was probably strangled and then there would be a laps of some seconds or minutes before the knife got to work.
If someone else -- no matter how drunk -- would bump into the fence because of the sight, I believe he would have made even louder noises than the Ripper did when he killed Chapman -- you would probably have heard shouting, and he would have alarmed both the tenants and the police.
We must also acknowledge, that none of the residents in the building heard anything, although they had their windows open (regardless if they were sleeping or not).
No, I'd say -- and with certainty, for once -- that Mrs Long did see Jack the Ripper, and it might be probable that she is the only one who did. Every evidence indicates that Chapman died somewhere around 5:30 a.m., if not a couple of minutes later.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 20, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2329
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 8:26 pm: | |
Hey Frank!
Thanks for that link indeed!!!!
This website is an incredible source of information, isn't it? I don't know how many dissertations I have come across that I actually never knew existed. Amazing.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 309
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
Natalie,
We sometimes have to remind ourselves that while the morning of September 8, 1888, is forever seared into our minds, it didn't mean a damned thing at the time to Mrs. Long or Albert Cadoche -- or if it did, those thoughts had nothing to do with Annie Chapman.
Long was on her way to work and saw a couple in the street, a not uncommon sight evidently, and Cadoche was going to and from the building's outhouse when he heard sounds from the neighboring yard, again a not uncommon occurrence.
That both their descriptions are vague is lamentable, but perfectly understandable. Mrs. Long had no reason to think she was viewing JtR (and if she had she likely would have run in the opposite direction) and likewise Cadoche, who would have a brave man indeed if, knowing JtR was on the other side of the palings, he did more than shout for help.
It would have been nice, perhaps, if either one had been a nosy busybody and gotten a detailed description. But then the only "witness" who wasn't frustratingly vague -- Hutchinson -- is decried because he was so detailed.
This is not necessarily an endorsement of Hutchinson's visual acuity (a discussion for another time and another thread) but it does present an interesting paradox. Ah, if only we had a witness who was, like Goldilocks's third bowl of porridge, "just right." Didn't happen, though, so we work as best we can with what we have -- and admittedly it ain't much.
Don. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 371
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 2:30 am: | |
Hasn't it been fairly well established that Long actually lived on Church Street and not Church Row? Did Chris Scott come up with the proof on that or is it just a theory so far? I'll have to go check on the current status of who says what about that, but if it wasn't Church Row that would explain the otherwise strange timing she mentioned.
Oh man, first I was posting kidney stuff to cattleboat threads and know I'm posting Chapman witness stuff to a Mary Jane Kelly thread... Ugh.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
