|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2115
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:59 am: |       |
Monty,
"Jons excellent post above indicates that a person with direct medical knowledge could have started these murders with Polly (though not at any stage did Jon state this was his belief). Method already 'down pat' as Jon puts it."
Absolutely. I can see that possibility as well, when I come to think of it.
I do think he might have had prior offenses further back in time, though, but not necessarily in this direction. Could have been indecent behaviour etc.
As for stalking: -- yes, possibly. Although I suspect that these women were picked by random choice, and not from any deliberate scheme.
As for engaging: -- no, not really. As has been pointed out here before, this wouldn't be necessary, not even at the height of the Ripper scare. These were desperate women; they needed a roof under their heads for the night (not to mention a pint of two, or some gin) and as prostitutes they led their customers to secluded places, not the other way around.
This doesen't contradict, however, with the possibility that we could be looking at an experienced customer or someone who was familiar with how prostitutes operated.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Glenn,
As for engaging: -- no, not really. As has been pointed out here before, this wouldn't be necessary, not even at the height of the Ripper scare. These were desperate women; they needed a roof under their heads for the night (not to mention a pint of two, or some gin) and as prostitutes they led their customers to secluded places, not the other way around
True, true.
Both Nichols, Chapman and Kelly admitted themselves that they were low on funds.
Eddowes it seems didnt find her daughter so she may have been skint as well.
Tabram seems to have been earning for her nights work as does Stride. But these latter two are disputed with regards to their inclusion in Jacks series.
Perhaps he was just picking up the desperate ones....ones guaranted to go with him.
Monty
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Can we agree that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were all murdered by the same person?
Regardless of any other victims, can we bundle these three together at least?
Any takers?
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Monty boy,
"Perhaps he was just picking up the desperate ones....ones guaranted to go with him."
Perhaps. Quite possible.
Maybe he stalked them (if he did) to find the ones that appeared most willing or desperate?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2117
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
"Can we agree that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were all murdered by the same person?
Yep. Absolutely.
I am afraid to claim that I am sure of anything here, but I would say this is an absolute safe bet.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were victims of the same killer and therefore also canonical Ripper victims -- in my mind the only real true ones.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
Maria asked..
"Jon--
Are you saying that you think Nichols wasn't the killer's first go-round, or am I reading too much into your post?"
And Monty commented..
"...a person with direct medical knowledge could have started these murders with Polly (though not at any stage did Jon state this was his belief). Method already 'down pat' as Jon puts it."
Hi Maria and Monty.
This is where it gets a little stickey, it is all too easy to read too much into the paltry evidence as it stands.
The sudden appearance of this 'method' with Nichols, which essentially remained unchanged through the next two murders, three in all, suggests to me this was 'his method', and not something he evolved into or stumbled on accidently.
To put it crudely, it's like "Pow!!", suddenly it appears then "woosh!!", it is gone, just as suddenly.
No murders before nor after carry this trait, even Dr Phillips commented that the 'overcuts?' or slashings were in his opinion understandable, "in consequence of haste", and he also added "no meaningless cuts" (compare with Kelly in this regard?).
Dr Phillips is recognising a trained hand at work, though because we do not have a definitive statement from him we must not read too much into his stated opinion.
Suffice to say Dr Phillips, who knew more about JtR through his slayings than anyone else, was at the very least hinting that these crimes were not perpetrated by any ordinary citizen, nor the result of a maniacal frienzy.
That this killer had 'experience' and 'purpose' was evident to the good doctor, and we must interpret that as best we can.
The question we are left to consider is "what type of experience?, and where it could have been gained?".
The first point for me is the lack of 'obvious' evidence of strangulation, yet it must be admitted that these women were subdued somehow and laid down without struggling before their throat was cut.
(All appeared to have struggled while on their feet, as they all carry bruises on the BACKS of their hands, indicating an assailant standing behind them).
My suspicion, as you know is that Jack used a garrotte from behind, this could be effected by simply encircling the victims neck with his arm (sleeper-hold) which would leave no marks. Or, he used a ligature, and the mark that would have remained on the neck was sliced through by him in order to hide the fact he had used one.
This method of killing, while it was used in England was more common on the continent, hinting this killer, if not a foreigner, may have served time overseas.
The subsequent first cut to the jugglar is a practical move that hints he has some understanding of human biology.
Other murders where women were attacked with a knife at the women's throat (Stride, McKenzie & Coles) do not appear to have been effected after 'strangling', so they are just crude 'slashing' attacks.
Jack followed a particular procedure, possibly in order to keep himself free of arterial blood, this is, in my opinion, evident of a calm & calculating mind at work. The second, and larger, cut to the throat, I have already explained. Once again, calculating.
The opening up of the abdomen from the pubic zone to the ribcage is described in contemporary medical journals by practicing surgeons as the 'normal' method to gain access to the abdomen, ie; to perform a hysterectomy?, and other abdominal operations.
The swiftness with which the crimes were committed can be paralleled by our knowledge of how field-surgeons practiced on the battlefield.
Whether this would be an avenue for future research, or another dead-end, only time will tell. But, I think we cannot dismiss the implications of the evidence as it remains.
In total, I am hinting, and only hinting, that this JtR may have had some anatomical/medical training, and some practice at removing life swiftly using 'foreign' methods.
Had he been in the military?, a surgeon's assistant?, discharged?, who knows?. It's another avenue to consider.
Thanks Jon
(Hi Glenn, thanks actually I thought I made a hash of that poste, it just didn't flow like I intended - que sera, sera)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2118
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:08 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
All good and interesting points, well grounded. I have nothing further to add to them.
Personally, I have always found the military, surgeon's assistant etc. trail intriguing.
"...actually I thought I made a hash of that poste, it just didn't flow like I intended - que sera, sera"
You are way too hard on yourself, Jon.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Maria.
Glenn, myself, and a handfull of other members agree that at the very least those three murders were committed by the same hand.
Regards, Jon |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 70
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
Jon & Glenn
I'm a big one for trying to get to first causes and for organizing things into flow-charts.
So, if Nichols was the first (London 1888) victim then we know what ? about the killer? We know that he probably had some previous experience cutting into flesh with a knife.
We can speculate that 1) he had killed before somewhere else OR 2)he had some kind of anatomical knowledge OR 3) he was a gifted amateur
Anything else we can agree on?
The thing is, I've been rather overwhelmed with facts, theories speculation lately and I guess I'm trying to clear the air and get back to basics.
Mags |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Maria.
I would tend to leave the gifted amateur to last because if that is the case it is of little help to us. A gifted amateur pretty-well wipes the slate clean, a gifted amateur could be anybody.
It is possible, but that choice serves to kill any helpfull analysis.
The effective use of the knife is (as opposed to a quick 'slash' like Stride, McKenzie & Coles) a reasonable indication that this killer understood the mechanics of what he was doing.
A medical student could perform this adequately, the trouble with this idea is that the majority of medical students were young men, early 20's?, I would expect that such a young lad would be more likely to select victims of his own age group, even a street hardened, aged, ill, prostitute may be suspicious if she is approached by such a young client - it's a thought, no more.
In support of this we find thee most reliable witness description given is that by Mrs Long, who describes an 'older' looking man, 'shabby-genteel' in appearance, wearing a deerstalker hat.
Now this type of hat may be suggestive of a past air of discipline, not the type of hat worn by the local 'low-class' ruffs.
This person may at one time have had some sense of dignity to his life?. - guessing.
I don't know if Glenn agree's, but thats my gut feeling.
I don't think I'm helping you clear the air any
Regards, Jon |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Jon,reading your posts with interest.It seems to me too that JtR was someone who may have had an approach based on some medical knowledge for the reasons you give-although whether it came from some initial training as a "barber Surgeon" or assisting at post mortems or even just watching operations at St Thomas"s[or had this practice of the public being allowed to attend
operations and some postmortems ceased by 1888?]
I know this took place earlier in the century because its recorded-the "demonstrations" by the chief surgeons were watched from a little balcony which can still be seen I believe in the oldest part of St Thomas"s.
Myself I am still of the view that the killer of Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols were one and the same.Both were very alcohol dependent,around the same age and prostitutes,murdered close by.Both had wounds of a crazed type in the lower abdomen
and both were displayed immodestly by the killer
[as were all the others bar Elizabeth Stride].
There seems to be a pattern here even though the 39 stab wounds werent repeated.I find it too much of a coincidence that the killer after carrying out what appears to have been a frenzied knife attack on Martha Tabram then took time to so carefully rearrange her clothing and the position of her legs in a more or less identical way to that of four of the five canonical victims.This too must have been his way of either communicating his predatory skills to a future audience with a particular "trademark" or satisfying some perverted sexual urge[or just possibly both].
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2119
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Jon,
Your guessing and gut feelings are as good as any. To tell you the naked truth, I agree with what you say 100%; I couldn't have put it better myself. You really put me out of work here.
Yes, I agree, I would most likely leave out the gifted amateur. Some sort of methodical man with at least anatomical knowledge is not to stretch it too far, I think.
Natalie,
I am not so sure about the "carefully rearrangement" of Tabram's clothes. Yes, she was found in a body position we see in many sexual killings, but I am not sure we should read to much into it. The clothes arrangement I have seen in many cases, and for the most part they are more a result of "disturbance" from sexual interaction rather than "arrangement". although that does occur as well. Not to mention the victim belonging to the category "drunken prostitute" -- one of the most common victim categories in crime.
I think the fact that Martha was killed with frenzied stabbing, while the three canonical victims were killed and mutilated rather methodically, is of greater relevancy here.
Besides, Tabram's wounds were not just concentrated to the abdominal area, but she had several cuts on other parts on her body as well.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 02, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 328
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
First off, I wasn’t claiming or even saying that Tabram was a Ripper victim, although I think she may have been, but I’m simply ‘exploring’ her murder, if you will, to see if something I didn’t know or see turns up.
”I don't know London or East End in detail, but like in other poorer districts of the larger cities there were streets that were rough and those that were more respectable. Prostitutes focused on certain areas or different streets, like they do today. I would hardly consider all of East End to harbour these activities equally much. Such examples are Dorset Street and Thrawl Street, which were considered among the worst.”
I don’t know the East End in detail either, perhaps that’s just it. I know that Dorset Street and some of the surrounding streets were worse than many others, but I’m just not sure if Whitechapel and Spitalfields were clearly worse than other neighbourhoods. Poplar and Bethnal Green may have been evenly bad, as far as I’m concerned.
”I don't believe in scientifically unsupported profiler garbage like "comfort zones" and "triangles". As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing...All such intellectual elaborations are constructed in my view, and depending on how we use them, we can show practically everything.”
My point is simply that Tabram was killed within the triangle formed by crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. That’s a fact – regardless of whether it’s scientifically unsupported profiler ‘garbage’ or not – and to me that’s a point in favor of Tabram being a Ripper victim. No ‘comfort zone’ or other ‘intellectual elaborations’ on my part.
”That's true, but then the Tabram killing wasn't ordinary either.”
That’s exactly my point and really doesn’t go any further than that. Tabram’s murder wasn’t ordinary and, except for the important cutting of the throat and mutilations, there are some points that set her murder apart from any normal murder cases, but not from those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and McKenzie. But that indeed doesn't mean that the Ripper killed Tabram.
Good that you don't believe that in all East End the Ripper would have been the only one carrying such wicked traits. Certainly possible.
”I am doubtful about this, Frank. We still have the problem of developing these traits in a period of three weeks.”
I am doubtful about this myself, too, although I still think it’s feasible. However, I don’t necessarily think we have the problem of developing traits in 3 weeks, because like I said, in case Tabram was a Ripper victim, he could have given a lot of thought already to killing women, he could have developed an elaborated fantasy about how he would do that, he could only not have thought about actually acting out his fantasies yet. But I don’t know how such things work in a killer’s mind. Fantasy can be very different than reality. But you may be right all the same.
“I find it quite hard to find the term "cooling off" relevant here.”
I used this term because that’s how I’ve come to know it. What I meant is the factual period between 2 murders. A period of 3 weeks without killing would not be strange for the Ripper.
”I have never suggested that Tabram was a copy-cat.”
I know, I never suggested you suggested that. It’s just something to keep in mind.
“Instead I would reverse it and look at it from the opposite direction, actually. I find it quite possible, that the Tabram murder (especially with the media coverage earlier on with the Emma Smith murder) actually may have influenced and triggered him into starting the whole thing.”
Perfectly possible and a good point.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Glenn,I see your point about the clothes also the fact that the women all seem to have had too much to drink and on the streets in the dark etc.
These certainly were the women he chose to kill
and the first and most obvious reason appears to be that these were people he knew he could kill easily,who would put up little resistance and who would be prepared to go into dark corners of Whitechapel with him because their intoxicated state of mind would reduce any natural fear about doing so giving them a false sense of security.
I dont think it matters -who led who-he KNEW they would go there and that was what mattered.
As far as Martha Tabram goes I too still think she could have been his victim.Its so curious that she was found on a stairway leading to flats.It gives me the impression that he had gone over it beforehand and knew the odds were against being disturbed too much.He either willingly went there with her or suggested it to her.Meanwhile there was a soldier waiting around outside[2.30.am] who was questioned by a policeman about "hanging around" the building.Where does this fit in?Could there be anything in the story
another soldier told about suspecting his companion to be JtR[sorry I have forgotten the name of the soldier-must look it up again.
Best Natalie |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Natalie, you commented..
"..It seems to me too that JtR was someone who may have had an approach based on some medical knowledge for the reasons you give-although whether it came from some initial training as a "barber Surgeon" or assisting at post mortems.."
Yes, any one of those and several more could be looked at. There is no reason to suggest he was a surgeon, not even a doctor, but certainly we might be allowed to view him as something above the ordinary commoner, which rules out the Kosminski/Cohen (low-class nutcase) type suspects.
".. or even just watching operations at St Thomas"s[or had this practice of the public being allowed to attend operations and some postmortems ceased by 1888?]
I know this took place earlier in the century because its recorded-the "demonstrations" by the chief surgeons were watched from a little balcony which can still be seen I believe in the oldest part of St Thomas"s."
I know the viewing gallery's were for medical students and interested doctors alike but do you have any reason to believe common people were allowed in?.
Considering this type of operating room was specifically constructed for tutorial purposes I never considered the general public would be allowed to take up seats needed by students, perhaps they were. Did they have to pay a fee?.
Thanks, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2120
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
"My point is simply that Tabram was killed within the triangle formed by crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. That’s a fact – regardless of whether it’s scientifically unsupported profiler ‘garbage’ or not – and to me that’s a point in favor of Tabram being a Ripper victim. No ‘comfort zone’ or other ‘intellectual elaborations’ on my part."
Well, the "triangle could simply be a coincidence or have very natural sociological explanations. The fact that Tabram was found within this area could simply be a result of that this was avery active area for the prostitutes. I prefer not to draw any wilder conclusions from geography than that.
"there are some points that set her murder apart from any normal murder cases, but not from those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and McKenzie."
Yes, and the same can be said for the Pichin Street torso and the body in Whitehall, and those are not in general contributed to the Ripper. OK, these could be influenced by the Ripper (which we can't say about Tabram), but it still shows that there were more murderers belonging to this category than the Ripper in the area.
"A period of 3 weeks without killing would not be strange for the Ripper."
That's true, but that was not my point. But three weeks is rather short in order to work out a fully developed method and signature -- a method and signature that then is concsistent for at least three murders (with very slight minor changes in detail).
I can only quote from Jon Smyth's excellent post:
"The sudden appearance of this 'method' with Nichols, which essentially remained unchanged through the next two murders, three in all, suggests to me this was 'his method', and not something he evolved into or stumbled on accidently.
To put it crudely, it's like "Pow!!", suddenly it appears then "woosh!!", it is gone, just as suddenly. [...] Jack followed a particular procedure, possibly in order to keep himself free of arterial blood, this is, in my opinion, evident of a calm & calculating mind at work. The second, and larger, cut to the throat, I have already explained. Once again, calculating."
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 03, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
Hi Jon,I was told recently that the public were allowed to watch demonstrations/operations but I think myself that this practice had ceased by 1888.I dont know whether the Victorian site would have information on this-it may be worth trying it.Sometimes I have wondered whether someonelike Druitt could have developed an interest through attending such spectacles on the invite of his father or Uncle who were surgeons-but that would have been as a special guest not as a member of the public.I will try to find out anyway about the meaning of "theatre" in this context and whether the meaning changed over the centuries.
Ofcourse one doesnt know what the surgeons medical books looked like then.Did they for example contain illustrations of the corpses of murderers being dissected,as was once common practice?And if so perhaps some would also have contained illustrations of Hogarth type gin drinkers-men and women-who having engaged also in crime of some kind were then considered suitable guinea pigs for demonstrations by surgeons.If the future JtR had had access to such graphic scenes through such texts it could have triggered of a predilection for cutting up the dead bodies of prostitutes or women who had been considered beyond the pale for varios reasons and therefore available,like the bodies of the hanged murderers of th 18th century for medical research/illustration etc
Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
Glenn writes: I totally disagree with the Kelly murder being so similar to the others. It is not the fact that she was killed indoors that troubles me, but the fact that the approach seems different. I have said it before and I'll say it again; to me it certainly more looks like a very sloppy copy cat attempt by someone who had gained some information about the murders -- probably from the press -- but then just didn't get some details right.
The spray and large amount of blood is one thing: the Ripper was very careful in his approach not to get too much blood on him and there isn't really that much blood on the murder sites (there is some spray of blood on the fence in Hanbury Street, but apart from that very little considering the state of victims). In Miller's Court it is a completely different story; it is practically a blood bath with a lot of blood on the walls and on the floor, indicating that Mary Kelly may have been conscious during the attack and maybe also tried to defend herself.
Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray. In the case of Chapman and Stride, there was, only in Stride's case her left carotid artery was cut and, because she was turned to her left side, the blood flowed toward the ground, not at the wall. Dr. Philips remarked that there was more blood at the scene than he would have expected. So, Mary Kelly's case is not so different. And the blood at her scene (spray on the wall, run-off on the floor) does not suggest a struggle. The tears in the sheets can be easily explained without assuming a struggle, or that the killer was 'sloppy'.
Glenn writes: To assume that these changes is a result of the more secluded circumstances indoors, is just not good enough -- it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly just the same -- the scream of "murder!" is a sign of that this apparently was not tried succesfully.
You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did.
We also have the over-excessive mutilations, that usually are referred to as a result of "his grande finale and his evolution technique reaching its full bloom". That is totally unsupported and just speculations.
Also, the womb strangely didn't seem to be of interest of the Ripper in this case, but rather the heart (if the heart was taken from the scene). There are quite a few question marks to consider, which means we can't just buy the Ripper option straight off.
I completely agree with you as to your 'finale' statement, however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates. If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind? And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him. On top of that, he had an alibi. Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime. And I believe this fits in well with the context of the Tabram discussion, in compare and contrast and helping determine if Tabram was a Ripper victim.
Simon,
In your discussion of Stride, it appears you're basing your conclusion on pre-murder witness testimony alone, and this is a mistake. Take the following into consideration: When Edward Spooner lifted her chin at approximately 1:03a.m., she was still bleeding to death. Dr. Blackwell estimated it took her about 90 seconds to succumb to her neck wound. As Dr. Blackwell based this conclusion in part on the assumption she'd been conscious when cut (which would have escalated the bleeding), and in all likelihood, she was not conscious, it could have taken as long as four minutes to bleed to death, but certainly NOT 18 minutes! Also, when Dr. Blackwell examined her at 1:16, he found her face still warm. This was a moderately nourished woman, exposed to open air, who'd been bled to death. Do you think her face would still be warm a full half-hour after death? I don't. Spooner's testimony tells me she was knifed at approximately 1a.m..
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2121
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
"Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray."
I don't know if you have misunderstood me, but this is exactly my point and this is also what I intended to point out. And this contradicts the Kelly murder scene, which is full of blood, so I must say that point in your argument seriously eludes me.
(However, as I wrote in Chapman's case there were some spray of blood ion the fence -- not that it makes me change my mind, but nevertheless.)
As for Stride, I am ruling out her from this discussion, since I am not sure of her inclusion as a Ripper victim.
Furthermore, I didn't intend to imply that it is proven that Kelly defended herself, because it certainly isn't (although there are cuts on her arms, which could be from defense, but as you say such details could derive from sloppiness -- which I think in that case would show yet another contradiction against the Ripper's methodical approach). it is mere speculation. However, the large quantity of blood on the Kelly scene does suggest that Kelly was alive and probably conscious when she was attacked with the knife -- in contrast to the canonical Ripper victims). I really can't see how you can claim that there are similarities on this point. Are we looking at the same crime scene photo?
"You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Once again, I didn't mean to imply that the "Oh murder!" cry with certainty came from Kelly (I should have put an "if" in there somewhere) -- we can't really know that, but I think there is a possibility that it may have. I see no reason to state with certainty that "there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Besides, my main point was that it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly regardless if he was killing indoors or outdoors. Judging from the blood on the scene, the murderer in this case were not as careful at getting blood and gore on himself or the environment, which I would say the Ripper was. The fact that it in Kelly's case occurred indoors doesen't matter.
"however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates."
I didn't say "only" (that's your interpretation), but in both Chapman's and Eddowes case the womb was removed and taken (in Eddowes' case both half of the kidney and the womb).
"If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind?"
No, but he may have misunderstood the whole point of the removal of the organs and maybe just picked anything (if he did take the heart -- it was never found, we don't know what happened to it). Fact remains -- whatever one wants to make of it -- that no organs from the productive and sexual area was taken from Kelly's body, while the Ripper seem to have found these items of certain importance as thropees.
"And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him."
You didn't hear what I just said in my previous post, Tom. I said, I could present to you a number of crimes of similar character (or worse) throughout crime history, that are performed by perpetrators (all husbands or boyfriends to the victim) that have no prior criminal record.
You can't just rule that out on basis of that "it couldn't happen" when we have recorded facts saying that it does.
Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a prime suspect in such a case fools the police or manages to get himself through and pass an interrogation. Furthermore, there are signs of that he may have been quite nervous during this process. We simply don't have enough information telling us how he acted psychologically in these situations.
But the fact that he was released and also impressed at the coroner's inquest means nothing. If he did the Kelly murder, we could also expect him to handle an interrogation.
"On top of that, he had an alibi."
Not a very impressive one, I might add.
It is impossible for us over hundred years later to check up on it and confirm how effective it really was, since we don't have enough information.
The time of Kelly's death is not at all condirmed or stated with certianty, and since there are question marks regarding this quite important point, it is pointless to dive into discussions about his alleged alibi.
"Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime."
I am happy for you, that you are so sure of yourself on this matter and I offer you my deepest congratulations. Even if it means that you are dismissing several important factual details. But have it your way; I prefer to keep an open mind about it as an alternative option -- in contrast to you I'd say it is not at all a clear-cut thing.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 03, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 174
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 2:44 am: | |
Hi Tom,
"Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray."
I don't know if you have misunderstood me, but this is exactly my point and this is also what I intended to point out. And this contradicts the Kelly murder scene, which is full of blood, so I must say that point in your argument seriously eludes me.
(However, as I wrote in Chapman's case there were some spray of blood ion the fence -- not that it makes me change my mind, but nevertheless.)
My point was simple - prior to Kelly, the Ripper DID cut the throats of victims prior to their death. As for blood, there was blood on Kelly's wall and the floor and bed around her. Nothing to suggest a struggle. In this respect, it's no different than the other crime scenes.
As for Stride, I am ruling out her from this discussion, since I am not sure of her inclusion as a Ripper victim.
Well, that's not responsible investigation. She's been ruled INTO the case by the original investigators, and no solid argument to exclude (that supercedes the argument to include her) has since been put forward.
Furthermore, I didn't intend to imply that it is proven that Kelly defended herself, because it certainly isn't (although there are cuts on her arms, which could be from defense, but as you say such details could derive from sloppiness -- which I think in that case would show yet another contradiction against the Ripper's methodical approach). it is mere speculation. However, the large quantity of blood on the Kelly scene does suggest that Kelly was alive and probably conscious when she was attacked with the knife -- in contrast to the canonical Ripper victims). I really can't see how you can claim that there are similarities on this point. Are we looking at the same crime scene photo?
I've already pointed out that the fact that Kelly was attacked with the knife while alive is not at all without precedent in the Ripper murders. Are we looking at the same photo? Yes, but keep in mind that we don't have photos of the other crime scenes to look at, so naturally Kelly's stands out. And I'm glad you state that there's no proof Kelly defended herself. The doctor's certainly found no proof on her hands or under her nails. I was concerned, because earlier you stated quite confidently that her killer was sloppy and let himself be attacked. Even if that's the case, you must keep in mind that JTR was not a perfect killing machine.
"You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Once again, I didn't mean to imply that the "Oh murder!" cry with certainty came from Kelly (I should have put an "if" in there somewhere) -- we can't really know that, but I think there is a possibility that it may have. I see no reason to state with certainty that "there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Besides, my main point was that it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly regardless if he was killing indoors or outdoors. Judging from the blood on the scene, the murderer in this case were not as careful at getting blood and gore on himself or the environment, which I would say the Ripper was. The fact that it in Kelly's case occurred indoors doesen't matter.
I'd say the Ripper was careful, because no one reported see a blood-covered man leaving Miller's Court. There is a good reason to doubt the cry of 'oh murder', but that's for a different thread. But even if we accept that as having come from Mary, I'd say that's a prett quick subdue, as that's the only cry she got out before he silenced her, and no one came a'knockin'. I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene. Stop looking at the photo. Chapman's scene was a mess and quite similar. Eddowes had a pool of blood around her.
"however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates."
I didn't say "only" (that's your interpretation), but in both Chapman's and Eddowes case the womb was removed and taken (in Eddowes' case both half of the kidney and the womb).
No, a whole kidney was taken. A half of a kidney was sent to Lusk (of course, it may not have been Eddowes').
"If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind?"
No, but he may have misunderstood the whole point of the removal of the organs and maybe just picked anything (if he did take the heart -- it was never found, we don't know what happened to it). Fact remains -- whatever one wants to make of it -- that no organs from the productive and sexual area was taken from Kelly's body, while the Ripper seem to have found these items of certain importance as thropees.
You don't find a heart just by 'grabbing anything'. Cutting out her uterus, or taking any of the organs he came in contact with first would have been easy. He sought the heart. As for the Ripper's need, we don't know. He took 4 organs, 2 of which were uteruses. That's half. And it's doubtful they were mere 'trophies'. That's profiler talk.
"And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him."
You didn't hear what I just said in my previous post, Tom. I said, I could present to you a number of crimes of similar character (or worse) throughout crime history, that are performed by perpetrators (all husbands or boyfriends to the victim) that have no prior criminal record.
You can't just rule that out on basis of that "it couldn't happen" when we have recorded facts saying that it does.
And you didn't hear what I said...Yes, you could name a lot of cases. So could I... all of men who got caught. Most because they confessed. Barnett didn't confess, didn't attract undue attention, and provided an alibi. He didn't kill Mary, Jack the Ripper did.
Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a prime suspect in such a case fools the police or manages to get himself through and pass an interrogation. Furthermore, there are signs of that he may have been quite nervous during this process. We simply don't have enough information telling us how he acted psychologically in these situations.
But the fact that he was released and also impressed at the coroner's inquest means nothing. If he did the Kelly murder, we could also expect him to handle an interrogation.
We could? You described him as sloppy? Why do you suppose a man who could so completey annhialate the girl he loves could show up the next morning and give the police, including Abberline, such a believable performance AND a good alibi?
"On top of that, he had an alibi."
Not a very impressive one, I might add.
It is impossible for us over hundred years later to check up on it and confirm how effective it really was, since we don't have enough information.
The time of Kelly's death is not at all condirmed or stated with certianty, and since there are question marks regarding this quite important point, it is pointless to dive into discussions about his alleged alibi.
That's a valid point.
"Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime."
I am happy for you, that you are so sure of yourself on this matter and I offer you my deepest congratulations. Even if it means that you are dismissing several important factual details. But have it your way; I prefer to keep an open mind about it as an alternative option -- in contrast to you I'd say it is not at all a clear-cut thing.
You've yet to point out any factual details that show Kelly to have been anything other than a Ripper victim. I've looked at it from both perspectives, and share the perspective of Scotland Yard - Kelly was a Ripper victim. It's not a matter of an 'open-minded', it's simply a matter of aptly applied logic.
All the best
Ditto
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2122
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Tom,
"My point was simple - prior to Kelly, the Ripper DID cut the throats of victims prior to their death. As for blood, there was blood on Kelly's wall and the floor and bed around her. Nothing to suggest a struggle. In this respect, it's no different than the other crime scenes. [...] I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene. Stop looking at the photo. Chapman's scene was a mess and quite similar. Eddowes had a pool of blood around her."
Oh come on, Tom. Here you really make no sense and you are also distorting the evidence. Even the doctors and the police at the time stated that the crimes (apart from Kelly) were performed in a way that it would create as less blood-mess as possible. On the Ripper's crimes scenes there were very little blood considering the type of crimes we are dealing with here and the mutilations. It's all there to read. This is also quite natural, since he had managed to kill them and cut their throats (or strangle them) prior to their death. Let's consult Dr Brown's own words regarding the Eddowes murder scene: "No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body."
Still, there were quite extensive mutilations.
In Miller's Court it is very different. Not only are the mutilations even more extensive, but also a large quantity of blood.
It doesen't matter that we don't have crime scene photos from the other killings. It is all there in the written documentation, saying that quite little blood was shed in the other Ripper murders considering the circumstances, and certainly not those kinds of splashes as we see in the Kelly scene. This strongly suggests a killer with another approach and who is not as experienced in taking his victims by surprise.
I really don't see your reasoning; there are vast dissimilarities as far as the crime scenes are concerned.
"I've already pointed out that the fact that Kelly was attacked with the knife while alive is not at all without precedent in the Ripper murders."
News flash for you. The Ripper victims were (if not strangled first) killed quickly by getting their throats cut, decreasing the amount of blood. Furthermore he performed this in a way that it should spray as little as possible.
If the killer had had the same approach in Miller's Court we wouldn't see that large amount of blood. I'd say Kelly bled a lot before she died -- so there is certainly a difference in approach.
In my mind we are talking about a less experienced killer in Kelly's case, that didn't manage to overcome his victim quickly. The Ripper was fast, he was silent and the mutilations were performed quite neatly after a deliberate, careful scheme sceme. Kelly's murder is a blood-bath and over-excessive in its mutilations.
"I'd say the Ripper was careful, because no one reported see a blood-covered man leaving Miller's Court."
No, beacuse the crime scene evidence say so.
"But even if we accept that as having come from Mary, I'd say that's a prett quick subdue, as that's the only cry she got out before he silenced her, and no one came a'knockin'. I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene."
The importance lies in that it shows a killer with a less distinguished approach and who failed to take his victim by surprise. One of the Ripper's trade-marks was to kill his victims quickly and silently and to create as little blood as possible on the scene. The amount of blood in Miller's Court shows:
a) she had bled and probably had been attacked several times by the knife before she died (inconsistent with the Ripper murders)
b) that she certainly was surprised but not killed quickly and probably not silently (considering the crime scene evidence it is not all unreasonable to imagine that the cry could have come from Kelly).
"And you didn't hear what I said...Yes, you could name a lot of cases. So could I... all of men who got caught."
That is of no relevancy. You argued that Barnett couldn't have done it as a first time offense. I simply stated that there are cases where this has happened.
Glad to hear that you at least acknowledge that Barnett's alibi is hard to put forward as an argument, since Kelly's time of death is not fully established.
"Why do you suppose a man who could so completey annhialate the girl he loves could show up the next morning and give the police, including Abberline, such a believable performance AND a good alibi?"
Once again, Tom, it has happened before.
As I said, if he managed to do the stuff in Miller's Court, I could very much expect him to handle a police interrogation as well. And secondly, don't over-rate the abilities of the police. They are human, and even the best get fooled. You seem to assume that Annerline was some kind of Superman.
And no, Barnett's alibi isn't the best I've heard.
"I've looked at it from both perspectives"
No, you have not. You have already in your mind decided that Kelly was a Ripper victim and seem desperately frightened of the possibility that she may not have been.
I have said it once and I'll say it again: there is a 50--50 chance that Kelly may have been murdered and mutilated by someone else than the Ripper. I have no preconceptions of how things should be.
Now, we are certainly losing Tabram here. Kelly do have her own thread.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 04, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Hi Glenn,Tom and all,
In Paul Beggs latest book"Jack the Ripper-The Facts"-published 2004 he has a whole chapter on the murder of Martha Tabram.
Paul seems to respect the judgement of the police officers/coroner and doctors there at the time pretty much throughout the book which tends to be my position ie they did do as thorough a job as possible for that time which included interviews with alibis,co-tenants of the Victoria Mens Home for example,searches of innumerable homes and other premises etc.I think we can dismiss their findings too readily really.We were not after all there at the time,do not therefore know exactly who was interviewed and what they said because so much has been lost to us,and tend to forget that puctiliousness would have been DEMANDED by their superiors-probably a lack of exactitude would cost them their jobs in those days-so what we do have will be as good as anything likely to be had today bar ofcourse the advances in finger-printing and forensic science[which doesnt always result in catching the criminal actually anymore than the tried and tested work of the likes of Abberline.
The facts according to Begg are tha t the following police considered Martha Tabram to be a victim of JtR-Frederick Abberline,Sir Robert Anderson,Edmund Reid, and Dew.I think we should bear their considerations in mind more often.They were there they should have the edge on us after all.
Best Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 329
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
”Well, the "triangle could simply be a coincidence or have very natural sociological explanations. The fact that Tabram was found within this area could simply be a result of that this was avery active area for the prostitutes.”
I don’t think the triangle was a mere coincidence, but it could have had the natural sociological explanations you talk about. Could be. I shall have to read up on those sociological circumstances in the whole of the East End.
”Yes, and the same can be said for the Pichin Street torso and the body in Whitehall, and those are not in general contributed to the Ripper.”
No, actually it can’t. The two torsos you refer to were (unidentified) women, only the one found in Pinchin Street was found close to where the Ripper killed, at some point they were ‘handled’ with a cutting device, but that’s about it. All very general, so by your own admittance meaningless, certainly when compared to Tabram’s possible connection to the Ripper murders.
“OK, these could be influenced by the Ripper (which we can't say about Tabram), but it still shows that there were more murderers belonging to this category than the Ripper in the area.”
Although they seem to have been, we’re not sure these women were killed by the same hand. As we know absolutely nothing of the murderer’s motive to kill, we can’t say this killer or killers belonged to the same category as the Ripper.
What we can say about the killer, is that he most probably had some private building at his disposal, where he could dismember his victim(s) without being disturbed and that he probably had his own means of transportation, which enabled him to take his victim(s) where he got rid of them. In that respect this man or these men were a totally different breed of killer than the Ripper.
”"A period of 3 weeks without killing would not be strange for the Ripper."
That's true, but that was not my point.”
I know what your point was, this was just an additional point of mine.
“But three weeks is rather short in order to work out a fully developed method and signature -- a method and signature that then is concsistent for at least three murders (with very slight minor changes in detail).”
My point is that the Ripper already had developed method and signature in his mind when he killed Tabram – that is, in case he did kill her, of course – but that is was still only present in his mind as a fantasy, not as an actual plan to carry out and that the fact that he wasn’t prepared yet, if you will, when he met Tabram, coupled with the fierce anger Tabram must have unleashed within him resulted in the dissimilarities between Tabram and the others. When he killed the others he had actually set his mind on killing them accordingly to his fantasies and could therefore ‘direct’ his anger (more) in agreement with these fantasies.
Again, I’m not saying this is what must have happened, because I don’t know how such things work in a killer’s mind. I’m just keeping an open mind. Like I said, things may go very differently than you planned or fantasised if a sudden opportunity presents itself.
Jon’s quote: ”Jack followed a particular procedure, possibly in order to keep himself free of arterial blood, this is, in my opinion, evident of a calm & calculating mind at work”
This line of thinking is what I used in the past year in some of the (much appreciated) discussions you and I had.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Further to post1097 above:In the same book he states that Joseph Barnett was indoors when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset street,but he did not know the victim was Mary Jane Kelly.When he discovered it was he went to the police.He appears to have been very closely questioned about his whereaboutsand the police investigated his account of his movements and satisfied themselves that they were correct.pages291 and 292.
It would seem to me that once again we have police/doctors etc all agreeing that Mary Kelly was a victim of JtR and once again its worth reminding ourselves that these were not unthorough
sloppy men investigating the case but rather experienced and seasoned and who had actually SEEN the bodies -sometimes "in-situ" and aware of his methods.
I cant believe that Joseph Barnett was not subjected to the most rigorous questioning
and likewise any alibis he gave.moreover he is NOT ONCE doubted by friends and neighbours of Mary Kelly and seems to have been thought of as a decent enough chap by those in a position to know him.And so if indeed Mary Kelly is a ripper victim as the police believed at the time,then Joseph Barnett is a very unlikely ripper in my view.Wher on earth did he keep his trophies for example?[sorry to be on the wrong thread over this but it does relate to this thread as well.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2123
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
Natalie,
I think you are confusing things a bit here.
Firstly, I have said many times that the police probably did as good as they could for their time and the circumstances. I don't think they did a sloppy job at all.
That is not the issue here.
The issue is that the police -- also in our day and age -- are getting fooled by criminals and they are not always correct in their assumptions and sometimes get the wrong man or let the right one go. They are human beings as the rest of us, and that is mainly my point.
Even today even the most experienced police officers fail; this is not an exact science. Some people they bring in for questioning are rather slick, and even if they suspect the character they still have to prove his guilt either by a confession or preferably by physical evidence, or else they have to let him go.
Just because the police at the time did consider Barnett as a credible witness (if they really did), or they interpreted Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim, then it doesen't prove the slightest that they were correct. We must not forget that their experience in these types of crimes were rather limited at the time -- Abberline's rather strange support of Chapman as the Ripper is a typical proof of this.
It has nothing to do with sloppiness, but in such a case just human error and inexperience, things that are to be expected.
Secondly,
I don't believe at all that Barnett was the Ripper. That is a completely different story.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2124
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Hi Frank,
I must say I totally disagree with you regarding your views on the Pinchin Street and Whitehall bodies. It is not relevant whether these crimes are similar to the Ripper or not; the point was that they nevertheless were something out of the ordinary.
If these were murdered and disembowelled, this surely indicates to me that they were victim of crimes that stands out from the ordinary stab murders or knife threats that may have occurred in East End. NO WAY these are ordinary murders, they shouldn't even be recognized as such today.
Since Tabram was considered a stab murder "out of the ordinary" in its frenziness and character, then so are these, although in a different way. Disembowelled bodies doesen't grow on trees, they derive from somewhere and from a certain incident. The fact that the Ripper didn't disembowelled his victims is unimportant; the point is that disembowelled bodies doesen't appear everyday, and somebody must have done it. I would say this indicates that there were more bestialic murderers than the Ripper in the area at the time. He or they may not have been sexually deranged killers like the Ripper (we can't know that anyway), but it takes quite a bit of character to murder a woman and disembowel the body. It isn't done everyday and certainly not by the ordinary killer.
So, if these were not victims of the Ripper -- which I have no reason to believe -- this suggests that there were more killers in the area at that time, that stood out of the ordinary ruffian criminals. Therefore there is no reason to automatically accept either Tabram or Kelly as Ripper victims.
"My point is that the Ripper already had developed method and signature in his mind when he killed Tabram – that is, in case he did kill her, of course – but that is was still only present in his mind as a fantasy, not as an actual plan to carry out and that the fact that he wasn’t prepared yet, if you will, when he met Tabram, coupled with the fierce anger Tabram must have unleashed within him resulted in the dissimilarities between Tabram and the others. When he killed the others he had actually set his mind on killing them accordingly to his fantasies and could therefore ‘direct’ his anger (more) in agreement with these fantasies."
I can't completely rule out this scenario, of course, but it doesne't ring true to me. It feels constructed and is not supported by the evidence besides pure speculation.
As I said, not impossible, but not very likely at all in my view. To me a different killer is a more logical solution.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Hi Glennn,first thanks for your reply.
When you talk about confusion its perhaps rather more that in talking about say Barnett I was pointing out my acceptance of the views of not one but several senior police and detectives around at the time ,familiar [detectives -Abberline/Dew etc]with Whitechapel and its inhabitents.None disagreed about
a]Mary Jane Kelly as a ripper victim
b]Joseph Barnett as a man they had vigourously interrogated knowing him to be Mary"s lover and a man unlikely to have either killed and mutillated Mary Kelly or to be Jack the Ripper.
What is also important here is that if Joe wasnt the ripper and Mary was indeed a ripper victim
then for that reason alone he has to be eliminated.
If on the other hand it can be proven that Mary was not a ripper victim but a victim of someone else Barnett still has
a[alibis that would undoubtedly have been chased up by the police-here I am conscious of the nature of Victorian note and detail keeping by law courts/the police/hospitals and schools which was second to none in punctiliousness with regard to dutiful and exact standards of work].
That was my main point really.Not only were these people intelligent,familiar with the criminal mind-see the early "profile" connected with the case of JtR-not bad for the 1880"s,but they would also have had psychological insight too.Think of your great Ibsen or is it Strindberg and their knowledge of the workings of the mind and there are countless others-AC Doyle for instance.I simply cant accept that the police wouldnt have thought of all the possibilities that we do today-and not just the police either.Lots of people were trying to help.The truth is that he was way too slippery a customer.
I dont accept what you say of Abberline either.Just because he thought for a time it was Chapman doesnt make him unreliable otherwise.Chapman WAS a serial killer who had lived in Whitechapel at the time of the murders[more or less] and had training and experience as a barber -surgeon in Poland or thereabouts.Granted he did not then know the laws of chance with regards to serial killers changing their MO being very slim,but otherwise I think its as good a guess as a Kosminski[conveniently Jewish and mentally ill] or a Druitt[conveniently dead shortly after MJK"s murder]or an Ostrog etc etc. and Abberline definitely didnt think it was any of these----probably with justification!
Best Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
Hi,
We all agree that room 13 was a bloodbath, the killer must have left that room with visable blood on his person, just like the person seen rushing through Mitre square at 1010am that morning, with blood splashes on his face.
That reference if true, would fit nicely in with Maxwells sighting, also if he was entering mitre square via church passage when sighted, he would be coming from the direction of Dorset street which would indicate that he lived on the other side of the square a direction he would have taken after leaving Berner street on sept 30th, is it then that he came across poor Eddowes?.
I do not believe that the killer was obsessed with female organs, but removed them to increase the horror factor.
Just a intresting question Where was Barnetts sisters place, or his lodging house in relation to Mitre square?.
Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 176
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Glenn,
You're right, so I've moved our series of Kelly posts to an existing thread called 'WAS MARY JANE KELLY A VICTIM OF JACK THE RIPPER?', and responded to your last post to me there. The board admins are invited to delete our off-topic discussion (it was my fault, folks) from this thread, including this post.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2125
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Tom,
Good. See you there.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Hi Glenn...you say:
"You really put me out of work here."
This, from the staid voice of reason?, the ardent researcher?, Europe's premiere crime historian?, in comparison Glenn, I am just the heckler from the cheap seats.
Glenn, Thomas & Richard, although this is the wrong thread I would be interested in pursuing a discussion on the pro's and con's of Kelly's murder, sometime in the near future, on the correct thread of course.
I don't think it is as clear cut as Thomas makes out, but neither do I think Barnett had a hand in it. If JtR murdered Kelly, I see a different motive here. From the scant evidence I think the killer knew her, and she knew her killer. The 'overcut's' are not the Ripper's style, that poor lass was carved up with no apparent design in mind. The removal of her face and her heart suggest a very personal motive, the result of vindictive passion from a spurned lover?, not a stranger passing in the night.
I don't accept the typical view as 'obvious', there is nothing obvious about Kelly's murder.
And if anyone wishes to discuss the relevency of the Torso murders, I would be pleased to entertain all comers. This topic is too easily dismissed as completely unrelated. Forget the fact they were dismembered, how were they killed?.
If we learned that they had been strangled first, then their throats cut, how relevent would they be?, from what I understand, we cannot be sure how they died, therefore we should not so easily dismiss them.
Bodies missing organs, limbs missing bodies, torso's missing limbs, .....was something afoot?, some series of dastardly medical crimes so far unrecognized by the myopic authorities?.
And still consistantly viewed as 'separate' by latter-day researchers?
Am I alone in reserving the slender possibility that they may indeed all be connected? I think we need to learn more about the Torso murders.
A future thread maybe...
Regards, Jon
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 330
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
“I must say I totally disagree with you regarding your views on the Pinchin Street and Whitehall bodies. It is not relevant whether these crimes are similar to the Ripper or not; the point was that they nevertheless were something out of the ordinary.”
I have misread you. I thought you were making two points: one, like in Tabram’s case, that there were some points that connected the Pinchin St. and the Whitehall murders to that of Jack the Ripper, and two: that the murderer(s) in these two murder cases belonged to the same category as the Ripper, meaning that the motive he or they had was the same or similar to that of Jack. That’s what I reacted to.
Regarding the first point, I stupidly forgot one major similarity between the two series, which is obviously ‘overkill’ and you are correct that is (the) one connecting them. Of course I agree that these murders weren’t your everyday murders. However, to dismember a victim isn’t all that uncommon among ‘normal’ murders today. I believe that quite a number of especially wives and girlfriends end up being dismembered, and the other day I even saw a case on TV about a man who had been cut to pieces by his wife. In this last case the motive was plain old money and in the others it were also more ‘ordinary’ motives. So, with that in mind I wrote that as the motives behind the P.S. and W.H. murders are unknown, we can’t say that the Ripper belonged to the same category as the ‘torso murderer(s)’.
“He or they may not have been sexually deranged killers like the Ripper (we can't know that anyway),…”
Completely agreed.
“It isn't done everyday and certainly not by the ordinary killer.”
Like I said, that isn’t true – today (not everyday, thank God) there are quite a number of ‘ordinary’ murder cases involving dismemberment.
”So, if these were not victims of the Ripper -- which I have no reason to believe -- this suggests that there were more killers in the area at that time, that stood out of the ordinary ruffian criminals. Therefore there is no reason to automatically accept either Tabram or Kelly as Ripper victims.”
Again, I agree, although I am further away from your views regarding Kelly’s case than I am on Tabram’s (as to Tabram I’d say: 40%-60%, as to Kelly I’d say: 15%-85%).
Take care,
Frank
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
If Randy is still with us, I really wanted to respond to a good point raised back on Aug 31st.
"Personally, I think too many people have their minds made up about it, one way or the other. That indeed is exactly why I posted my comments."
Speaking for myself, and I assume this was largely aimed at me, I understand your point.
What I do not know is if you have been a visitor to the Casebook since the early days.
The topic you choose to raise has been discussed several times in the past and opinions given in the present discussion have evolved out of previous discussions with a variety of members.
So, if you are looking for completely objective and impartial opinions then, as much as some of us may try to keep this in mind, we must admit that a little biase can creep in every now and then due to extensive exchanges of views over the years.
I had written to the Tower of London for records and opinions on several issues that transpire out of Tabram's murder, none of which we discussed here presently.
The results of which you will find on the Casebook CD, so I'll say nothing now in case I misquote anything.
Suffice to say, this topic, and likely almost every other main-stream topic has been viewed, reviewed and re-reviewed over and over again in the past 8(?) years.
This is not a bad thing, you do right to bring up any issue that takes your interest. A new opinion, a new perspective is always good, and welcomed by all.
I just ask you to remember that some of us are sticklers for keeping 'evidence', and 'speculation' in there respective categories, and make every effort not to mix the two.
Sorry if I put you off for any reason.
Regards, Jon
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1102
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Jon,Is it possible then that you could answer a question concerning a soldier who stated he had a friend who was a soldier and who he was convinced was the ripper because he was violent towards women and hated prostitutes.I cant find anything on the site concerning the soldier"s name,the name of his friend who he accuses of being the ripper or what happened eventually to one or both of them.I would be really grateful for further information.It does concern motive too!
Thanks Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2128
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
Just a few short pointers regarding Kelly (we have moved this discussion to the thread Tom suggested):
"If JtR murdered Kelly, I see a different motive here. From the scant evidence I think the killer knew her, and she knew her killer. The 'overcut's' are not the Ripper's style, that poor lass was carved up with no apparent design in mind. The removal of her face and her heart suggest a very personal motive, the result of vindictive passion from a spurned lover?, not a stranger passing in the night."
Once again, you express yourself so well that you put me in a bad light. I couldn't agree more.
The reason why I think Barnett may be considered as the prime suspect, is just for the things you point out.
If Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, then it would be natural to assume that it was the one male who knew her most intimitaly and who had access to the apartment in Miller's Court. Several similar cases have shown that it's generally the boyfriend or husband that perform these types of crimes (if it's domestic and the victim is a friend to the deceased, not an unknown serial killer). And since Barnett had motive, opportunity and also since we don't really know that much of his temper or his psychological status, I would say that he's not off the hook. His so called "alibi" doesen't help him the slightest.
If she wasn't a Ripper victim, who else would it be besides Barnett?
Who else had quarreled with the woman some short time before and felt forced to leave the residence? Who else had access to the premises? Who else were so emotionally attached to her?
Not to mention the fact that he seemed obsessed with the Ripper murders and read about them in the papers.
Also, considering what we know from other similar domestic mutilation cases, I can't come up with any other solution.
Regarding the Whitehall and Pinchin torsos, I must admit, I have myself thought it curious why they are so easily dismissed and disregarded in both literate work and during discussions.
After all, I don't think disembowelled corps were something you saw everyday in London at the end of the 19th century.
I am very much doubtful that they are connected to the Ripper's work, though, unless this means being loosely influenced by the Ripper, but who knows?
All the best
from the voice of Europe
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
"However, to dismember a victim isn’t all that uncommon among ‘normal’ murders today. I believe that quite a number of especially wives and girlfriends end up being dismembered"
Still, I continue to claim that it's out of the ordinary when it comes to murder. And especially in 1888 -- don't compare it to what we know today, when we are hardly shocked by anything.
We are not talking the general stab murder here.
As I said, psychologically speaking it takes a certain kind of person to disembowel a dead body and chop it to pieces, even if it just means getting rid of the evidence -- this is something the police and criminologists agrees on as well.
There is a difference between an ordinary murder who stabs someone with a knife or shoots someone down with a gun -- and someone who kills and part the body in different pieces. It takes another kind of stomach and another kind of psyche. That is why it is out of the ordinary.
And I certainly believe it was in 1888.
So, once again, if these were not performed by the Ripper, there was at least one more -- and therefore probably more -- savage and deranged killers in Whitechapel in 1888 and 1889.
Therefore we can't automatically assume that Tabram was a Ripper victim either.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Hi Jon
thanks for giving me a bit more infomation to work with i have indeed set myself a really difficult challenge its just really where do you start. non of us were born then and the people who were around then are dead and as far as i know there is no real concreat evidence of anything jack the ripper wrote on paper or anything. the things we do know are what people have wrote i just feel there is something we are all missing that will link something and give us the answer but i cant put my finger on it. i dont know weather you agree but for people to asume he was a doctor or a surgeon is just guessing because serial killers who are around now do the same things he did back then but are just common folk, as for royalty makes you think really they have been centre of many theorys i would be grarteful jon if you could give me some more help
many thanks
stephen |
Rosemary O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
Dear Mr Andersson,
Objection! It appears you are misleading the jury, sir.
"I think the FACT that Martha was killed with FRENZIED stabbing.." I believe the evidence to clearly show that the wounds were (as you rightly say) spread across Tabram's torso and the coup-de-grace in the heart. It is NOT a FACT that this series of wounds was FRENZIED, however. You are confusing the anatomical, forensic, and ontological dimensions.
Rosey :-) |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Glenn Andersson writes:
>>Randy,
"Tabram's 39 stabs could just as easily be interpreted as the very same "urge to mutilate"-- and perhaps an act which left him highly dissatisfied afterwards, enough so that it forced him to reconsider his methods."<<
No, I don't believe in this. It is not the same thing. The mutilations are done quite deliberately in a certain fashion and carefully outlined, and they clearly might be originating from some sort of twisted fantasies.
To me Tabram's wounds indicate a frenzied rage. I don't see this as the same person at all -- not even the same type of person. <<
Of course, someone who is in a "frenzied rage" at one point in their life isn't necessarily walking around frenzied at every moment of their life. Context is an important consideration here, and one needs to consider how any possible differences in context might result in a different reaction. (The mere fact that a murder is the "first murder" in itself is a significantly different psychological context, and there may be several different purposes at play here that weren't at play in later murders)
>>"Whether he could do so in three weeks or three months seems irrelevant in this context.All it would really require is a single stroke of inspiration."
I would think not. This doesen't make sense to me. The mutilations were the main purpose with his killings, and therefore it doesen't ring true that they should have been developed in three weeks. <<
The problem I see in this statement is that "the mutilations were the main purpose with his killings" is really not a complete statement, as another important question must be asked, namely, what was the purpose of the mutilations themselves? I.e., why did he mutilate? Do we really know enough about what his underlying motives were to declare that one type of mutilation was absolutely necessary while the other didn't serve that purpose? For example, if he was of a ritualistic bent, he may have performed a different type of ritual demarking that first murder that he didn't feel the need to perform in subsequent murders.
I've addressed your comment about developing his method in three weeks in another post, but the upshot is that I think it's an unnecessary assumption. Just because he didn't employ that M.O. at that particular time doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't in the process of developing it -- or even that it wasn't fully developed from the start. It only means that he didn't choose to use it at that time for whatever reason.
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
Glenn Andersson writes:
"I hear what you say about him maybe not wanting to kill this victim and thatit was accidental, but we still have the three week period to consider. To develop a complete method and signature -- which since becomes remarkableconsistent for at least three murders -- out of the blue three weeks later seems not plausible to me. I can't rule it out completely, but it doesne't ring true to me."
I think the problem with this statement is that the assumption that he was limited to a mere three weeks to come up with a complete method and signature is unnecessary to begin with. He could very well have been working on his M.O. from far earlier than the Tabram murder (which obviously is an assumption you're making in any case, regardless of whether he killed Tabram or not) and did not feel comfortable enough with it to actually employ the intended M.O. Indeed, it's quite within the realm of possibility that Tabram's murder was a test case -- I.e., he wanted to see if he could get away with murder prior to actually attempting the more tricky parts of the deed. And perhaps the multiple stabbing indicates not so much "frenzy" as exhilaration at successfully performing the killing part. |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:30 pm: | |
Richard Brian Nunweek writes:
"We all agree that room 13 was a bloodbath, the killer must have left that room with visable blood on his person"
Since you bring this up, has anyone advanced the idea that he could have performed his mutilations in the nude? (Similar to how some speculate Lizzie Borden did it) This would seem plausible enough, as he was likely posing as a customer, and may have already had his clothes off in the course of things. |
stephen lyons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Hi all
im really finding this case really hard but bareing in mind iv only started to try and solve this mystery for the past couple of days i just need something to get me off and running and im struggleing where to start with i think we are looking in the wrong direction with surgens as anyone can cut open someone i think we are looking at motives as why walk around killing these certain prostitutes as im about 99% sure there would have been others on the way to his next killing
stephen |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
One final word on the topic of Martha Tabram and her place in the grand scheme of things. I'll be the first to admit that some good arguments have been offered against including Tabram in the canon, but I think there are also some serious weaknesses even in some of strongest of the arguments which need to be addressed, and which leave me unconvinced.
First and foremost, I believe the summary dismissals of the similarities involves a degree of misdirection, unintentional I'm sure, but still we need to be aware of this. Simply put, the entire argument against her inclusion rests almost entirely on establishing implausibility, and NOT on direct evidence against her being a victim. (The closest thing to such direct evidence in this case is the testimony regarding the soldiers, which is decidedly inconclusive.) So it strikes me as a tad disingenuous when these similarities are dismissed precisely because they're not direct evidence FOR her inclusion. It seems like a double standard is being employed in certain instances, as the similarities are brought out specifically to establish plausibility, just as the differences are brought out to establish implausibility, and what applies to one argument should apply (within reasonable limits) to the other argument. I.e., the question is whether or not an abundance of similarities establishes an overall similar pattern, and if the question is simply one of plausibility -- whether or not we should take her inclusion seriously -- then we should be focused on "consistent with" rather than "evidence for" per se.
Certainly, many of these similarities can be explained away, just as indeed, many of the arguments against plausibility can be explained away. Example, the position of her body can be explained away by arguing that it's a normal consequence of a lust murder of this general type. But such an explaining away is a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. This isn't an argument against plausibility; this is an argument that it's not proof of her being killed by the same hand. Sure, it could be "just another sex murder" but that isn't really an argument against that particular similarity, at least in the context of establishing plausibility. Indeed, it's almost a self-defeating point in the first place, as it actually reinforces the similarity. If the positioning was intentional or unintentional, the reason for that positioning in both murders is presumably the same, and that in itself establishes a plausible linkage.
Lastly, I believe the issue of motive is central to much of this issue, and I also believe it's very easy to oversimplify the motive to the point of being one-dimensional, and thus disinclude any particular aspect which doesn't fit with that simplified motive. To wit: "The motive of the murders was the mutilations itself" is an accurate enough statement as far as it goes, but we still have to ask why the need for mutilations (which opens up a whole can of undeterminate worms) and we need to also realize that literally nobody operates within a framework of one single motivating factor. As human beings we are all very complex, and many motivations factor into our decisions and actions. And the motivations aren't static either; not only do our motivations evolve throughout our lifetimes, but also different contexts will produce temporary motivations relative to the situation and needs of the moment. And therefore, if one is making an argument dependent upon motives, one needs to take into consideration all the possible variables which might change the ultimate result of these motivations. |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 7:27 am: | |
Jon Smyth writes:
"The effective use of the knife is (as opposed to a quick 'slash' like Stride,McKenzie & Coles) a reasonable indication that this killer understood the mechanics of what he was doing.
A medical student could perform this adequately, the trouble with this idea is that the majority of medical students were young men, early 20's?, I would expect that such a young lad would be more likely to select victims of his own age group, even a street hardened,aged, ill, prostitute may be suspicious if she is approached by such a young client - it's a thought, no more."
Or perhaps a failed medical student, advancing in age and after years of frustration at not being allowed to ply his choice of vocation, decides to take it on the road...
|
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
Jon Smyth writes:
>>If Randy is still with us, I really wanted to respond to a good point raised back on Aug 31st.
"Personally,I think too many people have their minds made up about it, one way or theother. That indeed is exactly why I posted my comments."
Speaking for myself, and I assume this was largely aimed at me, I understand your point.
What I do not know is if you have been a visitor to the Casebook since the early days. <<
Actually, my comment wasn't directly aimed at you. It was just a general observation from reading through a lot of threads in various topics. (And not just in regards to Tabram).
In answer to your second question, I believe I've been sporadically visiting this site for a year or so. My interest in the case probably doesn't go that much further back, although serial killers in general have caught my interest for quite some time.
>>The topic you choose to raise has been discussed several times in the past and opinions given in the present discussion have evolved out of previous discussions with a variety of members.
So, if you are looking for completely objective and impartial opinions then, as much as some of us may try to keep this in mind, we must admit that a little biase can creep in every now and then due to extensive exchanges of views over the years. <<
Certainly I'm not aware of everything which has been discussed on this topic, nor how deeply any given issue has been addressed. As for bias creeping in, yes that's something worth considering. I personally don't think that bias is a bad thing at all, in and of itself. In the context of a discussion, however, biased statements are often not very useful, as they reflect personal preference rather than objective truth. For example, I've seen the phrase "that doesn't ring true to me" used in some of the commentary (not naming names) -- which is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't really tell us much.
To further clarify my own position, I believe your first (or perhaps second) response to me hinted at an appeal to burden of proof, assuming I'm reading it correctly. And this I believe gets to the heart of what it is I'm most concerned with establishing here. Burden of proof is entirely dependent upon where precisely one places the default position. I.e., the burden of proof is always on the claim which deviates from that default. So the question becomes, how exactly do we objectively establish the precise default point? I personally believe that the default in this case lies somewhere between "Tabram was definitely not a victim (of Jack)" and "Tabram certainly was his victim" but I can't really say at this point precisely where along that continuum the default should be placed.
>>Sufficeto say, this topic, and likely almost every other main-stream topic has beenviewed, reviewed and re-reviewed over and over again in the past 8(?) years.
This is not a bad thing, you do right to bring up any issue that takesyour interest. A new opinion, a new perspective is always good, and welcomedby all. <<
Thanks for the welcome.
>>I just ask you to remember that some of us are sticklers for keeping 'evidence', and 'speculation' in there respective categories, and make every effort not to mix the two. <<
Indeed, a good attitude to take. Conversely, keep in mind that my arguments about Tabram are entirely made as a devil's advocate. I really do not know where to place her murder in the grand scheme of things.
One last unrelated comment: I'm severely crippled in this discussion by not being a registered member, and therefore having to wait until the owners of the site pass my posts along. The result is that, having made several posts recently, I find that at least some of my points have already been made by others. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1108
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Hi Randy,I like your point about the Martha Tabram murder.I think you have stumbled upon something in this.The idea that perhaps this was his first actual killing and the nature of the stabs might support a sort of crazed joy in at last achieving what was necessary to him to carry out more elaborate activities later,in other words a victorious or triumphant celebration at last.I cant dismiss the other attacks on women either just prior to the murders where whoever it was who carried them out seems to have had only partial success.Its possible he hadnt prepared himself for all eventualities and fled the scenes before completion because he thought he would get caught or even possibly lost his nerve on these occasions.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1109
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,just to clarify a point you make about the question of the women"s "desperation"[and therefore willingness to go into secluded places].
I dont think you can have it both ways.
I think the women were probably all alcoholics judging by their behaviour,and probably this illness/addiction had progressed to a stage were only one thing mattered-obtaining the next drink!
Food would have been very low on the agenda-likewise,by comparison a bed for the night.I believe this was so for Martha Tabram,Polly Nichols Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes.And it was evidenced in their behaviour on the night in question.All had been drinking heavily[Mary Kelly had too by several accounts].This in itself would have caused them to be feeling a false safety or sense of invulnerability.It wouldnt have been a case of desperation for food or bed.Drink and where to get it would have been the motivation I believe.I also think they would have been fairly aware of a dangerous looking man and told him in no uncertain terms to clear off-certainly they would not have been afraid to tell him off-again as a result of their false confidence arising from the drink.And they wouldnt have cared about raising a racket just as Kate Eddowes in fact did when she got arrested.This id why I believe the ripper was a man of seduction.Probably the man who stood passivly allowing Kate Eddowes to put her hand on his chest and humour him.Quite a sophisticated worker in my opinion who would have known exactly how to persuade and cajole if needed.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2144
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Randy,
"I think the problem with this statement is that the assumption that he was limited to a mere three weeks to come up with a complete method and signature is unnecessary to begin with."
No, it's not. It is the absolutely crucial point.
"He could very well have been working on his M.O. from far earlier than the Tabram murder (which obviously is an assumption you're making in any case, regardless of whether he killed Tabram or not) and did not feel comfortable enough with it to actually employ the intended M.O. Indeed, it's quite within the realm of possibility that Tabram's murder was a test case."
Probably not, I would say. You are totally missing the point. If he had been working on his MO and signature way before the Tabram murder, we would see greater similarities in method in the case of Tabram. That is why I don't beileve it was a "test killing". The three week period is too short, and we should find greater similarities between Tabram and Nichols if this was the case. That is why that theory sounds a bit far off for me.
"And perhaps the multiple stabbing indicates not so much "frenzy" as exhilaration at successfully performing the killing part."
Totally unfounded speculations. These types of multiple stab wounds usually derive from frenzied attacks or some sort of sexual mania. I think the desription of the body wounds supports interpretations in that direction.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Rosemary O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Dear Mr Andersson,
I do believe that Mr Scholls is supporting your belief with regard to the sexual psychosis of the killer, in so far as, "exhilaration" and "frenzied" are similiar terms, in explanation of the wounds to Tabram's torso and their distribution. Unfortunately, both you and Mr Scholls forget that the killer CHANGED WEAPONS at some point in this "exhilarated /frenzy". Can you please tell us when this happened and why it happened?
As Ever,
Rosey :-) |
Rosemary O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 8:24 pm: | |
Dear Mr Andersson,
I do believe that Mr Scholls is supporting your belief with regard to the sexual psychosis of the killer, in so far as, "exhilaration" and "frenzied" are similiar terms, in explanation of the wounds to Tabram's torso and their distribution. Unfortunately, both you and Mr Scholls forget that the killer CHANGED WEAPONS at some point in this "exhilarated /frenzy". Can you please tell us when this happened and why it happened?
As Ever,
Rosey :-) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
