|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stu Bonner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 1:25 pm: | 
|
Most people are to believe that Annie died on 25 February 1888. In fact this is the date that she was admitted to Whitechapel Infirmary. She was discharged from there less than a month later and died on 31 March 1888.
Has anyone else found this out?? |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 565
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Hi Stu,
I hope you're still around. Just discovered your post - posts by unregistered guests are easily overlooked.
To answer your question: yes, it's known that Annie Millwood was 'only' attacked on 25 February, that she was hospitalised directly afterwards, was discharged on 21 March and that on 31 March she died not as a result of her injuries, but from natural causes.
Books by Philip Sugden, Paul Begg and John Eddleston, to name a few, have included this.
But I guess people tend to focus on the attack on her rather than on the fact that she survived, which may have given the impression that people think she died that same day.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 442
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 5:13 am: |
|
Yes indeed. I believe it was an ulcer that killed her in the end? Totally unrelated.
I, for one, have never read or thought that Annie was killed by JTR, but I do think it is likely she was attacked by him, and few people realise that Whites Row is only yards from Dorset Street.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 566
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Hi Philip,
According to Begg, Annie's death certificate reads that the cause of death was a 'sudden effusion into the pericardium from the rupture of the left pulmonary artery through ulceration.' What I think this means is that an ulcer caused a tear in an artery very close to the heart and that blood flowed through this tear into the pericardium, which is the bag around the heart. Too much blood in the pericardium causes death. But I'm no medical expert, so I may well be wrong.
Considering all the circumstances I also think there's a good chance that Annie was one of Jack's early victims.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 156
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 8:48 pm: |
|
Hi all,
The fact that Millwood died a month after the attack of natural causes seems quite the remarkable coincidence. It's certainly possible but how can it be said for sure that the ulcer and resulting bleeding wasn't caused by a clot or infection in the blood prompted by the stabbings?
I agree the assault on Millwood looks very similar to Tabram, who I don't think was likely slain by JTR (I'm basically a c.5 man), and there is even a soldier association in both cases. Perhaps there were three serial killers operating in London in 1888, the attacker of these two women, Jack and the torso killer.
Regards,
Stan |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
Hi Stan
I've always thought that Annie Millwoods attack had similarities to Tabram. Also Ada Wilsons attack for me fits the pattern. Especially if Ada was a prositute who elaborated the story of the man knocking at her door....Did she really take him back with her?
The Man Ada discribes is thirty years old, 5'6'' fair mostache, sunburnt face..wideawake hat.
I understand that what your saying about more than one serieal killer is at work...dont forget Cream and Chapman also in area. BUT I feel that the attack on Tabram could have been a Ripper attack.
Tabram...position of body, location, stabs to abdoman, victim type, time killed.
If you link Annie, Ada and Tabram...you have a frustrated not very successful attacker who's victims struggle and get away...and when they dont as in Tabrams case, he gets covered in blood.
If the ripper desides then to strangle his victim, as in Nicols..lower to floor and cut throat blood going away from killer...his new successful MO leaves the killer more time to carry out his disires and less frustrated.
Small jump in thinking...looks like big jump in MO.
Jeff
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 587
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Tabram...position of body, location, stabs to abdoman, victim type, time killed.
Yes, but. . . . Is it remarkable that a victim of a throat slashing ends up supine? Tabram was killed inside a building, up the stairs. This relates to none of the supposed Ripper victims. Nor were any of the Ripper victims stabbed. That prostitutes were and still are the easist victims may account for the victims shared vocation. And, given that they were all prostitutes, their dying when then they did (midnight to dawn) is certainly linked to the time when they plied their trade.
Tabram may have been a Ripper victim, but the reasons you suggested are either not applicable or too general.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
Hi Don
And yes of course they are very general pionts but there the same pionts that conect Nichols, Chapman, and Eddows. And of course you can also argue that the age and look of the women was also the most likely 'woman on the Street'. Jack just took what he could get...I understand.
My veiw, and the opinion of some others, is that Jack approached his victims and was in their hands as to the location. One would assume that a lady plying her trade would take her client where they would not be disturbed for a few minutes.
Thus Tabram being on a landing was her place. It could just as easily been in a yard or a cheap room. My piont really was that she was within the parramiters generally of a Ripper victim.
And although I understand that we have a number of serial killers working in the area at this time...I feel she fits a Ripper victim better than any of the other knowns ie Chapman, Cream or Torso.
My contention is that Tabram isnt the big jump in MO that many beleive.
That having had trouble with his early attacks Jack decided to strangle his victim first inorder to stop them strugling.
This simple jump or evolution was so successful that it bought about a major change in the final MO because it a) Grave Jack more time b)Got jack less worked up in the Struggle c)Aloud him to concintrate on his main objective....mutilation and distruction of the genital area.
Yes the pionts are general but Tabram does fit the pattern of the other girls....Strangulation and throat cut removed, rather well.
And Tabram also fits the patern for Ada and Annie if they were also prostitutes...which I think likely.
I beleive we have an evolving killer......a local boy, 30 yrs old 5' 6'', fair complextion, who wore a wideawke hat. He probably experimented with weapons starting with a clarsp knife and finding something better. The knife was probably part of the fantasy.
Anyway my main piont is that I dont beleive Tabram to Nichols is as out of reach, given the time period, as some suggest.
Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 157
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Hi Jeff and Don,
Of course, somewhat valid arguments can be made for or against any of the proposed victims. One could even argue that Eddowes was a copycat of Chapman and thus committed by a different killer who had detailed knowledge of the earlier murder.
Best regards,
Stan |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
True Stan
But i think its unlikely that we have 17 copy cats prowling the street.
There is however, as Glen has pionted out often, quite definate disimilarities between Tabram and Nicols.
This is why Tabram is not included today in the Five. Its often thought the MO is too different.
However police at the time linked the Tabram murder and my opinion is personally that its not such a big jump. Just a matter of jack deciding to throatle his victims before he cuts inorder to silence them.
The copy cat thing doesnt really hold up because the killings suddenly stop.
More likely to be one man 'dead or in prison or moved' than several men or copycats. Not with the level or mutilation shown by Jack......I mean even if you'd killed your wife by mistake do you then make it look like Jack?
No my count is eight (cant decide on Emma Smith, think not). Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 614
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 2:01 am: |
|
Jeff - I thought the modern trend was to reduce the number of victims (Stride and MJK have certainly been challenged, and I find few takers on here for adding Coles or McKenzie. I agree, though that, sensibly, there is a greater willingness to take into account early attacks as potentially immature Ripper work.
When you write: My veiw, and the opinion of some others, is that Jack approached his victims and was in their hands as to the location. One would assume that a lady plying her trade would take her client where they would not be disturbed for a few minutes.
I don't challenge that at all. But I think the Hanbury St killing raises a slight problem (at least for me). It means that Jack either allowed himself to go somewhere he could not see, which was almost certainly overlooked - or he had been there before.
Think this through, and it offers the potential to tell us something about Jack.
I certainly see the backyard of No 29 as markedly different from the other murder sites - impossible to assess in advance (ie by looking ahead); no obvious escape routes; enclosed and overlooked.
Just some thoughts,
Phil
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hi Phil
I agree with your observations. Hanbury Street is not a good location for a murder.
But surely if this was the place that Annie had choosen Jack just took what he could get.
So it suggests to me he was a high risk taker.
Had he been there before? Very interesting question...I shall give it some thought, but yes I think Jack has knowledge of girls and area and may have been known to his victims.
I dont buy Coles as a Ripper victim. McKenzie is interesting but having studied it a few times I have always come to the conclusion NO. It does rather fuel the copycat arguement though.
I beleive Kelly was the last victim and something happened after that to stop him. Most probably he was arrested and hanged or imprissoned on another case. I site John Cannon and the Suzzy Lampoon case.
And for what its worth I dont beleive Jack was murdered by his wife.
I do beleive Jack took big risks and was probably cault doing something at some piont.
ie. known to police
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 618
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
Jeff, you wrote: "...Hanbury Street is not a good location for a murder... if this was the place that Annie had choosen Jack just took what he could get... it suggests to me he was a high risk taker. "
I think we need to be cautious here. The crime seen is an exception, outdoors but confined - unlike Bucks Row or Mitre Square.
Think about it, unless Jack had been through the doors and along the passageway before, he could have no idea what lay beyond. He would literally have been going into the unknown. It could even have been a trap - after all the Leather Apron scare had already started.
I thus take pause, and if we assume (as I think we must) that the ladies led him to the place they were killed, then logically I think we must also extrapolate the fact that either Jack had been into that backyard before; OR, he was a local who knew the area well. Eith way we gain an extra piece of knowledge about Jack.
I think Jack was prepared to take calculated risks and work quickly; I don't see him as taking wholly unnecessary risks or going into places which he could not check out, even momentarily, before he was committed to his course of action.
Just my thoughts though,
Phil
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 180
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Yeah I agree with your accessment. Have you read Inkaki's postings on Tabram?
Think there relavant to this thread.
Cheers Phil
Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1817
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
But Jack wasn't committed to his course of action until he was committed.
If Annie led him through to the back yard, reassuring him that they could do the business there in peace, he could have aborted at any time if he thought it too risky. Once in the yard, he would be able to reassess the safety of his situation.
If he usually struck when his victim said "Hand over the money then, dearie", and was positioning herself for him, this would have been the moment to change his plans if he heard voices or footsteps, or to go ahead with the attack if all was quiet. He could still have run for it at any time after that and, if the worst came to the worst, confronted a witness with his knife.
I don't think familiarity with the location would have helped much in this case. In fact, it could be argued that if Jack had known how terribly risky a place that back yard was, in the minutes before everyone would be up and about, his bravado might well have deserted him.
It wasn't exactly the best choice of crime scene, if Jack himself made it because he had been there before.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3507
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
I have to agree with Caz -- for once -- on this one.
I'd say one of the Ripper's traits is a rather wreckless tendency of unnecessary high risk taking. I agree with modern profilers on this.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 621
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
I'm afraid i must disagree strongly with you both.
It is the one site where he could not know what was behind the door. And I think in some ways he was committed once he picked up his prey... people were beginning to be on the look out for "Jack". To simply walk away MIGHT be to attract attention. I don't thin one can rule that out.
Second, one cannot rule out that the Leather Apron scre had started (though it was not yet at it's height), but Jack might well have feared a mob, or a trap - what if Annie had led him through that doorway, along that passage and into a lynching? he could NOT know.
Finally, I see a great gulf between sites which are open streets, closed rooms or squares with three entries/exists, and a place yo don't know what you will find BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SEE IT, or who else might be there.
I'm afraid my instinct suggests to me that there is a vital clue here we are over-looking.
I'm not basing huge theories on it, or claiming anything dramatic - but just asking that people think about it.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 706
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I think that backyard was a lot better place to kill than the locations where Nichols, Stride and Eddowes were killed. It was more secluded with a lot less chance for anyone to wander by -- note, not no chance, but less chance. And should he hear someone coming he was perfectly positioned to hop the fence or stab at anyone who came out the door before the unfortunate person had a chance to see what was going on.
And, heck, the way those backyards were set up was a pretty standard configuration. All he had to have done was go out to use an outhouse behind some other similar house, which he probably had done hundreds if not thousands of times before, to get the concept of house to front, walls on either side. I very much doubt the killer would have felt the need to case the site out beforehand, and, as Caz said, he had plenty of opportunities to back out if he had discovered some situation there that he didn't think he wanted to deal with.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Hello parties,
Yes, the Ripper seemed to be working in reverse of the normal pattern for serial killers. They typically take great care in their earlier crimes, then become overconfident and more careless as they progress. Indeed, that's how they usually get caught. In JTR's case, his first slaying, that is if you're a c.5 guy like me, was in the most public area where he was the most likely to be seen and then progressed to the last in the most sheltered place.
If profilers had millions of cases to base their studies on perhaps they'd have something significant to offer but with just a few hundred I don't view them as very useful. In fact, in most cases, especially this one, teets on a bore comes to mind.
Best regards,
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 622
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Dan, just to take up a couple of points from your post:
...that backyard ... with a lot less chance for anyone to wander by ...perfectly positioned to hop the fence or stab at anyone who came out the door.
But there were intrusions - someone had been moved on before, and two members of the household entered the yard not long aftrer the murder.
ASs for positioning, I thought the door opened towards the body, putting the killer at a disadvantage.
...And, heck, the way those backyards were set up was a pretty standard configuration.
You'd only know that as a local or as someone who had used them before. thus you tacitly accept my deduction, I think. Thank you.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 709
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
A lot less chance for anyone to wander by is not the same as no chance. Yes, some people eventually walked into the area. The other crime scenes had people wander by too, and almost certainly (except for with MJK) a lot sooner after the murder than with Chapman.
I think the door opening toward the Ripper would be an advantage... It'd be more difficult for a clueless wanderer by to see him, while Jack would be lower down and thus have a less obstructed line of sight.
I'm not following how what I said would support your opinion, tacitly or otherwise.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 623
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 1:39 am: |
|
Dan - you wrote:
"... the way those backyards were set up was a pretty standard configuration. All he had to have done was go out to use an outhouse behind some other similar house, which he probably had done hundreds if not thousands of times before..."
That implies a deep familiarity with these houses. That simply is my point, that his preparedness to enter an unseen area tells us something about Jack - he perhaps have local knowledge and familiarity.
The other sites don't necessarily argue that. But I think 29 Hanbury St indicates a Kosminski type, rather than a Druitt, Tumblety of a Sickert.
From all I have read it is certainly unlikely that anyone used to better conditions would willing have used that privy!!!
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
...what if Annie had led him through that doorway, along that passage and into a lynching? he could NOT know.
But that would be the case whether Jack had been in that specific location before; knew the general layout of such locations; or was totally unfamiliar with that kind of building.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 624
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Good point, Caz.   But I was exaggerating for effect.
If he knew what he would find - the size of the yard, its layout, what the risks were - the chance he was taking would be somewhat less than stepping into the total unknown (which was the point I was trying to make by exaggeration!!).
Familiarity would tell him that this was a sleepy house, that it was often used by prostitutes and their clients, that it would probably be relatively low risk.
If he had never been there before, what lay through the door and down the passage was a complete unknown.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3518
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
Stan,
"If profilers had millions of cases to base their studies on perhaps they'd have something significant to offer but with just a few hundred I don't view them as very useful. In fact, in most cases, especially this one, teets on a bore comes to mind."
I know all that and I agree. I didn't say that I agree with them in general, but on this point.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Familiarity would tell him that this was a sleepy house, that it was often used by prostitutes and their clients, that it would probably be relatively low risk.
But this appears to contradict your original argument, which was based on your assessment of this location as relatively much higher risk than others. If Jack had been as familiar with it as you are today, why wouldn't he have said to himself: "Blow this for a game of soldiers - no obvious escape routes; enclosed and overlooked [to use your own words] - not to mention that an early-rising resident could come upon me at any moment."
I suspect he allowed himself to be led there by a prostitute who was familiar with these back yards and seemed confident that they could do business there without let or hindrance. As luck would have it (good for Jack, appalling for Annie) they were not disturbed.
But I can't see that this had anything to do with good judgement and foresight on Jack's part. Had he been aware of the risks beforehand, as you describe them, his awareness could not have lessened them, but at least he could have decided to avoid them altogether by avoiding the location itself; but he didn't.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 635
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Well, Caz, I have explained it as best I can. Sometimes you can only perceive another person's logic if you put yourself into their mind set. I can well understand that if you don't feel that worthwhile in my case. But your questions don't penetrate the surface of what I have tried to set out.
The yard of No 29 was IMHO different to all the other canonical or non-canonical sites associated with Jack. Because he could not know where he was being taken.
I am therefore wondering whether he was prepared to go there because this indicates he might have had familiarity with that yard - he could after all have gone there before with a prostitute he did not kill; or he roamed the area and explored by himself (maybe over a long period). He might even have slept rough at or in No29 as we know people did.
I am not seeking to erect any edifice on this musing. I simply feel that there is a point worth exploring here. If you don't share that intuition that's OK by me. Don't let it worry you.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
You may be right - perhaps Jack was familiar with that yard, or at least with similar locations.
I just didn't understand why you thought he would have assessed the yard as relatively low risk, considering that you argued originally that it was actually very risky once Jack was in there: enclosed and overlooked, and with no obvious escape routes.
Jack could not have known how much time he would have undisturbed.
I understand what you mean about the added risk of going into the unknown. But knowing the risks awaiting him when he took the plunge wouldn't have diminished them, and ignorance might actually have been bliss in this case.
The fact that Jack got away safely from Hanbury Street was not IMHO down to being familiar with his location, although he could have been. He got away despite the risks, and that was down to lucky timing on the day.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 644
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Quite simple Caz:
If Jack went down the passge and through the door, sight unseen, then he was foolhardy. High risk, anything might be waiting for him - high walls, windows looking down into the yard from a very close distance.
If he had been there before, he would know that the fences were probably climbable, to what extent the yard was overlooked, and (if he was VERY thorough or knowledgeable about the locality) even the habits of the residents.
That said, I have argued elsewhere in the last few days that it is always possible that if Jack were (say) Kosminski or Cohen, then he may have been too mad to care - he took risks and was just lucky.
But I do suspect that his willingness to go into the bacyard at No 29 may tell us something useful, if we just think about it hard enough.
Phil |
Gavin Bromley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
On the one hand Phil, you seem very ready to point out the objections you perceive in others' arguments but very unwilling to accept them in your own.
On the other hand you quite rightly suggest that certain ideas are worth running with when you suggest it, but not when someone else does (eg the thread on the IWES theory).
In this case, 'Jack' may very well have known beforehand the layout of the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, as he may have been a regular punter there, but on the other hand he didn't need to know the risk beforehand. He may have gone there as others have suggested and seen what the layout was before making his mind up about doing his deed. He could have aborted and made his excuses or just had normal intercourse if he felt it was too much of a risk. But with the relatively low fences he'd have realised he had quite a good getaway should the need arise.
As for the place being a risky location for discovery with overlooking windows and people coming into the yard at that hour occasionally, maybe he trusted Chapman's judgement as a prostitute that they'd be uninterrupted in their 'business' there, if she seemed to have used the place before.
You assume 'Jack' went out and performed his task every time he set out to. He may have gone out on a number of other nights but aborted his mission due to circumstances. |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Back onto the death of Annie Millwood. I found a site that actually lists her attacker as none other than William Henry Bury. If this is true, then how interesting is that. Unfortunately there is no way of confirming this and the site's authenticity has to be confirmed.
Anyhow, here's the link. The bit about Annie is in
the 3rd paragraph:
www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/serialkillers/bury.htm
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2189
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Gavin,
I suspect that the one thing that Jack the Ripper could not and would not have wanted to have was "normal intercourse".
Natalie
|
Gavin Bromley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Martin,
That site also states that Bury's first murder victim was Rose Mylett. These appear to be unsubstantiated claims - using murder (and assault) victims from the Ripper era.
Natalie,
Perhaps not, I just used that as an example of what he may have done if he decided to abort his murderous mission. On the other hand, it's by no means certain that the Ripper was incapable of (or had no desire for) normal intercourse.
Gavin |
Christopher J Morley
Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
What if Jack the Ripper was actually very familiar with number 29 Hanbury Street, it's layout and it's exit route's, having at one time actually lived there, and had a relative still living there. Also, at the time of the Annie Chapman murder, was living just around the corner. |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Maybe not from living there, but from repeatedly sleeping on the stairs in the passage. See Mrs Richardson's statement in the Daily Telegraph, Sept. 10, 1888. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
