|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:15 pm: | 
|
This one slayed me.
That two folk could have been so similarly slaughtered in the space of two months quite defeats me.
The Times, December 31st 1888.
MJK was not alone. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
On Jan. 2nd 1889, Mr. Phillips, the police surgeon for the Whitechapel division of London, was sent to Bradford to examine the remains of the unfortunate boy 'for the purpose of obtaining information and comparing notes between the Whitechapel and Bradford tragedies'.
This is the best solid evidence I have yet seen that the Metropolitan police were still looking for Jack the Ripper almost two months after the death of MJK. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 662
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Considering they were debating Clay Pipe Alice and others later, it's clear that they were still looking for the Ripper long, long after the death of MJK.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi AP and Dan
Considering that Scotland Yard was still scrutinizing Ripper letters in the mid-1890's, I would say, yes, indeed, there is no clear evidence that they thought the Ripper's last murder was Mary Jane Kelly and nor that they believed the murderer died in the Thames at the end of 1888. Quite the opposite.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2039
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Yes, I know that chaps, and I guess I'm just a bit out of date as well, but it appears that Macnaghten -and many other senior police officials - did not share our opinion.
That is, when the name of Thomas Cutbush suddenly popped up out of the blue as Jack the Ripper in 1891, and then again in 1894.
As Macnaghten said:
'A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.'
Now why should Macnaghten say that in 1894 when he knew damn well from his own police records that the police were still actively hunting Jack in 1891?
I would say, because of Thomas Cutbush. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1436
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I believe the key to this is that we are only getting one part of the story from MacNaghten, not the total picture. What Stewart Evans said to me when I interviewed him for Ripper Notes some years ago is pertinent here, informed I believe by his knowledge of police procedure, being himself an ex-Suffolk copper, that different police officials could hold different theories and beliefs about the case. It is likely after all that they had favorite suspects but that none knew for a fact who the murderer was, despite Sir Robert Anderson's statement that the identity of the murderer was a "definitely ascertained fact" -- the shreds of evidence that we are discussing show otherwise.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
But you would agree,Chris,that uniquely the only suspect who was named and made mega headlines in a National newspaper was Thomas Cutbush.
I bet the very idea was an anathema to them all.... a relative of one of their Senior Police officers, himself once involved in the Ripper investigation....
Machnaghten"s memorandum sounds more and more like a desperate attempt to exonerate Cutbush & co rather than an accusation of the other three!
Natalie
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
With all these police notations or statements about the case, you have to evaluate the context. MacNaghten was writing an internal memorandum, to note that Cutbush has been mentioned as a possible suspect in connection with the Whitechapel murders, but hey there's these other guys who make better suspects. That is not to say that these are the only suspects, just that these fellows are more likely than Cutbush. So the memoranda info is rather unsatisfactory, not to mention MacNaghten making the mistake that Druitt was never a doctor, and so on.
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on May 05, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Chris T,
What Stewart Evans said to me when I interviewed him for Ripper Notes some years ago is pertinent here, informed I believe by his knowledge of police procedure, being himself an ex-Suffolk copper, that different police officials could hold different theories and beliefs about the case.
I totally agree. We work in pairs when investigating cases. Often my partner comes up with a view which I not only disagree with but cannot for the life of me see how he got to that theory. And Im sure its the same with me.
Its a valid point Stewart makes. And one that I agree with and experienced.
Cheers,
Monty
Doc-tor? The Doc-tor??? - Dalek
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I could accept that if
a]the Sun hadnt had a great sensational series of features on Cutbush in which they name Jack the Ripper, for the first time in print- as far as can be ascertained.
b]if Thomas Cutbush had no history of violence-which as you know he had
c]if Machnaghten had provided a shred of evidence as to why he suspected his prime suspects- two of whom had no history of violent crime[or any history of crime whatever]
It looks as though he is either being very careless with the truth-as well as a whole lot of other things or he simply had no idea whatsoever
who the ripper was ,couldnt be bothered to argue his case and didnt find it necessary to explain
his reasons.Quite frankly the case against Druitt and Kosminski looks like he made it up as he went
along!
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Anyways back to the murder of the poor boy in Bradford.
The boy is slaughtered; limbs removed, abdomen missing and heart tucked under his chin; and then the remains are neatly wrapped up in a parcel of the boy’s clothes, tied around with the boy’s belt and dumped in a manure ditch.
Of course we talk of the murder and mutilation of a young male here, rather than a young female, but nonetheless useful lessons can be drawn by comparing this murder to the killing and slaughter of Mary Jane Kelly.
Many will have it that the killing and slaughter of MJK was motivated by the killer’s ‘pleasure zone’, in other words it was a ‘lust’ murder - Colin Wilson, bless his old cotton socks, equated the murder with the actions of copulating dogs - and the killer was experiencing some kind of sexual high by visiting such slaughter on his victim.
I, on the other hand, as ever, have always looked at MJK’s death and mutilation and seen either a ritual or some kind of formalised pattern at work, a pattern that seems to dictate a rudely interrupted finale.
The case of the Bradford boy might well prove to be an important link in establishing the true motive behind what we witness in the slaughter of Mary Jane. Not the murder, I must stress that, I talk solely of the mutilation that followed.
For it does seem obvious to me that the killer of this young boy in Bradford was motivated by one motive and one motive alone concerning the actual slaughter of his victim… and that was to render his victim into the smallest portions possible, so that the victim could be wrapped up as a neat little package and then disposed of in a place and situation where he thought the remains unlikely to be found.
So I see a simple ‘disposal’ motivation for the slaughter of the boy in Bradford, and I do wonder whether a similar motive could be applied to the slaughter of Mary Jane.
Merely that the killer may have been disturbed before he was able to finish his task. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Which brings to mind the Torso Murder near Cable Street.
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 368
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Out of curiosity,since I haven't read about the Bradford Boy and since I see ritualists in my cereal...
Were there police inquiries made in that area,as were done in London at hocus pocus shops [ see C.G.'s and Spiro Demolianis's stories in past Ripperologist magazines ] ?
This one is interesting...Thanks for mentioning it A.P... |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 585
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Most 'disposers', like the 'Torso murderer', just cut of head, arms and legs and 'wrap things up'. Why waste time opening up her abdomen and taking out all organs when they are nicely 'wrapped up' inside her body in the first place? Why waste time cutting her arms and legs and so extensively mutilating her face?
His primary motivation may have been to completely destroy this woman, but I doubt whether his main object was to cut her to pieces and wrap her up into small bundles just to be able to dump the remains of the woman elsewhere so that she wouldn't easily be found.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Wasn't the body of Elizabeth Jackson ( classed as one of the 'Thames torso murders' I think ) mutilated before being hacked to pieces ,parcelled up and disposed of in several different places?
If Dr. Hebbert is a reliable source Elizabeth had her chest cavity opened up and organs removed, 2 large flaps of skin removed from her abdomen and right buttock, her intestines were removed and most horific of all, she was six or seven months pregnant and an incision had been made into her womb and the foetus removed.
Debra
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Frank’s point is a good one, as is Debra’s.
Therefore is the removal of internal organs part of the murder ritual, or is it part of the ‘tidying up’ procedure?
Why did the milkman kill the boy in Bradford?
I must try and find out. |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 32
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
AP
I think that eventually the milkman William Barrett was found not guilty, the case against him was purely circumstantial and without a guilty pleading he had no case to answer. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Well done, Debra, you found the result of the long winded trial a long time before me, despite a mad search I never got to the conclusion.
I had my doubts about William Barrett as the guilty party a long time ago, in particular a witness description of a man seen carrying a parcel of ‘clothes’ through the village at a time that did not match Barrett’s activities on the day of the murder.
However, I still have reservations about his guilt, again in particular with his early unasked-for statement to the police that he no longer employed the murdered boy’s sister because he had ‘read about the outrages being committed on young girls in the newspapers.’
Now that is suspicious. A little bit of scratch at the hatch of madness there.
It was established by the police surgeon that the clothing of the young boy had been removed before death, and then he had been stabbed, twice in the heart, dismembered and then redressed as a ‘parcel’.
I don’t think the killer would have wanted his victim naked before killing him unless there was some kind of sexual motive at play here.
And no, I’m not moving away from my reluctance to label the crimes of such killers as sexual, but in this case the removal of clothes from the boy before the murder does seem to indicate a sexual motive of some nature.
The boy was not after all a whore.
No Howard , I haven’t as yet been able to find any police activity in this regard but I’m still looking. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 369
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Thanks A.P....that would be interesting to see if the police did take at least a cursory look at those mumbo-jumboists.
As you are well aware,the sexuality of victims used in ritual killings is secondary to their availability in many cases.
One more thing.....since I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet....was there any mentioning of sexual contact [ penetration ] on the victim [ the Bradford Boy ] ??
Thanks ! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2458
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Just picked this up.... am interested that Mr B Philips was sent Oop North to investigate this definately foul 'orrible murder on the auspices that there were similarities to the 'horrors' in Whitechapel!
Surely there's something here but on serious thought SHURELY NOT just a ghastly coincidence! (beware of milkmen! 'specially if their name begins with E )
Suzi
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2231
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
I have always found the Bradford case particularly awful - not only the nature of it but such a young life lost.
Here are the details and family background of Johnny Gill, the Bradford victim:
Johnny Gill
"8 year old boy murdered in Bradford, December 1888"
(Actually he was 7 years old at the time of his death)
1881 Census:
729 Bolton Road, Bradford, York
Head: Thomas Gill aged 25 born Windhill, York - Cab driver
Wife: Mary Ann Gill aged 26 born Hipperholme, York
Children:
Ruth aged 5
Jane aged 3
John aged 2 months
All born in Bradford
His death was registered as follows:
1st Quarter of 1889
Bradford, West Riding, Yorkshire
John Gill aged 7
Volume 9b Page 84
The family in 1891 is listed as follows:
41 Thorncliff Road, Manningham Road, Yorkshire
Head: Thomas Gill aged 35 born Bradford - Cab driver
Wife: Mary A Gill aged 36 born Halifax
Children:
Ruth aged 15 - Wool drawer
Jane aged 13
Samuel aged 7
All born in Bradford
and in 1901:
41 Thorncliffe Road, Bradford
Head: Thomas Gill aged 45 born Bradford - Cab driver / Groom
Wife: Mary Ann Gill aged 44 born Bradford
Children:
Sam aged 17 - Butcher
Norah Atkinson aged 25 born
Granddaughter:
Ruth Atkinson aged 5
All born in Bradford
(Message edited by Chris on October 20, 2005) |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Thank you, Chris.
My interest in this case is still very much there, and like you I do wish to understand exactly what was going on. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
