|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 179
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | 
|
Sarah- Some intersting points here!! |I, like most of us sat through 'From Hell'..although the film in many ways could have been described as a pain in the a*** I don't remember any anal sex references either!! where has Jeff got this all from!!???????????Anyway on the subject of the ubiquitous anal sex..it was the most commonly used form of contaception used by Victorian prostitutes (allegedly!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 395
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:40 am: |
|
Suzi,
Ouch!
Sarah |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:52 am: |
|
Of course they could have been counting the time of the month but this would have interfered with buisness and as anyone who has tryed it will tell you it's very unrelyable. If Kelly was working in brothels I dont think tricking the customers is an option either.
My guess is that pregnancy was very common. Plenty of back street abortions and glasses of Mothers ruine.
Barnet states at inquest he thought Kelly had a boy, was he left with relations? Was it just another red herring?
I'm just ruling out the neat orange theory. Even if kelly was not pregnant. Having read through the suspects at some length then their is also the James Kelly theory that pregnancy may have had another motive ie revenge.
Not that I'm advocating Kelly anymore that a number of other theories.
In reguards to prostitution perhaps the missionary was not the most sencible choice for a prostitute and they new as much about oral and hand jobs as they do today. Sorry if this is getting a little tacky but contreseption does seem to be a lagitimate question given the nature of the victims profession. Assuming that Eddows was one aswell. Sorry Kate.
But seriously I think it quite likely that MJK could have been pregnant at some point in her life. And that it is possible that she could have been pregnant.
My reference to anal sex in the film may have come from else where, I have been trawling alot of books etc over the last few weeks. perhaps the history of prostitution as the worlds oldest profession should be the next pro...ject. Sorry.
Jeff
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Ladies and Gents;
The simplest and cheapest method of birth control for prostitutes in the old days;
A very simple method of barrier contraception used by even the married ladies who wished to prevent yet another child.
First you take a nice clean hanky, fold it neatly, and insert into the vagina prior to copulation.
Can be removed carefully afterward and easily rinsed out.
"Oh, I have lost my hanky!"
Why would Mary need a hanky, did she have a cold?
There were a lot of hankies found on the various victims. Even on Rose Mylett!
Could this have been the method of choice at the time of the murders?
Joan
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1810
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Joan, is this where we get "hanky-panky" from?
Another possibility would be hand relief.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 204
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Robert et.al
I think this could all be a tissue of lies!!Why was the hanky red??...don't even go there chaps!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 2:50 am: |
|
Hi Joan,
Your post is intresting, I had never imagined that this kind of prevention would have been the norm.
The 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief' could be similar to a woman saying to a chap, I have no condoms, to which the male says producing a packet 'I have'
Of course , she may have required the hanky to wipe her eye, or blow her nose, which as I have said many times before, could be relevant, to a lost statement by Maxwell, which no one seems to have read.
Intresting and original thought Joan.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 209
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 6:38 am: |
|
Joan/Richard
What a brilliant idea!!! A great suggestion! makes a lot of sense in this context..anybody got any more info on this hanky stuff?
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 570
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Hi Joan ,and Suzi,
The hankerchief explanation , if confirmed was a cheap way of contraception, in that period, not only would be an explanation for Kellys remark. 'Oh i have lost my hankerchief', but would imply that the astracan man [ hutchinsons suspect[ was familiar with prostitutes safety precedures during this period, and therefore, most likely to have been serviced by kelly before.
He seems to have sex , on his mind rather then mutalation.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 217
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Richard-Exactly!!..wonder when he changed his mind from 'hanky panky' to lighting fires and the rest?? and what caused him to do so...
Suzi |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 9:15 am: |
|
What about the hankie allegedly stained with fruit juice in the Stride case?
Was she graped? Was there a bunch of ‘em? Did she know her dates? Was it a ‘currant’ trend? Am I engaging in fruitless speculation?
Seriously though, although I imagine the fertility of the older victims would have been seriously waning by 1888, maybe a hankie could also be used to lessen the chances of spreading disease.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 409
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 11:47 am: |
|
Blimey that would have chaffed a bit!! |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hi everyone, Here is a paragraph from an article about the history of contraception;
"Another kind of pessary was a solid object to block the cervix. This method was popular in pre-industrial societies, especially Africa; here women used plugs of chopped grass or cloth. Balls of bamboo tissue paper were used by Japanese prostitutes, wool by Islamic and Greek women, linen rags by Slavic women (Gordon, p. 43). The sponge used by Ancient Jews was considered the most effective contraceptive in use until the development of the diaphragm. The sea sponge was wrapped in silk with a string attached."
Now, it is not a far stretch to see my point about the hankies. Any woman of childbearing years would be very concerned about unwanted pregnancy, and not everyone is into anal sex or fake rubbing. Happy Lip had her own way of taking care of customers to avoid spreading her genital herpes when it was acting up.
Thanks for the responses.
Joan
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 6:26 pm: |
|
P.S. Hence the term "Hanky Panky!"
Joan |
jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:47 am: |
|
Just another thought on the contriseption theory.
I remember sometime ago doing some research on the moguls and why they were so sucessful against heavily armoured western cavalry.
The theory ran that they wore Silk shirts under light armour. When pearced by arrows the silk passed into the body and as long as they hit no organ directly the arrow could be gently pulled out leaving no septic slinters or metal in the wound. The wound was thus clean and the mogul cavalry more likely to survive. Due to the lack of heavy armour they were lighter and faster than their oponants.
This might seem like rather a tangent. But another surgestion I came accross was that the moguls also used silk as a form of contriseption. Silk being denser and lighter than cotton. Although much more expensive.
Just another thought. Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 7:08 am: |
|
Joan
Many thanks for your posting which certainly seems to make sence. It figured to me that there must have been ways that prostitutes could avoid pregnancy. Its not likely that this was the sort of thing anyone would write about but must have been an oral history that went back to Roman times and beyond. One street girl passing on the tips to the next from generation to generation. Perhaps there were other methods even herbal remedies that have long, since the invention of rubber, been lost. I'm sure I've hearded somewhere that there were other things used to make condoms.
It would be a very interesting subject to film with our 'Centerians' before it is lost foreever. Not that I'm rearly sure what reaction you'd get at Chelsea pensioneers on the subject. Perhaps not to bad, my experience of people in their nineties and beyond is they can be quite cool on this sought of subject.
Anyway Joan thanks again. Do you know if there is anything writen on the subject that I can quote from? Or if there are any other possible contriception idea's. I recon there must have been loads because the idea that, you could trick that many customers, dosn't make sence.
Suzy-love the idea that this is the origin of the saying 'Hanky Panky' surprised we never ended up with 'Carry on Jack the Ripper'
Ta Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 233
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Jeff!
Ooooooooooh er missus!! Infamy ,infamy they all obviously had it infamy!!..(Loved the post Caz!!)
cheers
suzi |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 6:42 pm: |
|
A ha! found my smoking gun.
So you think that Dr Bond could tell if Kelly had been pregnant or not? well check this report I found on Rose Mylet. Not that I'm suggesting Mylet was a victim but she was a mother:
Finally, Dr. Bond received Anderson's request and examined the body of Rose Mylett, in the hopes of studying the faint marks he had been told about by his colleagues before him, and was surprised to find that they had disappeared! Furthermore, there were no secondary signs of strangulation, such as a protruding tongue or clenched fists. This, he believed, was sufficient evidence to rebute the theory that she was strangled. In fact, he put forth the idea that Mylett had fallen down while drunk and was choked to death by her stiff,
velvet collar.
The medical reports also created two major conflicts with witness testimony. First, there was found no alcohol in Mylett's stomach, which conflicts with Alice Grave's testimony that said she saw the deceased quite drunk with two men outside The George at 2:30 A.M.. Second, the medical report revealed evidence purporting that Mylett had never given birth, this time contradicting the statement made by her mother (who said Rose Mylett gave birth to a son in 1881).
There you go..Mylett had had two children and Dr Bond failed to notice despite the testomony of her mother that she had been pregnant at some point.
I spoke to Paul Begg today who confirms that he is unsure where the reference to Kelly being Gravid comes from in A to Z.
So what we have is a report about a uterus being found by a Dr who is unable to tell if a patient has been pregnant or not.
Would you wont Dr Bond as your Gynocologist?
Frying Tonight
Jeff
 |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff and all;
Thanks for your kind comments.The site I read that article on is at; history of contraception
Happy researching!
Joan |
Anthony Dee
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:26 am: |
|
A witness told Police that the man walking with Mary Kelly said to her " You will be alright for what I have told you." Could it be The Ripper assured Mary Kelly he was a Doctor who performs abortions and she will " be alright " ? |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 279
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Joan
Have just looked up your link!! Wow!! What a sight (site!!) am into Baths Babes and Babylon (!) thread at the moment..fascinating!! Got hubby (suddenly!) interested in what I'm doing all of a sudden!!..have to dissuade him from that!!
Thanks
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 3:21 am: |
|
Hi Anthony,
The words 'You will be alright , for what I have told you' have always fascinated me.
It could well imply that this gent was an abortionist, but of course it could also refer to some monetary gain , that kelly was to received, for services rendered, the fact that kelly was seen to kiss the man, before entering the court, would imply sexual services, but it could be just joy on her part, that a good sum of money was being offered to her, for some other service,ie. giving the man shelter, for a few hours.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 291
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:23 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
Yes,that line is very beguiling isn't it? I would suggest that Mary had prefaced it with something along the lines of "Will I be alright?",now,whether this was a reference to how she would be after a promised 'abortion',or maybe he had offered to pay off her back rent in return for 'favours'.The 'abortion' scenario is tantalising,perhaps this was the beginning of proceedings and then things sort of got out of hand..Hmmmm a lot of food for thought here.
Cheers
Suzi |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 430
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:13 am: |
|
It will always be hard to work out what some of these things people said actually meant as they did talk slightly differently to us today. I always tended to think it meant that he they had just been settling some money and that maybe it was in the form of a question rather than a statement, as in "You will be alright for what I have told you?"
Just a thought.
Sarah |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 293
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:24 am: |
|
Good thought Sarah..Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Richard what do you think?
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Hi Ladies,
In my way of thinking, it simply meant, in a roundabout way ' For your help, you will be well paid, what that help refers to , is open to debate.
Dont you think , that the actual words spoken, are a strange way of communication., it seems back to front, it reminds me , of the person, who could have wrote the grafitti ' The Jews are not the men , etc, it sounds like a foreign way of talking.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 300
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Richard
DEFINATELY!!! I've always been worried by the 'Come with me and you will be comfortable' was a very clumsy line..although I can't be doing with Liz I also think the line attatched to her..'You would say anything but your prayers' has the same feel about it.
Also agree about the 'Jewes' Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Suppose it could be some sort of accent but I DON'T THINK SO! There's a lot of odd stuff going on with these 'quotes' could be a new thread in this
Cheers
Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 178
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:25 pm: |
|
It is a strange phrase, and it does sound like a non-native speaker of English.
For example, "You will be all right for what I have told you" could be "rephrased" as "You will be all right, for what have I told you?" Kind of thing (the "for what I have told you" meaning something like "what have I just said". This is a bit strange though, as the "I have" seems "backwards", as Richard points out.
This "interpretation" suggests he's just re-assuring Mary that everythings "ok", he's "safe", or at least she is. She'll be fine, he just told her, etc. And, given the times, this isn't unreasonable.
So, if that were the intended meaning, we're either dealing with a non-native speaker of English (and such word order confusions are common when speaking a 2nd language), or some sort of Victorian phrasing (or the always possible but untestable "mis-quoted" or "mis-recorded" explanations).
If this were the actual quote (so, let's ignor for now the untestable theories like "mis-quote/mis-recorded" and only keep them in mind as caveats), then does this kind of grammatical "error" suggest any particular 1st language of the speaker? I doubt it. It seems to me we have too little to work with to go that far, but it does fit with Hutchinson's statement that the fellow looked "foreign".
So, if Hutchinson made up the entire event, he's worked in even a tiny detail like speach pattern. On the other hand, the best lie is close to the truth, so for those who like Hutchinson as the Ripper, he may have seen Kelly with someone, heard this phrase, and simply ups the descriptions of the clothes, etc.
And, I'm sure there are all sorts of ways to interpret this one isolated sentence. We have absolutely nothing about the prior context, and by itself, it's not informative enough. It could even be the punch line to some funny story he was telling that he just got a good laugh from, so he's saying it again. Anything can be filled in if we want. I don't recommend this, of course, so we might want to be a bit careful on how far with try and interpret it.
- Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 305
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Jeff
At the risk of being slightly flippant let's start a new thread on the build up to some of the famous lines 'Come with me...'
'You would say anything..'
'I've lost my hanky..'
Think this belongs on Pub Talk..someone care to start it up..Jeff??
Cheers suzi |
Timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 7:16 pm: |
|
For those who don't already know, the line "you would say anything but your prayers" is found in the novelette "The Poacher" by Captain R. Marryat (of "Masterman Ready" fame).
This was serialized in one of the London magazines some time in the 1840s, I can't remember the publication offhand.
You can read the piece here:
http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/marryat/pocher10.html
Regards
Timsta
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 5:21 pm: |
|
The problem with anybody giving an account of what someone else said is that they will give it an interpretation. They will use words, most often, that they are familiar with.
As for Hutchinson's account, who knows. Wouldnt expect him to sit the right way on a lavitory. If we cant trust Dr Bond and Dr brown then where are we with witnesses per say?
Back to square one I would suggest. If only we could go back in time and talk to the street girls. With them lie's the answers.
Having followed Hutley and the resent Park Stabber with interest, I would suggest the Ripper had a long history building up and learning his craft (check Milwood, Wilson and probably others) He'd gotten away with it and had gotten bold would be my guess, learning his craft.
I still beleive Dr Bonds reports unreliable on detail like Kelly's pregnancy, especially as he never made any reference directly. But there you go, its a circle of madness. You cant trust what is said or writen... where next?
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Hi again
yes I've spent a little time going through the site tonight , very interesting. unfortunately the part on victorian sex is still under construction so I have sent a request for further information. Can only ask.
Spent today researching Dr Browns reports which seem much better (more detailed) than Dr Bonds. What is clear is that much professional disagrreement existed between Dr's about the evidence particularly concerning Jacks ability. Can you imagin Dr's arguing like this today? They sound more like scientists.
Anyway I can find know reference from Dr Bond, at present, saying that Kelly was grivid. So I beleive that the referance refers to his report on Rose Mylett. Who was definately a mother at least. And was wrong on a number of points.
Dr Bond appears to have suffered from depression and commited suicide. Not that this is particularly relivant to his ability as a Dr but the whole thing cant have helped his state of mind.
The report by Brown gives some detail of the damage inflicted to Eddows uterus and the exact nature of the knife wounds. I dont think Bond could have been sure. They couldn't even really tell if Kelly had been strangled or not given the extent of the mutilation.
A man on the brink I would Say, but then arn't we all.
Good night everyone
Jeff |
Andi Ward
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Very interesting conversation. Thank you for it.
My thought comes not from the murders, but from having read too much about Victorian times and mind-set. It has me wondering--would checking the uterus for a fetus been one of those things that would be considered unspeakable to the Victorian mind? Doctors were, of course, creatures of their society, after all and, IIRC, did not have their female patients even undress for physical examinations.
It just makes me wonder. |
Georgie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 6:57 am: |
|
This is interesting. My mum and I were talking about this the other day after we watched "From Hell". We concluded that prostitues probably would have been that undernourished and unhealthy that their periods would have stopped, so could not get pregnant anyway. Periods are a sign of healthy bodies, something that most unfortunates were arguably not. just a thought |
Crystal
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Here is just a theory:
Perhaps MJK had "serviced" "Jack" before, and had become pregnant. Perhaps he was a regular. Perhaps she confronted him about this, and he made her to believe that they could "be together" and have the child. He could have illuded her into thinking that she loved him, (because if she had been on the street, not many would care for her, and she may fall easily to that act) and she brought him to her room, with good intentions (thinking his were as well), and he killed her, because she was a prostitute, and she said he was possibly the father of a possible pregancy. If this information was to be spread to the public, then it could ruin a good name (suppose he was of high standings). she could have threatened to "black-mail" him for money or some other request.
This could have been jack's motive for killing (he could have been a regular to many), because the victims were often found with out thier uterus.
Or, perhaps he had a sick hate for prostitutes, because when he was a child, his family was ripped apart somehow by prostitution... there are endless possiblities. These are just "shot in the dark" theories, though.
Oh, and you all mentioned a red hanky? Was it perhaps blood? Maybe she did use it as a contraceptive... and perhaps... well, to put it nicely... it was that week. maybe she couldn't stop the business that week for her "business". Just a thought. |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Hi Crystal
Wether Mary Kelly was pregnant or not is a discussion that has take place in the past. Bonds aurtopsy report simply says 'Uterus underhead' it does not state the condition of the Uterus and does not state as some think 'Not Gravid'. A mistake which doctor Bond is known to have made in the autopsie of Rose Millet.
However the general concensus on these boards and amoungst experts is that if Mary Kelly had of been pregnant that Dr Bond would have noticed and stated that she was 'Gravid'.
Some beleive it possible that if the Ripper had have completely removed a fetus and taken it with him then Dr Bond might possibley have missed that she was pregnant. The state of the body was in some dis-repair after all. There were no blood tests as we know them today.
It's probable that Kelly was Not pregnant and that is all I beleive that were able to state. That is not the same as saying that Mary Kelly was not pregnant because the possiblity however slight remains.
Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 648
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Hi,
If we go with GH's testimony, which is risky, it doesn't appear to reflect any kind of planned meeting. If Kelly was searching for an abortion, wouldn't she have had to arrange for fancy fellow to come by? I would think the meeting would be less jovial as well (they have a laugh after all).
And, although the Dr's were clearly less than 100% accurate at being able to determine if the victim's had given birth at some point (i.e. Rose Mylett), that's quite a different thing from determining whether or not a victim was currently pregnant when killed. The uterous undergoes some pretty obvious changes in it's structure, and the walls thicken (to provide more blood to the featus, and as a protective measure). These changes occur very shortly after the egg implants into the lining, and would be detectable upon examination probably before the woman even realises she's pregnant.
It's possible, of course, that Dr. Bond missed this, but it seems unlikely to me. And, since it's not usual to report that something is in it's "default" state, his omitting of the phrase "not Gravid" does not imply he didn't examine the uterous. For example, he doesn't report the body as "not dipped in acid", or "not burned", but that doesn't mean we should suggest those are possible things that were overlooked. (And, those are things that some other killer's have done so I'm not using outrageous examples here).
It's like the description of items found in the room. One is Joe's pipe, another is a candle in a broken wine glass (can't remember where I read that last part - it's one of the transcripts of Abberline's tesitmony). The wine glass is noted as being broken, because "not broken" is the "default", which is not worth mentioning. The pipe is descriped neither as "intact" nor "broken", and so that tells us it was intact. Her clothes are not described as cut, so they are "fine", while Eddowes's cut apron gets a mention because "not cut" is the default.
Anyway, "not gravid" would be the default state for a uterus. By not mentioning it's "gravid state", therefore, one can conclude that his opinion was that it was "not gravid." I suppose he could make a mistake, but it's my understanding that it's not difficult to tell if a uterus is gravid. On the other hand, determining if a women has given birth some time in the past, although possible, is not as reliable.
Just my thoughts.
- Jeff (the other one) |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
And fine thoughts which I agree with, it just always wondered to me that having been slashed out and placed under her head and given the farocity of the attack quite what the condition of the Uterus might have been in. If Kelly had of been pregnant...'And please understand I am just hypothosizing' and jack had of taken the fetus then surely the uterus would have been very cut swollen and covered in blood...just a thought.
THe other other Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 650
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi other other Jeff! ha!
I believe the uterus wall thickens, very shortly after egg implantation. Extra layers of blood vessels and additional cells are formed from which the plancenta grows (as I recall, but I took biology very long ago and maybe things have changed? Things being the contents of my memory of course).
Anyway, the futher into the pregnancy, to a point, the thicker the uterian lining and, of course, the placenta and featus grow as well. I would think, but want to stress I don't know this for a fact, but I would think that these signs would be fairly easy to spot by a Doctor of the time doing an autopsy. And, these would be things to note, partly because they could point to motive in a murder case.
And, although MJK was mutilated extensively, we shouldn't forget that the uterus was removed without much evidence that it was damaged in previous cases where there were mutilations. Since the removal of the internal organs may have occurred before the mutilations of the rest of the body, I'm not sure that we can be so sure the uterus in this case was cut/damaged. I don't think that's a detail we can make much headway on. It may have been cut and slashed, making it unlike the other murders, or may have been removed without much damage, making it similar to the other murders. One of those is true, but which one we cannot be sure of.
I would suggest it was not damaged, that being the "default" again. However, a detailed description of the condition the internal organs is not recorded in the report we have. That in mind, it seems that since the uterus was taken in a couple of previous murders (Chapman and Eddowes), and in those cases it appeared it was removed without damaging it, I would think damage to the uterus in particular would have been noted in this case because such a detail might point to a different killer, or change the opinion about medical expertise, etc. So, the lack of such a notion makes me tend to believe it was not damaged beyond it's removal.
Of course, everything above is an interpretation and open to error on my part.
I realise you are only pondering on the pregnancy idea, so I'll present here my opinion for what it's worth. Personally, I don't see any reason to suggest that MJK was pregnant at the time. Nothing in the the physical evidence leans towards this conlusion, and the appropriate bits of anatomy were examined. I'm pretty sure that if she had been pregnant, this would have been observed and noted. The lack of such information would not require recording because it's a "dog bites man" situation ("Dog Bites Man" is not news and not recorded, but "Man Bites Dog" is news and is recorded).
Well, that's my opinion anyway. If parts of it read more "definate" than an opinion, that's my fault of sloppy wording.
- other Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Jeff I agree totally with your accessment.
However I still beleive that from this we can only state Mary Kelly was PROBABLY not pregnant.
Admittedly the Utterus in chapmans and Eddows case was whole. However if the Ripper had have been looking for a fetus and taken it, and placenta, with him, then the only thing Dr Bond would have been able to identify if or not Kelly was pregnant would be the thickness of the womb.
As I've pointed out in other posts I dont beleive Dr Bond was as good as Dr Philips. I also read somewhere that he commited suicide a year or so later (this was then contradicted by another post I read stating he lived into retirement) after suffering depression. Bond also made a misstake in Rose Milletts autopsy. I've alsways been currious how good these doctors were, they must have used very differant methods than those today.
If Bond did miss something, its possible, however slight that Kelly could have been pregnant.
Given the evidence I also think its very unlikely but thats not the same as saying its impossible. Many thanks for your sound reasoning however.
Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 651
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 04, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You are, of course, correct. It's not impossible, and I hope I didn't sound like I thought it was! I do, however, agree that it is highly unlikely. Also, I think that this is one of those situations where the evidence we have leads to the interpretation that MJK was not pregnant.
Note, interpretations can be wrong of course, the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that MJK was not pregnant, but I think it's safe to say that any theories out there that are built upon MJK's pregnancy as a central motive for the crimes, is one that is building upon an extremely shaky foundation.
- Jeff |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Hi Crystal,
Interesting thoughts! I would like to believe that Kelly was pregnant. I am a Tumblety suporter and given his history a pregnant Kelly would fit nicely. I could picture the good doctor making a house call and slipping Kelly some of his funny herbs. A visit from the doctor would explain the position of the body on the bed and it would explain why the ripper let Kelly undress and get comfortable. I doubt that the ripper had any previous relations with any of his victims. The theory you put forth about Kelly knowing her attacker and wanting to have a baby with him and live happily ever after is tragic and it is a very stereotypical picture of Kelly. Over the years Kelly has been dipicted as being diferent from the others. She is somehow kinder and innocent. She is a woman who is a victim of Jack the ripper because of unfortunate circumstances. While Nicholes,Chapman,Sride and Eddowes fell prey to him because they were unfortunates. If she was pregnant then Barnett would be the most likely cannidate for the father. If Barnett had knowledge of a pregnancy he would of told the police unless he killed her. I would like somebody to be able to proove that Kelly was with child it would explain the crime scene and it would be easier to put my preferd suspect in her room that night. However, there is no proof that Kelly was prgnant.
Your friend,CB |
Crystal Heilaman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
CB,
They doctor's vistit does sound very reasonable. Whether it be true, or not. The scenerio I presented was based upon a sheer hypothesis. I never actually stated that she WAS "with child". Maybe she just thought she was; women can have "alterations in their cycles" for many reasons. (Stress, Malnutrition, STDs). Also, it was mentioned that the uterus was undamaged. (in the "default" state) If this were true, could it mean that the killer had a sort of respect for the "womanhood" or uterus? I have no real stance on this subject. I am just presenting possible theories, that could (and probably will) cause some conversation / debate / thought on other possibilities. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page