|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 86
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 4:18 pm: |       |
Robert-
Presume we're still on the farthing dip question!!
I reckon it was probably average candle size but really quite thin and cheaply made! Was it found in a ginger beer bottle?? If we're getting really pedantic about this..what is the diameter of the neck of a ginger beer bottle??!(Oooh God!..somebody's going to know aren't they!!)
Waiting with some trepidation!..
Suzi
(p.s. that's an 1888 ginger beer bottle folks!!)
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1685
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
It just says a bottle, no particular kind. I agree it was probably a crap candle - everything sold to the poor folks would have been crap.
Your mention of the ginger beer bottles has made me wonder : why were they there? If Kelly could have got a bit of money by taking them back, why didn't she when she was short of money? If they were worthless, why keep them? Perhaps as there was nothing else in the cupboard, they weren't really taking up any room.
I say nothing else in the cupboard, but I've heard of crusts of bread being found there. That surprises me, because Kelly had breakfast in her room on Thursday morning, and obviously got some fish and potatoes during the evening. So why keep crusts? (stale crusts, I think they were).
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 91
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 4:20 pm: | |
CB
Glad you get a kick!
suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
CB, good to hear that you're going to register.
Bullwinkle, why on earth can't you register? Something about your name being too similar to someone else's? I don't get it.
CB, I know some will disagree with me here, but I doubt if Hutchinson's man killed Mary, because he would have had to wait for her to get undressed. Could he have been that patient?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 98
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Robert!!
Come on.. there was no Hutchinson's man!!
CB and Bulwinkle..register why don't you!! then we can get into some serious verbal tussles!!
All the best!!
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1692
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 6:24 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
I believe GH saw someone, but he invented/exaggerated the description.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 516
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 3:09 am: | |
Hi,
Of course there was a Hutchinson man, I have already given an explanation, for his over done appearence, ie. Lord mayors day,
He volunteered his statement to the police , even tho it placed him just yards from the scene of the crime.
I can not see , how doubting his sighting is plausible, 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief ' is hardly something invented...
What does puzzle me however , is Kellys revised attitude, for it has been claimed that since the Ripper murders strengthened, not only was she scared to venture out at night alone, but her old policy of bringing home clients,[ usually seaman] ceased, and she was reported never to bring strangers back to her room.
Therfore Mrs coxs Blotchy faced man ,must have been trustworthy, and the astracan man, she may have felt, was a gentleman, and not capable of such barbaric acts,[ mayby to her cost].
I feel strongly that,the astracan gent was not her killer, he was hardly dressed for a bloodbath.
And it is possible that this man was the person heard leaving the court at around 6am, after spending a couple of hours simply waiting for daylight.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 102
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 10:26 am: | |
Hi Richard,
"I feel strongly that,the astracan gent was not her killer, he was hardly dressed for a bloodbath."
I'm partly with you and partly with Robert. Like Robert, I think GH saw some man accompanying Mary to her tiny room, but I don't think he looked anything like the man described by GH, at least not as far as his clothes and ornaments are concerned. Like both you and Robert I don't believe this man was Mary's killer.
Hi Robert,
Why couldn't GH's man have been patient enough to wait for Mary to undress and fold her clothes?
All the best,
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1698
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Oh blimey! I don't want to get into the profiling/organized/disorganized/schizophrenia/paranoia quicksand!
I like to look for a likely suspect, and then ask if the suspect was organized/disorganized etc, rather than decide on the mental state of the killer, then find a suspect to fit.
So I have no problem with an organized or disorganized killer coming into Kelly's room and killing her in bed. But if the killer was a client whom she'd brought home, it just seems to make him too organized.
If he was organized, then whatever his motive may have been - sex, anti-sex, living for kicks etc - he seems to have become addicted to it. In other words, he seems to have developed a need, or at least a very strong desire, to do these things (if he was organized). He was actually prepared to run great risks to commit the crimes. And he hadn't killed and mutilated for forty days.
So I find it hard to imagine him waiting patiently while Kelly took off her numerous garments, which must have taken a while.
It's been suggested that in letting her undress, he was making it easier for himself - no clothes to obstruct his knife. But he was used to throttling his victims in the dark, quickly and more or less silently. Kelly's murder looks like a botched job - the stab marks in the sheet, the fact that she doesn't seem to have been strangled, the pool of blood under the corner of the bed (as if she was shrinking from him), the (possible) cry of 'murder', the fact that the throat was cut from the other side to the one he'd been used to, the defensive wounds - how was this making it easier for himself?
Robert
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 105
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I didn't ask the question with the Ripper's mental state in mind, I thought you meant that specifically GH's man could not have been patient enough and I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. You made me stand on the wrong leg, as we say in Holland, or rather, I did it myself as I misinterpreted your remark (I couldn't find the right translation in the dictionary, so I hope you understand what I mean).
Your explanation is perfectly clear and makes perfect sense to me.
If I understand the last part of your post correctly you're saying first of all that - considering the facts - the Ripper didn't seem to have approached Mary in his usual way, because it doesn't seem to have gone as smoothly as with his previous victims and secondly that this doesn't fit with the idea of the Ripper patiently waiting for Mary to undress. If so, I couldn't agree with you more.
Besides the indoor situation I think the most important difference between Jack's previous murders and this one is that, when he attacked her, Mary was already lying down while still alive and not unconscious - unlike his other victims. And probably because he had no experience with this new situation, he nearly botched this one.
As I see it there are two possilities. He either entered with Mary posing as a client, waiting for her to undress, etc., or he entered the room while Mary was already sleeping.
However, there are too many problems with the first scenario, I think. The one you mention: would Jack have waited for Mary to undress? If not, he must have undressed her himself after the attack. If he did wait for her to lie down, what would he have done while she was undressing? If he also undressed himself partly or completely, where would he have kept the knife, which he clearly used in the attack? Not undressing himself would probably have made her suspicious, which could result in attracting the attention of her neighbours.
The second possibility doesn't have that many questions. The only one as far as I can see is how he entered her room. He might just have been very lucky, but if he knew her and had been in her room on previous occasions, gaining entrance wouldn't have been a problem either. Furthermore, the very facts that you mention give me the impression that the Ripper woke her up just before he launched his attack.
All the best,
Frank |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 106
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:36 pm: | |
I just realized that this thread is about the fire in Mary's room, so my post didn't really belong here. Apologies.
Frank |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 108
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
Frank,See you on 'The Fire in Mary's Room'
Looking forward to it!
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 109
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:45 pm: | |
Hang on!!WE ARE ON THIS THREAD!! must take more water with it!! Carry on Frank!
Cheers
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 107
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Now worries, Suzi, I'll stay put.
Cheers,
Frank  |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 108
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:19 pm: | |
Now you're confusing me, having me use 'now' instead of 'no'.
Frank  |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 124
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:22 am: | |
Fank-
Where were we??? Happy New Year by the way!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 112
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:58 am: | |
Suzi,
Fank you for your best wishes! Same to you!!
Frank  |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 130
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
f r a n k
Whoops!! it would probably be a good idea if champagne was illegal over here!!
Cheers!!!
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 115
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 9:57 pm: | |
Cheers Suzi, let's drink to 2004 and not say anything for a (not too long) while !
Frank |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
Since there doesn't seem to be much dispute over what provided the fuel for the fire (Harveys old clothes) then the question really becomes who burned them and why. In my opinion it was not Jack. If I were in need of light, heat, or a means to cook up a heart I would reach down under the mattress of the bed and pull out the slats (clearly visible in photo #1) and burn them. The slats or even the nightstand, properly broken up, would definately burn better than some stinking old clothes. But of course Mary would not burn the furnishings in her room. She would choose something that had no value, and the lice-ridden old clothes of a fellow unfortunate would do nicely.
}Happy New Year to all.
Regards, Vincent |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 5:45 pm: | |
Robert that is a great argument. and I dont know but it was the first time that he was presented whith an opportunity to be patient. Her being undressed and her cloths being folded has led many to believe that the killer broke in by reaching his hand through the window an unlocking the door. would he had taken that risk. Thanks Robert for giveing me something to think about. and thanks for your reply Suzi Take care CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 9:02 pm: | |
Just another thought about your last post Robert if she did invite thr ripper in why would she undress was she planning to have sex with him. I dont think the ripper was interested in sex or was she planning some thing else? Take care CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:03 am: | |
Hi Robert once again I was thinking about what you said about patience and that would rule out the man that cox saw kelly with because he would of had to have waited an hour and a halve before killing her because cox said that she heard her singing at 1:30 and you are right I dont think that the ripper would have that much patience However that doese give kelly time to go out and pick up another man. so Hutchinson could be telling the truth. Hi Suzi, In the kelly murder you have to choose the person you prefer to believe I believe george but you are right what makes one witness better than any other How can I believe george and not Maxwell and the others. I guess my answer is George fits my theory lol Take care CB |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 154
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
CB-
Hi and have a good 2004!! just (ish) recovered now!!
Right..I still think that Mary was quite calm(Pissed but calm) and relaxed when she took our mystery man to her room.The folding of the clothes,the getting into bed,curling up facing the wall(maybe) and allowing chummy to get into bed with her smacks of a 'comfortable' feeling about this chap.The sheet over the head,defensive wounds etc though makes you think that Mary was sadly surprised by her misplaced trust in this character!I like to think this has possibilities 'cos I hate to think of chummy opening the door through the window while Mary slept..scary 'huh!
Sleep well!..what do you reckon??
Suzi |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Sorry to be the anorak who knows how wide a ginger beer bottle is but i have a collection of them, as i dig up old Victorian rubbish dumps, sad i know, but very lucrative if you find one of the rarer examples.
I measured one and the answer is 5/8"'s of an inch.
You can view such ginger beer bottles if you go to www.ebay.co.uk, click on the collectibles link, and type in ginger beer bottles in the database box provided.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
