|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 547
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 2:12 pm: |       |
Glenn!!!!!!!
Help me out here!!!
Sarah - sorry if I've upset you but can you imagine what 'the girls' were actually like in life??? My heart still goes out to Annie on her last night,when she was seriously not well.... I can feel for her but Mary???...tooo full of herself I think....
Cheers Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
"My heart still goes out to Annie on her last night,when she was seriously not well.... I can feel for her but Mary???...tooo full of herself I think...."
Ouuuh, that was a tough one. OK, I'll help you out (or maybe I'm just getting even deeper in the... blip!)
Sarah,
These women lead a hard life. They were no angels and they were certainly marked by their environment one way or the other. I have the deepest respect for Mary Kelly as a human being among the rest of us, and her fate was the most horrible possible.
But unlike many of her "colleagues", she had started out rather well and were nowhere near East End to begin with. She could have stayed in West End. She could have stayed in Paris etc. etc. Many of her mates hadn't these opportunities.
Of course, conditions were hard for most of these women to begin with, but that is not the whole story. Call me a cynic, but we can't blame society for everything. Stride had started out as a house-maid in Gothenburg (like hundreds of other women), but for some unknown reason she turned to prostitution (even before she went to England), and when her English husband died she was at it again. Some had been married and lead a comfortable life but started drinking and naturally they lost everything. I believe there were other options in the beginning for many of them. These were harsh women and had to be in order to survive in that millieu and I find it hard to believe that Mary Kelly was that much different. They usually laughed in the faces on those who took pity on them. Sad but true.
I am not putting the blame on them or judging them but the prostitutes were in general stubborn and self-destructive people and there is no need to romanticize about them or make them look better than they were. It is quite possible that Mary Kelly was a likeable person, but I doubt that she and I would have that much in common. We shouldn't get fooled by her young age and alleged good looks.
"When Annie was killed it was probably still dark as it was Autumn and would be dark still at 6 in the morning. Mary may have been killed around 8 am when it would have been light."
As Don points out, sunrise was at 5:26 a.m. when Annie was killed.
And my point was, that both of them happened early in the morning (not in the middle of the night) nevertheless -- light or dark -- not in the middle of the night.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 277
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Hi Sarah, Suzi,CB, Glenn-where to start?I have tried to envisage Mary and the other victims and Mary seems very like the other women in that she appears to have been dependent on drink and if she was a suffering alcoholic as I suspect they all were she would not have had even the scant "choices" that were available in the "straight" world of seamstresses and cleaners.Just one point, Glenn, about your compatriot Elizabeth Stride. Neither you nor I know why she left her employment but many male writers of that time talk of employers who raped the young women who worked for them as domestic servants and imply that this was brushed under the carpet sometimes. But it wasn't the man of the house who got thrown out but the maidservant-especially if she became pregnant.This could have been a reason for her leaving.
As far as Mary Kelly is concerned I think Mary, and indeed most if not all the other victims, were targeted by the Ripper because they suffered from alcohol problems and were constantly needing to find the money to "top up".
This combination of being more desperate than others and therefore also more reckless would have led to them being noticeabled prey for the Ripper.
I truly believe Mary was as goodhearted as various people at the time said she was.She was fairly young ,though not exceptionally so for those times since many 25 year olds in Victorian times would have had several children to care for
-I think Polly was married at twelve and had had her five children by the time she was 25 for example.We really dont know that she was even particularly attractive but she certainly appears to have had beautiful hair and to have kept herself neat and clean which in itself must have been some achievement in those days.
I dont think we can easily determine from this point in time whether we would have liked Mary Kelly or not. All we really know is that like many of the working class women of her time she seems to have had to live a hand to mouth existence and in her particular case failed even at that level.
Glenn I"d like to ask you whether you happen to think Victorian "society" was a good thing if say you happened to have been born in the 1860"s,and the only options in the Welsh mining village you were brought up in were to live below ground for most of daylight hours with children as young as four helping you out and an explosion that could happen at any time and blow you to pieces.Mary apparently lost her husband at 18 through just this happening-----possibly Mary couldnt bear to go through such a traumatic experience again, possibly this is the reason Mary turned to drink
maybe after losing her first love she lost her trust in the way of life of the Welsh mining village of her childhood and what it had come to represent for her.Its possible that it was a sense of defeat at such a young and impressionable age that drove her towards prostitution.
No Glenn for me its not Mary that is at fault here but all the negative forces that preyed on her young soul.And if you say well this is so much romantic nonsense I would answer you well
maybe and so be it "there but for fortune go you or I"
Best Wishes Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 5:02 pm: | |
So, disregarding Joe Barnett, which I am more than willing to do (sorry, Leanne & Richard Inc.), we have to consider two possible options here:
1) Mary Kelly takes a client home (and I don't mean the beer-drinking, carrotty moustached man here) -- or is waiting for a certain client to visit her. She lets him in, she undresses, folds her clothes neatly and then suddenly her client, old Mr. Jacky, attacks her and mutilates her.
2) Her last client leaves, and Kelly stays in bed or gets ready for bed.
In the mean-time the perpetrator have noticed her earlier on Dorset Street and seen her go with into Miller's Court with a client. After having seen the client return, he watches her through the window as she blows out the candle (or whatever light she had)!) and as she fall asleep.
Then the Ripper (yes, the Ripper), gets into the room (either by unlatch the door through the broken window or because of the door not being thoroughly closed), and surprises her. She wakes up, screams "Oh Murder" and then....
I can't help it. It is just personal speculations, but to me alternative nr 2 sounds more plausible in my eyes.
The last time someone noticed the room, the light was off and the singing had stopped -- which could have indicated that she just simply had gone to sleep -- or already was dead.
We also know that her clothes were folded on the chair. To me much indicates that she was surprised while asleep. I could be utterly wrong of course, but I can't shake this notion off.
I know much of this has been pondered earlier, I just needed to summarize the alternatives in my head. Sorry if I confused anyone besides myself.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 548
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Hi Glenn et. al
Is it just remotely possible that the singing stopped and the light went out because Mary herself went out again?..Could it also be that the footsteps heard in the Court later in the night were Marys????? just a passing thought....
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I am just basing my views on the studies I've made on women in the same situations as Kelly, Eddowes and other Ripper victims.
Actually, you are absolutely right regarding the servant girls in the house-holds. Of course these women were in a vulnerable position as employees, especially among wealthy families. It was actually quite common that they were sexually harrased -- unfortunately. But that can hardly explain everyone's direction and fate. I don't know about London, but here in Scandinavia we had religious women groups that even helped girls with a criminal record to find a situation, so there were help available.
I have read numerous of witness testimonies from young prostitutes as well as from their friends and relatives, and it is surprising how often they ended up as prostitutes even though they didn't have to. And although I sometimes feel sorry for them, I must admit that I don't always understand them (although I do know their complete personal background). I have seen documentations from doctors trying to help the women on the right track, but they just refused to accept the help they got. And then, not half of them had experienced any tragedies or family deaths. Now, I am not saying that this was always the case, but it did happen, and I think it is important to point out. They were not always victims of unfortunate circumstances.
I didn't say that it was Mary's own fault. I think I was quite clear on the point, that I didn't want to put the blame on or judge any of those women. However, society was not always entirely to blame for their outcome; several others who had encountered similar experiences chose other directions, that can't be disregarded.
From my own studies, I have repeatedly been forced to pull myself by the ear instantly in order not to romanticise about them or to pity them, because I know from own experiences how easy that is to do -- and believe it or not, I belong to those who all too easily gets affected by a person's fate and personal hardships; that is why I especially finds this important.
It has nothing to do with putting the blame on anyone (there was a similar discussion on the Eddowes thread), but to see them through the eyes of the environment they lived in objectively.
Now, this obviously is a sensitive and rather controversial subject, and I have no idea who I got on this track in the first place, but I think Kelly and the others would benefit from us seeing them for whom they really were, not the picture of whom we want them to be.
Now, I think I better but out from that discussion while I still can, in one piece...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
"Is it just remotely possible that the singing stopped and the light went out because Mary herself went out again?..Could it also be that the footsteps heard in the Court later in the night were Marys????? just a passing thought..."
It is of course a possibility. I don't remember the exact time lines at the moment for the different observations, but I can't rule it out. However, I still can't really come to terms with the fact that she was killed by a client, considering the folded clothes. Of course, I've seen quite plausible explanations here on this thread regarding that detail, but still...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 278
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Glenn Thankyou for replying to my post. I know this to be a commonly held view that you have.
I am in this instance trying to get to know the individual who made up Mary.I have simply taken some things I have been told relate to her history
a]she told some people she was born in Ireland and that when she was very young she moved to Wales where at the age of 16 she married a miner.
The area I was looking at was the death of her husband in a colliery disaster barely two years after they were married and the effect that may have had on one so young.
Mining disasters in Wales were tremendously poignant partly because the entire community
used to grieve for the men and some times women who had been killed.There is a whole literatiure here surrounding such mining villages and ballads about the disasters are still known and passed from generation to generation.
I was therefore wondering about how this would have affected Mary since her husband was one of the fallen miners.
I wonder whether she would have had support from others in the community to the same extent as those who had been born and bred there would have had.Because such communities were often closed to outsiders and to a certain extent Mary and her family would have been viewed as outsiders since they originated from Ireland.
So glenn I dont consider any of the above to be a romantisisation of Mary Kelly-just a search for her history.
Like you I can get irritated by too romantic a version of certain famous characters of that time
La Dame Aux Camellias type of thing----but that isnt what I was doing at all.
We are all of equal value as human beings and its true that I personally dont like it much if a group of women are singled out for criticism
or ostrasizing when I dont know their circumstances.I also think that when this happens it leads to just these sort of situations where nobody gives a toss about the victims until a "respectable" woman or person happens to be killed.
Best Wishes Natalie. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 7:58 pm: | |
Hi Glenn & all,
“I can't help it. It is just personal speculations, but to me alternative nr 2 sounds more plausible in my eyes.”
I can’t help agreeing completely with you, Glenn! Let me elaborate on this a little.
It’s generally accepted that the Ripper met his victims somewhere in the street, that they retreated to what eventually became the murder spots, and that shortly after arriving there he attacked and killed them. As the Ripper derived his pleasure or sense of power from mutilating his victims, for which he needed them dead, he killed them quickly.
If we extrapolate this behaviour to Mary Kelly’s case, we would see Mary meeting the Ripper in the street, after which they’d go back to her room. Soon after having entered the room we’d see the Ripper strike, meaning that he wouldn’t have waited for Mary to undress, much less for her to neatly fold her clothes. Besides the fact that the Ripper got his kicks out of mutilating his victims, which would probably make him kill his victims quickly whatever the situation (indoors or outdoors), the fact that he hadn’t killed for about 6 weeks supports the idea that the Ripper wouldn’t have waited long after having entered Mary’s room before launching his attack.
But this scenario in which the Ripper strikes very shortly after entering the room in Mary's company is unlikely to be true, because undoubtedly Mary was killed in her bed, almost without any clothes on. So, this leaves us with 2 possibilities: Jack the Ripper was either the charismatic psychopath, who was capable of restraining himself at least some five minutes while Mary undressed and folded her clothes, perhaps even enjoying these minutes with the thought of what he was about to do, while making small talk with his intended victim, or he – like you suggested Glenn - didn’t enter Mary’s room together with her.
The waiting psychopath theory doesn’t agree with the mutilating murderer who kills quickly, and besides, judging from the previous murders, in my view there’s no reason to believe the Ripper was a charismatic, manipulating and cunning psychopath. So, that leaves us with the second possibility, where the Ripper enters the room by unlatching the door through the broken window or very luckily finding the door not being thoroughly closed.
As I also think there’s little chance that a ‘complete madman’ would’ve ended up in Miller’s Court and would’ve tried Mary’s door or found the ‘window trick’ by chance, I thinks it’s likely that the Ripper saw Mary pick up a client in the neighbourhood, followed them to Miller’s Court, remained in the neighbourhood to be able to see the client leave, wait for her to perhaps come out again, then after some time get into her room, climb onto her bed where Mary, who had just dozed off or fell asleep, woke by the sudden movement and perhaps could only utter a cry of ‘Oh murder’ just before he struck and killed her.
The stabs through the sheet, the wounds in her upper arm and, other than the cry of ‘Oh murder’, which might not even have come from Mary Kelly, the lack of signs of a struggle lead me to believe that Mary was taken by surprise, but also that Mary surprised her killer, or at least, she reacted differently than he expected. In the previous cases the Ripper was used to render his victim senseless, lay her on the ground, cut her throat and mutilate her. I believe an important difference in this case was that Mary was already lying when the Ripper entered the scene, meaning that she wasn’t dead or unconscious. And because she was lying on the far side of the bed where he couln’t reach her well, he had to climb onto the bed. The stabs through the sheet and the wounds in her arm seem to suggest that Mary was awake when the Ripper stabbed her, so I believe she woke up just before he made a somewhat forced attack.
By the way, when considering this scenario Hutchinson keeps popping up.
Of course, this is all mostly speculation, but at least it’s based on facts and indications.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Hi Natalie.
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, if what we know about her is true, she obviously married quite young in Wales and her husband was killed during a mining disaster (I bet Richard and Leanne knows more about this). Oh yes, I very much believe that it could have affected Mary. Without doubt. But it don't explain why she would turn to prostitution. However, it could very well have made her into an alcoholic. I have no idea when she started to drink, though. I would imagine it wasn't until she went further down the social scale and ended up in East End, but I could be wrong in my speculations here.
Regarding support from the community, I wish I knew more about how things worked in England, because I am not that well informed about that. I have already in many other aspects found out that things differed quite much in London from the conditions here in my part of the world.
No, I wasn't implying that you were romanticising Kelly, but I think many others have a tendency to do so, and I believe it isn't fair to Kelly herself. The fact that we all are of equal value was also my point, and that is why I don't like to see some of these women put on a piedestal. And I believe that is quite easy to do with a woman who is young, considered pretty and surrounded with mystery since we don't really know what she looked like.
On all three points, she is very similar to a murder victim I've studied thoroughly here at home, also a young prostitute -- naturally she was surrounded with a myth that she was a luxury femme fatale with powerful enemies, when all she really was was a ragged vagrant women with one collection of clothes, selling her body for nothing to simple low-lives in the worst possible social environment -- although her brother and sister, who grew up under the same circumstances, turned out well and respectable.
From what I've learnt it took some rather crude character features to be able to survive in the prostitution millieu during the late 19th century -- it bet it was rougher then we ever can imagine, and it certainly didn't improve their personality. It was the nature of their work, it had nothing to do with them being a certain group of women.
The fact that nobody gives a toss about a victim until -- for example -- a beautiful or charismatic woman is murdered, is exactly why I react to why Kelly is surrounded by so much romanticism (although that is no cause for neglecting her either), although I must admit that I too find her intriguing and occasionally falls into the trap myself.
However, among the Ripper victims I have always been fascinated by Eddowes, much for her personality, character and sense of humour in the middle of all her personal tragedy and all her shortcomings. But the fact that she wasn't glamourous or young and pretty makes her equally interesting in my view, and more human. And it is as an unfortunate and a human being, who made mistakes like everybody else, we should see Mary Kelly -- no more no less.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1154
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
Hi Frank!
Well, what can I say!
I agree with every word of it -- and I do mean everything, also in your "profile" of the Ripper (have we ever been this much in agreement with each other?)! It may be speculations, but to me they are plausible indeed and you seem to have read my mind here; you just made me completely superfluous... 
I find it hard to grasp also that this type of killer would have waited for her to undress and that really doesen't, as you imply, fit the other Ripper murders either (if we consider the Ripper to be her killer).
Naturally other options can't be ruled out, but I think this scenario is the most plausible as I see it, and very much for the reasons you point out. A very good elaboration, Frank.
Yes, I know, Hutchinson sometimes nudges at the back of my head also. I wish he would go away... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 151
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 9:38 pm: | |
Natalie, et al.,
IF, IF, IF . . . all of Mary Kelly's life (including whether that really was her name) is one surmise after another built upon what may have been but a fantasy spun for an adoring swain. So to speculate about how hard her life may have been as a young immigrant widow in Wales seems to me to be awfully close to romanticizing simply because it can't at this point be built upon any foundation of fact.
We do know a lot about the other four canonical victims and several differences between them and Kelly stand out. For one thing, the road that finally led them to Whitechapel, grinding poverty and hopelessness was a long and tortuous one. More important, even up until the end they all made attempts to earn money at something besides selling their bodies. They did crochet work, sold trinkets, cleaned rooms in private houses or lodging houses and even put in time at workhouses. They tried, but failed.
In contrast, even by her own admission (which is all we have anyway) Kelly seems to have never done anything but get by on the kindness of strangers and lovers. I can't speak for anyone else, but that is why I find Kelly unlikable as a person.
And let me hasten to add that finding her unlikable does not mean she or any of the others deserved their end. Nobody does. Have I made myself clear or do I still sound curmudgeonly?
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 692
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:44 am: | |
Hi,
I have always believed, that kelly survived the night hours, And the men that she picked up, respectably dressed man around 11 pm, the carrotty man around midnight, and Hutchinsons well dressed gent at 2am, were innocent of any crime.
It is my speculated opinion, that she was killed around 9am, by someone she knew well, someone she trusted , who was waiting in her room, when she returned shortly after Mrs Maxwells second sighting, I also believe this murder was premeditated, and the killer went to millers court , believing Kelly would still be in bed.
When she entered her room, she told the person there, that she felt really bad, and it was on his suggestion, that she should get back in bed, it had been raining , it certainly was at 8am, because catherine Pickett, knocked her door to attempt to borrow her shawl, because of the conditions.
I believe there was a certain amount of fuel in her room, and that the killer lit the fire, saying ' get them wet clothes off, and Kelly first removed her boots , and placed them near the fireplace, and proceeded to undress , down to her chemise, folding her clothes in her customerly manner, on a bedside chair.
It was when kelly was settling down back in bed,[ a position the killer , was expecting her to have originaly have been] that he straddled her , muffling any possible cries with the sheet firmly over her mouth, and rained stab wounds down on her, hence the fruitless resistance by kelly,the defense marks on her hands and forearms, once it became obvious that her struggle, for life was over, he proceeded to mutalate, her in typical ripper fashion.
Please note .. I have not mentioned the name of Barnett, merely stated, someone she knew well, someone she trusted,someone she had wronged.
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 652
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:17 am: | |
Suzi,
You didn't upset me at all. I didn't mean to give that impression. Mary seemed like a kind hearted woman to me as I don't see any reason for her friends to lie. She seemed to have many friends so that must mean something. Why do you think she was up herself? Just because she was pretty? Not all pretty women are up themselves.
Glenn,
You say she could have stayed in the West End or Paris. Why? She obviously left those places for a reason. Just because it doesn't look like she told anyone of those reasons, doesn't mean that she didn't have very good reasons to leave. Maybe she was treated badly or stalked and hounded by a client or something else that made her get as far away from there as possible. We just don't know so there is no point saying she could have just stayed put.
I also find it pointless to compare modern prostitutes to those in Mary's day. Women had little choice back then whereas today women have many choices even ones without much education. Prostitutes of today are indeed stubborn and self destructive as they could do countless other things. The image of the modern prostitute on the Hollywood Boulevard is completely different to the image of the nineteenth century street walker.
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on February 17, 2004) |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 279
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 5:27 am: | |
Hi Donald, well as it happens the way you see Mary is very close to how I see her myself.While I can accept that what Mary said about her life in Wales may not be entirely true,I think there may be some truth in it or even some desire to be seen as someone who had reason to have some self esteem-hence a fabrication or embellishment that gave her back some self respect but didnt I would argue "glamourise" her in a conventional way.
You are quite right though in the sense that to say she had been married to a miner who had lost his life in the pits would certainly have had a lot of cachet in certain circles within the labour movement[since the miners have long been considered the "aristocracy of labour" -through their [previously]successful struggles to improve
their health/safety and working conditions].I know its way off topic now and I must move to another thread but I do still think that one of the reasons the ripper was never caught was because the East end at this time in history was ready to rise up and throw out the old order and the police were kept mighty busy trying to keep tabs on it all.
Glenn thankyou for your reply.I am not sure I would have liked Mary either and I agree the other women seem to have tried to make ends meet in other ways than prostitution.
And Catharine for all the reasons you state seems a far more interesting character[and when she was a little younger was also considered an attractive woman].
I dont think it harms too much to try to explore the character of Mary in particular since a clue could pop up about her true identity one day-like a Welsh mining family recognising something from their history that leads us to Mary.
Best Wishes Natalie. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1156
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Sarah,
With all respect, but you seem to make a point of misunderstanding and misinterpreting me, which I have noticed from other threads as well.
I was NOT comparing with modern prostitutes. Those studies I've made of prostitutes here in Scandinavia ranges from the years 1860--1910!
So it is indeed relevant comparisons to make. I have in several passages mentioned the late 19th century prostitution millieu. I wouldn't be so stupid as to bring up modern cases in this context.
Kelly may have left Paris and West End for her own special reasons, but it woudn't have been that problematic for her to get other positions or to find other options besides being a low class prostitute in East End. Some people are self-destructive and make strange irratonal choices for themselves (please note that this doesen't apply on ALL prostitutes, but on some occasional ones). I can't understand why that seems like it's coming from out of the blue for some here. Let's not be naive.
But as Donald says, whatever the reasons for how their lives turns out, no one deserves such a fate like that. We are all of equally value and her fate do horrify me.
Hi Natalie,
Thanks again. Seems like we've come to an understanding on the matter in the end. Good.
Donald. I agree with every word, you speak my mind completely.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2108
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
Richard, just a question : if Barnett had already murdered several women by throttling them, laying them down and cutting their throats before mutilating them, then why was the Kelly job so botched - especially since, according to you, it was totally premeditated?
Robert |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 653
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Glenn,
I find what you said a bit insulting, whether you meant it that way or not I don't know but I thought I should let you know. I have never made a deliberate point of misunderstanding or misinterpreting you. In most of the other threads I have agreed with you so I don't know why you think I have misunderstood or misinterpreted you in other threads.
Back to the topic in hand. I understand that we can't romanticise about Mary or any of the others but we can't also say that she wasn't a poor unfortunate young woman who wound up in the East End through back luck or reasons that left her with no choice as we don't know why she left the West End. I agree that we shouldn't romanticise about them but we can't presume terrible things about them either as for all we know they may not be true.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1157
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Sarah,
If you have agreed with me on things, I naturally apologise. I for my part know that I on several times have had to correct you due to misunderstandings. It could be a result of me dealing with a second language here, which maybe doesen't always makes my posts as clear as I would like to.
Anyway, we were talking about prostitution during the 19th century here, so I naturally assumed that that was implied in my posts.
I can assure you, I have studied 200 prostitutes in Sweden and Denmark around the turn of the century 1900 (and we have very good and detailed records of their backgrounds and social situations), and I can tell you that I personally wouldn't have enjoyed their company, any of them. They were hard drinkers, used rough language, were spiteful against authorities and refused any help they got. I am sorry it that is controversial and seems threatening against the feminist community, but I can't change facts.
Now, that doesen't automatically mean that these characteristics apply on the Whitechapel women, but I find it hard to see why they should be any different. Of course each and every one of us have different life stories, but I am speaking in general terms and basing my views on my experience on the subject.
Regarding Kelly, I stand firm on my points and second to Donald's opinions on the matter. She did seem to have other means and possibilities to begin with, compared to the other Ripper victims. But as I said, that doesen't mean that she deserved what she got -- on the contrary; she have my deepest sympathy. But I will never fully understand her.
Now, can we please get off this inflamed subject and get back to the topic of the thread (and before Stephen finds his way in here)??? -- I think it's quite an interesting discussion, but it's unfortunately off topic, really, and besides that I feel like I am soon going to get a broom on my head in any minute. 
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 17, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 657
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Glenn,
Ok, just one more off topic thing. With regards to people doing things that seem strange to others, I have and some of my friends have, made choices about things to which I know people have asked me why I did what I did when I would have been better off not doing it (I'm not going into details here).
I don't have much to add to the main topic here except that I remain unsure whether or not Mary was the body found on the bed in Miller's Court.
Sarah
P.S. I remember distinctly agreeing with you on the Sickert thread. Can't think of others right now but I would never deliberately misunderstand you. I didn't even know you could do such a thing. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 280
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Glenn, with all respect I would like to know who made these records at the turn of the century and before?If I am correct it would have been the police who would not have been the most sympathetic of interviewers of prostitutes and who here failed to catch the Yorkshire Ripper in quite a spectacular way actually and there have been several TV programmes depicting the shambles there was.Indeed the case also was instructive as regards the attitudes of the authorities towards prostitutes in that it wasnt until a young["respectable"]woman was murdered by him that attitudes towards catching him hotted up and there was an outcry.Numbers of the prostitutes relatives spoke out and various authors wrote about what they said and this helped to raise awareness of what had been going on [or more to the point -what hadnt been going on in the hunt to catch him].So negative attitudes towards prostitutes still prevail and still permit butchers of women to periodically rape and murder them and this situation is only very gradually improving here in the UK. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for your response. In my oppinion option 1 sounds most likely but I CAN BE COMPLETELY WRONG.
Hi Sarah,
You always point out my mistakes Lied may have been to strong a word. I always thought that Joe identified the body as Mary. If he did identifiy the body as Kelly then it would be hard to believe it was not her. I have looked at the picture and I believe that someone as intimate as Joe was with Kelly would be able to make a possitive Identfication.
Hi Natalie,
I dont like to speculate about anyones charactor but I agree with most everything you said about Mary. It was well thought out.
Best wishes,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:54 am: | |
Hi Donald,
I dont see anything wrong with a little speculation as long as it it is well thought out. It can be interesting as well as entertaining. I dont think you can investigate a case 115 years old without doing some speculation.
On the topic Mary Kelly or not Mary Kelly I do think at some point you have to take some things at face value and if the police 115 years ago believed that Mary Kelly was murderd then that is good enough for me
Best wishes,CB |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Hi Ladies & Gents,
Not wanting to set the cat amongst the pidgeons, but some observations are called for.
There are two most glaringly obvious differences in the murder of Mary Kelly and the previous JTR victims. These are:-
a) Mary was a lot younger than the previous four.
b) Mary was the only one murdered in-doors.
These two differences alone throw up many possibilities, the most crucial of all being; WAS MARY KELLY A VICTIM OF JACK THE RIPPER???
Or, more precisely.
Was Mary Kelly a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer, who may also have been responsible for the murder of four previous women since the night of August 31st 1888??
Okay, to most, this may seem absurd, but deep down, can anyone honestly say Mary definitely was a victim of the person who may have murdered the named victims regarded by history as victims of JTR?
Not really.
We only accept the situation because this has been set down in history by the police of the time, who investigated the crimes, though, and this is very important, NEVER SOLVED the murders; and the continuing crime buffs/armchair detectives who state their opinions and expect people to take their conclusions at face value.
Harking back to the police investigations, it should also be remembered that the police NEVER OFFICIALLY named these five women has victims of JTR, it was only the strong opinion of Melville MacNaughten that they were, after his careful analysis of the written police investigations conducted throughout the whole period of the WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
Also the files kept at Scotland Yard and the Home Office were never officially called the Jack The Ripper files, they were known as the Whitechapel Murder Files, and included all the investigated murders of women in Whitechapel from 1887 to up 1894.
But what of the alternative history??
What if Mary Jane Kelly was not murdered by JTR!!
And it is a big possibility!!!
So what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise do we have??
a) Murdered indoors.
b) Younger than the previous so called Ripper victims.
c) The immediate circumstances surrounding her murder, ie the folded clothes
d) Kelly's nakedness at the time of her murder.
e) The defensive marks on her arms/hands and the cuts in the bed sheet
f) The six week hiatus between Mary's murder and that of Kate Eddowes' previously
g) The evidence within Mary's room, ie the remains in the fireplace, the melted kettle.
h) Mary Kelly herself.
Just a few pieces/puzzling questions that get thrown up. But taken has a whole, a picture may emerge that is totally contradictory to the suggested scenario we have come to except.
Was JTR never caught because we have been looking at the wrong victims for 116 years??
Did something happen to him between the time of Eddowes' murder and that of Kelly?
Why the mystery surrounding Kelly's antecedents??
We know very detailed histories of previous victims, including most of those outside of the so-called CANON.
To truly investigate these murders one needs to look at everything and except nothing at face value that has been written since the time of the murders, least of all the number and who was a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer. Only then, hopefully, may it be possible to finally locate a very pausible suspect to fit the mask of the elusive Whitechapel Murderer.
Cheers,
Michael |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 281
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Ps How on earth can this be "off topic" anyway?
Its sometimes impossible in a case such as this to successfully disentangle the threads that interconnect.
I"m not just trying to get away with not sticking to the subject matter of the thread.Its just that its often not possible to shove off to another thread when you are in full flow with a new thought or idea about the case.
Anyway its good to converse with you Glenn and Sarah on this interesting if off topic topic!!!!!
Best Wishes Natalie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
