|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through March 15, 2004 | Thomas C. Wescott | 25 | 1 | 3-15-04 9:29 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:04 am: | 
|
'I believe Jack mutilated MJK so extensively because he had the opportunity to do so. Unlike the previous murders he had the safety and cover of a locked room.'
Yes but the locked room had a large broken window that anyone could have peered through, and unless the killer knew the habits of those living nearby, I think he would have wanted to get out of there as soon as possible!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 893
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:49 am: |
|
Leanne,
Thats is true but wasn't there a coat hanging over the window? I wouldn't have thought that people would have made a habit of going around peering into other people's residences. Although I do agree that he would probably have still wanted to get out there quickly as he couldn't have known that she hadn't been expecting someone or when someone would be next knocking on her door unless he knew the habits of the people living around her and the habits of her friends and acquaintances.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:32 am: |
|
G'day Sarah,
There was a coat hanging over one window. The broken one.
I imagine that if it was her cry of "MURDER!", he would have at least waited to see if any came checking on her. Then why didn't he just mutilate her, take a breast or kidney and get out of there. Why did he take her HEART?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 896
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:40 am: |
|
Leanne,
Exactly. That's another reason why I don't believe the cry of "murder" came from Mary's room at all.
I believe he took her heart for the same reason as you do, or at least the same reason as I think you do.
Tom,
there's no evidence on record that states definitively that It was Barnett doing the spitting and Mary Kelly's grave standing post as target
I know, I never said there was. I just saying that it is possible that two women were just commenting on what they "thought" they saw. As I said, there was another burial that day in the same graveyard so it could have possibly been the other funeral. There is no evidence but these women may have been mistaken and not lying.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:08 am: |
|
Hi Tom,
Nice talking to you.
Aaaah, but I don't have a female alter ego!  No, seriously, the "a" in Glenna stands for Andersson. Look at my profile page, no woman there!
If you read my post close enough, I never commented on David's (Bullwinkle's) point about the decapitation at all. I have dealt with crime for some time now, but I am not that much into medical questions (I prefer to leave that to the experts). However, I think you are right that decapitation wasn't his main goal here. It is quite obvious to me that the mutilations were the important issue and what he was after.
However, as you implied, I can't agree on your thoughts about the ritualism. They don't necessarily have to be wrong, but I really don't think the mutilations and crime scene evidence leave sufficient enough information in order to establish that. Since we don't know what lay behind the crimes, I am not completely prepared to exclude the possibility either, but to me there are no evident signs indicating ritual elements in the mutilations. I think it's a matter of personal interpretations and reading here. I can agree on that the cuttings and special mutilations done on Eddowes meant something to him -- he wouldn't have performed them otherwise -- but that necessarily doesen't have to imply that they are ritual and have symbolic meaning. I would be quite careful to draw such conclusions based on the sparse information we have. As I said, if the "V"-shaped marks in her face had important symbolic meaning, I believe we should have seen more of them.
Then we must also answer ourselves the question, ritualistic in what way? For himself, or as a message to the outer world and general public/authorities -- or both?
The first one I think is impossible to answer, since we don't know the background to the murders (and we unfortunately can't look deep enough into his head anyway), but regarding the second option, the Ripper doesn't strike me as someone who wants to deliver a message or communicate, which is one important reason for a murderer to add symbolic elements (although not the only one).
But I see no reason to automatically draw parallells between the placing of the intestines and the belongings in Chapman's case, and on the other hand the placement of the organs and flesh plies in Kelly's. The murder in mIller's Court is nothing but a butcher's shop and I would really have to use my imagination in order to be able to see any kind of arrangement or symbolic pattern (or even similarities with Chapman in that regards) in there.
The fact that the mutilations and cuttings meant something to the killer, doesen't necessarily indicate that they have ritualistic meaning. I have never believed that the placement of Chapman's belongings had a special symbolic meaning, but I think of those who wants to read such things into it, I believe one can always find it. I personally don't think such symbolic patterns are particularly interesting or significant, unless one can interpret them. Which we can't, even if they were there.
No, I don't have a favorite suspect, although I believe that the Ripper just possibly was a local man, and probably completely ordinary and a nobody -- not a doctor, not a member of the Royal family etc.
However, I think it's easier to establish who the Ripper was not, as you can see on my profile page.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 267
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi,
In reference to the "ritualistic" aspects of the mutilations. The mutilations are ritualistic, but not in terms of some "known" ritual (I'm not sure how to put this really?). By a "known ritual", I mean something like a masonic, or witchcraft, etc.
Meaning, JtR need not be performing some form of "ceremony" that would be known by a "group" of people in order for the mutilations to be "ritualistic".
All that matters is that JtR is following some "private" ritual, which just means the mutilations are done in a specific way in order to fulfill some need or drive. It's generally, though not universally, accepted that the "purpose of the murders was to mutilate". That's just another way of saying that JtR had a need or a drive to perform these mutilations, and he did so in a manner that is relatively similar between victims. Because they are similar between victims, it means that he is following some ritual, which may be private and known only to him. It's his needs and drives that are being satisfied by these behaviours, but because he has to "repeat" the behaviours, then he's repeating his "ritual".
Does that make any sense?
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:53 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I think you are absolutely right in your views upon the mutilations, although to me "ritualistic" is referring to something more than just "an order of doing things". To me a ritual in the word's technical sense contains symbolic elements, the thing you call "known" ritual. And that I don't see in the Ripper's work.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 28
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I'm enjoying reading your take on the evidence as it's quite different from my own. You're correct in that I obviously didn't read your last post closely enough. I'm normally not quite so sloppy, so I apologize. However, one doesn't need medical experience to know that if the Ripper wanted to decapitate someone, he would've.
Due to circumstances beyond my control I was forced a couple of years ago to begin taking D'Onston seriously as a suspect, and have been doing research in that area. I have discovered some fascinating stuff, as well as some stuff that has outright floored me, and am in the process of writing up my findings before searching further. If you'd like to learn a little of what I've found, please e-mail me(this invitation is at present open only to Glenn. Sorry, but I don't wish to be carpet-swept).
Jeff,
I'm curious as to what you base your conclusion on that the Ripper's rituals don't have a basis in a pre-dating belief(s)?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Sarah wrote:
"These women actually saw this event take place right before their eyes."
I don't know why people insist upon dragging this stuff into every single last thread on this messageboard, but there is no proof that these women were even in the area at the time. It's a story about someone else's story about someone else. In studying how legends advance, this is called a FOAF story, which is short for Friend of a Friend. It's a rumor, an urban legend, folklore. You can't state with any certainty that such a scenario ever took place unless you track down the chain of FOAF to the source and they swear it as true, and even then you better confirm it.
Choosing to believe a story like this without any actual evidence is like choosing to believe that some friend's buddy really did catch a 40 foot long catfish using a fencepost chained to the back bumper of a truck as bait, and that the fish then slipped off the hook and got away.
Try this. Go to snopes.com (the main urban legends website) and look at all the stories people have told as happening to a FOAF, and then find out how many of them turned out to actually be true. Then come back here and try to use that as an argument for believing in this ludicrous grave spitting rumor. Even if you get that far (which you won't) that's still not proof that Barnett would have been involved.
Honestly, this choosing to believe things just because they might possibly be twisted to support a theory is pure self-serving fantasy. It's a nice way to feed a conspiracy theory but a lousy way to find the truth. |
Bart Cubbins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:43 pm: |
|
people / kids may eat their food always the same - peas first, then drink, or lick the ice cream not bite it . . and there's neurotic behavior like not stepping on cracks; so it could have been an intended order of actions, psychotically "ritualistic" in that sense. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Dear Mr Wescott,
Nice to have you back on board! By the way, I thought Ivor had the sole copyright on the "Ritual of Invisibility"...but I suspect that you have been prowling through ancient grimoires in search of more, substantial, 'rituals'? I look forward to reading your posts. Is there a book in the pipeline, I am wondering?
Anyway, back to slaving over the boiling cauldron...
Rosey :-) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 926
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 9:22 am: |
|
Dan,
I meant that if it happened then they would have seen in happen right before their eyes, not that it definitely happened. There is a difference. I even said in my last post that there was no proof.
Might have a look at that urban legend website anyway as I love reading those. Don't worry I know they are not true, but they are entertaining.
Sarah |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 269
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by a "pre-dating belief(s)"? so I'm not sure how to answer your question?
Anyway, looking at my previous post, I realise my opening sentence is sloppily worded, and states things more "conclusive" then they should be. The 2nd sentence should read "The mutilations are ritualistic, but not necessarily in terms ...", I left out the qualifier. Since I'm not familiar with every "group based ritualistic ceremony" I obviously cannot demonstrate that Jack's mutilations are different from each and every one.
However, group based rituals are often very rigid in that they must be performed a certain way each and every time. The attacks on each victim, however, are different. Nichols is cut, but not disembowelled. Chapman has the intestines placed over her shoulder but they are still "attached" (as I understand it anyway). Eddowes's intestines are cut into a segment and one placed beside the body, the rest over a shoulder, and her face is targeted as well. Kelly's intestines are not over a shoulder, and the mutilations extend to the face, breasts, legs, etc. If body parts are taken, different ones are taken (apart from the uterus in 2 of the 3 cases where a body part trophy is aquired).
In other words, what ever "ritual" is being performed, it does not include any additional implements (candles, incense, special alter, etc), it does not have to be done exactly the same way each and every time, and must be fairly short; Jack can't be expecting to have a few hours undisturbed in the street; 10 minutes is probably the maximum.
Now, if the harvested body parts are simply the ingredients for some other ritual (that requires a kidney, two uterii, a piece of belly flap, and a heart, collected from prostitutes), then why the facial mutilations on Eddowes? He doesn't need the nose, it's not taken. All the "extra" mutilations on Eddowes and Kelly that don't facilitate the gathering of the "ingredients" suggest that whatever need Jack is fulfilling, it's being fulfilled right then and there (at least temporarily), and the need isn't just the collecting of ingredients for a "to be performed later" ritual.
No, not proof, but I find it hard to see a "structured" ritual in these killings. They just seem more like an "individual ritual", that conforms to the needs and drives of Jack and the unique circumstances at the time, rather than one that conforms to the requirements of some "ceremony", which requires that the circumstances at the time be made to conform to the ritual, rather than the other way round.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1300
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 3:00 pm: |
|
I completely agree, Jeff.
OK, Tom, I'll send off an e-mail in the near future. I am always interested in picking up new things.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 270
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I know what you mean. I didn't intend to imply that the mutilations didn't "mean" something to Jack. Because the mutilations could be fulfilling some drive or need, then they did "symbolise" something to him. What they symbolised, however, may be forever lost to us because obviously Jack is dead now. Even if we were back in time and we caught him, there's no guarantee he would be able to articulate what it was that caused his desire to do these things. Putting emotions, and I suspect the driving force behind these killings is some mix of powerful emotions (the obvious being anger, hatred, revenge, etc), is often very difficult. Exactly what emotions are involved and from where these emotions came, however, is unknown. And, if Jack's suffering from a mental disorder like schizophrenia, the "reasons" may even be incomprehensible to us.
Anyway, the mutilations may then be considered symbolic of this emotional cauldron. They represent how Jack feels, they are a symbol of his rage, etc.
I didn't mean to imply that anything done in a preset order necessarily makes it a ritual (i.e., it's not a ritual to break the eggs before adding them to the cake mix).
- Jeff |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Dear Jeff,
Well, it depends on how you break your eggs and how you add them to the cake-mix, I would have thought. Your notion of 'ritual' being premised on the idea that 'it' is a set of preset actions and thoughts appears counter to Glenn's belief that the mad are devoid of such notions, i.e., their consciousness is that of a spontaneous consciousness and therefore incapable of preset action and thought, i.e., "planning" or even "reflection".
We must wait and see what Mr Wescott means by pre-dated belief(s). Perhaps he will demonstrate the efficaciousness of 'ritual'in the socio-sexual and politico-economic microcosmic life of humankind, and Jack's place on this ladder of being?
Wow!
Rosey :-) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 273
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:53 pm: |
|
Hi Rosey,
True, one can break eggs in a "ritualistic" manner. I was thinking of mentioning that, but my posts can get sidetracked enough as is! ha!
As I think about it, I'm wondering if "pre-dating beliefs" means "beliefs that come from the time prior to the dates of the Christian calendar". That's all I could come up with, but I'm not sure that's what's intended, so I'll wait for his answer.
I think Glenn and I differ on a definition really. Glenn's posts clearly indicate he believes the mutilations may mean something to Jack personally, but may not be intended as a "communication" to others. The lack of "intended communication" makes the mutilations "non-ritualistic" in Glenn's definition. My definition does not include the communication aspect, but rather that the act was "personally symbolic" to Jack in that the act represented something to him by the fact that fulfilled some need. And, he appears to have to fulfill this need in similar ways each time. It's the similarity of act in order to fulfill this need that makes it ritualistic. If, however, he just had a need to destroy a human (let's say), but this could be satisfied by mutilations, burning, dismemberment, (and whatever other ways one can think about), then the fact the method is not important would remove, to me, the ritualistic aspect. It's the apparent need to do the same basic thing in order to accomplish the goal that makes these seem to be a "private ritual".
The fact that the "ritual" is allowed to be conformed to the immediate situation (so it can change a bit from one murder to the next), seems to point away from a "ceremonial ritual", or "group known" as I put it before, because these types of rituals do not allow for personal touches.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:40 am: |
|
Rosey wrote:
>Your notion of 'ritual' being premised on the idea that 'it' is a set of preset actions and thoughts appears counter to Glenn's belief that the mad are devoid of such notions, i.e., their consciousness is that of a spontaneous consciousness and therefore incapable of preset action and thought, i.e., "planning" or even "reflection".
Ah ah ah, that is not what I said, Rosey. I do believe that it is possible for the mad to make pre-planning and perform actions in a deliberate manner and order.
Jeff's interpretation of my notion on the term "ritual" is absolutely correct. To refer to a number of actions in a certain order as a "ritual", is to me to drain the term from its real meaning in this very special context. To me a ritual here must include some symbolic elements, for example of religious or mythical character. Of course these rituals doesen't have to be communicative to the outer world, but in connection with the Ripper murders such signs of rituals would be more consistent and filled with more obvious symbols.
The placing of Chapman's personal belongings doesen't cut it in order to be regarded as ritualistic in my view. The placing of the intestines has a special status in the case of two of the victims, namely Chapman and Eddowes, but we can't draw such conclusions about the other victims. In Mary Kelly's case we have organs and flesh put all over the place without any sense of arrangement. And as I said earlier, if the V-shaped marks in Eddowes' face had symbolic meaning, they would have appeared also on the other victims.
Now, this is tricky, because it all depends on how many of the victims we are prepared to attribute to the Ripper. If we only consider Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes as true canonicals (which I do), then of course we see a clearer pattern. Nichols isn't that mutilated, but on the other hand it is quite plausible that the murderer there was interrupted and therefore it is possible that she in fact was supposed to have ended up as Chapman. If that is the case, then we see a stronger pattern in method but it still doesn't have to be ritualistic or symbolic. The placing of the intestines could just as well have practical reasons and the "placing" of Chapman's belongings is in my view a worthless clue, since there is no sign or support for them being placed deliberately in a certain fashion.
The signs of a ritual in the word's symbolic meaning are not strong enough. We don't know why he cut those V-marks on Eddowes' face but to automatically assume that they have symbolic meaning, is a fallacy. They could just as well have been done in a frenzy. And as I said before, looking for symbolic signs in the mutilations is a complete waste of time; in order for them to be of any value in the investigation, we must be able to interpret them and crack their code. Since we can't, such approaches are useless to us.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:50 am: |
|
Hi All,
The murders are all one-off experiments for the killer, surely?
Nichols represents the first dead woman this man has ever tried to rip open.
Chapman gives him his next chance to do more of the same or try something slightly different.
He may have toyed with trying to decapitate a victim, but wasn’t quite persuaded to part with the weapon he already felt comfortable with, and start hunting for more suitable ones. So he decides to plough on with his nise sharp knif and see how he might ring the changes a bit using that. Eddowes gets a kidney whipped out during the ripping process, followed by bit of impromptu facial carving.
Then, after an autumn break, spent thinking back over his catalogue thus far, and reading all about Saucy Jacky’s exploits in the papers, while the streets are too hot for the cowardly nobody to dare tread, he gets the chance to do a safer inside job, and lets his trusty knife be his guide and do its worst.
Too few murders, IMHO, giving Jack too little experience, to allow him to put in place and develop any hard and fast rituals, although given more killing time and capability, it might well have appealed to him to put a more definite signature on his work. I think he would have had three to choose from though – plain old Joe Bloggs, the nobody whose peer group largely ignored him, or was distinctly unimpressed by his efforts to be a somebody; Master Butcher of Whitechapel, the character he aspired to, so he could at last start making an impact somewhere, having failed to do so in his normal environment; or Jack the Ripper, as decided by his waiting public.
The public gets what Joe Bloggs thinks the public wants - or deserves.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 475
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:34 am: |
|
It would appear to me that your resistance to symbolic meaning in the rippers work might prvent you from "reading" that work or the meaning of the graffiti which all seems to fit together if you look at it from a particular perspective.I understand that you are willing to "go along" with the idea that there mey well be ritualistic or sybolic meaning in the "crime scenes",the "graffiti[if he did indeed write it" and the "cuts" to some extent
What you dont accept seems to me to be the sort of symbols found in religion etc.OK but to the ripper the following may have been part of symbolic communication;
[since you often remind us that we are on the wrong thread etc I did set up a thread for Symbolic meanings etc]
However to me the following seem to indicate some
attempt to communicate something;
choice of "alcohol dependent" middle aged, female street walkers except for MJK
choice of location a] the streets[except for MJK]
b]by Jewish clubs{double event}
just musing the message here could have been
"you women will be punished for your immoral and drunken behaviour outside the Imperial Club and the Jewish Socialist Club"
that "could" have been part of the message
the later a piece of apron outside a Jewish tenement possibly intending the dwellers to know that he personally was "cleaning the streets of these corrupting forces"-look there"s the proof-
and furthermore a bit of writing to say [only maybe] "that this community will not continue to take the blame for everything thats bad about life
and stay quiet about it "look here someone is putting an end to corrupt and immoral behaviour"
Glenn I"m not saying this is what definitely was meant or anything just that there appears to be strong attempts at communication here even in the very positioning of the corpses and laying out of their entrails for it to be dismissed or overlooked.
I always read your posts and have been helped by numbers of them to look at the case from different angles so here I am just saying that you appear to be casting aside evidence that could be the key to the whole case
Best Wishes Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 476
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:39 am: |
|
Glenn,sorry I forgot to address post properly and it was written in response to your post above.Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:42 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Yes, I am afraid the thread is barking in the wrong direction. I'll answer you on the "Symbolic thread" thread you refer to. So we'll continue this discussion there.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Dear Rosey--concerning the "Ritual of Invisibility", are you aware of a bit of Russian folklore that states that eating a piece of human fat makes one 'immune to detection"? At the time of the Whitechapel Murders it was reported in the Western press that back in Mother Russia a group of thieves murdered a woman to test the validity of the said rite. Not exactly invisibility, but a variation thereof. (The spell didn't take; they were apprehended. "The only bad thing about magick is that it doesn't work") Wonder if this was an actual folk-belief, or just a bit of Fleet Street fun. Is there a Russian folklorist in the house? RP
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 605
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Hi all
'A nice Dilemna we have here' as G&S would or could have said! Talking of magick....Mr Crowley springs to mind....there was a delightful story whereby he chose to prove the fact that he could become invisible.....in the Cafe Royale in Paris at its most crowded he stripped naked,and wearing only a 'wizards' hat strode through the restaurant.....allegedly nobody saw him.......as he said ,everyone looked the other way and denied seeing anything!! Hence Mr Crowley became invisible!!!
suzi |
Paul Williams
Sergeant
Username: Wehrwulf
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 6:10 am: |
|
I have a post grad degree in folklore, albeit not Russian, and am unaware of the belief that eating a piece of human fat makes one immune to detection. If true it may be an offshoot from beliefs about Baba Yaga, a witch cannibal figure who frequently appears in Russian folk tales. Has anyone got details of when this belief was reported in the Western press? |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 2:01 am: |
|
R.J. wrote:
"Is there a Russian folklorist in the house?"
I'm a folklorist, but Russian isn't my forte. I have a fairly extensive library and other references available though, so I'll see what I can turn up. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Dear RJ,
No idea. But is burning-off some human fat a 'rite',(according to some dieticians it IS)? I am aware that many of my criminal descendants had some faith in a "hand of glory"...this was the severed hand of an executed criminal soaked in a compound which included saltpetre, the fingers were lit when breaking and entering premises that were inhabited during night-time. It was believed that a "hand of glory" would make the burglar 'invisible' to the occupants of said dwelling. Wishful thinking?
I believe that the Witchcraft Museum on the Isle of Man has a "hand of glory", unfortunately, only the stumps of its fingers remain...its criminal owner must have been a busy burglar, or possibly it was hired by the hour (hence the term, 'hired hand')?
Rosey :-) |
Corey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 10:32 am: |
|
Why is there such a gap between the ages of Mary Jane Kelly and the other victims?? Why was MJK's killing so much more brutal than any of the other slayings?? I believe that The Ripper thought that these women were sinners for selling their bodies. I believe that The Ripper thought that MJK was the biggest sinner, because she was so young, that is why he mutilated her so badly, it was to punish her more severly. Maybe The Ripper believed he was doing God a favor by punishing these women for their actions. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1476
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Many occult procedures require the use of human fat or "oil". The common feature to many of these is the desire to acquire invisibility or to avoid detection - this includes the hand of glory. below is a spell allegedly inducing invisibility from the Hindu culture:
A process has been prescribed for making oneself invisible
to others. With five wicks, one each made of the fibers of
arka (Calatropis gigantea),
shaalmali (Salmalia malabarica),
kaarpaasa (Gossypium heraceum) [i.e. cotton],
patta (cloth),
pankaja (lotus)
[dipped in] narataila (human oil i.e., oil extracted from a
corpse) one should kindle five lights.
These should be placed, one by one, on five human skulls.
Then the combined black ashes, obtained from the above
lights, should be applied to the eyes while one is in a
temple of Shiva.
The ashes are first consecrated with the following mantra,
recited 1008 times:
(There follows the mantra required to complete the spell.)
|
Catherine Ann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
I think he mutilated Kelly the way he did because he was now a master of his craft. He was capable of doing it, had the opportunity to do so. Was comfortable in his surroundings. Perhaps he'd been a client of hers and had gone to the room with her, rather than breaking in. Perhaps he was angry as well and considered that no one was taking him seriously enough. He wanted to show the world what he could do! Who knows, there's been a lot of rumours that he didn't kill certain victims, perhaps he wanted to show his copycat killer just how the master worked! Poor Mary, she's to be forever immortalised in that awful photograph! |
Catherine Ann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
I think he mutilated Kelly the way he did because he was now a master of his craft. He was capable of doing it, had the opportunity to do so. Was comfortable in his surroundings. Perhaps he'd been a client of hers and had gone to the room with her, rather than breaking in. Perhaps he was angry as well and considered that no one was taking him seriously enough. He wanted to show the world what he could do! Who knows, there's been a lot of rumours that he didn't kill certain victims, perhaps he wanted to show his copycat killer just how the master worked! Poor Mary, she's to be forever immortalised in that awful photograph! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
