|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 987
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 4:43 am: |       |
Frank, Glenn,
Glenn,
See, thats the misconception. Take out Kelly and you have no slaughter houses.....maybe Eddowes....ok, take out Kelly and Eddowes....
I can't be sure, of course, but I can't see any logical reason to make such a peculiar deduction.
I understand your point but there is something there that indicates a complusion, a compulsion for some sort of order. Which would indicate the sort of person we are looking at. Which narrows the field. Thats the reasoning behind this.
Yeah, its logical that Mary folded her own clothes. More logical than Jack doing it. But I look at alterantives because they exsist. You may take it as read but I shall not. I will question anything I can think of. I just feel its wrong to take as facts things that are not really facts. Its not fact that Mary folded her own clothes, more than likely yes but not fact. And if Mary didnt then who did ?
Am I pi$$ing in the wind? Damn right...but I live in hope.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 6:09 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Well, I can't see any kind of "order": compulsion, yes ... but order and neatness... no. But OK... be my guest.
And it was mainly Eddowes and Kelly we were talking about here.
Well, of course there is a million per cent possibility that it may not have been Mary Kelly that folded those clothes, but I really see no reason to assume it. I only take such alternatives in consideration when there are valid grounds to do so, and when there are some facts that may point in such directions. But in this case there really is nothing that indicates it, unless you want to make things unnecessarily complicated for no reason.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 988
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Glenn,
Tidiness may be the wrong word.
OK, you cannot see it. I cant do much about that but I can see a compulsion for order. I see it in the FACTS of the arrangement of Chapmans belongings, the replacing of Nichols clothes over her mutilations and (possibly, I say possibly because I have a question over Rose as a victim) in the folding Myletts scarf. Fair doos, I dont see it in Eddowes (although the button arrangement does intrigue me) but I do see it in the folding of Kellys clothes. But Im not assuming at all. I never stated I did....I even highlighted Frank when he wrote " Although, of course, this is all speculation". I agreed with him. But its there to be looked at none the less. And they are valid reasons for me. Not for you. Thats fine, you have your own reasons also. Who am I to question them?
So I have my reasons and if Im making it too complicated for you then its fine with me if you dont tag along.
There is an indication that it should be looked at.....at least.
Cheers,
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Monty,
You usually make a lot of sense (and when I say a lot, I do mean a lot), but here I am surprised to say, that I don't get you at all.
The placing of Chapman's belongings (which I consider to be a rather over-rated point anyway) is very much a detail of singular character, with no strong connection to other traits in the Ripper murders. I guess, that it has been given so much relevance is due to the fact, that everyone seems utterly keen on finding symbolic communications in everything that the Ripper does, something I consider to be an over-interpretation.
Now, why on Earth should the Ripper fold Mary Kelly's clothes?
Mary Kelly was found lying on the bed; even if she was attacked in her sleep or was attacked by a customer, she had obviously undressed and gone to bed. And what do you do in between? You fold your clothes (depending on how neat your are) and then hang them on a chair or something.
Now, if Mary Kelly wasn't found on the bed, or even not found indoors, I think the folding of the clothes would be an extraordinary detail, but in this context...?????????
Now, if you -- for some unexplainable reason -- wants to take that clothing business out of its natural context, the reason can only be to support the theory of tidiness and order. That is not facts, that is fitting facts into theory and distort it.
Considering how Mary Kelly was found on the bed, I would rather find it singular, if her clothes wasn't folded and placed on the chair, since she actually was found undressed.
Well, if Rose Mylett was a Ripper victim, I am Uncle Schrooge.
OK, there are some similarities in the placing of the legs (one drawn up and the other stretched out) and there was an abrasion one side, but that kind of disposition of the legs are quite common in murders, I have come across those in several cases.
Mylett was found strangled with a cord and with no mutilations. It was an ordinary strangulation, not even a knife job. And in neither of the Ripper jobs a cord was used. So, now are we supposed to attribute also the ordinary strangulation victims to the Ripper? Good grief. It is a complete difference in MO and totally without mutilation signature. I don't even consider her to be a copy-cat; heck, one wasn't even unanimous in the opinion that it was a homicide in the first place.
As you know, I am keeping an open mind to many things in the Ripper case these days, but no, Rose Mylett was not a Ripper victim. I think I can deduct that with reasonable certainty.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 990
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Glenn,
You usually make a lot of sense (and when I say a lot, I do mean a lot), but here I am surprised to say, that I don't get you at all.
What can I say ? Because I disagree with you or you do not understand the stance I take therefore Im talking nonsense, is that the situation ?
Lets clear some points up.
a) I never said there was a strong connection just that there is a connection. To you thats not worth even comtemplating. Thats fine. I do.
b) You consider that searching for symbolic communication is an over interpretion. Well thats your opinion. As it happens I agree with you totally but Im not looking for symbolic communication. Im looking for behaviour.
c) You may fold or hang up your clothes inbetween getting ready and going to bed but I dont. Im a slob. And Im not the only one. And whose to say Mary wasnt. Good points about Mary being found in the streets or on the floor. My suspicion would be roused ten fold.
d) The Facts are that the clothes were folded....that is the fact. It is NOT fact that Mary did the folding. Thats an assumption. How did I distort this fact ?
e) Read this, "...and (possibly, I say possibly because I have a question over Rose as a victim) in the folding Myletts scarf. Looky here, it seems as if Im agreeing with you and your doubts about Rose being one of Jacks. Dont make out Im pushing for her to be included in the series. Im not.
d) Now read this part very carefully, I shall place it in bold so it catches not only yours but everybody elses eye. I am not trying to promote a theory here. Nor am I trying to distort facts. It is purely something that has caught my attention and that I am currently trying to ascertain if there is anything in it or not. If you see something there then good. If you dont the thats just dandy also, I dont care, but I will make up my own mind as is my right to do so. So please do not read into my posts that Im a believer of this or that then state Im distorting facts to fit a theory when I have no theory. Until I issue my views then sure, go ahead, I have no problem.
But when I point out an observation then treat it as that and nothing more.
But above all else do not catagorically tell me what I do or do not believe on a subject that Im not sure myself where I stand.....and have maintained that view from the begining.
Now thats out have a great Easter Bub, Im back next Monday.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 992
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
Frank,
I missed you out earlier. Addressed the post to you but put nothing in it....so sorry.
Yeah, the flinging of innards. Unsavioury and I apologise for offending anyone (if you are offended why are you here ?).
Its going on from what AP said about the killer being in his the 'zone'. Just had visions of him not caring where he put the parts.....which leads me onto Kelly. Her 'bit' where place on the bed and tables...not dumped on the floor.
Why not ?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 262
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Hey ol’ Glenn,
Where’s the ‘new’ you? The one with the open mind, who started to have (and still has) doubts about MJK being a Ripper victim (I’m not being sarcastic here)?
I admit – like Monty – that there are no obvious indications of ‘neatness’ or ‘tidiness’. And like you couldn’t find another suitable word for ‘frenzy’ perhaps we weren’t able to find a better word. Like Monty wrote, a compulsion for some sort of order might be a better way of putting it.
I think Jeff has already put into words why I am considering the possibility (not the probability) that the Ripper folded MJK’s clothes:
“Still, these tidy clothes surrounded by such chaos create a contrast. As does the arrangement of Annie Chapman's things, a bit of order amongst disorder, the contrast of the careful deliberate cuts on Eddowes face compared to the general mayhem of the removal of the nose and abdominal mutilations.”
This contrast is what actually got me started, and it’s there – no doubt about that, whether it means something or not. BTW, like Monty, I’m not looking for whatever symbolic communications in everything the Ripper does. I think you’re over-reacting a little each time you think someone is looking for indications of a psychopath, a conspiracy theory or symbolic communications, when they’re not.
Another person on these boards put a sensible explanation for the possible ‘orderly’ behaviour into words a while ago:
“Sod’s law that in satisfying his darker compulsions things would be left lying around in such an awful bloody mess! He may have felt the need to compensate for the resulting chaos by putting a few items of lesser importance in some sort of order at the scene, as far as time and light allowed.”
The fact that it was a rainy night and that Mary had been out on the streets during that night makes it feasible and even probable that her clothes were damp or wet by the time she undressed. If so, the sensible thing would be to hang the damp clothes to dry, not to neatly fold them. Now, I’m not saying that therefore MJK couldn’t have folded her clothes herself, but there’s nothing illogical in the reasoning I present either. It was a wet night, her clothes were probably wet, there had been a fire in her room, it would be the sensible thing to hang the clothes to dry. But this last bit doesn’t fit with the fact that the clothes were found neatly folded. Hence the question: might the Ripper have folded them?
Moreover, there are two cases of killers that also got me thinking. One is of a serial killer who moved by train, selected a house near the station when he got off, broke in, killed whoever was inside with whatever he found (bat, hammer, that sort of thing) - he even kept on beating some of his victims after they had already died - then went to the kitchen to eat something without erasing any traces afterwards and finally went to look for ID cards or driver’s licences which he placed in clear view. Why did he place those items? We can only guess, but he must have had a reason.
The other was of another (one time) mutilating killer, whose case has a lot in common with that of Mary’s. It’s not that he might have done anything similar to the folding of the clothes, but after he was caught, (ex-)collegues told the police that he was accurate, his apartment was quite clean and tidy and neighbours told the police that he was known to clean his shoes after making long walks. In other words, this killer was accurate, clean and tidy, but still made an awfully bloody mess of his victim. Taking this a step further, one might see a killer who needs to compensate for the mess he makes by putting a few items of lesser importance in some sort of order at the crime scenes.
“Now, why on Earth should the Ripper fold Mary Kelly's clothes?”
Why on earth would he want to kill and mutilate? Bottom line is that we don’t actually know, but he did kill and mutilate so he did have a reason, however strange and dark to us. And if he did fold the clothes he had a reason for that too, however strange that would seem to us normal people.
All in all, I keep an open mind to the possibility that the Ripper did fold the clothes, perhaps as some sort of compensation, perhaps for some other reason that we’ll never know. As it is, we can only speculate and everybody has to decide for themselves.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
I guess Monty got a little high strung there; sod it -- I never meant to insult him. Still, he must be able to cope with that I disagree with him -- which I usually don't anyway; I see this a somewhat of an exception. It doesen't matter how I put it here -- he seems to take everything the wrong way just the same.
No, Frank -- as I said, I keep an open mind to things these days, but regarding the folded clothing, I can't see any reason to. As I said, Mary was found lying in bed, undressed. The only logical explanation as far as I am concerned, is that she did folded those herself. It really goes beyond me why we even should think of another possibility regarding such a rather obvious detail. I really can't understand why such an idea comes up in the first place.
No, sorry, I can't keep an open mind about that, but I think I am entitled to my opinion nevertheless, instead of been given that "take it or leave it" talk, with my own views on the matter worth nothing.
And then we have Rose Mylett.
Even if Monty have said that she can't be considered a serious Ripper suspect (which she can't), then why bring her up and base a reasoning on her to support a line of though? I don't get it. A complete waste of time.
Don't we have enough mysteries in the Ripper case? Obviously not.
But don't worry, chaps.
Go ahead and indulge in all those side-track stories -- be my guest. I am leaving this thread immediately, since my views here are worth practically nothing anyway. Enjoy!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
And if I sounded cranky, it's just because I've had to format my hard disk drive and reinstall all programs and files -- for the second time this last month.
I feel like slitting my own throat this very minute.
Sorry if I offended anyone (and have a nice Eastern, Frank and Monty).
Now, I'll take a hike (although I stand by everything I've stated so far).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 263
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
Hey there Glenn,
Hope you’re still here to read this.
First of all, although you did sound cranky, you’ve not offended me. Sorry to hear about the problems with your hard disk – such things can be a pain, my computer is as fast as a snail in winter time these days…
Secondly, we just disagree about something. Worse things, far worse things happen in this world. Although I’m serious about the Ripper case - it’s a very intriguing case and I like coming on these boards, discussing it - in the end it’s just that, an unsolved serial killer case.
So you don’t see any reason in opening the door - you’ve probably locked it and thrown away the key – Monty and I keep it ajar. So what? I don’t see any problem in that. Since there isn't much to go on, it can't become a major point anyway.
I do agree with you that there are enough mysteries in the Ripper case as it is, but in itself that’s no reason not to see and consider any other possibilities that might not make it any easier.
And as for your views being worth practically nothing, if we would really see it that way, I think we would react to them with nothing but sarcasm, or we would ignore them altogether.
Have a nice Eastern! Munter östlig!
Frank
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 996
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
Glenn,
And you call me highly strung ?
Aw come on back.....you know you want to...more importantly I want you to.
Your words are highly valued though your opinions are sometimes strong. Nothing wrong with that. The thing is so are mine and I wont dance to anyones tune unless I like it. No matter how they try to persuede me. I also hate having the contents of my post distorted...intentional or not. And I react with passion (tis the Celtic blood in me) if I feel its unfair.
Like Frank says above, if I didnt value your views then the sarcasm would have flowed or I would have treated you the same way as I treat the Diarists....by just ignoring you. You always have interesting words and in the midst of this 'exchange' you have given me some excellent points to ponder on (like Marys body on the bed as opposed to the floor ect).
I respect you standing by what you believe in. To a degree I was just doing the same. I was insulted yeah. I like to think of you (as I do everyone here, including David) as a friend. Therefore I would like to think I can point out a problem with a friend in the same way I wish they would approach me if they were upset. Openly, honestly and if need be with passion. Its not a problem to me. I have even come in on my day off because I was worried I offended you. I honestly didnt mean to, Im sorry for that.....forgive Ol Monty.
As for the subject matter, Im still out on it. I may end up with your views, I may not. Its not a major point true and whatever the outcome is your posts will always be read thoroughly by me with interest. Thats because they are some of the most sensible and interesting ones here.
Lets move onwards and upwards together.
Peace,
Monty
PS I feel Mylett is a unlikely victim, not a completely disgarded/out of the picture victim in my eyes. Hence the reason I included her.
PPS My sign off on the bottom of this post aint just for show you know !
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2308
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
Good heavens, let's not have folks falling out.
I blame Jack, you know. He started all this.
You mark my words : Jack's at the bottom of it.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Hi there again,
Naturally, I couldn't resist coming back temporarily, although I feel I could not really see what else I could contribute to this thread; I have really said all that I've got to say, so I'll just leave this quick note -- for now, at least.
Sorry about the cranky tone and my bad temper, old boys.
My problems are now fixed -- at least my technical ones.
I tell you, when you're in a middle of an important and stressful work assignment and all your system files suddenly gets so corrupted that none of the programs works anymore, it really makes you want to jump out of the balcony -- or get high strung. I had to spend seven hours of the whole night to start all over again with the computer. Nevertheless, it is never acceptable to let others pay for it. One should never write posts when frustrated.
I'm sorry you took my earlier posts as offensive, Monty, because that was not my intention, you know I like and respect you as one of the more sharp minds here; I know that first sentence of mine in that post came out totally wrong, but believe it or not, it was actually not meant as an insult. Furthermore, I was trying to say why I thought there was no evident reason to do this kind of reasoning as been done here, I felt no one listened to my explanations or arguments, but just reacted to the fact that I disagreed. And so I flew off the handle. I did, however, notice that you saw my point about the bed, Monty, but besides that I felt like I was attacked for having diverging opinions, rather than my points being recognized. I felt like I was talking to a brick wall.
Apart from that, I really don't know what more I can add. I have explained why I feel Jack folding her clothes is a completely unnecessary point, and I have also explained why I think it is highly unlikely for Rose Mylett being a Ripper victim. As I said, it was an ordinary strangulation, and with a cord. No mutilations, no knife work. I understand that one should keep an open mind, but I think there are limits, unless we want to throw the Jackie case even further off our path here. If I should take an alleged Ripper victim into consideration, there must at least be some sort of corroborating modus operandi. I don't even think she was a copy-cat, like possibly Coles and MacKenzie. I actually don't see any link from her to the Ripper at all, apart from the the fact that it happened in December 1888 and in the actual area -- but that is not enough to cut it. But that is just my interpretation.
I stand by my view that his whole discussion is a very strange one, considering the facts.
Sorry about you having to go in here on your day off just on my account, Monty, but I am glad you did and I very much appreciate it.
Now, have a good Eastern holiday, all (and thanks for your nice post as well, Frankie boy).
Yes, I blame Jack too, Robert, although I believe he ca't take the wrap for everything (not that he doesen't deserve it, but nevertheless...).
Peace, love and Easter bunnies. And once again, I am truly sorry.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 09, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 307
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Hi all,
Well, I'm glad that's all sorted! I seem to have missed this entire sequence, and I'm glad to see that in the end we're all back to normal.
Anyway, throughout this entire exchange, it appears to me we all actually agree on most major points. First, everyone seems to agree that the most logical explanation is for Mary to have folded her cloths, and that Rose is unlikely to have been a Ripper victim.
But, Monty has made an interesting observation that does sort of connect some of the cannonical Ripper victims. Chapman's arranged items, Mary's folded clothes, and I see a strange contrast in the deliberate/careful cuts on Eddowes face compared to the frenzy behind the others. (I've left out Nichols cloths being pulled back down, because I think Charles Cross tetified that he did this when he left to find the police? Her dress was originally hiked up, but obviously the abdomoninal wounds were not showing).
Anyway, are these things "related"? We know the Ripper arranged Annie's things and cut Katherine's face. We obviously don't know if he folded Mary's clothes, and it's a "long shot" if he did given the more likely explanation of Mary doing it herself. But, longshots are worth considering, and mulling over, if for no other reason than by considering them we may end up being able to dismiss them. Once in a long while, we even find that they are less of a long shot than we originally thought.
Anyway, if we consider the possibility that these actions are related to some aspect of Jack's thinking, which gets reflected in his behaviours, then it suggests someone who's emotionally unstable in that they swing from one extreme to another very quickly. Someone who can vasilate from extreme frenzy to a "controlled, calm temperment"; one who might fold clothes, arrange things as they consentrate on them and sort them, control themselves and concentrate well enough to make careful cuts over the eyelids and the cheeks, etc. That's what I mean by "controlled and calm", not necessarily that they get all warm and fuzzy and nice.
Even if we drop Mary's cloths, we still have the other more definate Jack behaviours, and so probably get to a similar conclusion. Mary's folded cloths are consistent with that personality, so if he did the folding it's not out of character, and if he did not do the folding, it doesn't matter because we still have the other stuff to try and explain.
So what have we gained? Well, by considering the observation of these "islands of neatness", we may be able to make a few inferences about Jack (note, an inference is not a deduction; it's not a conclusive must be statement, but a conditional one - which may be wrong, it's a theory that would need further investigation). Also, we've found that this inference is not dependent upon the most questionable assumption (Jack doing the folding). And, the inference is also robust (it works whether Jack or Mary folded the cloths).
So, is it true? Is Jack someone who's emotions vasilate from one extreme to another very rapidly? Does he go from extreme frenzy to controlled behaviour in the blink of an eye?
Maybe, maybe not. It's possible. It's suggested by some of the evidence. It is not inconsistent with the personality of a serial killer (but in the end, what is?). It's a tiny theoretical statement about one aspect of Jack's personality. By itself, it tells us little. If we could put together a list of such things, drawn from behaviours at the crime scenes, we might get a more complete picture. And, that more complete picture might suggest some of our "tiny theories" are good, and some are not so good (because we get a "bigger picture" into which some of our individual pieces don't fit so well).
Anyway, I'm rambling here now. I'm glad to see that everyone has made up in the end. And, I'm glad to hear that you got your computer fixed in the end Glenn. Here's hope you don't have to go through that again. I've had some recent problems as well, and they are not much fun.
- Jeff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Thank you. So far it's going well. Let's see how long my metal bin holds up this time. No, I agree, it is not fun at all.
Well, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of personality changes from frenzy to careful, deliberate actions (and the other way around) in a serial killer. I can very much see Jack's states of frenzy (if we can call it that) as being connected with the moment of killing and mutilations, while he before and after very well may have changed into another emotional state of calm and carefulness. About this, we will probably remain ignorant anyway, but I agree that there are some signs pointing at it, even though I don't find the notions about him indulging in careful "arrangements" especially consistent or clear -- at least not enough to draw any real conclusions from it.
I am not so sure that we "know that Jack arranged Chapman's belongings" and I am not at all sure that they were arranged at all in the first place; even if he did place them there, there is nothing that necessarily implies that he placed them in a deliberate order as an arrangement. Neither do I see the marks in Eddowes face as a convincing sign of neatness or "meaning"; rather as a sign that the body mutilations at this point no longer were enough for him. I think he just simply meant to degrade her, apart from that they mean and say nothing. They are just cuttings to me, no symbols, no communication, no attempt to express anything besides letting off steam. As I see it, those could just as well have been done in an anger instead of neatness, although they don't express the same furiousity as the ripping of the body.
Regarding the Mary Kelly scene, I have earlier pointed out the perfectly logical deduction, that it would be natural to interpret the clothes as being folded by Mary herself, simply because she apparently was already undressed in bed while she was killed, regardless if she was asleep or not. Another thing besides this, is that there is absolutely nothing else in Miller's Court that indicates neatness on the murderers part (which I think we should have seen) -- on the contrary, I would say. The crime scene in Miller's Court is a complete mess, a slaughter house and a chaos. There is blood and flesh everywhere. However, there is one point -- although a small one -- that could indicate some sort of "arrangement", namely the hand inside her ripped-up stomach, but if he placed it there for some special reason or by coincidence, or it fell in there by itself by accident, would be hard to tell. But the clothes thing I don't see any value in at all.
And as I said before, the position of the legs are a very common one in connection with murders; they are by no means unique for Jack the Ripper.
Note also that Mary Kelly's role in this discussion is based on that she was a Ripper victim, which I think is not 100% declared as a stated fact.
So I really find it hard to acknowledge those "related" links of arrangements and neatness. In my view they don't really exist, unless one wants to read things in such a way (which of course is not always bad) -- however, if the facts and signs supporting it are not stronger than this, then I believe that could be a dangerous side-track.
Happy Eastern, by the way, Jeff.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 09, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 205
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Jeff,
I am with Glenn here: we don't know that Jack arranged Chapman's things at all. As it is, the backyard of 29 Hanbury was the least pristine of all the Canonical Five crime scenes. There was a fair amount time between the discovery of the body and the arrival of the police and when the police did get there there was a milling, gawking crowd in the passageway. Those questioned said they didn't enter the yard, but considering the proximity of the body to the doorway and the press of those behind wanting a look, it is hard to imagine there was not a spillage of people into the yard.
Indeed, it has always been my belief (speculation only) that one of the onlookers snaffled the rings. Jack may have removed them, but the "trophies" he carried off were always corporal not ornamental. In the early light, though, the rings may have looked temptingly valuable to someone else.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1481
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
A good point, Don. That is of course a possible option, speculation or not.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2322
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 4:06 am: | |
Hi Glenn
I think that the piling of flesh on the table does indicate some orderliness. He didn't just chuck everything over his shoulder.
The closing of the door was another.
With Eddowes, it's not the fact that he wiped his hands on the apron that indicates some orderliness - after all, his hands were all crappy - but the fact that he thought to cut off the apron to do it with that impresses me.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 640
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
I have just lost a long piece of writing-infuriating! Anyway ,briefly.I suspect he wanted dramatic impact since he disappears in nearly every case within minutes of the police arriving.He MUST have worked out their beats.
Also the apron as someone noted a little while ago somewhere,may have been used for the kidney.
He dropped the apron about one and a half hours after the body was found.Maybe he put the kidney in some spirit at home and nipped out again to write his message drop his apron piece underneath
and disappears again.
I do sometimes wonder if it was a policeman when I think of the astonishing escapes.
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I must admit I can't see any indications of orderliness in the piles of flesh at all. For God's sake, he must put them somewhere. Just because he didn't throw them on the floor, doesen't mean that he had a special sense of neatness or that there are attempts of arrangement.
And closing of the door and wiping off the apron... why do we necessarily assume that he was totally incapable of doing the most simple things? I mean, he was most certainly some sort of lunatic in a way, but hardly mentally and physically handicapped. I find it hard to attribute even the most simple, obvious actions on his part as special characteristics of "orderliness" and arrangement. To me that would be over-interpretation.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2323
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 6:04 am: | |
Hi Glenn
Well, it's a matter of degree - it's impossible to numerically quantify the amount of orderliness each of us sees in the murders.
It's true that Jack need not have been in a frenzy the whole of the time he was in Kelly's room, so such "orderliness" as each of us sees may simply have been down to his returning to his (comparative) senses.
On the other hand, though, I do feel that the table being piled tells us something, for it was a tiny table and there was a lot of flesh on it. I believe I can see in the photo a piece hanging from the table, about to drop off (assuming the table wasn't materially altered by the police). It's as if he wanted to sqeeze this stuff onto the table.
And then, the organs were all on the bed.
I tend to agree that Kelly folded her own clothes, though.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2324
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Hi Natalie
I keep remembering what Morris said - that if Jack came round his way, he'd give him what for. And sure enough....
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
G'day,
I am back from a cruise of the South Pacific Islands and to get back into this conversation I must take everyone back to Glenn's post on Sunday March 28, 4:29p.m:
Glenn, I can't understand why you can't accept the suggestion that Barnett's motive centered around a hatred of prostitution, leading him to attempt to steer his woman away from it.
I believe that Jack the Ripper was attacking a monster....prostitution. This monster stole his mother and threatened to steal the woman he loved.
When he encountered a woman he had met that tried to stick to morals, (Catharine Eddowes), but was tempted by the monster, he became enraged and because she was a little more familiar to him than the others, he tried to erase her face so that she bacame anonymous...a 'symbol'.
I don't think the Ripper targeted prostitutes simply because they were easy prey as women. If his hatred was for the weaker sex, it would have been too tempting to kill a moralistic woman while everyone's eye's were on 'low-life' prostitutes, who were all on alert. This would have been like sneaking in while everyone was looking the other way. No, I don't think Catharine Eddowes had morals.
Was Peter Sutcliffe totally aimles when he chose to murder women that he considered immoral? Why not a nun?
Was Wayne Gacy totally aimless when he chose to murder young boys? I haven't got my case books in front of me, but I'm sure there are more examples.
JEFF: How are we going to find the Ripper from the crime scenes back to motive, a hundred and fourteen years after the act?
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi Robert,
I agree, this is tough, and for the most part we are talking personal interpretations here.
Fair enough, old boy. Although I personally simply interpret it as that he placed the flesh on the table, because that was handy for him to do so. It really doesen't have to be more complicated than that, as far as I am concerned.
The fact that the organs were on the bed, and the flesh (uuuh... this is a really neat subject...) on the table, could be just be explained by that the flesh was of less importance to him and he wanted to chuck it away, while the organs were the interesting bits to him.
Besides that, there is nothing that indicates that the organs, for examples, were placed and arranged in a specific order.
Furthermore, the fact that some gross and gore things are nearly dropping off the table there, is also inconsistent with the notion of neatness. However, as you say, we can't know how much disturbance the police made at the crime scene.
Well, it's speculations like anything else, but that is my two penny's worth. I would personally be careful reading anything more into it than that.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
G'day Leanne
Welcome back. Hope you had a nice cruise.
I had, due to the recent turbulence here, almost forgot about that post (which I must admit fits this subject thread better).
"Glenn, I can't understand why you can't accept the suggestion that Barnett's motive centered around a hatred of prostitution, leading him to attempt to steer his woman away from it.
[...]
I believe that Jack the Ripper was attacking a monster....prostitution. This monster stole his mother and threatened to steal the woman he loved.
[...]
I don't think the Ripper targeted prostitutes simply because they were easy prey as women. If his hatred was for the weaker sex, it would have been too tempting to kill a moralistic woman while everyone's eye's were on 'low-life' prostitutes, who were all on alert."
That is right, Leanne; sorry, no offense but I don't believe in fiction. Because that's what it is, nothing more, nothing less.
A serial killer hardly ever has such a complicated motive for his murders. The crimes are usually grounded on rage, personal fantasies and lust -- but hardly any thought-out schemes or attacks on parts of society. I'm sure one can find such examples, but I don't think it applies here. Jack the Ripper (regardless if he killed Mary Kelly or not) was a lust murderer, and like those he didn't need a deliberate motive.
Yes, I believe he picked prostitutes because they were easy targets, but I don't necessarily find it impossible that he had something against them on a personal basis. But he hardly had an agenda -- serial killers of this kind seldom have.
It doesen't matter that the prostitutes were on alert, they had to work anyway, and that made them easy prey.
Even if he had a plan to attack the social monster prostitution, I can't see why he would have to kill a number of street women in order to steer away Mary from it. There must have been easier ways, without risking capital penalty.
It is all too far-fetched, Leanne.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 10, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
