|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 8:16 am: |       |
G'day,
RON: 'Hutchinson would be the best place to start as you can place him at the scene of the murder when it happened...' No! We can place him at the scene only because he voluntarily placed himself there. If he was a murderer and thought: "Oh dear, I'll have to go to the police with an explanation because one woman saw a short male wearing a wideawake hat that she claimed she would be unable to recognize", then Jack the Ripper was a fool!
'He, [Barnett], certainly did not hate them enough not to be able to be involved with one...' Barnett forbade Mary to walk the streets as a prostitute as soon as they moved in together. (Julia Venturney told everyone so).
GLENN: If Joe murdered just Mary and tried to make it seem like a Ripper murder, why didn't he take her uterus or kidney, instead of taking her heart. I reckon they would have been easier to conceal.
RIPPERHISTORIAN: That's where you and I differ. I read Paley's book years ago, before I understood much about the case, and didn't want to believe his theory. Now after years of examination, his theory becomes very believeable.
How big is the stutter/stammer thing in his book? It's just a few paragraphs. I just don't believe any newspaper would bother to give a description of the way he talked, unles it was true.
You believe that Barnett and Kelly couldn't have lived in a 12X12 Mtr room, without Kelly knowing he was the Ripper? Billingsgate Market opened at 5:00a.m. and that was the time that the fruit markets opened. Costermongers of fruit mostly got to the markets early to get the best goods, hire their carts and get the best places to sell their goods. The markets ceased just after noon so Barnett would have been home soon after that. He probably went to sleep early to prepare for an early rise, as Mary was getting dresed to go out drinking with friends.
I have saved the best for last:
'This guys name was Joe Barnett that's all we have. Period.' I don't believe you wrote that one claiming to have read Paley's book!
We have much more than a name:
We have his mothers name,
his father's name,
his sisters name and his 3 brothers.
we have the year and place he was born,
the date of his father's death and the approximate year of his mothers desertion,
17 of his known addresses,
his employment history,
the list could go on and on.
GLENN: No, we have no date of release yet and will get it reviewed by an expert, as soon as we're positive we have no more to add. We are concentrating on a preface at the moment.
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 8:35 am: | |
G'day Leanne.
Good thing with that bold formatting on the quotations, instead of cursive -- makes the posts easier to read. I think I'll apply that as well.
"No, we have no date of release yet and will get it reviewed by an expert, as soon as we're positive we have no more to add. We are concentrating on a preface at the moment."
Ah, great. That means most of the writing is almost finished then. I envy you, really. It must be great fun. It's been a couple of years now since I had a project to work on and I am really getting restless and depressed from not doing anything at the moment.
"Barnett forbade Mary to walk the streets as a prostitute as soon as they moved in together."
Yes, but it only means that he didn't like his woman to indulge in such affairs -- which is perfectly understandable -- it doesen't say that he hated them as a group. There is a difference.
"If Joe murdered just Mary and tried to make it seem like a Ripper murder, why didn't he take her uterus or kidney, instead of taking her heart. I reckon they would have been easier to conceal."
A good point. And actually there are a couple of other problems with that scenario as well, like the over excessive mutilations -- all he really needed to (I couldn't put in the word "just" here, for obvious reasons...) was to rip her up like Chapman or Eddowes if he would copy the Ripper's work.
Still, who knows? He might not have been that read up on the case as he though he was, or maybe he had some naive notion that she would be more difficult to identify.
But I agree that there are several problems with it, and I personally see her more as a Ripper victim than the opposite, although there are some forensic stuff on the crime scene that keeps my doubts alive just a little bit.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 308
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
How do we find the Ripper based upon the crime scenes and back to motive 114 years later? Not sure we can given the limited, and poor quality of the data. But, if we can, it won't be through guessing alone, or by picking a suspect and then fitting things to them, but rather through very careful examination from every point of view. If there is enough information available to us, we'll get there. If there is not, we won't.
Welcome back! Hope you had a good holiday.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 309
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Indeed, Mary does appear to be posed. Her left hand either had to be placed in it's final position afer the murders or her arm was picked up and dropped for some reason. Personally, her position looks very posed to me from the photo.
And yes, Eddowes facial cuts may not reflect what I was thinking about, and may simply be an extention of the mutilation process. I was simply thinking along the idea in question to see if there was something that works. If nothing works, well, there's nothing to consider which makes things much easier! ha!
As for Annie's things, I believe someone testifies that the objects looked deliberately arranged. Since we don't have a crime scene photo, we have no idea why he thought that. Something about their placement must have seemed, at least to him, to warrent this. We can't be sure of one person's opinion, but without something to suggest otherwise, it does mean we have to consider the deliberate arrangement as being reasonable. I agree we don't have to accept it as total fact (it's just one person's opinion), but I don't think we can say there's nothing to suggest they were not arranged since we're told they were.
Anyway, we may get nothing more out of this than what is not totally surprising. The ripper may have had large and rapid mood swings. A need to organise, even in small amounts, during such a crime also points to someone who thinks quite different. It could be one more aspect of control over his victims, it could be a compulsive aspect of his personality, and of course, it could be an incorrect theory!
Isn't it fun? Every new question creates more questions than answers.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Yes it is fun and at the same time frustrating. But that is the intellectual core of digging into old crimes, I guess.
You are quite right, that we have no facts proving that Chapman's belongings was not deliberately arranged, just as we have no evidence of the opposite.
But even if they were, it would tell us nothing. As I see it, it is hard to find any consistent forms of arranging attempts on the Ripper's part, if we take all the alleged victims in consideration.
The posse of the bodies, with one leg or both spread out are incredibly common as part of a signature in serial killings, and my guess is they display the killer's way to degrade the victim even further, beyond the actual killing and mutilation.
But that really tell us nothing new, apart from what we already suspect as far as his personality is concerned. That he might have had a hatred of women (and maybe even prostitutes?) is something that seems rather telling anyway, considering the nature of the murders.
If it's a sign of arranging, then I guess almost every serial killer has this one way or the other. Both Eddowes' and Mary Kelly's bodies looks indeed a bit posed, but it is not in an unique way that separates Jack from other serial killers.
Anyway, that is probably as far as we are able to go at this instant. Nice talking to you as always, Jeff. You always force me to think. Have a great holiday, Jeff.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
G'day,
GLENN: When I got home I looked in Joel Norris's book 'Serial Killers' and found:
* PATRICK KEARNY & DAVID HILL who murdered 28 homosexuals. Do you think that was a coincidence, or could it have been planned that way?
* VAUGHN GREENWOOD who murdered 11 skid-row derelicts over a two year period.
* GERALD EUGENE who killed 18 waitresses in Florida.
* 'THE SKID ROW SLASHER' who murdered 8 derelicts and 4 street-people of New York. Aimless?
* JOSEPH PAUL FRANKLIN was a known racist who killed 2 black men in Utah and is suspected of killing 8 other black men. Just lucky?
* CARTLTON GARY preyed on elderly women.
* TED BUNDY searched for pretty co-eds.
* JOHN GACY looked for a certain type of teenage boy.
LEANNE
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1492
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 7:03 am: | |
G'day, Leanne.
What do you mean, woman?
Of course there are a number of serial killers that do not choose prostitutes as victims (why they do or don't we can't really know), but many of them do. Regardless of which, most serial killers have a type of victims they prefer for different reasons. But most of them are still lust murderers, not scheme makers.
These people you refer to chose a certain type of victims, but that is a choice most likely based on instinct, sexual taste and opportunity -- not something they sat down with a piece of paper and planned. I am not sure that many of them really knew why they chose these types of victims, but it might have something to do with childhood experiences. However, if you look through modern crime history, you'll find that prostitutes always been easy targets due to the nature of their trade. I believe Jack the Ripper chose prostitutes because he
a) hated them and what they represented
or
b) hated women in general, but found these women easiest to gain access to, since they practically offered themselves to him under circumstances that made it suitable for him and they had no other options.
Both of these options are to me connected with some sort of lust drive, something he had to do and maybe even felt that someone or something forced him to do beyond his control.
But as a part of a larger scheme context, as the one you suggest with Barnett and Mary Kelly (and their alleged relations to the other victims) -- no, that I feel is not that consistent with the mind and drives of a serial killer.
If we were talking mass murderers and bombers -- who usually have very personal, though out reasons for their acts, like revenge or political issues -- it is a completely different thing.
But here we are talking about repeat lust murders, nothing else, and those are mostly "motiveless".
As I said before, if Barnett wanted to scare off Mary from the streets, he could have found other methods without killing a number of prostitutes and hence risking capital punishment. It would be easier for me to buy if you just referred to that his upbringing gave him a hatred of women and maybe even prostitutes and therefore finally was emotionally pushed to do the murders in rage. But that whole thing with keeping Mary off the streets and they both knowing the other women is too much. It is here it becomes fiction.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
I meant to point out that there are serial killers who make conscious choices as to the type of their victims. Some don't care who they kill, but others make more of a plan.
Here's more about one of the guys I listed above: JOSEPH PAUL FRANKLIN, the racist killer who murdered black men. He confessed that he tried to start a race war by shooting blacks and interracial couples.
As a rational thinking person, you can think of other ways that Joe could have drawn Mary away from prostitution. Taking into consideration what was availale to East End residents at the time, could you please list these?
Remember Joe had his money and gifts to satisfy Mary, until he lost his job just before the murders. Remember also the continued visits if Mary's former lover Joseph Flemming.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Rats! I probably forgot to fill in my Password, because my reply to your message above was put in a queue.
Or? What happened?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 9:29 am: | |
Hi all,
If we believe Hutchinson and Cox then Joe was not with Kelly the night she was killed the only way this works is if you believe that Joe killed her in the morning and I dont buy that.
CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Hi all,
getting back to joe as a viable ripper suspect. I think he is he lived in the area and he knew at least one of the vitims. I just dont buy the motive that some have suggested I also think he would of been a deviant with some sort of criminal record he would have not gone completley unnoticed by the police. The biggest objection I have with the Joe the ripper theory is he would have kept on killing untill he got cautht. If Kelly was the last ripper victim then her murder tells us one important clue. Something happend to the ripper the night of or shortly after to make him stop killing. I believe if Joe was the ripper he would have been caught.
All the best,CB |
Gloenna
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
G'day Leanne!
Serial killers like Franklin, who are trying to make a point with their killings, is nevertheless quite unusual and hardly representative. As I said, one can always find numerous examples; serial killers are all individuals like the rest of us and doesen't always fit into the boundaries of profiling categories.
But you must look at the nature of the murders. In Franklin's case, the murders he committed display his motives quite clearly, while the Ripper murders are of a character that to me clearly show an emotionally deranged lust murderer. There are no plans or agendas behind those murders -- in my view just compulsion and possibly rage and contempt. Besides, if there were, we would have seen a larger number of communication from him to the police or the press -- so far all we've got is the Lusk letter, which we don't know if it's genuine, even though there may be a slight possibility that it is.
It is the nature of the Ripper murders themselves that makes the Barnett "anti-prostitution/Mary Kelly campaign" fall into pieces. Not by comparing them to other serial killers like Franklin, who is nothing like the Ripper in the first place.
"As a rational thinking person, you can think of other ways that Joe could have drawn Mary away from prostitution. Taking into consideration what was availale to East End residents at the time, could you please list these?"
No, I can't, actually -- not at the moment. I guess he just had to take it or leave it, as far as Kelly was concerned. And he did leave her! (although he didn't break the contact with her completely.) But I don't understand why he is supposed to have killed those other women. It is a very far-fetched though that she would be frightened off to such an extent, in order to give it up; Barnett himself is the one who would risk the most on such a scheme, which he could't be sure of would work anyway. And he himself would risk to be hanged if he got caught. One doesen't become a serial killer of this particular kind on such rather vague, personal grounds. It doesen't add up. Jack the Ripper was in my view a compulsive murderer -- not someone with a thought out purpose.
You're a tough nut to crack, Leanne -- I'll give you that... puh! But that's the challenge of it... 
All the best |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Hi all,
I just read one of old post were they suggest that Joes hattred of prostitutes ran deeper then just wanting to keep Mary of the streets. If you believe that Joe was killing prostitutes because he wanted to scare Mary of the streets and once he killed her then he had no need to kill again. I think that is far fetched but to suggest that he had a deep hatred of prostitutes and he just stoped killing is even more far fetched. Serial killers dont wake up start killing for no reason and dont just stop. The urge too kill gets stronger. If Joe was the ripper there would of been more then 5 WC Victims
All the best,CB |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 5:06 am: | |
Monty,
I too see an indication of order and not chaos.As Robert says the piling of the flesh on the table seems to indicate such,though I would think the word placing ,as more apt.
Whether astride the body on the bed,or standing beside it,he was at different times in a condition of knife in one hand and flesh in another.He could have simply tossed the cuttings haphazardly to the foot or over the bottom of the bed,but instead placed the body parts where they were found.The actions of a controlled and orderly individual.
Someone has mentioned the orderliness as resembling the actions of a military trained person.Not to flog a point,but there was such an individual who was described as of military bearing,and who figures largely in the ripper story.It was none other than George Hutchinson. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2334
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Re your challenge : think of what else Barnett could have done to keep Kelly off the streets.
OK,
1. He could have beaten her up.
2. He could have taken to theft, mugging and burglary to replenish his coffers.
But, if you must have Joe as JTR, then
3.He could have sent her threatening letters purporting to be from the murderer.And he'd have made sure he only killed young women, just to ram the point home to Mary.
To disembowel women just to send a message to your girlfriend is plain wacky.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Ah, there my post arrived above. Seems like I had typed the wrong username.
Hi Robert,
Thank you for the examples there. I must admit I didn't bother at that particular time, since I am caught up with work, but of course the ones you suggest are quite more realistic than killing a number of prostitutes.
Harry Mann,
I must admit I just don't get it. Firstly, there are organs and flesh spread all over the bed and on the table. Of course the organs are placed. He must put them somewhere!
But "orderliness"? Shall we now interpret the simple fact that the murderer put the flesh and organs somewhere in the vicinity of the body, as "being deliberately placed and arranged"?
OK, if you can find orderliness in the Miller's Court scene, be my guest.
"The actions of a controlled and orderly individual...."
Yeah right. That's what I see as well when I look at Mary Kelly's corpse. Sure...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 5:12 am: | |
G'day,
GLOENNA: Do you want Jack the Ripper to be 'representative'....common?....normal....average? This, I feel, can be an obstacle in solving his crimes.
No GLENN: Joseph Barnett wasn't known to be violent towards Mary. It was testified that he 'forbade' her to walk the streets. What do you suppose he threatened her with? To walk out on her?...She would have had Joseph Flemming to go back to, and apparently he gave her money.
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 264
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Hi Glenn.
A couple of days ago you wrote: “The crime scene in Miller's Court is a complete mess, a slaughter house and a chaos. There is blood and flesh everywhere.”
And (to Harry Mann):
“OK, if you can find orderliness in the Miller's Court scene, be my guest.
"The actions of a controlled and orderly individual...."
Yeah right. That's what I see as well when I look at Mary Kelly's corpse. Sure...”
First off, just to be clear on that point, I don’t see any attempts to communication in anything that happened in Miller’s Court. However, I don’t necessarily see the complete mess, the slaughter house with blood everywhere you seem to be seeing as a result of an uncontrolled individual.
There wasn’t blood and flesh everywhere. Mainly the right corner of the bed was saturated with blood, there was blood below the bed and the wall next to where Mary’s neck had been was covered with several splashings of blood. Most of the flesh was on the table, the two breasts were on the bed, together with the organs.
Besides the facial mutilations and the cuts in her arms, there are really no indications of wild hacks and stabs. In fact, stabbing her seems to have been the least that he did. What he did do was fillet her to a large extent. And although whatever the Ripper did to Mary was obviously horrendous, it seems to me that what he did was more of an exploration of her female body while destroying her at the same time rather than ‘frenzically’ hacking and stabbing. This does seem to point to some extent of control.
Furthermore, besides the possible placing of the left arm, there is the fact that the uterus, kidneys and one breast were placed under the head. Again, this doesn’t mean that he wanted to get a message across or that he was necessarily tidy, but as this is not a place where he would just drop them or lay them down, it does suggest that he did place what he cut off. Again, this does seem to point to some extent of control.
All the information available to us shows that MJK was killed and mutilated on the bed; there were no body parts found anywhere else in the room, there was no blood found anywhere else in her room. In other words, the rest of the room seems to have been unaffected by the killing and mutilating of Mary Jane Kelly. The neatly folded clothes fit well into this, regardless of who folded them.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 9:43 am: | |
Hi Frank,
Well, I never said that there were flesh and blood all over the room. But the vicinity of the corps and the bed displays in my view quite a messy scene.
I also never said that a "chaos" (which I admit is a strong word) meant frenzied stabbing. I have never mentioned stabbing. Besides, some parts of her are so destroyed that you can't possibly say if he did some hacking as well, before he carved her clean on some parts.
The point here is possible signs of arranged elements, and I don't believe there are any, unless you desperately wants to see them. As I said a number of times by now, yes, there are certain "objects" of flesh and organs placed close to the body, but why not? Why shouldn't there ne? Why must he throw them all over the place in order to show lacking signs of orderliness? Why on Earth should the rest of 13 Miller's Court be in the same state as the bed area, when it was on the bed the murder occurred?
So, do you mean to imply, that if the murderer doesen't destroy and spray blood all over the whole room he shows signs of remarkable orderliness and control? I am sorry, I just don't get it.
I don't know about you, but to me it is a slaughter house. You have blood splatter on the wall, some accounts also state that there was blood on the floor (I have no idea if that is a verified fact, though), you have piles of flesh lying about etc. etc.
You can't possibly know, Frank, why certain organs were placed here or there. He could have done so just because it was convenient for him -- and as I said earlier, he must put them somewhere. Do you suggest that he should have placed them in another corner of the room or thrown them out the window?
I am afraid the whole attempts to read symbols and arranged elements into everything is a result of a wish to find some sort of sense in the extreme nature of the murder on Mary Kelly. I just think people are seeing things that doesen't exist -- but that's just my opinion.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 266
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I think I’ve misinterpreted the ways in which you’ve put your views on the Miller’s Court crime scene (and I wasn’t just basing that on the two examples I put forward). Each time I read your views on this crime scene, I got the feeling that you see him at Miller’s Court like a shark in a feeding frenzy, savagely and wildly caring for nothing but satisfying his hunger. To indicate that I might have misinterpreted your words I said ‘…seemed to be seeing…”, because I wasn’t sure if I interpreted them correctly or not. Obviously I didn’t.
OK, now that’s out of the way, my only point was, as opposed to how you seemed to be seeing things, that there seem to be some signs of control on the part of the Ripper. To place some things under the head doesn’t seem particularly convenient, dropping them on the floor or to the left of Mary's body would be. I don’t think and never said the ‘placing’ of the organs can be seen as a sign of neatness or whatever. But it could be a sign of control.
Since it was not a large bed and since the Ripper probably sat on the bed off and on while he was mutilating he could have easily dropped one or two things on the floor or, he could certainly have tossed rather than placed them if he really went berserk, which would enlarge the chance of anything bouncing off the wall or ending up on the floor as well. But as there were no parts found on the floor, this seems to point to some extent of control, or at least to me it does.
As to the frenzied stabbing and hacking, you’re right. I can’t possibly say if he did some hacking as well, but it’s just that I feel he wasn’t all that frenzied and I have only the absence of many hacks and stabs in the known information to base that upon, and of course the above.
All in all, I don’t see any symbols or arrangements in any of MJK’s crime scene findings, the only difference between you and me seems to be that I see a sign of some self control where you may not.
All the best,
Frank
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 264
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
I don't see it as a feeding frenzy myself. I see it as slowly and methodically done. I do believe the folded clothes are significant. In studying several cases I have seen this. The bodies of 3 little girls all suspected of being killed by the same hand all had their pants and undergarments neatly folded on top of their bodies. In the case of MJK, I'm not saying the killer folded the clothes, I'm just saying the clothes are a clue of some kind. 1. Killer folded them. 2. Mary folded them. 3. Someone came in before the body was found and folded them. Food for thought.
Mikey |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 267
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
I see I’ve made a mistake. I wrote: “… dropping them on the floor or to the left of Mary's body would be.”
This should be: “… dropping them on the floor or to the right of Mary's body would be.” Because that's where there was space.
I sometimes have trouble distinguishing left from right. I play soccer and when I’m coached to go the left, or to the right, I tend to go in the other direction, or at least I don’t go in the right direction immediately and automatically.
Frank
|
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 4:51 am: | |
Glen,
I was addressing Monty.
I said placed.I did not say arranged.
You look at Kelly,s corpse.I look at what was taken from it,and placed at the murder scene.What was cut from the body was placed on the bed and table.The parts were not indiscriminately thrown around.Of course they were deliberately placed,unless you think his mind was blank,and he didn't realise what he was doing with them.
Anyway congratulations to your family.They do not need to buy an encyclopedia. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2341
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 6:52 pm: | |
Hi Frank
I agree with you that there do seem to have been some elements of control - we can all argue about how much - but I'm not sure about the organs being placed under the head. He moved the head from the far corner to the near side of the bed - probably to make it easier to mutilate the face - and therefore it's possible, isn't it, that instead of the organs being placed under the head, the head was placed on top of the organs?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
Well, I can't exclude some part of self-control by the killer, but that is not my main issue; I have never meant that he was slashing his way through everything; as you point out, yes, the fact that one of the breasts was found under the head displays some sort of carefulness -- I can give you that.
But apart from that, I don't see a room displaying orderliness and control in general when I look at the crime scene photo.
To me the attack points at a lot of rage. I can only refer to Dr. Bond: "The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes. [...] "The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched and cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features. [...] the face hacked beyond recognition of the features."
Now, this approach of irregular slashes and cuts on the murderer's part show more signs of rage and compulsion than orderliness and self-control to me. Note Bond's use of expressions like "hacked", "slashes", irregular" etc.
My whole point with indulging in this discussion concerned if there were signs of arranged or deliberately placed items on the crime scenes, "placed" in the sense that they mean something. And that I don't believe in. At least I don't think such vague signs are conclusive or consistent enough in order to tell us anything of value. That's all.
All the best
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.
|
|
|
|
