|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
erik røraas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:26 am: | 
|
In Patricia Cornwells book, irritatingly called 'case closed', she states that JtR did not need to have any sort of knowledge to human anatomy to carry out his murders. I find this very hard to believe, especially when it comes to the murders of Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly, but then again, I am no expert on either the JtR-case nor on human anatomy. So, is there anyone who could help me get some facts straight on this subject?
-Erik Røraas- Norway |
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi Eric,
Being new here you probably dont realise just how much debate has gone into this very point. Everyone seems to have their own oppinion on it.So I will give you mine anyway. I have studied some anatomy at university.
I think he did have to have anatomical knowledge but did not to have been a qualified doctor.The key factor for me is the murder of Eddow's.Where he murdered her in mitre square the police were running tight 15 minute patrols of the whole area.The light was very poor aswell.The combination of of bad light and time meant he had to operate under extreme pressure.The police were now on the warpath after Stride's body was found too.
To carry out these extensive mutilations, mark her face and remove her kidney indicated he must have known anatomy. It is just not possible under such time pressure to rely on luck. It also means to me that he must have cased the scene previously to give himself the maximum amount of time.He also had to escape without raising suspicion.One thing I do believe, although he was deranged , he was adroit, sharp , well disciplined and shrewd. Anyway you make up your mind - I think he knew exactly what he was doing.
With Kelly, it is not such a good example, as he had time and privacy to do as he pleased.So we cant make judgements about anatomical knowledge on the basis of her murder.With her, it may also have been a copycat killing.
Thanks
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 581
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Hi Eric & Kyle,
I think the Ripper probably had some rough anatomical knowledge, but it needn't have been more than that IMHO. People who think he had to have a very good anatomical or even medical knowledge seem to do so because they believe he sought the kidney - which I don't.
An idea of mine is that he was already looking for the heart in Eddowes' case, but came up with the left kidney instead. But that's just an idea.
My general view is that JtR did what he did as a sort of exploration of the female body while destroying it at the same time. I think he opened his victims' abdominal cavities, and generally took away whatever felt good to him at the time.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 582
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Small addition to my post above: I don't think knowing where the heart was would necessarily point to an extensive anatomical knowledge, even in those days.
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 801
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
Two factors are in play here. Most people just assume that the killer was looking for specific organs in each case. It is possible, however, that he just carried off the first organ he found or merely some convenient organ rather than an organ he was specifically searching for and therefore no recognition was necessary.
It is also possible that he had extensive knowledge of animal anatomy, perhaps that of a slaughterman or butcher. Organs in all mammals have a similar appearance and are oriented in much the same way relative to each other.
While he certainly could have been, I see no evidence to suggest that JtR was a doctor or had any medical training.
Andy S. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
In the Bradford case I have mentioned on another thread, the boy's heart was removed and 'tucked under his chin'. I suppose one could also see some kind of medical training at play here.
However it appears that the killer was the local milkman, so he might have known his udders but I'm quite sure he could not have performed a vasectomy. I suppose as he was slicing the poor boy up - the entire abdomen was missing - the heart plopped out and he thought 'right, I'll tuck that under his chin before I cut his arms and legs off.'
I don't believe there to be a method to madness. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 540
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Here we go again. For what it is worth, I have always felt JtR had some anatomical knowledge, more than your average East End denizen, of whom I ask "How many knew a womb from a wombat?" That knowledge, however, could be gained from a variety of sources -- from butchering to books and would not require any medical training whatsoever.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2042
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I agree with you, Donald.
It is very likely that the killer spent a lot of his time studying medical books of the Victorian type that showed great details of the human body.
In fact I might even say that the killer would have been much taken with such study of medical books, and as a consequence locked himself in his room all day to do so.
Wouldn't you agree? |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 803
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
I, for one, do not agree. Again, who's to say the killer was looking for a specific organ? True, in two cases he did remove uteri. However, this might just be happenstance, the result of random mutilations of the groin area. In the case of Eddowes, the uterus was not so much removed as clumsily mutilated. Although in Chapman's case the medical examiner was of the opinion that surgical skill was involved, his description of the removal of her uterus sounds rather like butchery to my layman's ear.
As I said earlier, I believe that any slaughterman or butcher -- or anyone else used to cutting up large mammals -- would have more than adequate anatomical knowledge and skill to perform these mutilations. Furthermore, who was used to killing quickly, neatly, efficiently, and callously (if that's a word)? A slaughterman.
My dilemma is that the person I most strongly suspect was not a slaughterman or a butcher. I deal with this dilemma in an article I hope to have published later this summer.
Andy S.
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 542
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
AP,
Ah, you won't quite that easily get me to board an express train headed for Cutbush Parva (Carva?), but I do agree with much of what you wrote. As a collecter of all kinds of old books I have a few of those LVP medical texts and yes, they could be the answer for the more than ordinary anatomical knowledge. But for now I'm still on the local that makes most "suspect stops."
Andy,
One point that is too often glossed over is that slaughterers and butchers were two different occupations and a slaughterer would have more experience with gross mammalian anatomy and killing. For that matter, if JtR really did wish to decapitate a victim a butcher would certainly know how to disarticulate the cervical bones, a task that seems to have stymied Jack.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Yes Donald
and that you do not board that express train allows me to respect your thoughts and opinions.
Those old illustrated medical texts from the LVP are very disturbing.
Somehow I have always classified them as soft porn. The type of thing that a young and disturbed mind would cling to when he had no family relationship. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 583
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
"My dilemma is that the person I most strongly suspect was not a slaughterman or a butcher."
I don't want to ruin your article, but that shouldn't be a dilemma. None of the mutilating murderers I know of were butchers or slaughtermen (nor were they hunters or even surgeons).
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:25 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
That's exactly the point I was going to make.
Stranglers don't have to be tie salesmen, hangmen, or chicken farmers.
Poisoners don't have to be chemists.
Cut-throats don't have to be knife-grinders or barbers.
Trigger happy killers don't have to be marksmen or gunsmiths.
What they all have in common is the desire to kill in a particular way. The method doesn't have to reflect what they do best, or what they do for a living. It's more likely IMHO to come from motivation, personal preference and convenience.
Having said all that, I think a suspect's hobbies could well provide a clue or two. As AP suggests, anyone known to have had morbid interests or obsessions is fair game for our suspicions.
Love,
Caz
X |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 804
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:39 am: |
|
Caz and Frank,
That is the dilemma. Logic suggests someone who is used to killing without giving it much thought as well as someone with gross anatomical knowledge. A slaughterman is a perfect fit. Yet experience suggests that "ordinary" people are capable of such behavior.
Perhaps dilemma is not the right word.
Andy S. |
erik røraas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
Thank you for your answer.
I have thought along some of the same lines as you, and I agree that the murder of Eddowes is guite telling on this question. Also; could his excellent timing in the Eddows murder indicate that he had some sort of information regarding te police patrols, or were they simply predictable? Any thoughts on this? |
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Hi Frank Van Oploo.
You said that as an idea he may have been looking for the heart and came up with the kidney.From an anatomical point of view, this would indicate to me he knew nothing at all about anatomy.
As for Kelly, it is not a good example. He had the time to do anything he liked.
Donald.
You make a very relevant point.The average East ender, or anyone for that matter, simply would know nothing about anatomy by todays standards.Even anatomy taught at university, was preschool stuff by todays standards.This is a fact.So to an undereducated EastEnder of 1888, they wouldnt know a womb, or kidney, or liver from a pork sausage.
If he didnt have anatomical knowledge, than he was on a voyage of discovery.Given the open areas he has chosen, and the huge pressure he must have been under while operating on Eddow's, than he has been unbelievably fortunate.He has escaped detection on each occasion also, when making his escape to his home or hideout.
I just dont believe he could have been that lucky.I dont believe in luck personally. You make your own luck , and that is what he did.I think he has cased his chosen kill point areas,studied his escape routes,knew the police patrols, and knew what he was going to do anatomically.If Jack the Ripper was just an unintelligent monkey hacking away, and hoping he wouldnt get caught ,he was amazingly lucky. With hundreds of INTELLIGENT people looking for him, I believe he was educated enough to elude them , and know something of anatomy.
Thanks
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 667
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
You know, it seems to me that claiming that average East Enders back then wouldn't know anything abut anatomy is completely backwards. They are much more likely to have seen butchers at work and even done some of it themselves than we are today with massive supermarkets that have all the grime and gore hidden away far from public view.
Beyond all that, we know from other killings that no real anatomical knowledge is needed to commit these kinds of crimes. The question really comes down to if he intentionally targeted specific organs or if he just took out whatever he came across, and there's no good evidence either way.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 805
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 1:09 am: |
|
Quite right, Dan. The working class were likely to have some experience cutting up animals and the upper classes may also have had some experience in this area if they were hunters.
Andy S.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 815
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:13 pm: |
|
I just saw a documentary about the city of Chicago today in which was shown a "pig sticker" slaughtering hogs in the Stockyards. Interestingly, he cut the pi;gs throat with a sawing motion, not the quick slash I envision the Ripper inflicting. When he cut the first pig's throat, a torrent of blood gushed out and stuck his leather apron(!). He managed to avoid being further soiled by the torrent from the second pig, however. We should remember that these pigs were strung up by the hind leg allowing gravity to exaggerate the torrent of blood.
Two lessons:
1. A slaughterer uses a sawing motion, not a slashing motion.
2. Even an expert slaughterman sometimes gets drenched with blood.
Andy S. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1745
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
G'day,
Jack the Ripper didn't 'operate' on his victims!
To carry out these extensive mutilations, mark her face and remove her kidney indicated he must have known anatomy.
No, No, No. I think even an idiot could have found a face, even in poor light. And why must he have been specifically after a kidney?
'With her, [Mary Kelly], it may also have been a copycat killing.'
If so, who was he copying? Mary Kelly's butchering was far greater than the previous victims and instead of taking her kidney or uteris, he took her HEART! I know someone is going to say: "But he had more time and privacy within Kelly's room!" But why make the change if he wanted police to think it was a Ripper job?
'With Kelly, it is not such a good example, as he had time and privacy to do as he pleased.'
Yeah, but how did he know he had time and privacy? That's why I believe he knew Mary Kelly well, and knew the habits of the neighbours.
If he had 'cased' the scene previously, he must have known that Barnett wasn't asked to return, plus he must have been told that Maria Harvey had found another room!
LEANNE
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 593
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Hi Kyle,
“You said that as an idea he may have been looking for the heart and came up with the kidney. From an anatomical point of view, this would indicate to me he knew nothing at all about anatomy.”
This wouldn’t necessarily indicate that, although I think it’s perfectly possible that he had only little anatomical knowledge. I do not know, but I think even the rather poor and ill educated people of those days knew where the heart approximately was: in the chest on the left side. The left kidney is situated behind the stomach, which is directly under the heart. But again, it was just an idea, based on nothing but the fact that in MJK’s case her heart was cut out and taken away.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 594
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
G’day Leanne,
“Yeah, but how did he know he had time and privacy? That's why I believe he knew Mary Kelly well, and knew the habits of the neighbours.”
If she was killed during the night, there would have been no need for him to have known the habits of the neighbours at all, because these neighbours, like most people in general, would have been in bed at that time of day. If he was acting like a punter, he wouldn’t necessarily had to have known her. Maybe he asked her if there was a boyfriend or husband or if they would have time and privacy, maybe she told him about her situation herself. Who knows?
If he entered her room while she was asleep, I agree that he at least must have known her to a certain degree, or better yet, that he must have known certain things about her.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Leanne,
If it was a copycat murder "who was he copying"...
Maybe he thought he was copying the Whitechapel Killer. If he had only read about the accounts in the newspapers there would have been a lot left up to his imagination. Maybe he thought he WAS mutilating in the same way as the previous victims. Did the newspapers actually say exactly which organs were taken, etc. Maybe the "overkill" was to hide the fact he wasn't sure, and wanted to make sure there was no doubt who had done the killing. Mutilate everything so nothing is missed.
Just a thought,
Carolyn  |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1746
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:29 pm: |
|
G'day,
FRANK: People in that area, at that time, were up and out at very early hours, some were forced to roam the streets all night. Prostitutes were out looking for clients and let's not forget it was the night before 'Lord Mayor's Day', so it wasn't a usual morning.
If Kelly's killer didn't know her intimately, he was taking a big gamble because he wouldn't have known what arrangements she had made. Perhaps she had arranged to meet someone early, or have someone call. If we assume that she told her last client that they wouldn't be disturbed she was foolish, because we know how frightened she was of the unkown Ripper.
CAROLYN: Find me the newspaper report prior to November that describes a murder scene that was anything like Kelly's.
LEANNE |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Leanne,
That is my exact point. He was winging it. Killing the way he thought the Whitechapel Killer had killed his victims. If you reread what I wrote I said "there would have been a lot left up to his imagination"... This kind of thing had not been reported in the newspaper.
Also, if he didn't read he would have heard about the killings on the streets, and we know how fast gossip gets embellished. How horrible do you think the word on the street was re. the killings? He may have thought he was mutilating the victim in the same way.
He did not have to read an exact account in the newspaper to do a copycat. He did what he thought was a copycat. What he imagined to be a copycat.
That is why the "overkill", to make sure you don't forget anything that might have been done to the victims. Cover all bases.
Just my humble opinion,
Carolyn 
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 682
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I was saving mention of it for an article in my magazine, but it got pushed back twice now due to lack of space. It'll be at least a couple more months before it has a chance to be seen, so I figure I may as well point this out here now as I've already waited like 6 months...
I don't believe Mary Jane Kelly's death was a copy cat murder, but if there's any argument to be made for believing it was, it's the fact that the mutilations that happened to her accurately match a blending of details from news reports of the previous victims... and, perhaps significantly, details that were actually wrong.
MJK was the only victim whose heart was removed, right? Well, according to the newspapers and popular rumors, it was well known that the Whitechapel murderer had already removed at least one heart.
The Star of Sept. 8 wrote of Chapman: "the throat was cut, and the body ripped open, but the horror was intensified by the fact that THE HEART AND LIVER WERE OVER HER HEAD" (emphasis in original).
Here this is, the first murder for which any organ was removed, and the press already told the public that the mutilations were far worse than they were. And we aren't talking about an isolated report, this is the Star, which was very widely read. People everywhere thought the murderer was taking out the hearts of his victims.
For example, we have:
"His Imagination Fired by Hanbury-street. A woman living in Whitechapel asked at Worship-street for protection against her husband, who had threatened to cut her heart out and burn it." (The Star of Sept. 12.)
"Upon further examination it was found that the woman's body had been completely ripped open and the heart and other organs placed on the pavement at her side." (The Woodford Times of Sept. 14)
"the laying out of the viscera and heart by the side of the victim as if for inspection, point to the murderer as being - not a butcher, for the wounds would have been different - but one who is handy in the use of the knife" (East London Observer of Sept. 15)
And the famous "Nemo" letter: "The mutilations, cutting off the nose and ears, ripping up the body, and cutting out certain organs - the heart, &c. - are all peculiarly Eastern methods" (as printed in the Times on Oct. 4).
There are also a variety of (presumably hoax) Ripper letters claiming that the killer was going to tear out the heart of his victims.
All of these reports (and many reports of Ripper letters) came out before November. Then the November Ripper murder ends up actually having the heart taken and organs laid out at the side... almost as if for inspection.
Coincidence? Possibly. Or it's possible the Ripper was just trying to live up to his reputation (after all, news reports had been claiming he had left writing at crime scenes previously and then suddenly after Eddowes' murder he apparently did, or at least that's the conventional wisdom).
Or, possibly, just maybe, someone else killed Mary Jane Kelly and did his best to make it look like what he had read about the killings in the newspaper reports, not knowing that by taking the heart he was actually copying a detail that was actually incorrect.
For those wondering why I went from completely ruling out MJK as a copycat murder to grudgingly admitting it is possible, that's it in a nutshell.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 386
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Even though the Kelly murder appears to have been committed by someone as evil as JTR- [ Chapman,Nichols,Eddowes...leaving long Liz alone for a moment...]....there are some things about it that are definitely different and deserve re-thinking,as Dan has described,as well as others..
The severe facial mutilations that occurred with MJK may well have been enacted solely because of the fact it was an indoors murder. Most of us that have her down as a C5 victim feel that way and its understandable....
On the other hand,it wouldn't have taken much time to facially-mutilate either of the other 2 mutilated canonical victims [Eddowes being the obvious exception ],Chapman or Nichols. If he could in the case of Eddowes...why didn't he in Bucks Row or in Hanbury Street ? In 5 seconds, and I hate to be gruesome, he could have removed either woman's face. Sorry for the visual.
As to copycatting,newspapers have and do and will continue to provide "ideas" for other people who just needed a little inspiration....and a precedent. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
G'day,
DAN: 'MJK was the only victim whose heart was removed, right?'
Wrong! MJK was the only victim whose heart was taken and removed from the scene! You even mentioned how Chapman's heart was found over her head with her liver! Mary's heart was found missing after her autopsy. This information was even considered too gruesome to mention in the papers.
One of Mary's beasts was found under her head. After all the publicity about Kate's uterus and kidney being taken, Mary's killer left those parts behind.
I think if Kelly's killer really wanted to fool police into blaming the Ripper, he would studied the previous inquest reports to get the facts right.
If Kelly's murder wasn't premeditated, I don't think her killer would have been in any frame of mind to think of such a smart plan. I think he would have just wanted to get out of her room and establish an alibi somewhere else.
What about the 'Telegraphs' mention on the 4th of October that the Ripper had written: 'The next job I do I shall clip the lady's ears off and send to the police-officers' How well publisized was the text of the 'Dear Boss' letter?
Mary's ears were cut off, but they were left behind, plus wouldn't he have been tempted to send the heart to the police, to strengthen the case against the Ripper?
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 683
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Actually, MJK was the only victim whose heart was removed. I listed the newspaper report claiming that Chapman's was removed precisely to point out that the newspaper coverage was wrong and that theoretically a copycat could have picked that to copy.
And, actually, at least one if not two newspaper reports in 1888 did mention that MJK's heart was taken away from the scene.
If an alleged copycat killer would have wanted to fool police into thinking the murder was committed by the Ripper, he would have read the only sources he had available: the newspapers. And the detail of the heart is one that happens to match up more with newspaper reports of what the Ripper did than with what the Ripper had actually done. That's my point. Not that there was a copycat, but that you can't claim that the newspapers didn't have reports similar to the MJK murder.
Of course if you believe Chapman's heart was actually removed despite the fact that no official documentation supports this idea (and by its absence directly contradicts it) then I guess it's a moot point.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
G'day Dan,
I only believed that Chapman's heart was actually removed, because you quoted that particular report and I hesitated to look up the official reports because I don't like to dwell on the gorey bits.
Doesn't it seem strange to you to believe that Mary's killer only read certain newspaper reports?
I know that one newspaper mentioned the news of Kelly's heart being taken. The police officer that almost leaked that news to the press got into trouble over it.
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
'CAROLYN: Find me the newspaper report prior to November that describes a murder scene that was anything like Kelly's.'
Errr... I did, but no person took any notice.
I found hearts tucked under chins and all sorts.
But you folk just like to argue and ignore.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:38 am: |
|
G'day Wolf,
Errrr, what newpaper report was that?
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1639
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 4:12 am: |
|
Leanne,
Check out APs post on this thread dated Thursday 5th May 2005...at 2.23pm if my memory does not fail me ! 
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1750
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
G'day Monty,
Are we talking about the 'Bradford Murder' of 8 year old John Gill?
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1641
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Ay up Leanne,
We?
Yes, The Bradford Murder.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
G'day,
John Gill's body was discovered on the morning of DECEMBER 29, 1888. Many newspapers reported it, but how do they qualify as newspaper reports that appeared prior to NOVEMBER? Mary Kelly's murderer couldn't have copied from these reports unless he was psychic!
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Leanne,
Indeed you are correct.
Unless AP was referring to different murder and I was unintentionally misleading you.
Sorry.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 599
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 6:12 am: |
|
G’day Leanne,
If the Ripper visited MJK somewhere in the hours of lull, say between 3 and 5 a.m., most people were in bed or at least trying to sleep and most people did not get up long before 5 a.m.. Although people came home or went out for work at that time of night or were forced to stay out in the streets all night, still most people would have been in bed or trying to sleep in these hours.
Unless they were seriously alarmed by what was going on in MJK’s room, they would have had no reason to disturb MJK or check up on her while they were trying to sleep. And they weren’t alarmed. Of course MJK’s killer took a gamble if he didn't know her, but I don’t think it was as big as you seem to make it out to be.
As to how foolish she might have been, she was still willing to take the life-size chance of taking him of all men back to her room, even though she knew the unknown Ripper probably picked up his victims posing as a client. And although perhaps not very likely, she may have used the fact that she had a room of her own as a sort of ‘pitch’ to get her potential clients to come with her. She was quite desperate.
I can imagine that in a conversation that would follow she would give him the information he needed (“How come you have a room of your own? Don’t you have anybody to share it with? However can a pretty girl like yourself be living on her own?”). But once they were in MJK’s room her killer may also have asked her if he could stay the night. Although I do not know, I can imagine that it wasn’t uncommon for clients to stay overnight.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Sorry about the confusion there folks.
Sometimes I am so awash with information that I do indeed forget what I have posted and what I have not.
In my addled mind I was thinking about the famous 'Ritter Trial', which involved the murder and dreadful mutilation of a young woman called Frances Mnich (sp?)in Galicia.
Although this crime took place in 1882, the case rumbled sensationally through the courts until 1886; and indeed much publicity was also given to the case in the English press during October 1888, where articles were prominently featured and a lively exchange of letters took place between the protaganists concerning the statements of several witnesses at the original trial that:
'If a Jew became intimate with a Christian woman he could atone for his offence by slaying and mutilating the object of his passion.'
I don't think I need to point out just how sensational such a concept would have been in Whitechapel in 1888 with its massive Jewish population; and we can be almost certain that anyone who could read would have been aware of this much earlier case and its implications. |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
You make good points but personally I do not think that Mary was a copycat. I believe she was the target from the beginning. It was just a matter of time before he got to her.Joe would make sense here for reasons stated by many authors, I like James Kelly myself as well. She was certainly more multilated than the others, why?? Was it because the killer finally snapped and committed suicide or was it because he had the perfect opportunity to do all he would have liked to have done to the others. Inside, very little chance of being interrupted, he had lots of time to perform his best work. The longer he stayed, the more he multilated the more satisfied he became. I don't actually think he committed suicide after, nor did he die shortly after. He was so sly, so cunning, so elusive and so connected (possibly) that he was able to carry on as if he had never hurt a fly, as many serial killers of yesterday and today are able to do.And I have no doubt whatsoever that his family or friends or both knew his identity.
Just my opinion for what it is worth, no doubt I will get lots of mud slung at me, but hey, If I have nothing else in life I do at least have my opinion.
Restless Spirit
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Leanne
Maybe she did know her killer. That would surely explain why she would have cancelled any other arrangements. Be it Joe or one of her regular clients. She would not have feared for her life if for example it were Joe, Hutchinson,Flemming etc etc
Restless Spirit
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1753
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
G'day Restless,
Yes, I think the simplest solution is that she knew her killer, and he knew the habits of her friends and neighbours because it was once his 'comfort zone'.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on May 16, 2005) |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Restless,
I won't be slinging any mud! There is something so different about Mary. I'm beginning to believe that she was not a Ripper victim, but that is for another thread.
Even if her killing was a copycat, couldn't she have still known her killer?
Cheers,
Carolyn  |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Carolyn
I absolutely do believe that she did indeed know her murderer.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Hi All,
Mary was a prostitute who happened to have her own room in which to service her clients. There is no evidence that she knew her killer, any more than Polly, Annie or Kate knew theirs.
It makes perfect sense to me that Jack was champing at the bit by early November, not daring to try his luck out on the streets during October (the double event was thought to be his work, even if he didn't kill Liz).
He may even have asked around for prostitutes with their own rooms, and been given Mary's details by a pimp or other associate.
In any event, I have little doubt that Jack ended up in Mary's room and thought he'd been given the key to the chocolate factory at last, when previously he only visited sweetmeat stalls.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 17, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4393
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Caz, I feel that the very fact that only one victim was killed in her room, does tend to suggest (not prove, just suggest) that the Ripper was someone who either acted in a fairly spontaneous, disorganized way, or else perhaps was someone unfamiliar with the area, or the language, or whatever. If I got my kicks mutilating women, the first thing I would do would be to look around for women with their own rooms - assuming that I was a calculating sort of killer, that is. There must have been quite a few women like Mary, yet only one was killed.
Of course, a room may turn into a trap, but surely it's safer than the open street, or a backyard at dawn?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
G'day,
'If I got my kicks mutilating women, the first thing I would do would be to look around for women with their own rooms'
Would you, Robert, prefer to be taken to a small, confined place, from which you couldn't make a quick escape? From which you couldn't see an approaching policeman?
Mary Kelly had a room to herself, in which her partner had left and her roomates had recently found other lodgings. Her killer must have known that at least. If he'd been stalking her closely over the month of October, he must have watched her very closely indeed...and no one ever spotted him!
Sarah Lewis caught Hutchinson watching Mary's room one night - the night in question, and never mentioned seeing anyone else that night or on previous nights. If Hutchinson did it, why did he run to the police and tell them? Why give them a head start?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4394
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
I'm not saying that Hutchinson did do it (though he's a candidate) or that the victims were stalked. It just seems to me that if the Ripper was a planner or calculator, then
1. He'd prefer to be in a room - at least as safe if not safer than a street or a yard.
Also, closely related to this
2. A place where he could get on and enjoy his bizarre pleasures, without having to literally keep looking over his shoulder.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 601
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Of course, for us ‘normal’ people the logical thing to do if one is to commit whatever crime is to do it as secretly as possible and in the case of the Ripper I agree that that would have been indoors, behind drawn blinds and closed doors. Like you suggest, that way he would have been able to do what he liked best and without much chance of being disturbed, too.
The fact that the Ripper murdered (the) earlier ‘canonicals’ in the streets does indeed suggest that he acted rather impulsively, without having thought ahead or planned too much, if anything. However, I don’t think that that precludes that he could become more cautious under the right the circumstances.
And I think those circumstances were there:
- there were more police in the streets and less prostitutes
- he had only little time alone with his victims in the street
- he couldn’t just focus on his victims but needed to constantly scan his surroundings too
- he may very well have been close to being caught in the act once or twice.
So, he may have learned that murdering and especially mutilating in the streets didn’t give him the complete satisfaction that he sought, while at the same time he realised that it became too dangerous to do it out there. I see no reason why the Ripper couldn’t and wouldn’t act on it and I think his need for destruction played an important role as well.
But as you may know, them’s only my 2 cents.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 602
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne,
"Would you, Robert, prefer to be taken to a small, confined place, from which you couldn't make a quick escape? From which you couldn't see an approaching policeman?
There are two sides to this, Leanne: is the glass half empty, or is it half full? A confined place would provide privacy. If Robert wouldn't be able to see an approaching policeman, that means the constable wouldn't see him either and unless Robert would somehow attract attention, there would be little reason for anybody to disturb him.
If MJK was killed by the Ripper, I guess he had decided the glass was half full.
The fact that Barnett had left her only shortly before the murder and that Maria Harvey had just recently found other lodgings, does indeed suggest that her killer knew at least this about her. But that doesn't mean that he knew her well or even actually knew her at all.
He may simply have done what Caz suggested in her most recent post, or he may just have used his eyes and ears very well while he was out in the street or visiting the pubs, listening to the people talk about their everyday lives.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
