|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 8:39 am: |       |
Hi everybody,
I started the last thread "Sickert tops the Casebook charts" because I was mortified that this most unlikely suspect had been voted number one contender by site users. 
A most interesting debate ensued with the majority of messages supporting my notion that it was nothing more than a bunch of Cornwellites that had cast the Sickert votes... 
But still the odd dissentor came armed with nothing more than...
SICKERT WAS OBSESSED BY THE MURDERS
(Well, according to anecdotal evidence from Joseph Barnett, so was Mary Kelly, but how many votes has she got?!!!) 
SICKERT'S ARTWORK WAS VERY SINISTER
(My kindred spirit, Marie Finlay, assures us that there is nothing in this and, as an artist herself, she should know!) 
SICKERT COULD HAVE WRITTEN THE LETTERS
(Well, on this side of the pond, we had the Yorkshire Ripper and there was a huge fuss made out of an audio tape purporting to have come straight from hell to the police. But this all proved to be a hoax, so who's to say that the letters prove anything?) 
By the way, if you want to read more about the Yorkshire Ripper hoax, just enter "Wearside Jack" on Google, Yahoo or you're favourite search engine.
Anyway, back to Sickert...I'm determined to put any question of him being the ripper straight to bed by resurrecting the old medical/anatomical knowledge chestnut.
I have long held that the most interesting murder in this series is not Mary Kelly, but Catharine Eddowes and I would like to rekindle this debate by quoting from her autopsy report...
"I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed."
[i.e. the kidney is hidden behind a fatty membrane and it was dark in Mitre Square - I consider myself a quite intelligent guy but I couldn't have done it...could you?]
I may add fuel to any ensuing debate, but for now I will settle for challenging any Cornwellites to come up with further justification for believing the perpetrator to be none other than "Dr." Sickert!!!
Paul |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
When Patricia Cornwell threw down the gauntlet, she unknowingly provided us with the knowledge to dispute her claim. She states that Sickert not only killed all of the canonical victims but several others as well. The police officer in me wants to congratulate her on her tenacity, however: she has made a rookie mistake. Any first year law student will tell you that with such a broad and sweeping accusal, all one has to do to prove Sickert innocent is to prove that he did not commit one of the murders, thus he is innocent of all murders. This is why prosecutors do not prosecute a suspected serial killer on all counts.
Aside from Sickert being in France at the time of the killings, circumstantial evidence in favor of Sickert’s innocence can be found at all of the crime scene. The evidence in favor of Sickert being the killer is circumstantial at best. In order for one side to win the argument, one side has to present hard core, irrefutable evidence. While researching my book I have found the hard evidence that proves Sickert did not commit the Whitechapel Murders. The hardcore evidence lies in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St. I am still toying with the possibility of releasing the information in article form. The problem is that the article is too long. Careful editing may cut it down to a respectable length, however; editing the article may water down the evidence, so the findings may be regulated to the book.
Peace,
Scott |
Paul Gibson
Police Constable
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 10
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
Scott,
Firstly, I await your book with bated breath...much intrigued by the findings at 29 Hanbury Street.
Your comments on the prosecution of serial killers are also noted.
However, it is my belief that the vast majority of authors on this subject and amateur enthusiasts such as myself subscribe to the view that Jack killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly (Most common deviation is to add Tabram to the Canonical list or delete Stride from it).
Without the benefit of the evidence that you possess, I merely seek to persuade the Cornwellites that Sickert can't possibly have killed Eddowes, whether he was in France at the time or not and they would then be forced to recognise that he was not "Jack The Ripper"
Once rid of this accursed red herring, I am sure that the debate will improve. I don't want to close my ears to any plausible solution, but neither do I want to listen to the Cornwellites blindly regurgitating her baseless findings and imply that I've spent the last 12 years wasting my time...
According to them, all I had to do was await Ms Cornwell's whim to look into this on behalf of us lesser mortals and we should then be thankful to genuflect in front of an effigy of the great lady and praise her for closing the case!!
Respect,
Paul |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 10:57 am: | |
As you stated, one of the most debated issues of the murders is whether or not Jack killed, Tabram, Stride and Kelly. In order to appease the gods, one would have to find the evidence needed to convict or acquit in the crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman or Eddowes, anything else is just icing on the cake or as we say in Louisiana - - lagnaippe.
If the murders had happened today I am sure that the prosecution would only seek to convict the killer on these three murders.
Peace,
Scott |
John Savage
Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 10:57 am: | |
Paul
I think we can confidently say that Walter Sickert did not commit the Ripper murders, the real question is did he have any information regarding who did commit them.
Of the authors who have published on his involvement only Cornwell and Knight accuse him directly. The others, Jean Overton Fuller, Melvyn Fairclough and Elwyn Jones only accuse him of being involved in some way.
So my question is did he have some knowledge, however misunderstood over the years, or is it all just a great hoax like the Maybrick diary?
Regards,
John Savage |
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
I want to choose my words carefully here, because I don't believe Sickert to be the Ripper. However, I would feel uncomfortable deleting him from the list of suspects. Part of my inclination stems from his name having popped up repeatedly in the past as a suspect, or as someone involved to some extent. I also think that just because Cornwell has done a sloppy piece of investigative research means Sickert is cleared. He obviously should be presumed innocent, but cleared is another matter, at least to my mind.
Now, this is where I'm going to draw ack-ack fire: IF, and it's a big IF, it can be shown that he did indeed write some of the letters, I do believe it makes him a "person of interest" and it would put him higher on my personal list of suspects.
Sir Robert
"In recent speeches, Cornwell claims new evidence has come to light since her book. Paper
manufacture experts now assert that reams of paper supposedly used by Jack the Ripper to write several letters to Scotland yard and paper purchased by Sickert's mother bear the same
small-press watermark. There are also matches in the cutter's marks, which are a result of the
rough cutting of each quire (or small package) for packaging. A 'quire' was usually of 24
sheets. "
"
28 November 2002 PAPER HISTORY AND ANALYSIS by
Peter Bower
GURNEY IVORY LAID
From discussions with various colleagues:
It is more than likely that the four pieces of GURNEY IVORY LAID
paper, that have been identified as coming from the same batch of
paper (ie: 2 Sickert letters and 2 Ripper letters) actually come from
a much smaller group of sheets than was originally thought.
The practice at many small manufacturing stationers, such as
LePard & Smirths, who produced this paper, when they were
producing relatively small runs of papers such as personal
stationery, was as follows:
The sheets were roughly guillotined to size and then folded and
divided into quires of twenty-four sheets.
Each individual quire of paper was then given a final bim in a
hand-fed guillotine.
Every guillotining would produce very slightly different bims.
The match between the short edge cuts on the four identified sheets
shows they came from the same quire of paper.
The four identified letters came from a group of 24 sheets." |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 117
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
Paul, I completely agree with you regarding the importance of the Eddowes murder. I've discussed most of my thoughts regarding that on the 'Did Eddowes know Jack' thread.
Seeing as you bring up the medical aspect, I would agree with you that Eddowes' kidney was removed by someone who was used to weilding a knife. Someone who had anatomical knowledge and practice cutting, but not necessarily 'surgical' practice (of the medical variety).
I would also agree that I consider Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly to be victims of the Ripper. I'm fairly convinced that Kelly was a victim of Barnett, but I could be persuaded that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were killed by another hand.
Scott, I'm fascinated by what you write about your book, and I'm looking forward to it greatly. I can't wait to read about the evidence you have found regarding Hanbury street. Especially when you say that the evidence exonerates Sickert....
Sir Robert, with all due respect- I'm not sure that this 'evidence' regarding Sickert proves anything but the fact that he has a 2-in-24 chance of having hoaxed a couple of Ripper letters.
All sorts of people who had nothing to do with Jack whatsoever, hoaxed letters at that time. I guess that's just some people's idea of fun.
I'll admit that Sickert's name comes up in the investigation, but I'm not even convinced he was involved enough to know who Jack was. I think he was very interested in the case, but then again- so am I.
|
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
Bring me a rancid quire and a well seasoned bim,
and then let this oft peppered farce begin.
Evidence laid and evidence made,
with time such evidence is accolade.
Especially when Gurney Ivory Laid,
down with whore and did bargain maid.
Ah Jack you souless blaster-master,
it is words that we must write faster,
afore the old paint dries,
afore another old whore dies.
Fitted and fatted is the cow,
truffle sniffling old sow.
She find truffles in the crap
sits nicely with Jack in lap.
But strewth,
what price truth?
Let's not bicker...
what price whore's knicker?
And who will rid me of this scabby itch?
Who will rid me of this tiresome bitch?
With her appliance
of science
to whore goes into twenty-whore,
ah, that old itch be sore,
a new book sure to cure,
case closed,
I suppose. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 119
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
excellent/inspirational.
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 9:05 pm: | |
I'd suggest doing a Google search on Peter Bower. He seems to be quite a potentate in the field of paper analysis. I wouldn't dismiss him as quickly as I would Cornwell.
"Peter Bower
Forensic paper historian and paper analyst
Peter Bower, forensic paper historian and paper analyst,specialises in the examination and analysis of papers for purposes of dating, attribution, authentication and usage. He has written many reports and consultation documetns on papers used in works of art, banknotes, bonds, books etc.
He has published two books on Turner's papers and given many papers at various conferences including the The Broad Spectrum and Looking at Paper. "
|
Paul Gibson
Sergeant
Username: Rupertbear
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 4:24 am: | |
Marie,
Most interested in your conviction that Joe Barnett murdered Kelly...if you would care to expond a little, I'm all ears.
I did highway in on messages in the previous thread, not necessarily intended for me, and have ordered the Paley book "The Simple Truth" from Amazon...I hasten to add that I am purchasing it from a vendor who only dispatches to the UK, so I am not denying any stateside people the opportunity of obtaining a copy. I don't yet know whether or not he accuses Barnett, but I'm ready to be converted if his or your arguments are suitably convincing.
On a similar thread, and a similar title for that matter...Amazon is a great place to pick up a copy of Melvin Harris's "The Bloody Truth" which is an absolutely essential addition to any Ripper collection if you don't have it. The map of Whitechapel inside the front cover places Mary Kelly in Goulston Street, but this little error shouldn't put anybody off entering Mr Harris's world - he is a god!
I tried to write an online review concluding that it was "worth every bloody penny" but I don't think their censors appreciated that this was a play on words!!
Paul |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
I still cannot discount Sickert, as our killer, I still believe his painting ..A passing Funeral.. may be a clue , also his fascination with his red hankerchief is intresting, most of Jacks victims if not all were wearing a hankerchief , and did not Mary Kelly say she had lost hers, and the astracan man gave her one. question was this a symbol of these murders?. Indeed was this a way of identifying his victims.
Chris recently gave us a reminder in the form of archive photos, of just how over populated Whitechapel was in the late nineteenth century.
Therefore if our killer premeditated these murders and chose these women for whatever reason, he may have given his victims a new hankerchief[ which were quite valuable poccessions at that time]so that he could reconize that person at the date for murder, in the case with Kelly he could have given her a new one , and spared her life that night, only for her to be killed by Barnet.
Or another explanation was that the Hankerchief represented a strange symbol for murder to the killer.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 6:53 am: | |
Hi,
Just a quick point, Eddowes Was wearing A red silk neckerchief, And Kelly was given a red Hanky.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
G'day Richard,
As Whitechapel was overpopulated, imagine all the red neckerchieves: "There goes a blue one, there's a yellow one, there's a pink one with white spots...., there's a red one BINGO!"
Impressionist/Post Impressionist artists shocked the world by painting life as it was or their impression of things, moods.
If Sickert was painting us a clue, and not the mood of life around him,....WHY?????
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
One spells a victim's name wrong, another places a victim in the wrong location. One claims Sickert wrote ripper letters and had evil eyes - case closed, t'other claims it was closed a long time ago and that D'Onston dunnit. I don't know how one judges the type of error that is excusable from one author and inexcusable from another, or the type of suspect that is less implausible. But I do know that all ripper authors who ever pushed a favourite (and almost certainly innocent) suspect are equal, but some are more equal than others - some even godlike, while others are the devil incarnate.
Dear AP,
If someone did rid you of the tiresome bitch, with her appliance of science, you’d lose a rich source of material for your funny little rhymes just for jolly, wouldn’t you? 
The artist’s strongest critic has made a public exhibition of herself with no help from anyone. Perhaps her strongest critics should be thanking her for the artistic and poetic licence she has given them to scratch her evil eyes out in public.
Artful old game, isn’t it?
Batty old Frank, Roger the Lodger,
from womb to tomb, an artful old dodger
F-fishy Joe Barnett? This can’t be fair,
and the poisoner’s bag was cutting but hair
Druitt blew it but just doesn’t swim
Sir Jim caught up in a weirdo’s whim
Masons kept mum with the red stuff called tape
Young Cutbush cut but a pretty shape
Who knows the secret of the Black Magic box?
Crusty ties ‘neath rusty locks
Did Walter really write as ripper,
the Postie with the mostie, a secret day-tripper?
Or was he, like Cream, and all those above,
as far from the crime as hate is from love?
Love,
Caz
|
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 8:01 am: | |
I don't believe Sickert was the killer. The evidence is incredibly weak. At most he wrote a letter or letters but that goes far from putting the knife in his hand. Despite what Ms. Cornwell might say, a good defense attorney would make confetti of the evidence brought before the jury.
With that said, I am going to give the Sickertittesa little fuel. In the early days of the theatre, even the Victorian stage, red cloth was used to denote blood.
Peace,
Scott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 8:02 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I am not suggesting that Sickert was painting us a clue, not intentionly, But that painting could give us a clue.
Regarding the neckerchiefs, it was tonque in cheek, although not entirely impossible.
I believe Sickert has to be more of a suspect, then a lot of candidates, only Barnett would be higher on my list.
Richard. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 121
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 9:17 am: | |
Hi all,
Paul: First off, let me just say that I've not read 'The Simple Truth', by Paley. I've maxed out my credit card buying extra books for college, so I'll have to wait a while before I can order some of the Ripper books I desperately want. I checked out Paley's book at Amazon, and even used, it's too pricey (*SOBS*).
I think that Joe Barnett had more motivation than any of our other suspects, for killing Kelly.
His background was very hard. He lost his father, and his mother seems to have abandoned the family. Serial killers often have an absent or weak father figure, and issues with their mother. With no strong and stable parental model, children often don't grow up with a good sense of right from wrong.
Joe was raised by his brother Dan, an inexperienced parent at best. I expect that Dan had a whole bunch of his own issues with his father's death, and his mother's abandonment.
When Joe met Mary, he arranged to move in with her the next day, so this tells me that he was very taken with her. I'm not sure if she felt the same way, but I'm sure she would have at least seen a nice guy, who was willing to take her off the streets. I'm sure Joe could be sweet, when he chose to be.
The 'Ripper' killings started happening right after Joe lost his job. This was around the same time that things started to go sour between Joe and Mary (which reinforces my belief that perhaps she didn't feel the same way about Joe, as he did about her). Around this time, Mary was thinking of returning to the streets. She brought a prostitute friend of hers to live with them, which must have been another blow to Joe's 'manhood'. Not only could he not provide for Mary, but he was no longer master of his own house. Mary told her friends that she could no longer bear Joe- if he didn't hear this through friends, he certainly must have sensed it. Then she shows a lot of affection for a previous boyfriend named Flemming. It must have seemed to Joe, that he was at the bottom of the heap.
Then he moves out after a particularly bitter arguement, but continues to visit Mary every day. It seems to me that Mary was done with Joe, but he never got over her. (I think I read that) the night before Mary's death she was drinking with Joe's brother Dan, and that Joe had asked Dan to talk Mary into getting back together with him. Dan may have come back with a 'no chance' answer, which tipped Joe over the edge. I don't think Joe ever had a lot of self-confidence, especially evidenced by his speech impediment. I think he always thought he had a prize in Kelly, (and whereas he may have realized she wasn't equally besotted with him), he may have thought he could control her behaviour by being the breadwinner. When he lost his job, he lost his control over her, and then he lost her. I've read that Mary was very argumentative when she was drunk, and perhaps she was cruel to him (humiliated him). I'm certain their fights were very bitter, as evidenced by Joe's own statement that Mary didn't show fear of any individual, except when she rowed with him.
So you've got rejection, humiliation, and anger right there.
Joe may have killed the other women, partly to warn Mary off the streets (he lost his control over her when he lost his job, and this may have been another way to control her). I also think he may have killed them to live out his fantasies of hurting Mary, because she was hurting him. I read that Mary used to walk around surrounded by a few female friends, so maybe the other victims were known to her. Joe could have blamed them for Mary's return to prostitution. I don't think that he could bring himself to kill Mary herself, until he finally realized that she would never go back to him. Perhaps when Dan brought that news to him.
Obviously, these are not the actions of a rational man. But considering Joe's background (and bearing in mind his speech impediment), he could quite easily have been suffering from a psychological disorder- which would have been aggravated by his stormy obsession with Mary. Joe's alibi doesn't work for the 'night' Mary was killed, because I believe she was killed much later in the morning.
HOWEVER, Mary's murder showed far less anatomical skill and knowledge than Catherine's. It almost seems like a crude approximation of what someone would do, had they read the newspaper reports of Catherine's murder. This alone makes a pretty sound arguement for the theory that Barnett killed only Kelly. He may have mutilated her so badly partly from deranged emotion, and partly to make her look like a Ripper victim.
After doing much reading last night (which subsequently gave me nightmares), I'm starting to think that the 'Ripper' may have only had three victims: Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. The Lusk letter being the only genuine communication from the killer.
So, there we are! My thoughts on Joe Barnett, and the Ripper. There are several other suspects who I think could have been 'Jack'.
Just not Sickert. 
PS> 'Rupertbear' is an excellent username. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 122
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
Sir Robert: I'm not dismissing Peter Bower. I'm sure he's an extremely professional individual.
It's this 'evidence' I'm not very impressed with. So Sickert could have been one of 24 people who hoaxed a Ripper letter....it's hardly a 'smoking gun', in my opinion. Or even a "bloody knif".
Caz:
Man, I wish I could write these witty verses.
|
SirRobertAnderson
Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
Great poem, Caz.
Scott, you wrote:
"I don't believe Sickert was the killer. The evidence is incredibly weak. At most he wrote a
letter or letters but that goes far from putting the knife in his hand. "
I don't believe Sickert was the Ripper. However, the evidence against all of our suspects is also incredibly weak. We'd never be able to convict any of these dudes in court, methinks.
One of the pieces of the puzzle that we don't have is which of the two Ripper letters Bower believes to match Sickert's mother's stationery. You'd have to admit it would raise an eyebrow if the Lusk letter was one, or another that has some degree of credibility to it.
It would also be interesting if one of the letters was postmarked in England at a time Sickert was believed to be in France.
Just food for thought.....The thread was about eliminating Sickert as a suspect, and I'm just suggesting there is enough here to keep him on our list....perhaps near the bottom, but still on the list.
Sir Robert |
Scott Medine
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sem
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 9:41 am: | |
I don't believe that the Lusk letter would match the Sickert stationary.
Peace,
Scott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hi Marie,
I agree with a lot of what you have said , But I believe that Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman, were the murders that the actual ripper committed for reasons that will become apparent see my thoughts on Mistaken Identity;
I have been doing a lot of pondering over this in the last few days. and I feel that there are three sets of murders here not one series.
My thoughts are that Tabram and Nichols were killed by mistake , and that Chapman [ for unknown reason] was the person the killer was after.
Stride comes into the second group, I believe she was killed by a angry punter who simply slashed her throat, and left her to bleed to death, I am not convinced that Kidney was her killer..
Eddowes And Kelly come into the third section, and I believe that Barnett killed both these women
Eddowes and Kelly were the most likely to have known each other, because the former lived or stayed in the shed ,a dwelling that was attached to Marys room. it could well be that she had a lot to say about Barnetts and kellys relationship, about him being out of work etc..
Eddowes and Kelly were the only two victims to receive facial disfigurement, and their murders differ from the other killings.
It is because of this ie.. we are still trying to solve all these murders under one heading Jack T he Ripper when the original description The East end Murders, OR the Whitechapel Murders would be more apt.
I am sorry if I have made this mystery more confusing, but I believe we are looking for three seperate Killers , so heres to the next hundred years of these boards..
Regards Richard. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Caroline
nice bit of verse. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 148
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 4:19 pm: | |
Marie
I carefully read your long and thoughtful post on your suspect Joe and I must say that I am impressed with what you say.
However as I have just said someplace else, just the fact that your suspect had some kind - of what appears to be - a loving and meaningful relationship with one of the victims does sour your suspect for me.
This just doesn't work for me I'm afraid.
Distance was required for the work undertaken,
if I'm not mistaken, destruction
rather than creation.
Waste, not production.
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 127
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You could be right, but I've always personally thought that Tabram was killed by the soldier she went with.
I'm in agreement with you regarding Stride (although I tend to favour Kidney).
However, regarding Kelly and Eddowes, I'm not sure. I agree with your point that they most likely knew each other, having been neighbours.
But the killings themselves differ somewhat, with Eddowes' murder being carried out by someone who quite clearly had good anatomical knowledge and skill. Same with Chapman. Whereas Mary was quite crudely butchered, in comparison.
I know both Eddowes and Kelly both suffered facial mutilations, but perhaps Barnett was influenced by the newspaper reports of Eddowes' murder, and perhaps he wanted to destro Mary's face.
So at the moment, I'm putting Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes in the same bracket, and calling it 'Jack'.
But you're right, I think that 'Whitechapel Murders' is far more appropriate, because in my opinion there was more than one killer at work.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
