|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 103
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 1:31 pm: |       |
Alex
yes, you are of course quite right, correct attention to minutiae can often have revolutionary and profound impact on the wider scale of the whole. I agree.
My comments were perhaps a bit hasty in that regard, but I'm afraid that is the nature of this particular beast.
Perhaps this stems from often being frustrated, in attempting to push the case into some reasonable form of universal understanding, by a bunch of grapes hanging off that stem.
I see no earthly reason for you to offer up apologies to anyone - that is my job I fear - and I consider your posts and attitude to be that of a true gentleman. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
G'day Wolf, Alex, everyone,
Ok, the book 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' (U.S.)..or..'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook' (U.K.), contains the official records held at the Public Record Office, which were passed from Scotland Yard.
Before the book looks at the Stride Inquest, it says 'The opening if the inquest on Elizabeth Stride is not covered in the extracts contained in the official reports, but the report is to be found in 'The Times' of Tuesday 2 October 1888.' You are right there Alex!
I just got home from a weekend away with friends. I took with me a few chapters of your book Wolf, and wrote heaps, so lets get back to reviewing 'Jack the Myth':.......
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 185
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 6:42 am: | |
CHAPTER 2 - LONG LIZ
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 6:44 am: | |
Sorry I messed up that one! and now I have to type it all over again!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 7:15 am: | |
G'day,
Wolf I agree that the attack on Liz by '1st man' has all the signs of a domestic dispute and if he had any thoughts of killing her, he would have pulled her into the darkness of the yard and not into the street! I agree that Liz may have met a Jewish man when she did cleaning work for the Jews and may have arranged a rendevouz with a Jew. Do you think she may have double-booked?
You say that "Lipski!" was an insult specifically towards Jews. Then you say that Liz fluently spoke Yiddish. Could it be possible that "Lipski!" was an insult directed at HER?
It is very possible that '2nd man' was just an innocent pedestrian, but I believe he could have been the killer, who saw the opportunity of killing Stride just after she was seen being attacked by someone else. That would certainly throw suspicion off him! He could have followed Schwartz just far enough to make sure he wasn't going to bring back a policeman. That was a smart move because the police didn't even bother tracing him!
As you point out Wolf, Michael Kidney was a violent man towards Stride. If he was 1st man, simply having a domestic quarrel, his previous trouble with the law could have prevented him from claiming his innocence. Especially when the police thought that 1st man was the killer! I agree with you that Elizabeth would have screamed her head off, if she thought that she couldn't calm 1st man down.
I think that the bloody trail leading to a bloody sink in Dorset Street, indicates that the killer lived there, but not necessarily at Crossingham's! Michael Kidney lived at 33 Dorset Street, not at 35!
All your arguments that point to the killer living at Crossingham's could also point to my suspect living nearby!
By going to Leman Street Police Station in a drunken state to complain about the work of police, before the official identification of Stride's body, tells me that Michael Kidney was not her murderer. He may have had strong suspicions of someone living or drinking near to his Dorsett Street home! I really don't think he would ever go to a Police station if he killed her. Especially since he was known to them as a drunken brawler!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 6:09 am: | |
CHAPTER 4 - SACRIFICIAL LAMBS
Mary Kelly's two breasts were not: 'placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table.', as you wrote. Dr. Bond's postmortem report says: '..the kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table...The pericardium has open fibres and the heart absent.' The fact that Kelly's heart was missing was considered too shocking for the press to know and for the public to hear/read about. The heart was never found. No wonder Dr. Bond never recovered!
Bruce Paley says: '...the information was almost leaked by Dr. Gabe, who had viewed the body at Millers Court and had initially told the press that a certain organ was missing. Evidently he was reprimanded for saying this.' What does the Bible say about that?
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 6:22 am: | |
CHAPTER 5 - SUSPECTS
G'day Wolf,
Yes, people love conspiracy theories and anything contoversial. I agree with you that the Ripper was most likely to have been named as a suspect at some stage of the investigation. He was probably interviewed and let go because of an 'iron-cast' alibi. The only surviving alibi we have for Joseph Barnett appeared in 'The Daily Telegraph', 10 November when he said: "I was at [Buller's] Lodging House in New Street, and was playing whist there until half past twelve when I went to bed".
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 1:05 pm: | |
Leanne
Michael Kidney and Liz Stride.
Yes, I always read this murder as a domestic quarrel sparked by jealousy because Liz had found a new man amongst the Jews she cleaned for, the fact that she was fluent in Yiddish helps.
I checked out all the info on the site about the Stride case and I'm afraid I still read it as I wrote it.
I threw the bloody sink in much like a bet on the Grand National.
As regards Kidney's visit to the police station, I have been already ripped to pieces concerning this on the Casebook site, so badly that I could in fact be the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th or even 9th victim of Jack. |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
Leanne, Leanne
Does absence make the heart grow fonder?
A heart that is absent is not necessarily missing.
I will agree that this particular chapter was a shot in the dark, but ultimately it doesn't matter if the relevant bits of MJK were on the ceiling or in a shoe box.
It was not the location that prompted my comparison with biblical text but rather a weird kind of ritualized progress at work.
It is there.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 2:32 am: | |
Wolf, Wolf, (no barking dog jokes please!)
If all men went around in those days killing women because they had sex with other men, there would have been 'Jacks' all over the place!
What Michael Kidney said at the Stride inquest is interesting though: "I went to Leman Street Police Station for a detective to act on my information but I could not get one." Then: "I have heard something said that leads me to believe...I could have got a lot more information...I believe I could catch the man." Very interesting! Perhaps he saw or heard something important in Dorset Street!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 2:35 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Have you read Dave Yost's dissertation: 'Did Kelly Have a Heart?'
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-yostheart.html
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 2:59 am: | |
CHAPTER 6 - MORE SUSPECTS
Wolf, I agree with your opening paragraph that the Ripper probably did not start his odious career with murder, but with lesser crimes.
I also agree with your 2nd paragraph that states that many serial killers have a strange desire to be involved with investigations into their own crimes. A simple way for citizens to join in the hunt for themselves would have been to join a vigilance committee. This was also a way to get the victims to trust him.
In Bruce Paley's book 'The Simple Truth' he believes that Joseph Barnett lost his Porters job and licence at Billingsgate for theft. 'According to market by laws, the causes of dissmissal were theft, drunkeness and abusive language or behaviour.' Of course it's dangerous to guess and be satisfied with that guess, but Barnett was against Mary's heavy drinking, and was unlikely to have turned up drunk for work. If he was dissmissed after ten years for using abusive language or behaviour, is that a lesser enough crime? Imagine a stuttering porter using offensive language: "YOU FFFFF----"
Ok he got his license back in 1906, but all he had to say was: "IIII only did it for MMMary, to keep her off the sssstreets"
Wolf, you point out that a deeply religious Norman Thorne murdered and mutilated his fiancee Elsie Cameron in 1924. He chopped her up and then buried her in his chicken coop.
You wrote: 'The FBI Psychological Profiling Unit believe that in many cases of mutilation murder the more vicious the mutilation, particularly to the face of the victim, then the closer the relationship between murderer and victim.' I couldn't agree more!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 5:55 am: | |
CHAPTER 7 - ELIMINATION
WOLF: Please don't think I'm like a fox-terrior at a rabbit hole! I'm constructively critisizing you mate!
I totally agree with your seventh chapter. The public love sensation and will gobble-up any extravagant theory that 'proves' a well known public figure mutilated prostitutes in a notorious red-light district!The fact that 'Walter Sickert' is the number one suspect on the main-Casebook proves it.
This was also illustrated in 1888, when the press circulated rumours like myth that Mary Kelly had a child living with her! And Elizabeth Stride was not clutching a bunch of grapes!
The Whitechapel Murderer was an 'ordinary little man', who sought his fame with his crimes. Nobody that was under the publics eyes, would have risked tarnishing his image. He was probably neglected by someone, if not abused. He needed fame and was 'distinguished only by an extraordinary bent for murder.'
LEANNE
|
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
Leanne
Thanks for your all comments and interest.
Nah, I'm not worried about the terrier aspects of your comments, all to the common good.
All authors in this field should be stuck down a burrow with a terrier at the entrance and only allowed out when they give up their rabbit paw.
As I have done.
Actually I find myself distancing from the FBI view that the closer the relationship the more vicious the mutilation. I'm leaning far on the other side now, and believe that many killers actually treat their close personal victims with some degree of dignity. To wit, a burglar who breaks into a stranger's house may do some fairly disgusting things - commonly such as urinating on the beds etc - but if he broke into his grandmother's house he certainly wouldn't do that but just get on with stealing the money to supply his bad habits etc.
Got my drift? I think this thinking would apply to killers as well.
I think the FBI has gone off half-cocked here - as I've said before - and untilised statistics where killers have mutilated their close personal victims in an effort to prevent identification. This cannot apply to Jack's case, can it?
That is the rub, Leanne.
I know you to be keen on this Barnett fellow as a suspect, so if he did kill Kelly, which I admit is possible, why would he attempt to obliterate her identity?
Don't come back and tell me because the FBI say so, 'cos that won't wash with me.
Walter Sickert far too gay and faint
the art of killing his hand to taint
poor old chap only murdered paint. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 87
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
Hi AP Wolf,
You posted: "Many killers actually treat their close personal victims with some degree of dignity"
Some killers do treat their their close personal victims with dignity.
But not all killers- reference Ed Kemper who beheaded his mother, removed her larynx and threw it down the waste disposal. Or Ed Gein, when he dug up his mother and dissected her (even though he didn't kill her).
I think the point is how the killer feels about the victim (if they are an intimate, or family member). Someone's face would be a perfect target for mutilation if you had once loved them, but grew to hate them.
PS>
"Walter Sickert far too gay and faint
the art of killing his hand to taint
poor old chap only murdered paint."
This made me LAUGH!
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 - 9:08 pm: | |
G'day Wolf, Wolf, (who let that fox-terrior in?)
Don't distance yourself too far from that view of the FBIs. Remember that Norman Thorne mutilated his fiancee, then shoved her under his chicken coop! A killer who treats a close personal victim with dignity, is a killer of sound-mind, with a conscience. 'Jack' had none. He wasn't of 'sound-mind' and he didn't have to follow statistics!
If Joseph Barnett killed Mary Kelly in a fit of rage, he would have wanted to blot out what he just did, to make her appear like a common prostitute - a nobody! Yet he was quick to identify her by her ears and eyes. If he loved her so much, he would have wanted the corpse on the bed to be someone else.....but he was certain. He could no longer blot her out, and what he did!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
My Thoughts after reading:
CHAPTER 7 - ELIMINATION (continued)
Wolf: why do you think the Ripper appeared to stop killing? The only thing that did stop was 'Jack the Myth', the boogy-man!
The belief of many that Ripper either died, was detained in a lunatic asylum, moved to another country or was imprisoned for another offence, limits the investigation in my opinion.
Do all schizophrenics commit suicide?
Are the all locked into asylums?
Could it be that what inspired his violence disappeared?
Nothing can be traced of my suspects behaviour following Kelly's death. Not even the fact that he got another fish-porters license in 1906, can tell us about his character.
I agree with you that Coroner Macdonald ended Kelly's inquest too soon, but George Hutchinson didn't come forward until Kelly's inquest concluded. Bruce Paley wrote: 'Unfortunately, his story appears to have been made up, probably so as to bring the destitute Hutchinson a modicum of self-importance and local celebrity...'
If Hutchinson did run into Mary Kelly at 2a.m., I'd say that she approached him as a potential customer. He said that she asked him for a loan of sixpence. Why would she just need sixpence? That sounds like it was her price for favours. And why did he wait until after her inquest to give his detailed description?
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 2:26 pm: | |
Maria
Excellent point and well scored.
However I do note that the two cases you quote are mother-son relationships, of which I am glad.
For I believe a mother-son relationship to be at the core of the Ripper crimes, and perhaps to our own attitudes and behaviour when such close personal crimes are committed.
I for one have always been somewhat befuddled by the species of killer who can live quite happily with wife, mother, aunt, daughter, but takes himself off of an evening and brutally murders other unrelated females, then comes home and dangles his daughter on his knee and kisses his wife goodnight.
I can see a situation arising where killers like Kemp would start off with their mothers - but you see we already have two very different beasts on our hands - and then go on to stranger victims.
Jack was what?
Was he killing his mother?
Is that what you are saying?
Yes, when a killer goes along the path of destroying that what created him then he will most likely visit total destruction on his total creation.
My thoughts are still unclear on this but it is something that I am exploring.
Good point though.
Glad you liked the ditty.
|
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 118
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
Leanne
The faster we follow this discussion then the faster I run away from the FBI.
Sorry but I just cannot go along with this black magik ju-ju of the FBI and I sort of feel they are attempting to appeal to a ready bank of believers in their comical art of detection, akin to superman touching kryptonite and losing his super human powers. Quite honestly when I read this profiling stuff from the FBI I am put in mind of Laurel and Hardy trying to move a piano up the stairs. The piano ends up smashed in the street.
Under his breath this Barnett would mutter:
Why! I could be Jack if I didn't stutter,
and if there do be one thing I earnestly wish
that would be to elegantly gut some fresh fish,
but me hands were tied, for fish were already fried;
yes, I did spend four hours in police interview
but then if you stuttered so would you.
|
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 90
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hi AP Wolf, you posted: "For I believe a mother-son relationship to be at the core of the Ripper crimes"
Yes, I believe mother-son relationships to be a core issue for most, if not all serial killers. Particularly an emotionally/ physically abusive, or absent mother.
We agree on something! *weird*
But Ed Kemper started with unknown females. His mother, and mother's best friend were his last victims. He turned himself in.
Was Jack killing his mother? Could be. He certainly seems (to my mind) to have been killing for some type of revenge against women. I don't think a boy who had a happy and stable relationship with his mother, would have committed those crimes.
PS> These little rhymes of yours make me chuckle. You're much better at written verse than James Maybrick.....
 |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:19 pm: | |
Marie
sorry, I typed 'Maria' in answer to your last note. My apologies. Spanish brandy at fault.
Yeah, Ed Kemper was a strange dude. I don't think he ever grew up. I remember watching some interviews with him, and it was like watching Michael Jackson, like Kemper was the Peter Pan of the murder and mutilation world.
I don't honestly think he knew what he was doing.
I think Jack did. Jack had some sort of weird plan, to his own design of course, and that plan - as you say - revolved in some form or manner around his relationship to his mother.
As I have said many times before, Jack will have left footprints as a child, footprints we should still find today; no footprints no Jack.
Thank you for your kind comments about my poesies. |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 94
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:31 pm: | |
Oh, I'll forgive you for the 'Maria' slip-up. Maria's not such a bad name, after all...
In complete agreement with you about Ed Kemper.
And I particularly agree with this statement about Jack: "Jack had some sort of weird plan, to his own design of course, and that plan - as you say - revolved in some form or manner around his relationship to his mother"
It's kind of freaky how much we're agreeing on this thread, considering our past discussions.
Twilight Zone-ish.
I'll drink to that, *Cheers* (and goodnight).....
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 5:05 am: | |
CHAPTER 8 - A LONELY BOY - THOMAS CUTBUSH
Thomas Cutbush was just 22 years old in 1888.
Wolf, you're obviously opposed to the FBIs finding that the Ripper was: 'a white male, aged 28-36'.
Cutbush contracted syphilis in 1888, his brain became affected, he wondered the streets of Whitechapel late at night and studied medical books during the day. His uncle was Chief Superintendent Charles Cutbush, who shot himself in the head in 1895, after suffering severe depression and delusions. Paranoid tendencies can be hereditary! I have little doubt, like yourself, that the strange behaviour of his nephew was partly to blame for his suicide.
Thomas Cutbush was locked away in a lunatic assylum when he was 25, escaped, stabbed a woman to death, attacked another, and was judged criminally insane. He was sent to another asylum, where he died aged 37.
Wolf, 22 was a bit young to be 'Jack the Ripper' mate! He couldn't have had much experience with prostitutes and wouldn't have been able to plan an escape. He would have had to learn how to gain a little trust too!
I love your line: 'comparisons show that some killers do indeed vary their behaviour and it cannot be taken for granted that a killer must always go on killing.' That just about sums up the rest of this chapter!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 5:40 am: | |
G'day,
Wolf: were the two women that Thomas Cutbush attacked after his escape from Lambeth Infirmary, experienced prostitutes? These attacks happened in Kennington where he lived with his mother and aunt, so he would have been familiar with the area.
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
Leanne
Yes, Thomas was only a young man, but coincidently enough exactly the same age as Richard Chase when he too committed the identical crimes to that of Jack.
No, I don't think Thomas would have had any experience with prostitutes - or women in fact - and his only real experience of the fairer sex would have been a mother-son thing with some unhealthy input from a fairly demented aunt.
I think Jack, and Thomas to have been virgins.
Stabbing at sex like a kid would do with a doll, no real interest and no real desire, just some fuel that they didn't understand so they set light to the world.
Thomas didn't have syphilis, he imagined he had it, and this is far more dangerous than the actual disease.
Thomas may have lived in Kennington but he was at home in Whitechapel.
I'm afraid my knowledge on the two women he later stabbed must fail your question. I'm sure someone else will have the answer though.
Keep it up Leanne.
You'll beat me out of that burrow yet.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
