|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through August 24, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
A Statement:
Archive through August 24, 1999
Author: Caz
Saturday, 21 August 1999 - 01:36 am |        | Hi All,
Dr.Bond's report to Abberline on all five murders included the following paragraph:
'The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.'
Although Bond only carried out Kelly's post-mortem he also wrote that he had no doubt that all five murders were committed by the same hand.
Don't forget that JB had lost his job at Billingsgate some three months earlier for a serious misdemeanour (possibly theft of fish). He'd been in regular employment there for some years. He must have found himself extremely strapped for cash with no chance of getting this particular job back. So, even if he DID have a suitable knife at the time of his dismissal, he may have either pawned or sold it well before November.
So far I'm with Bob and Kevin. I find it very hard to see JB committing such an opportunistic murder, while making it look so carefully planned, then laughing all the way from the police station afterwards.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 21 August 1999 - 03:04 am | | Well quoted Caz,
The apparent likelihood of anatomical knowledge, AND a long narrow sharp knife that could have been a 'surgeon's knife'. It does seem to point in one direction doesn't it. Sadly, I have to agree, Dr. Bond's report knocks a great hole in the theory of MJK as a non-ripper victim.
Does anyone have any counter-argument here? Otherwise I reckon Bond's report makes it extremely probable that MJK's murderer was indeed JTR, and probably nothing to do with JB at all.
By the way doesn't the blade sound rather long for any kind of 'clasp knife'? And maybe also rather narrow for a butcher's knife?
Karoline |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 21 August 1999 - 11:22 am | | Hello Ms. Leach,
I've seen butcher's knives as described by Dr. Bond.
They are used mostly for cutting the tough tendon,
and cartilage around the large joints of large animals, cow's, horses, etc.
The relatively short blade makes it easier to maneuver around the joint.
The blade is usually 1/8" to 3/16" thick and holds
an edge very well.
They quite often have a hole at the rear of the handle for a lanyard.
What I'm describing is a contemporary tool. But I
have been lead to believe that the design hasn't
changed much since the early 1800's
I hope you find this info helpful.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 21 August 1999 - 03:42 pm | | G'day Caz and Karoline,
Why would Jack use a knife that was commonly used in his trade? That would have narrowed the search to his door.
Yes Caz, JB lost his well paid job at Billingsgate, but managed to find some labouring jobs and was able to find work at the orange markets. At Kelly's inquest, he described himself as a 'fruit porter and a labourer'. His reduced income, forced Kelly to go back into prostitution.
In 1906, he was given a new porter's licence at Billingsgate Market, so if he had intentions of working there again, I don't think he would have pawned any of his tools.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 22 August 1999 - 07:54 am | | Ok, Joseph
A typical butchers equipment is one steak knife & one boning knife.
The steak knife is used for slicing & dressing, these knives are typically 12-14" in blade length, and the width is about 1.5 - 2" and not pointed, not as described by the officials.
However a knife as this could have been ground down to any shape, this type of knife is not double edeged and would be a little large for close encounters.
The boning knife has a blade of 5 - 6" in length, not as long as 8", but is about 1" wide, pointed & stout backed, not double edged.
I dont think the typical butchers 'tools' suit the description of the weapons used.
I used these knives for a few years, back in the '70's, and I would say the steak knife was out, and the boning knife was of the correct design, but too short.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 22 August 1999 - 09:23 am | | Hello Mr. Smyth,
I think we're describing the same "instrument"
as Dr. Bond.
"The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six
inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch
in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a
surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife."
The boning knife is what I had in mind, I couldn't think of it's name. Thanks for the help.
As you have suggested, the steak knife would have
been way to long, and blunt nosed. They tend to look like mini sabers after many sharpenings.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 22 August 1999 - 12:42 pm | | Joseph, I believe Jon is saying he thinks it was NOT a boning knife. I suspect you have inadvertently taken the opposite meaning from what was intended.
I think one doctor here has already said that Bond's description exactly fits the kind of post mortem knife in use at the time, is this so?
Karoline |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 22 August 1999 - 01:48 pm | | Hello Ms. Leach,
I think you're right re: Mr. Smyth's position,
(e.g. he doesn't feel a knife, as described by Dr.
Bond, was the murder weapon). I do.
Your suspicion is correct, I did, mistakenly, take
the opposite meaning for Mr. Smyth's post.
Thank you for helping me clear that up.
I don't recall the other Doctor's assessment, so I won't comment on it.
Thanks again.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: John Dixon
Sunday, 22 August 1999 - 11:21 pm | | | The original proposition here ( By Bob ) was that it was unlikely to have been JB if it was a spur of the moment killing. What if JB resolved to kill Kelly before the fatal visit? Paley says he read reports of the killings to Kelly before they split hence he knew the MO. ( perhaps even the incorrect elements about Chapman's heart & liver being above her head. I may be wrong but do those the positionings match Kelly?) JB would have acquired the right knife for the job then. It remains hard to imagine JB concieving of blaming the Ripper & holding himself together under questioning. Although isn't there considerable evidence that he was a wreak after the murder & that this was treated with great simpathy by the police & the press. |
Author: Jill
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 12:44 am | | Hi John,
Without really taking a stand for either party, a murderer can still be a wreak after the deed has been done. So IF JB was the killer of MJK (copycat or Jack himself), he still could have displayed real devestated emotions afterwards, of maybe finally realising what he had done when the daze had lifted.
Jill |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 02:22 am | | Hi y'all.
IMHO, IF Joe Barnett was JtR - perhaps he didn't plan the Who, and the manhunt probably effected the When, but Jack definitely planned the How and the Why of Mary's murder .. just like he did with all the others.
If Barnett was a copy-cat killer his motive was most likely to gain attention & "fame" - in which case, Mary's murder was premediated ... To commit murder AND frame someone else would require twice the planning. (If someone has stats of several copy-cat murders, where the motive was to cover up a spur-of-the-moment murder - rather than seeking fame ... please speak up. I think Bob H is skeptical about the existence of such cases also.)
In either scenario above - Barnett's crime would have been pre-meditated, which throws any suppositions about sudden rages, jealousy, or lost jobs out the window ... right?
P.S. As to the mention of Jeffrey MacDonald by an earlier poster ... It's my understanding that Jeff continued to deny any responsibility for the murders of his family - which makes it difficult to know exactly what happened. If memory serves =
SCENARIO #1: Jeff, whacked out on habitual lack of sleep and a steady diet of speed (amphetamines), was awakened by one of his children crying. When Jeff saw that the boy had wet the bed - he beat his son to death, and then murdered the other child and his wife. And then "arranged the crime scene" Manson Cult style.
SCENARIO #2: Jeff plotted out every detail ahead of time, than murdered his family and arranged the crime scene. I think he had a new girlfriend and his wife wouldn't give him a divorce, or he stood to inherit a good sum of money when his wife died.
Sorry for being so inprecise. I don't have the book any more & it's been several years since I saw the movie.
SCENARIO #3: Was there a fight between Jeff & his wife that night? Perhaps. They certainly weren't getting along.
The "Fatal Vision" author interviewed MacDonald's in-laws, plus friends, acquaintances & co-workers ... The picture they painted was not one of a fairly decent guy pushed into a violent episode by various stresses --- Rather they spoke in terms familiar to all of us here, about behavior typical of an "average" psychopath ...
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Diana Comer
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 03:25 am | | | I personally prefer JtR as Mary's killer, however, with regard to Kevin's second point, Barnett had been to see her earlier in the evening, pleading for a reconciliation. Mary told him "no". I can picture JB leaving, enraged and wounded, going home, stewing for hours, working himself up, grabbing the knife and returning in the early hours of the morning to do the deed. |
Author: Kevin
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 06:03 am | | Good point Diana
Maybe he was really jealous of the men she was with that night... and frustrated by the fact that he couldn't keep her from doing it (maybe twice that night)... and maybe he was drunk and furious after whist...
But then where are we? We are back to JB doing a copycat unless you think that JB was Jack, which I am not denying is impossible.
I would be more likely to buy JB being Jack than JB doing a copycat of Jack because a copycat job like this would require too much premeditation for a crime of passion.
And then if we assume for a moment that JB was Jack we are faced with the problem of inconsistency in his "style" (at least in my opinion).
Jack's "style" was probably to watch, wait, and sieze the right moment, even if this required talking to prostitutes but not going through with the murder for various reasons, i.e., timing or a witness, or something was not quite right. I think there is evidence for this type of careful planning simply because he wasn't caught at a time when there were police everywhere.
Whatever Jack was on the exterior, the murderous Jack was a cool customer. So if JB (as Jack) was responsible for MJK then he would be acting out of character (style). If it was JB why not just rip someone else, as he had been doing before. Why attack the source of the problem this time?
Just some thoughts.
Kevin |
Author: Jill
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 06:53 am | | Maybe just something snapped too much this time, there was no hope anymore. I can perceive JB being a candidate serial killer (with the little we know of him). First he went after his victim's profile. But with MJK (not the usual profile, but his love)he finally breaks. After the first four he already got into the habit of solving his frustrations with killing. The step to kill someone close-by becomes smaller per time.
We always have perceived MJK as special, in the way she was butchered and the woman she was during life (against the others). The previous four seem very cold, maticulate and distanced. The slashing of the face and totally dehumanising calls paradoxicaly up an image of someone who was adored and loved and caused great pain by it.
There is one big problem about JB: can you perceive JB finding an uterus or a kidney, a heart for that matter? |
Author: Diana Comer
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 10:51 am | | | Jill, this is half "tongue in cheek" (expression means humorous) but how much are fish like people? JB was a fishmonger. I could see him deteriorating mentally over the ten week period of the killings, really going berserk with Mary. |
Author: Kevin
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 10:43 pm | | Yes, you said it well, deteriorating over the 10 week period and then really going berserk with Mary, but then what did he do the rest of his life...
One of my first feelings when I read about Jack was of the progressive madness/intensity. You could almost feel it. But then what happened to it all.
I can believe JB tricked the Police (plenty of serial killers are picked up and released), but I can't picture him stopping completely for the rest of his life. |
Author: Jill
Monday, 23 August 1999 - 11:33 pm | | Diana,
Here's an exercise: buy fresh fish and get a human anotomy book from the library; cut the fish open from its belly and open the book ...
For those interested in fish anatomy:
http://www.norcol.ac.uk/BEd/fishing/fishanatomy.html
Cheers
Jill
(Thanks for the explenation of the expression, since I'm no native speaker - I guessed as much) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 24 August 1999 - 12:26 am | | Dear Everyone,
I think we're drifting slightly. Diana Comer speaks of Barnett pleading with MJK to let him return and her turning him down. I don't recall it that way, as far as I know he merely called round to see how she was and apologise for having no money to give her.
Secondly anatomical knowledge or lack of is largely irrelevant. According to the medical opinions of the time the knowledge required ranged from medical man to slaughterhouse worker which is a net of such large mesh that as an aid to identification its useless.
In the same vein, if you think the knowledge of an animals innards might be of assistance don't forget the majority of people knew how to clean a rabbit and gut a fish, food came with hair on in those days!
As for the mutilations of MJK being more severe and therefore relevant, not so. The mutilations of a victim are usually in direct correlation to the amount of time a killer has to perform the act. I believe it was Nelson, the Gorilla Killer, who performed the worst mutilations on the body of a little girl that he hid in his room and thus had access to for three days. His subsequent victims were mutilated in accordance with the time he had available.
As for the knife, forget it. There is no point in trying to identify it because it is an impossible task. One murderer I recall made his own knives out of ground down files (which must have taken some work!) You have no idea what it is you are looking for because there are so many of them. Its like trying to identify a fish using the newspaper description 'a fish'.
For what its worth I mention in my book an interesting object bought at auction many years ago. It appeared to be a double edged knife, no quillions (sticky out bits between handle and blade)with the handle bound in string and a wooden pommel.
When I stripped the thing down I discovered it to be an assegai head that someone had made into a knife. I consulted a friendly weapons expert and was told after the Zulu wars soldiers snapped the shaft off assegais to bring them home as souveniers in their packs. (officers having a baggage allowance could manage the whole thing) once home they found very little need for a spear, but a ready market for a good knife. The one I had would have been a perfect JTR weapon, being designed for stabbing and slashing, and still razor sharp a hundred years after it was made.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 24 August 1999 - 12:31 am | | I've found another site for those who can stand some live photographical work of the internal design of fish.
http://courses.ncsu.edu/classes/zo442001/int_anat.html
At least the net doesn't smell.
Jill |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 24 August 1999 - 02:08 am | | Hi Bob,
I do not agree with the irrelevance of anatomical knowledge. If you do the exercise of the last web address I gave, you'll immediately feel that fish are aliens against humans. The same thing would happen if it was a horse, a pig, ... Because of the basic posture of the animal. What is vertical in other animals than humans is horizontal with us. Since gravity is at work, this results in a for our eyes disarranged result, more than a projection problem. The animal's gutted organs ARE different (so almost no learning).
I can perceive people who gut food maybe can be less whiney about a human corpse than others, but to believe preperation of rabits would be enough to find a human uterus or kidney is something else (a zoologist autopsing apes would come closest I think). Dr. Villon can be more helpful on that.
The importance of the opinion of Medical Men is discussed on the "A Progress of Priorities" board. As we handle each others opinions rightfully careful, we should do the same with the ones of more than 100 years ago. Especially with opinions based on impressions (I know I've got impressions enough myself that I either try to dis- or prove for myself).
There is a discrepancy between what we modern people know about the human body, and the people from around Whitechapel in 1888. We all have had some anatomical lessons in high school. No dissecting knowledge, but we learned what a heart, a liver, a kidney looks like. This knowledge gives us the "impression" that finding them, would not be so much of a practical problem, besides performing the gruesome act of opening someone up. We believe that if you are not afraid of blood, you can do wonders like a surgeon. Still without experience we would have misconceptions about proportions while digging, and need a lot of time to find anything purposeful.
The people in Whitechapel and surroundings 100 years ago, did not attend school to learn the workings of lungs, did not see a drawnig of the different heart chambers, ... So if we would have problems with our proper basic knowledge, how then can a fish porter who never saw pictures of the human inside have the chance to retrieve a kidney or uterus in 10mins time in the dark or semi-dark?
IMHO: He CAN'T.
Cheers,
Jill |
|
|
|
|
