|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
In Cahoots?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
In Cahoots?
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 02:29 pm |        | | What a great way to sell more newspapers. I can see the round table at the papers offices. Why not link four, six, eight grizzly murders to one fiend? Embellish the story with sensational pictures and letters and watch the public go wild! Sort of like the Tut Mania of the 20's. Something unexpected happens though, someone uses the media frenzy to murder Mary Kelly and cover it up. Unknowingly the papers actually help the murderer. The media frenzy hampers the police investigation or perhaps the police use the media to mask the true killer(s). The only thing that doesn't work is the Eddowes earlobe letter and the kidney sent to Lusk. Are these the only two things that prove Jack really existed? Could the kidney have been taken from the crime scene by the police and conveniently used as a false lead? It reminds me of OJ Simpsons "Bloody Glove". Please excuse an over zealous new participant but I love discussing this case. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:55 pm | | Actually Penelope, the earlobe reference in the letter (Dear Boss) is a red herring. Eddowes had a diagonal knife wound across her right cheek, the end of which sliced through her right earlobe.
The letter threatened to 'clip the lady's ears off'......there was no attempt to remove either ear. A sliced earlobe in consequence of slashing her face cannot be regarded as an attempt to remove her ear.
Also, (re: kidney) the body of Eddowes was not left alone until it was inside Golden Lane mortuary, so an 'inside job' is hardly likely, the opportunity did not present itself.
Keep thinking though.....I see your enthusiazm :-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 09:12 pm | | Welcome to the Casebook, Penelope.
Actually, though the idea of journalists sitting round a table discussing ways to link ever more gruesome crimes to the name of the Ripper owes a bit more to fiction than fact, you're really not that far off.
What you must remember is that by the murder of Polly Nichols, there had already been two "murders" of Whitechapel prostitutes where no-one had been brought to justice. The most recent had been the killing of Martha Tabram on August 7; previous to that in April, a woman named Emma Smith had been beaten, raped and robbed by a gang of toughs and died the next day in hospital. However, by the end of August the exact details of Smith's death had been a bit muddied, and reporters writing about Nichols who cudgeled their brains trying to bring Smith's particulars to mind could remember only the bare minimum - dead Whitechapel prostitute, and no-one arrested for her death.
Nichols, then, fit into what was now seen as a pattern. She, Tabram and Smith were all prostitutes, they all worked / lived in Whitechapel, and they had all been killed by a single assailant. It wasn't true, but it was widely believed to be true. So, whereas you imagine editors trying to boost sales by cynically inflating the Ripper's tally, it was already thought by the press, public and some police that there was a lone maniac who had already killed thrice and had yet to be caught. Annie Chapman's murder followed so soon on that there was little need, at that time, to attribute other cases to the Ripper's knife. This would happen (Jane Beetmore is a case in point), but it really would not be until after the death of Mary Kelly and the generally accepted end of the "Autumn of Terror" that other unsolved murders would be added to the tally of Jack the Ripper.
And while there is no doubt the Whitechapel Murders were a godsend for newspapers (especially the penny press), surprisingly enough, the amount of coverage afforded the murders was not nearly as great as some books or documentaries would lead you to believe. Within a week or so of a murder, of course, there was much rumour and frantic speculation, but in the period between the Chapman murder and the "double event" as well as between that and Kelly's death, there were long stretches where discussions about slum renovation, the incompetence of Henry Matthews and other triviality occupied more column inches than the doings of Saucy Jacky.
You raise a more interesting point than you know by asking (in the context of Catherine Eddowes) what proves Jack really existed. Outside of five really dead women, the question of whether all fell victim to the same man is one where there can be some fierce debate, as you will see the more you read about the case.
All the best,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 09:59 pm | | Jon
This whole case is a red herring! There has to have been at least one bloody footprint at one of the murder scenes. All that blood! I know a fingerprint would not help but with a footprint at least they would know what kind of shoes he wore. Wasn't the British government going to release a bunch of JTR documents a few years back and then decided not to? Wonder why?
Thx, PV |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 10:16 pm | | Christopher-Michael
Thanks for kind words. I remember reading sometime back that the Ripper murders were used by the social reformers of the time to try and clean up the west end. I also remember an article years ago referring to a certain man of the cloth (Reverend ?) suspected by some of being JTR. He was a part of this reform movement.
Thx, PV
I just did a spell check and it told me to change Christopher to either Schizophrenic or Christ. Eclectic huh! |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 02:18 am | | While Christopher-Michael, in his post above, accurately relays a preliminary finding from my research, that newspapers were not as full of Whitechapel murder throughout the ‘Autumn of Terror’ as may sometimes be assumed, I don’t think the items that commanded more column inches can be so lightly dismissed as ‘triviality.’ Parnell and Irish affairs, social conditions, or the politics and organisation of the police, may be of little interest to Ripperologists, but they were clearly considered major items of news at the time.
It might also be worth emphasising that Whitechapel murders did provide a considerable boost to the daily circulation of some papers at least.
The Star, for instance, made a point of broadcasting its success in the wake of successive Whitechapel murders. On the 8th September 1888 the Star claimed a circulation of some 232,500 copies, whereas on the 10th Sept. this had reportedly risen to 261,100 copies.
In an era when the Times sold some 50,000 copies per day, and the Daily Telegraph could claim to be the largest selling daily in the world with an average of 250,000 copies per day, the Star’s increase in circulation of 28,600 from one evenings’ issue to the next cannot be lightly disregarded.
Whitechapel murders, therefore, undoubtedly proved rather lucrative for at least some sections of the Victorian press, despite the fact that other more newsworthy items frequently took precedence.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 08:40 am | | | Penelope, I can see you are getting into the way of things--frustration, exasperation,how can that be-- view. Be prepared, it can only get worse J. Jon, you must be some kind of a professional devils advocate or plain stirrer, your last posting must tell you what I'm talking about, I'm mentioning no names. And I mean that in the most friendly of terms, J My Regards to both, Rick. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 09:45 am | | Rick
I think I understand your confusion (where's this guy coming from?), my principle interest in this whole case is purely to collect as much factual material & plausible conjecture, based on that material, as possible.
Much can be seen to be contradictory in this series of murders. On the one hand certain evidence may point in one direction, then with another murder, we are thrown in an opposite direction. Even Doctors at the time could not agree on the level of medical expertise indicated by the mutilations.
I happen to think the label 'sexual killing' has little to support it. I also stand in possibly obstinate defence of suspects such as Barnett, Druitt, Tumblety etc....mainly because there is too much conjecture in critical area's.
As far as being a Devils Advocate?, yes I should hope so. And I see this as being a positive position to take. Personally I think that all those here who have an indepth knowledge of the case have a kind of duty to respond to questions in an unbiast manner, just report what is known.
I hope that people reading will be aware that when I propose something based on conjecture, I make it clear that it is only my opinion and not a fact. However, when a question is asked that requires an answer that conflicts with any position I have taken, then I will give the 'known' answer, regardless of my personal thoughts. Thats where I think you pick up on a conflict.
I have no personal theory about these murders, but I do recognise certain plausible possibilities. Unfortunately, some of these are in somewhat conflict.
For instance, I believe its very likely Eddowes apron was cut off to allow the killer to carry away the warm, wet organs. As Lawende's man was not reported as carrying a bag, and it is too much to expect him to put them in his pocket. However, Chapman worn an apron, but it was not reported as cut in half, and no portion was reported missing. Also, we cannot be sure that Lawende's sighting was actually the killer & victim together, its possible it was another couple.
I also believe that Dr Phillips was experienced enough to recognise medical expertise, but then why was Chapmans & Eddowes pocket cut open and contents scattered? Does this betray the possiblity that Jack took his 2d back?.....was he that poor that he needed the money?.....that would not fit with a Doctor, to my mind. But then maybe Jack was looking for something?.
If you see what I mean, there are many branches that you can be led down and no one singular branch provides all the answers to all the anomalies in the case.
But then as I once said to David R., the anomalies may well be there because of our ignorance of the facts, due to incomplete evidence, or mistaken witness reports.
Consider the two Doctors involved in Kelly's case, one said to the press that no portion of the body was missing, yet the postmortem quite specifically tells us that the heart was removed.
All the organs that were removed were located by the doctor, he tells us where the uterus & liver & breasts were located. But no mention of the heart, so was it taken away or not?.
Precious little can be said to be certain, in this case.
Rick, I would hope all those who have amassed a considerable collection of data on these murders would use that data to answer questions truthfully, regardless of their personal views. And it has been my experience that with these specific individuals, this has always been the case.
Sorry for the apparent conflict.
Best Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 12:15 pm | | D'oh!
I must apologise, Penelope, and I hang my head in shame that I did not give my admirable colleague Alex full credit for the small paragraph on column inches with regards to JTR. I freely admit that I, too, fell victim to the same outlook as many until he brought forth some preliminary research; Alex has uncovered some very intriguing statistics which will some day make provocative reading. His research is sterling, and willingness to share it admirable. Long life to him!
And, of course, Alex, you're quite right that those other news stories were not "trivialities;" I meant - as you rightly point out - that in the context of our investigation of the Whitechapel Murders they are ephemeral items, but were vitally important issues to our grandsires. Which is not to say that sometimes these issues did not impact the hunt for the Ripper; in the case of the refusal to offer a government-backed reward for the Ripper's capture, opinion as to Matthews' fitness for his job (and the Home Secretary's own perilous political position) is important to understand when asking "why no reward?" and conjoining this to the larger question of why the Ripper was not caught.
The concept that the Ripper murders were primarily a crusade to clean up the East End will find more space in older books on the subject; Druitt and Toynbee Hall are usually brought in with regards to this theory (which, incidentally, I don't give any credence to). You will also occasionally find reference to a letter written by George Bernard Shaw, wherein he states that the Ripper murders, as an example of "slaughterhouse anatomy," have focused the attention of the great and powerful on the appalling conditions of the East End. While JTR was not the sole reason for the gutting and redevelopment of Whitechapel, his activities certainly gave an impetus to an already growing concern.
Schizophrenic or Christ, eh? I've been accused of the former, but a messianic complex is not, so far, part of my makeup. . .
Jon - excellent statement of purpose, and I entirely agree with you.
CMD |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 01:14 pm | | The anomalies of the case are the answer to the case.
David |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 08:54 pm | | To all of you helpful people!
I think we would all be a bit disappointed if the case was solved. It's the thinking, researching, debating and fantacizing that makes JTR fascinating. Golly! I didn't know Mary Kelly was pregnant! Any idea who papa was? I am such a novice. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 03:41 am | | Hi Penelope and welcome,
In the light of Jon's last post:
Not any medical report of the dead Mary Jane mentions that she was pregnant, in fact just the opposite. The state her uterus had been was one of a non-pregnant woman. The supposed pregnancy is and was nothing more than theorising and gossip. But alas (or lucky), she was not.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 11:54 am | | Hi Jill
Thanks. I suppose this gossip goes along with the abortionist theory. It's nice to know she wasn't! Of all the theories this one seems the most far fetched to me. A doctor perhaps but not an abortionist.
PV |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Thursday, 16 November 2000 - 04:24 pm | | Perhaps the pregnancy has something to do with the "Hogarth-Inspired-Masonic-Killings" conspiracy theory. There's a section somewhere on the Boards about William Hogarth's "The Four Stages of Cruelty," and how the last two engravings in that set of four artworks may have:
a) Had Freemasonic content (a theory/contention which is aptly shot down like a Messerschmitt by someone apparently more knowledgeable about art than the theorist),
and,
b) Helped to inspire the Murders.
I will not argue with #2. After all, Hogarth's work was supposedly hung in workingmen's pubs in order to help curb vice, so maybe one or two prints of the last two survived on the walls of the Ten Bells or the Crown(e?).
Anyway, in the third drawing, "Cruelty's Perfection," the villain (a cruel young boy, John Nero ("Jack the Fiddler"?), who tortured dogs in childhood, and tortured-to-death young hoofed mammals in youth) murders his pregnant lover by slitting her throat and wrists (the wrists part may have been 18th-century law enforcement's misunderstanding of how defence wounds are put on murder victims' wrists, or may have been meant by Hogarth to represent defence wounds, but never explained that way, *or* may have been meant by Hogarth to make Nero out to be a man who would not only degrade an unmarried, naive, pretty young thing; who would not *just* kill that naive while she was quite pregnant with his child; but as a man who would make that pretty, naive young thing out to be a suicide, and thus exonerate himself).
At any rate, Hogarth had a brilliant understanding of just the type of evil that leaves a degraded young woman with a slit throat out in the middle of the street while attendant doctors drag him away to lynch him. Nero is a classic sociopath, right down to his lack of remorse and his total dearth of sympathy for *HIS OWN CHILD, FOR GOD'S SAKE*.
The picture itself is an eerie prognostication of the Whitechapel Murders, with its abusive, sociopathic, woman-hating throat-slitter. It loks a lot like Paul Smith's website's picture of Annie Chapman's murder. If you want to see the Hogarth pictures, they are available for viewing just about anywhere you look up "The Four Stages Of Cruelty", in quotes, online. The last two will make you want to accuse Hogarth. I almost did before I realized that he died in the 1780s or 1790s...
Sarah |
|
|
|
|
