|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Pockets
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Pockets
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 03:18 pm |        | Sorry to create yet another thread but I coudn't find a better one. I'm also sorry to ask a question when I am going to be off the boards until monday but this is it anyway.
When did pockets come into being on clothes. A uterus and a kidney could fit in a pocket (perhaps wrapped in an piece of apron or not). However, they would bulge a bit. A heart could not.
So the bag is sounding more plausable. Surely if Eddowes organs were carried away in the piece of apron they would just have been wrapped up. What were Kelly's carried away in? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 04:23 pm | | G'day,
What did Jack carry his knife in?
LEANNE! |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 05:42 pm | | Almost certainly, the perpetrator took a hand towel or other cloth with him to wipe his hands. Would you go out to disembowell people in semi-public without planning ahead how to get the blood off your hands so you wouldn't be noticed walking home? The towel would also have been useful to fold around the knife, so he wouldn't get stuck by the knife through his jacket as he walked down the street. Also, he wouldn't like that sharp point cutting through his jacket to ruin it.
David |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 06:00 pm | | Here's a bit of food for thought:
IF the Ripper used any type of disguise (and it's a big "if") or could discard old clothing used as rags, then it follows that he's not poor. At least not as poor as most of the folks in Whitechapel, who'd probably keep their garments as long as possible.
We shan't find our man amongst the labouring poor or in some dosser's kitchen, I'll warrant! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 06:10 am | | G'day Fellas,
Here's some more 'Food For Thought':
The Ripper crimes, brought out many weirdoes:
Some prowled the streets at night, with weapons. Police made many fruitless arrests of anyone that looked 'different', acted 'suspiciously, carried small black bags or wore blood-stained clothes.
The true Ripper may have been one of these 'fruitless arrests', yet was able to come up with a good alibi! Whaddooya think?
LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 04:20 pm | | David -
Out of curiosity, if our man carried some sort of towel (or whatever) to clean the detrius of death from his hands and weapon - and perhaps to have a handy carryall for his ghastly burden - would you then say the swatch of Eddowes' apron beneath the Goulston Street writing is a deliberate clue? After all, if he carried a cloth with him at other times, why would he suddenly have to find one after killing poor Kate Eddowes?
Unless he really did kill Long Liz Stride and threw away his cloth after cleaning the knife used in that attack. Then he would have to cut away at her apron. An interesting line of thought.
Tom - this is a bit potted and incomplete, but. . .various types of pockets have been in existence on mens' clothing since the late 1500s, though not exactly the type we would recognise. Men did not generally have pockets in their trousers until after the Regency, when the sort of Lord Byronish pants-tight-enough-to-advertise-one's-wedding-tackle went out of style.
God knows I couldn't have worn the damned things. Remember the Tenniel illustration of Humpty Dumpty? That's me, that is.
CMD |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 03:46 pm | | Hi, CMD:
Would a codpiece then be a sort of pocket? :-) "I wasn't codding" and all that? Or to quote Sondheim from "West Side Story": "Got a rocket in your pocket." Actually I think Jack discarding his towel after the attack on Stride and needing to find another cloth is a plausible scenario, but in that case, why was the first cloth not found? Nick Danger and I are not discounting Long Liz from the list of Jack's kills even though Messrs. Yost and Evans seem to have dismissed her as a victim of Jack's.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 13 March 2000 - 05:46 am | | G'day all,
CMD: Good point about Jack throwing away his cloth, after killing Stride and needing to cut Eddowes's apron. Perhaps he threw it in anger, because he couldn't mutilate her.
LEANNE! |
Author: andrew sinnett
Monday, 13 March 2000 - 08:01 am | | Greetings all,
in my opinion Jack would simply have had to have some sort of bag or sack to have carried away his trophies.
Whilst a uterus is not a large organ it would have been both bloodied and wet, a heart too would perhaps after removal still be prone to leakage (terrible thought i know)hence why i suspect there must have been something into which they were placed. then they could be hidden amongst the layers of clothing or within an overcoat etc.
The Goulsten St rag was according to police/medical reports, stained with fecal matter. another reason why not to place the body parts directly into a pocket of what possibly may have been the only clothes one had.
As to the previous post by leanne regarding where Jack kept his knife, again I would have to assume almost anywhere which allowee both quick and easy access.
it would not be any more difficult to walk the streets back then armed as it is now, especially at night and in generally dimly lit streets.
Then again, I may be wrong.
Good to be a part of all of this!
cheers
Lord Lucan |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 12:33 am | | G'day All,
I just thought: Maybe Jack carried a knife that was unlike the knife that police were searching for and kept a long narrow blade, hidden in his pocket, the lining of a bag or disguised as something else. Then just before the kill, switched blades. I know nothing about knives or blades, but was this possible, in those days?
LEANNE! |
Author: Jeffrey
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 04:59 am | | Hello All !
I actually like Leannes' first question, 'What did Jack carry his knife in'? I do hope that while always trying to remain true to facts, and not going too far out there into fantasy land (I've read enough Ripper books for that), we can have a little fun and enjoy these boards. Heck... life is too serious some times ! While always remaining respectful to the victims and never forgetting the seriousness of the crimes, I wonder what people here now would enjoy talking about, or what subject might initiate some worth-while discussion. The boards and various topics appear a little sparse to me these days.
... back to the nife !
Carrying his knife shows "Pre-Meditation", at the risk of stating the obvious. Unless of course, people feel he must have always had a knife on his person ? (which I don't). The murder days and dates show a distinct pattern, but I wonder if the killer carried his knife only on these occassions, or whether he had always had one on him. I was wondering what people here felt about this point.
Carrying a knife always would be too risky. The weapon the killer used was a real knife ('you call that a knife'?). It had a 6-8" blade, moderately sharp as in the case of the Nichols murder, but then he must have sharpened it up a little for Chapman. I read on these boards once of a type of leather pouch like professional butchers and such would use for their personal tools of the trade. A package like this however would surely be risky to carry everywhere. Is a clasp knife something that one could easily conceal on their person ? Do clasp knives have 6-8" blades?
I believe the killer had to be really "in the mood" and on these occassions he would secrete the blade "carefully" on his person and head out for the hunt. I know I'm stating the obvious again, with the comment on pre-meditation, but I've been thinking a great deal about this and find it quite fascinating really. I wonder what kinds of things were going through his mind before the murder? Could the Ripper have been successful at every attempt ? Realistically you would have to say 'no'. I don't think either that the killer lurked in the shadows of the foggy, gas-lit Victorian streets, no matter how romantic an image this might seem.
I had always felt that there must have been some sort of catylist on the occassions of the murder. Say like he just wasn't up for the job when he was approached by a hard-up prostitute, desperately looking to earn her doss money, but the point is that he went prepared to kill. He tooled himself up for the job before heading out. He didn't just break into some kind of rage and grab the first thing to hand, to bash the poor woman on the head. He went out prepared to murder and mutilate, and take his trophies home with him. Just as he prepared himself to carry out the murder, he must have also been prepared to carry his trophies away in the most discrete way possible.
This will never get me anywhere closer to the killer, but it does help in trying to picture the kind of person the killer must have been. He carried his knife for the specific purpose, yet he strangled his victim first. He had his tools at hand, and must have also had something to carry the organs away. He did put some thought into his deeds. I dare say he probably even had a rag to wipe clean his hands and knife.
Any other ideas ?
Jeff D |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 07:10 am | | G'day Folks,
He may have always carried a knife, (but not necessarily a 6-8 inch blade one), to use the excuse that he too was hunting the 'Ripper'. Hey, he may have even joined the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, but what he was really doing was stalking his next prey. He could have then noted the Constables beats, so he could avoid them.
This would also make him a familiar face, in the area, so people would think "Oh no! It can't be 'Fred', he's always here and he is a pleasant chap!"
This suggests that he was not necessarily a local man, familiar with the area!
LEANNE! |
Author: andrew sinnett
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 07:29 am | | greetings all,
what are everyones thoughts? did jack strike when the opportunity presented itself or did he wait till his time was right? jeffrey puts forth some intersting points to ponder here...i think i have to sit on the middle of the fence. i believe he decided that tonight was the night and went out hunting, if the situation favoured his intentions he acted, if not he went home, dissapointed, frustrated. perhaps this may explain the increasing severity of the murder/mutilations.
leannes thoughts that he was aware of the bobbies (bobbys? sp?) exact beats and timeframes also strike a cord with me. he knew he had a certain 'safe' time barring unofficial interference which he had to act on, or wait for another opprtunity to present itself.
cheers
lord lucan |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 07:34 am | | Hi Leanne,
I have also felt it possible that the killer was a familiar face about town (under everyone's noses?) who was able to come and go without the least hint of suspicion attached to his movements. Perhaps even someone your average beat bobby would not feel comfortable enough to approach and question.
Also, does anyone know the names of all those who joined the various vigilance groups around at the time?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 07:44 am | | | How did Jack know he was not going to be disturbed by a member of the public ? For instance , imagine Lawende had followed Eddowes and her killer into Mitre Square for a spot of voyeurism , instead of catching a cab ? Then the game would have been up. What sort of man would take such suicidal risks ? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 08:12 am | | G'day Everyone,
Caroline: Joseph Barnett was on the Whitechapel Vigilance committee, but I didn't just say that because he's my favourite suspect.
Simon: If Jack sussed out his prey and the venue beforehand, he may have been confident of not being caught. Didn't he almost get caught a few times?
LEANNE |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 09:47 am | | G'day Leanne ! You said...WHO ? Poor old Joe Barnett ? You can't be serious ! Obviously Bruce Paley's book has been a might influential. But consider the following : why did Barnett murder the other 4 prostitutes and mutilate them too ? And how did he hide it from Mary Kelly what he was doing ? Remember he was living with her at the time. Mary Kelly was a smart cookie , she would have sussed what Barnett was doing when he came home covered in blood with a 6" knife in his hand. And why did he mutilate Kelly herself ? How many 'crime passionelles' end with the utter mutilation of the victim and the removal of her organs ? Why didn't he give himself up to the police after he had killed Kelly , if he loved her so much what else did he have to live for ? I think you'll find that as soon as you have read a few of the ' Conspiracy theory ' books you'll put this Barnett nonsense behind you and come to accept that some renegade Freemasons did it all along ! Simple Truth indeed ... |
Author: Jeffrey
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 11:40 am | | Hi Leanne !
Hey ! Poor old Joe is definitely on my list of suspects although with so much reading I've done lately there are so many viable suspects out there it can be a really confusing. I've forgotten all about trying to name a favourite suspect. For example my list would include Barnett, Kosminsky, Tumblety, Jas Kelly, Thos Cutbush, Geo Hutchinson and the list could go on of just the ones I think are viable. I'll try and stay away from a name just know.
I believe (although it is another point that could probably never be proven) that the murderer would have enlisted in one of the vigilance committees. It is very common for a serial killer to go out looking for themself. As was mentioned in an earlier post too, it would enable the killer to gather information on police presence and such.
Is there or was there ever a list of the members of Lusks vigilance committee? Did they enlist or simply attend meetings and stroll along with a patrol ? Scouring the streets would certainly enable the ripper to pre-select his victim. I was just reminded of the Lawende description where the man seen talking to Eddowes had a red-scarf. Red scarves or neckercheifs do appear at times throughout the story. At the risk of going on another tangent, does anyone know what color was the Chapman scarve, that was supposedly the only thing holding her head on?
I have always had a sneaking suspicion as well that the killer was actually in police custody during the month of October, after the heavy police search of homes and round-up of just about anyone and everyone who looked suspicious. Would the police records or suspect check-in books for the period exist today ? Part of the suspect profiling that I believe in ('cause it suites my way of thinking) was that the killers name would have been on file somewhere. Unfortunately there were so many names and today so many of the original documents are lost forever.
Jeff D |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 06:34 pm | | G'day Everyone,
I fancy Barnett as a suspect, because alot of people nowadays yell: "Not Poor old Joe!" He fits the idea that everyone at the time, thought: "Oh No, It can't be Joe, he's always here and is a pleasant chap!"
Paley says that his motive was just to scare Kelly from prostitution and I agree that this is the weak spot, but Barnett's father died and his mother vanished when he was just a boy. This left him and his brothers alone, in harsh Whitechapel.
How did he hide it from Mary Kelly? He may have stored his trophies and weapon elsewhere, she found out too much, so she became his next target. Remember her heart was missing?
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 04:24 am | | G'day!
Oh my, aren't I stupid??????
I was so sure that it was a fact that Barnett was on some committee, but now I can't find that detail written anywhere. Not even in Paley's book!
But if it's a fact that serial killers often look for themselves, it might be interesting to find out exactly who was.
One committee was formed after the Martha Tabrum murder, and the one headed by George Lusk, formed after Annie Chapman's murder.
The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, consisted of 16: 'including a cigar-maker, a tailor, a picture frame maker and an actor.' George Lusk (a builder) was president, Mr B. Harris (Furniture dealer)was secretary and Mr Joseph Aarons (?) was treasurer. The father of author Ada Reeve was a member and a year after the murders stopped, the organisation fell to Albert Bachert (an engraver, so I'd say he was an original member too.
The 'Spitalfields Vigilance Committee's' president was J. Cohen (not David Cohen), the secretary was Mr Van Gelder.
The 'Whitechapel Vigilance Committee', met in the Crown Pub in Mile End Road and announced in the press that members would be available every morning, to receive information or suggestions from the public. Jack may have been on this Committe, or even just approached them from the public. It would make sense to send the kidney to: 'Dear Boss', (if indeed it was from Jack) and would have made it easier to obtain Lusk's home address.
LEANNE! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 05:48 am | | Except that the kidney was sent to "Mister Lusk", not to "Dear Boss". And that somebody suspiciously obtained Lusk's address, in the same truncated form used on the package, from a newspaper, without any direct contact with the Vigilance Committee. It is true, though, that some serial killers do attempt to become involved in the investigation into their crimes, and so we should not discount the possibility that the Whitechapel Murderer may have made contact with the vigilantes.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 15 March 2000 - 05:49 am | | | For "Mister" above, read "Mishter"! |
Author: Dave Sceats
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 05:20 pm | | Hi
Whilst visiting a number of antique fares, I've noticed Victorian walking sticks were disgused as knifes, swords, even guns.
Also a high number of homes in the area did not have running water, they used "Stand pipes" which were situated at the end of streets, or within flats yards.Would not jack wash the blade at one of these?.
However I am intrested in "The how jack carried the organs" theory, I seem to remember there was a case for the black marketing of dead bodys for medical research In the area. The case revolved around two men killing three teen-aged boys, then selling the bodies on. (One boy being Italian)
All The Best
Dave |
|
|
|
|
