|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Was murder unusual in East End 1988?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Was murder unusual in East End 1988?
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 03:47 am |        | I'm new to this board but I've been interested in JTR since I read Rumbelows book in the 70's. In a book I recently bought - it's in my summer adress now, and I don't remember the author - Joseph Barnett was picked out as the JTR. The book starts with a theory that a then much talked-about assault in the spring of 1888 actually were the JTR's first deed. Among latter days ripperologists this assault has'nt been discussed, and the writer assures me that neither murders nor assaults were common in the East End, on the contrary it was surprisingly seldom any murder occurred, let alone those where the perpetrator couldn't be found.
And the discussions about the 'torso killings' in a way confirms this; if those murders were the only ones except the JTR 5 killings (and Tabram, McKensie and Cole) where the murderer wasn't found, isn't it unbelievable that for example McKenzie should have been killed by someone else than JTR ? Of course someone could have killed her for private reasons - but that sounds unlikely when you think of her - or someone who tried to emulate JTR, but to kill anyone just because you want to copy a murderer, how usual is that? When Nichols was murdered the newspapers wrote about the concern of the recent killings (Tabram and E.E. Smith I presume). Why should anyone have been concerned about those poor prostitutes if murder was so common?
On the other side several books and authors - among them Rumbelow - have stated that murder was tuppence in the East End during that period. Which is the truth ? I have always felt that Tabram was the first JTR killing, and that he started to refine his method after those probably messy 47 knife-stabs. But most experts tend to think that only the "pure" throat-slitting murders were JTR. What shall one think - was murder common or not ?
Please forgive my English, I am from Sweden but I'm not any relative of Liz. (As far as I know)
Regards Henrik |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 03:53 am | | It should have been 1888 - not 1988 of course...
Henrik |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 10:09 am | | It's really sounding grand, isn't it - the meaning "among latter day ripperologists this assault hasn't been discussed but the writer assures me that....". Of course I'm aware of that you know all about it, the meaning was supposed to sound "The writer assures me (the reader that is) that among latter days ripperologists this assault hasn't been discussed and that neither assaults nor murders were common in the East End."
Because that's what he said - and I remember now, it wasn't Joseph Barnett but Hutchinson, you're quite right.
I'm sorry if I have offended more people than the one who told me at my e-mail that such postings from newcomers are bad taste. I honestly looked for hours during two days at hundreds of discussions at different subject postings to see if I could get an answer that way, but I couldn't find that discussion anywhere neither recent nor old. About introducing myself at the pub and then meekly wait until I'm spoken to - yes that was my first thought, but I really didn't see any mention at all of JTR on the pub. I figured the pub was more a chat were you relaxed from JTR and spoke of other things. Anyway I didn't mean any harm, I just was a bit excited about perhaps getting an answer to a problem that has been annoying me for a couple of years. I'm truly sorry if I have made people angry.
Henrik |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 10:41 am | | Hi, Henrik:
I am sorry if you received a less than friendly e-mail from somebody. I for one, and I am sure others, do welcome your questions. We are all here to ask each other questions and to exchange our thoughts. You are welcome to do this as is anybody else interested in the case. Fire away.
It sounds then as if the book advocating Hutchinson, as you now say you meant, is Bob Hinton's From Hell. Is that right?
Murders were not a terribly frequent occurrence in the East End. Bruce Paley's book on Joe Barnett does not show any murder for 1887 in Whitechapel. That is not to say that there were no murders in the East End; one murder that did occur in 1887 was the poisoning murder of Miriam Angel at the hands of Israel Lipski, for which he was later convicted and hanged. That murder though occurred not in Whitechapel but in Batty Street, St. George's-in-the-East, adjoining Whitechapel and Spitalfields. It is also true that the persons listed as having been murdered were residents of that neighborhood and a person from outside the district would not be listed in the data. So we are partly restricted here on how the data were gathered in knowing the true picture! Confusing, I know.
The general feeling among Ripperologists is that JtR may have committed from three to six murders. If Tabram is added to the canonical five, that would give six murders, but some people these days feel that Elizabeth Stride's murder may not have been a Ripper killing and some even discount Mary Jane Kelly's murder. My count would be six murders, the Tabram murder and the canonical five, including Stride and Mary Jane Kelly. The later murders of Alice McKenzie (July 1889) and Frances Coles (February 1891) are usually discounted as JtR murders.
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Thank you Chris for your kind words, and for your information. Yes the book was titled "From Hell". Yes I know that McKenzie seldom is seen as a JTR victim, and that the knife-wound in her throat resembles that in Frances Cole's throat more than the other five. But you see what I'm getting at; if murder really was unusual - as you say - how big a chance is there that another killer with almost the same murder manual was responsible for the McKenzie slaying ( and Coles also?). The torsos are in a different category I think; prostitutes are living dangerously when it comes to murder, and we don't know of any of the circumstances connecting their deaths. Were they killed indoors, were they perhaps sexually more attractive, were they killed in the heat of the act (if anyone took place) and so on.
But when it comes to McKenzie...she was as old and unattractive as her predecessors, she was certainly extremely poor, no sign of sexual activity took place, she was daringly killed out in the street - killer taking a huge risk as with Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes - she got a knife in her throat and (admittedly slight) a rip in her abdomen. All of this was a ripper-pattern. If those "ripper signs" were there only because the murder hoped to pin it on JTR, one has to accept that someone actually planned to kill the poor, old insignificant sixpence hooker for her own sake; is that really plausible? O.K. but what about killer not having any private reason for doing away with her, but hoping to start exciting ripper-scare? But is that really a serious murder motive? Perhaps if he at the same time was lusting for murder, and wanted to try it out. But would anyone but the ripper be so bold and daring; when Rumbelow describes it, it seems that the killer took a terrible risk. The ripper had killed indoors, so if anyone wanted to pin it on him, why not do it in a room and avoid the streets? If murder was unusual would indeed anyone but JTR take such a great risk?
I know that the cut of the throat was more of a stab than the Rippers usual cut, but one doesn't know what had happened to him in the months he was away from murder. Perhaps he was voluntarily in a lunatic asylum, and wrote himself out, hoping to avoid the murder lure, but at last couldn't contain himself. Or he could have had an accident, or a nervous breakdown (small wonder after Kelly) nursed at home by a devoted wife or mother. But he had weakened during his stay and as Alice saw what was coming she opened her mouth to scream; he was forced to kill her instantly in a desperate stabbing. When he was starting the mutilations, he either heard someone approaching, or more plausible, was overcome with revulsion with himself, stopped and fled. (Da Capo with Cole in 1891?) Peter Kürten varied his killings much more than that, and after Kelly nothing could perhaps rouse him to lustfully rip open any more - even if he tried...Yes that is only my own fantasy of what could have happened. Personally I think it's more believable than the Albert Viktor one or the all-the-hookers-knew-each-other. I really don't know why I have such a strong feeling that Alice McK is a JTR victim, it's a strong feeling as well as I think that it's within reason. On the other hand Cohen and a few others cannot be JTR if I'm right.
Henrik |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 01:52 pm | | Hello Henrik,
as far as I am concerned I do not think that murders where so rare in the East End (a lot could have been disguised as accident or even suicide, the police not caring too much to investigate for "the people of the Abyss" and in any case not disposing at the time of good method of investigation) but they were seldom so violent as for the 7 ladies from Emma Smith and Martha Tabram to Mary Kelly.
I am very near to your statements myself for Alice Mc Kenzie and Frances Coles (more similarities than what it seems with the "canonicals").
For the curiosity: it seems that Alice Mc Kenzie was known also with the name of Kelly ("The Ultimate Sourcebook").
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: It seems in fact that there was another murder very similar during october, not in London but somewhere else in England.
The victim was a certain Jane Savage.
Was it a copycat killing ?
Was the murderer arrested ?
Could someone help ? |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 02:26 pm | | Hi, again, Henrik:
I would suggest to you that the fact that the many JtR letters received, as shown in the new book by Evans and Skinner, show there were, by the many handwriting styles and tones used, copycat letter writers, there could also have been copycat killers, too, lusting for their little moment in the sun. On the other hand, you are correct that perhaps McKenzie is discounted as a Ripper victim too readily.
As you know, at the time, the press and the public were under the impression that these crimes were all "Whitechapel murders" and done by one hand. I believe that McKenzie and Coles and other murders began to get less attention when the canonical murders were in retrospect identified. Also the advent of the naming of suspects made these later murders seem less likely to be Ripper victims, as you note yourself when you say, "On the other hand Cohen and a few others cannot be JTR if I'm right [that McKenzie was killed by the Ripper.]" Indeed, if Druitt or Maybrick was the murderer, neither man could have been killed these women--both suspects were by then dead... Cohen and Kosminski were probably by then in asylums... and Tumblety was probably back in the United States.
Also note the following differences between the canonical Ripper victims and these two late "Whitechapel murders" as per the victim descriptions on this site: Alice McKenzie, "The severing of the left carotid artery is consistent with previous Ripper murders, although the canonical five were murdered with much deeper and longer injuries which cut down to the spinal column. McKenzie suffered only two jagged wounds on the left side which were no longer than four inches a piece and had left the air passages untouched . . . . The mutilations committed upon McKenzie were mostly superficial in manner. . ." ; Frances Coles, "Her throat was cut, but unlike the canonical Ripper slayings, it was with a blunt knife. . . Her clothes were in order, and there were no abdominal mutilations."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 04:50 pm | | Hello Henrik,
I am not sure who sent you an e-mail saying that your posting was in bad taste. I don't find it so. While we don't like newcomers starting threads titled "How many victims were there?" or the like, the msg boards are a gigantic mess and we understand that it is difficult to always find what you are looking for and things will sometimes get repeated. So enjoy the boards and post away and just let this be a lesson that just because you get an e-mail from someone telling you how the members feel, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so.
Alegria
Moderator |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 07:40 pm | | To Alegria: Thanks for telling me - I answered "publicly" too because I wasn't sure if more people wrinkled their noses in silence. Any-way I've gotten another mail from the person who critizised me in the first place, and we've sorted it out now. He didn't mean to sound rude, only to inform me of how things were done here. No hard feelings from any direction I hope, and hopefully end of matter.
To graziano: No I have never heard that McKenzie was called Kelly too - that means there were three(!)Kelly then, since Catherine Eddowes was known as 'Kate Kelly' by some. Strange coincidence...
The Savage girl doesn't ring a bell either, from where did you get it?
To Chris: I'm aware of the huge amount of copycat lunatics, but still it's a little bit easier to cash in on murders by letter - to actually commit a murder just for copying reasons (and a daring murder like that!) seems a bit more fantastic. Still I guess it's been done somwhere sometimes.
I suppose at least half of the suspects would have to be cleared if the McKenzie murder was JTR. I've got to admit than when I read your statement of Alice's death it sure sounds a bit meek and a far cry from the real murders explosively furious violence...
Henrik |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 11:18 pm | | Hello Henrik,
we must not forget, whatever we think, that there is also this possibility:
Alice Mc Kenzie could have been killed with the purpose of trying clearing the real JtR.
"...I have just received information that Mrs Smith, wife of the superintendent of the wash houses situated in Castle Alley, has identified deceased (Alice Mc Kenzie) as a person who occasionally attended the wash houses for the purpose of washing her clothing and was known by the name of Kelly..."
The above is a summary by Superintendent T. Arnold, H Division, of police action taken, dated 17th July 1889.
Could someone help with the case of Jane Savage please ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 05:56 am | | Hello Henrik-
You raise some interesting points regarding Alice McKenzie. Both Commissioner Monro and Dr. Bond felt that she was a victim of the Ripper, and both men certainly had intimate knowledge of the case. The main opposition to this view came from Bagster Phillips and Sir Robert Anderson. However, it seems to me that Dr. Phillips may have been suffering from a case of professional jealousy where Dr. Bond was concerned- after all, Bond was called in by Anderson to consult after the Kelly murder, which could have been seen by Phillips as a professional insult. Even so, his endorsement of the different-killer theory was extremely qualified. "I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases", he wrote, "nor do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory..." Hardly a categorical denial that McKenzie was a Ripper victim. As for Sir Robert, it is interesting to note that he was on leave at the time of the McKenzie killing- just as he was for the Chapman, Stride and Eddowes murders. He was understandably anxious to quell any notion that the Whitechapel murderer had struck yet again while Sir Robert was away from his post.
Personally, I have always suspected that Alice's status as a non-Ripper victim had less to do with evidence than it did with the fact that her inclusion on the list exonerates so many favored suspects. If Clay Pipe Alice was killed by the Ripper, then Joe Barnett, David Cohen, James Maybrick, Francis Tumblety, MJ Druitt and William Bury are all innocent of the crimes. Of course, that's just me. I'm a cynic. :-)
Graziano's point is also interesting. If I recall correctly, the Tate-LaBianca murders were partially an effort to exonerate Family member Bobby Beausoleil by copy-catting the "Helter Skelter" type murder of music teacher Gary Hinman.
Just some random thoughts at 6 in the morning...
AAA88 |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 01:55 pm | | Hello graziano and Jessie! Yes I certainly agree that Anderson had every reason to poh-poh the idea that it was a new ripper-deed. Graziano suggested an "exonerating murder" and I suppose that it is possible. If JTR were in an institution where he to his brother's horror had begun to talk... What will happen; terrible scandal and their family will be scandalized for ever. Brother sneak out and kill, next time worried nurse at institution has relaxed and is agreeing with brother that it's only poor inmate's fantasies...A terrible risk to take, exposure would lead to execution of course, but otherwise none of the family would ever be able to hold up their heads again.
Family feeling and fear of scandal certainly could be a stronger inclination to kill than a new murderer's wish for a new thrilling ripperscare. Of course if somebody had been fascinated by murder and for a long time fantazised about killing somebody it would be natural to try to put the blame on JTR. That would explain the halfhearted attempt to rip her stomach up; the perpetrator perhaps found that it was far more disgusting in reality than in his mind and immediately gave it up...?
But as I wrote before, would anyone than the real JTR have the courage to kill so openly in the street? The 'torso' killer seemed to be much more careful - this was an era where murder did not lead to 15 or 20 years in prison, but to hanging. It IS hard to explain though, how the man who was responsible for the Kelly bloodbath could kill in such a - comparatively - meek way. Even if he was disturbed (as with Stride) one has the feeling that he would try to make up for it (like with Eddowes?). On the other hand he may have been a shadow of his former self, now almost a year later. Perhaps he longed for the attention and sense of power he had in 1888 when the whole world feared him and talked about him. And when he finally got around to it he noticed that he couldn't get anything out of the killing in itself (had the ghastly Kelly-slaughter made that impossible forever?). One has heard that the serial killer's appetite for blood only grows and never stops, but a two hour cut and rip-session in a sea of blood, wouldn't that be enough forever for some murderers?
Henrik |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 02:42 pm | | This is all just speculation on my part, but there could be a number of reasons for the differences between McKenzie's wounds and those of other victims. I think it likely that the Ripper did some drinking in the pubs to get his courage up before going out on the prowl. Perhaps, on this night, he simply had one too many. Alternatively, he could have been suffering from a worsening disease (Syphilis? Food poisoning from eating Kate Eddowes' diseased kidney?); he may even have been dying. In my opinion any of these factors, combined with the approaching footsteps of PC Andrews, could account for the sloppy job done on Alice.
AAA88 |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:16 pm | | Jesse
Your point about the apparent conflict between Phillips & Bond is dully noted but remember, Bond was not known to be present at any of the other autopsy's. Bond was working from notes prepared by others, in fact probably from the very same inquest statements we have today on the other victims.
Phillips WAS present and directly involved, he actually SAW the wounds and the murder sites, Bond is commenting on second hand notes.
Have you ever considered that when looking at the similarity of the murders, if we group them that way, then the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes can be grouped as 'similar'. Also the murders of Stride, McKenzie & Coles, all rather similar, not to mention the 4? Torso murders c/w the very dissimilar murders of Tabram & Kelly.
Has anyone considered that there may well have been three, four or five killers active in the East End?
(pause for thought?)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:18 pm | | Hi, Henrik:
And the poor man had a placard hung round his neck which said, "I Used to be Jack the Ripper." 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:23 pm | | Now there's a really good one! It could be a combination - because of the worsening physical condition, the liquor took a much stronger hold of him (liver and kidney ailment for example)and perhaps Alice was stronger than any of the others. Upcoming steps and he had just time to put the knife to her her stomach; if he really became frightened of nearby witnesses, it must have been very important not to risk any bloodstains at all, so he lost his nerve and abstained from ripping her up. Also one never knows; perhaps he had lost the good knife and had to use an inferior or shorter one, that was more suitable for stabbing than cutting, especially if he were anxious not to get any blood on him. Just speculation on my part also, but I think that you can find very many factors that could make a real JTR murder look like somebody else's.
Henrik |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 04:44 pm | | My piece 03:23 was in response to Jessie as I hadn't seen Jon's or Chris' postings.
Jon: I agree that it could have been 3 or 4 killers - even if I don't really think so - but if Peter Kürten never had been caught in Düsseldorf, the police and posterity would have been convinced that it was a question of a whole bunch of killers using scissors, bats, knives, strangulation etc.
Chris: Ha-ha Yes it sounds a bit pathetic imaging the bloodthirsty JTR, ill and forgotten desperately seeking publicity, but he did write (if he EVER wrote that is) and killers sometimes try to stay in the news. A really gruesome example is one of Swedens worst killers in recent times. He was a man with only an eight-years old intelligence, and totally devoid of regret for his actions. He murdered a young woman in her twenties in Stockholm 1959 (all his murders were there), and an older woman in her fifties - or even sixties - two years later. He tried to have intercourse with them and killed them during the act if I can remember correctly. 1963 in august he raped and murdered a 6 year old girl, which led to an outcry in Sweden. As he was known as a....what's the english word...one who is showing his private parts to girls...well you know what I mean, the police thought him completely harmless as it was a belief then that those kind of sex offenders never used violence. And no one for a minut considered the three murders connected. Apart from the age difference, he strangled the first one, strangled and beat the second with a bottle, and hit the little girl with a stone on her head.
A month after the six year old girl met her death, a 4 year old girl was sexually abused and murdered. Every policeman in Stockholm was busy with this, and in a day or two this monster was arrested. During the interrogations he was very cooperative, and -he confessed to the policemen that although he was sexually aroused by the small girls, he had became very irritated that the newspapers finally had stopped writing about the first girl-murder. He wanted to be in the news! Although he had a low intelligence he could read and he devoured newspaper articles about his own murders....
Henrik |
Author: derek shanahan
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 08:43 pm | | Hello - I'm still not sure that a general consensus was reached about Henrik's question whether murder was "common' in the East End. I had got the idea that, despite the sensational events of 1888, the East End was no better or worse than many parts of London for crime in general. It's an important issue, I think, given the impending publication of Perry- Curtis' book on Jack the Ripper and the London Media.
Derek |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 11:27 pm | | Derek/Henrik
If your still waiting for an answer to that specific question I can tell you that the statistics of murders in the East End are available, we have discussed this before and the numbers are here on the Casebook somewhere.
Maybe a wordsearch would help.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 07:30 am | | Henrik,
If you go to the menu on the left of your screen, click on Keyword Search and search for: murder common Whitechapel you will get a bunch of threads where this was discussed.
Ally |
Author: Jon
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 09:18 am | | | Glad someone knows their way around this mess |
Author: Henrik Lindberg
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 09:58 pm | | Ally, Jon, Derek thank's for the suggestions. In order not to be completely drowned in words and numbers, I had to specialise pretty much, but I got a lot of information. What a fantastic board, absolutely crammed with facts. It seems that those that had given statistics about executions at Newgate prison, had come up with a very small number of murders in the whole of England. Supposedly the death penalty was the logical punishment in 1888 one would think, but those few dozens can hardly be all of the murders in England.
On the other hand an author named Bruce Paley had written a book that said 80 homicides in London 1887 - none in Whitechapel. 1886 68 in London, 0 in Wh. 1889 79/1, 1890 74/1. I didn't find any for 1888. But were even all the 5 canonicals in real Whitechapel - I have heard that only 3 were actually within the boundaries ? How many of these that was not cleared up, would be interesting to know, but I couldn't find any figures about that on the board. Perhaps there are somewhere and I didn't look properly.
Well, it seems that murder was sufficiently scarce, allowing people to be shocked when the JTR killings not only were anonymous and daring, but also blood-chilling and ghastly....
Henrik |
|
|
|
|
