|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
What would Jack have done if 'caught in the act'?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
What would Jack have done if 'caught in the act'?
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 12:02 am |        | Hi all,
The speculation about whether the Whitechapel murderer wanted to display his work publically or if he wanted it hidden, in my opinion, misses the point.
The evidence suggests that none of the victims were moved - they were murdered where they were found. Now, if the killer moved the bodies following the attacks some interpretation in this area could be made.
Depending on who you consider a Ripper victim the relative "privacy" of each murder scene was relative. Of course, Kelly was killed indoors. Chapman was murdered in a small backyard. Stride was left in an alley way (although perhaps seen being assaulted in a street and pushed into that alley). Here, the bodies are left in discreet locals. This is at variance with Nichols and Eddowes who are basically left in the street.
Rich |
Author: graziano
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 12:58 am | | Yes, Rick, as far as I am concerned, you are right about the displaying of the murders.
It seems that the murderer(s) did not care about trying to concealing the victim's bodies.
There is indeed a difference in the case of Mary Kelly.
Only, I am not sure that he/they were reluctant to show her body, but instead trying to delay the discovery.
So, I do not agree with you in saying that the killer(s) was/were different (too many similarities in MO, signature, victims and so on) but I prefer to believe that something happened for which he/they had to close the door while leaving.
So, what could have happened in the room that could have rendered him/them a bit more cautious about the immediate discovery ?
The only strange things in the room, as far as we know, were the state of the kettle and the burning of the clothes.
The melting of the kettle's spout could have been the result of a blazing fire, that's for sure, but what is also sure is that a blazing fire does not come from the using of textiles as combustible.
On the contrary, the melted spout and the clothes in the grate seem to hint that the killer(s) was/were taken unaware by the fierce fire and he/they used the first thing at hand to try to calm it down and that the first thing available in the room were the clothes.
Trying to think rationally what he/they burned was something that he/they would not wanted to be found in the room and that he/they feared to be discovered with going away.
Something that could have connected him/them to the murder site.
Something that could have allowed to trace him/them back.
As Kevin Braun very rightly pointed out here above, bloodhounds would have certainly been a big concern for him/them.
We are allowed to think that if what he/they burned produced such a blazing fire as to melt a kettle, certainly it could have produced a very distinguishable smell.
The closing of the door and the fear of displaying the murder at once could have been the result of trying to have enough time for the possibly incriminating smell to be dispelled by air.
Now the next question should be what could have been so dangerous for the killer(s) to be found in the room, to be taken away by him/them and in the same time have produced a blazing fire and a characteristic scent ?
Speaking about scents let us not forget that we may find trace of concern or interest for them from the killer(s) thinking to the apron of Eddowes, soaked with blood and faecal matter
coming from the victim (we may safely assume that if bloodhounds had been brought onto the scene they would have gone straight to 108-119 Goulston street) and also thinking to the cachous in the gutter in Dutfield's yard (there we may safely assume that if bloodhounds had been brought onto the scene, picked up scents from the victim's body, they would have gone straight...nowhere - or possibly to Batty street, but this is another story-).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 01:11 am | | Richard,
Stride was a registered prostitute already in Sweden twenty years before her murder.
A very professionnal and experienced one indeed.
Difficult to believe she could have been fooled by a "lunatic".
Difficult to believe Kidney to kill his "bread-earner".
"The evidence suggests that none of the victims where moved, they were murdered where they were found".
The latter does not exclude the former.
You can't explain the position of the body of Stride by a simple fall.
You can't explain the blood between the legs of Tabram not beeing soaked by her dress even if the dress was raised for the purpose of mutilation.
You can't explain the blood all over the floor in Kelly's room by the fact that she was mutilated on the bed.
You can't explain the struck to Mary Kelly's left femur by the body being on a soft surface.
Well, in fact you are a free man, you may explain whatever you want in the way you prefer.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Donald Rumbelow assumes. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 01:51 am | | Kevin Braun's clever rumination about Kelly's clothes being burned to thwart the use of bloodhounds does not seem to be supported by what is recorded in the 'A-Z': "Inside the small...room there were the remains of a fire in the grate which had burned clothing, including a woman's bonnet...Kelly's clothes were on a chair at the foot of the bed."
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 05:01 am | | Rich,
As both reports differ slightly,and the police version seems to be an interpretation from the official file which is missing,it might be safer to say that some sort of a confrontation did take place.From experience I wouldn't neccessary place more reliance on police reports over newspaper reports,especialy when language problems are encountered and interpreters are needed.
However it would still appear to me that the initial contact was not a continueous assault due to the arguing that was heard afterward,and the absence of drag marks seems to negate the possibility of her being pulled or dragged anywhere.
Whatever,and whoever it doesn't seem that the assailant(s) panicked,ran off or meekly submitted,
but calmly and in silence slit her throat after she entered the yard. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 07:25 am | | Hi All,
Quick question for everyone. Mary Kelly was wearing a Chemise when killed. Her clothes were folded neatly and placed on a chair. Now many of us believe that Mary's Killer was led into the room with her, her object being that Jack was a client. However, as stated previously her clothing is folded neatly on the chair(although possibly by the killer and not by her), and she is wearing a chemise. If she is about to have sex in the privacy of her own place, wouldn't she remove the article of clothing as not to get it dirty from the sexual act? And what is Jack doing, if she is removing her clothing, folding it neatly, and crawling into bed?
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 08:26 am | | G'day Graziano,
If he/they were trying to delay the discovery of Mary Kelly's body, then that means that he/they were likely to be called to the scene of the crime by police, and wanted to lengthen the distance between him/them and her room/body. That means that he/they were known acquaintances of Mary Jane Kelly.
Let me remind you that Abberline found Joseph Barnett's clay pipe in Mary's room. If he didn't think that finding it was significant, why did he mention it at her inquest?
Wouldn't a recently smoked pipe leave behind an incriminating smell in her tiny, unventilated room?....then the idiot left it behind when he fled!
LEANNE |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 10:14 am | | Chris H. and Mike,
Thank you for the kind words.
Mike,
I don't quite understand you last post. How does, "Inside the small...room there were the remains of a fire in the grate which had burned clothing, including a woman's bonnet...Kelly's clothes were on a chair at the foot of the bed."
not support the possibility that JtR set the fire to confuse the dogs.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 10:24 am | | Hi Graziano,
I think the blood is explicable due to the nature of the gaping wounds - although I am not a blood-spatter expert the police and medical reports all indicated the victim was murdered in the position they were found. Admittedly, any position on this issue is somewhat speculative.
Hi Harry,
I agree with your assessment. Personally, I have my doubts whether Stride is a Ripper victim. The most prevalent explanation for the lack of mutiliation is that the killer was interrupted by Louis Diemschutz. I have wondered if perhaps the reason for the lack of mutilation was that the killer realized he had been seen confronting Stride by witnesses so he slit her throat and fled immediately.
Rich |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 01:27 pm | | Hi, Kevin,
I thought (probably mistakenly) that you thought Kelly's clothes had been burned so that they couldn't be used by the bloodhounds (given to them initially to establish the scent, then taken along to continually refresh the scent).
Did you mean that the fire would have contaminated the scent of everything in the room? I'm a bit confused (my usual state,actually).
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 06:57 pm | | G'day,
Kelly's clothes were found folded on a chair at the foot of her bed.
The clothes that had burnt were left there by Maria Harvey!
LEANNE |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 07:12 pm | | Hi, again, Kevin,
just a bit more clarification about what I thought was your theory. I was assuming that the items most likely to have JTR's scent on them were Kelly's clothes (as it is not unreasonable to suppose there would have been bodily contact between Kelly and JTR prior to Kelly removing her clothes). Of all the things in the room, I was assuming these would possess the strongest scent trace for the bloodhounds (insofar as JTR left nothing of his own behind).
I was assuming that you believed that the clothing burned in Kelly's room were Kelly's, perhaps to pre-empt their being used for the bloodhounds.
Anyway...
best regards,
mike |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 10:38 am | | Hi Mike,
I was not suggesting that JtR burnt Kelly's clothes, although who knows if every layer of undergarment, was neatly folded on a chair at the foot of the bed. graziano's contribution, "If he/they did just before leaving, the only reason is because he/they had to. If he/they had to, the only reason is because something had to be destroyed", (along with my bloodhound chat) led me to theorize that JtR used a piece of cloth, bedding or Maria Harvey's clothes to wipe his hands?, face?, jacket/coat?, knives?. JtR did just that on at least one other occasion (apron on Goulston Street). Knowing that the police were thinking about using the bloodhounds, he set the fire, burnt the clothing, because he had to destroy his scent.
He may have thought that "the fire would have contaminated the scent of everything in the room". I think the smell of dirty, bloody?, smoldering clothes would have made it easier for the dogs to follow the murderer.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 02:21 pm | | Hi, Kevin,
I now see your real point. Sorry about misinterpreting your astute theory!
All the best,
Mike |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 03:47 pm | | Hi Kevin,
Picking up on your theory: If Jack was a reader and thought the bloodhounds would be used.
The press quickly picked up on their failure, with Warren being ridiculed for his role in the second trial at Hyde park. Jack may have given thought to the bloodhounds use, possibly thinking about the clothes, but more importantly, locking the door when he left. He murdered the previous victims out in the open. An indoor killing allowed him the time to get completely away and washup. Jack was still bold enough to take Kelly's heart away (had he any fear of bloodhounds), yet locking the door when he left bought him time -- time to do whatever he did with his soiled clothing and the organs he took.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 08:11 pm | | Dear Dear Leanne,
Oh so close...yet so far away.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 09:52 pm | | Hello Rosemary,
What do you think of the theory that MARia HARvey was "Mr. Astrakhan"? Is she in...or is she out?
Rob |
Author: Kevin Braun
Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 09:09 am | | John,
I am in the camp that thinks that "the bolt operated on a spring, just like a Yale lock, pull the door to and the bolt shoots home". JtR did not need a key to lock the door. I agree Kelly's locked door bought him time, but did he know that he had locked the door or was he lucky again? Some time back Bob Hinton got a hold of an antique lock he believes is the same as the one on Kelly's door. Search Ripper Victims, General Discussion, Lock on Kelly's Door, Bob Hinton June 25,2001.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 12:04 pm | | Dear Rob,
My honest opinion is that I am not certain of anything in this case.
Rosey :-0 |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 12:14 pm | | Textiles (animal or vegetal origin) do not produce a blazing fire.
On the contrary they burn slowly.
The fact that pieces of clothes were still found on the grate suggests:
a) destroying of clothes was not the purpose, and something else was destroyed by fire,
b) clothes were only used to die down the blazing fire since they were the first thing at hand in the room for such a purpose.
This leads to think that the blaze came suddenly and as a total surprise to the killer(s).
Burning a piece of cloth with which the killer(s) had cleaned his/their hands would not change the fact that his/their smell could have been easily traced back by trained dogs since he/they would have spent relatively quite a lot of time in the small closed room.
Closing the door would have only been a second insurance.
The best way to confuse a dog is to create a stronger alien smell in the same room.
This he/they surely knew as he/they knew better than the police the use of bloodhounds.
They knew that throwing cachous in the gutter of Dutfield's yard would have stopped short the chase with the dogs.
Had the same dogs followed the smell of the victim's blood, very likely they would have gone to Batty street where a bloodied rag was found the next day.
He/they knew that if bloodhounds had been brought to Mitre square they would have gone straight to 108-119 Goulston street.
So he/they certainly knew the risk of killing indoors and leaving his/their own odor.
It's not in England that such expertise with tracking dogs could have been experienced.
Better to look for countries where the police was more trained with rough methods.
I can't post anymore because I have been banned.
I offended anti-semitic voters in France.
Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 03:00 pm | | Rosemary, thanks for your reply, but no shock tactics, please.
:-))
Graziano, can you squeeze in a reply to: Why were you banned and how long have you been banned for?
Rob |
Author: P. Ingerson
Monday, 29 April 2002 - 08:08 am | | Hi, Leanne. Sorry for not replying sooner, but a while back you said:
"If he/they were trying to delay the discovery of Mary Kelly's body, then that means that he/they were likely to be called to the scene of the crime by police, and wanted to lengthen the distance between him/them and her room/body."
You've got a very interesting point there. Ok, let's assume the killer was someone the police later brought to the scene. But...
"That means that he/they were known acquaintances of Mary Jane Kelly."
No. Just because someone was called to the scene, doesn't mean he was of one her acquaintances. Did Mary know Inspector Abberline? Did she know any of the other policemen who attended the crime scene? And if the greyhound handler had been brought there after all, would that mean she'd known him?
In fact, even if you assume that the Ripper has to be one of the people the police brought to the scene, one stands out as being most likely:
- A doctor who had started out as a specialist in STDs, so could easily have had a grudge against prostitutes who spread them.
- He later went mad and killed himself, so might have already been unstable enough to kill others.
- Although he was expected to attend MJK's inquest, he sent a note apologising for his absence instead -- very suspicious.
- His statement that the Ripper didn't even have the basic anatomical knowledge of a butcher is contradicted by other experts, so it may have been intended to lead the police away from suspecting a doctor like himself.
- MJK was the only one of the Ripper's victims whose post-mortem he performed, so maybe the shock of having to logically analyse and discuss the results of his own previous night's work was what forced the Ripper to quit ripping.
And as far as we know, Dr. Thomas Bond wasn't an acquaintance of Mary Kelly's! 
BTW, Leanne, you also said:
"Let me remind you that Abberline found Joseph Barnett's clay pipe in Mary's room. If he didn't think that finding it was significant, why did he mention it at her inquest?"
But that still doesn't mean that it was significant, just that Abberline thought that it was.
Seriously, do you expect us to believe after mutilating Mary's body like that, Barnet took out his pipe, sat back and smoked it instead of leaving the scene at once? Or maybe he paused in the middle of his work, had a break, smoked his pipe, put it down, and continued cutting up the corpse again from where he left off?
Either way, it's pretty unlikely. Surely the presence of his pipe is evidence for Barnet's innocence, not guilt. |
Author: P. Ingerson
Monday, 29 April 2002 - 08:14 am | | Hi Graziano.
Hope the ban doesn't last too long. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 29 April 2002 - 10:23 am | | graziano,
I am aware of Ed Carter's chloroform in the fireplace theory. Using the clothes to quell the chloroform fueled fire is possible not (IMHO) likely.
"Burning a piece of cloth with which the killer(s) had cleaned his/their hands would not change the fact that his/their smell could have been easily traced back by trained dogs since he/they would have spent relatively quite a lot of time in the small closed room".
I think we can assume that Kelly entertained several clients that night (morning), who spent "quite a lot of time" in that phone booth of a room. Possibly her friend(s) visited or entertained there as well. The bottom line was, 13 Dorsett Street was a veritable potpourri for a dog. I do not doubt that a highly trained bloodhound may have been able to pick out JtR's scent from the others. Nevertheless, it would have much easier and more effective to have had a piece of cloth, ..whatever.., to put under the dogs' nose. He had to destroy his scent. Those items that he could not or did not want to take with him.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 29 April 2002 - 08:45 pm | | Dear Kevin,
So, whatever happened to the craze for Bloodhound
tracking? They were a mythic quantity in this mythic tail which took a strange twist with the arrival of Mr Magoo and his cannine retinue.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Kevin Braun
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 12:13 pm | | | My last post should read, 13 Miller's Court (not 13 Dorsett Street). Sorry. Thanks for all the emails. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 07:50 am | | Kevin,
Someone E-mailed you over that ??!!!!!
My life Lou, You lot must be bored out there.
Monty
PS Its Dorset not Dorsett
 |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 02 May 2002 - 09:07 am | | Monty,
I am not having a good week. Thanks for the PS. Only one email from a regular, the rest from friends in sunny Florida, who are interested in the subject, but choose not to take part in the discussions.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 06:29 am | | G'day 'P',
Sorry I didn't reply sooner to your last post here, but I had computer trouble!
You said that if I believe Mary's killer was someone who was later brought to the crime-scene, then I could be implying that he could have been a policeman. What about the other Ripper-crime scenes, where little attempt was made by the killer to delay discovery?
I know that people brought to Millers Court that morning were not necessarily known to Mary Jane Kelly, (i.e. Inspector Abberline), that's not what I meant!
I meant that Mary's boyfriend knew he was very likely to be called to identify her body, so if he killed her, he would want to get himself well away from her room, (but not too far because it couldn't look 'staged'). He could also have wanted to get back to Bullers Lodging House in time for breakfast!
No, I wasn't trying to say that Barnett smoked his pipe after or while mutilating his girlfriend. What about before? He could have smoked quite a few, before he lost his 'cool'.
LEANNE! |
Author: P. Ingerson
Friday, 03 May 2002 - 11:15 am | | Leanne,
Sorry, I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek and slightly pedantic at the same time. Not a good combination.
The point I was trying to make was that your logic got reversed between thinking it and writing it. (I studied formal logic as part of my degree many years ago, and I still get pedantic about these little details even now.)
When you worked out your argument, it probably went "If the killer knew MJK, then that means he could be contacted and summoned to the scene, and that means he would've tried to delay discovery." That's good reasoning, but when you typed it, you put it the other way round: "If he tried to delay discovery then that means...etc."
In formal logic, "X implies Y" should never be reversed to say "Y implies X". My suggestion that concealing the body implied the police doctor was the murderer was just a silly, joking way of pointing that out.
Sorry for any confusion. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 04 May 2002 - 05:03 am | | G'day 'Peeee',
I typed 'IF he tried to delay...', because although it appears that he deliberately locked the door, he may not have known that it would lock automatically. It is only an assumption that he really did try to delay.
If what we assume is correct and he was trying to delay her discovery, then one reason could be that he was giving himself more time and distance before being called to the scene.....Logical?
LEANNE |
|
|
|
|
