|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 15, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Clues Left By The Suspect::
Archive through December 15, 1999
Author: Caz
Thursday, 25 November 1999 - 12:17 am |        | Hi Jill,
I think we went through all this before about JtR taking pains to avoid arterial spray and excessive blood loss with the canonical victims, suggesting that he was in control of how mucky he was prepared to get. Mucking around in the innards would be more under his control and presumably as mucky as he chose to make it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 25 November 1999 - 02:13 am | | Yep, right about that.
Out of interest in the link you made with Gacy, since I don't know the particulars about his case (really have to work up on other serial killers too). Did he only strangle his victims, or did he any mutilation afterwards? Did he change his MO out of practical reasons not to run around with sprayed blood on his shirt? Or was it because he could not stand the sight of blood (like I become faintly squeezy about it)? JtR in any case wasn't. His MO with the canonical five certainly was practical killing.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 25 November 1999 - 06:47 am | | Hi Jill,
The impression I was left with was that Gacy simply hadn't realised how much mess would be caused by stabbing his first victim. His aim seems to have been purely sexual. He trawled the streets for boys. Then he handcuffed and tortured them before committing deviate sexual acts, then finally strangled them. So all his pleasure seemed to come before their deaths and would suggest he might only have killed them to prevent being identified. If so he probably altered his MO to strangulation for purely practical purposes.
JtR seems to have got his kicks after death, possibly again sexually, by ferreting about inside the women. Other killers derive their pleasure from the act of killing itself. Maybe this is the part of the 'signature' that never alters once a killer has decided what gives him the most pleasure, the before, the during or the after. The bastards.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 03:15 pm | | HiYa !
Trolling through the lists of suspects here, I still seem to focus on possible medical or anatomical knowledge along with various aspects of profiling to indicate the degree of viability any suspect might have. The first impressions of those on the ground should always (I believe) take priority. Drs Phillips & Brown made quite certain statements that the killer must have had some medical or anatomical knowledge, and I consider these remarks quite significant. The killer did leave his signature with the victims and there just has to be something here that will eventually lead to identifying as much as possible, just who Jack may have been.
After the Eddowes' murder, an Apron was left that if nothing else indicated the route the killer took. It may have been left for another purpose, and the time elapsed from the murder to the discovery of the apron are among many other mysteries, but it has to indicate a local man was the killer. So far, we have a local man, who had at least some medical knowledge. All of the killings were done swiftly and silently. I think it would be safe to assume, the killer was confident, and knew how to kill quickly. He chose strangulation to overcome his victims, so had to be quite fit. Women are not necessarily the weeker sex, and certainly someone struggling for their life would put up a little fight, but these women had no time to emit even the faintest of cries before they were overcome. This guy knew what he was doing even if he did gradually evolve his technique and increase the mutilations. So, we have a local man, with medical knowledge, experienced at killing quickly and quietly.
He didn't spend too much time with the victims, and unless he simply lurked in the shadows, he was able to approach the victim, engage them in conversation and let them lead him to an isolated spot while being comfortable in his presence, even for such a short time. As I believe the suspect was a local man, regardless of the many thousands who lived in the vicinity, I think the killer was known at least vaguely by the victim. Eddowes placed her hand on his chest, Chapman was seen talking to him in a familiar way, this guy was no stranger. Even at the height of the Ripper scare, the women felt no risk from this man. I know I am speculating here, and am still a long way from putting a name to the killer, but while trying to keep an open mind do consider these few points quite significantly in my assesment. Believing too that the chances are good that he may have been interviewed by the police, the name just 'might' be out there in the public domain somewhere.
Jeff D |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 07:57 am | | G'day Jeff,
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown answered the coroners question, at the inquest of Catharine Eddowes, with a YES, when he asked: "Would such a knowlege be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?"
Dr G.W. Sequeira, added: "He was not possed of any great anatomic skill!"
Dr. Phillips believed the killer possessed SOME degree of anatomical knowledge.
If, as you say: "He gradually evolved his technique and increased the mutilations" as he carved the ladies, then this may be how he aquired SOME degree of anatomical knowledge!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 07:59 am | | G'day Jeff,
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown answered the coroners question, at the inquest of Catharine Eddowes, with a YES, when he asked: "Would such a knowlege be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?"
Dr G.W. Sequeira, added: "He was not possed of any great anatomic skill!"
Dr. Phillips believed the killer possessed SOME degree of anatomical knowledge.
If, as you say: "He gradually evolved his technique and increased the mutilations" as he carved the ladies, then this may be how he aquired SOME degree of anatomical knowledge!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 08:03 am | | G'day Jeff,
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown answered the coroners question, at the inquest of Catharine Eddowes, with a YES, when he asked: "Would such a knowlege be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?"
Dr G.W. Sequeira, added: "He was not possed of any great anatomic skill!"
Dr. Phillips believed the killer possessed SOME degree of anatomical knowledge.
If, as you say: "He gradually evolved his technique and increased the mutilations" as he carved the ladies, then this may be how he aquired SOME degree of anatomical knowledge!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 08:29 am | | G'day Jeff,
Sorry I posted that message 3 times. I was having problems with my computer. I had to get my father out of bed, to solve the problem!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 09:58 am | | Hmm....
This issue of 'evolving technique' to what does it apply?
People evolve a technique by practice, where was the practice?
Tabram's murder was an apparent frenzied attack, maybe not even Jack's work. There is no gradual evolution from Tabram to Nichols. They are of a completely different nature. Where is the missing link?
There is an increase in mutilation between Nichols & Chapman, which could be reasoned by many things, for one, time, possibly in Nichols Jack was interrupted. The 'Rip' in Nichols was not a surgical incision. With Chapman one week later, he had the time and he got what he wanted.
Then Eddowes was a similar kill to Chapman, plus he applied facial mutilations.
There is no difference in skill between any of the three, there was an increase in mutilation but not skill. So no evolution of technique here either.
Then if Jack killed Kelly he displayed what we might expect when he had all the time he needed.
This was pure butchery, no skill involved, he had an apparent understanding of human anatomy, which does not mean he was a Doctor, that is human anatomy too not the anatomy of a haddock.
All through the Ripper murders the only descernable difference between each murder was an increase in mutilation, this is not an evolutionary process, nothing is learned by 'slash & grab' which was apparently Jack's technique. No increase in skill in any way, and who would expect him to learn anything in the 5 or 7 minutes he had to do his work?
If Jack had any skill at all he would have displayed it with the body of Kelly and there was nothing in the murder of Kelly that could be attributed to something learned from the murders of the previous victims. There was certainly no display of skill, surgical or otherwise.
The idea of increase in skill, a learned or evolving technique, is just not supported by the evidence.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 04:13 pm | | G'day Jon,
'Increase in skill' is a bad choice of words. How about 'increase in confidence'?
"I can do this in a hurry and in dim light, because I've done it before!"
LEANNE! |
Author: Boris
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 11:37 pm | | | You know, I think I'm in love with you, Ms. Perry. Your grasp on this case is impeccable. That really attracts me to a woman. |
Author: Jill
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 06:15 am | | Hello Leanne, Jeff, Jon and Boris
We had a long discussion about anatomical knowledge and the difference between human and not-human anatomy (like fish) a few months back:
General Discussion ->Miscelanneous ->A statement
beginning at August 10 with the post of Diana.
Again I want to point out that to retrieve a human kidney or uterus as fish porter, would be like a mechanic who only looked at household material all his life standing before an UFO and is asked to get it started again.
Having human anatomical knowledge is NOT the same as being a practiced surgeon. Evidently the brutal way of mutilating, does not necessarily imply a surgeon. But it does not exclude them either: JtR was NOT performing a SURGERY, he was MUTILATING someone in an alley right in the open for which he had very little time. Besides that he was performing on the drive of sexual fantasy.
I agree with Leanne, there is an increase in confidence, trying to do more in the same time and horribly mutilating more and more, as with every SK.
I also agree, there seems no evolution in skill as Jon points out. The removal of the kidney and the uterus is significant to indicate the knowledge was already there.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 06:32 am | | G'day Jill,
Read the statements made at Catherine Eddowes's Inquest. Refering to the removal of the kidney, the Coroner asked Dr Brown if such a knowledge could be possesed by someone accustomed to cutting up animals? His reply was "YES!"
I am not 'Stuck' on Joseph Barnett the fish porter, being the Ripper. I just don't think that 'Jack' had any great surgical knowledge.
LEANNE! |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 09:40 pm | | | I asked our vet and she said you learn the basic mammalian anatomy and then you learn the variations for each species. A vet might know better than a Dr. whether anatomical knowledge of one species would help you with another and to what extent. |
Author: Boris
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 01:46 am | | You know Leanne, I really think that the smell of fish was a prime motivator in these series of escapades. Lets not dismiss Barnett yet.
Yours always,
Boris (XXX) |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 03:51 am | | G'day Boris,
Let's not forget the fact that Joseph Barnett's mother left him, his brothers and his sister to fend for themselves in the harsh Whitechapel environment.
He started working in the fish markets, as soon as he could and stayed there until just before the murder of Nicholls. Taking in to consideration his education, he probably could have got a better job, but worked with fish because he was bringing in a good wage and needed to survive!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 04:41 am | | Hi Leanne, Boris
Leanne- I'm sorry if I seemed to have implied in your mind that you are stuck on Barnett, this was not my intention. But as you are mostly referring to him and trying to make a case against him, my natural reaction was to use the word "fishporter".
You refer to the inquest and the acknowledgement of Dr. Bond that someone who is used accustomed to cutting up animals would 'likely' possess the special knowledge to remove a human kidney from a membrane.
But what does 'animal' imply? Now the world of the fauna exists of many different species: reptiles, amfibian, mammal, birds, insects, lobsters, snails, spiders and fishes. I think we could safely scratch any insects or their likes from the list, since they are not cut up that much, just squashed.
Reptiles and amfibian I presume were not eaten that much in London 1888, and therefor not cut up that much. Besides I can imagine a lot of people raising their eyebrows, when thinking that someone who cuts frogs in half for his survival would know where to find the human kidney. So we are left with fish, birds and mammals. Since fish are even an evolutionary step (or two) more away from us than reptiles and amfibies, the fish has to be scratched too...
Finally, I concur in this case, that Dr. Bond answered 'Yes' on another question, namely :"Would such a knowledge (like a kidney's position under the membrane) be likely to be possessed by someone accustomed to cutting up MAMMALS?"(I still would be skeptical of the proposition of a butcher as suspect. Like Diana, I will inquire my pets vet and our local butcher.)
And then we didn't even mentioned the uterus in this case.
Boris- As I proposed a few months back go to the following site where you can disect a fish with explenation. Compare your findings with a human (or even mammal) anatomy book and then convince yourself that by cutting up fishes, you know how to remove a human kidney.
http://courses.ncsu.edu/classes/zo442001/int_anat.html
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 02:56 pm | | Dear Everyone,
There is a theory that the mutilations performed on a victims body do not neccesarily increase with each passing victim, but with the amount of time available for the mutilations.
Nicholls was in an open street with the danger of people passing on the way to work - very little mutilation.
Chapman was in a back yard out of the general view of the public, but with the chance of people happening by - more mutilation.
Eddowes in a darkened court with no regular through traffic - even more.
Kelly in a room away from the public with very little chance of being disturbed - maximum mutilation.
I believe this theory was demonstrated quite graphically with Earle Nelson who performed the most mutilations on a body he kept under his bed for three days.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 05:47 pm | | G'day Folks,
JILL: It's not just you, mate. Everyone seems to think that every post I contribute, is anti-Barnett. This is not necessarily so! I'm trying to keep an open mind. I've read and admire Bruce Paley's case against him, but am willing to change, when I read a post that convinces me that it couldn't have been him.
Someone once thought that they could accuse me of having a personal grudge against my boyfriend or father. - That's crazy!
When I discovered 'Casebook', I thought the best way to join a discussion was to first pick a 'favourite' suspect.
Back to the inquest report:
Dr. Frederick Gordon BROWN, said to the coronor that "The uterus was cut away with the EXCEPTION OF A SMALL PORTION." The following is the dialogue, in order:
CORONOR: "Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical SKILL?"
DR. BROWN: "He must have had a good deal of KNOWLEDGE as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."
CORONOR: "Would the parts removed be of any use for proffessional purposes?"
DR. BROWN: "None whatever".
CORONOR: "Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?"
DR. BROWN: "It would require a good deal of knowledge as to it's position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane."
CORONOR: "Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?"
DR. BROWN: "Yes".
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 05:58 pm | | G'day again!
'DR. BOND' wasn't even there, (but that's a small error), I know who you meant! Dr. Thomas Bond, submitted reports on Mary Jane Kelly.
Reading the A-Z, under 'Bond, Dr. Thomas', on page 48, half way down, it says that he said:
"8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does NOT even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals."
LEANNE! |
|
|
|
|
