Archive through December 18, 1999

** 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 18, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Clues Left By The Suspect:: Archive through December 18, 1999

Author: Diana Comer Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 09:53 pm
I think Jill has raised an important point here. Animal is probably too broad a term and it is unfortunate that the Dr.s at the time used it. Would amphibian or fish knowledge help? Wouldn't a person who cut up mammals have the greatest advantage?
Author: Boris Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 01:15 am
Gee LEANNE!, Jill, me thinks the previous postings about fishiness were about feminine hygiene, ie, the Ripper ripping up stuff, you know? The passion of the female demure, drip, drip, drip... You both mistook my dementia.
Author: Jill Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 03:53 am
Leanne- Yep, got mixed up with names in the heat of checking what was said in the inquest. Anyway, I'm very careful around these expert-comments of all the doctors. People have the nag to declare things so it fits there pattern of the world, as doctors do too. A person who buys say something like a videoplayer with a lot of technical stuff and buttons, finds out the moment he is home the thing is too difficult to handle. For a few seconds he is dissapointed. An immediate mental reaction starts("Thou shall not admit you bought something terrible; Thou always buy something (very)good") and the user will fit himself to the disastrous product. Papers and people were full of theories of madmen and other 'lowlife' during the Ripper scare. A Dr. or a student or pathologist just didn't fit the bill. I'm not saying to throw away their testimony, just to be careful. And that means any testimony, as you are rightfully careful with the declerations of Barnett. I will let you know the answer of a vet to the same question as the Coroner per animal group, in relation with the slash and butcher method, how much knowledge and how much experience (for the kidney AND the uterus) is needed in the particular circumstances. I'll post my question before asking it, so that anyone can suggest something if their are loose ends within. I start opposite as you, I try to find out and think as much about what happened to the victims, how it was done, and what that tells about the murderer and try to compare this with the presented suspects. At this moment I still do not have much clues about the killer and thus I have no suspect, or everyone is. Cheers, Jill
Author: Jeff D Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 09:41 am
Hello All ! Dr. Phillips; 'Obviously the work of an expert, of one at least who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathalogical examinations as to be able to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must have been at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more' Dr. Brown; 'perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed.' These were the very first impressions of two different doctors who were at the scene. We can always guess and second-guess things after the fact and surely even the men who made these statements, upon reflection, may have decided differently, but to me "first impressions last". The first thoughts of these medical men have to be significant. Dr. Phillips was very likely correct on his second point, Re; the knife being at least 5/6 inches, probably more, why couldn't his speculations be correct on the first point ? After talking things over with others involved in the case,(policemen, other doctors, witnesses, etc.) alternative scenarios or reasoning behind the mutilations, can be suggested but when the doctors first examined the body, they felt there were signs of such knowledge. We can question these findings 24 hours or 112 years after they were made and provide an alternative scenario for every aspect, but I will tend to give more credence to these first impressions, until they can categorically be proven to the contrary. Where these beliefs will lead me, who knows, probably the same dead-end as every other avenue of investigation, ha ha ! It's still interesting to discuss these theories, and I welcome any reply. Some good points made also by Mr. Hinton, and I am in total agreement that the time factor had more to do with the mutilations than any previous experience. Mary Kelly as with so many other aspects, provides even more mysteries, but the removal of the heart would be in keeping with the removal of organs from previous victims. Could it be determined from Dr. Bonds' post-mortem whether the way the the heart was removed was done with any skill ? Thanks all, very interesting comments and good discussions(Bar-1) ! Jeff D
Author: Jill Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 10:47 am
Hi All, to clarify my point of my previous message: a lot of doctors besides Philips and Brown testified. Most of them besides those two thought JtR didn't even had to be a butcher, with no knowledge at all. When I wrote "A Dr. or a student or pathologist just didn't fit the bill" I meant the thinking of those ones, not mine. And the testimony of Brown and Philips who were the first to investigate her, laid down a testimony that is more detailed, from first hand and ,when looked at it from different angles, objective. Just to make sure, Jill
Author: Caz Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 02:24 pm
Hi All, 'Kelly in a room away from the public with very little chance of being disturbed - maximum mutilation.' A thought periodically runs through my mind (just the one thought :-) ), and the above quote from Bob Hinton's last post made it do so again. Let us suppose for one moment that the cry of murder, heard by more than one woman (so we have no reason to doubt that there was such a cry at some point in the early hours of that fateful morning), had come from MJK or indeed anyone very close to where her killer was either lurking or striking at the time in Miller's Court. In either of these circumstances, would JtR then have estimated his chance of being disturbed as 'very little'? In other words, if he had been around when the cry of murder rang out, and actually heard it himself, wouldn't he have aborted his plan of lengthy and thorough attention to poor Mary immediately, for fear that someone else (more curious or perhaps brave than the apparently complacent Prater and Lewis) may have heard the cry too and might soon come snooping in his direction? While we can see why the cry could go unheeded because of its commonplace nature, would the killer have taken the gamble? If not, it rather detracts from the cry being able to be used as any pointer or corroborator of the estimated time of death. Any thoughts anyone? Love, Caz
Author: ChrisGeorge Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 03:53 pm
Hi, Caz: I believe you have described the circumstances of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly accurately. During the murderer's attack on Kelly, possibly when she was trying to fend off his attack with her hands, she cried out once, "Murder!"--but he continued, killing her, and then proceeded to the grisly work of disemboweling her and carving her up. Possibly the over five-week lay-off from killing emboldened him and made him proceed despite the danger that her cry might have been overheard and could have caused investigation and his consequent capture. The other possibility is that if Jack was a resident of the East End, he could have known that a cry of "Murder!" in the middle of the night would be ignored by the populace who lived in the vicinity and he simply carried on with his ghastly task. By the way, I happened to catch a TV show a few days ago in which women (TV anchorwomen, as it happened) were being instructed on what to do if they were attacked in a parking lot, and they were advised to shout out "Fire!" instead of "Help!" Apparently it has been found that strangers are more likely to respond to a cry of "Fire!" A sad commentary on the human condition, isn't it? Chris George
Author: Jeff D Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 04:01 pm
Hello All ! Actually Caz, that's a real crazy idea, and one that has never occurred to me before. The cry of "Oh murder!" has never sat well with me as being something someone who is being attacked and fighting for their life would say. You know, they would scream their head off or whatever if they were able to. "Oh murder" would definitely be something that someone who might have (maybe) walked in and witnessed the dreadful scene would say......... before they got their ass outa there !!! Weird thinking, but just imagine if there was ever a real eyewitness to the scene who never came forward. Actually though, it does go against my other thinking, with Kelly being aware of her attack, not being subdued as the other victims first. Kelly did appear to be fighting for her life, with what appear to be defensive wounds on her foreamrms yet again, no real alarm was raised. If Kelly were to have really screamed she surely would have got the attention of a resident of the court or a passerby. How was this killing just as the others, so silent? Jeff D
Author: Jon Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 07:19 pm
Caz raised a good point, the cry of 'murder' would have stopped Jack in his tracks if he had been stumbled upon while engrossed in his work. I've never been happy with the idea that Kelly is supposed to have cried 'Oh, murder'.. thats too theatrical, as Jeff say's...if she was able to scream, she would have screamed bloody murder, brought the place down. The possiblity that the cry came from a third party was raised on the old board last year, and I've been of the same opinion for some time about this. Any passer-by could have peeked thru the broken window as Bowyer did at 10.45am. Especially a woman trying Kelly's door in the middle of the night, expecting it to be open and seeing a light or glow in the room she goes to the window and pulls back the muslin/coat or whatever, and gasps at the sight. It is true though that no-one came forward to own up to the incident, and no reporter found the woman in question, but that does not mean it never happened. It could have been a passer-by who peeked thru the window after Jack had been long gone. It could also have been someone who peeked thru and caught 'Jack' in the act. But this is just an idea, a possible solution to a puzzle,....but also there is another possibilty. If your asleep, and someone shouts a couple of words....which words do you hear? Your asleep when the first word is spoken, your arousing when the second or third word is out.....so which will you recall hearing? If Kelly shouted 'Oh Lizzie, help...Oh Murder'!!! Then which words would Lizzie Pratter have awoke to, the first, or the last? However, Sarah Lewis stated she only heard a single cry of 'murder' so maybe it wasnt Kelly's scream afterall,...but a passer-by. Just a few musings...... Jon
Author: Diana Comer Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 07:44 pm
Maybe Oh Murder wasnt such a strange thing to yell in 1888. I'm thinking of all the times I'm in public parking lots and I hear a car alarm and nobody does anything.
Author: ChrisGeorge Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 07:58 pm
Hi, all: The cry of "Oh, murder!" if shouted by Mary Jane Kelly may have also been predicated on the element of surprise that Jack presented. If for example, MJK was neatly folding her clothes and turned around to see Dr. Barnardo or Pastor Jack Gibson holding a knife, she might not have screamed her head off the way she might if it had been a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic. It could depend on how stunned and disarmed she was when the murderer suddenly revealed himself and his attentions. I am presuming as we have discussed before that JtR had a certain charm and way with him that allayed suspicions, either because of the type of man he was in the sense of his profession, if you are talking of Barnardo or Gibson, or his manner. Chris George
Author: Jill Friday, 17 December 1999 - 04:34 am
Hi Caz, All, Good point. Looking again at JtR's MO it is clear that he wanted his victims dead as fast as he could and only then could he execute his fantasies. This is a strong indication of a very great need to dissociate and thus no want at all to see the victim as a person, only as a doll. He wants to kill his victims as fast as he can before they have any chance to say something, disrupt his plans and become a person to him. Words and speech are an important human way to show others who you are and that you have a will of your own. JtR does not want his 'dolls' to speak up, he hates the idea even so much that he cuts their vochal cords. Yes, Caz, I think if Kelly would have screamed (doesn't even matter what) he would have been pretty disturbed in his routine. Not that he would have bolted and run. I think he still would have killed her in anger and frustration, but not would have gutted her as he did now. His emotons would be in conflict with the necessaty of detachment to mutilate. She might have fought, it would make no difference to him, but her voice would. Peace, Jill
Author: Caz Friday, 17 December 1999 - 12:13 pm
Hi All, It must have been a terrible thing for Prater and Lewis to have on their consciences, that they both heard the word 'murder', voiced in however inconsequential a tone and volume, but neither took any action. I have no doubt that there was nothing they could have done to prevent MJK's slaughter, and to investigate could have put themselves in deadly danger, but that could not have been much consolation when they heard about the grisly discovery next morning and made the connection. Chris George's point about the killer's frenzy causing him to ignore the dangers of such a cry is a good one, and to me the only one which really makes sense if Mary did indeed cry out. I still think JtR would have been too careful to take such a risk, especially if his break between murders was also due to caution and fear of capture. Would he really be willing to throw this caution to the wind? My own opinion is that the cry was not from Mary realising her number was up. A cry of murder, audible beyond those four meagre walls, would have lost her killer all the advantages of being inside No.13 for the most destructive of his efforts; the unlimited time, the extra security, the total abandonment to his purpose, all gone in an instant if his incredible run of luck had deserted him for once and someone had heeded a cry that his previous outdoor work had been skillful enough to prevent. Love, Caz
Author: D. Radka Friday, 17 December 1999 - 03:51 pm
The thing nobody has ever suggested on this matter, and that therefore I hereby global copyright 1999 David M. Radka, is that the RIPPER may have exclaimed "Oh, Murder!" in a falsetto female voice just as he was cutting MJ's carotid. Just for effect, to enhance his orgasm. I wouldn't put it past this cookie, no siree. David
Author: Scott Nelson Friday, 17 December 1999 - 03:58 pm
Well done Caz. An excellent analysis of what likely transpired in No. 13 on that fateful night
Author: Jon Friday, 17 December 1999 - 06:40 pm
Just to pick up on a small point that Jill made above..... We beleive that Jack choked, strangled or subdued his victims in one way or another, while Coles, McKenzie & Stride were apparently slashed about the throat in the initial assault. Why would Jack choose to strangle his victim? Strangling or suffocating is not the quickest way to kill your victim. Wouldnt it be quicker to stick the knife into her while she stands in front of him, if all he wanted was to kill some unimportant woman, the mutilation being his focus then why not render them dead as soon as possible. To position himself behind her and clasp one hand around her mouth and reaching around with his other hand plunge the knife into her heart would kill her as quick & sure. Was it important to him that he killed them by slicing their throat as opposed to sticking the knife into them in some other location? Why strangle? was the struggling victim, gasping for a last dying breath part of the thrill? How did he know he had the time to choke her? I would say that the attacker of Stride, Coles & McKenzie just wanted the women dead, a quick slash to the throat. But did Jack go through the choking & the laying out, then the slicing of the throat, before the mutilations as part of some sort of personal ritual? Jack didnt seem to want them dead in the quickest way possible, he appears to want to excersize his power over them, feel them struggle, lash out, kick, wrestle and get weaker slowly, falling limp in his arms, then lay them out and in a sort of sacrificial manner, slice the throat. Do we read too much into Jacks method, .....or not enough? Regards, Jon
Author: Diana Comer Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 07:10 am
I think we can postulate two mental states for Jack. When not actively engaged in a murder, or perhaps only in the very first stages of the process (stalking) extreme caution. But when the process is well underway he is going to be in an unholy frenzy which will cause him to throw caution to the winds.
Author: Caz Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 09:23 am
Hi Diana, 'Unholy frenzy' only seems to describe MJK's treatment after death, but doesn't work IMHO with other victims such as Eddowes. Wanting the victims silenced as quickly as possible could be due in part, as Jill says, to JtR's particular obsession, but I would think it far more likely to be purely a security measure. David, your post reminded me of another thought I had recently (don't groan everyone). What if JtR himself folded Mary's clothes neatly, either out of some compulsive tidying-up process, or as a deliberate sign of the contrast between the chaos and mess that was now Mary's body, and the orderliness and cleanliness that she showed in her life? Perhaps he was thinking "How can a prostitute appear so clean on the outside yet be so dirty within her body and soul?" Love, Caz
Author: Diana Comer Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 10:09 am
Do the folded clothes at the Kelly crime scene accord with the carefully laid out items at Chapman's feet?
Author: Leanne Saturday, 18 December 1999 - 06:07 pm
G'day Everyone, Caz, you made an excellent point in your December 16th post, asking 'would the killer have taken the gamble?' and that MJKs apparent cry of "MURDER!" would cause people to 'come snooping'. He could have been a one-time resident of Millers Court, knowing that such crys were commonplace. On the other hand, he could have paused, made up some excuse for carrying a knife, like: "To protect YOU, dear" and because no one responded to the cry, he butchered her at a later hour. I am, at this stage, NOT implying that it was her boyfriend! This would explain why some witnesses saw her alive at 8:45am, talking to a man outside the 'Britania'. Yes, I think her inquest was too short! I think it would be great to have a play re-enactment of hers and other inquests. Everyone could dress-up and research exactly what was said by their 'character' and expand on it, using modern-day knowledge/techniques! (OH, I'm just BURSTING with great ideas!) I've been doing alot of reading, over the weekend, using copies of ACTUAL 112 year old, handwritten reports, that I forgot I had. I shall return!!!!!!!!! LEANNE!