|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 11, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
Archive through November 11, 1999
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 10:40 am |        | Hi All,
Yaz, nice to see you back on the boards. As usual, you raise many interesting points, to which I'll offer my humble opinion.
The questions of why Kelly was allowed to run up such a large debt, and whether or not JtR robbed his victims are both valid, interesting questions, each is certainly worthy of discussion in its own right. However, I agree that they should be discussed seperately, so I'll confine my comments to the latter point.
We can't be 100% certain that any of the victims had money on their person at the time of the death, but if I had to pick one of the canonical victims about whom this was likely to be the case, I'd say Chapman.
When speaking to the deputy at Crossingham's on the night of her murder, she said "I haven't sufficient money for my bed", not "I haven't any". The witness (Donovan) may have been paraphrasing rather than repeating the conversation verbatim, so admittedly this evidence is slight. But, it is sworn inquest testimony, and is at least an indication that she may have had some money on her, independent of any transaction with a client. IMHO, of course.
Regarding your other point of whether we can be certain the murderer took it, I hate to muddy the waters further, but it is possible that in some cases the PC who discovered the body took it. Some months back, I read "The Victorian Underworld", by Donald Thomas, wherein it was written that a typical PC, poorly paid and unconcerned with preserving forensic evidence, who came across a corpse simply helped himself to any money he may have found in the victim's pockets. This could easily apply to Eddowes' case. This would not apply to Chapman though, since it was not a policeman who found the body, and by the time the police arrived there were several civilian witnesses present.
As regards the question of whether the money was taken as a trophy or for economic reasons, I don't see these as necessarily mutually exclusive motives, i.e., I don't agree that JtR could not have robbed his victims since he took body parts as trophies and money would have been too impersonal. My understanding is that a large component of the psychology of this type of killing is that the killer wants to dominate and control his victim, to the point of dehumanization. Surely, robbing a victim of all valuables on her person is consistent with this psychology. I think this is the point Edana made, and if so, I agree with her. While I personally believe the killer was a local, and thus an economic motive was plausible, I think the possibility that JtR robbed his victims exists regardless of whether there was economic motive or not. We really have a number of possible motives here - it was taken for purely economic reasons, for domination/control reasons, a combination of those two, or as a trophy. So, I don't think it's logically sound to attempt to disprove the point of robbery having occurred by arguing motive alone. Nor, for that matter, can we draw any firm conclusions about the killer himself.
The point about Chapman's rings illustrates this, I think. It's a virtual certainty that rings were taken from her finger by the killer, we have Abberline's report of Sept 18, so robbery did occur. The police clearly believed the motive was economic, as evidenced by the extensive search made of local pawnshops. Yet, they did not recover them - so what can we conclude? 1) The killer was a local, who took them for economic reasons and sold them someplace other than a pawnshop, 2) the killer was a local, who took them as trophies, or 3) the killer was not a local, and took them for trophies (Tumblety?). See what I mean?
Rabbi: the scenario you described in your August 9 post is possible, of course, but I offer the following counterpoints. There is considerable forensic evidence that all the victims had their throat cut while lying down, that they were killed where they were found, and that all the mutilations were post-mortem. If it was the case that payment was demanded before services were rendered, and I believe that is standard operating procedure, if you will, then money must have changed hands before they went to the murder site, and JtR could not have used reaching for his money as a ruse for pulling his knife.
BTW, forgive a Yank's ignorance, but what does "pink lint" mean?
CMD: I suggest that a person of Eddowe's stature and circumstance would require very little fuel in order to become a fire engine :-). She was barely 5 feet tall, somewhat underweight (as evidenced by her mortuary photos), and had apparently not eaten in some time. She was broke when she parted ways with Kelly, yet she must have acquired some money at some point, and given her stature, would not necessarily have needed to spend it all to become as drunk as she reportedly was.
It does raise some questions of police procedure, though. Where I live, when a person is taken into protective custody for drunkenness, any money they have is taken, counted, and placed in an envelope, which is then marked with the amount. When they are released, the money is returned. Was this standard procedure in 1888? If so, would they have bothered to keep records?
Well, I've wandered far afield of Kelly's debt, so if anyone feels strongly that this discussion should be continued on another board, create a seperate topic and I'll meet you there.
Cheers, and sorry for being so long-winded,
Jim |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 11:23 am | | Hello All,
Sorry, if I interrupt this interesting conversation with something totally different, but I didn't know where else.
Something has been nagging me after I made a crude drawing of Martha Tabram's injuries. I realised that a lot of her injuries were at the organs protected by the rib case. Now it is a fact that MJK's heart was missing from the body. How does one remove a heart with a rib cage in the way? It isn't like it's there for the grabbing (as laughably shown in the second Indiana Jones "Temple of Doom"). As far as I can logically deduct, her killer either had to break open her rib cage, or get the intestines, stomach and liver out first and rummage underneath the rib cage, work his way through the lungs and cut the heart away.
Maybe this has already been discussed on another board. If so, can someone direct me to it? If not, some medical advice would be helpful.
Cheers,
Jill
PS. The "missing-money" discussion IS interesting. |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 01:05 pm | | Hey Jill!
Mike (Villon) would be the man to ask about the removal of the heart but I'd hazard a SWAG and say, once the abdominal cavity was "cleared" the killer could have reached up from the bottom of the sternum and either pulled or pulled/cut the arteries connecting the heart. But ask Mike.
Nice thoughts, Jim. You argue what I'm trying to get across very well. I'd be curious as to what Stewart would think of the likelihood of a PC taking the spare change (I personally doubt it...though individuals vary in their honesty).
Caz, I also wonder if the small amount of money was so insignificant that it remained uncatalogued, and was "removed" when the body arrived for the autopsy...taken by the people who sometimes cleaned, sometimes just prepared the corpse. I would think (again, Stewart's expertise would help here) that the 1888-era PCs or first doctor on the scene would inventory everything -- no need yet to worry about fingerprints or DNA evidence. Your thoughts on the almost fastidious arrangement of body parts and personal possessions around the victims is another very interesting character trait of the murderer...one that, I think, displays signs of a "signature" -- that is, an action so personal no other killer or person could repeat it. This trait alone, in my unexpert opinion, would tie about three(?) of the killings to one killer: Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly.
David, if you can keep a secret, I'll tell you that right now I agree with your explanation of the motive -- simple criminal "reflex." Shhhh.
To all: Jim touches on it, but I thought I'd repeat it...before we consider a "why," we need to determine "if" the money was taken. I'm brushing aside motives and explanations -- for the time being -- in favor of a simple(?) decision: did the murderer take any money from any of his victims, often enough to establish a pattern of behavior?
If you worry about motive (what the behavior means), as Jim points out, you may miss the simple fact that it could be highly probably (I'm asking, not saying this is so) that the killer robbed his victims. Determine the facts as best we can; then offer reasons why -- start with reasons why/motives, and you may miss or distort the "fact."
Last word from me on this. I want to read what you all think.
Thanks,
Yaz |
Author: Villon
Friday, 13 August 1999 - 03:07 am | | Good morning Jill, Yazoo,
With sufficient time on hand, a man could open the abdomen, remove its contents, cut away the diaphragm and thus enter the thorax, to, eventually remove the heart. Separating the breast bone and entering that way would need a lot of strength and persistance or a good saw. I haven't looked at the photographs for a while, but a good resolution might show if the ribs are broken away or intact.
Did he empty the thorax as well as the abdomen, or was the heart taken without disturbing the lungs unduly? I'm wondering how it was cut away.
regards
Mike |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 13 August 1999 - 06:18 am | | Hi All,
Villon, here is the portion of Dr. Bond's autopsy report that deals with your questions:
"The intercostals between the 4th, 5th, & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings."
So, it would seem the thorax was not emptied. Continuing:
"On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away.
The left lung was intact: it was adherent at the apex & there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substances of the lung were several nodules of consolidation.
The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent."
The photo Dave Yost sent to me is the highest resolution copy I have, here is the relevant area:
To my medically untrained eye, I can't tell if the ribs are intact or not.
Hope this helps,
Jim |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 13 August 1999 - 09:36 pm | | | Not to forget that there is "reasonable" evidence to suggest that a hatchet was employed to split MK's left thigh bone. If so, the hatchet may have been used in additional endeavors, including the destruction of the ribcage (from Nick Warren, Ripperana, no. 18, Oct. 1996, pp.1-2). |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 14 August 1999 - 02:45 am | | Hi y'all.
MIKE: I've got a question regarding Dr. Bond's report which Jim quotes above. "right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away."
What are the most likely causes of these adhesions? I'm visualizing scar tissue from some condition ... perhaps pulmonary tuberculosis? I just looked that up on Encarta '97 Encyclopedia Online, which features a colorized chest x-ray in a lovely shade of yellow. It mentions lung tissue calcification, nodular lesions, permanent scars, and other unlovely terms.
Mary is seen by many as a break in the pattern - too different from the other older, mal-nourished or sick victims. If she had TB or some other disease, maybe that helped qualify her as being Jack's type of victim.
I don't recall reading any clarification of the illness that the nuns nursed Mary through shortly before she came to London ... or if such info could help prove or debunk Mary's stories about her life prior to moving in with Joe Barnett ... But if you can give me an educated guess-nosis on Mary's possible health problems, I'd appreciate it Mike.
As to the vics' possible pocket change - All murderers steal the life of their victims ... why not take the money too. Our Jack was quite clever - a uterus after all doesn't have a serial number tattooed on it, so it is pretty anonymous - or was in pre-DNA days. Even if the police had searched JtR's home AND found organs - he was probably arrogant enough to believe he could convince everyone that he'd obtained them through legal medical channels for legit research. Jacky would leave behind Eddowes' destinctive red cigarette case, and pocket the anonymous coins - gloating in the following weeks that only he knew their significance. To the best of my knowledge, Chapman's rings were plain - no engraving or designs.
Just read over my post ... This doesn't mean I'm convinced that JtR was a doc, med. student, or herbal quack ... just exploring possibilities here.
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Villon
Saturday, 14 August 1999 - 03:40 pm | | Evening Janice and all,
The quote from Bond is too vague for anything but a general guess (I've not read the full report). Adhesions can have many causes. They generally indicate inflammation, past or present. Old firm adhesions would possibly suggest an acute episode of inflammation in the past, that had cleared up by the time of death. I'm guessing cleared up since Bond doesn't mention any active disease being present.
So, best surmise: an acute episode of lung-inflammation, maybe pneumonia, less likely TB since I think Bond would have recognised and commented on it. Maybe an acute episode arising out of a chronic condition, like emphysema, that Bond didn't recognise or record.
Such inflammatory signs (if that is what they were), would be seen as unusual in a well-nourished person of MJK's age today. But they are typically found in the underprivileged and vagrant population. Chronic/acute lung disease in a young person can probably be regarded as a good indicator of generally poor nutrition and poor general health. Much what one would expect from a derelict alcoholic prostitute.
Sorry not to be more definite
regards
Mike |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 01:17 am | | MIKE: Actually, you helped quite a bit. How much is my bill? :-)
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: John Malcolm
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 04:34 pm | | | I don't believe that there is any "reasonable" evidence of anything other than a knife being used in Mary Kelly's murder. The "split thighbone" seems to me to be the product of an over-active imagination. It is inconceivable that a post-mortem report would not mention such details. |
Author: John Malcolm
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 04:37 pm | | | I don't believe that there is any "reasonable" evidence of anything other than a knife being used in Mary Kelly's murder. The "split thighbone" seems to me to be the product of an over-active imagination. It is inconceivable that a post-mortem report would not mention such details. |
Author: John Malcolm
Sunday, 15 August 1999 - 04:41 pm | | | sorry about the double-post. My feelings aren't quite THAT strong... |
Author: RLeen
Monday, 16 August 1999 - 09:40 am | | Hello Everybody,
Nothing further to add, I'm afraid time constraints preclude in-depth investigation but hopefully I'll be able to throw my usual brand of low-brow ramblings into the discussion pot soon.
To Mr. DiPalma, we Brits are a curious race who not only use rhyming slang as a picturesque description of everyday items, apples and pears anyone, but we also use rhyming slang to describe normal slang. The pink lint expression that you queried runs;
pink lint = skint = having no money.
I hope that clarifies my penultimate post.
Thanking you
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 25 August 1999 - 04:05 pm | | | I performed a little experiment. I got an old sheet and a carving knife from the kitchen. I drew the blade across the sheet as you would do if you were trying to slit someones throat if their face was covered by the sheet. It was not penetrated. I then took the point of the knife and attacked the sheet with a stabbing motion. I quickly made a hole. MJK's sheet was torn. I believe that this did not happen when she was killed but rather during the mutilation process. |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 26 August 1999 - 01:41 am | | So Diana, as I comprehend it, you are saying the sheet of MJK was made by a stabbing motion? Not slashed? What is the sharpness of the knife you used? As sharp as a razor blade knife sharpened with a belt?
I'll try it at home, too, to have a visual of your results.
Thanks,
Jill |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 29 August 1999 - 10:42 pm | | G'day Jill, Diana, everyone.
Um, please don't invite me to dinner guys, it's not that I don't trust women weilding sharp knives experimenting stabbing/slashing techniques on old sheets but.....
I've often wondered how Jack could have made the mutilations to Mary's face while there was a sheet pulled over it. Did the sheet have numerous holes in it or just the one from the throat wound?
Jules |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 30 August 1999 - 12:03 am | | Diana, do the experiment again only this time cover a roast or another large cut of meat with the sheet and then using a very sharp knife try again, I think the results will be differant.
Julian, from Dr. Bond's general report to Anderson:
"In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack."
Wolf. |
Author: lilkim
Thursday, 07 October 1999 - 12:17 pm | | Hello Everyone!
I was just wondering how many people think
that Mary Kelly was murdered by Joseph Barnett? I
have been researching for a little while and he
seems the most likely suspect. He had reason and
he knew the room they lived in. Please write any
of your thoughts! |
Author: paula williamson
Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 04:15 am | | | my name is paula, and I want to share my thoughts with you. |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 11 November 1999 - 04:20 am | | Go ahead Paula, and welcome to all thoughts JtR!
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
