Author: Winter Dawns
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 06:00 am |        |
| Umm......... as odd as this sounds, could somebody tell me what the most gruesome murder of JtR was? It is imperative that i know this. I could go into a short discussion as to why I want to know but, that would be pointless. |
Author: anon
Saturday, 13 November 1999 - 07:58 am | |
All murder is gruesome. However, if your question is which of the Ripper murders was the most revolting to the human consciousness in display of brutality and spattering of gore, then it would be that of Mary Kelly.
One hopes your imperative interest is not voyeuristic. |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 12:53 pm | |
I've been delving into the inquest reports and noticed that Dr. Bagster Phillips mentions that the bruises on Annie's chin and jawline seemed to be recent, yet he never mentions these bruises in his description of the bruises he found on her body. Am I wrong, or have I missed something?
Help?
Edana |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 01:37 pm | |
Edana -
I don't know if this will help, but:
(Phillips): I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the chest.
[there follows much description of the mutilations on Chapman, then -]
Coroner: Was the bruising you mentioned recent?
Witness: The marks on the face were recent, especially about the chin and sides of the jaw. The bruise upon the temple and the bruises in the front of the chest were of longer standing, probably of days. . .
This is from the "Telegraph" of September 14. It seems, from a reading, that Coroner Baxter was asking about the temple, clavicle and chest bruises first mentioned by Dr Phillips. Why he did not mention the chin and jaw bruises in his initial description of Chapman's injuries, I am at a loss to say, but he does mention them in response to Baxter's questioning.
CMD |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:52 am | |
| Does anyone know if there was any other entrance into the yard other than the passage to and from Hanbury Street ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 11:24 am | |
| Thanks for the information Viper , there was NO back gate to the yard at 29 Hanbury Street : I imagine the buildings reached by the lane between 35 and 37 would have been at the back of the yard. I think we can agree on a height of 5'6'' for the fence and it was probably quite rickety , this wasn't a posh area. If you are interested in the Chapman murder , come and read the Joseph Sickert discussion going on at the same time , guys and gals ( a cheap plug for my theories I know , but hey why not ! ) |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 04:46 am | |
Could there be a simple reason why Nichols and Chapman went 'missing' for a few hours before being found dead.Both had tried to find a bed for the night and been turned away.They would have felt tiredness as much as the next person having been on their feet for some considerable time.
Did they find a place to rest for a while,and there be found by the killer.A place not too far from their murder sites.
Surely there would have been places which were used by people as unfortunate as they,much the same as there is for present day homeless.
Places that could be known by a local,and visited in the hope of striking lucky.
Perhaps Bucks Row and the backyard of 29 Hanbury St were such locations.
Just an idea,but they did spend some time,at some place where they were not seen.
H.M. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 05:19 am | |
| Harry , in the London of the time there were Salvation Army hostels known as ' penny situps ' where for a penny or two a person could spend the night sitting up on a high backed pew along with many others. Its possible that Chapman could have visited a hostel like this , but again someone would have noticed her there. The problem with sleeping on the floor is that it was dirty and there were rats and stray dogs about , plus the threat of the elusive ' Leather Apron '. I can't see Chapman dossing down on her own in a non public place due to the threat of rape , murder or robbery : paupers tended to stick together , as much for warmth as anything else. She could have dossed in a doorway or churchyard but there would have been witnesses to her sitting there. Besides , Chapman was a proud little woman and had set her heart on getting a bed at the lodging house : her last words were about getting a bed kept for her as she was going to come back. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 04:16 pm | |
G'day Harry,
I don't think Annie would have spent a penny or two to rest, if she was trying to come up with enough doss money for the lodging house.
Leanne! |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 05:22 am | |
Simon,Leanne,
Chapman and Nichols Had no money,hence their decision to go out and earn some.Their need for money was to pay for a place to rest,and had either of them earned enough surely that is what they would have done.
Their most likely source of patrons would most probably have been the busier main streets.These were continually patrolled by police on foot.In addition there were watchmen at numerous locations
and other night workers,yet neither was seen for quite some time before their deaths.
There comes a time for everyone when fatigue and tiredness take their toll,and rest becomes the primary need.Both had been on the go for many hours,and neither was in the prime of health.
Sure there may have been hostels.There are today,plus many other organisations to care for the homeless and less fortunate,but still there are those that sleep in the rough.
I was in London last Autumn with my wife staying at her sisters in Kilburn,and the number of people sleeping rough in doorways and public places was astounding.Both men and women.Would it have been much different in 1888.Dogs and Would be rapists are as much in evidence now as then,but that is no deterent.
That they had need of rest and did find a place to take such seems a reasonable explanation where
ever that may have been.Except for continually walking the streets,what else was there to do?.
H.M. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 04:45 am | |
To add to my earlier posting,I notice the extraordinary similarities regarding the deaths of Chapman and Nichols.Both Were broke and seeking a place to rest.Both were turned away from lodgings at about 1.45 am promising to be back in a short time.Both appeared to hav chosen the same small area to solicit.Both appeared to have failed in their intentions and went missing for some time before being killed.each met their deaths in almost identical circumstances,just a small disdance from each other.Each was slain and mutilated in similar fashion.Both deaths were on the same day of the week,and in the early hours of the morning.
If their deaths so exacly mirrored each other,then
the killers thoughts and actions must surely have
followed a similar pattern on each day. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 March 2000 - 10:31 am | |
| Those who support Mrs Long's identification of Chapman often presume she was soliciting the Ripper outside no.29 Hanbury Street , hence the conversation ' Will you ? ' , " Yes. ". However , how likely is it that Annie would resort to obtaining her ' johns ' in the street in broad daylight ? This might have brought unwelcome attention from passers by and also the police : certainly the tennants of the house would have been none too pleased about it ! Surely she would have retired to a pub ( the ' Black Swan ' and the ' Britannia ' were nearby ) and done it there. If not a pub , then Spitalfields market was just starting up nearby and was a far more likely place to find good custom. The other point to note is that by 5.30am it would have been likely that people would have been up and about in 29 Hanbury Street , Annie would not have taken her client there for fear of discovery. To preserve his anonymity as well as for her own protection. She would have taken him to some secluded spot instead. I believe all this makes the identification of Chapman by Mrs Long even more likely to have been erroneous. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 04:47 am | |
| How likely? Very likely, if the activities of prositutes in many areas nowadays are anything to go by. It's known that the tenants weren't pleased - but it had clearly happened before, so why not now? The backyard would, after all, have ranked as one of the more secluded places in the area. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 05:38 am | |
It is a 50/50 chance of who approached who.Most accept that Chapman,because of her calling,and her need for money was the prime mover.His need was also important more so as it was getting light if not already light.Time meant more to him than to her.
As to 29 being of regular use by Chapman I don't think it would have been.The beat policeman would have been aware of any premises used for prostitution purposes,and known those that used them.He would have been one of the first persons questioned as to the likely means of her being there.It was a policeman's job to know his beat.No such information was forthcoming.
I do not believe Mrs richardson would willingly have allowed the premises to be used by such women as Chapman.Such premises had strict rules
regarding the running of the place,and it would have been near impossible to use the yard consistantly without it being known.
It is not to say that in desperation Chapman would not have suggested the yard if known to her,
but in desperation so might the killer. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 06:38 am | |
| The backyard might have appeared secluded , but in actual fact it was the Richardson's workplace for making packing cases and Chapman would have been taking a risk taking her client there. The yard was also overlooked by various windows as was the street outside , making soliciting hazardous :if someone had peeped through one of the windows they might have come out and cleared Chapman off. I think if Chapman was soliciting in Hanbury Street , then it must have been her regular beat as there were better places to choose to solicit in the nearby area ; normally however her soliciting was performed under cover of darkness so it didn't matter about using the yard. In daylight it would have been different. I suppose if she was desperate , and it wasn't possible to use the privy or the woodshed in the yard as a cover , then she might have prostituted herself in the open air , but I think it is unlikely she would have wanted to. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 06:42 am | |
| Actually , Chapman's voluminous skirts and petticoats would probably have made using the privy and the woodshed for sex impossible. I suppose if it was just going to be a quick ' knee-trembler ' against the fence then she might have agreed to it. |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 05:17 am | |
Simon,
Look at it from the killers point of view.Might he not of thought that a place such as the yard,with the number of people on the premises so close by,would have put the victim completely at ease.Would she in the circumstances have considered it a dangerous situation.
He needed to kill quickly,the more safe she felt the more off guard she would be.
It is still 50/50 that he suggested the yard,and 50/50 that it was not sex that was the bait.
H.M. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 06:47 am | |
| I think we must make a distinction here : yes , the victim would have felt more at ease that she would not be attacked , but she could surely not have felt more at ease about being interrupted during the sex act. The possibility of discovery would have preyed on the killer's mind as well. Why would Jack take Chapman to a place where they were likely to be discovered ( or vice versa ) ? |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 07:07 am | |
Who cared enough to stop it? Somebody's gonna call the cops because a prostitute is having sex anywhere or everywhere in the East End? Pleeze.
Janice |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 29 March 2000 - 07:21 am | |
| Mrs Richardson would have cared because she wanted it known she kept a respectable house , she held prayer meetings in her kitchen. Now if the old lady had opened the yard door and caught Chapman in flagrante with her client , she might have summoned some big burly guy to beat the living daylights out of them. |
