Archive through March 26, 2000

** 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 March 26, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Mary kelly: Archive through March 26, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 04:38 am
G'day Leanne ! Incidentally , I have been thinking the same thing and I think what you have said is THE major problem with the Conspiracy theory. It would have been easy just to make the victims disappear without trace , the horrible mutilations to them might have frightened MJK out of the East End and out of the killer's clutches. The idea came to me because I kept thinking of what Napoleon said at the siege of Ulm 1805 viz the Austrians : ' We must not frighten them too much '. Was that what the killers were doing ? The Masonic ritual thing doesn't really wash anymore , although I believe such ritual could have been the inspiration for mutilating the victims. But the killer definitely wanted the bodies to be found to prove something : what could that have been ?
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 04:42 am
With the Police Gazette problem , simply substitute the Illustrated Penny Paper instead. This was a magazine similar to the Illustrated Police News , covers from which can be found in Rumbelow's book.
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 04:57 am
The F.B.I. profiler in the recent Discovery Channel documentary made the comment that JTR was "no rocket scientist". His reasoning was that all the crimes (except perhaps MJK) were very high-risk, with all the victim's bodies being discovereed immediately. There was very little stealth; Jack was almost oblivious to being discovered (except by us!). Maybe it boils down to whether one finds the Goulston Street Grafitti, the Lusk Kidney, etc. legitimate or not, or whether one feels this was a disorganized killer. But I guess my question is more about psychology than intellect. Are schizophrenics or psychotics really very likely to be serial killers? I'm thinking about Kosminski here. Sure raving loonies and street-corner screamers are scary and disturbing to be around, but do they become SKs? Bundy, Sutcliff and their lot were cold-blooded sociopaths. Poor Mary Kelly. I don't know if B.F. Skinner and reams of behavioral statistics will do us much good here. This is the very bloody mire of the human psyche. Maybe Dante would be a better guide....
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 05:29 am
Fred West seemed a pretty dull chap, yet he killed an awful lot of women and girls before anyone cottoned on that his cellar and garden were full of 'em. I don't think you can really make any generalisations about intellect and serial killers. Some are bright, others dull but lucky. Examples seem to cover the whole range from ape-man to Einstein. Most get caught eventually, often due to their own carelessness. Some do something so dumb it makes you think they want to be caught, recognised, acknowledged, whatever. Others may screw up because they get more daring as their cravings evolve and increase. Presumably the dullest (and unluckiest) sk of the lot would get caught before they got past number one and earned the definition! Love, Caz
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 05:31 am
I think the crimes might make more sense if we assume they were set up to look like the work of a homicidal maniac rather than the work of a REAL homocidal maniac. RJP makes a good point that serial killers tend not to be mad , but are sociopaths ; but most serial killers tend not to mutilate , certainly not to the degree that mutilation was inflicted on MJK. I think its true that around 90% of serial killers have a sexual motive but there was no sexual connection in any case here. Thus reject sociopath and madman and what do you have - a man acting under orders. All this seems to be suggesting Barnett again , but my main complaint is that Barnett loved Kelly while the Ripper viewed her as a doll or object to be abused. These two facts cannot be reconciled.
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 07:27 am
G'day Simon and all, Yes, yes, yes, Barnett loved Kelly, but he was losing her, (as he 'lost' his mother and he lost his job), and Kelly told her friends that she was 'fond' of Joseph Fleming, (who was hanging around their home). Julia Venturney told the jury at Kelly's inquest that: "she could no longer bear him", (Barnett). He may have strangled her and then butchered her body, so it became unrecognisable, unimportant. Leanne!
Author: Guy Hatton Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 07:59 am
Quote: I think its true that around 90% of serial killers have a sexual motive but there was no sexual connection in any case here. I think it's possible that you may have misunderstood the point here, Simon. The lack of "sexual connexion" I have always taken to mean that no actual sexual intercourse had taken place. This does not in itself preclude a sexual motive. All the Best Guy
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 12:07 pm
Hi all: Even Melvin Harris who says that Roslyn D'Onston carried out the murders for black magic purposes says that they were lust murders, and he does not find these reasons for the murders to be mutually exclusive. Most likely, to quote R. J. Palmer's description of Bundy and Sutcliff, JtR was a "cold-blooded sociopath." Whether he was of high intellect or a dull-witted plodder, this man had a method and some kind of motive, most probably sexual. Whether as Roy Hazelwood, the former F.B.I. profiler that R.J. mentioned remarked in the recent Discovery Channel documentary that JtR was "no rocket scientist" is a valid observation, I don't know. He was certainly lucky as well as methodical, but a dullard??? We just don't know. I think Hazelwood's comment was predicated more on the finding of the 1988 "Ripper Project," based as it was on possibly faulty premises because it used a limited number of suspects, that the killer was Kosminski. Chris George
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 03:51 pm
I wonder if any of you caught "Perfect Crimes?" on the History Channel (US) Tuesday night. It is a programme that looks at one solved case and one unsolved each time. In this case, the unsolved one was the Black Dahlia murder (which I have always thought would make a grand subject for a good, dark musical - what Lloyd Webber's "Sunset Boulevard" should have been). One person who believes he has solved the crime pointed out the oddness of the discovery of Elizabeth Short's bisected remains. Her killer seems to have been someone who had no difficulty finding a place to murder, halve and drain Short. One would expect such a person could also dispose of the body as easily. Yet, the corpse was left out in a blatantly obscene display which could not be missed. The theorist wondered, "why here?" He then proceeded to theorise that the particular neighbourhood Short's body was dumped in meant something to her killer; that he had strong emotions concerning the location and hence chose this partiicular place to leave the body. (he then goes on to make an very weak case against a local doctor, so I shan't go into it). The point being, perhaps applying this line of thought to the Ripper killings may be of some use. Was the supine, spead-eagled display of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly necessitated by haste or by something else? Could the Ripper not, after all, simply have plundered the poor women and then kicked the bodies over into a bloody hump? Only a thought for the assembled worthies. Simon - I assure you I am working on the Nichols rebuttal, but with the US Conference coming up, you can understand I do have other matters vying for my attention! :-) As ever, Christopher-Michael
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 04:49 pm
Hi, CMD: You make an excellent point about the blatant display of the victims' corpses, which was very much how the body of Beth Short was found in the Black Dahlia case, when her corpse was found bisected on a vacant lot within view of a road in suburban Los Angeles on January 15, 1947. Most killers are not interested in display and many take steps to dispose of and hide the body, which was the situation in the cases of such killers as Crippen, John Christie, and the Moors murderers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. In Crippen's crime, the whole trick was to make his wife disappear--she had become inconvenient for him so he poisoned her and buried her remains in the cellar, after which he left on a liner for North America with his lover. In the case of Christie his "thing' was necrophilia so he would play with the dead bodies of the women he killed, a trait also seen with Jeffrey Dahmer, although with men, while Brady and Hindley's "bag" was torture of the poor children while they were alive. But neither Christie nor Brady and Hindley wanted the bodies of their victims found. Christie walled up his victims in his house on Rillington Place, while Brady-Hindley, as their nickname implies, hid the bodies of their child victims in isolated spots on the moors in northern England. The display of bodies by JtR is one of the most fascinating, if gruesome aspects of the case. It was done for some reason, even if it only gave the killer a greater thrill to leave the women displayed in open view. Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 24 March 2000 - 03:57 am
Hi Chris, Lovely post. Many of the killers you mention lured their victims, either onto their own territory, or to locations chosen by the killers themselves. Hence the need to dispose of or hide the bodies as best they could. Some, like Christie and Dahmer (also Nilsen and West), seemed quite content to let their work pile up indoors. Nilsen stupidly carried on until the drains became blocked with human remains. But they all at least attempted to get rid of the evidence. JtR, as we have been discussing, was more likely being lured onto his victims' own territory, so perhaps this is where he thought they should remain, a symbol of a sleazy purchase in a sleazy spot. Like he has just eaten a Big Mac and discarded the wrapper contemptuously on the pavement outside MacDonalds even though there's a rubbish bin nearby. Since the body can't be connected to him in its own location, and he has had his fill, he sees no need to move it again. Love, Caz
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:02 am
Whatever the level of J.T.R's intelligence,he was certainly street wise and cunning.Sure he took chances,but they appeared to have been calculated ones. Consider what happened when a crime was discovered First a policeman would have to be sought.Then he in turn would have to send for more help,so all would be converging to the scene of the crime,while the killer would be going away from it.By the time senior officers arrived and organised a search,the fellon would be well away. If a police officer himself discovered a crime,it was usual to blow his whistle to summon help from other officers within earshot.They would procede to the sound of the whistle,not knowing what the problem was.All the culprit had to do was watch for responding policemen,act normal to allay suspicion,or,if cover was at hand use it,then distance himself as quickly as possible. There were no radio's to summon help,no cars to quickly scour the area.Everything had to be done on foot.Streetwise villans of the time would know this.Profiles may be of some help,provided they take into account the era concerned. Many people wonder what would have happened if J.T.R.had been discovered at the scene of his crime.I think in that case there would have been two bodies.He had his knife,didn't he.
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:05 am
Whatever the level of J.T.R's intelligence,he was certainly street wise and cunning.Sure he took chances,but they appeared to have been calculated ones. Consider what happened when a crime was discovered First a policeman would have to be sought.Then he in turn would have to send for more help,so all would be converging to the scene of the crime,while the killer would be going away from it.By the time senior officers arrived and organised a search,the fellon would be well away. If a police officer himself discovered a crime,it was usual to blow his whistle to summon help from other officers within earshot.They would procede to the sound of the whistle,not knowing what the problem was.All the culprit had to do was watch for responding policemen,act normal to allay suspicion,or,if cover was at hand use it,then distance himself as quickly as possible. There were no radio's to summon help,no cars to quickly scour the area.Everything had to be done on foot.Streetwise villans of the time would know this.Profiles may be of some help,provided they take into account the era concerned. Many people wonder what would have happened if J.T.R.had been discovered at the scene of his crime.I think in that case there would have been two bodies.He had his knife,didn't he.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 24 March 2000 - 06:47 am
What I meant by ' sexual connection 'was intercourse , I suppose that you are right that lack of intercourse doesn't mean there wasn't some sort of sexual motive. What I was trying to get at though is that the motive was not to have intercourse and then kill the victim , if he had wanted to do that the murderer would have had plenty of time for it. Is it not true that in cases of sexual murder the genitals of the victim are displayed or mutilated , although this is true of the Ripper case I believe the clothing was dishevelled to allow the mutilation to take place. Caroline's comment about the Big Mac wrapper is correct I believe , in a lust killing the genitals would be displayed to show they were ' rubbish '. But the Ripper murders go much further than that.To cut off something on the body is to stop the victim using it ( a la John Wayne Bobitt ). To cut the throat then is a symbolic attempt to shut somebody up , to take away the voice. This suggests an unwanted relationship with the victim. To open the victim up suggests to symbolically do just that , an attempt by using violence to make the victim reveal everything that the killer wants to know. To mutilate the face suggests a subconcious attempt to take away the victims identity ( the usual cause of facial mutilation is to deliberately make sure the victim is not recognised ). To take away the organs can mean the killer sees them as trophies , or as momentos to remind someone of something. Mary Shelley kept her husband Percy's heart on her desk to remind her that he loved her , but also not to forget that she had loved him. But to take a momento implies affection , to take a trophy implies superiority , thus I don't think the killer was taking momentos here. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is although there is an element of a lust killing here , I believe that these murders have depth beyond the simple lust killing or killing for the thrill of it. There is much more involved IMHO.
Author: Jill Friday, 24 March 2000 - 07:39 am
Hello Simon, I believe you have given the answer about the depth in your previous post: The throat cutting (stealing the voice) Revelling in abdomen (lust & revealing) Face mutilation (stealing the individuality) Wounding sexual organs (humiliating womanhood) Taking trophies (superiority) The depth is to have the power to do so, to have power over human beings, women and individuals. One further note. I think the taking away of the organs are both throphies AND momentos. The trophies are the reminder of his superiority (as you say), but he keeps these with affection, thus momentos. Cheers, Jill
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 24 March 2000 - 07:51 am
Sorry All, I just noticed you are all using your full name lately. Thus I post this extra bit, to show you I edited my profile to the same purpose.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 24 March 2000 - 11:03 am
Its possible you are right Jill but most serial killers (e.g. Bundy , de Salvo , Sutcliffe ) don't go to the same lengths to mutilate the body as Jack the Ripper did. What made him different ?
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 05:12 pm
G'day Everyone, What about Kelly's missing heart? This information was, at the time, withheld from the public, because it was considered too shocking. The information was almost leaked by Dr. Gabe, who told the 'Halfpenny Weeky' that 'a certain organ was missing'. Paley says that he was evidently reprimanded for saying this, because he told a different story the very next day. The 'People' tried to keep this a secret too, by reporting: 'no portion of the murdered woman's body was taken away by the murderer.' The 'Times' and the 'Daily Telegraph' insisted: 'notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of bodily organs was missing'. Simon you yourself, stated that: 'To cut off something on the body, is to stop the victim using it'! and 'Mary Shelley, kept her husbands heart, to remind her that he loved her'. Why would her murderer/murderers take her heart, just to 'silence' her? Leanne.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 06:27 am
Hi Leanne, I'll bet if the authorities wanted to withhold this bit of information from the public, they had a much better reason than worrying about shocking the public. Much more likely is that their thoughts were on the Lusk kidney episode from the previous ripper murder. All the while the public remained unaware which organ, if any, was missing from the Kelly murder scene, no one but the killer would know to send a heart through the post. Cuts down the risk of hoaxes. Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 09:48 pm
G'day Caz, Dr. Gabe 'leaked' the news that 'a certain organ was missing', then changed his story. My book: 'The Whitechapel Horrors', was written by a man who resided in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, so he could have been there. Tom Robinson says, after describing the mutilations to Kelly's body: 'As in some of the other cases, certain organs had been extracted, and, as they were missing, had doubtless been carried away.' Leanne!