|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 11, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
How Many Victims?:
Archive through July 11, 1999
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 10:36 pm |        | To all interested:
I'm in agreement with people who want to include Tabram in the series. Others will disagree. Could we postpone that debate, and the one CM is plotting/scheming/hatching behind my back (all to make me look sillier than usual on the Casebook -- grinnin' at ya, CM!)? Let's see if consensus is remotely possible on just one victim...otherwise, let's go back to free-for-all.
One other thing. Object if you think what I'm about to propose is unfair etc. Let's imagine that it's still 1888 but we know what we now know about serial killers, etc. It's the day after the double event. We're all cops or PCs. If your choice of victims in the series could possibly lead to capturing the killer (through eyewitnesses, profiling, everything except the hard sciences), how strongly would you fight to keep Stride out of consideration? Would you in effect divert any of your police force (and don't weasel out by saying two different murderers, but I wouldn't divert forces) to chase two murderers instead of the one we're used to calling JtR?
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 03:32 am | | Hello all,
A whale of a headache after a weekend birthday party.
As bobby then and now, I'd have had Stride and Tabram as a victim of Jack. Only after the powder smoke had cleared, would I perhaps have seen more clearly or at least differently.
Tabram. I don't think so. Stride. Perhaps, if Jack had a mate who either kept lookout or was even the killer this time. My 'apprentice' theory (Yawn)
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 09:21 pm | | Hello, everyone -
Just passing through, so I must keep this short.
Yaz, you ask why Barnett would kill Mary Kelly if his whole career as the Ripper (and for the nonce assume he is) was based on frightening her off of the streets. Well, here's one thought: he's murdered Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. It seems to work. Kelly is off the streets, and as long as he stays tight, the police will be chasing other leads and suspects and won't be on to him.
He loses his job at Bishopsgate Fish Market. Now he can't provide for the two as he used to. Kelly is perhaps sneaking about behind his back, seeing her other men or dabbling in prostitution again to make some beer money. She brings Julia Venturney to live with them - friendly gesture or something more kinky? We don't know. But they argue and Barnett is forced out.
Is he now to start murdering all over again simply to end up back on the streets after a few weeks? He might be moonstruck over MJK, but he isn't (we think) an idiot. The odds are bound to catch up with him sooner or later. But why should he leave and let Kelly flounce about with other men? Without him? After all he did for her?
Well, you see where this leads. A few drinks, some brooding over the injustice the unfeeling bitch is doing to him, and the deed is done. And how much easier to razor Kelly out of existence if he is already the Ripper. And who's to say the lesson was lost on her? Why not wake her up that cold November 9 just to show her the knife, the man and the reason she must die?
I agree - it is psychological slight of hand, :-) but it's as good an attempt at providing a thought pattern for Barnett as any.
And were I on the case in 1888? I would certainly include Stride. There are surface similarities in her case that make it worth considering as part of the series; I think it would break down only when I began considering the differences (location, circumstances, personalities, &c.) Tabram? I honestly don't know. I do know I'd want to talk to Dr. Killeen and see how firmly he believes in the "two weapons" theory.
Happy birthday, Bob. Happy Thanksgiving to our American friends.
CMD |
Author: Dave Yost
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 09:43 pm | | Hi Yaz,
In reply to your question about my thoughts on profiles, I must apologize up front for having been too brief. Essesntially, I think that if a person chooses a profile first, then looks to seek our killer, there is potential for bending the information to fit the profile, even if the profile comes from a "professional". However, if one has secured his/her conclusions first, then ordains a profile, thereby allowing the profile to form to the information, then I think that person will be much further along. While this may seem obvious, I dare say the former is done sufficiently enough.
As for my thoughts on Stride, I have concluded that it was Schwartz's first man who had killed her. Based on what information is currently available to me, I offer that Liz died at approximately 12:47-12:48, adding that the footsteps Mortimer heard were those of Schwartz's first-man leaving the scene of the crime. This time frame is still in keeping with Mortimer's c.12:45 time for hearing those footsteps. But was he JTR? I would say probably not, for one reason the attack was done in public.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 24 November 1998 - 11:18 pm | | Hey! (Oops, Bob. I didn't know it was YOUR birthday....HB, BC!)
First CM: all the Barnett stuff is fine up until the murder of his motive. It's obvious that AT THAT MOMENT his motive has changed...he is angry enough with Kelly to kill her. THAT'S a classic crime of passion case. Would he be so cool with Kelly, with all those feelings for/about/toward her -- all absent against his other victims -- to commit the same type of crime, "only" increasing it's hideousness? No, I think there would have been a hell of a lot of noise while they fought and then, in heat, he would stab/punch/bludgeon/whatever -- impulsive behavior. Later he might try to hide it, but the medical examiners don't indicate this. You might make something of the fire, but I don't know what except compound speculations. More on this when we come to Kelly, okay? And thanks for the holiday wishes. You mean the British don't celebrate Thanksgiving too...just for being rid of us goony Americans?
Dave: YOU should come to the MO & Signature message board that Hawk set up. In small steps, I think a bunch of amateurs -- myself included -- are trying to build a profile of the crimes and the killer or killers. Jump in. In my opinion, only you and Avala seem to have a good grasp on profiling. The rest of us are still learning. As to Stride, see the Cinemascope, Technicolor, 3D version of debate CM has hauled me into on the Victims board, under Stride. You'll find my answer to your objections there. I wonder if we can get Charleton Heston to narrate an audiotape version of our miniature "War & Peace" epistles, CM?
Yaz |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 05:26 am | | Hi All!
No, Yaz. It wasn't my birthday but thanks anyway. It didn't stop me from drinking much too much, anyway. Incidently we limeys do celebrate a 'Thanksgiving', but end of September as religeous thanksgiving for the harvest.
About Barnett. I agree with almost everything everyone has said because it all makes good sense.
But....
IF the 'Dear Boss' letters are real, Joe can be suspect because of his Irish blood. The words 'Boss' and 'get buckled' are and were typical expressions in Ireland as I have said elsewhere (I have Irish blood in me too).
IF Kelly was off the streets because of JTR and not because Joe was supporting her, why did she drive him away? She could only have had interest in his money and not him. As he lost his income.... out with the bum. She drove him away, little doubt about that. That trick with the other women could easily have been a part of the scheming bitch's method. Joe's testimony about MJK being good-hearted does not have to be the truth. She was, or had been, his great love.
IF Joe, having at last understood, flips out and kills her in a crime of passion then I too would expect recriminations, fistycuffs, a dirty great fight immediately before the act. (I think on my own stormy past, not that I have chopped anyone)
There was a fight as Joe left, witnessed by the neighbours, but MJK came through without a scratch.
WAS Joe a violent man? Even the ripper could have been and probably was a quite, even gentle sort of guy who melts into the background. Until BOOM! But that doesn't seem to fit Joe. The BOOM I mean. Joe must have had a lot of patience with MJK. He knew that she was probably whoring, possibly behind his back and yet he still kept her. After he had already left, he came back regularly to see her and even apologised that he could give her no money, knowing that she was whoring.
Somehow Joe makes the impression on me of being a small, hurt guy who loves someone enough to cling to them even after all hope is gone. (Even after her death he defends her.) Can that be Jack, who coldly disassembles her to her main components? Only the missing heart could be a clue.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 07:54 am | | My last words on Barnett and Kelly until we get to her on the Victims board. I would need more than J. B.'s testimony that he wanted Kelly off the streets...lots of it and more than just words. There's every possibility he enjoyed the money she earned from prostitution; and her need to pay her room bill and POSSIBLY support J.B. is just as viable a speculation as what I've heard so far. And -- as I flip through the pages of The Many Faces of JtR, I notice there were philanthropists and reformers working in the area who scored some pretty major accomplishments against prostitution and brothels. Murder-to-scare as a motive seems...too much? And the heart missing lends an obvious touch to the jealous lover theory...nice catch, Bob.
Yaz |
Author: Dave Yost
Wednesday, 25 November 1998 - 12:35 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Thanks for your kind remarks, and for the invite.
Yes, I'm aware of the MO & Sig discussion Hawk has started, but have not yet enough time to jump in as it were. Perhaps this weekend, I'll have some time to read what's been posted.
I hope also to read what has been posted on Liz, as I find her entire case somewhat more fascinating than I do the others, except perhaps for MJK.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 08:52 am | | G'Day everyone,
On page 48 of Donald Rumbelow's 'The Complete Jack The Ripper', it states, of Annie Champman's envelope, that on one side was the letter 'M' and on the other side was the seal of the 'S'ussex regiment.
Further down the page, it states that a 'popular rumour' was that the murderer scrawled on the wall of the yard: 'Five; fifteen more and then I give myself up'. Is this true? |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 09:08 am | | if it is, this explains the letters 'M' and 'S' found on the envelope that Annie carried her pills in, plus if the message was from 'Jack' this would mean that he was responisible for three other murders, before Chapman, being the 2nd of the generally accepted five.
LEANNE! |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 01:29 am | | I think in order to know whether to include Tabram we need to establish once and for all if murder was a going concern in Whitechapel. I have read in some sources that Whitechapel had no murders at all in 1887 and only a few in 1889. One of the above letters states that murder in Whitechapel was a dime a dozen. Which is true?
I am currently reading Douglas' book, Anatomy of Motive. He states that MO's tend to evolve. Murderers seem to perfect their technique with time, adding modifications and improvements. Viewing Tabram as a first tentative effort is not so impossible. We do not have to expect a static unchanging method. In fact, according to Douglas that is not what we should expect. It is possible to see a horrible progression from Tabram to Kelly. But Douglas says they tend to learn from each murder. If the subsequent ones, Mackenzie, et. al. were Jack's work, why did they happen outdoors? Wouldnt he have learned from doing Kelly that he could (ughh) do a much more thorough job of it if he worked indoors? |
Author: Steve
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 01:23 pm | | | The more I study the Ripper, the more difficult I find identifying the victims. Until about a year ago I was happy to go along with the canonical five, now I am not quite so sure. Whilst I have no difficulty with the first four, I am a bit concerned about Kelly, she just doesn't seem to fit in. I am also inclined to accept Tabram, despite the differences between the attacks etc. I incline towards the developmental arguments, my problem is that this would tend to argue in favour of Kelly being a victim. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 03:30 pm | | Steve
Your not alone, many others wrestle with similar problems.
I have resigned myself to following the medical evidence and am confident (?) :-)
that Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were killed by the same hand.
I have very conflicting questions about all the rest, Kelly is the most likely to add to this list, but still not as certain as the other three, in my mind.
Tabram is completely 50/50 and Stride, for my money, was never a Ripper victim.
But we should keep ourselves fluid on this, the more we learn the more questions we ask. Keep an open mind and try to think objective, all the time.
And to my mind, endorsing a suspect can cloud objectivity.
Welcome Steven.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 11:49 am | | Jon -
Spot on there. I agree with your assessment of the canonical and possibles. I should dearly love to know just how firmly Dr Killeen believed 2 weapons were used on Martha Tabram, yet I'd still give her odds-on chance of being a victim.
Elizabeth Stride is a bit problematic. The police at the time believed here to be a victim, and we can only assume they had good reason to think so. Still, I confess I find the circumstances of her death to be out of sync with the other murders - and the very qualities that make the Mary Jane Kelly murder so intriguing are just those that incline me to dismiss her as a Ripper victim.
It's all a dog's breakfast after a while, isn't it?
CMD |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 02:49 pm | | Hello Chris
Yes wouldn't we love to find Killeens medical report, or more to the point, a good description of the deep wound in the chest.
Just speculating for a second, I have to wonder if the wound through the chest-bone left a pattern in the bone itself.
I think it must have done, and that pattern would give a rudimentry cross-section of the blade that made it.
If the hole was an elongated triangle with the stout or thick portion of the blade at one side then this would be typical of certain types of bayonet.
But then again if the hole was oval with the stout section in the centre of the hole then it might have been made by a weapon which has a blade at either side, like a dagger, and due to the depth of the wound he concluded it might have been a dagger-type bayonet.
We can only guess unfortunatly, and the fact that old bayonets were sold in Pettycoat for 2d or thereabouts, and kids were reported playing in the streets with them, we can't be sure a soldier was to blame afterall.
I can't understand an attack of this savagery going unnoticed, no noise? hardly believable, but there we have it.
Also a soldier is trained to use a bayonet, and trained where to use the bayonet, it might be true to say that a soldier would not thrust it through a boney area of the body.
A soldier also knows how to withdraw a bayonet, there is a technique to pulling out one of these things. Whoever plunged it into Tabram did it in the wrong area of the body, and I have to wonder if he couldn't get it back out. She may have been coming around after a strangling attempt, So he pulled out a second weapon to finish her off, in a frenzy.
Then when she was dead, he could get the leverage to pull the thing out, otherwise he risked having to leave the bayonet/dagger there, in the body.
Just some speculation to try answer why two weapons were used.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 11:09 am | | Good point, Jon - I never thought of that. But such a bayonet thrust as you describe would also seem to imply that the killer just happened to have a bayonet handy as an adjunct weapon. I suppose it's not that unusual, considering some of the rough areas of Whitechapel at the time, but then I have a silly mental picture of Martha Tabram's killer slashing at her with a knife - she stirs, and he drops his knife, pulls out the bayonet and has at her. No. Too silly, even for me. Your original point makes much more sense.
All the best,
CMD |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 06:32 pm | | CMD
One of the minor points we have discussed in the chatroom about Tabram's murder, and also one of the objections to the bayonet theory, is that we were under the impression that Soldiers may not have been allowed out on town or on leave, with their bayonets.
Let me quote from The Weekly Herald, of Aug 17th, 1888.
'As soon as the murder was known the suspected Corporal was interviewed by the Police and questioned. He had his bayonet with him when on leave at the time of the outrage; but this he at once produced, and no trace of blood was discovered upon it.'
Also Henry Mayhew, 'London labour and the London poor', 1851.
In speaking of 'Soldiers Women' (prostitutes) he wrote:
'Another of these camp-followers, her arm was scarred where it had been run through with a bayonet. "The sodgers is such bleedin cowards" she confided to Mayhew, "theythinks nothing of sticking a woman when they'se riled, and drunk, or they wop us with their belts"
Tom Cullen, in 'Autumn of Terror' records:
'An unexpected result of the Tabram Inquest was that soldiers stationed in the Tower of London were forbidden to carry bayonets or any side arms, while on leave. This information was given to me by James W. Bousfield, whose mother ran a boarding-house at No4 Star Court.'
Below, if I'm lucky enough to do it right, is a picture of my Lee Metford bayonet, of 1888, I'm told was standard issue to the soldiers at that time.
(photo, curtesy of Ron Riede)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 07:09 pm | | Jon -
Many thanks for the preceding. As I've said, the whole problem turns on Dr Killeen's testimony on the breastbone wound and what he said. The "East London Observer" quotes him as saying "some sort of dagger," while the "Daily News" makes it a "sword bayonet or dagger;" between which, you'll agree, there's much room for difference.
Now, the question of Drs Bond and Phillips' competence has been raised on other boards, so the same question might be raised in connection with Dr Killeen. Why was he called to the scene? Because he was the nearest doctor, being more or less round the corner? Was he a general GP or did he have some pathological experience? In other words - as you can see I'm leading to - did he mistakenly identify an odd-shaped wound to Martha Tabram's breastbone as being from a second weapon? That, I think, is the turning point, and one of the main reasons why Tabram is in and out as a Ripper victim.
I happen to think there is a very good probability she fell to the hand of the Ripper, but unless Killeen's post-mortem report turns up in any other venue than that of the press, she will always have a question mark next to her name.
Tell you what - buy me a nice snort of Bushmills at the 2000 Conference and we'll have a nice argument about this, eh?
CMD |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 04:08 am | | Hi, Jon:
Thanks, Jon, posting the information on bayonets and the wonderful image. I personally doubted, prior to reading your post, that an off-duty soldier would carry a bayonet around with him, but based on the information you have quoted, it appears I was mistaken in my perception. Excellent work. Thank you so much for sharing this information with us.
Chris George |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 06:40 am | | In response to CMD's valid point above...
When we have conflicting medical opinion from two experienced Doctors I think we can feel confident in siding with one against the other, as at least our opinion does have competant medical backing.
But in the case of Dr Killeen we have only his opinion to go on, and as we have nothing to counter it with except 'layman's' opinion, we can't justifiably call his experience into question.
Dr Killeen conducted the postmortem, I think he had to be competant, to do so.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
