|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 17, 1998
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols:
Archive through December 17, 1998
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:50 pm |        | | Polly Nichols |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 15 November 1998 - 09:58 am | | Jacks first true 'Ripper' type kill, the victim that carried the evidence of his 'signature' or style of attack.
Carried on through Eddowes, culminating on Chapman.
All laid out the same, left to right, against a wall or fence, similar throat wounds, similar abdominal lacerations, only in this case may have been interrupted in his attempt to extract 'organs'.
This 'signature' is not as evident on the body of Kelly, for obvious reasons. |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 11:48 am | | HiYa Guys !
"Look what a jolly bonnet I've got", the famous last words of Polly Nichols as went out in search of her doss money.
I've recently had cause to wonder whether JtR may have started out as a copy-cat killer, following on from the murder of Martha Tabram. I've just been pondering the possibility that Polly, as the first of the canonical victims, may be the one to hold the key to the sequence. If we consider that JtR could have got his ideas after the murder of Tabram, then I could envisage that maybe Polly was the original focus of his hatred, and after seeing how Tabrams murderer/mutilator got clean away with his dirty deeds, maybe the killers own deep-seeted hatred anger and vengence surfaced, to murder Nichols.
Nichols had a new hat, always one of the great mysteries, such as where did she get the money from, was it a gift, if so from whom, etc., etc. It could have been possible, that Polly herself, ignited the flame within the killer, maybe she had ridiculed him, or led him on, whatever. The killer then devises a plan just to allow himself to get close to Nichols to extract the same revenge on her that a disgruntled soldier did onto Tabram?
The killer tries to rekindle some kind of relationship with the wicked whore, he buys her a new bonnet, and arranges a rendevous. He strangles her and cuts her throat, then just to make it look similar to the George Yard murder, he performs the abdominal mutilations, to the best of his recollections from the newspaper reports.
The press then pounce on the sensational Nichols murder, quoting it as number 3 in the series. The deranged Nichols murderer had enjoyed this so much, and especially seeing the results spread all over the newspapers, carries on his campaign, murdering again within a week. He is now extracting his revenge not just on the one prostitute who did him wrong, but against the whole profession.
It may be a crazy idea, but I wonder if checking the acquaintences of Polly Nichols, and somehow looking for a possible motive solely for Nichols' murder, maybe we could find a thread to the rest ?
Any suggestions ????
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 01:18 pm | | Hi Jeff,
Watch out for the howl of rage from Yaz.
I've also had a theory boarded somewhere (I'll trace it if anyone's interested DIARY DIARY DIARY DIARY DIARY) about Jack giving presents to his intended victims to allay their fears, so that he could get them where he needed them to be able to... you know. I've just crossed swords with Yaz about Tabram (see that topic) and if she was a ripper victim or not.
One point about the bonnet, someone has said, was that if Polly had got the bonnet as a present from a man, she would have boasted about it and not just that she just had got one. She did have a new one, that no-one had seen before, however. She would hardly have given her own desperately needed earnings out for such a frivol so it was almost certainly a present (or stolen). From who?
The question if Jack knew his victims or not or came from their circle is (sigh) a thorny one. I tend to say no, because a common social contact to all victims by Jack would have been very dangerous for him, the Police would have been quite interested, and probably nosy, about this Gentleman's involvement and handcuffs could have clicked rather faster than Jack would have liked.
Or that was the very thing that protected him. He was so apparent, belonged so completely to the circle that no-one could see the forest for the trees. I did even consider Landlord McCarthy once as a very faint suspect. He had a lot of rooms let and knew certainly other Landlords and Tenants in the area, plus the trade of the individual Tenants. He could walk around the area day and night without attracting suspicion.
A motive for Polly's murder alone escapes me. Your point about Polly heating Jack up to the point where he strikes is valid, however. I have also put this theory forward (somewhere) as a possible ground for Jack being Jack at all. His rage at being put down by an 'untouchable' exploded into insane attacks on first one, then others.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 01:43 pm | | Hey. Jeff,
What abdominal mutilations are you referring to in Tabram's case? There were none.
And what is the "great mystery" about Nichols' hat? I thought it was Stride who bragged about her bonnet?
I'm not talking about you in this comment, Jeff, but there is a big, big difference between a series of unsolved homocides in Whitechapel (or surrounding environs) and the victims of a serial killer. A laundry list of unsolved murders does not signify the presence of a serial killer. But the presence of murders outside of the recognizable pattern of a subset of those murders does not exclude the presence of a real serial killer.
The press/public of 1888 were making reference to a string of unsolved, maybe unrelated homicides, first...THEN they began to develop theories about if they were related and who was responsible. The press/public theories were no more successful than the police's theories in defining or capturing the serial killer (JtR) OR the killer/killers of the other unsolved murders. And it's funny how the wicked press and the poor duped public seemed to be first in developing the theories the police so doggedly followed...years after the event. The idea that the murder HAD to be a drooling loonie is only one notion (introduced by popular thinking, then reported in the press, then picked up by the police) that refuses to die.
As to finding a conventional motive for serial murders, such as "jealousy" or masonic rituals or whatever...from what I read, serial killers are conventionally motiveless (the "reason" or "logic" for killing lies buried inside them). That's one of the things that make their crimes so hard for police to recognize as serial in nature, and then to try and catch the murderer. Any conventional motive of the sort you are looking for was most likely already known and chased down in 1888.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 03:15 pm | | Hi all,
SHRIEEEEEK!
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 04:16 pm | | Bob, sometimes you worry me (grins)!
Yaz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 04:30 pm | | Good afternoon, everyone -
Yaz, I don't recall ever hearing that Elizabeth Stride boasted about a hat, and humbly suggest you might be mistaken on this point :-)! I have never seen the particular "mystery" to Polly Nichols' bonnet, in any event. After all, she did say to Ellen Holland "I've had my doss money three times today and I've spent it." We assume she spent it on drink, but why couldn't it have been on a hat? I don't know that saying she was desperate and needed the money provides a reason - after all, I certainly spend money I can't afford on things I shouldn't, and there's no reason to suppose Nichols was much different.
Sugden tells us the hat was a black straw bonnet. Begg says merely that it was a little black bonnet no one had seen before. Neither say it was a NEW hat, and without post-mortem inventory to hand, I cannot say either. I would say, however, that even were the bonnet new to Nichols' posession, it does not follow that it was a brand-new bonnet. Perhaps the "mystery" of the "brand-new bonnet" is another bit of authorial licence?
CMD |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 05:06 pm | | Hi, CM,
I can't find the reference but I could swear some woman in this series, either a victim or a witness, called attention to her bonnet...that it was brand new. I remember the reference was in quotes, as if in testimony.
Maybe the mystery is how I ever thought up that reference in the first place, huh?
"If it ain't true...it oughtta be!" That's my motto.
Yaz |
Author: A.M.P.
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 07:25 pm | | | Hi Yaz. I concur that it was Nichols who boasted about her bonnet. See Rumbelow p40 (hardback edition) or Sugden p35 (paperback). Frances Coles also bought a new hat prior to her murder, in fact it was used in her identification. It seems Stride prefered to spend her money on grapes/cachous! |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 07:57 pm | | Thank you, A.M.P. (or should I just call you A? Hey, A!)
Hah! I knew one of the victims mentioned a bonnet and that the slippery CM was merely trying to throw me off the track! Still...what is the mystery about it, or any other bonnet? Do you know, A.M.P.?
And damn those nasty little cachous!!!!! Please don't mention them again or I may be ill.
Yaz
P.S., What a bonehead I am! Jeff says in his Dec. 15, 11:48 post where the quote originates. Duhhh!!!! Very sorry, Jeff. It's all Bob's fault! heehee
I also just now saw Bob's answer to Jeff. I missed it before. The truth is that it takes me so long to write a post (in this case, a reply to Jeff) that another one slips in and I don't catch it. Didn't I answer you about the presents business somewhere else, Bob? We've played dueling pixels today and I can't remember now. |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 03:41 am | | Hi all,
Hey Yaz, let me correct what I said to Jeff about Polly's bonnet. It was not described as new, Polly was testified as saying only 'what a jolly bonnet I've got now.' A slipup from me.
The question of the bonnet is important for me only if it was a present from Jack or not. You know my theories. I'll look through the board to see what we decided, you and me.
Has anyone noticed how easy it is to contradict oneself after writing a number of ripper board E.s?
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 05:20 am | | Hello All !
I did attempt to stick to the known facts, and started my post with Polly's famous last words as she left the lodging house. I admit I then said Nichols new hat, and I have never read anywhere that the hat was new. I did only mean that the hat was new to Polly.
I don't know, if the "jolly Bonnet" has any significance at all. I was just throwing out a possible theory that Nichols may have been the original cause for the entire series, which is not as unreasonable as some theories that have abounded us over the years. Even with people who hold onto pent-up hatred and anger toward something or someone, or are verging on insanity, some event comes along that pushes the person over-the-top, especially to go as far as murder and mutilation.
Sometimes my wit, and writings on message boards don't come accross as I had originally intended. I guess this is why I'm not a published writer ha ha! I didn't want to talk about the hat itself, I was really just trowing out an idea for discussion where Nichols was the catalyst, that started the chain of events known as the Whitechapel, or Ripper murders.
If we concentrate on the canonical five victims, with our enquiries, we have the main conundrum which has puzzled investigators of this case for over 110 years. Jack the Ripper Starts killing prostitutes on a night at the end August, then climaxes with the murder of Mary Kelly in November and nothing more is heard. (I am forgetting Coles)
So, I was just playing with the idea, of what actually happened to start Jack the Ripper killing. If he did start with Polly Nichols, what if anything made him focus on her ? The only significant clue (or throw-away clue), or last words, whatever, we know of Polly on her last night was that she had a Bonnet that noone had ever seen before. She was broke, and maybe she did spend money she shouldn't have on the bonnet, but if she was an alcoholic (term used very loosely, please) her priority would have been a glass of gin rather than a superfluous hat. So where did she get the hat from is a good question. maybe the hat has absolutely nothing to do with the case, and I won't talk about the hat any more, other than it was Polly's last words as she left the house.
Puff, puff, pant, pant !....... I am looking for a trigger, the catalyst that kicked Jack off. Maybe there is no motive, I do appreciate this. I know that this is one of the main reasons that Serial Killers are so hard to capture, (find the motive, you will find the killer). Chances are that Polly was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, but on the other hand, her murder may be more significant than Mary Kelly's, which everyone always seems to concentrate on, and believes is the centre?
I will summarise my points, and I really do appreciate your comments. Thanks also to CM, who I know will make sure we are at least considering the true, undistorted facts. Anyway, Martha Tabram is murdered at the beginning of August, and the press, and public are already paying attention to something happening in Whitechapel. She is stabbed (I believe) 39 times, in the chest and abdomen, by a long straight blade, possibly a bayonet, or something similar. All the residents of Whitechapel are familiar with this horror.
Yet, we start our enquiries, with the murder of Polly Nichols, on Aug 31st., in Buck's Row. We have no evidence what-so-ever, and the fact that we are already looking for a crazed serial killer, means that there probably is no motive. But what if there is a motive in Nichols murder, someone, or something could have been the catalyst that put our brooding maniac over-the-top, and started his killing spree ? This is just a scenario that I thought may be worth discussing here. I genuinly appreciate the contributions by the Pro's (sorry Polly, Annie, and all, he he!) in helping to make sure that I don't get carried away with any particular theory, but maybe discussion here, on Polly may lead to some enlightenment (if only for myself).
Thanks Everyone !
As Ever
Jeff D |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 01:49 pm | | Here I am...Polly Nichols with a few shillings (?) clenched in my grubby hands. Do I wobble over to the nearest pub and get blasted, or do I buy that jolly bonnet I saw earlier in the day. I think for a little while, decide that I feel pretty good and wouldn't it be nice to have something to show for all my hard work. I opt for the bonnet. After all, tonight doss money seems to be easy to find.
What an interesting subject....we've discussed the possible reasons why Mary Kelly was Jack's last victim, but this is new (at least to me)..why was Polly Nichols Jack's first victim? (If indeed she was....I see the ghost of Martha Tabram hovering over me)
Edana |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 02:16 pm | | Hi Jeff and Edana,
That is a good point about Polly/Tabram. Every time I ignore Martha, Yaz has a fit, but maybe we could ask him about Polly and watch him boil.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 16 December 1998 - 03:46 pm | | Bob, you're evil.
Seriously, are we confusing the human importance of any victim with their place in the sequence? Would we still have the same questions if Mary Kelly was "first" and Polly Nichols was "last?" I think we would. Chris will scorn me for saying this, but sometimes you have to step back and just look at everything as bodies in motion -- from JtR to the police to his victims. Restrict personality issues to their relevence. I don't see any relevence in Nichols being "first" or anywhere else in the sequence. What mattered was where she was on the evening/early morning of August 30/31, 1888, how she came to be there, and what happened to her. No?
Conventional crimes have conventional motives with conventional suspects who are caught using conventional police procedures and tried by conventional courts.
Is someone here going to say that the JtR-related killings were conventional and should follow the above equation -- way back in 1888 and now?
Yaz |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 05:51 am | | Hi Everyone !
I just don't understand why the main thrust of my discussion keeps getting missed ??? I am not saying that any murder victim is any less significant that any other victim, and it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things whether Mary Kelly was first, or Polly Nichols last, or whether Mary Kelly had a new hat and loaned it to Polly Nichols for a hot date, or whatever.
I will try again ........... why did the murderer start killing on August 31st. (or August 7th. even). Though if August 31st. was Jack the Rippers' first murder and mutilation, what do people think just might have been the catalyst that enraged the murderer so, as to do such a horrible thing ? Does the date have any significance ? (I don't know), Does the Martha Tabram murder have any significance ? (I don't know). Did the murderer suffer from PMT/S ? (I don't want to know). It's just that I thought it may be a good topic to dicuss openly here on message boards, as to what possibly happened to kick him off, and start what was to be such an horrendous series of crimes.
People have always tried to make connections with Mary Jane Kelly and someone, in an effort to try and find a common thread, or a possible link to her murderer, but there has never been any consideration given to the first victim of the killer (whoever she was). Maybe some event, or some person in the first victims circle of acquaintences may hold some significance?
Maybe, just maybe, if the Martha Tabram murder was unconnected with the rest of the series, her murder was what started our killer thinking ? Maybe (just maybe), our JtR was trying to copy the Tabram murder, after he had seen the results, read all about it in the papers, and was over-joyed at the fact that the killer just couldn't be identified ?
If we start from a viewpoint that Tabram was not connected in any way to the rest of the events that late Summer/early Autumn, what do people feel just might have been the incident, the person, place or thing, that may have made the villain take such action against lowly unfortunates.
I have mentioned in a previous posting that I accept that the first victim might simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but why do people feel that it was the wrong place and time ? and does the first victim have any significance other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time ?
As Ever
Jeff D |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 06:54 am | | Hey, Jeff,
Sorry for being so obtuse about your posts. I think I understand now. And after all that, I can only say I don't know. Maybe he committed similar types of crimes such as serial rape, robbery, assault...and incrementally went further each time/each crime until he passed the boundaries between life and death. He found his satisfaction in killing, in the way he did the killing and in who he killed.
One of the reasons I offer that suggestion is that it provides a means to search for a pattern in offenders' names in any extant crime records from the 1870s-1880s. If those records don't exist, this explanation becomes useless, and one reason becomes just as good as another because we'll never know, we'll never be able to test that theory against a tangible thing like old police/court records.
The only way criminologists (the ones who write books for the general public and/or fellow criminologists) "know" what starts a modern serial killer is by catching him/her and sorting out his/her answers to questions...lies from truth; real insight from self-deception. We won't get that opportunity in this case. So what's a better substitute approach? I really don't know except I don't care for looking at motives that are more "conventional" or "traditional" because the crimes don't fit those types of motives. But maybe I'm all wrong.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 07:17 am | | Hi Yaz (grin)
Hi Jeff,
I have pondered long over this matter of the starting date(s) and don't know either. Although the summer of 1888 was 'the coldest and wettest on record' and that could have had influence on people's spirits, I can't believe that such a thing could be the trigger. Maybe in conjunction with other things.
The dates themselves don't mean anything to me, as no historian but avid reader of history books I do have a bit of an idea of what was what then. For example the summers IN GENERAL were warmer and more dry as nowadays in MOE.
I am thinking of making the effort to travel to London next year to see if I can get samples of old newpaper copies for the times from, let's say, June 1888 or even earlier to the end of the scare.
Maybe if I went even further back, there could be reports about some robbery with stabbing etc. or some other pointer, or has someone else already exhausted this channel?
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 17 December 1998 - 08:32 am | | Heya Bob, Yaz and All !
This is more in line of what I was looking for, and even "I dunno" is OK. Out there somewhere, I was just hoping that maybe one persons idea, of what can start a person off, against another persons idea, or theory, just may bring good discussion on the topic. Thanks for responding guys.
Does anyone care to contribute, something to the reasoning about just what may have put such a person over the top to start killing, as in the Whitechapel, and other Serial cases and/or whether they feel Polly Nichols or her friends does hold any significance ?
You'll have to let us know when you do come over to the UK Bob, I try to get up to London once in a blue moon, maybe we could walk the walk !
Cheers
Jeff D |
|
|
|
|
