|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Intentional Risk
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Intentional Risk
Author: Penelope Vilela
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 07:05 pm |        | | Why were all the murders except for Mary Kelly committed outdoors. It's as if the murderer(s) wanted them to be found. Did any of the other victims have homes that they could take their gentlemen to? Why not just kill Mary in an alley like the rest? Why risk going to her home to murder her? I think Mary Kelly was murdered by someone else who used the first murders as a cover to confuse the police. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 08:28 pm | | Penelope
The other victims lived in common lodging houses, they had no home to take Jack back to.
We dont know why Mary was killed inside as opposed to out in an alley. But then there are those who think Mary may not have been killed by Jack.
Mary's place was not a home 'as such', it was a single room partitioned off from the rest of a house. Houses in those days were sometimes partitioned into seperate rooms to rent out.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Johnno
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 08:29 pm | | Mary Jane Kelly was the only one of the "canonical" victims who had her own room; the others stayed in common lodging houses.
Arguably the location of MJK's murder was the least dangerous, as the killer had the privacy of an enclosed room. The rear yard of 29 Hanbury Street, Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square were high risk areas. Buck's Row less so.
In the cases of the former two, the killer may have easily been trapped if he were discovered, while in the case of Mitre Square, there were three entrances, and a beat PC entering the square every 15 minutes. Of course, if he was sprung in Mitre Square, his chances of getting out were far greater than, say, Hanbury Street.
Interestingly, any noise made in MJK's room could be easily heard by neighbours, as their testimony as to her singing shows. However, in the relative privacy of the room, MJK's killer had ample time to do his deed, and the injuries she suffered are clear evidence of that.
It is not an unreasonable theory that MJK was not a victim of Jack the Ripper, and there are plenty who believe that. Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson have been named as suspects for the murder of MJK, and certainly their relationships to MJK are cause for question.
MJK's murder may well have been a revenge or jealousy-motivated murder. It is not a possibility that can be easily dismissed. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 06:28 am | | Hi All,
It appears that the general opinion of the authorities, after the hue and cry had died down a bit, was that Stride and Kelly were ripper victims, while Smith and Tabram, previously supposed by the press to be so, were not.
I can understand the tendency to lump similar cases together under the ripper banner, especially when the violent, and apparently motiveless, murder of women was relatively unusual, although obviously not unknown. But I do have trouble accepting that not one, but two men - Kidney and Barnett - just happened to do a Bill Sykes number on their Nancies during a short and brutal series of unsolved sex murders, and that both had the luck (or deliberate skill in Barnett's case?) to fool most of the people for all of the time (at least, for the rest of Kidney and Barnett's lives). Does anyone know if there has ever been a case where a convicted serial killer has had a murder wrongly attributed to him, and where the real killer was later found to be so close to the victim?
I appreciate that no one was familiar with serial killings in 1888, but they must have been reasonably used to recognising and dealing with men who killed their partners - it was by far the most common way for women to die violently.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 01:37 pm | | | Thanks! I agree. I am sure that no one was familiar with the phrase serial killer in 1888 but, I think that the police were familiar with multiple murder. There are documented cases of multiple murder going back to the beginning of the 14th century. I reccomend P.D. James "The Maul and the Pear Tree". It's a fascinating book about a (somewhat) unsolved multiple murder in 1810 London. |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:11 am | | I think that what distinguishes JtR from other killers is the way he sort risk. All of the killings were within yards of aware witnesses.
( Was that the trigger to the murder? )
There are other ways to define the Ripper but the re-occurring Press image is of a killer who escaped capture by literally disappearing. ( ie. there was no other way because the witnesses were right there ). I don't see this as similar to modern day Serial Killers ability to blend into the crowd.
Cheers John. |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 01:18 pm | | John
I like the term "Hide in plain sight." JTR must have been familiar to and with the area of the killings. How could he have passed freely to and from the murder scenes with such ease?
Thanks, PV |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:39 pm | | We read of statements by locals of how busy the streets were at various hours of the night. Possibly a rather quiet period of between 2.00am - 4.00am ?.
But as clubs closed late 1.30-2.00am?
and markets opened early, 4.00 - 5.00am? then we can believe that the streets were only possibly quiet for a short period.
Victims were found before & after that time so if we believe the contemporary reports then the streets were not empty at the time of the murders.
Therefore, Jack was seen.....but witnesses either preferred not to come forward, or witnesses did not see any suspicious person brush past them.
Which might allow us to suppose the killer could Hide-in-plain-sight (Penelope), meaning in this case, he blended right in with the locals and acted calm and displayed a modicum of self control (speculation on my part).
No sex crazed lunatic?
No violent crazy Jew?
A calm individual with self control, a killer with purpose?
Jack blended right in with the morning hustle & bustle of everyday life.......and faded into oblivion......he was gone.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 10:46 pm | | Jon
I am in complete agreement with you on Jacks "attitude for survival." Cool, calm and deadly! Perhaps he was someone that the police had seen with prostitutes before. It would be a reasonable assumption on the polices' part that all was as it should be if they happned to see him in an alley with one of the girls.
Thx, PV |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 07:39 am | | Hey Guys,
You missed my point ( I don't particularly have an opinion on what he did after the actual murder - but I imagine he made a rapid & efficient withdrawal ).
I'm more interested in the moment of the killings when Jack seems determined to have witness's as close as possible. Which I think is unique.
Cheers John |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 02:27 pm | | John
Maybe that was part of his obsession. Witnesses so close yet far away. Maybe the victims too. The women so close yet so far away. Was it Bundy that said that while killing his victims he felt closer to them than anyone before? But at the same time he felt as if he were watching someone else commit the murders. The idea of "almost" getting caught is something we have all toyed with at some time in our lives. JTR seems to have taken it to the extreme!
Bye, PV |
Author: Jeffrey
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 02:50 pm | | Hi all !!
That there were always people nearby is one of the most astounding facts in this entire mystery. It indicates that the danger and possibly the display afterward appear to have had more meaning to the killer than the act itself.
Having such a small window of opportunity, being outside in places where anyone could happen along at any time shows that the mutilations themself were not what gave Jack his jollies. Surely if he wanted to carve up women, plunder their bodies and extract the odd organ, a more secluded place could be found.
The Ripper was very rushed when performing the mutilations, so he couldn't have had the time to enjoy what he was doing. I can't even attach any real significance to the taking of the organs as other than the focus on the lower abdomen and sexual organs, something different was taken from each of the victims. What do people think ?
Jeff D |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 07:08 pm | | Building on what Jeff was saying.....
I would agree that Jack was rushed, was lucky, and if he had some sexual based fantasy to play out then he may have chosen a more secluded place. This makes me think that the crime was focused on taking an organ, a focused attack taking only a couple of minutes.
(Devils Advocate comment)
But then we all talk about his window of time, and this window is provided by guesswork, so how tight a window was it?
Watkins did not have a watch, neither Harvey (Eddowes).
Mrs Long judged her passing Hanbury St. by the Brewers clock, was it accurate?
Cadoche equally relied on the Spitalfields Church clock, how accurate was it?
How come their testimony conflicts?
Time is such a strong element in the mythology surrounding the case that we should be vary wary of not raising Jack's stature to super criminal.
We could easily be making wrong assumptions about Jack's ability, due to our misinformation as to the amount of time Jack had.
Regards, Jon |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 07:06 am | | PV , yes!
Jeff , I'm with you in thinking that the rush may have been the rush. Yes I think the organs & the shock value of the mutilation were probably very secondary.
Jon , I agree totally. I am inclined to "bravely" accept evidence given by police (in particular) as accurate. I have noticed a perception of JTR as much as a reality. I do not have convincing grounds to disbelieve the witnesses who give that impression. Once you start discounting them where do you stop? In particular if you think Police are lying - you end up back with Stephen Knight!
I'm not leading anywhere here ... back to you guys.
Cheers John |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 08:00 am | | Hey Guys !
When we're talking about the Eddowes murder, the timing is pretty well recorded and verified and it makes this, of all the murders the more remarkable.
Couple spotted by Lawende & Co. (I'll give an approx, but not much either way) at 1:35, as confirmed by 3 sources + reasonably substantiated. PC Harvey, (I've a few questions I'd like to ask this PC :-() walked down church passage and looked into the square sometime within the 9 minutes later that PC Watkins found the mutilated corpse. I can believe PC Watkins timing, and the raising of the alarm confirms the rest. I know it was dark, but the nightwatchman even commented that a door was open and he could always hear the measured footsteps of the patrolling City PC.
The killer waltzed in, found a victim, walked down the passage into the square, performed the most atrocious deeds (including having time to alter the poor womans face as he deemed fit) and disappeared into thin air, right under the noses of at least 2 patrolling PC's. This is a truly remarkable sequence of events that I would love dear Occam to explain.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 11:36 am | | To all
I tend to think that JTR knew exactly what he was doing. This guy was sick but no dummy! If he did not calculate the risks involved then maybe he didn't care if he was caught. Perhaps he wanted to be caught. Disregarding Mary Kelly all of the murders could have been committed in way under five minutes. I think this guy had enough "hootsbah" to hang around the scene after the victims had been discovered. Maybe give a little false evidence to the police. I cannot see him slinking around the alleys like a rat. If he was a true sociopath then his ego and his lack of conscience would propel him into making the most of the situation. Am I giving JTR too much credit?
Thx to all, PV
Hootsbah doesn't come up on spell ck. so please excuse if spelled wrong! |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 03:06 pm | | I think it's "chutzpah" (I wonder if the Greek "Hubris" has the same root?), and Jack seems to have plenty of it.
But if you think about it, Jack doesn't necessarily have to know the pattern of the local PC's patrols. If he's a customer, he merely has to rely on the guidance of the prostitute as to when it's safe to nip into a dark alley for two minutes of jollies.
These women tend to work a particular "beat" and know the schedules of the local PC, and the "safe" places to conduct their business.
I've never had any doubt that Jack could pull off his "surgery" in a just a minute or two (OK, maybe 5..), but what's always troubled me is how he got away through the streets when at least his hands, must have been covered with blood and in some cases, fecal material. You would think somebody in those busy streets would have noted a bloke passing by with bloody hands and perhaps clutching a uterus or kidney. The average guy tends to notice something like that.
Keith |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 04:17 pm | | Hi Keith
Thanks for the spelling lesson! Maybe this guy had an upbringing or occupation that called for having "Stuff" on his hands. Farmer, butcher, doctor? So that wouldn't bother him. A big coat with big pockets would do the trick for the bloody hands and misc. organs. A smile on his face and away he goes.
PV |
Author: Keith Rogan
Friday, 13 October 2000 - 03:15 pm | | I've been wondering if he might not be a cartman. These guys were traveling to and from the docks at all hours of the night and would draw little attention.
I began thinking about this after reading the Nichols Inquest. The surgeon flatly states that there was little blood at the scene. This is countered by the PC's statement that there was a lot of blood.
It's confusing that two people who examined the body could have such a difference of opinion, but drawing from my ancient EMT training I recall that layman have a tendency to overestimate the blood loss when they see an accident victim. It only takes a little blood to make a huge pool on pavement. Blood, because of its consistency, tends to spread out in a large pool, quite unlike water which flows away into cracks, etc.
At any rate, we were taught to ignore the apparent amount of blood at the scene and rely on the more objective means (BP, pulse, etc) to gauge shock and blood loss.
Sorry to get so wordy but it's possible the surgeon was quite right in his statement that there was very little blood on the scene, and that the PC was misjudging what was really a few ounces of blood.
That's all speculation of course, but I tend to trust the surgeons account on this. If this was the case, then Nichols was dumped there after being killed somewhere else. If she was dumped, then we can speculate that our man was a cartman as this was a common cart road to the docks.
As I said, this is all speculative. There is an inconsistency in the testimony and if they had examined this closer they might have found the surgeon was correct, focused on cartmen and caught Jack.
And of course, we'd all be discussing the Lincoln assassination and the terrible frame-up of J. W. Booth
Keith |
Author: Jon
Friday, 13 October 2000 - 06:39 pm | | I've never heard of Bucks Row described as a "common cart road to the docks", especially as it is so far from any dockside and it runs more east-west, than north-south.
I agree with you about the opinion of laymen to a pool of blood, as opposed to that of a surgeon accustomed to such sights.
But there is more to consider about the bodies (Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes) being killed elsewhere then deposited where found, than the amount of blood that was noticed.
I had always considered that the clothing absorbed much of the blood, certainly in the cases of Nichols & Eddowes.
Any other reason to suspect a carman?, apart from the route & the suggestion that they were out all night?
Carmen walked to work, but they only picked up the carts at work, not brought them from home. So a dock worker who pushes carts all day would be a bit out of his range, almost a mile away down Bucks row.
Carmen did work at the market though.
Witnesses living in Bucks Row were said to have heard no sounds, one woman living next to where the body was found & a man upstairs in Essex wharfe, overlooking the murder scene.
If anyone heard a cart then you might have something, but even one policeman said he looked for cart tracks...whatever they might be.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Keith Rogan
Friday, 13 October 2000 - 10:33 pm | | Jon,
There was quite a bit of questioning about carts at the inquest as Bucks Row was apparently a route used to transport goods on carts from somewhere - Essex wharf?
And there was no blood soaked into Nichols clothes, it was discussed and described as well.
The cart tracks? I find it hard to believe there wouldn't have been cart tracks on any street in London.
I don't think any of the other bodies were moved, it's only Nichols who sort of leaves things in doubt. And it's not enough to build a case on, but either the surgeon or the PC were wrong about the blood.
The only other thing that supports Jack being a carman is that he would have become essentially "invisible" after each killing - somebody moving around with a purpose and with a reason to be on the streets at 2, 3, 4 in the morning.
Just a thought, really. Likely the surgeon was simply wrong and didn't see the blood.
Keith |
Author: Jon
Friday, 13 October 2000 - 11:45 pm | | I guess if Carters used Bucks Row repeatedly then maybe it was from the wharehouse, Essex Wharf to the market. Or maybe because of the Brewery at the end of the street.
Wasnt Essex Wharf owned by Kearly & Tonge also ?
Jon |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 12:01 am | | Keith
You said something there that is contradicted by testimony. About no blood soaked into the clothes.
The London Times, Sept 3rd, 1888.
"No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or clothes"
I suspect this may have led you to assume that none soaked into her clothes, but this only refered to her breast, not her back.
The Manchester Guardian, Sept 4th, 1888.
"Inspector Helson, J division, gave a description of the deceased's clothing. The back of the bodice of the dress had absorbed a large quantity of blood, but there was none upon the petticoats.......he was of the opinion that the murder was comitted where the body was found"
Regards, Jon |
Author: Keith Rogan
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 01:25 am | | Jon,
Helson's statements sound reasonable about the blood in the clothes. Heres the passage from the inquest I was referring to:
"Inspector Spratling replied that he could not say for certain. There was blood on the upper part of the dress body, and also on the ulster, but he only saw a little on the under-linen, and that might have happened after the removal of the body from Buck's-row."
And another passage from the guy who undressed the corpse:
Coroner] I suppose you do not recollect whether the clothes were torn? - They were not torn or cut.
[Coroner] You cannot describe where the blood was? - No, sir; I cannot.
It just sounds like there wasn't a lot of blood if it hadn't even soaked through to the under-linen and the guy who took the clothes off can't even remember anything about blood.
This is probably just the usual bureaucratic nonsense. Nobody took notes and the second part of the inquest was not done until 2 1/2 weeks after the murder.
Still, it's curious because people tend to notice blood and some of the peopel involved just don't recall seeing much.
Keith |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 08:15 am | | Keith
The Nichols inquest, in its original form does not exist. What you have is from news reports, and what was reported was not always verbatim.
So we have to construct the testimony from several newspapers.
The reason I gave Helson's statement is because too many people think there was little blood because of some statement as to there being a 'wine glass full', found at the scene.
This has led to the 'Royalists' proposing she was killed elsewhere, or in a coach then unceremoniously dumped in Bucks Row.
But, when we gather all the testimony from all the papers, we see that there is no grounds for this proposal.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Keith Rogan
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 03:02 pm | | Jon,
I've looked in several newspaper reports and the testimony is quite similar.
What's unfortunate is that nobody ever asks the surgeon if HE thinks the murder has been committed elsewhere. They merely ask the PC, whose opinion is (to my mind), little better than a guess.
I didn't know it was this testimony that led to the "Royalist" conspiracy theory, but I can certainly see where one might be led to the idea that the body was "dumped" there.
I'm only guessing here, but the area was extremely dark and there was a gutter next to the body into which the blood might run instead of pooling around the corpse.
I have to leave it as an open question. There is SOME evidence, that Nichols MAY have been killed elsewhere. Having no more than that, I have to assume that she was killed on the spot as the coroner concluded.
It does make a tidy theory though - a cartman quietly pushing his load through the police whistles and running PC's in the wake of the murders. Who would suspect him?
Keith |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 05:23 pm | | Keith
I didnt mean that the statement LED to the conspiracy theory, merely that it supported their theory, sorry, poor choice of words.
"The murders taking place in a vehicle alone explains why so little blood was found at the 'site' of each killing"
(Knight, The Final Solution, pg 174)
With reference to Netley's coach......
"There is evidence to support Sickert's claim that three of the women were not murdered at the spots where their bodies were found.......Dr. Llewellyn, who was called to Bucks Row to examine the body of Nichols, noted that there was only a small amount of blood in the gutter - 'not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside'".
(Knight, The Final solution, pg 236)
Personally, I think Llewellyn's opinions appear contrary to those expressed by other Doctors, after subsequent murders. Some of the opinions he gives are almost novice. But then this was the first (of 3 similar deaths) and he assumed a frontal attack (left-handed killer) and he did not spend much time at the murder scene. He also had no benefit of past medical opinions to guide him. So we must not critisize him too much.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 12:18 pm | | Keith and Jon
I think I remember reading somewhere that alcohol thins the blood. If these women were drunk when murdered wouldn't there be more blood at the scene than usual? Does external temperature effect the flow and coagulation of blood? If it was extremely cold at the time of the murders then would the blood coagulate and stay on the clothing? Anyway one more thought. It's cold. Jack has on two coats and offers one to his victim. She accepts and is then murdered. Jack retreves the blood soaked coat and either puts it on under his other coat or bundles it up under his arm or pops it in his cart. A nice little momento for his nights work?
Bye, PV |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 12:29 pm | | Sounds like you've been watching too much Columbo :-)
Best Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 02:18 pm | | Interesting discussion. However, having spent the afternoon annotating the "Daily Telegraph" of September 1, I must point out that Llewellyn's comments are being taken out of context. His "wine-glasses" bit, in full, is:
"There was a very small pool of blood on the pathway, which had trickled from the WOUND IN THE THROAT - not more than would fill two wine-glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way in which the deceased was lying, made me think AT THE TIME that it was at least probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's-row. There were no marks of blood on deceased's thighs, and AT THE TIME I had no idea of the fearful abdominal mutilations which had been inflicted upon the body." [emphasis added]
My reading of this passage is that when Llewellyn speaks of a small amount of blood he is talking only of the blood seeping from the gashes in Nichols' neck (some of which soaked into her hair),because at 4.00am he hadn't seen the abdominal injuries and had no idea of their existence. He certainly seems - to me - to already be backing away from his initial thought that she had been killed elsewhere, as by the time he gave this statement to the press, he had already seen the Ripper's handiwork and seen the large amount of blood picked up by Nichols' skirts.
With regard to Mann and Hatfield, I wouldn't put too much stock in the "you cannot describe where the blood was?" question and response; Hatfield admitted having a bad memory when confronted with the problem of Nichols' stays, and though I admit it's unlikely he missed a huge amount of blood, we must make allownaces for age. As well, they described having to tear down the front of the stays rather than cut them off, which to me indicates they might have been adherent to the body through a large amount of congealed blood.
But, only my opinion.
CMD |
Author: Keith Rogan
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 02:53 pm | | It takes a LOT of blood loss to die in this way. We're talking about perhaps 3 pints of blood which would make a large pool that nobody could miss.
But what if Nichols was still alive when her abdomen was opened? You'd then have a lot of the blood pooling in her abdomen.
And it's quite possible she was already dead when her throat was cut. The medical examination was a rather slap-dash affair at best and could have missed a lot. |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 03:15 pm | | Jon
LoL! You're right. Peter Falk as Colombo as Jack the Ripper.
Keith and Christopher
I think there must have been quite a bit of blood at the murder scenes. I wonder if the police, fearing public reaction, sanitized the crime scenes to quiet the public, not unlike the erasure of the writing on the wall.
Best to all, PV |
|
|
|
|
