Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 01:44 pm |        |
Simon -
Mary Ann Nichols had only been in the Whitechapel area for about a month. How, then, did she become so intimate with Kelly, et al that she had to be silenced?
Somewhere on these boards is a discussion I wrote about whether or not the victims knew each other, titled "A Circle of Friends?" I believe it is under the "Victims" General Discussion board. Read it over, and let me know your thoughts (that is, if the damned thing is still extant!) |
Author: Colin David Goodman
Saturday, 04 March 2000 - 09:00 am | |
Simon -
You keep mentioning "killers", do you think that JtR was actually more than one person and why?
Thanx |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 04 March 2000 - 09:40 pm | |
Simon,
NO WAY the victims knew one other. Thinking that way is just a cop-out, because it permits all kinds of nice theories. Nice theories about the Whitechapel murders have been proved wrong, time and time again, for more than a century. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER the victims knew one another. It would further be EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that the murderer would kill them on the streets, the way he did, if silencing them were what he was after. If you want to study this case, you just somehow have to come to grips with the cold reality that attempts to generate cause-and-effect from the available evidence are self-illusions.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 06:04 am | |
| David , how are we meant to solve the case then ? I think that since Chapman and Kelly frequented the same public house , and they followed the same profession , it is EXTREMELY likely that they knew each other. Granted this is a supposition but is based on a probability. I must admit that I am in error with Liz Stride though , I was following Paul Begg as to her address in Dorset Street but I have now obtained Sugden's book and this is obviously an error. Stride and Kidney lived at 35 Devonshire Street near the Thames , by Kidney's own admission. However Liz was a frequent guest at the lodging houses in Flower and Dean Street and I believe she could have got to know Kelly and Chapman from there. Nichols was almost certainly not part of the Kelly gang but she may have been. I do believe that there was more than one murderer and I am following Melvyn Fairclough's theory in ' The Ripper and the Royals ' in suspecting William Gull , John Netley and a third party in carrying out the killings. Netley lured the victims to a coach in which they were overpowered and then Gull directed the mutilations. Hope this is helpful. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 07:29 am | |
| CMD , thank you for informing me of the' Circle of Friends ' board , which I have now read ; a very sensible discussion. As yet , nobody can prove that the women knew each other for certain and it would require further evidence to appear to confirm that they did. But it certainly is POSSIBLE they knew each other. And with Chapman and Kelly using the same pub it is PROBABLE that they knew each other in some way. I am making a supposition based on these probabilities. If Mary Kelly was blackmailing the government then it is POSSIBLE she had co-conspirators who were also hunted down by Jack , this would explain why the other women were murdered and mutilated. But I cannot say for certain that this is so , I can only believe it is so and hope to find evidence in other areas to support my theory. |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 12:08 pm | |
Simon,
I am (ahem) an occasional visitor of an establishment called The Ground Round, located at the corner of Queen and West Main Streets, Plainville, Connecticut, USA. Plainville is a rather small suburb of the neighboring medium-sized city of New Britain, with a moderate population density. While the bar maids know me, and serve me up just what I like as soon as they see me entering, and while I often recognize and speak with others there, there is NO WAY I know everyone. Every single time I visit, I see loads of people I don't know, and who don't know me, and who I'll never remember having seen. And this Ground Round, mind you is a local place, not located on a busy highway or in a big city. Its trade is mostly with Plainville locals, not transients. That's one reason why I go there, because I can get to be known as a regular, and get treated a bit better than I would at a similar Ground Round located on a highway.
Now, if I can have this kind of anonymity in this restaurant, just think how anonymous conditions were in a major London pub in 1888. You might visit there hundreds, perhaps thousands of times, and never even see half the regulars. We're not talking Plainville, we're talking Whitechapel. Therefore we need to be cautious as to how we conceive of probabilities and causal connections, I feel.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 08:06 am | |
| Ah yes , but you are talking about a restaurant in the USA while I am talking about a pub in the UK. The two are not the same thing , each British pub has its locals and the locals know each other. Kelly and Chapman were both locals at the Britannia. Please let me refer you to the wonderful film ' An American werewolf in London ' and the reaction the two American tourists get when they enter the ' Slaughtered Lamb ' pub in Yorkshire. Although exaggerated ( slightly ! ) note the relationship between the local people in the pub , thats what it would be like in an East End pub 100 years ago. In case you don't think that this could still be the case , if you are ever in London you might like to visit a pub called ' The Albion ' just off Kings Cross , that is if it still exists. I visited it as a student with a couple of friends 10 years ago ; I am still chilled by the experience ! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:43 am | |
A real pub, in the middle of the bustling East End of London, and a fictitious, rural watering-hole miles from anywhere. Readily comparable? I very much think not.
True, each pub has its locals. Inevitably, some of the locals know each other. Others they may recognise. Many more they may never have seen before in their lives, and may never see again.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 11:21 am | |
| Depends what pub it was I suppose. My reference to the ' Albion ' above was meant to show that the locals in a pub can be a very tight knit bunch and can be suspicious of strangers , even up to the modern day. The locals had obviously been going there for ages and weren't used to strangers - let alone students - just turning up out of the blue. If you visit the ' Albion ' ever , let me know if it is still the same ! Okay , perhaps the ' Slaughtered Lamb ' thing was a bit over the top but the East End was still a small world 100 years ago. Since Chapman and Kelly were locals , lived in the same street and followed the same profession I think it is likely they would be sympathetic to each other when they met in the pub. This doesn't prove anything , I just think it is likely they did know each other. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 02:29 pm | |
Be careful, Simon, not to fall prey to the fallacy that because the canonical victims were united in death, so must they have been in life. Annie Chapman was in her mid 40s, borderline alcoholic (if not already one) and dying from internal mebraneous disease, as well as not being the easiest person to get along with when drunk.
Mary Kelly was 25, relatively pretty (if we can trust to contemporary description), late of a gay house in France, and apparently somewhat frivolous, indigent and quarrelsome herself.
Just because the two were Whitechapel prostitutes using the same pub does not allow us to posit their speaking to each other. We must keep in mind personalities, and in this I think David's "Ground Round" reference to be somewhat accurate. I happen to be a regular at a lovely Irish pub near my house that has a small clientele. There are people there I see all the time, and from overheard discussions I know some of them share my interests and even profession. This does not mean I care to speak with them. Sometimes I do, but sometimes certain aspects of their personalities irk me, and I don't.
As with us, so with the Ripper victims. Just a thought to keep in mind as I make my only visit to the boards this day.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:28 pm | |
This isn't the first time I've been damned by Mr. DiGrazia's faint praise, and probably not the last. Humph!
David |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:46 pm | |
Moreover, this little comparison discretely drawn by Mishter DiGrazia above between his "lovely Irish pub" and my lowly "Ground Round" is really a bit of a low blow and a bad show, IMHO. Persons casually perusing these boards would be semiotically structured to conceive of him as decidedly more hoidy-toidy. Well, maybe I don't have my nose in the clouds, but I can think my way into and out of every substantive Ripperlogical problem. And another thing--there are NO peanut shells on the floor of my Ground Round! There!
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 04:50 am | |
Hi All,
I think we are being a little unfair to Simon here.
Okay, so the hilarious characters in the Slaughtered Lamb scene have bugger all in common with the punters in The Britannia beershop or Ten Bells pub in 1888. But then I can't imagine America has too many comparable watering holes either.
Certainly, if the interior of the Ten Bells for example was as tiny then as it is now, it would be difficult for the regulars not to recognise each other by their body odours alone. :-)
But having said that, if any of the later victims had known of a previous one by name, or just heard of her by reputation or their shared lifestyles, would this not have entered her conversation to the extent that someone close would later testify to this effect? We have no one coming forward to say 'When we heard that the ripper had done for so-and-so, my girl talked of nothing else because she knew her.' I think such testimony would have been important enough to survive and remain with us today.
So if the women did frequent the same pubs, walk the same streets, and even doss at the same lodging houses, I don't believe they knew each other well enough to make the connection when they heard the identity of a new ripper victim.
If the women themselves didn't even know that they may have bumped into one another in a crowded pub or slept next to each other in Flower and Dean Street, the murderer certainly didn't.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 09:51 am | |
| Hi everyone. As an aside , can anyone confirm that Mary Kelly's birthdate was 1st April 1863 : is there any data to support this ? I think I came across this date in a book called ' Jack the Ripper : the psychic investigation ' or something , but the title alone suggests the book is a bit dodgy. |
Author: R Court
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 12:53 pm | |
Hi Simon,
For what it may be worth my attempts to find out about MJK have resulted in the following information supplied by Rachel B.:
Mary Kelly
born 19th April 1864 in Ballingarry, registry district of Castleton, in the county of Limerick, Ireland.
Father: John Kelly, a labourer.
Mother: Anne nee. McCarthy.
Other children known:
There were two sons born to the couple in that district. John, born exactly two years after Mary on 19th April 1866 and Peter, born on 29th June, 1868. Any children to the couple before Mary Kelly are not registered at Castleton.
I don't claim that this must be the Mary Jane Kelly, but the names, dates etc. do seem to support it. A birthday date of 1st April may well be that...
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 01:41 pm | |
There is no hard evidence to prove that this was the Mary Kelly murdered in Millers Court. The only information that we have on Kelly's background comes from Barnett's testimony and so far none of it can be proved using other sources.
Wolf. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 03:35 pm | |
Hi, all:
For your information, New York's Greenwich Village has a "Slaughter Lamb Pub" at 182 West 4th Street, owned by the same proprietor who owns the "Jeckyll and Hyde" nearby on Seventh Avenue South. The same gentleman, D. R. Findly, owned the "Jack the Ripper" pub at 228 West 4th Street, until it closed some months back. I know because this past weekend I went in vain to seek out the JtR establishment as part of my effort to promote the upcoming Park Ridge, NJ, convention on April 8-9, 2000. (Get your registrations and banquet money in folks--we can only accomodate 120 people for the lectures and 100 for the banquet honoring Paul Begg and the after-dinner show featuring Frogg Moody's "Yours Truly Jack the Ripper" and we are filling up rapidly.) I had gone down to the Village because the JtR pub is still listed in the April 2000 New York City yellow pages but was told by a local resident that the owner closed it because the neighborhood didn't want it there. Interestingly, the same thing happened some while back in London with a pub named "The Jack the Ripper"!!!!
In any case, having frequented both British and American drinking establishments, I entirely agree with Messrs. DiGrazia and Radka that one can be a regular at a drinking place but not know everyone. The victims may have known each other by sight but that does not mean that they were friends or even spoke to each other, so we cannot assume that they did. That's my tuppenny worth.
Chris George
Organizer, "Jack the Ripper: A Century of Myth"
Park Ridge Marriott, Park Ridge, NJ, April 8-9
http://www.casebook-productions.org/conference.htm |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 05:19 pm | |
G'day All,
This is what the book: 'The Simple Truth' says:
'Kelly came from a stable family background. Born in Limerick, Southwest Ireland, around 1864, she had as many as six brothers and at least one sister. When she was still a child, the family moved to Wales, where her father worked as a foreman in an iron works. Kelly received some formal education and at 16 she married a local collier, who was tragically killed....'
Barnett was the sole source for much of Kelly's background, relating this information from what she told him during their time together.
LEANNE! |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 04:37 am | |
| Thanks for your info Bob , very helpful. This makes Mary an Aries which is certainly consistent with what we know of her personality ! |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 06:48 am | |
Hi all,
The information about this Mary Kelly has been taken from the Register of Births etc. then held at Castleton, Union of Croom, which is contemporary official record and not 'Barnett... the sole source.' (v.g. Mrs R. Borland). Once again, I don't claim that this is THE MJK, but the chances are pretty good that it is.
I assume even that, for example, 'The Simple Truth' may well have drawn on this or a resultant source. It is a fact that in some cases we know more of the facts surrounding Jack as our counterparts of those times. (Naturally in other cases, much has been lost to us.)
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 04:35 am | |
On the saturday following the killing of Kelly,George Compton was arrested at Shadwell by a police officer who considered his behaviour suspicious.Because he did not bear any physical resemblance to the murderer Compton was released.So the police at that time had A suspect.
The Suspect couldn't have been the person seen with Kelly at a quarter to midnight,nor could he have been the person Hutchinson says he saw.
Anyone any ideas on this suspect.
One curious thing about Kelly.While sober and with money she could ignore the arrears of rent,yet under the influence of drink she was concerned and out on the street trying at two in the morning to borrow sixpence.Usually the other way round. |
Author: Seth Tephier
Sunday, 30 April 2000 - 08:08 am | |
I have just started analyzing this case, so I am sure that someone other than myself has made this comparison. Lets start with the basic assumption that serial killers are acting out aggressions, usually stemming from parental abuse (most often the mother) and that their actions reflect rage directed at their own guilt or at those who abused them. Now follow along, like they say in a certain children’s show, “one of these things is not like the other one of these things just doesn’t belong”
Nichols – Age: 44, Hair: Brown, Height: 5’2”
Chapman – Age: 45, Hair: Brown, Height: 5’
Stride – Age: 46, Hair: Brown, Height: 5’5”
Eddowes – Age: 46, Hair: Dark Auburn, Height: 5’
Kelly – Age: 25, Hair: Blonde, Height: 5’7”
I am speculating this, that Jack was enacting rage against his mother. If this is so, why Kelly? Is Kelly a Jack victim? Any thoughts? |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 30 April 2000 - 08:59 am | |
| As Jack kept succeeding, his confidence and in a very sick sense his self esteem grew. Whereas in the past he had only had the nerve to attack older, weaker victims, he finally reached the point after the double event where he thought himself capable of taking on someone younger and more vigorous. Having said that, I am very impressed with your victim profiles. One more question which may need resolving: Was the typical Whitechapel prostitute more like Nichols-Chapman-Stride-Eddowes or more like Kelly? In other words, were most of the younger, prettier women able to do better than Whitechapel? If most of the Whitechapel prostitutes were old and broken down and Jack only prowled Whitechapel, then it would have taken him awhile to connect with someone like Kelly. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 09:24 am | |
Ok, here goes:
I really hated to do this one. Since the post-mortem wasn't that accurate as Eddowes I had to guess all over.
One subjective observation of mine. Doing this template it felt like a change of mind: most of the templates of the canonical were, even when I didn't had enough knowledge of lengths and number of incisions, had a feel of precision. Mary's not at all, it was as if I had to perform like a whirlwind. I know this sounds dark, but by performing the savagery on the victims again, with a pencil, I had an impression of how JtR had used his knife. And after doing Mary Kelly's wounds I actually begin to doubt if she is canonical. I have read many arguments for an overdo copy-cat kill, and I have experienced it like that: when making the template of Chapman, there was no information to be found about how the abdomen was cut, so I choose to point out the abdomen area. Mary Kelly's post-mortem mentions how the whole skin of her abdomen has been removed. This is needless removement against how JtR had opened the abdomen area of Eddowes. As if the murderer of Kelly didn't know how the previous victims were cut. The removing of the 3 abdomen flaps is very similar to my area indication of Annie Chapman.
Serenity to all,
Jill |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 09:33 am | |
Also there was a big difference of the face mutilations. Eddowes was studily carved, that was my impression of it anyway. JtR had studied her face, followed bonestructure and almost wanted to enhance features. This isn't so with Mary, her face needed to be obliterated. The eyebrows, cheeks and nose needed to be removed. The mouth scratched away. It is a total contrast against Eddowes.
I don't remember te result anymore, but two times there was a discussion about the identification of Mary: ears or hair. The post-mortem mentioned that both ears partially had been removed.
Jill |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 09:58 am | |
As promised, an enhancement of MJK's mutilations not only accroding to written post-mortem, but also in as much accordance with the famous picture .
Jill |
Author: Randy Webb
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 01:00 am | |
Simon,
If my friends, or acuaintences, started dopping dead because someone was removing thier ogans with out permission, i think i might ask a couple of quesions, wouldn't you. |
Author: Dave Sceats
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 02:55 pm | |
Hi All
I've just read in Gordon Honeycombs Black Museum Murders that MJK was found to be 3 months pregnant. is it true or false...
All The Best
Dave |
Author: Jon
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 03:26 pm | |
Dave
Dr Thomas Bond's medical report, from his postmortem examination of Mary Kelly, was rediscovered in 1987, and in this report the condition of the uterus was determined to be 'not' gravid, ie, she was not pregnant.
Regards, Jon |
Author: stephen borsbey
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 04:48 pm | |
did they use condoms, or did they rely on the time of the month for contraception?
or was it pot luck???? |
Author: Dave Sceats
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 12:31 pm | |
Hi
Condoms were available at this time (A kind of leather cone shape), however these were expensive and hard to clean (I will not go into details).
Interesting that Gordon Honeycomb got his research from the "Black Museum" case papers, seems strange that the official Met police paper work contradicts the official medical report.
All The Best
Dave |
Author: stephen borsbey
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 03:58 pm | |
why did the ripper smash and mutilate mary jane kellys face when he did not do quite as much damage to the other victims????
he also cut off her breasts i believe.... |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 06:57 pm | |
Jon--This brings back a very old strand of yours, but I think you might have been thinking of the following painting by Titian---"Venus of Urbino". This would probably be the most famous example of such a pose. You should be able to see it by clicking on the link below. Enjoy.
http://www.lasalle.edu/academ/fine_art/art_hist/HON483/483lecture2/sld010.htm
Somehow, I find this is a rather grim speculation. I'm not very battle-hardened, I'm afraid. (I still get nightmares about Rumbelow's chapter on Peter Kurten). JtR is more of an abstract puzzle for me. Good luck with your theories,
RJP |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:16 pm | |
Thankyou R.J.
I'm surprised anyone remembers me inquiring about that.
For the benefit of others.....
I had asked if any art enthusiast's could identify a piece of art that resembled the way the killer had left MJK. It was a off-the-top-of-my-head thought that she was left in a particular pose that resembled a popular work of art.
Thanks R.J.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:25 pm | |
Hi Jon and R.J.:
Sorry but Titian's "Venus of Urbino" is portrait of a woman lying on a bed. The photo of Mary Jane Kelly is of a woman lying on a bed. That is as close as it gets. There are many artist's portraits of women in similar poses. I rather think it may be us males who see the parallel -- I doubt that a woman would. Ladies? In any case, I would discount the possibility that the killer knowingly posed the corpse to mimic a painting, by Titian or any other artist.
Chris George |
Author: manda harris
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:30 pm | |
| regarding the question about our darling MJK - if you haven't read 'the diary of jack the ripper,' you might like to do so for a very interesting theory. that is all. |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 01:29 pm | |
Jill,
Your above schematic shows a cut through MJ's right eye. According to the newspaper accounts I have read, the Ripper did not make cuts to her eyes. Could you please explain where it says that he cut her right eye? Thank you.
David |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 05:36 pm | |
David,
Just from the top of my head 'I don't really know anymore', but I recall I had come accross an opposing matter about the eye (or was that Eddowes?). Will be looking in to that by retracking everything I read and trying to simulate the moment of decision again.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 09:09 am | |
Hi Chris and All,
It has sometimes been speculated that the display of the victims was important to the killer, and that perhaps it gave him a thrill to imagine (or actually observe) the shocking impact his work had on the discoverer. If so, he had the ultimate opportunity to leave Mary exactly as he wanted the next visitor to No.13 to see her. This leaves the door open for further speculation, using our interpretation of the photos, ranging from the simple desire to destroy the body, right through to a deliberate attempt at some gruesome human art form or sculpture.
From this female's point of view, I tend to agree with Chris's comment:
'Sorry but Titian's "Venus of Urbino" is a portrait of a woman lying on a bed. The photo of Mary Jane Kelly is of a woman lying on a bed. That is as close as it gets.'
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the killer intended to leave Mary in some sort of pose, but if he meant it to have any great significance, like resembling a famous work of art, I guess he didn't do a very good job.
For what it's worth, a couple of months ago my then 12 year-old daughter caught me with my nose in a book. "What you reading now Mum?" Saying nothing, I turned the book around to show her the illustration page I happened to be looking at. Her immediate reaction was "God, it's grotesque, just like the Mary Kelly photo, especially her face." (She then took a closer look and wondered why the artist had given the subject a pipe to smoke!)
You can probably guess it was Stephen Knight's book, the painting being Sickert's La Hollandaise.
My daughter most likely made the comparison between the picture and MJK's photo because she had rightly assumed I was reading yet another ripper book. :-) So it would have been a better gauge had she come across the painting under different circumstances and had the same gut reaction. But I must admit to a small shudder at the similar effect that Sickert's and the ripper's work seemed to have on her at first glance.
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 09:17 am | |
Out here in the Colonies we (in the local gallery ... not JTR related ones ) have a couple of Sickert's paintings - haunting aren't they.
John |
