Archive through March 19, 2001

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through March 19, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly: Archive through March 19, 2001

Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 08:36 am
Dear Ed, Sorry about your work-load, sounds very NHS! By the way, you cutting 'em up or putting 'em back together? I hope not both. :-) While I can follow you on the burning of clothing, and possibly some fierce inflammable...I can't just forget about the door connundrum, can I? I'm a little awkward... Rosemary
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:00 am
Hi Martin, Thanks again for the wise post about the pressures of coming to conclusions and your respect for necessary caution. Of course, no forgiveness is ever required, since the sort of reading I am doing here is not an indictment, but merely a critical reaction to writing, and writing always opens itself to its own peculiar scenes of reading and exceeds its own intentions, in any case. I find the pressures you speak of to be a fascinating aspect of our culture and a reflection of not only an industry's powerful desire for answers, solutions, and revelations (How many of these books, in their titles or blurbs alone, promise finality, truth, completeness, etc... the rhetoric is insidious and becomes apparently inevitable...), but a willingness on the part of the readers to allow such claims to stand and to celebrate the illusion of "knowing" because of the comfort that solutions provide and the (temporary) reassurance that always accompanies the fulfillment of one's own expectations. I speculated in an old post something about this as I was reading the Evans and Gainey paragraphs that elide over Mrs. Maxwell and her memory, when I suggested, "I do not fault Evans and Gainey. They were doing what they had to do, what was expected of them -- to draw conclusions. Imagine their publisher's reaction if they tried to end the chapter announcing that 'Because of the conflict between the testimony of the attending doctor and several witnesses and that of Mrs. Maxwell, a conflict that can in no way be simply resolved, we are unable to make any conclusions about the time of Mary Kelly's death or what precisely happened in her final hours.' I am afraid that would not satisfy very many readers." (Sat., March 3rd) Indeed, it may be the case that, as authors on this particular subject, you cannot write sentences like that one and expect them to see print. I think that is fascinating. You have some considerable experience and expertise in academic writing as well Martin, and you know that the expectations (and, of course, the publishers and the audiences) there are somewhat different. My better half writes and publishes regularly on Shakespeare and film. No one expects one of her books or articles to announce new solutions to problems or revelations of truth or final chapters... And she is writing about works that, by this time, have been around and discussed for over 400 years. Yes, they are fiction, I know, fictional dramas. But they are written, and filmed, and she is interpreting these writings and these films in new and useful ways, even without the rhetoric of ultimate revelation we see in some of these paragraphs that I was reading. And even though this case is not fiction, but history; the study of it is still, of course, the business of reading writing and then interpreting writing. And that, as we all know, is an endless task that will not permit finality. Anyway, Caroline Maxwell and her place, her words inscribed into this dramatic tale, seems to me to be one of a number of moments around these boards where this problem surfaces and where the language used tells us a good deal about the desires and expectations of readers, publishers and writers. These moments -- the Diary, perhaps by accident of circumstance, is proving to be another one -- sometimes bring out the best in scholars and readers, and, as we have seen on occasion, sometimes the worst. I know there are books and articles on the creation of the myth of the Ripper as a textual construction in the contemporary press and on the legacy of the writing of the Ripper case into our cultural legacy. Is there, yet, a book that reads, carefully and rhetorically, the already published Ripper books, the current studies, to see what scholarly writing about the case shows us about our own desires and expectations and how, if we remain unselfconscious about them, these desires and expectations might serve to limit our inquiries? That book, a critical meta-study of the language and the assumptions about knowledge to be found in Ripper books, might be an interesting project. Thanks again, Martin. I honestly have the highest respect and admiration for you and for those who join you in writing seriously and responsibly about this case; and any critical writing I do about the texts mentioned is always done in the spirit of, as at least one critic has suggested, saying "yes" to the text, of reading with open ears, and being doubly affirmative even as I would seek to delimit what I hear. Yours, --John
Author: Steve Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 01:38 pm
Hello All, Just to add my twopenn'orth on the MJK photos and the existence/nonexistence of the hatchet/axe. I would advise caution when interpreting the MJK2 (view towards the door) photo as this print shows signs of being tampered with. I wouldn't use the term re-touched as the result is very crude and not what would be expected from a professional photographer. The effects are in three main areas. The right lower leg. The left inner thigh. The area on the table described as a hatchet. Each of these areas show either the negative or the print has had detail removed/added by what appear to be pencil strokes. Perhaps Stewart or one of the others who have seen the original print can comment on how these effects may have come about. Leanne. The 'thingy' under the bed is just that, a 'thingy'. I've made some comments on the SOC board and believe that the MJK 1 photo was taken as the room was found. It seems highly unlikely that the photographer would have entered the room propped up the bed and then gone outside to take the photo. Martin. I hate to disagree with a professional (I've already had to agree to disagree with Stewart over the 'crucifix') but the MJK 1 photo was taken from nearer the foot of the bed than the side.The MJK 2 photo was taken from nearer the side than the foot. Haven't you got them back to front? Steve
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 03:54 pm
Steve - Ehh?? You think the picture with part of the left hand and wrist but no forearm visible is from the SIDE of the bed? The Inside or Wall side (since it looks out toward the table on MJK's left)? The sketch of the police photographer reproduced in Evans and Skinner opp. p.341 shows a camera which could produce the view with the thingy under the bed, which I have called MJK mk 1 and said was taken from the bed's side (as in the sketch). It could not take the other view looking directly up over the right leg akimbo in lower foreground, and showing the portion of left hand and wrist with hatchet-shaped outline in white on the table behind it. In any case, wherever we think the two pix are taken from, if Leanne is looking for the hatchet in the pic with the 'thingy under the bed' she's looking at the wrong one. John - No, there isn't a book surveying the literature of the Ripper; its lack has often been lamented, especially as almost every new book on the case is now almost compelled to come out with a critical (usually disparaging) survey getting rid of the 'opposition' before stating its own theory. Even a consciously unbiassed and uncommitted book like Phil Sugden's can raise Shirley's and Feldy's and my hackles by silently dismissing all Maybrick and Cohen arguments with a lofty assumption of superiority to things beneath consideration. As for the difference between academic and commercial writing, my favourite citation would really be the difference between interesting and uninteresting academic writing, as given in Francis Cornford's indispensable masterpiece 'Microcosmographica Academica', where he warns to aspiring young academic politician to avoid publishing a book that everyone reads, lest he be dubbed 'brilliant; after which nobody will take his opinions seriously. 'University presses', Cornford goes on, 'are subsidised by government to publish books that nobody reads, and they are true to their high calling!' Martin
Author: Leanne Perry Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 04:21 pm
G'day Martin, I'm looking at both photos of Kelly, mate, is there a third? The 'Diary' I bought was published in 1993 by 'Smith Gryphon Limited, London'. It's the hard cover red one, that I've seen on Television documentaries made in England. The original with the crack in the door in the background, is about a third of the size of the one with the 'thingy'. I only mentioned the 'thingy', because people were once arguing what it might be. Is the 'hatchet' directly under the crack in the door? Leanne!
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:32 pm
Am I right in thinking there is a writing or a saying, "no man is an island"? If so I'm sure that can't be right, we are , all of us "islands". Nobody knows what the next man/ woman is REALLY thinking!, we can agree and trust between ourselves, but we never really know each others true thoughts, that goes for mothers, fathers, children and friends. All of us have thoughts that will never be known to anyone but ourselves. For some reason Mrs Maxwell said she saw Mary even though she must have been lying dead at that time. There are people today who will swear on their life they have been abducted by Aliens, taken into a space craft and experimented on. I won't make fun, but I don't believe them, even though they must have had some reason, (known only to themselves), for saying such things. Jack the Ripper is refered to as the first serial killer, maybe Mrs Maxwell can be refered to as the first U.F.O. sighting report (kind of). Magic!, black or white, we like to think of it as a man thing--- (as the advert says), if you all will excuse me getting poetic and syrupy,-- a sunset, a sunrise, a rainbow, the beautiful seasons, a tree, a flower, beautiful wild and domestic animals, tending their young, the love a dog or a cat can show to a human, it goes on and on,------- THAT'S MAGIC!!! The rest is Bull Sh**, I've never believed in it and I never will. We all have our pet suspects and one persons suspect doesn't make sense to another person, thats to be expected, because we are all "islands". But no matter how much you delve, if the information that is looked for has been destroyed or never been written, then this mystery will never be solved, and you only ever will be able to surmise what Mrs Maxwell had on her mind when she said she saw Mary. But does it matter? It's interesting to talk about it, and look at the money it generates. What I don't understand is, if sensible speculation is unacceptable, and certain contemporary written evidence is unacceptable or questioned, what else can be hoped for? This Jack the Ripper story has come a long way from the felt hat, long black coat and black bag, looking for a victim,-any victim, nobody seriously believes that picture now, (I'm almost sorry about that).But now it seems to have hit a barrier that can't be crossed, it seems there are no more hidden facts to uncover, if thats the case then 2001 logic,guesswork, and surmise will have to do, but it won't prove anything, will it? Regards Rick
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:42 pm
Rick - Donne's 'No man is an island' is from his (prose) meditations in his sickness, and encapsulates his thoughts about our shared universal humanity and mortality when he hears the passing bell tolling for some one else. So he concludes, 'ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee'. I think the world of self-contained different-perceiving witnesses is more like the vision of Samuel Beckett. Leanne - How to be concise about what I think we're all talking about? Not the pic where you can see under the bed: the other one. (There isn't a third). Just below the strip of light running down the wall from the top of the pic, which I take to be your crack in the door, where it stops at the table, there is a shape on the table top - a light shape - which looks like the outline of a hatchet with the handle to the wall and the top of the blade flush with the edge of the table. All the best, Martin F
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:02 pm
Martin , this object appears on the other photo too ! If you look at the Kelly photo 13 in Sugden , about 3cm below Mary's head is the large pile of intestines and placed on top of it is what looks like a miniature pickaxe , or a small icepick. Simon
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 08:59 pm
Martin, On UPs -- true, very true. But then there are those like the University of Nebraska Press -- they publish things that are great fun, like Avital Ronell's The Telephone Book and the English translation of Glas, one of my personal favorites. Rick, You write about the state of Ripper studies: "But now it seems to have hit a barrier that can't be crossed, it seems there are no more hidden facts to uncover." But how would we know this? It implies an insight into future interpretations and discoveries that we, by definition, can't have. So, theoretically, we would never know when we were done, when we hit that barrier, since new readings and research are always possible and they might lead to new discoveries and new interpretations. History is reading and writing after all, and those two activities, like analysis, are interminable. Needless to say, I am delighted that we are now not only arguing over what various conflicting testimonies and documents might mean or what scrawled sentences might mean or what marginalia signify (all wonderful activities); we are now debating what we see in a photograph. Even this, trusting our own eyes and then writing a clear and meaningful interpretation of what our eyes tell us, is proving to be much harder than many might think. And we still don't have a very good vocabulary to discuss what we see in an image and how we see it -- thus people's frustrations trying to explain precisely what they see and where to others. And, even more wonderful, from my point of view, is that some people are looking for letters there, trying to spot the letters supposedly hidden in plain sight in the room. Poe's Dupin and Jacques Lacan would be proud. --John
Author: Jon Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:28 pm
Hi Ed, Martin & Simon. Ed, if you were to suggest that possibly a small hand hatchet had been laid across the table prior to the whole surface being sprayed with blood, then the hatchet removed, leaving a pale outline, I would not see an argument there. Although I wouldnt agree, I might not fault you for perceiving it that way, but as it is you feel quite certain that the flat pale image is an actual hatchet still on the table, and I honestly have to disagree, this is a flat pale outline which is just the same as the pale light cast across the table just in front and at the side of the pile of flesh. Your 'hatchet' has no form or depth and casts no shade or shadow. There's no hatchet there Ed, its just a light patch on a table. Now, if you know what an ancient egyptian razor was shaped like you might see that shape also on the table. Just look at the edge of the table just above her left knee, there's something laid diagonally across the front of the pile of flesh and the wider blade section is almost over her knee with the thinner handle laid diagonally away towards the top left.....its another trick of light & shadows.....but it only goes to show you can see anything you want if you set your mind to it. Simon I wondered if anyone else had noticed that 'ice pic' laid on the pile of flesh......of course, its another trick of light.... Regards, Jon
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 16 March 2001 - 12:12 am
G'day, I'll keep looking, but I can't see no 'hatchets', 'ice-picks', 'miniature pickaxes', 'ancient Egyptian razors' or U.F.O.s! LEANNE!
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 16 March 2001 - 06:30 am
Dear Jon, Now we're getting somewhere...the divination of entrails. I believe Florida John is an adept at this form serendipity. :-) Did someone mention a "crucifix"! Rosemary
Author: John Omlor Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:01 am
Dear Rosemary, "They would not have you to stir forth, today. Plucking the entrails of an offering forth, They could not find a heart within the beast." Divination of entrails and a missing heart. Not bad for 7 a.m. --John
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:22 am
G'day, I am now looking at both Mary Jannette Kelly photographs, pinned to a black board In the larger 'FM' one, you can see underneath the table near the bed. In the smaller one with the door crack in the background, you can't see ANY light source underneath the table. Therefore, something must be blocking the view underneath, like fabric or something. LEANNE!
Author: R Court Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:58 am
Hi Wolf, Sorry about the delay, I was away on duty. Now, to your post from 13.3., please remember that I have taken absolute extremes as reference for any sort of conjection about the time of Mary's death. Now, there appears to be nothing wrong about claiming that Mary could not have been killed after 10.45, Bowyer found her at about this time. As you yourself agree, if we assume Jack to be fast, we find nothing wrong in suggesting a TOD latest at ca. 10.00 a.m. To try to accurately estimate the TOD under such circumstances from RM would be, as I stated, difficult to near impossible, but I raise my eyebrows about the claim you suggest that RM can set in within 2 hours of death. I could discuss this with your patholigist friends, but it is not of interest here, Mary was dead before 10.45 a.m. and Bond claimed that RM had set in before 2.00 p.m. We must remember that time estimates on such matters as the digestive processes depend so much on the state of the person at death (was the stomach full?, empty? had the person consumed alchohol in quantity? health, body size, age etc. etc.) I did not suggest that Bond was at all correct, while still noting that he was an expirienced medical man and no fool, with his estimate of 3-4 hours. We cannot, however, suggest that the state of digestion would indicate least times of 45 minutes, or for that matter max time of 4 hours, because we don't know the actual digestive state of the food Bond found, as well as the imponderables as outlined above. What we can pretty reliably surmise is that: Kelly was dead before 10.00 a.m. that day. if as claimed by Maxwell she was alive, if not well, at 9.00 a.m. in the street it is unlikely that she would have been dead before 9.15 a.m. if she was sick and vomiting at 9.00 a.m. through the horrors of drink, she would unlikely have eaten a meal, light or not, in the preceeding couple of hours. the digestive process would have been almost completely stopped at or shortly after death, her stomach being ripped open as it was. There are other points that tend to indicate that Maxwell was wrong, but as we know, there are considerable differences in interpretation of anything possible, even by experts in the materia. Correct is to state that the digestion doesn't rule out a TOD from ca. 9.00 to 10.00 a.m. It doesn't, unfortunantly, rule out a TOD of 4.00 a.m. either. It doesn't prove anything except to suggest that Mary ate some time before death, and that this time would unlikely be from 4.00 to 8.00 a.m. Best regards, Bob
Author: Qbase Friday, 16 March 2001 - 08:16 am
Hello, This hatchet thing. If there is one to be seen, would the police of not found it when they entered the room? There is no mention of this in any of there reports or not that I have read through. G
Author: Steve Friday, 16 March 2001 - 02:20 pm
Hello Martin Sorry! Perhaps I'm being a little pedantic on the side of/foot of bed thing. J If we call the larger (looking towards the partition wall )photo MJK1 and the opposite view MJK2. In my opinion (for what it's worth) MJK1 was taken with the 1/2 plate camera resting on the window sill of the larger of the two windows with the foot of the bed angled towards the camera. MJK2 was taken with a different handheld 1/4 plate camera from the side of the bed with the photographer standing in the gap between the bed and the wall. I've posted diagrams etc on the subject on the SOC Photos board which give a clearer explanation. It is interesting that one of the few pieces of real evidence that still exists is open to such diverse interpretation. Anyway as you rightly say this doesn't help Leanne locate the photo. Leanne. Its photo MJK2. The shape is on the table to the left of the pile of abdominal material. Rosemary. Take a look at:- Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Markings on Mary Jane Kelly Steve
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 16 March 2001 - 03:10 pm
Dear Steve, I am familiar with your photo archive which I find quite fascinating.Tell me Steve, in your opinion, is it beyond the bounds of possibility that the room & MJK have been 'stagecrafted'for that photo? I apologise for this bizarre question. Rosemary
Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 16 March 2001 - 05:26 pm
G'day Steve, Everyone, I know which photo it is mate. As I said in my last post, I am looking at both MJK1 and MJK2, side by side. There is absolutely no light source, under the table in MJK2. If I put the book right up to my eyes and consentrate, I can see that what some people think is a blade, 'spills' right over the edge and heads for the floor. It is therefore fabric. It's as though the MJK2 photo was 'stagecrafted' a bit, as Rosemary says. The closest table-edge to a viewer in photo MJK1, runs parallel to the bodies left arm. In MJK2, the table has been moved so this edge (which is now out of view), runs parallel with the bodies knee. Proving that the photographer used a little 'stagecraft'. LEANNE!
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 16 March 2001 - 05:48 pm
Dear Leanne, The photographer... or Jack? (Nah, it could'nt be, surely!)I guess it all depends on just who did arrange the bed scene...so much care. John, tell us what you see, what "eye" is focussing on the lens, the photographer or Jack?Anyway, who was that photographer, Steve? Rosemary
Author: Jon Friday, 16 March 2001 - 10:08 pm
Qbase (G) I absolutely agree with you but if you recall in the Eddowes file there is a list of her belongins, like an inventory. Following the murder at Millers Court, Abberline searched the room thoroughly and made an inventory of all its contents, unfortunatly this inventory list has not made it for posterity so we do not know what the actual contents of the room were. A news report(?) spoke of a hatchet being found in the room but this is desputed, though it may be a distorted report of the hatchet (pick-axe?) that was used to force the door, and nothing more sinister than that. Regards, Jon
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Friday, 16 March 2001 - 10:34 pm
Jon, word of advice mate, it's a hatchet. If someone like you comes along and starts being sensible for a change what would happen ? The case would be closed, that's what. If someone wants to throw a hatchet at you then be pleased. They only want to prolong things (if not confuse everyone) into keep talking. Is that a bad thing ? We all throw that hatchet at you. What do you say now other than arrrggghh. Tris
Author: Jon Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 01:27 am
Ooops.. Heaven forbid I should be responsible for such an outrage....what must'I abin thinkin.
Author: E Carter Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 05:52 am
Rosemary, you are correct concerning NHS and it's 'trying' to put them back together on the cheap! It is essential to look at both pictures to determine if the object on the table is a hatchet. (the one from the other side of the bed I believe is conclusive) Remember the table contained 'skin flaps', so the first question has to be 'what's' the straight object? Several months later (and independently) I came to the conclusion it was a small hatchet. Concerning the fire and the door, Warren viewed that the killer lit the fire to light the room so he could see his work. I don't agree! I believe he would only have lit the fire when it was safe for him to do so! Then, I asked myself 'when' would be the safest time to light a fire in these circumstances? The answer! Just before leaving! But why light a fire at all ? Answer! probably to dispose of something! I believe this was the chloroform. The door, the only reason for locking the door would be to delay discovery of the body. Then why spend two hour mutilating the body in a room that amounts to a trap, then leave it on show opposite a broken window ensuring certain observation as soon as someone looked in, then bother to lock the door before leaving. The last movement on the body was upwards to ensure it was seen, look at the angle of the bedhead against the angle of the corner. Jon look at the photo from the other angle, but take your time because the photographer moved the table to take this shot. Best wishes ED
Author: Leanne Perry Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 06:47 am
G'day Ed, Good point mate! I agree that the killer wouldn't have made a large fire, until he was about to leave! He probably left at quarter-past-six, when Mary Ann Cox heard someone going down the court without hearing a door bang shut. That would put her time-of-death back to around 4am when the "MURDER" cry was heard. LEANNE!
Author: E Carter Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 07:28 am
Leanne, and there is also a great deal of evidence that she was moved up the bed, one example is in the left sleeve of her nightgown. I believe the left arm was straight when the lacerations on the lower and upper arm were made (you can see the lacerations are all at the same angle if the arm is hypothetically straightened out. The cuts on the sleeve correspond with the lacerations below. The killers each took an end of her body in order to move her up the bed. The one moving her lower end first placed the legs in abduction, then as they moved her up the bed, the sleeve rode up in the fashion you can see in the picture, the left arm fell from the lacerated sleeve down the side of the bed (marking the sheets, the measurements fit exactly!) before one of the killers picked the arm up and placed it on her abdomen. There is a great deal more , look at the marks between her legs, you can see the outline of her buttocks. Write soon, I'm back to work now, Best wishes ED
Author: Steve Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 08:18 am
Rosemary, Was the MJK2 photo staged? Nothing's beyond the bounds of possibility but I would say no. The location of the body and furniture appear to be the same in both photos. Who was the photographer? I don't know. Some of the other later victims photos do carry the name of the photographer but I'm not sure the MJK photos do,I'll have to check. Leanne How can you be sure somethings parallel to something else if its out of view? I know I'm stating the obvious but the only things in the photo we can be reasonable sure of in terms of their size , shape and location in space are the man made objects. The location of the limbs etc is another matter due to the lack of any specific datum on the body from which to work. Steve
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 08:54 am
Dear Ed, You speak of two persons in the room. Why in heaven's name MUST there be two? Is this plurality a necessary 'device' to demonstrate some form of continuity with the previous killings - where you infer a plurality of persons? Rosemary
Author: Jon Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 12:50 pm
Ok, ..just for Tris See this close-up of the table? Then this one with what I thought to be Ed's 'hatchet' at the left and the other 'thingy' at the right.
Author: Jon Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 12:54 pm
Next.... close-up of the pile of flesh.. And then what I assume to be Simon's Icepic... This just goes to show how light and shadows can trick the eye.......like we didnt know already :-(
Author: Steve Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 01:16 pm
Rosemary, Who was the photographer? A quick check shows that the Tabram and Coles photos carry the legend for a Louis Gumprecht. Whether this studio was used for the MJK photos is another matter. Steve
Author: Warwick Parminter Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 01:41 pm
Hello Ed, I would agree with you 100% that Mary's body was turned and dragged around around quite a bit during the mutilation and disemboweling, but by one man. To start with, after cutting her throat and letting her blood spurt against the right-hand wall and onto the top right of the bed, until she was near enough bloodless, to my way of thinking, he caught her by the shoulders and pulled the top of her body to the left of the bed, to make his work easier. I think he then lifted her head with one hand and cut all round her neck with the knife in the other. During the disemboweling he must have pulled and turned the pelvic part of her body, right-hand side over to left-hand side of bed,---part of her right buttock was cut off, with and including the visible part of the vagina. And to finish off, before he left he posed her body in the way it was found. I don't think he could have worked on it with her knees raised as they were, he was very intricate in his mutilations between her legs ---there was nothing left! I've said before I think Barnett killed Mary, the key was never lost, and he used it to give himself more time to compose himself, look how much more time he would have had (perhaps) if M,Carthy had decided to collect the rent on Saturday morning. I don't think Mary's murder was intended as a Ripper murder,--- but it had to be made look like one! Regards Rick
Author: Simon Owen Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 02:14 pm
Was Kate Eddowes the real target of the Ripper then Rick ? This is an interesting question as then the Ripper would have only killed one type of person ( the older prostitute ) and the Graffiti might have a more intense meaning , it may provide a reason for the Double Event too ( Stride wasn't mutilated because the killer found out that Kate had been released and abandoned Stride's body to rush to get his real target ).
Author: E Carter Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 12:42 am
Jon, in the first picture, neither are the hatchet, it's two thirds of the way up on the far right at an angle of about 320, it's blown up so it's a little out of line, this happens when you enlarge. The object described by Simon as the 'ice pick' is the same object from a different angle because the bed has been moved, again the pictures been overblown therefore the shades have run into each other, I got the exact same effect when I enlarged this picture. It's better with a smaller clearer picture, this(expert advice). Rick, I need time to explain, I finish work at 1500 today, I have a couple of day's off I will write back later ED.
Author: E Carter Monday, 19 March 2001 - 04:45 am
Rick,I hope you don't think this begins with a lecture, it's not meant to, my reasoning begins with Martha Tabram, but due to time, I will start with Polly Nichols. As I am sure you will know the autonomic nervous system controls the fight or flight mechanism in the human body. An unexpected attack from someone will stimulate a rush of adrenadline from the victims adrenal gland this in turn causes peripheral vasoconstriction and this ensures that the central(or vital organs, including the heart) have enought blood to provide the victim with oxygen enough to either run away or stay and fight their attacker. The fight or flight mechanism often kicks in when an acute asthmatic has a prolonged bronchospasm this in turn causes air hunger and they panic, the resulting surge of strenght (even in tiny people is truly unbelievable). If Jack the Ripper had suddenly cut off the airway of one of the Whitechapel victims, the result would have been panic and a hell of a fight would have ensued. Yet Polly Nichols was apparently murdered in a quiet Row whilst someone sat in their living-room directly opposite the murder scene and heard absolutly nothing of the killing. We must ask why? But first lets look at the rest of the evidence! Polly was laid in the entrance to Browns stable, (according to witnesses, it looked as if she had been laid there!) She was laid on her back, had suffered facial bruising, both arms were by her side the legs apart and her long Victorian dress had been thrown up onto the thighs. The two Car-men who discovered Polly said that they tried to pull the dress down to cover her legs up before going off to find help, but the dress for some reason would not come down! Detectives Spratling and Helson examined Polly whilst she was still dressed in the mortuary, claimed that except for displacment of the dress her clothing was all in place, (including her linen drawers). Detective Helson stated that all the abdominal mutilations could have all been inflicted without undressing her because the buttons around her lower waist of her dress had undone.( the mutilations were between her stays and the waist of her drawers). Let's try to make sense of this. Imagine she was chloroformed in Browns stable yard this accounts for the lack of noise in Bucks Row and the facilal bruising. Then two killers carried her out side into Bucks Row one lifting the upper torso and one lifting the lower! The man lifting her legs first raised the hemline of her long Victorian dress to enable himself to get between her legs and grip under the knees before they carried her out. Whilst they carried her along the hem of this long dress drooped between her legs and onto the ground, then as they put her down she sat on it! And this is why Cross and Paul could not pull it down! There was no reason to lift the dress if the lacerations were inflicted via the unfastened buttons on the dress. Polly still wore her drawers, so if they sexually abused her, one actually took the time to replace them.I have always been surprised that no-one has ever mentioned that Helson said the buttons were undone, or that Cross and Paul said they could not pull the dress down! I will support this later concluding with why I think two people lifted Mary Kelly, I have to go out now, best wishes. Jon I think that this type of hatchet was used in the leather or furnishing trade, it had a ridge running up the back of the head.ED
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 19 March 2001 - 05:25 am
G'day, Studying long and hard at the actual photos in the 'Diary', the only thing that I think could be a thing is the 'thingy at the right'! Jon was right, there's no form nor shadow cast by Jon's 'hatchet' and Simon's 'icepick' is just part of the flesh. I'd still like to see Ed's 'hatchet'! LEANNE!
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 19 March 2001 - 07:00 am
Dear Ed, Whatever you think is on the 'altar', may or may not be there...and I hardly think the cops - even the most stupid - are going to reveal all, since they need to keep a few interesting bits to themselves for Jack to confirm...if they ever caught him/her. As for the Home Office, "All Cretans are liars, those at the Home Office are Cretans." Buyer beware! So you suggest we now take cognizance of nearby empty properties...from whence the duo of Jewes emerge with their burden? Mesmerized! Rosemary
Author: Roger O'Donnell Monday, 19 March 2001 - 04:28 pm
As someone who spent a good amount of time looking at the MJK pictures, I tend to agree that it becomes a Rorschach ink blot, where your mind makes patterns to make sense of it, especially in enlargements which just add noise to the image. I for one have never resolved MJK's face, both analyses published on this board being equally valid to me. The 'hatchet as shown appears to be just light, the 'knife' looks more 3d, but its really not possible to state categorically that it is an object and not just a trick of folds and cuts As to whether the room was seriously rearranged for MJK2, I think the jury is out. I spent a while looking at the geometry of the room, and things mapped quite well,too well for major intervention to have occurred, allowing for some spherical distortion from the lens used, although there was no guarantee that 1)I was right 2) the room was rectilinear, bearing in mind the house was possibly a conversion rather than custom built as rooms. just my twopennoth as always R
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 19 March 2001 - 05:51 pm
Dear Roger, You think the 'knife' is a realistic possibility? What type of knife would you call it? Mac the Knife, Rosemary
Author: Jon Monday, 19 March 2001 - 08:02 pm
Rosemary In a previous poste you say "I hardly think the cops are going to reveal all"....good point, except..(there's always an exception, right?)...whatever was in the room on the morning of the murder was witnessed by 5 Doctors, untold numbers of police & police officials and at least one photographer, who according to one story, took several photo's. I think it might have been a chore for the police to hold back any secrets as regards room contents. I dont believe any weapons were found in the room, even thought the 'thingy on the table' is the most, to my mind, convincing patch of shadows that could be used in an argument. That news report of a hatchet we've mentioned before, some weeks back is the only report I know of, and it is dubious. I thought your "Cretans" were supposed to be "Greeks", as in "If a Greek tells you 'All Greeks are liars'..do you believe him?". And I've passed Armley Gaol more times than I care to remember, never heard of Eastmoor, knew a couple of ladies in the Roundhay area. I used to work at (memory laps) where the ringroad intersects the main Leeds to Otley road, forget the name of the place (Headingley?). Thats the road that runs through snobs paradise (Bramhope?)..my memories bad. Dy'a know Yeadon? Time for a cuppa.... Oh, and one other thing....."I'm not a number,....I'm a free man".