Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 07:08 pm |        |
Jeff,
it's my belief that JtR over powered Mary as she lay in bed. He cut her throat through the bed clothes and cut her hands and arms as they wrestled and Mary tried to protect herself. After he had given the death wound, he held her still under the bedclothes until she was dead. When she was dead there would be no more spurting blood, he could cut where he wanted. It would certainly be a messy job,- what he did to Mary's body,-- but it wouldn't be a blood-bath, the blood had drained into the bedclothes and onto the floor under the bed as she had died.
Ivor, thank you for your reply, good on yer, but I still think there was a locked door and a missing key
Regards to you both, Rick. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 07:13 pm | |
Hello Bob,
I was actually quoting from Donald Rumbelow's book
"The complete Jack the Ripper"(Pg.94)--"According to Inspector Abberline,giving evidence at the subsequent inquest,the murderer had not locked the door and walked off with the key as some newspapers sopposed".
Unfortunately I don't know where Mr.Rumbelow got his information.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 08:29 pm | |
Rick, Looking at the evidence your evaluation on Kelly cant be agued with.Furthermore I agree with your comments. His MO was to cut the throat when the victims were on their sides.Then he would turn them onto their backs to mutilate them.Stride was not turned on her back because JTR had no intention of mutilating her.
Simon,There must be a moral story relating to that 20 million. I saw a programme tonight about the murder of Rachel Nickell.A Mr Stagg was arrested for her murder but the case was dismissed. A woman police officer was paid something like 125,000 pounds because she suffered from stress( trying to entrap him) in the case. The victim's son who saw his mother murdered by having her throat cut and stabbed over 35 times got next to nothing in comparison.There must be a moral to that story as well. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 08:44 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
I'm blowing in the wind! Alright, Ivor, a "Yale-type" lock it is :-)
Dear Bob,
You are correct. That is the type of lock on the door at 13 Miller's Court...don't let anyone tell you otherwise :-)
The comment concerning damage to the door was an observation based on the photo (said to have been taken after the door was gently eased open with a pickaxe, or similar item of lockpicking :-)and therefore, you must see that stated observation in context.
The lock you exhibited placed on your hypothetical
door... is reported to be the "Yale-type" commonly kicked in across many continents. You are aware that they afford little or no security against the heavy shoulder of the navvy? Hence, the derogatory term "one-booter".
Regarding the confusing matter of door handles and knobs...most doors had them, usually integral with a lock, since pulling doors shut by means of a key in the lock is an unusual habit...I happen to think the addition of a door handle/knob in some format the more likely. However, I will take your word that the door you have in mind did not have any such furniture.
My statement regarding the physical state of being "locked" is self-explanatory. Those witnesses who comment on the lock do so in terms of the lock being in a state of "unlocked" or "locked", implying they were dealing with a lock that could be in EITHER state...but if in fact the lock turned out to be "unlocked"...then something else secured the door from the inside.
In all probability a door-bolt had been "slipped"
via the arm through the window...another method of locking a door from inside.
I am just speculating along with everyone else in this regard...
Humble Ramble Rose :-) |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 08:49 pm | |
Rick, thank you for your explination of what
probably happened in that room - and my heart goes
out to Mary for trying to stop him if you are right. Still given that they were going to sleep
together (as Jack's "cover story" for Mary)I still
wonder if he was in his underwear or naked, and
if so, did he put his clothes in an out-of-the
way place to prevent any blood getting on them.
Also, although now it appears that the story of
Dew falling down has been attributed to several
others who were in at the grusome discovery of
the remains, it means the floor was covered by
blood - so that the sheets and blanket did not
"sponge up" the blood as well as Jack would hope.
Moreover, if he has to fight her arms, and proceeds to cut any artery a geyser of blood is
likely to go up into his face or eyes. Mary will
still probably die, but it does present a problem
to the killer.
God, looking at those photos, I only wish that if
Mary had had a fighting chance, she had been holding a revolver or a larger knife - and got at
least one good, painful wound in. Sorry, but that
is how I do feel about it.
Jeff |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 10:05 pm | |
From Walter Dew's memoirs....
As soon as the chief officers arrived they decided to force the door which, if I remember rightly, had an automatic lock. I followed the others into the room......(description of the scene)......All these things I saw after I had slipped and fallen on the awfulness of that floor".
(The Hunt for Jack the Ripper, Walter Dew, 1938) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 03:21 am | |
| It is my belief that the killer left the room void of any blood on his person.All he had to use was a standard oil cloth apron or a surgeons apron. and burn either on the fire before he left.He may also have taken spare items of clothing with him as he knew that this one was to be rather messy.Then burnt any soiled items of his on the fire. The items belonging to Mrs Harvey were possibley burnt to cover the fact that he had burnt his own items in the fire.Taking a change of clothes could confuse the issue. For if he was seen going in to Millers Crt wearing one set of clothing and was seen wearing entirely different clothing on leaving ( including head gear) then descriptions could be given of two different men while in fact only one was seen.If I were in Jacks shoes I would have worn one set of clothes (unlike I usualy wore) to the job and a totally different set ( unlike I usualy wore ) on leaving. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 04:28 am | |
Dear Mick,
Thanks for your reply. I understand where the confusion arises now. Abberline did not say the door was unlocked what he said (according to Rumbelow) was 'the murderer had not locked the door and walked off with the key' which is entirely different.
Rumbelow is stating that the belief that the murderer locked the door (with a key) and walked off with it is incorrect. This was said because it was found that the door was fitted with a spring lock and did not need a key to lock it.
Its easy how anyone reading this passage could assume that Abberline was stating the door was unlocked.
Dear Rosey,
Ummmm yes....I think. Actually if you read my posts you will see that aon one of them I say that I believe there was some form of stationery knob fitted to the outside. That means a knob that is merely screwed to the woodwork to give purchase, not attatched to or giving leverage to any other piece of door furniture.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 06:08 am | |
Ivor,
When you write of the killer taking an apron or spare clothing with him,does that mean he knew it was to be a murder indoors.
The other killings appeared to be the result of chance encounters,and in no instance where a possible sighting of a suspect was made,was such apparel evident.
Unless a meeting with Kelly was prearranged,which from available information seems unlikely,surely the killer set out as he must have done on previous occasions,not knowing how contact would be made,or what situation would be available to him.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 06:34 am | |
Dear Harry,
That is the nub of the Kelly killing, is it not.
A random set of circumstances led Jack into the Kelly household; or, there was a prior arrangement between Jack and Mary Kelly to meet up there...(1)Kelly opens the door for Jack, (2)
Jack opens the door himself. Since (2) is no longer a valid scenario according to Bob and Ivor,
WE MUST CONCLUDE KELLY OPENED THE DOOR ?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 07:45 am | |
Dear Ivor,
So, two men can be one; and, one man can be two...
but which is which?
Rosey :-)) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 02:18 pm | |
Rosey, We are not dealing with two men we are only dealing with one.
Hi Harry, It is my contention that the murders were pre-planned. All the murder sites are laid out in the same manner from the centre of the Whitechapel Junction. I believe he picked the victims up on a main road taking them down a side road and killed them off the side road under available cover.All murders were committed in this manner when viewed on a map of the period. For example from Berner Street into Dutfields Yard which afforded cover from the Street. I believe he had checked out the places in advance where they were to be killed. I believe that he knew Kelly but not necessarily the first four victims. If the murders were pre-planned as I believe they were and Kelly was the only one killed in her room then the killer either knew her or knew of her. Also we have quite a long time lapse between the murder of Eddowes and the murder of Kelly. I have heard varying reasons for this. One being that the killer was keeping his head down waiting for the heat to go away. I propose a different reason which I have never heard aired before.For about 8 months Kelly had been living with Barnett in 13 Millers Court.Just before the murder Barnett moved out and various women stayed with kelly keeping her company.Thus the killer had to wait for the opportunity to arise before he could murder her it that room.And he could not do it while others were staying with her.Two days after she had been living alone in that room she was murdered.The killer had been biding his time to kill Kelly and when the chance came he took it.I believe the killer possibly met with Kelly in Commercial Street and Kelly took him back to her room.I hear people say that the murders were done just on speculation by the killer. Look at the beat times in Mitre Square.Then check on how long the mutilations would take place. That murder was not down to luck it was down to very precise and careful planning. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 05:04 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
Right you are...one quick-change artist! Obviously with a 'post' nearby...watching Kelly's coming and goings. Scared out of her wits by the tales of Jack the Ripper she was safe in the knowledge that her secret-lover was close at hand...her secret-sign through the window would elicit a dashing response from her bold...etc...
but unknown to her he was Jack the Hat...the Dark Stalker, known to cinema fans everywhere as...The
Deer Stalker?
Something along these lines, I am sure.
Rosey ("blowin' in the wind") :-)
Rosey |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 06:52 pm | |
Deer Ivoir,
Your candle is burning at both ends.
Rosey Flames. :-) |
Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 08:20 pm | |
Dear Bob,
To clarify.My interpretation of what Abberline was saying, is virtually the same as yours.
As I see it,what Abberline meant was, that the door was held shut by its automatic bolt mechanism,and that a key wasn't used .
This statement of his,effectively kills the "Ripper had the key" theory.
However none of this,makes discussing the details of the lock any less interesting to me.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 08:24 pm | |
Dear Rosemary,
Does the name KELLY JONES mean anything to you?
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 05:44 am | |
Dear Mick,
No.
Rosie :-) |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 06:01 am | |
Ivor,Rosy,
There is the possibility that the killer knew of the missing key,and of the alternate way of opening the door.His primary need I think was to know that the door could be secured from the inside.
The question of whether the door could be secured by locking from the outside was a small consideration for him.Just to have closed it tight would have allayed suspicion that anything was amiss,all he needed was sufficient time to clear the court.He could not plan that no one would call on Kelly,but I think he would have left at a time when he considered no one would do so.
I have on a previous occasion stated that I thought the Kelly killing was the result of planning through knowing of her circumstances,
but I am not of the opinion that the other murders were.Had Nicholls and Chapman had their doss money they would not have been on the streets,and no planning could determine the direction Eddowes would take on her release from the police station.
I believe the killer would have found other victims in other circumstances and locations,but that would have been of a random nature and not the result of predetermination.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 06:11 am | |
Mick -
Isn't Kelly Jones the singer from the Stereophonics? Unless that was what you meant, then it doesn't mean anything to me, either. 
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 06:48 am | |
Hi Guy,
Indeed, Kelly Jones is that singer - one of my daughter's favourites.
But don't you remember we had a Kelly Jones last summer (female?), claiming to be descended somehow from Mary Kelly? I assumed Mick was wondering if Rosey was on this (Mother) Kelly's doorstep, since the poster in question disappeared in the middle of being asked for more info about her past.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 07:04 am | |
Dear Harry,
Chance or design. The roll of the dice? Or the slick hand of a poker-player?
Warm R Cosy :-) |
Author: Michael Lyden
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 08:53 am | |
Hello,
Caroline,got it on one!Only I would prefer it to be, Bucks rather than Paradise Row.
Guy, Stereophonics? No,I was getting the distinct impression that only ONE speaker was involved
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 08:57 am | |
Caz -
Of course! Thanks for the memory jog.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:01 pm | |
Rose, I do indeed burn my candle at both ends I have always been something of a night owl.Old habits die hard:-)On the subject of dice and poker players did you know that Dr D was a gambler who used the name 'Sudden Death'which is a gambling term.Just as appropriate as Jack the Ripper under the circumstances dont you think?
Harry, I agree with your comments.In fact I like what you are saying. It has been stated by some people that Jack had arranged to meet with Eddowes on site.We can never prove he did or didn't.But he was onto a sure bet that he could pick up a victim near the prostitutes church which was less than a two minute walk from Duke Street. Because of the precautions which were being taken to catch him ( police stopping any male seen in the company of a women after 12.00am )it would make sense that he picked up the victims as close to the chosen sites as possible.Thus he is only in their company for a minute or so. Let us not forget that the prostitutes were told to stick to the main roads for safety.All the murder sites are located off a main road. Jack was using the main roads and not ducking and diving around the labyrinth of back alleys etc. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 04:35 pm | |
The Nichols,Chapman, and Eddowes murders were VERY public affairs!!, so was Tabrams, if you count her death in the Rippers tally. He left the bodies with their mutilations, legs spread wide in very public places, for anyone to see, HE WANTED THEM SEEN!! he was that sort of killer, he was treating females with contempt,-a certain type of female anyway. If Mary Kelly's murder was a true blue Jack the Ripper killing, WHY wasn't the room left wide open to all and sundry when he had finished the job. Overcoat taken down from window, and DOOR LEFT WIDE OPEN,-- leave the killing as public as the previous killings. Why did he go to all that trouble?, leaving a covered window,-- a door FASTENED in such a way that people today can't make up their minds how he did it?. And he was such a being for showing off his work!!
Rick |
Author: Michael Lyden
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 06:22 pm | |
Hello Rick,
I disagree,I think that it's more likely that Jack's victims led HIM to these secluded spots.
Of course Jack knew his "handiwork" would be fully appreciated when each body was eventually discovered.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 06:24 pm | |
Rick
He didnt need to display his work in Kelly's murder, he knew the press would do it all for him, .....he upstaged the Lord Mayor's show !!!!
And he knew the media would give him the headlines.
Jon
(just an opinion) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 07:07 pm | |
| Hi Rick,JTR's contempt did not just stop with prostitutes. He also had contemp for those who were trying to catch him.He thought he was very superior, a smart arse if you like. So what is the point of being such a smart arse if no one is aware of the fact.That was his weakness. Jeff Bloomfield wrote a good piece on this subject. I believe JTR could not keep his mouth shut (as was the case with Neil Cream and others)and he left evidence which pointed in his direction.There is such evidence in this case which has never been produced.The killer made statements which were never checked out by anyone.The evidence has always been there waiting.I dont like what he did but if the truth was known he gave those who were trying to catch him a fair crack of the whip.They were not up to the task. Was it Anderson who said, "if I could give this case my undivided attention then I could solve it in a day and a half" or words to that effect. Then the daft sod made a statement in which he said he spent two days on the case and never had a clue who the killer was! It took me 9 years of my undivided attention sometimes working a 20 hour day on it.You get out what you put in.If I was a married man at the time then I could not have done it and remained married.I got married at the end of it.That is the type of effort I refer to.There is a price to be paid if you see my point.Anderson & Co were not prepared to pay that price. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 09:23 pm | |
| Mick, If you study the location where each victim was found and place each location on an ordnance survey map you will find that the layout of each site is the same from the centre of the Junction.Also the first four victims were placed East,North,South,West.This does not include the precise distances which I have placed on this site.Thus taking all of these facts into concideration the chances that the victims took the killer to the sites are nigh impossible.The chances alone of four victims being killed at random at the four points of a cross in a built up area have been placed at ONE IN FIFTEEN MILLION,TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR.That is without including the distances involved, or the same layout of the sites from the centre or the fact that 4 victims were killed East,North,South,West. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 10:43 pm | |
Hello Ivor,
I have heard,many times, this idea that the Ripper killed his victims in certain areas,with the itention of forming a cross shape,and to be frank,I think it is absolute rubbish(strictly for D'onstonites).
It is all an illusion.If you look hard enough at anything you will see paterns forming- the ones you want to see.Just think how much time has been wasted "pulling" words out of MJKs wall or trying to unravel the "encoded" messages from the Goulston street graffito.
Sorry but no amount of facts or figures will convince me on this one.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 10:59 pm | |
Ivor,
I was forgeting Mary Kelly,do we now have a perfect cross with a slight wiggley bit on the end type thing?
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 12:04 am | |
| Mick, I dont see that fact can be an illusion. I can understand what you mean by, if one looks hard enough one will see paterns forming. The point I am making is that it is not an illusion that 4 victims were killed East, North, South,and West but it is a fact.And many such facts exist.Victims, 3,4,and 5 for example were on the line of a 500yard radius accurate to within one metre when measured on a O/S scale map of 1/2500.That is fact not an illusion.And it can only be achieved by working out the sites on a map and using a compass to draw a circle. Surely facts are better than assumptions. If one cant be convinced by facts then one cant be convinced by anything. The first four victims were killed at the points of a cross. Mary Kelly was not killed to profane the christian cross.She is not connected with the other four victims in this manner.Mary Kelly was killed to profane another christian symbol. Best wishes. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 02:37 am | |
Ivor,
When you talk about a 500 yard radius,the centre point must have some significance, and must be a point of reference.Or have you taken each location and created the centre?If so then it is meaningless.
I'm sure I could come up with a whole host of mathematical relationships between these points, if I spent long enought at it.
Jack murdered his first four victims in locations,known to be frequently used by prostitutes.
I just can't see the Ripper sitting at his table with his o/s map and his "whores local haunts" list,working out these geometrical paterns or routes.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 06:16 am | |
Mick,
It might be fair to say that all of Whitechapel was frequented by prostitutes,though some points,public houses and the high streets,were more used than others.
The killer's chance of meeting a victim,at least at the start of his rampage,were high where ever he was likely to venture.
His main danger was to be seen and recognised in the near vicinity of his victim,just before or soon after the crime had been carried out.
In saying that,I am of the opinion that killer and victims were probably both recogniseable to quite a large part of the Whitechapel residents.
His timing,if the cry of murder in millers court is to be believed,shows a careful understanding of that time of a morning when the movement of people outdoors is at its lowest,and the response to any situation except in self interest,is practicaly non existant.
That the door did self lock was probably an unthought action,what the killer needed was an unobserved entry into Dorset street, and no more than a five minute start to whereever he was bound.
H.Mann. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 08:54 am | |
Dear Ivor,
The magnitude of precision is mind-boggling!It may transpire on further surveys with more advanced technology that the exactitude is even greater than YOU thought...down to sub-atomic level of the Quark!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 10:15 am | |
Rosey,
You have p*** taking dowm to a fine art!
Harry thanks for steering us back on course.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 10:54 am | |
Dear Mick,
Thank you for the arch-compliment...but as Ivor has demonstrated for the non-metrologically-gifted
this degree of PRECISION is but a small step for man but a giant leap in the annals of Ripperology!
And there is no way this FACT can be further by-passed simply by dismissing it.
Incidentally, the next sub-atomic particle to the Quark is the Snark.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 11:24 am | |
Dear Rosey,
You have the science of quantum mechanics,down to a fine art also.
Another(Pinchin Street)arch- compliment.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 12:52 pm | |
Harry, a scenario for you,
our friend finishes playing with Mary, he goes to the door, opens it a fraction and listens!. Not a sound from the court, he puts his head out of the doorway and looks up the court and down the entry to Dorset Street. Dark, nothing to see or hear. He goes out, pulls the door quietly and gently shut behind him, most likely without taking his eyes off Dorset Street, after all that is the way he's going to go. He starts down the entry to Dorset Street as quietly as possible. He reaches the entrance to the street, he pokes his face just beyond the edge of the brickwork to see if the coast is clear. "Damn, damn," he recognises an aquaintance coming up from the direction of the Horn of Plenty. He dare not let him see him,
he draws back into the entry. "Oh my God," what does he hear now,-- further up Millers Court, in the darkness, a door opens, and footsteps begin to approach him as he stands pressed up against the entry wall... NOW WHAT!!. I think Kelly was killed in the heat of a few hours thought. No thought given to this situation perhaps arising, I don't think her death was planned, he was just lucky
Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 06:59 pm | |
Mick, The centre does indeed have a significance.
Rick, Luck did not come into it. When one takes everything into concideration.The timing at Mitre Square for example and much more including all the measures that were being taken to catch him.He did not escape detection because he was lucky.He was careful and he planned well.If he was the village idiot as some would have us believe and he just killed on the spur of the moment without any planning what does that make those who have tried in vain to catch him? I'm off for a months vacation as from tomorrow so by the time I get back on the boards I will expect this crime to have been solved!!! After all is said and done you are only dealing with the village idiot. |
