Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 03:07 pm |        |
Simon, Mick and David- good points all
For my money a copycat Ripper murder would probably show injuries more along the lines of an Alice McKenzie, with the clumsy throat-cutting and shallow, uncertain cuts. Certainly not the carnage of Miller's Court.
AAA88 |
Author: Paul Boothby
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 04:24 am | |
Simon, Chris in his note said he thought that Barnett killed MJK but not the others. Now whilst I agree with your point that it would have made more sense to slit MJK's throat out on the streets if you were after attributing to murder to JtR, but if this were my first killing I'd feel a damned sight happier doing it indoors (without the attendant risk of passers-by happening upon me in mid murder) and over doing the mutilations in the hope of getting Jack the credit.
Just playing Devil's (or Jacks) advocate.
Paul |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 07:20 am | |
Hello all,
It seems that some wouldn't accept that one killer was responsible for the Whitechapel murders unless each wound found on each victim was exactly the same shape and exactly the same length.they would then dismiss the canonical five as they were not quintuplets!
If Barnett killed Kelly then he WAS Jack the Ripper.To say that the " Butchers shambles" that was Kellys room on that dreadful morning was the work of a copycat killer is absolute nonsense.
Even if Barnett had grown to hate Kelly because of the way she had treated him(evidence suggests this was not the case anyway),would he have spent 20 minutes slicing lumps of flesh off her?Would he have emptied her abdomen of its viscera? would he have arranged her organs in a pretty paterns around the bed?
No of course he wouldn't,he would have struck her and when she fell he would have ran like the wind!
Regards,
Mick |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 10:42 pm | |
| 'Long Liz Stride was called Long because she was tall-Is that right?I read somewhere that these nicknames were in some way related to characteristics that described the person. What do you think 'Black Mary' meant?It certainly had no reference to her appearance, because she was fair. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 12:20 am | |
Hi, David:
We believe the "Long" referred to her surname "Stride" as in "stride out."
Chris |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 05:49 am | |
G'day David,
Mary Kelly was noted for her quick temper. Tom Cullen states that's how she got the nickname "Black Mary".
LEANNE |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 08:28 am | |
Black though is not the color usually associated with temper,
but death .The planet associated with black is Saturn-not a peaceful sign but an evil sign.I wonder if Cullen got that interpretation from imagination or upon something more solid? |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 04:01 pm | |
David,
Black can refer to many things, not just death. Leanne and Tom Cullen are probably both right that it refers to temperment. Kelly certainly was in a few fights with Barnett.
When nicknames are given to people -- and I have a few myself -- it's simpler to refer to someone's name, physical appearance, or disposition. The word 'black' has many meanings. In accounting, black is a good thing, it shows how prosperous and successful a company is. Nothing to do with death at all. If we call the night black, we are usually saying that it is dark, dismal, or gloomy.
I think you may be looking for something that isn't there in 'Black Mary'. Also remember that Kelly was also known as 'Fair Emma', and 'Ginger'.
Even Chapman is sometimes called 'Dark Annie',
which, once again, probably just refers to her mood or hair color, not something more grave or sinister.
Cheers,
John
'Johnny Upright' Now is that interpretation Walter Dew's or Jack London? Perhaps both are correct. Perhaps I'm just Thick :-) |
Author: Nick B
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 07:32 am | |
Thought id put in my two cents.
It is known that MJK had a short temper.
"Black Mary" could have meant many things.
Black is word that is often associated with disaster and bad things;
A black day, the stock market crash on Black Friday.
And most reciently in Australia, the Christmas fires that sweapt accross New South Wales, has now been dubbed "Black Christmas."
According to the dictionary, "Black" is also;
"Evil; wicked: the pirates' black deeds.
Being or characterized by morbid or grimly
Marked by anger or sullenness: gave me a black look." |
Author: Goryboy
Thursday, 21 February 2002 - 07:33 pm | |
Hi, all:
Regarding MJK's split thigh bone: I've read several claims that JtR must have used an axe to split the upper femur of MJK's left thigh. I recall one contemporaneous author (whose name escapes me, Ripperlike) who claimed he actually saw the axe in question at the Scotland Yard Crime Museum. Like so many other pieces of evidence, the axe went missing and has never been recovered.
I'd like to pose the following: if indeed that wound was caused by an axe or hatchet-like weapon, how about the small bone axe carried in most amputation kits of the day? I've surveyed a number of antique British and American surgical and amputation kits, and have found several of the latter to contain a small bone-axe. Here's a photo, with the item outlined:
Note also the choice of surgical knives -- the longest of which is 12". Also note the smallest of the knives, with the short, rounded blade -- like the type used on Liz Stride....
This is a Teufel Surgical Kit, circa 1878.
Could be our boy was indeed a surgeon of sorts?
John |
Author: Monty
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 08:16 am | |
Gory,
Interesting.
Ive always wondered how available these sorts of "kits" were.
I mean, I know that everyday Joe public may not be able to afford new but could they be obtained via pawning or second hand shops ?
Monty
 |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 10:13 am | |
John (Gory),
Your post and photograph made me think on a number of things, such as, the parcel wrapped in American cloth carried by Hutchinsons suspect. I don't know what your box of knives would measure, but it looks about 18 ins long to me, I particularly like the look of the third one from the top. But surely the killer wouldn't carry all that kit and kaboodle around with him ,--would he?. If he did, why didn't he saw Chapman's head off? some people think he tried to take her head off! If he didn't have his saw with him, it goes to show that while he may have been an expert gutter and kidney remover, he didn't know about cutting through a joint to part a bone, seems he only knew how to cut flesh.
The axe business John,-- he split her left thigh bone,--I would have thought if he split one, why not two, why not her pelvis, her head, why just one thigh?. The bone axe seems very small to tackle a thigh bone, it seems only to be about 6ins long. The axe went missing and was never recovered,--I'll venture to say, there never was an axe--for bone or wood. There was certainly a knife,-- a special custom ground knife, very likely with an ordinary rivetted wooden handle, and it was the same knife that accounted for all the victims except Stride. I think Stride's murder was a razor job. |
Author: Rodney Gillis
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 12:49 pm | |
Hi All! First post at this site.
Please forgive me if this question has been asked, but I recall somewhere on my reading of JTR that the police actually believed that if you looked into the eyes of the victims, you might see a reflection of the last thing seen while the women were still alive, sort of an "impression". I especially remember this in relation to the body of Mary Kelly but I can't locate my citation. Is there anyone who has heard of this or is my mind playing tricks? Thanks! |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 01:22 pm | |
| If you check out a copy of Jack the Ripper - A Bibliography and Review of the Literature by Alexander Kelly with David Sharp, The Association of Assistant Librarians (Group of the Library Association) with the assistance of Remploy 1995, you will find, on pp. 33-38, 'A Digression on Eyeballs' which gives a pretty full history of this subject with references. |
Author: Rodney Gillis
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 03:12 pm | |
Thanks so much for the help Stewart.
Rod |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 03:19 pm | |
| I've asked this several times, and got no answer Is there any particular reason,symbolic,utile or whatever why the breasts were removed in a circular cut? |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 03:26 pm | |
Hi David
Perhaps because you only get square bap's on venusians? and these grow out of her back! not very nice to look at, but great fun to dance with? |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 03:32 pm | |
| Thats no answer. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 03:48 pm | |
David -
I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "circular cut." As we are talking about JTR, I suspect you do not mean a mastectomy, which is a careful procedure designed to remove the maximum of infected tissue while leaving as much non-malignant material intact.
To give a reasonable answer to a rather distasteful question - breasts can be removed in one of two ways. The entire breast can be grasped in the hand (rather like a balloon) and lopped off with one swift stroke; this, however, requires a very sharp knife and power, and is likely as not to hurt the one doing it. The second way is to cut round the base of the breast (I shall spare you a tour of the various fatty pads and muscles and other fascia) and thus remove it. Much simpler.
Apologies for the queasiness of the discussion,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 04:21 pm | |
| Thanks; somebody on these boards mentioned this particular method and related it to symbolism connected with masonry.I had never heard of it and so I asked. |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 04:34 pm | |
No David, that is the answer! how else would you do it? now had they been cut on a square! that would have been a clue? but I cant see any other way Jack could have removed them! the blade followed the natural contour surely?
What makes you think that the cutting of the breast is a clue? are you also speculating that the placement of them (one at feet and one under head I think?) was also a relevant act? personally I think if the breast had some relevance to Jack's MO then we would have seen simular work on the other victims? It would seem to me that Jack cut off whatever protruded? ie the nose, the ear's etc, So I dont see how he could have ignored the breast, do you?
Should you have a theory on this topic? I would love to hear it.
chears GF |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 07:06 pm | |
Hi, all:
Interesting responses from everyone. And I'm especially pleased to see Mr. Evans in on the discusson. Caught a re-run of "Jack the Ripper: Phantom of Death" on the Biography channel t'other night, and got to see our own Stewart Evans, Martin Fido and Don Rumbelow. A cut above the usual Ripper programme (you'll pardon the expression). Nicely done, esp. the footage of 1880s London.
Now, then, as to the "circular" cutting of MJK's breasts. I believe this comes from (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Stewart) the original post-mortem report of Dr. Thomas Bond, who wrote: "Both breasts were removed by more or less circular incisions, the muscles down to the ribs being attached to the breasts."
Bond's report is a remarkable document in many ways, viz: he correctly gives the location of MJK's various excised parts and viscera, "...the uterus and Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet," etc., unlike later reports which had the breasts on the bedside table.
Bond also offers what surely must be one of the first in-depth criminal profiles on record (see points 10 & 11 of his report).
Hope this helps.
John |
Author: Goryboy
Friday, 22 February 2002 - 07:09 pm | |
Warwick,
I agree: very doubtful JtR would have carried the whole kit with him. Like you, I suspect he used a knife similar to the third one pictured, possibly one or two others. He likely would have carried more than one weapon; possibly one of the longer amputation knives and a smaller, defensive knife. Just a guess. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 11:01 am | |
Hello,
Anyone out there ??
How dare you all ignore me. Dont you know who I am?? Dont answer that.
Like I asked before, How easy would it be for a regular Joe from Whitechapel to obtain one of these surgical knives or kits ?
Extremely curious Monty
|
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 06:09 pm | |
aaa38
Sorry, I can't go along with that, I don't think a "copy cat" could bring himself, (herself?) to commit the butchery that "Jack" used that night.
I still think that Mary Jane was the target all along. I don't know why, but I really don't see "Jack" as the classic sex killer that he has always been thought to be. The murders where committed with some knowledge of the area, knowledge of Police movement, and percision.
Jack was not a "sexual sadist" His victims were dead before any mutilations were performed!!!
A sadist revels in the pain he causes. He would not deny himself that pleasure by killing his victims first.
Sorry!! I got a bit carried away with my answer. If you are still around, please let me know. I'd like to discuss this.
Herb |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 08:34 pm | |
Herbert Shaffer, I could go along with your belief, SO FAR. Kelly the target,---in what way?
Rick |
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 08:53 pm | |
I think that the cirmumstance speak for themselves to some extent. All of the murders before Kelly were committed in the out doors, or
at least the bodies were found in the out doors.
In this one instance, the Killer takes more time.
This one particular killing was more brutal, more vicious than all the others. Was this only because Mary had a place to take her "johns" I don't think so.
I don't know why yet! It just does not seem to make even bad sense any other way.
I have also always wondered at the lack of blood at the scenes, and the lack witnesses who heard something. These small streets in Whitechapel were full of rooms leased by people like McCarthy. And also rife with "Public" houses, and their clientel. How could these murders have been committed in the first place, and how could the killer have gotten away in the second place?
Herb |
Author: Goryboy
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 09:17 pm | |
Monty,
Dear heavens, Sor, no no no. I would never ignore you, I just don't know the answer to your question. My hunch is that, no, the average Joe Sixpack in Whitechapel would not have been able to afford a complete set of surgical knives. But mayhaps he cadged a few from the hospital mortuary where he worked evenings? |
Author: cue
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 07:01 am | |
HI,
Could someone tell me if CE was the only victim to be photograhped before and after autopsy.Were the others treated the same and those photos are now missing?Also on FIND A GRAVE site Mary Kelly has a large white gravestone about 3 ft.sq. who paid for that does anyone know?
Thanks cue |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 08:17 am | |
Gory,
You noticed me !!!!!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
I was just wondering if a down at heel surgeon or student surgeon would have popped them at any time.
Thanks for answering anyway,
Monty
PS, Where the hell did ya get that wine glass ??
MONSTER ! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 09:18 am | |
| Monty, Pawn shops were a common site in the area of Whitechapel and hard up medical students would no doubt pawn equipment.The shops in the Ratcliffe Highway were well known to sell everthing from exotic birds and animals to anything one would wish to purchase. Buying such an item as a surgical kit or knife would not be a problem.Also one could always go to a surgical supplier. |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 10:22 am | |
Ivor,
How are you feeling now? Better I hope.
So it would be very plausible for a non-surgical person to obtain such a kit if they were reasonably well off?
Also, instead of selling the whole kit, would the brokers contemplate selling it knife by knife ?
Monty
|
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 03:18 pm | |
Herb, you say the circumstances speak for themselves,--- well, they do, when he killed Nichols he made a mess of her stomach, as well as cut her throat, but the killing didn't compare with what was to come, and that was because he was either a complete novice in killing, or he was disturbed. When he killed Chapman, he must have been on tenterhooks in the process,--or he had plans, he knew exactly what he would do if someone came down that entry. What would it be!!!Kill the intruder as he or she came around the door?. Take off, over fence after fence until he was clear,-- maybe he knew a good way to go. If, (as it turned out) he didn't find himself trapped and he could go back out to the street via the entry, then, no problem at all, I believe he was an ordinary looking bloke joining with other ordinary blokes going to work. Gloves on, or hands in pockets, smoking a pipe or whistling a tune,-- who would take any notice?. I'd say if he was expert at anything it was preventing a mess of blood.
I don't believe Stride was killed by the Ripper.
When he killed Kate it almost seems as though he was playing,--he was rather elaborate wasn't he?. We think he didn't have time to do what he did, obviously he knew he did, and he made a joke of it. He didn't have to worry about getting trapped in Mitre Square, I think he would have known about P.C.s Watkins and Harvey. People say, why didn't Harvey see Kate's body, or Kate dead, with the Ripper crouching over her?, but really, it was dark, was his lamp good enough, would P.C.Watkins have seen Kate's body if he had not had a lamp, even though he was so close?, it was the dark corner of the square.
I think he killed where he met them, or followed them to, they knew each other, and I don't think prostitution came into it at all.
The man that butchered Kelly knew Miller's Court well. He knew he wouldn't be disturbed.
Mary Kelly figgered in this saga from the time of Nichol's or Tabram's death, but not in the way it turned out. Jealousy, hate, and a turned mind came into it, and with time to spare resulted in that terrible killing in Miller's Court
Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 03:59 pm | |
| Hi Monty,I am feeling a lot better now thankyou. If one has money Monty one can obtain anything material.If a pawn broker had a surgeons kit all boxed up and he sold one knife from it then I believe the value of the set would fall if a piece was missing.A pawn broker would not like to break up a good set. I have seen 19th century surgical kits, and all manner of surgical tools etc advertised in auction in Country Life Magazine even today. Also one could have obtained surgical tools on the black market in the ripper's day. A good fence could obtain such equipment for a buyer.If the killer was a surgeon though he would already have the tools of his trade at his disposal. A determined killer would have no trouble in obtaining the correct tool for the job. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 06:28 pm | |
To CUE,
All of the victims were photographed in the mortuary. Louis Gumprecht shot the mortuary photographs of Martha Tabram and Frances Coles. And Joseph Martin is being investigated by Viper as having photographed the Ripper victims, including Kelly. There is a good photography thread on these boards if you want to read up on this further.
The headstone for Mary Kelly was paid for by money raised by John Morrison about 15 years ago. He wrote an absurd, yet highly collectible, booklet 'Jimmy Kelly's Year of Ripper Murders', which contains mostly news clippings and a few letters. Morrison has also fought to have the word 'prostitute' removed from Kelly's death certificate as her occupation. A £5 reprint is available from the usual sources.
Cheers,
John |
Author: cue
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 06:41 pm | |
Thank You John,
Its amazing how much you people know about this case.
CUE |
Author: Monty
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 07:47 am | |
Ivor,
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Regards Monty
|
Author: cue
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 10:41 am | |
Hi,
As to the light streak in Mary Kellys photo,couldn't the camera have been set on the bed,and the light streak is from the window not completely covered,instead of the door hinge.I'am going by the diagram in Sugdens book pg 312.The camera seems very close to the victims leg.That way they didn't have to move anything in the room? The chair in the photo could have been used to stand on to hang the blanket.
Thanks cue |
Author: John Savage
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 05:20 pm | |
To Jack Traisson
I was interested in your posting regarding "Jimmy Kelly's Year of the Ripper Murders". You say that a reprint is available from all the usual sources. I would very much like to obtain this, so could you be kind enough to elaborate on these "usual sources"
Many thanks and best regards
John Savage |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 25 February 2002 - 06:27 pm | |
Hi John,
Here are where I buy many of my Ripper books:
The usual sources:
Loretta Lay (who had Morrison's reprint when I was there yesterday) http://www.laybooks.com/
email: lorettalay@hotmail.com
Ross Strachan (if he doesn't have the book you want he will search the four corners of the world for you) ross@rstrachan.fsnet.co.uk
Rupert Books (also specializes in Sherlock Holmes)
http://www.geocities.com/rupertbooks/
email: rupertbooks@ukonline.co.uk
phone: +44(0)1954 781861
Geoffrey Cates Books
http://www.abebooks.com/home/GEOFBOOK/
email: geofbook@durham.net
International League of Antiquarian Booksellers
http://www.ilab-lila.com/
The Casebook Bookstore (small but impressive)
http://www.casebook.org/booksale/
Cheers,
John |
