Author: Marie S
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 09:24 pm |        |
They dubbed him Jack (like John Doe). He sent some letters to the papers, to officials, and once a piece of human kidney to the Whtiechapel Vigilance Committee. I think he like Poe; both were haunted carvers of the soul, each had damned strange ideas about women.
But on a good note, reform to Whitechapel, new laws for the slums finally came. Of course you know the killings just stopped, and he never was caught. He's the best known, more important and mysterious serial killer, the sickest avatar of Conscience. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 03:55 am | |
Good idea Ivor! Perhaps we should all go Victorian at some point down in Bournemouth - some of us have dressed up like that at the Xmas Smoke and Stagger meetings - great fun.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 09:59 am | |
Hi, Ivor:
Although the Bournemouth conference will, I am sure offer a chance for a "Knees Up," our musical is most assuredly not a singalong!  I believe you will find that Jack--The Musical offers a vibrant look into the time of the Ripper, his psychology, and the lives of the victims and his pursuers. Paul Begg has written an excellent introduction to the illustrated book that accompanies the CD of highlights from the show. You can read excerpts from his introduction if you go to the conference website at http://www.ripperconference.co.uk and follow the link to the musical.
See you in Bournemouth! I will look forward to receiving a copy of your book at that time.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 10:28 am | |
Hi Chris,
It was announced today in the St. Petersburg Times (my local paper) that a new opera will soon premier in San Francisco based on the life of our own local serial killer here in the Tampa Bay area, Aileen Wournos. Ms. Wournos, you might recall, killed six men over some period of time, after getting rides from them here in the Tampa area. She'd hitchike on the local highways and then kill the men in thier cars. She is one of the few female serial killers we have. There's already been a goofy tv movie (starring Jean Smart, of course) and, on the other hand, also a fascinating documentary about her made by Nick Broomfield.
The new opera apparently plans to try and explain why she turned into a serial killer. She had an abusive father and was sent to live with a pedophilic grandfather and alcoholic grandmother and was put out onto the street and became a prostitute at a very early age. At the time of her killings she had a romantic relationship going with a woman who finally made the call and turned her in, helping the police find and catch her.
I have my doubts about this opera.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 10:51 am | |
Hi, John:
Thanks for letting me know about the opera on Aileen Wournos. Who is the composer? I saw an opera a few years ago called The Voyage of Edgar Allan Poe by Dominick Argento, and it was pretty turgid stuff. I fear that the Aileen Wournos opera may be similar. I have not seen it or heard any of the music from it but you know that Stephen Sondheim wrote a musical called Assassins. Luckily the music written by my partner, Erik Sitbon, is pretty accessible and in the popular vein. Erik is an accomplished guitarist and a fan of Elvis Presley. When he is not composing music for Jack he and his brother Pascal are playing "Hound Dog" and "Blue Suede Shoes" in French clubs and restaurants.
Another Florida connection: Mary Ryzuk, author of a book on the Gainesville Ripper, Danny Rollins, has also written the lyrics for a Ripper musical called Jack the Ripper in which she collaborated with composer Regan Ryzuk. They based their musical on the novel by Marie Belloc-Lowndes. I guess serial killers make excellent subjects for musicals! I have also heard of a musical called Cannibal! The Musical which played in New York. This musical, by Trey Parker, is or was, I understand, based on the story of Alfred Packer, the only American ever convicted of cannibalism. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 11:40 am | |
Hi Chris,
"Wuornos will have its premiere tonight in San Francisco -- the fruition of five years' work by Carla Lucero, a San Francisco Bay area composer."
"The curtain will go up to show Wuornos -- played by soprano Kristin Norderval, an experienced performer of new music -- at the Last Resort, the Port Orange bar where she used to pass the time between customers.* As the killings and Wuornos' capture and trial and conviction play out, flashbacks will show the trauma of her early years."
"'To make sense of her life is ultimately my interpretation -- an artistic interpretation,' Lucero said."
"Asked recently by letter about her reaction to being depicted in an opera, Wuornos, who sits on death row in a prison in Fort Lauderdale, wrote back that 'my main concern is if the composer has been made aware of the fact that I've come clean in all of my cases' -- that she has dropped her original claim of self-defense."
"'I killed in pure hate, robbing along the way,' Wuornos, 45, wrote. 'So if this person hasn't heard, then I'd sure appreciate if someone would inform him or her of it. Otherwise -- further misleading will only carry on... and society doesn't deserve that.'"
"Lucero thinks Wuornos' campaign for execution is, in the condemned woman's view 'the only way to get control over her destiny.'"
"There is another perspective on Wuornos' story, of course: her victims' families."
"'I'm sure I speak on behalf of the families when I say that they would be very upset' about the tale's being played out on stage, said Wendy Hallowell, victims advocate coordinator in the state Attorney Gerneral's Office."
"'Maybe someone should write an opera about being a victim.'"
Selections from today's St. Petersburg Times -- pg. 25B.
Chris, at least you don't have to deal with your killer offering you editorial corrections from a prison cell. 
--John
[NOTE: She was a prostitute as well as a serial killer.] |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 12:00 pm | |
Hi, John:
Thanks for that additional interesting information about the Wuornos story and opera. True enough I have never received any messages from Jack! Although all the same I do admit he does visit me during the night. Jack comes and goes in the night like Maybrick . . .
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 10:13 pm | |
Not that this will help much with those adamantly opposed to a sexual component in the JtR killings, but I offer an interesting article in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997; edited by Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan, and Robert (believe it or not, Spinal Tap fans!!) Reiner:
"Masculinities and Crimes" by Tony Jefferson
The role gender plays in criminality is given a good airing in this article. And I hope there is no doubt that gender is a component of sex. The article is especially good in juxtaposing the ideas behind words like "gender" and "sex" and how they are viewed in criminology.
I don't suppose anyone would care to compromise and substitute "masculine" or "gender" for "sex" or "sexual" in the description of the component factors in JtR's crimes?
No. I thought not.
Pessimistically,
Yaz |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 10:08 pm | |
To the Intelligentsia Assembled,
Please indulge me the following serious inquiry.
Then kyew.
Ahem. When we speak of the Lusk kidney as having been "longitudinally divided," what do we mean? Do we mean that it had been cut as if from the front of the body, in which case we'd have two different pieces, or do we mean it had been cut straight through its seam, as it were, in which case we'd have two mirror-image pieces?
Ever so affectionately,
David |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 10:18 pm | |
Our once resident Dr. Thomas Ind had this to say about the division of the kidney (Jan 23rd, 2000)
I wish I knew what was mean't by cut longitudianlly. Mike you may be able to help remind me by remembering descriptions from your anatomy days. From this I assume that it was cut from top to bottom in a front to back plane or would this be called 'saggitally'. This is important. (I have a radiology meeting on Tuesday and my radiology colleagues use these terms so I will ask them if Mike, like me, has forgotten the answer) If it was cut through halving it's thickness (leaving the front and back parts in different pieces) and thus displaying the renal pelvis and medullary rays, then this would not be the most ovious way to prepare a kidney for eating. Get a kidney and cut it in half, there are three ways in doing it. One through the middle from left to right. The other from up to down but to cut through it's thinest thickness is only done in postmortem specimens to display the anatomy. So if it is cut this was, then it supports the theory that it had been taken from a PM specimen but only after the pathologist had looked at it. If it was cut the other way then I have a question for Jon. When I bought my kidneys, they had knife marks in them. 2 of them had an incision from up to down (in a back to front manner) in such a way that if the incision was complete the left and right portions of the kidney would be seperate. Why is this? Did the butcher do it on purpose? If so, then I propose that if the LK was cut that way, then it could have been bought from a butcher.
Regards Jon |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 10:56 pm | |
This is the view I believe is longditudinal..
http://www.kumc.edu/instruction/medicine/pathology/ed/ch_16/c16_skid_xsect.html
|
Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 11:07 pm | |
| . |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 11:07 pm | |
 |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 05:50 am | |
Dear Jon,
T'other i ate.
Rosey :-) |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:12 pm | |
| Thanks, Jon--you just solved the case. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:31 pm | |
(stunned)
Well, thankyou David,......and my prize is?
P.S.
I have regularly heard a party of the first party tell the parties of the third party, "I have solved the case!!".
But, is this the first time a party of the third party has told a party of the first party, "you just solved the case?".
This date (June 29/01) shall live in infamy. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 03:23 pm | |
Personally , I reckon we are coming much closer to finding out what actually happened : proving it is another matter though !
Now its solved , can you tell us what your theory is David ? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 03:24 pm | |
Dear Jon,
Wow. How long he chewed over it. A.R. is even now on his way to the Hague!If I am not misteaken...I see the face of Jesus...or maybe runes...or even
a spatial oddity...
A Rosey Kiss :-D |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 03:54 pm | |
Our Rosie will challenge a mystery.
But its only a mystery because....
When our Rosie looks in a mirror.
She will see the Wizard of 'OZ'. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 05:01 pm | |
Dear Jon,
I'm reduced to scrying! :-)
Dear Ivor,
Kidney Pi? :-)
Dear David,
Teaser. :-( |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 05:33 pm | |
Well now Jon! When's the book coming out? BTW, does this theory revolve around Levi-tation?
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 06:33 pm | |
Well Viper, I dont think there's enough material for a sentence, never mind a book.
Ever stumbled on the answer, when you didnt know what the question was?
Only David knows what I said, or did, where's the glory in that?
(there's my 15 minutes, I guess) |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 11:26 pm | |
Please accept my apologies if anyone feels I've insulted them by what I say about having a solution to the case. It is sincerely not my intention to ever do this. I don't mean anyone harm, and cannot fathom why I'm disrespected.
David |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 11:55 pm | |
David
All joking aside, what was your meaning behind the significance of the cut of the kidney. What did you mean?
Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 02:26 pm | |
Dear David,
No disrespect meant...just mild amusement at your faux pas concerning Jon having solved the case - and he is none the wiser? But not knowing your theory it cannot surprise you that we exhibit a certain chagrin at this precise moment...you are of course joking WITH us? I mean, the alternative,
that David "Cohen" Radka has The Final Solution:
"A.R" = Jack the Ripper!
Well, words fail me. What greater acclaim from ...
Rosey? |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 05:38 pm | |
Hi, David:
You wrote:
When we speak of the Lusk kidney as having been "longitudinally divided," what do we mean? Do we mean that it had been cut as if from the front of the body. . .
Do you mean by this that you think that if the Lusk kidney was genuine, it was divided longitudinally while it was in Eddowes' body? If you do mean this, I do not believe that could have been the case. The method the killer used to reach the kidney, through the abdomen, is, I believe, an unconventional and difficult way to extract a kidney and he certainly would not have been able to cut the kidney in half cleanly while it was still in the victim's body. He must have excised the kidney and cut it in half later, probably when he got back to his bolt hole and could do it in safety.
Recently I saw a rerun of "Law and Order" in which a man was mugged in Central Park and his kidney extracted for use in a rich man's daughter who had been waiting over-long for a fresh kidney. In the subsequent trial of the wealthy man who had ordered the kidney snatch, the victim of the kidney robbery showed his scar to the jury, and it was in his flank in his lower back. Perhaps Dr. Ind or someone else with surgical knowledge can confirm that this is the correct way to reach the kidney, rather than going through the abdomen as the Whitechapel murderer did.
Best regards
Chris George
P.S. Jon, I enjoyed seeing the view of your kidney! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 06:47 pm | |
Dear David,
I will keep your little secret if you keep mine.
Rosemary :-)) |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 07:03 pm | |
Chris
The kidneys are indeed located at either side of the spine at the rear of the torso.
The quick way to remove them then is obviously to come in from the back of the victim, as you describe.
From Brown's autopsy report I had interpreted that the fatty membrane which envelopes the kidney had been sliced through and the kidney removed. Brown tells us that the peritoneal lining was cut through and the kidney carefully taken out and removed. I know the stomach is protected by the peritoneal lining but I'm not sure if the membrane which envelopes the kidney is also part of the peritoneum, or if it has a seperate name.
(I guess a thorough search on the net would answer that)
Regardless, as you say, the kidney was removed whole.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 08:12 pm | |
Concerning the kidney, Jon correctly interpreted my question and answered it. I was not interested in the method of removal from the body, nor if it had been divided in Mitre Square. I was interested only in how the kidney was cut in half, wherever that cutting was done. I wanted to know whether it was cut in half north/south or east/west, as the kidney is normally positioned in the body. The answer was east/west.
David |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 30 June 2001 - 10:02 pm | |
And I didn't even get a ....tick.....tick.....tick
(lip down)
|
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 06:26 am | |
Dear Jon,
That may be because you are a chocolate puff? But since your Auntie Rosey knows who "A.R." is...
tick...tick...tick...Chocolate Puffs Unite!
Flan O'Ryan :-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 03:01 pm | |
Hi, David:
Does your theory depend on geography and the direction in which the victims lay?
Chris |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 09:39 pm | |
Chris, In no way does it.
David |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 08:44 am | |
An old chestnut has once more raised its head once more over on the "What would Jack have done if 'caught in the act'?" topic, but the response is best made here. Was Kate Eddowes a prostitute or wasn’t she?
The circumstantial evidence says she was. She left John Kelly penniless and when found dead she was penniless. Meanwhile she had been arrested in the street in a state of near-incapable drunkenness. Kate never got to visit her daughter, so either she had earned some money and blew it on booze, or somebody treated her to a lot of drinks. If the latter then it presumably wasn't somebody she knew because nobody ever came forward as a witness. Therefore Kate must have been offering to provide some kind of goods or service to a stranger in exchange for the drinks/money. All this Chris Hintzen surmises correctly (on the other board).
It isn't just baseless supposition to suggest that Kate got that money through selling her body. Look at where she was arrested. The location was only about 100 yards from the church of St. Botolph without Aldgate, known as the Prostitutes’ Church because women paraded around its perimeter day and night waiting for customers. The local police seem to have ignored them in this vicinity unless – like Kate – they began to get out of hand. You can see the layout of the Aldgate area, with the events of 29th September marked, on the Casebook Productions website. Choose 'Explore JTR' then 'Maps' then 'Mitre Square' and look at the Detail Map at the bottom.
Use the same set of maps to see just how close Mitre Square was to St. Botolph's. When Kate left Bishopsgate Police Station just after 1 a.m., why did she head back to the same area rather than straight back to her lodgings in Flower & Dean Street? When you consider that she'd promised to bring Kelly some money and she had none, then I think that question answers itself.
Furthermore, there is written evidence that Kate prostituted herself too, though not a lot of it. Home Office report A493018 of 29th October says "…Conway was eventually compelled to leave her on account of her drunken and immoral habits." The author was Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Police's Detective Department. You can read the full report in The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook by Evans and Skinner, page 180.
Regards, V. |
Author: P. Ingerson
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 02:00 pm | |
Hi, Viper.
"She left John Kelly penniless and when found dead she was penniless. Meanwhile she had been arrested in the street in a state of near-incapable drunkenness. Kate never got to visit her daughter, so either she had earned some money and blew it on booze, or somebody treated her to a lot of drinks."
Yeah, you're probably right about Eddowes being a prostiture. But, playing Devils's Advocate for a moment, she might have been a pickpocket.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, it's NOT likely at all, but I'm still new enough to enjoy the "What If...?" stage of being a Ripper fan! Humour me.)
Either way, Eddowes probably tried to maintain the illusion of respectability, shielding her true activities from John Kelly. Hence that tale about borrowing money from her daughter instead of telling him the truth. |
Author: stephen miller
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 02:25 pm | |
Hi Am I right in thinking that Catherine Eddowes did not know where her daughter was living as she had not told her due to Catherine always borrowing money from her?
And if she was always borrowing money from her daughter could she not have borrowed money from someone else thus enabling her to get drunk and start impersonating a fire engine?
from steve
 |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 04:22 pm | |
Eddowes as a pickpocket? It shouldn't be ruled out because people who lived on the edge of society like her often learned to make money any way they could to survive, legal or illegal. That said, I don't remember reading of her having any convictions for pickpocketing. All I'm suggesting above is that the evidence of McWilliam's report, Kate's presence in an area renowned for its prostitution not once but twice that day, and the fact that she'd either had money or somebody to treat her to drinks, all taken together, point very strongly to her acting as a prostitute.
Annie Phillips (Kate's daughter) had not seen her mother for a long time. The following is taken from The Times on 12th October and relates to Mrs Phillips' inquest testimony. "Witness frequently saw her mother after they separated; her mother applied to her for money. The last time she saw her mother alive was two years and one month ago... Witness used to live in King-street, Bermondsey – that was about two years ago. On removing from there witness did not leave any address." It seems that she didn't leave a forwarding address to prevent her mother from pestering her for money. That is consistent with the behaviour of Thomas Conway who had deliberately kept his address from Kate. He was also drawing his army pension under another name.
It is unlikely that anybody had lent Eddowes money. A stranger wouldn't take the risk, and neither - or so it appears - would those who knew her best, like her former partner and her daughter! Bear in mind also that nobody came forward admitting to being in Kate's company that afternoon or early evening (though one can see various reasons why they would be reluctant to do so).
Regards, V. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:24 pm | |
Hello P,
Perhaps it's not Eddowes shielding John Kelly from her true (or as some say supposed) occupation, but rather John Kelly trying to protect Eddowes 'good name' after death. After all, Kelly and Eddowes had been together for several years. So obviously they did have a bond between them. I've known a few people who've lost a 'criminal' loved-one who would say that he/she never did anything wrong in their lives. So maybe Kelly did the same thing for Eddowes?
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 04:34 am | |
Viper here above says :
"There is written evidence that Kate prostituted herself too...HO report...say:
Conway was eventually compelled to leave her on account of her drunken and immoral habits."
A simple question to Viper:
if one day I come to your home, I am so beautiful and have such a sex appeal that no doubt your wife is going to jump on me and ask to visit your sleeping room.
Now, should we say your wife is a prostitute ?
Of course not, only she was "immoral" on that occasion.
Why should it be different for Eddowes ?
That a man go away from his wife because of her immoral habits tends yes to indicate that she liked to have sex with other men (having sex for fun), not that she was a prostitute (having sex for money).
Let's see the circumstancial evidences that make Viper state Eddowes was a prostitute:
1) "She left John Kelly penniless and when found dead she was penniless."
But it is the opposite, that is to say if she had money on her, that we should wonder how she could have earned it if not by prostituting herself.
Only this fact could bring us to the conclusion that yes, very likely she sold her body that day.
2) "She was (when arrested) in a state of incapable drunkenness."
Then in a very contorted way he explains that this also is evidence of her prostituting.
I would suggest that this could only have been some kind of a gift by her killer to get her trust and to ask her to meet again later.
Have I solid support for that ?
Not necessarily, but it's just another kind of explanation as valid as the one given by Viper for him to be able to get to his solution.
And this does not bring to the conclusion that she was a prostitute.
I would add that the "theory of the gift" could be corroborated by what we know about other victims.
3) "It isn't baseless supposition to suggest that Kate got that money through selling her body. Look at where she was arrested."
St Botolph without Aldgate church's was not the only location where you could find prostitute there around.
In fact they were practically all around Whitechapel, Spitalfields and Aldgate.
Remember even if numbers could have been exagerated, there were certainly some thousands of them in such a small area.
Kelly and Stride had apparently other "regular beats" than Aldgate.
Eddowes was released from Houndsditch Police station, she lived in Spitalfields, wherever her body could have been found, we may safely guess it would have always been near a "prostitutes location".
4) " When you consider that she had promised to bring Kelly some money and she had none, then I think the question answers itself."
Maybe Viper, but only to yourself.
Viper asks us to believe Eddowes was sent by Kelly to go prostituting and bringing back money or at least that Kelly would have been so infuriated if she had not brought money back that she went looking for selling her body.
I suppose this is not the same Kelly who preferred to pawn his boots and go barefoot instead of sending Eddowes on the streets.
The factual evidence that does not seem to attract the attention of Viper is that nobody, at any moment, positively states that Eddowes was an "unfortunate".
Contrary to all, all the other victims.
Moreover, if she wanted to find some clients at 1.00 a.m., she had better go in more frequented streets than Duke's street.
Having lived for so many years in the same nighbourood, probably she would have known that.
Yes, Viper, an old chestnut has once more raised its head.
I think that with your explanations it will do it again in the future.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 07:40 am | |
Hi Graz,
One quick point. Does it really matter if Eddowes was or was not a prostitute? Does it matter what 'our' opinions are on the matter? If she was or she wasn't, Jack could have thought she was, and that is why he killed her.
Ciao,
Chris H.
P.S. Also how do you explain what Eddowes was doing for the half hour between the time she left the station and the time she was seen by Lawende in a spot which would have taken her no more than 8 minutes to get to? There are no missions or workhouses in the area. There are a couple of pubs there, but she has no money so it's not like she can get a drink, unless someone offers it to her. So why is she in Mitre Square for a half hour?
P.P.S. To your other post about assuming. Well hate to tell you this Graz, but we can ONLY ASSUME Jack even existed. The wounds he did to the victims were all different. Some of the victims he slit the throat deeply, others superficially. Some the abdominal wounds were precise, others were chaotic. Some have signs of strangualtion, others don't. Some have facial mutilations, still others don't. So I guess if we can't use a little assumption then I guess we can't be here debating a killer who we ASSUME was responsible for more than one murder? |
