|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 21, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
The Ripper Victims (General):
Archive through April 21, 1999
Author: Mark Griffin
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:33 pm |        | | I'm going to London in September. I would like to make somerubbings of JTR's victims' gravestones (sounds horribly macabredoesn't it?). Can any of the Ripperphiles out there tell me WHEREthe graves are located? With directions, if possible? Thanks inadvance. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:34 pm | | : Ripperana #14 lists the grave sites asthey are currently known:
Mary Ann Nichols: Public grave 49500, square 318 underMemorial Gardens, City of London Cemetery, Manor Park, London,E12.
Annie Chapman: Public grave 78, square 148 under ManorPark Cemetery, Forest Gate, London, E7. No longer visible.
Catherine Eddowes: Public grave 49336, square 318 underMemorial Gardens, City of London Cemtery, Manor Park, London,E12.
Elizabeth Stride: Grave 15509, square 37 under the EastLondon Cemetery Co. Ltd, Plaistow, London, E13. There is aconcrete frame over the grave.
Mary Jane Kelly: Public grave 16, row 67 -- St. Patrick'sCemetery, Leytonstone, London, E9. |
Author: A. Dylan Gable
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:34 pm | | About JTR's killing only prostitutes: a lot of people thinkthis means he was associated with them in some way. Notnecessary. Any murderer with half a brain (I've only read this:I'm not a killer in hiding) goes after prostitutes, hobos,vagrants, street kids, the dregs of society. No one cares whenthey die, no one misses them. I mean, all these other JTR-typemurderers did this (i.e. Torso concentrated on prostitutes &bums, the Black Dahlia Killer killed a street kid).
OBTW: The New York Jack the Ripper Murder. I read this in abook we have at our public library. It's a thick book, I believethe title was THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN CRIME. I think it's byCarl Sifakis. Anyway, it states in there that it may have beenthe doing of the NYPD. Seems that a few weeks before the killing,the New York Police Chief exchanged some fierce words with thedirector of Scotland Yard, to the extent that "if Jack theRipper had ever killed over here, he'd have been caught."And shortly thereafter a JTR-like murder happened in NY.Coincidence?? |
Author: Chris Dillard
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:35 pm | | | Has anyone tried to find some relatives of the victims? I knowthat there has been discussion with a Maybrick relative, but itwould seem prudent to try and find someone in England for a knackfor geneology to trace down the lines of the victims since wealready know most of their background. |
Author: Michael D. Hutchinson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:35 pm | | | These prostitiutes were probably not the ripper's firstkillings. They are too well rehearsed to be anything but the workof someone who knew what they were doing. The Ripper may havebeen an obsessive/compulsive, because of the nature of the crimescenes (ie the fact that he avioided getting blood on hisperson.) Just some ideas I thought you would like to consider. |
Author: Joanna Madson
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:36 pm | | | These can not all be the workings of Jack the Ripper. He hadset dates that he killed on. Every other one you add a date, andevery other one you subtract. Example it could have been November25, then December 2, then December 24, then January 3rd and soon. (not specific dates) Check this out on the known deaths ofJack the Ripper. It works. |
Author: Bacchius
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:36 pm | | I've always been cognizant of the fact that Eddowes' streetname is virtually identical with Kelly's real name. Rumbelow,oddly and incredibly enough, passed over this fact in theCOMPLETE CASEBOOK. It *would* help fuel the ridiculous StephenKnight theory that Kelly was killed for being a witness to Eddy'swedding to a Catholic girl. It would suggest process ofelimination a la THE TERMINATOR, in which the killer had nothingto go on but a name.
Has anyone else ever been struck by the coincidence that everyone of the victims' names or street names contained"Ann" or "Annie"? Mary ANN "Polly"Nichols. ANNIE Chapman. "Long Liz" Stride, aka ANNIEFitzgerald. Catherine Eddowes, aka Mary ANN Kelly. And lastly,even Mary Jane Kelly was referred to by some as Mary ANN Kelly,as well as Mary Janette (the name typed on the original plate atS.Y.) and even Marie.
Granted, Ann or Annie is a common name, especially in thelower East End of London at the time, but this stretches acoincidence beyond belief. Could the Ripper have had a grudgeagainst ladies of the evening named Ann or Annie? This is inkeeping with the psychological protocol of latter-day serialkillers (such as Ted Bundy and his obsession with women withlong, straight hair) |
Author: Jackmaybri
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:37 pm | | Regarding the theory that the victims were killed because theyall, in one way or another, shared the name of "Ann",that does not seem so coincidental when you consider first names,middle names and nicknames.
Is it even likely that anything as intimate and personal asone's name was always necessarily exchanged between an East Endstreetwalker and her customer? I find it a little difficult toenvision Jack asking questions as to name and then walking awayfrom women whose names weren't right. In fact, that might haveattracted attention.
The likelihood is that Jack simply took his victims as theybecame available at the right place and time. |
Author: Wayne
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:37 pm | | | I seem to have figured out something about the dates but I'mnot sure what it means, if anything. nichols was killed on august31st friday: chapman was killed spt 8 sat; stride and eddowes waskilled spt 30 sunday:mary kelly was killed nov 9 friday. If youlook at the dates you see they all fall on the weekends but onlythe weekends that are on the 8th and 30th. The ripper skiped allof oct. but if you look at the weekends you will see that if hekept to his frame work ( only around the 8th and about the 30th)he could not use oct as the 8th and the 30 were ont on the weekend. If he had used the 7th of oct. the 30th and 31st felloutside the week end. I don't know about english holidays or workhabits in those days but is there something there or am I justdraeming? |
Author: Ingrid Dunn
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:38 pm | | | I think that to assume that JTR had committed a crime previously is where everybody is going wrong. |
Author: Dale Lee Sheldon
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:38 pm | | I have been reading the various entries on the Victims ingeneral and I would like to add some points that are simiaramoung them.
First: Each of the five woman (Mary Ann Nichols, AnnieChapman, Catherine Eddows, Elizabeth Stride and Mary Jane Kelly)where described by friends and aquaintances of being "of asober nature" or a "sober, steady going woman whoseldom took any drink" or was "always found of soberhabits". Yet all of them were drunk he night that they died.In many cases they were also very blatent about it. Onepretending to act like a fire truck and Mary Kelly's singing of"A Violet From My Mother's Grave." It's is almost as ifthe killer watched and waited for them. Most of them were alsoseen with a man earlier at pubs. Maybe it was Jack getting themdrunk?
Second: I have to look closer but it seems to me that each onehad something new among there possetions. - Mary Nichols mentionsnot having her doss money and then says "See what a jollybonnet I've got now." No one had seen it before. She saidthat she had had her doss money three times that night but hadspent it. The bonnet may have been what she spent the money on,but what if Jack gave her the money to purposly get the hat. -Annie Chapmans posseions mention "three recently acquiredbrass rings on her middle finger (missing after the murder). -Catherine Eddows had an empty tin matchbox and a red lethercigarette case that supposedly James Maybrick singels out in hisdiary. - Elizabeth Stride had a "red rose and white maidenhair fern" pinned to her black cloth jacket. She was was notwearing the flowers when she left her lodging house. - Mary Kellyonly has one possability for this. Mr. Hutchinson saw a man withKelly shortly before she died. He had a parsel in his left hand.Maybe he had not yet given Kelly her gift.
Third: Besides Mary Nicholes who was generally described atthe time of her death as "shabby and stained" andespecially Mary Kelly who was described at all times and by manypeople as being "much superior to that of most persons inher position of life." - All the woman seemed to be a bitcleaner and of a better all around nature than what people wouldconsider an East Side prostitute of 19th Century London. MaybeJames Maybrick was looking for some that was the most like hiswife and someone that few people would care about so that hewould get away with there murder. The reason why James didn'tkill his own wife was because it would have been to obvious.After all, what other enemy would it have been?
On another note: I was wondering if anyone could enlighted meas to weather or not Mary Jane Kelly was related to John Kelly(the man who was, in some ways, considered to be the husband typeto Catherine Eddows.)
I was also wondering if anyone has of late found proof as tothe identity of James Maybricks mistress of approximatley 20years. Was it Sarah Ann Robertson? Sounds pretty interesting tome.
And finally: the reason I read this section was to find outinformation on the Manchester murders that people had speculatedabout. Murders in London and Manchester? Sounds interesingconsidering that James had brothers living in both towns. He mayhave fisted both often enough to have had a chance to commit thecrimes. |
Author: Orinorious
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:39 pm | | | The commitment of minor, or warm-up crimes, are almost alwaysthe starting points of a serial killer's spree. He begins small,and grows to finally become the monster of fame and repute. Thecases listed as being the ripper's first minor crimes could goeither way. They would not resemble the "finished"product so to speak, and would appear clumsy at best. It would beunfulfilling to him, so he would graduate to more violentversions. It would also be almost impossible top evaluate thesecrimes because there would be very little in way of a signature.That is what would be unsatisfying. But, the very lack ofsatisfaction would drive the next crime, so you could evaluatethe timing of the crimes. The first crime would be probably someform of physical attack, but not very lethal. The next would bemore violent, etc. So, in that context these crimes do bearinspection,and could point, rather indirectly, at the ripper'sstate of mind early on. |
Author: Kevin Doyle
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:39 pm | | | It is entirely possible that Jack may have begun his careerwith attacks of a lesser degree. As has been pointed outpreviously, many serial killers started small, relativelyspeaking. I would also point out that the modus operandi in anyearlier attacks may be quite different. David Berkowitz (Son ofSam) made his first attack with a knife on a solitary female (nota couple) at an earlier time of day. It didn't work too well forhim, and he changed his methods in a number of ways. Any researchfor earlier attacks by JTR should therefore look for similarvictims (drunken 'unfortunates') and possibly similar dates ordays, if indeed a pattern exists. His weapon and approach mayhave been different, but probaly not his goals. Since there wereno non-fatal attacks or attacks with a different weaponattributed to JTR, it is also possible that he was caught in anearlier non-fatal attack and spent time in jail before resuminghis work. |
Author: K. Billy
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:39 pm | | | I noticed that if you plot theroutes most reasonably taken between the points on your maps thaton the evening or morning, that each of the 5 women weremurdered, that they each passed along Commercial St. betweenDorset and Wentworth just prior to being killed. All 5 werekilled going away from the intersection, none of the women werekilled coming back into the intersection. This means thatthey were "stalked". The killer therefore, was onCommercial St. between Dorset and Wentworth as these women passedthrough. He was able to bide time in this limited areawhile waiting for a victim, and remain unobtrusive. Also,when he chose his victim, he would have to leave then to followher. His abrupt departure would have to go unnoticed. Hewould have to follow the victim unnoticed also, his presence andmovements through the area were a natural and expected part ofthe usual routine of the the area. I don't know how muchthis really adds to anything, but it is interesting to note thatJack the Ripper's whereabouts just prior to the murders can beplotted; also, he would have been in sight of the women ashe followed them. This means that in the final minutes oftheir lives, Jack the Ripper's movements mimicked his victim's. |
Author: HRH
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:40 pm | | | Recently it has been shown that Kelly (or whoever the corpse belonged to) was almost certainly killed at around 9am on the morning of Friday 9th Nov. She was seen by Mrs. Maxwell at 8:30am on a street corner. Kelly was also seen returning to her room with some 'milk'. Could she have been carrying a bottle of spirits? The fact of her killing happening in daylight would clear up the mystery of how the killer could have had adequate light to work by if, as has been assumed, she had been killed in the dark. Dr.Bond, on examining the remains of Kelly stated that the onset of rigor mortis took 8-12 hours to commence. This assumption was erroneous. Today we know that rigor mortis takes about 2-4 hours to start. Since Bond examined the body at 2pm on the friday afternoon, this would put the death at around 9am that morning. Interesting. What if the killer spent the whole night with Kelly. In the morning he might have sent her out to get some grog so they could continue the party. On her foray outside she would have provided the killer with valuable intelligence in terms of any nearby police patrols on Dorset street. If she saw any cops she would have probably informed Jack, since she was engaging in illicit activity anyway, and the last thing she would have wanted was the hassle of an arrest for prostitution. If she told Jack the coast was clear then he was all set to commence on his project - as he did. The whole of London was primed with the anticipation of these murders taking place at night, so by choosing his time in the morning, Jack could have some security in the knowledge that the period of maximum danger - the evening - was over. |
Author: Laura
Sunday, 18 April 1999 - 09:44 am | | | Can anyone help me in answering some queries on JTR? I read somewhere that the bodies may have been dumped in the places they were instead of being killed on the spot. Does this have any validity? Also that the murders had hints of the satanic by the way in which the victims were mutilated? The fact that all the murders were carried out on prostitutes is interesting, could it be possible that JTR had an in-built hatred of women from that area of society perhaps due to bad earlier experiences of a female close to him? His mother, sister, wife? |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 19 April 1999 - 12:50 am | | Hey, Laura, in answer to your first question, no, there is no validity in assuming that the bodies were dumped where they were found. In the case of Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly, blood spay from the severed carroted arteries and the amount of blood found under or around the other victems show that they were killed where they were found.
As for satanic or ritualistic method in the killings, thats considered far fetched. Aleister Crowley, the supposed black magician, claimed that the killings were part of a satanic ritual that were carried out by Robert Donston Stephenson, the purpose of which was to gain some sort of occult power. This story was used as the basis for Robert Bloch's excellant short story, Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper. Needless to say, there is no truth in this theory, at all.
The choice of prostitutes for victems, probably indicates that they were at hand at the time. They represent women and sex and the Ripper was probably sexually inadequate and with a fear and hatred,caused by that fear, of women. I would suggest that the Rippers rage was directed to a mother figure, this based on the ages and appearence of the first victems. |
Author: Laura
Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 08:52 am | | Hi Wolf!
Thanks for your message! It was interesting to read what you had to say. The point you raise in that the women were of the right age to represent a mother figure but what age would you put JTR at? Surely it would take some considerable force to murder these women who were hardened to a life on the streets and the nature of their wounds were very brutal perhaps hate gave JTR the strength he needed? We can only speculate. Any info on the Kelly murder would be much appreciated if you have any!
Thanks
Laura |
Author: Christopher T. George
Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 10:55 am | | Greetings Laura:
To provide some answer to your questions, this is part of what Dr. Thomas Bond wrote on November 10, 1888 to Sir Robert Anderson, head of the Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.), when Sir Robert solicited his opinions on the crimes:
"The murderer must have been a man of physical strength & of great coolness & daring -- there is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal & erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition, sexually, that may be called satyriasis [i.e., a condition of being exceedingly oversexed]. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that religious mania may have been the original disease but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive-looking man probably middle aged & neatly & respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible." [from Public Record Office, London, MEPO 3/141 ff. 151-157]
Chris George |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 22 April 1999 - 01:12 am | | Hey, Laura, your welcome for the help and I'll try to answer your questions although asking about the Kelly murder is a tall order.
First, In regards to whether his hatred of women gave him the strength to attack his victims, I would answer yes, and no. Yes, because his hatred drove him to kill, that and his sexual inadequacy. You have to realize that these were first and foremost, sexual crimes, attacks on women that centred on their genitalia and the organs of reproduction. When he removed the Uteri of his victems, he was taking away their femaleness, the thing that allowed them to give birth, that allowed them to be mothers. This is what drove him, but his choice of victims made certain that they would'nt give him too much trouble. All the women were drunk, or had been drinking, with the exception of Annie Chapman who was sick enough to appear to be drunk and thus an easy target. Hey, I know that this sounds like a lot of psychological B.S., but this is what I believe.
In regards to the Rippers age, well that opens up a whole can of worms and is the type of question that can lead to a lot of debate. Let me try and explain.
When you start to delve deeper into the realm of "Ripperology" you will come across different books that trumpet different suspects. Generally, each new book tries to play a game (the game is called "hunt the Ripper") to discredit the last book and it's suspect, while nominating it's own suspect as being the most likely. Nobody publishes a book on the Ripper by saying that their suspect probably isn't really Jack but please buy my book anyway. No, each new book describes "the truth at last!", "the mystery solved!!", "the final solution!!!". Now, everybody reads the new book and then takes sides, even though the suspect might be the lamest, most laughable thing that you've ever read. Logic and reason tend to go straight out the window, (sometimes along with the truth, the known facts, and common sense.) The Rippers possible age is one of those things that suffers from this game.
According to the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit, the average serial killer is a white male between the ages of 25 and 35. This is not carved in stone, however, Monte Rissell raped and murdered 5 women in Virginia, starting when he was barely 19. Arthur Shawcross, a prostitute killer in Rochester, New York, was 45 years old, but these are exceptions to a rule that is based on the study of literally thousands of murderers, serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers. Already some members of the casebook will be rolling their eyes, FBI?, profiling? I don't trust it or I don't believe in it. Stewart Evans, a man with 26 years of police experience with the Suffolk constabulary, along with Paul Gainey, wrote the book The Lodger, based on their investigation into the Ripper murders, and Mr. Evans has stated in this casebook that he doesn't trust profiling or, apparently the expertise of the FBI. Well why should he, considering his suspect, Francis Tumblety, doesn't fit the FBI profile. Concerning age, Tumblety was 55 in 1888 so therefore the FBI statistics must be wrong.
I hope that you can see where I'm going with this. Depending on whom you believe to be the Ripper, your judgement will be affected. I'm not an American, but I will bow to the undoubted expertise of the FBI and state that the Ripper was aged somewhere between the ages of 25 and 35. The fact that, of the eyewitnesses, I believe Joseph Lawende to have had the best glimpse of the Ripper, only intensifies my belief. Lawende, who saw the face of the man talking to Katherine Eddows, only 10 minutes before her body was found, claimed that he didn't think that he would recognize the man again but he was still able to give a clear description of the man. According to him, the man was about 30 years old.
Those who believe that the Jack the Ripper Diary is authentic and therefore James Maybrick (50) was the Ripper, state that he looked a lot younger than his age. Those who believe that Tumblety was the Ripper, discount Lawende's description and rely on Elizabeth Durell's description of a man seen talking to Annie Chapman about half an hour before her body was found. She described the man as being about 40 years old, closer to Tumblety's age. However, she described the man as being shorter than Tumblety (who was 6 or 7 inches taller than the man she described) with a dark complection and appearing to look foreign (Jewish), Tumblety was an American of Irish background. Oh yeah, Mrs. Durell never saw his face, she only saw him from behind.
As you can see, a simple question about the Rippers age requires a long expanation, but that is a great deal of the fun in studying the Ripper. You read as much as you can and then draw your own conclusions based on your own research.
I think I'll lay off the Kelly murder until you've digested this bit. Tell me what you think.
Wolf |
|
|
|
|
