|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 6, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
The Ripper Victims (General):
Archive through July 6, 1999
Author: Laura
Thursday, 22 April 1999 - 02:24 pm |        | Hello Chris,
Thanks for your message on quoting Dr. Thomas Bond it was very helpful. Sorry to make this short but essays are calling!
Laura |
Author: Laura
Thursday, 22 April 1999 - 02:56 pm | | Hi Wolfie!
Cheers muchly for the commentary you wrote, how come you know so much?!!!! What you said made sense and sounded very informed. I was interested to read what you wrote about the FBI profiling, is it okay to apply those relatively modern techniques to 1888? I thought the way you talked about the "ripperology" concept was very well put and I had to laugh at the way that you so rightly pointed out that new authors on the subject always offer "the final solution" in their books. It's so true! When you talked about the murders being of a sexual nature due to the fact that their sexual parts were mutilated I had to agree. The "bad mother" theory seems relevant to many of the victims but what of Mary Kelly? She was supposed to be quite attractive wasn't she? So why murder her? Was it that now JTR, could we say,was enjoying the murders he was committing, that she was a victim to slake his thirst? He seems to have carried out everything he could on her that he didn't on the others ( if indeed it was her)due to the privacy of Kelly's room. As I'm trying to write an essay for uni on the Kelly murder, I need all the info I can get!
Looking forward to reading your views on the Kelly murder now that I have "digested" your last message.
Once again thankyou for your help
Laura |
Author: Julian
Thursday, 22 April 1999 - 10:02 pm | | G'day everyone,
Just a quick note on the profiling thing, While some of the murderers throughout history fit certain profiles we must remember that there are literally hundreds of thousands of other people throughout the world that also fit those profiles but never even consider committing a crime.
There are also other murderers whose MO doesn't fit any profile.
Sorry if this sounds negative but...
Jules |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 05:20 am | | Perhaps one thing that is peculiar about the killings is that at Hanbury St,Berner St and Mitre Sq,a male person was seen in the company of the victims shortly before their death.From witness statements the description is of a stout or stocky figure about 5'7'' or 5'8".In each case male and female appear to be adopting the same or similar posture,and the male with his back towards possible passer's by,thereby obscuring his features.
At Millers Court a similar figure was observed standing in shadows and making identification difficult.This person by his own admission was George Hutchinson.
Of course the similarities may be coincidental, but I believe that in a case like that of the ripper,anything of a repeating nature should be looked at closely. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 05:23 am | | Perhaps one thing that is peculiar about the killings is that at Hanbury St,Berner St and Mitre Sq,a male person was seen in the company of the victims shortly before their death.From witness statements the description is of a stout or stocky figure about 5'7'' or 5'8".In each case male and female appear to be adopting the same or similar posture,and the male with his back towards possible passer's by,thereby obscuring his features.
At Millers Court a similar figure was observed standing in shadows and making identification difficult.This person by his own admission was George Hutchinson.
Of course the similarities may be coincidental, but I believe that in a case like that of the ripper,anything of a repeating nature should be looked at closely. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 03:00 pm | | If I may add a few thoughts -
It's easy to laugh at books constantly trumpeting "the final solution," "the mystery solved" and such flummery, but this is to some extent necessitated by the dictates of the marketplace. "Jack the Ripper," the legendary case, can be approached from a number of marketing angles, and usually a publisher chooses the angle of identification and discrediting the competition, as this is likely to result in the greatest amount of sales. This is one reason why Sugden's excellent "Complete History" has a fairly limp chapter on George Chapman, and why Sugden himself calls him only the best of a bad lot. There is at the moment almost no market for a wholly objective research work outside of the "A-Z," which, like any book, carries its own authors' biases, consciously or not. That market may develop (in fact, I hope it does), but it's a thought to keep in mind; one of the reasons there are so many Final Solutions is because so many of us buy them.
Wolf, I congratulate you on your excellent posts. I am assuming you're relatively new to the Casebook, as I haven't seen your words before; though my attendance here has been spotty of late. Allow me to welcome you (and of course, if you're a longtime poster, ignore my rambling!). Your thoughts on "ripperology" and profiling are very enjoyable.
Laura - as you've no doubt discovered, the case of Mary Jane Kelly is frustratingly enigmatic. As I've said elsewhere, because her death seems so ghoulisly theatrical, we try to look for patterns and connections where there may be none. The utter destruction of her body prods the unspoken thought "she must have done SOMETHING to deserve THAT" (pace Alan Moore). Why was she so served? Were all the murders leading up to her? Did the Ripper go to the extent that he did because of the privacy her room afforded? Was he - as you've stated - "enjoying" the murders so much that he now deliberately sought out a young, relatively attractive, reasonably strong woman to destroy?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg concerning motive. When it comes to the facts of the Kelly case, the welter of confusion is magnified by conflicting accounts, misremeberances and simple sloppy research. I suppose what I am trying to say is that Kelly's murder - like the others - occupies an anomalous position in our investigations: we know they happened, and we know certain events before and after the murders occurred, but from our vantage point a hundred years on, we can never be sure whether our interpretation of the events is correct. We can only pick the likeliest explanation.
An excellent conversation going on here.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Calogridis
Friday, 23 April 1999 - 10:57 pm | | Howdy CM and All!
CM- I like your take on "Final Solutions". I feel the same way about them as I do the Diary, though some are well-crafted.
The Mary Kelly murder certainly was horrendous overkill, but it seems consistent with the mindset of the Ripper. After all, the mutilation was his real kick. And after demonstrating what he could do in five or ten minutes in a dimly-lit back alley under constant fear of detection, it's not surprising he would indulge himself within the shelter of Mary's abode.
Nothing you haven't considered many times before, but this overly simplistic view seems logical. He really was one sick puppy!
Keep up the good ideas! Best wishes.
Cheers.......Mike |
Author: Laura
Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 09:32 am | | Hello Christopher-Michael, we meet again!
Thanks for these pointers on MJK's murder, as you may have guessed I have put some comments on the other board that I post on for you, Ashing and Leanne to read. Must start some work now so I'll write again soon.
Laura |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 10:20 am | | I've been thinking lately that our Jack (I call him JtR1) had so much evil charisma in his little finger, that he may have been able to goad either his henchman JtR2, or possibly Joe Barnett, into destroying Mary Kelly. She just doesn't seem to fit my own idea of a JtR1 victim. I can't put my own little finger on why, but all the other victims seemed to go like lambs to their own slaughter, they seemed to be attracted to Jack like moths to a flame, even though his performance rating was probably nil if they did but know it (wry smile).
Mary's killer, on the other hand, didn't seem to me to get this luxury treatment (IMHO). I get the impression he wanted so desperately to BE JtR1, but just didn't come close to his (anti)hero's 'charm'. Was he hopeless at the chatting-up bit, and did Mary dare to laugh in his face as he dropped his strides? Did JtR1 laugh silently too (looking through that window maybe?), or did he say,'you can't let that whore humiliate you like that, and still call yourself a man. Give her what she deserves. Revenge is sweet, etc etc...'
And so Mary ends up in our consciousness as the most 'hard-done-by' victim, something I've always found hard to swallow, personally. None of the victims deserved their fate, Kelly maybe just didn't learn the golden rule of not insulting a male ego. Or was she doomed anyway?....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Wolf
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 04:14 pm | | Hey Laura, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, and the others who have added to this discussion, things have been a little hectic around here recently. Special thanks to Christopher-Michael for his welcome and his kind words (yes, I am new to the casebook). Thanx for the thanx, Laura, I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.
First, my Bona FIdes. I can admit to 27 years or interest and research into the Whitchapel murders having started when I was 6 and my father recieved a scholarship to study in London for a year. Since then I have been reading about the Ripper and related crime matters. One of my many interests.
As for your observation on whether the profiling techniques of today can be applied to 1888, it's a very valid question and one that I've asked myself. Considering we're dealing with a different time and also a different standard of life, different culture, ethics, mores etc, it would logically appear that this would challenge the modern profilers ability and judgement but the one thing that seems to me to be a constant is human nature. Profiling, as a discipline is only a tool that we can use to flesh out some of the ambiguities of the Whitechapel case, and it's full of ambiguities and grey area and blank spaces. With human nature the way it is, we can be reasonably sure that the serial killer of industrial age, Victorian London, will have the similar background stresses and motivation as his modern counterpoints.
So, Mary Kelly, a.k.a. Marie Jeanette Kelly, Fair Emma, Black Mary, Ginger. You are perfectly right, Laura, in assuming that MJK didn't fit the profile of the mother as victim. She was around 25 years old while the other victims were all in their mid forties. She was taller than most of the other victims (at 5 feet 7 inches, she was about the same hight as Elizabeth Stride who was known as Long Liz becuse of her hight)Mary was stoutish with blond hair and blue eyes, hence the nicknames Fair Emma and Ginger, and was considered attractive. Although she was unlike the other victims and not a mother figure at all, I think that she was the only victim that the Ripper chose beforehand. I think that the other victims were chosen to represent the mother figure, but to the killer they were only objects, de-humanized playthings used to vent his hatred and rage but MJK was different. I think that the Ripper knew Mary Jane and that she knew him or was at least familiar with him. I also think that the other victims were chosen by chance, victims of convenience who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but with MJK, I thinkthat she was chosen before hand and chosen because she had a room of her own.
As the killers body count increased, so did the type and extent of the mutilations. He was, in effect, modifying and refining the thrill of killing with each new murder. By definition, the serial killer kills 4 or more victims with a cooling off period between each one. During this cooling off period, the killer replays the previous murders over and over in his mind, savouring each image. It is not uncommon for the killer to "return to the scene of the crime" in order to add that extra little thrill to his fantasies. He will also fantasize about what he will do to the next victim in order to gain even more thrills.
After the death of Katherine Eddows, I think that Jack decided that the next step was going to have to be an escalation of mutilation that would require more time and therefore more privacy. He needed a secure place and I think that he then decided that MJK was going to be next.
There are several interesting things about Kelly's murder that make her death the most puzzling. She was lying in bed dressed in her chemise with her clothes lying neatly folded on a chair. She was apparently at ease with Jack although there remains the slight possibility that she was sleeping and Jack knew how to enter the room by slipping his arm through the broken window and releasing the spring lock.
The Ripper probably first strangled her then cut her throat while she was lying on the far side of the bed, next to the wall. The pool of blood under the bed, on the side closest to the wall, indicates that she was killed on that side. The splashes of blood on the wall in line with her neck but the lack of a massive arterial blood spray, would seem to indicate that she was either dead or that the heart was impaired by near death. Considering that there are splashes of blood on the wall, I don't think that her head was covered.
Now the killer did something rather unusual, he covered her head with the sheet and then proceeded to slash at her face "multiple" times. He then removed the sheet and proceeded to obliterate her face and generally butcher her body. Why?, I think he did it because he knew her and she was a human being to him. He had to distance himself from her, to turn her into an object, to de-humanize her first by slashing at a recognizable face hidden by the sheet. Pamela Ball, in her interesting but unconvincing book, has brought up the same point although she was using psychic means to come up with the same thing (!!???)
The next interesting thing about the Kelly murder was the fact that the killer did not take away MJK's uterus or any of the organs of reproduction. The symbols of womanhood and motherhood were left scattered around the body but what he did take was her heart and I can't help but wonder whether he did so because of it's association with love. If he knew her, he might have also been attracted to her or even in love with her.(I should have posted this February 14)
Was it Kelly's body? Yes, I think it was, either that or she displayed a considerable amount of sangre froid, more so than some of the police who saw the body. She was supposidly seen at 8:00 that morning, leaving her room and then returning to it several minutes later. This was even before Caroline Maxwell testified to have seen her. She must also have gone into the room to change her clothes with the body lying there (a body with the same build, eye and hair colour as herself) and then later, calmly stood around chatting with Mrs. Maxwell about her hangover. Somehow it doesn't add up, but it is part of human nature to look for mystery or conspiracy.
Wolf |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 06:41 pm | | Wolf -
Excellent observations, and a joy to read. A small caveat, however: Elizabeth Stride was actually only 5 foot 5 inches tall. We are not entirely sure where she gained the nickname of "Long Liz;" it may have been a jocular reference to her short stature, but it has also been suggested the appellation was a pun on her surname.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Caz
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:45 am | | Yep, apparently, in London at least, the name Stride often gave rise to the nickname 'Long', probably still does. Anyone know for definite? (Come in all you long Strides out there.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Laura
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 02:47 pm | | Wolf!
You are a star! Cheers muchly for that commentary on the Kelly murder, it really summed things up for me and has made a difference to my ideas on the subject. My essay should be a corker!! I agree with what you had to say on the dehumanising of Kelly by placing the sheet over her head to start with. This way he would not have to look at her face one of the most important and characteristic parts of her body and so if he didn't see her face he wouldn't be able to associate her with a human being and it would be "easier" for him to carve her up. (YES, I love it when I've mastered a concept!!) I also like your ideas on the heart being taken away and not the organs of reproduction. All in all wolfie, I think you've impressed a fair few people with your knowledgable and informed report!
I know where to come if I need any more help! Thanks
Laura |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 26 April 1999 - 11:44 pm | | I think I'll have to let my hat out a bit now that it's starting to swell from all this praise.
Laura, glad to be of help and glad that you can use my observations. Feel free to ask for help anytime.
Christopher-Michael and Caz, you are right, of course. I guess it's true that the memory is the first to go. I guess Liz would be considered "long" compared to Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols but the nickname probably is applied to her because of the name Stride. Recently I have heard two seperate referances stating that she was nicknamed "Long" because of her above average hight (above average for malnourished East Enders) but I now recall that one of these sources was Inspector Morse on TV. Not what you'd call a primary source.
Well thanks again.
Wolf. |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 28 April 1999 - 02:38 am | | Hi y'all. Great discussion ...
WOLF & LAURA: There's no proof Mary Kelly's hair was blonde, or any other color. So far, I've read several definitions of her various nicknames.
Fair Emma - Fair (blond) hair.
Fair Emma - Fair of face (As in Monday's child is ...): Attractive, beautiful, lovely.
Ginger - Red-head.
Ginger - Strawberry blonde.
Black Mary - Dark hair, dark eyes (maybe black, maybe violet, maybe dark blue)
I'm rapidly learning two cardinal rules:
1. Never assume.
2. Double-check every "fact" against 2 or 3 different sources, especially anything stated prior to 1988 - several documents have been discovered since then.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Julian
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 02:21 am | | G'day everyone,
Hey Laura/Wolf, great thinking mate about the sheet over the head stuff but do we know he slashed her while the sheet was over her head? and unfortunately Jack did mutilate Ms Kelly's face almost beyond recognition, so at some stage he must have been looking at her to have seen what he was doing.
G'day Ashling, great advice mate. After checking the boards earlier I noticed I've been pulled up again (Twice in the same bloody sentence) for not checking my info. Fortunately the people here don't want to put me on the rack to make me tell where I got my info which is bloody good for me cause I can't remember.
Anyway, I does pay to check your sources.
Jules |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 02:19 pm | | Hey, Julian, Ashling et all.
" The corner of the sheet to the right of the womans head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack. " This was part of Dr. Bond's report to the Home Office, dated 10th November. My theorizing was on why the Ripper would do this because it seems clear to me that he did cover her face and slash at it and then remove the sheet and finish the job. My thoughts are that the initial slashes (with sheet) were to make her face at least partially unrecognizable so that he would have the stomach to finish the obliteration of her face. A face that he knew.
Ashling is quite correct on always checking your sources especially when writing here in the casebook. My only defence is that I did check two sources for a description of Mary Jane and both said blond. However, having said that, I did have an impression that her hair was more of a reddish blond, hence the name Ginger, but I didn't track this reference down.
Wolf. |
Author: Julian
Monday, 03 May 1999 - 06:31 pm | | G'day Wolf, Everyone
En guarde Wolf. While Dr Bond's report said her face MAY have been covered it does not convince me that it was. I think someone of Jack's demeanour would actually take delight in carving up someone's face knowing the impact it is going to have on those who find the body.
I think we can also draw a comparison here with Ms Eddowes who also was horribly butchered but did not have her face covered with anything. And by saying that he knew Mary's face we must accept that he knew Catherine's as well.
Over to you mate.
Jules |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 03:03 am | | Hey Jules, et all, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It seems that the only time I can spare Nowadays is at some un-Godly hour but now, let's have at it.
I will have to trust Dr. Bond's observations mainly because it makes a hell of a lot of sense. The sheet, at head level, on the side of the bed on which Mary Kelly was killed is much slashed and stained with blood. If the Ripper did not cover her head to inflict the initial slashes to her face then why was a small corner of the sheet cut up? a corner at face level. It must have been done for some purpose and to Dr.Bond the perpose was self evident and IMHO, he was right.
As for Jack carving up her face because of the impact it would have on those who found the body, that is surely part of the reason for the mutilations, but only a part. The real driving force behind the mutilations is one of trying to increase the thrill of killing. The violence and mutilation increased with every victim because Jack needed to squeeze even more out of each murder. He needed to wallow in blood, to experiment in added horror, it's what got him off and it's all part of the sexual nature of the crimes. Think of it as sexual experimentation, of trying new positions or using new and different sex toys, only Jack's toys were his knife and the bodies of his victims. He needed to add to his gratification by increasing the mutilations.
As for Catherine Eddows, I believe that the Ripper didn't know any of his victims except for Mary Jane. The comparison of facial mutilations between Kely and Eddows doesn't stand therefore. Eddows face wasn't covered because it didn't need to be, the Ripper didn't know her and certainly didn't have any feelings towards her, therefore when he decided that the next one should have her face carved up it was only because he had refined his techniques and had added this to his repertoire. Kelly was just the next step up, but the Ripper needed to dehumanize her by making her partially unrecognizable before he could continue his butchery because, as I believe, she was the only one that he had chosen in advance because he knew her and knew that she had a room where he could escalate his thrills in private.
What do you think?
Wolf. |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 10:58 am | | Hello,
I've just been reading this all as the new kid in town. I did not read as much and as long as Wolf (I'm just 25)and just digesting the victim profiles since a very short time. (Didn't even know the precise victims till last week, or how many). But I already read my fair share of interviews and literature about serial killers. Before reading any of these discussions it was clear to me that the profession and drunkeness of the women just came in handy for the Ripper. I also know about the FBI age profile, and linking these to the age (and the broad built) of 4 of the victims also suggested a mother profile for me (pure logic and instincts). The last and most horrific murder had put me before a mistery at first. The age and location were out of order and the violence was extremely extreme. Her age against the FBI-profile ages of serial killers, suggested more an equal relation (such like a wife or friend). But it was especially the 'masterwork'-MO that made me gradually think he wanted to annihilate someone he knew. I did not know any of the specifics given by Wolf (especially the sheet), for which I thank him. I also read some half hour before somewhere on this forum, that a breast and some organs were found under her pillow and that this referred to the lovers head on her bosom. This accords with the taken heart.
Actually I'm glad to find someone who just thinks straight. Thanks Wolf
Jill (not the ripper-one) |
|
|
|
|
