|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2115
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 11:59 am: |       |
Monty,
"Jons excellent post above indicates that a person with direct medical knowledge could have started these murders with Polly (though not at any stage did Jon state this was his belief). Method already 'down pat' as Jon puts it."
Absolutely. I can see that possibility as well, when I come to think of it.
I do think he might have had prior offenses further back in time, though, but not necessarily in this direction. Could have been indecent behaviour etc.
As for stalking: -- yes, possibly. Although I suspect that these women were picked by random choice, and not from any deliberate scheme.
As for engaging: -- no, not really. As has been pointed out here before, this wouldn't be necessary, not even at the height of the Ripper scare. These were desperate women; they needed a roof under their heads for the night (not to mention a pint of two, or some gin) and as prostitutes they led their customers to secluded places, not the other way around.
This doesen't contradict, however, with the possibility that we could be looking at an experienced customer or someone who was familiar with how prostitutes operated.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Glenn,
As for engaging: -- no, not really. As has been pointed out here before, this wouldn't be necessary, not even at the height of the Ripper scare. These were desperate women; they needed a roof under their heads for the night (not to mention a pint of two, or some gin) and as prostitutes they led their customers to secluded places, not the other way around
True, true.
Both Nichols, Chapman and Kelly admitted themselves that they were low on funds.
Eddowes it seems didnt find her daughter so she may have been skint as well.
Tabram seems to have been earning for her nights work as does Stride. But these latter two are disputed with regards to their inclusion in Jacks series.
Perhaps he was just picking up the desperate ones....ones guaranted to go with him.
Monty
Ow, Ive just been doin time Sha-mone....It aint so bad !...I aint no Jack da Ripper - Dr Thomas Neill Cream |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Can we agree that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were all murdered by the same person?
Regardless of any other victims, can we bundle these three together at least?
Any takers?
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2116
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Monty boy,
"Perhaps he was just picking up the desperate ones....ones guaranted to go with him."
Perhaps. Quite possible.
Maybe he stalked them (if he did) to find the ones that appeared most willing or desperate?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2117
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
"Can we agree that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were all murdered by the same person?
Yep. Absolutely.
I am afraid to claim that I am sure of anything here, but I would say this is an absolute safe bet.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were victims of the same killer and therefore also canonical Ripper victims -- in my mind the only real true ones.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:00 pm: | |
Maria asked..
"Jon--
Are you saying that you think Nichols wasn't the killer's first go-round, or am I reading too much into your post?"
And Monty commented..
"...a person with direct medical knowledge could have started these murders with Polly (though not at any stage did Jon state this was his belief). Method already 'down pat' as Jon puts it."
Hi Maria and Monty.
This is where it gets a little stickey, it is all too easy to read too much into the paltry evidence as it stands.
The sudden appearance of this 'method' with Nichols, which essentially remained unchanged through the next two murders, three in all, suggests to me this was 'his method', and not something he evolved into or stumbled on accidently.
To put it crudely, it's like "Pow!!", suddenly it appears then "woosh!!", it is gone, just as suddenly.
No murders before nor after carry this trait, even Dr Phillips commented that the 'overcuts?' or slashings were in his opinion understandable, "in consequence of haste", and he also added "no meaningless cuts" (compare with Kelly in this regard?).
Dr Phillips is recognising a trained hand at work, though because we do not have a definitive statement from him we must not read too much into his stated opinion.
Suffice to say Dr Phillips, who knew more about JtR through his slayings than anyone else, was at the very least hinting that these crimes were not perpetrated by any ordinary citizen, nor the result of a maniacal frienzy.
That this killer had 'experience' and 'purpose' was evident to the good doctor, and we must interpret that as best we can.
The question we are left to consider is "what type of experience?, and where it could have been gained?".
The first point for me is the lack of 'obvious' evidence of strangulation, yet it must be admitted that these women were subdued somehow and laid down without struggling before their throat was cut.
(All appeared to have struggled while on their feet, as they all carry bruises on the BACKS of their hands, indicating an assailant standing behind them).
My suspicion, as you know is that Jack used a garrotte from behind, this could be effected by simply encircling the victims neck with his arm (sleeper-hold) which would leave no marks. Or, he used a ligature, and the mark that would have remained on the neck was sliced through by him in order to hide the fact he had used one.
This method of killing, while it was used in England was more common on the continent, hinting this killer, if not a foreigner, may have served time overseas.
The subsequent first cut to the jugglar is a practical move that hints he has some understanding of human biology.
Other murders where women were attacked with a knife at the women's throat (Stride, McKenzie & Coles) do not appear to have been effected after 'strangling', so they are just crude 'slashing' attacks.
Jack followed a particular procedure, possibly in order to keep himself free of arterial blood, this is, in my opinion, evident of a calm & calculating mind at work. The second, and larger, cut to the throat, I have already explained. Once again, calculating.
The opening up of the abdomen from the pubic zone to the ribcage is described in contemporary medical journals by practicing surgeons as the 'normal' method to gain access to the abdomen, ie; to perform a hysterectomy?, and other abdominal operations.
The swiftness with which the crimes were committed can be paralleled by our knowledge of how field-surgeons practiced on the battlefield.
Whether this would be an avenue for future research, or another dead-end, only time will tell. But, I think we cannot dismiss the implications of the evidence as it remains.
In total, I am hinting, and only hinting, that this JtR may have had some anatomical/medical training, and some practice at removing life swiftly using 'foreign' methods.
Had he been in the military?, a surgeon's assistant?, discharged?, who knows?. It's another avenue to consider.
Thanks Jon
(Hi Glenn, thanks actually I thought I made a hash of that poste, it just didn't flow like I intended - que sera, sera)
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2118
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:08 pm: | |
Hi Jon,
All good and interesting points, well grounded. I have nothing further to add to them.
Personally, I have always found the military, surgeon's assistant etc. trail intriguing.
"...actually I thought I made a hash of that poste, it just didn't flow like I intended - que sera, sera"
You are way too hard on yourself, Jon.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Maria.
Glenn, myself, and a handfull of other members agree that at the very least those three murders were committed by the same hand.
Regards, Jon |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 70
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
Jon & Glenn
I'm a big one for trying to get to first causes and for organizing things into flow-charts.
So, if Nichols was the first (London 1888) victim then we know what ? about the killer? We know that he probably had some previous experience cutting into flesh with a knife.
We can speculate that 1) he had killed before somewhere else OR 2)he had some kind of anatomical knowledge OR 3) he was a gifted amateur
Anything else we can agree on?
The thing is, I've been rather overwhelmed with facts, theories speculation lately and I guess I'm trying to clear the air and get back to basics.
Mags |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Maria.
I would tend to leave the gifted amateur to last because if that is the case it is of little help to us. A gifted amateur pretty-well wipes the slate clean, a gifted amateur could be anybody.
It is possible, but that choice serves to kill any helpfull analysis.
The effective use of the knife is (as opposed to a quick 'slash' like Stride, McKenzie & Coles) a reasonable indication that this killer understood the mechanics of what he was doing.
A medical student could perform this adequately, the trouble with this idea is that the majority of medical students were young men, early 20's?, I would expect that such a young lad would be more likely to select victims of his own age group, even a street hardened, aged, ill, prostitute may be suspicious if she is approached by such a young client - it's a thought, no more.
In support of this we find thee most reliable witness description given is that by Mrs Long, who describes an 'older' looking man, 'shabby-genteel' in appearance, wearing a deerstalker hat.
Now this type of hat may be suggestive of a past air of discipline, not the type of hat worn by the local 'low-class' ruffs.
This person may at one time have had some sense of dignity to his life?. - guessing.
I don't know if Glenn agree's, but thats my gut feeling.
I don't think I'm helping you clear the air any
Regards, Jon |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 5:17 pm: | |
Hi Jon,reading your posts with interest.It seems to me too that JtR was someone who may have had an approach based on some medical knowledge for the reasons you give-although whether it came from some initial training as a "barber Surgeon" or assisting at post mortems or even just watching operations at St Thomas"s[or had this practice of the public being allowed to attend
operations and some postmortems ceased by 1888?]
I know this took place earlier in the century because its recorded-the "demonstrations" by the chief surgeons were watched from a little balcony which can still be seen I believe in the oldest part of St Thomas"s.
Myself I am still of the view that the killer of Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols were one and the same.Both were very alcohol dependent,around the same age and prostitutes,murdered close by.Both had wounds of a crazed type in the lower abdomen
and both were displayed immodestly by the killer
[as were all the others bar Elizabeth Stride].
There seems to be a pattern here even though the 39 stab wounds werent repeated.I find it too much of a coincidence that the killer after carrying out what appears to have been a frenzied knife attack on Martha Tabram then took time to so carefully rearrange her clothing and the position of her legs in a more or less identical way to that of four of the five canonical victims.This too must have been his way of either communicating his predatory skills to a future audience with a particular "trademark" or satisfying some perverted sexual urge[or just possibly both].
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2119
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Jon,
Your guessing and gut feelings are as good as any. To tell you the naked truth, I agree with what you say 100%; I couldn't have put it better myself. You really put me out of work here.
Yes, I agree, I would most likely leave out the gifted amateur. Some sort of methodical man with at least anatomical knowledge is not to stretch it too far, I think.
Natalie,
I am not so sure about the "carefully rearrangement" of Tabram's clothes. Yes, she was found in a body position we see in many sexual killings, but I am not sure we should read to much into it. The clothes arrangement I have seen in many cases, and for the most part they are more a result of "disturbance" from sexual interaction rather than "arrangement". although that does occur as well. Not to mention the victim belonging to the category "drunken prostitute" -- one of the most common victim categories in crime.
I think the fact that Martha was killed with frenzied stabbing, while the three canonical victims were killed and mutilated rather methodically, is of greater relevancy here.
Besides, Tabram's wounds were not just concentrated to the abdominal area, but she had several cuts on other parts on her body as well.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 02, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 328
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
First off, I wasn’t claiming or even saying that Tabram was a Ripper victim, although I think she may have been, but I’m simply ‘exploring’ her murder, if you will, to see if something I didn’t know or see turns up.
”I don't know London or East End in detail, but like in other poorer districts of the larger cities there were streets that were rough and those that were more respectable. Prostitutes focused on certain areas or different streets, like they do today. I would hardly consider all of East End to harbour these activities equally much. Such examples are Dorset Street and Thrawl Street, which were considered among the worst.”
I don’t know the East End in detail either, perhaps that’s just it. I know that Dorset Street and some of the surrounding streets were worse than many others, but I’m just not sure if Whitechapel and Spitalfields were clearly worse than other neighbourhoods. Poplar and Bethnal Green may have been evenly bad, as far as I’m concerned.
”I don't believe in scientifically unsupported profiler garbage like "comfort zones" and "triangles". As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing...All such intellectual elaborations are constructed in my view, and depending on how we use them, we can show practically everything.”
My point is simply that Tabram was killed within the triangle formed by crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. That’s a fact – regardless of whether it’s scientifically unsupported profiler ‘garbage’ or not – and to me that’s a point in favor of Tabram being a Ripper victim. No ‘comfort zone’ or other ‘intellectual elaborations’ on my part.
”That's true, but then the Tabram killing wasn't ordinary either.”
That’s exactly my point and really doesn’t go any further than that. Tabram’s murder wasn’t ordinary and, except for the important cutting of the throat and mutilations, there are some points that set her murder apart from any normal murder cases, but not from those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and McKenzie. But that indeed doesn't mean that the Ripper killed Tabram.
Good that you don't believe that in all East End the Ripper would have been the only one carrying such wicked traits. Certainly possible.
”I am doubtful about this, Frank. We still have the problem of developing these traits in a period of three weeks.”
I am doubtful about this myself, too, although I still think it’s feasible. However, I don’t necessarily think we have the problem of developing traits in 3 weeks, because like I said, in case Tabram was a Ripper victim, he could have given a lot of thought already to killing women, he could have developed an elaborated fantasy about how he would do that, he could only not have thought about actually acting out his fantasies yet. But I don’t know how such things work in a killer’s mind. Fantasy can be very different than reality. But you may be right all the same.
“I find it quite hard to find the term "cooling off" relevant here.”
I used this term because that’s how I’ve come to know it. What I meant is the factual period between 2 murders. A period of 3 weeks without killing would not be strange for the Ripper.
”I have never suggested that Tabram was a copy-cat.”
I know, I never suggested you suggested that. It’s just something to keep in mind.
“Instead I would reverse it and look at it from the opposite direction, actually. I find it quite possible, that the Tabram murder (especially with the media coverage earlier on with the Emma Smith murder) actually may have influenced and triggered him into starting the whole thing.”
Perfectly possible and a good point.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
Glenn,I see your point about the clothes also the fact that the women all seem to have had too much to drink and on the streets in the dark etc.
These certainly were the women he chose to kill
and the first and most obvious reason appears to be that these were people he knew he could kill easily,who would put up little resistance and who would be prepared to go into dark corners of Whitechapel with him because their intoxicated state of mind would reduce any natural fear about doing so giving them a false sense of security.
I dont think it matters -who led who-he KNEW they would go there and that was what mattered.
As far as Martha Tabram goes I too still think she could have been his victim.Its so curious that she was found on a stairway leading to flats.It gives me the impression that he had gone over it beforehand and knew the odds were against being disturbed too much.He either willingly went there with her or suggested it to her.Meanwhile there was a soldier waiting around outside[2.30.am] who was questioned by a policeman about "hanging around" the building.Where does this fit in?Could there be anything in the story
another soldier told about suspecting his companion to be JtR[sorry I have forgotten the name of the soldier-must look it up again.
Best Natalie |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hi Natalie, you commented..
"..It seems to me too that JtR was someone who may have had an approach based on some medical knowledge for the reasons you give-although whether it came from some initial training as a "barber Surgeon" or assisting at post mortems.."
Yes, any one of those and several more could be looked at. There is no reason to suggest he was a surgeon, not even a doctor, but certainly we might be allowed to view him as something above the ordinary commoner, which rules out the Kosminski/Cohen (low-class nutcase) type suspects.
".. or even just watching operations at St Thomas"s[or had this practice of the public being allowed to attend operations and some postmortems ceased by 1888?]
I know this took place earlier in the century because its recorded-the "demonstrations" by the chief surgeons were watched from a little balcony which can still be seen I believe in the oldest part of St Thomas"s."
I know the viewing gallery's were for medical students and interested doctors alike but do you have any reason to believe common people were allowed in?.
Considering this type of operating room was specifically constructed for tutorial purposes I never considered the general public would be allowed to take up seats needed by students, perhaps they were. Did they have to pay a fee?.
Thanks, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2120
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
"My point is simply that Tabram was killed within the triangle formed by crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. That’s a fact – regardless of whether it’s scientifically unsupported profiler ‘garbage’ or not – and to me that’s a point in favor of Tabram being a Ripper victim. No ‘comfort zone’ or other ‘intellectual elaborations’ on my part."
Well, the "triangle could simply be a coincidence or have very natural sociological explanations. The fact that Tabram was found within this area could simply be a result of that this was avery active area for the prostitutes. I prefer not to draw any wilder conclusions from geography than that.
"there are some points that set her murder apart from any normal murder cases, but not from those of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly and McKenzie."
Yes, and the same can be said for the Pichin Street torso and the body in Whitehall, and those are not in general contributed to the Ripper. OK, these could be influenced by the Ripper (which we can't say about Tabram), but it still shows that there were more murderers belonging to this category than the Ripper in the area.
"A period of 3 weeks without killing would not be strange for the Ripper."
That's true, but that was not my point. But three weeks is rather short in order to work out a fully developed method and signature -- a method and signature that then is concsistent for at least three murders (with very slight minor changes in detail).
I can only quote from Jon Smyth's excellent post:
"The sudden appearance of this 'method' with Nichols, which essentially remained unchanged through the next two murders, three in all, suggests to me this was 'his method', and not something he evolved into or stumbled on accidently.
To put it crudely, it's like "Pow!!", suddenly it appears then "woosh!!", it is gone, just as suddenly. [...] Jack followed a particular procedure, possibly in order to keep himself free of arterial blood, this is, in my opinion, evident of a calm & calculating mind at work. The second, and larger, cut to the throat, I have already explained. Once again, calculating."
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 03, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
Hi Jon,I was told recently that the public were allowed to watch demonstrations/operations but I think myself that this practice had ceased by 1888.I dont know whether the Victorian site would have information on this-it may be worth trying it.Sometimes I have wondered whether someonelike Druitt could have developed an interest through attending such spectacles on the invite of his father or Uncle who were surgeons-but that would have been as a special guest not as a member of the public.I will try to find out anyway about the meaning of "theatre" in this context and whether the meaning changed over the centuries.
Ofcourse one doesnt know what the surgeons medical books looked like then.Did they for example contain illustrations of the corpses of murderers being dissected,as was once common practice?And if so perhaps some would also have contained illustrations of Hogarth type gin drinkers-men and women-who having engaged also in crime of some kind were then considered suitable guinea pigs for demonstrations by surgeons.If the future JtR had had access to such graphic scenes through such texts it could have triggered of a predilection for cutting up the dead bodies of prostitutes or women who had been considered beyond the pale for varios reasons and therefore available,like the bodies of the hanged murderers of th 18th century for medical research/illustration etc
Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 9:03 pm: | |
Glenn writes: I totally disagree with the Kelly murder being so similar to the others. It is not the fact that she was killed indoors that troubles me, but the fact that the approach seems different. I have said it before and I'll say it again; to me it certainly more looks like a very sloppy copy cat attempt by someone who had gained some information about the murders -- probably from the press -- but then just didn't get some details right.
The spray and large amount of blood is one thing: the Ripper was very careful in his approach not to get too much blood on him and there isn't really that much blood on the murder sites (there is some spray of blood on the fence in Hanbury Street, but apart from that very little considering the state of victims). In Miller's Court it is a completely different story; it is practically a blood bath with a lot of blood on the walls and on the floor, indicating that Mary Kelly may have been conscious during the attack and maybe also tried to defend herself.
Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray. In the case of Chapman and Stride, there was, only in Stride's case her left carotid artery was cut and, because she was turned to her left side, the blood flowed toward the ground, not at the wall. Dr. Philips remarked that there was more blood at the scene than he would have expected. So, Mary Kelly's case is not so different. And the blood at her scene (spray on the wall, run-off on the floor) does not suggest a struggle. The tears in the sheets can be easily explained without assuming a struggle, or that the killer was 'sloppy'.
Glenn writes: To assume that these changes is a result of the more secluded circumstances indoors, is just not good enough -- it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly just the same -- the scream of "murder!" is a sign of that this apparently was not tried succesfully.
You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did.
We also have the over-excessive mutilations, that usually are referred to as a result of "his grande finale and his evolution technique reaching its full bloom". That is totally unsupported and just speculations.
Also, the womb strangely didn't seem to be of interest of the Ripper in this case, but rather the heart (if the heart was taken from the scene). There are quite a few question marks to consider, which means we can't just buy the Ripper option straight off.
I completely agree with you as to your 'finale' statement, however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates. If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind? And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him. On top of that, he had an alibi. Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime. And I believe this fits in well with the context of the Tabram discussion, in compare and contrast and helping determine if Tabram was a Ripper victim.
Simon,
In your discussion of Stride, it appears you're basing your conclusion on pre-murder witness testimony alone, and this is a mistake. Take the following into consideration: When Edward Spooner lifted her chin at approximately 1:03a.m., she was still bleeding to death. Dr. Blackwell estimated it took her about 90 seconds to succumb to her neck wound. As Dr. Blackwell based this conclusion in part on the assumption she'd been conscious when cut (which would have escalated the bleeding), and in all likelihood, she was not conscious, it could have taken as long as four minutes to bleed to death, but certainly NOT 18 minutes! Also, when Dr. Blackwell examined her at 1:16, he found her face still warm. This was a moderately nourished woman, exposed to open air, who'd been bled to death. Do you think her face would still be warm a full half-hour after death? I don't. Spooner's testimony tells me she was knifed at approximately 1a.m..
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2121
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
Hi Tom,
"Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray."
I don't know if you have misunderstood me, but this is exactly my point and this is also what I intended to point out. And this contradicts the Kelly murder scene, which is full of blood, so I must say that point in your argument seriously eludes me.
(However, as I wrote in Chapman's case there were some spray of blood ion the fence -- not that it makes me change my mind, but nevertheless.)
As for Stride, I am ruling out her from this discussion, since I am not sure of her inclusion as a Ripper victim.
Furthermore, I didn't intend to imply that it is proven that Kelly defended herself, because it certainly isn't (although there are cuts on her arms, which could be from defense, but as you say such details could derive from sloppiness -- which I think in that case would show yet another contradiction against the Ripper's methodical approach). it is mere speculation. However, the large quantity of blood on the Kelly scene does suggest that Kelly was alive and probably conscious when she was attacked with the knife -- in contrast to the canonical Ripper victims). I really can't see how you can claim that there are similarities on this point. Are we looking at the same crime scene photo?
"You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Once again, I didn't mean to imply that the "Oh murder!" cry with certainty came from Kelly (I should have put an "if" in there somewhere) -- we can't really know that, but I think there is a possibility that it may have. I see no reason to state with certainty that "there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Besides, my main point was that it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly regardless if he was killing indoors or outdoors. Judging from the blood on the scene, the murderer in this case were not as careful at getting blood and gore on himself or the environment, which I would say the Ripper was. The fact that it in Kelly's case occurred indoors doesen't matter.
"however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates."
I didn't say "only" (that's your interpretation), but in both Chapman's and Eddowes case the womb was removed and taken (in Eddowes' case both half of the kidney and the womb).
"If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind?"
No, but he may have misunderstood the whole point of the removal of the organs and maybe just picked anything (if he did take the heart -- it was never found, we don't know what happened to it). Fact remains -- whatever one wants to make of it -- that no organs from the productive and sexual area was taken from Kelly's body, while the Ripper seem to have found these items of certain importance as thropees.
"And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him."
You didn't hear what I just said in my previous post, Tom. I said, I could present to you a number of crimes of similar character (or worse) throughout crime history, that are performed by perpetrators (all husbands or boyfriends to the victim) that have no prior criminal record.
You can't just rule that out on basis of that "it couldn't happen" when we have recorded facts saying that it does.
Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a prime suspect in such a case fools the police or manages to get himself through and pass an interrogation. Furthermore, there are signs of that he may have been quite nervous during this process. We simply don't have enough information telling us how he acted psychologically in these situations.
But the fact that he was released and also impressed at the coroner's inquest means nothing. If he did the Kelly murder, we could also expect him to handle an interrogation.
"On top of that, he had an alibi."
Not a very impressive one, I might add.
It is impossible for us over hundred years later to check up on it and confirm how effective it really was, since we don't have enough information.
The time of Kelly's death is not at all condirmed or stated with certianty, and since there are question marks regarding this quite important point, it is pointless to dive into discussions about his alleged alibi.
"Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime."
I am happy for you, that you are so sure of yourself on this matter and I offer you my deepest congratulations. Even if it means that you are dismissing several important factual details. But have it your way; I prefer to keep an open mind about it as an alternative option -- in contrast to you I'd say it is not at all a clear-cut thing.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 03, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 174
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 2:44 am: | |
Hi Tom,
"Glenn, I believe you're mistaken. In the case of Nichols and Eddowes, the victims were dead or fully unconscious prior to mutilation, so there was no arterial spray."
I don't know if you have misunderstood me, but this is exactly my point and this is also what I intended to point out. And this contradicts the Kelly murder scene, which is full of blood, so I must say that point in your argument seriously eludes me.
(However, as I wrote in Chapman's case there were some spray of blood ion the fence -- not that it makes me change my mind, but nevertheless.)
My point was simple - prior to Kelly, the Ripper DID cut the throats of victims prior to their death. As for blood, there was blood on Kelly's wall and the floor and bed around her. Nothing to suggest a struggle. In this respect, it's no different than the other crime scenes.
As for Stride, I am ruling out her from this discussion, since I am not sure of her inclusion as a Ripper victim.
Well, that's not responsible investigation. She's been ruled INTO the case by the original investigators, and no solid argument to exclude (that supercedes the argument to include her) has since been put forward.
Furthermore, I didn't intend to imply that it is proven that Kelly defended herself, because it certainly isn't (although there are cuts on her arms, which could be from defense, but as you say such details could derive from sloppiness -- which I think in that case would show yet another contradiction against the Ripper's methodical approach). it is mere speculation. However, the large quantity of blood on the Kelly scene does suggest that Kelly was alive and probably conscious when she was attacked with the knife -- in contrast to the canonical Ripper victims). I really can't see how you can claim that there are similarities on this point. Are we looking at the same crime scene photo?
I've already pointed out that the fact that Kelly was attacked with the knife while alive is not at all without precedent in the Ripper murders. Are we looking at the same photo? Yes, but keep in mind that we don't have photos of the other crime scenes to look at, so naturally Kelly's stands out. And I'm glad you state that there's no proof Kelly defended herself. The doctor's certainly found no proof on her hands or under her nails. I was concerned, because earlier you stated quite confidently that her killer was sloppy and let himself be attacked. Even if that's the case, you must keep in mind that JTR was not a perfect killing machine.
"You do not help your case by assuming the cry of 'oh murder' came from Kelly, as there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Once again, I didn't mean to imply that the "Oh murder!" cry with certainty came from Kelly (I should have put an "if" in there somewhere) -- we can't really know that, but I think there is a possibility that it may have. I see no reason to state with certainty that "there's more reason to believe it didn't than that it did."
Besides, my main point was that it would be important for the Ripper to silence and kill her quickly regardless if he was killing indoors or outdoors. Judging from the blood on the scene, the murderer in this case were not as careful at getting blood and gore on himself or the environment, which I would say the Ripper was. The fact that it in Kelly's case occurred indoors doesen't matter.
I'd say the Ripper was careful, because no one reported see a blood-covered man leaving Miller's Court. There is a good reason to doubt the cry of 'oh murder', but that's for a different thread. But even if we accept that as having come from Mary, I'd say that's a prett quick subdue, as that's the only cry she got out before he silenced her, and no one came a'knockin'. I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene. Stop looking at the photo. Chapman's scene was a mess and quite similar. Eddowes had a pool of blood around her.
"however you can't say the Ripper was after only uteri, as Eddowes' missing kidney illustrates."
I didn't say "only" (that's your interpretation), but in both Chapman's and Eddowes case the womb was removed and taken (in Eddowes' case both half of the kidney and the womb).
No, a whole kidney was taken. A half of a kidney was sent to Lusk (of course, it may not have been Eddowes').
"If a copycat were following what he reads in the papers, as you suggest, why would he go to the hellish trouble of removing her heart, when he'd read nothing of the kind?"
No, but he may have misunderstood the whole point of the removal of the organs and maybe just picked anything (if he did take the heart -- it was never found, we don't know what happened to it). Fact remains -- whatever one wants to make of it -- that no organs from the productive and sexual area was taken from Kelly's body, while the Ripper seem to have found these items of certain importance as thropees.
You don't find a heart just by 'grabbing anything'. Cutting out her uterus, or taking any of the organs he came in contact with first would have been easy. He sought the heart. As for the Ripper's need, we don't know. He took 4 organs, 2 of which were uteruses. That's half. And it's doubtful they were mere 'trophies'. That's profiler talk.
"And, if you want to accept Barnett as Kelly's killer, you have to take into consideration the likelihood that he was a first-time murderer, and that he pulled off a helluva show with the police, never once letting on or giving them reason to suspect him."
You didn't hear what I just said in my previous post, Tom. I said, I could present to you a number of crimes of similar character (or worse) throughout crime history, that are performed by perpetrators (all husbands or boyfriends to the victim) that have no prior criminal record.
You can't just rule that out on basis of that "it couldn't happen" when we have recorded facts saying that it does.
And you didn't hear what I said...Yes, you could name a lot of cases. So could I... all of men who got caught. Most because they confessed. Barnett didn't confess, didn't attract undue attention, and provided an alibi. He didn't kill Mary, Jack the Ripper did.
Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a prime suspect in such a case fools the police or manages to get himself through and pass an interrogation. Furthermore, there are signs of that he may have been quite nervous during this process. We simply don't have enough information telling us how he acted psychologically in these situations.
But the fact that he was released and also impressed at the coroner's inquest means nothing. If he did the Kelly murder, we could also expect him to handle an interrogation.
We could? You described him as sloppy? Why do you suppose a man who could so completey annhialate the girl he loves could show up the next morning and give the police, including Abberline, such a believable performance AND a good alibi?
"On top of that, he had an alibi."
Not a very impressive one, I might add.
It is impossible for us over hundred years later to check up on it and confirm how effective it really was, since we don't have enough information.
The time of Kelly's death is not at all condirmed or stated with certianty, and since there are question marks regarding this quite important point, it is pointless to dive into discussions about his alleged alibi.
That's a valid point.
"Kelly's murder should definitely be accepted as a Ripper crime."
I am happy for you, that you are so sure of yourself on this matter and I offer you my deepest congratulations. Even if it means that you are dismissing several important factual details. But have it your way; I prefer to keep an open mind about it as an alternative option -- in contrast to you I'd say it is not at all a clear-cut thing.
You've yet to point out any factual details that show Kelly to have been anything other than a Ripper victim. I've looked at it from both perspectives, and share the perspective of Scotland Yard - Kelly was a Ripper victim. It's not a matter of an 'open-minded', it's simply a matter of aptly applied logic.
All the best
Ditto
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2122
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Tom,
"My point was simple - prior to Kelly, the Ripper DID cut the throats of victims prior to their death. As for blood, there was blood on Kelly's wall and the floor and bed around her. Nothing to suggest a struggle. In this respect, it's no different than the other crime scenes. [...] I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene. Stop looking at the photo. Chapman's scene was a mess and quite similar. Eddowes had a pool of blood around her."
Oh come on, Tom. Here you really make no sense and you are also distorting the evidence. Even the doctors and the police at the time stated that the crimes (apart from Kelly) were performed in a way that it would create as less blood-mess as possible. On the Ripper's crimes scenes there were very little blood considering the type of crimes we are dealing with here and the mutilations. It's all there to read. This is also quite natural, since he had managed to kill them and cut their throats (or strangle them) prior to their death. Let's consult Dr Brown's own words regarding the Eddowes murder scene: "No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body."
Still, there were quite extensive mutilations.
In Miller's Court it is very different. Not only are the mutilations even more extensive, but also a large quantity of blood.
It doesen't matter that we don't have crime scene photos from the other killings. It is all there in the written documentation, saying that quite little blood was shed in the other Ripper murders considering the circumstances, and certainly not those kinds of splashes as we see in the Kelly scene. This strongly suggests a killer with another approach and who is not as experienced in taking his victims by surprise.
I really don't see your reasoning; there are vast dissimilarities as far as the crime scenes are concerned.
"I've already pointed out that the fact that Kelly was attacked with the knife while alive is not at all without precedent in the Ripper murders."
News flash for you. The Ripper victims were (if not strangled first) killed quickly by getting their throats cut, decreasing the amount of blood. Furthermore he performed this in a way that it should spray as little as possible.
If the killer had had the same approach in Miller's Court we wouldn't see that large amount of blood. I'd say Kelly bled a lot before she died -- so there is certainly a difference in approach.
In my mind we are talking about a less experienced killer in Kelly's case, that didn't manage to overcome his victim quickly. The Ripper was fast, he was silent and the mutilations were performed quite neatly after a deliberate, careful scheme sceme. Kelly's murder is a blood-bath and over-excessive in its mutilations.
"I'd say the Ripper was careful, because no one reported see a blood-covered man leaving Miller's Court."
No, beacuse the crime scene evidence say so.
"But even if we accept that as having come from Mary, I'd say that's a prett quick subdue, as that's the only cry she got out before he silenced her, and no one came a'knockin'. I'm afraid I don't understand the importance you place on the blood at the Kelly scene."
The importance lies in that it shows a killer with a less distinguished approach and who failed to take his victim by surprise. One of the Ripper's trade-marks was to kill his victims quickly and silently and to create as little blood as possible on the scene. The amount of blood in Miller's Court shows:
a) she had bled and probably had been attacked several times by the knife before she died (inconsistent with the Ripper murders)
b) that she certainly was surprised but not killed quickly and probably not silently (considering the crime scene evidence it is not all unreasonable to imagine that the cry could have come from Kelly).
"And you didn't hear what I said...Yes, you could name a lot of cases. So could I... all of men who got caught."
That is of no relevancy. You argued that Barnett couldn't have done it as a first time offense. I simply stated that there are cases where this has happened.
Glad to hear that you at least acknowledge that Barnett's alibi is hard to put forward as an argument, since Kelly's time of death is not fully established.
"Why do you suppose a man who could so completey annhialate the girl he loves could show up the next morning and give the police, including Abberline, such a believable performance AND a good alibi?"
Once again, Tom, it has happened before.
As I said, if he managed to do the stuff in Miller's Court, I could very much expect him to handle a police interrogation as well. And secondly, don't over-rate the abilities of the police. They are human, and even the best get fooled. You seem to assume that Annerline was some kind of Superman.
And no, Barnett's alibi isn't the best I've heard.
"I've looked at it from both perspectives"
No, you have not. You have already in your mind decided that Kelly was a Ripper victim and seem desperately frightened of the possibility that she may not have been.
I have said it once and I'll say it again: there is a 50--50 chance that Kelly may have been murdered and mutilated by someone else than the Ripper. I have no preconceptions of how things should be.
Now, we are certainly losing Tabram here. Kelly do have her own thread.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 04, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Hi Glenn,Tom and all,
In Paul Beggs latest book"Jack the Ripper-The Facts"-published 2004 he has a whole chapter on the murder of Martha Tabram.
Paul seems to respect the judgement of the police officers/coroner and doctors there at the time pretty much throughout the book which tends to be my position ie they did do as thorough a job as possible for that time which included interviews with alibis,co-tenants of the Victoria Mens Home for example,searches of innumerable homes and other premises etc.I think we can dismiss their findings too readily really.We were not after all there at the time,do not therefore know exactly who was interviewed and what they said because so much has been lost to us,and tend to forget that puctiliousness would have been DEMANDED by their superiors-probably a lack of exactitude would cost them their jobs in those days-so what we do have will be as good as anything likely to be had today bar ofcourse the advances in finger-printing and forensic science[which doesnt always result in catching the criminal actually anymore than the tried and tested work of the likes of Abberline.
The facts according to Begg are tha t the following police considered Martha Tabram to be a victim of JtR-Frederick Abberline,Sir Robert Anderson,Edmund Reid, and Dew.I think we should bear their considerations in mind more often.They were there they should have the edge on us after all.
Best Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 329
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
”Well, the "triangle could simply be a coincidence or have very natural sociological explanations. The fact that Tabram was found within this area could simply be a result of that this was avery active area for the prostitutes.”
I don’t think the triangle was a mere coincidence, but it could have had the natural sociological explanations you talk about. Could be. I shall have to read up on those sociological circumstances in the whole of the East End.
”Yes, and the same can be said for the Pichin Street torso and the body in Whitehall, and those are not in general contributed to the Ripper.”
No, actually it can’t. The two torsos you refer to were (unidentified) women, only the one found in Pinchin Street was found close to where the Ripper killed, at some point they were ‘handled’ with a cutting device, but that’s about it. All very general, so by your own admittance meaningless, certainly when compared to Tabram’s possible connection to the Ripper murders.
“OK, these could be influenced by the Ripper (which we can't say about Tabram), but it still shows that there were more murderers belonging to this category than the Ripper in the area.”
Although they seem to have been, we’re not sure these women were killed by the same hand. As we know absolutely nothing of the murderer’s motive to kill, we can’t say this killer or killers belonged to the same category as the Ripper.
What we can say about the killer, is that he most probably had some private building at his disposal, where he could dismember his victim(s) without being disturbed and that he probably had his own means of transportation, which enabled him to take his victim(s) where he got rid of them. In that respect this man or these men were a totally different breed of killer than the Ripper.
”"A period of 3 weeks without killing would not be strange for the Ripper."
That's true, but that was not my point.”
I know what your point was, this was just an additional point of mine.
“But three weeks is rather short in order to work out a fully developed method and signature -- a method and signature that then is concsistent for at least three murders (with very slight minor changes in detail).”
My point is that the Ripper already had developed method and signature in his mind when he killed Tabram – that is, in case he did kill her, of course – but that is was still only present in his mind as a fantasy, not as an actual plan to carry out and that the fact that he wasn’t prepared yet, if you will, when he met Tabram, coupled with the fierce anger Tabram must have unleashed within him resulted in the dissimilarities between Tabram and the others. When he killed the others he had actually set his mind on killing them accordingly to his fantasies and could therefore ‘direct’ his anger (more) in agreement with these fantasies.
Again, I’m not saying this is what must have happened, because I don’t know how such things work in a killer’s mind. I’m just keeping an open mind. Like I said, things may go very differently than you planned or fantasised if a sudden opportunity presents itself.
Jon’s quote: ”Jack followed a particular procedure, possibly in order to keep himself free of arterial blood, this is, in my opinion, evident of a calm & calculating mind at work”
This line of thinking is what I used in the past year in some of the (much appreciated) discussions you and I had.
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Further to post1097 above:In the same book he states that Joseph Barnett was indoors when he heard that a woman had been murdered in Dorset street,but he did not know the victim was Mary Jane Kelly.When he discovered it was he went to the police.He appears to have been very closely questioned about his whereaboutsand the police investigated his account of his movements and satisfied themselves that they were correct.pages291 and 292.
It would seem to me that once again we have police/doctors etc all agreeing that Mary Kelly was a victim of JtR and once again its worth reminding ourselves that these were not unthorough
sloppy men investigating the case but rather experienced and seasoned and who had actually SEEN the bodies -sometimes "in-situ" and aware of his methods.
I cant believe that Joseph Barnett was not subjected to the most rigorous questioning
and likewise any alibis he gave.moreover he is NOT ONCE doubted by friends and neighbours of Mary Kelly and seems to have been thought of as a decent enough chap by those in a position to know him.And so if indeed Mary Kelly is a ripper victim as the police believed at the time,then Joseph Barnett is a very unlikely ripper in my view.Wher on earth did he keep his trophies for example?[sorry to be on the wrong thread over this but it does relate to this thread as well.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2123
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
Natalie,
I think you are confusing things a bit here.
Firstly, I have said many times that the police probably did as good as they could for their time and the circumstances. I don't think they did a sloppy job at all.
That is not the issue here.
The issue is that the police -- also in our day and age -- are getting fooled by criminals and they are not always correct in their assumptions and sometimes get the wrong man or let the right one go. They are human beings as the rest of us, and that is mainly my point.
Even today even the most experienced police officers fail; this is not an exact science. Some people they bring in for questioning are rather slick, and even if they suspect the character they still have to prove his guilt either by a confession or preferably by physical evidence, or else they have to let him go.
Just because the police at the time did consider Barnett as a credible witness (if they really did), or they interpreted Mary Kelly as a Ripper victim, then it doesen't prove the slightest that they were correct. We must not forget that their experience in these types of crimes were rather limited at the time -- Abberline's rather strange support of Chapman as the Ripper is a typical proof of this.
It has nothing to do with sloppiness, but in such a case just human error and inexperience, things that are to be expected.
Secondly,
I don't believe at all that Barnett was the Ripper. That is a completely different story.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2124
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Hi Frank,
I must say I totally disagree with you regarding your views on the Pinchin Street and Whitehall bodies. It is not relevant whether these crimes are similar to the Ripper or not; the point was that they nevertheless were something out of the ordinary.
If these were murdered and disembowelled, this surely indicates to me that they were victim of crimes that stands out from the ordinary stab murders or knife threats that may have occurred in East End. NO WAY these are ordinary murders, they shouldn't even be recognized as such today.
Since Tabram was considered a stab murder "out of the ordinary" in its frenziness and character, then so are these, although in a different way. Disembowelled bodies doesen't grow on trees, they derive from somewhere and from a certain incident. The fact that the Ripper didn't disembowelled his victims is unimportant; the point is that disembowelled bodies doesen't appear everyday, and somebody must have done it. I would say this indicates that there were more bestialic murderers than the Ripper in the area at the time. He or they may not have been sexually deranged killers like the Ripper (we can't know that anyway), but it takes quite a bit of character to murder a woman and disembowel the body. It isn't done everyday and certainly not by the ordinary killer.
So, if these were not victims of the Ripper -- which I have no reason to believe -- this suggests that there were more killers in the area at that time, that stood out of the ordinary ruffian criminals. Therefore there is no reason to automatically accept either Tabram or Kelly as Ripper victims.
"My point is that the Ripper already had developed method and signature in his mind when he killed Tabram – that is, in case he did kill her, of course – but that is was still only present in his mind as a fantasy, not as an actual plan to carry out and that the fact that he wasn’t prepared yet, if you will, when he met Tabram, coupled with the fierce anger Tabram must have unleashed within him resulted in the dissimilarities between Tabram and the others. When he killed the others he had actually set his mind on killing them accordingly to his fantasies and could therefore ‘direct’ his anger (more) in agreement with these fantasies."
I can't completely rule out this scenario, of course, but it doesne't ring true to me. It feels constructed and is not supported by the evidence besides pure speculation.
As I said, not impossible, but not very likely at all in my view. To me a different killer is a more logical solution.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Hi Glennn,first thanks for your reply.
When you talk about confusion its perhaps rather more that in talking about say Barnett I was pointing out my acceptance of the views of not one but several senior police and detectives around at the time ,familiar [detectives -Abberline/Dew etc]with Whitechapel and its inhabitents.None disagreed about
a]Mary Jane Kelly as a ripper victim
b]Joseph Barnett as a man they had vigourously interrogated knowing him to be Mary"s lover and a man unlikely to have either killed and mutillated Mary Kelly or to be Jack the Ripper.
What is also important here is that if Joe wasnt the ripper and Mary was indeed a ripper victim
then for that reason alone he has to be eliminated.
If on the other hand it can be proven that Mary was not a ripper victim but a victim of someone else Barnett still has
a[alibis that would undoubtedly have been chased up by the police-here I am conscious of the nature of Victorian note and detail keeping by law courts/the police/hospitals and schools which was second to none in punctiliousness with regard to dutiful and exact standards of work].
That was my main point really.Not only were these people intelligent,familiar with the criminal mind-see the early "profile" connected with the case of JtR-not bad for the 1880"s,but they would also have had psychological insight too.Think of your great Ibsen or is it Strindberg and their knowledge of the workings of the mind and there are countless others-AC Doyle for instance.I simply cant accept that the police wouldnt have thought of all the possibilities that we do today-and not just the police either.Lots of people were trying to help.The truth is that he was way too slippery a customer.
I dont accept what you say of Abberline either.Just because he thought for a time it was Chapman doesnt make him unreliable otherwise.Chapman WAS a serial killer who had lived in Whitechapel at the time of the murders[more or less] and had training and experience as a barber -surgeon in Poland or thereabouts.Granted he did not then know the laws of chance with regards to serial killers changing their MO being very slim,but otherwise I think its as good a guess as a Kosminski[conveniently Jewish and mentally ill] or a Druitt[conveniently dead shortly after MJK"s murder]or an Ostrog etc etc. and Abberline definitely didnt think it was any of these----probably with justification!
Best Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
Hi,
We all agree that room 13 was a bloodbath, the killer must have left that room with visable blood on his person, just like the person seen rushing through Mitre square at 1010am that morning, with blood splashes on his face.
That reference if true, would fit nicely in with Maxwells sighting, also if he was entering mitre square via church passage when sighted, he would be coming from the direction of Dorset street which would indicate that he lived on the other side of the square a direction he would have taken after leaving Berner street on sept 30th, is it then that he came across poor Eddowes?.
I do not believe that the killer was obsessed with female organs, but removed them to increase the horror factor.
Just a intresting question Where was Barnetts sisters place, or his lodging house in relation to Mitre square?.
Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 176
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Glenn,
You're right, so I've moved our series of Kelly posts to an existing thread called 'WAS MARY JANE KELLY A VICTIM OF JACK THE RIPPER?', and responded to your last post to me ther | | | |
