|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 517
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 9:21 am: |       |
Hi Richard and All
Richard- Your scenario is plausible, Kelly may have been a busy gal on the night she was murdered. But I must confess that you lost me with 'Shannon's blood argument'. What did Shannon postulate?
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2089
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 9:44 am: | |
Hi Gary
I think that was me, not Richard.
Shannon says that the reports indicate that the blood was still wet when the room was entered. He says this tends to point to a morning rather than night time scenario, as otherwise the blood would have dried by the time the room was entered.
There are various factors to take into account, such as ambient humidity and temperature. But anyway, I have not yet seen a rebuttal of the argument on these Boards.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 636
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 9:46 am: | |
Gary,
I think you meant Robert, not Richard. I am obviously neither of them but the thing regarding Shannon's blood arguement was, I think, because the blood was still wet when the body was found and so was probably murdered in the morning, not in the night, or something along those lines.
Robert,
I don't see Mary leaving her door unlocked as she was very scared of Jack the Ripper I'm sure she would have bothered to get up to lock it.
Sarah |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 637
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Robert,
We must have posted at the same time then.
I think someone once said that if the blood was grouped together it may have taken longer to dry up. Think about water, if it's in a puddle then it takes longer to dry than if it was spread thinly over the ground.
Sarah |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 518
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Hi Robert And Sarah
Thanks for the quick responses. Sorry about mistaking Robert for Richard.
All The Best
Gary
By the way, where is Caz today. I fear she may have started the birthday 'booze-up' early. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 441
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Regarding the blood thing, I sent my list of questions of which this was one to the patholigists at St James but they have told me to consult a forensic pathologist and given me a couple of names to try so I am sending the question on there. However there is a second element which is detailed in James Tully's book. He points out that the extent of Rigor Mortis described by Dr Bond as being present at 2pm indicates a body which had been dead four or five hours at the most. I have this question on the list also! |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 266
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Hi CB and Vlaimir,I cant spend much time tonight on these threads but I"m glad you found the ideas plausible.I often think about Hutchinson too at least with regard to Mary Kelly but always stop short when I realise that Abberline of all the good detectives around at the time was considered ace.Well then how come he picked nothing up from his interviews?Probably simply that having viewed these mutilated corpses with their innards all wierdly arranged about their remains he considered Jack to be staring eyed and pretty crazed and found Hutchinson a normal kind of person to interview[having interviewd thousands of criminals and murderers in his time he probably thought he could sort out the wheat from the chaff[or whatever the expression is].
While I believe the ripper to have possibly been quite plausible when chatting up streetwalkers[not much to say perhaps but not lloking particularly mad eyed and whatever] I do think such a man would have looked slightly strange-maybe unforthcoming when questioned or lapsing into talk about good and evil in such a way as to sound odd and arouse an experienced detectives suspicions.None of this seems to have happened
however despite the stalker like behavior of Hutchinson.I dont rule out Hutchinson it just seems strange noone caught on to him at the time.
With Kosminski I must admit that what causes me to hesitate is because I"d need to know how he presented himself in Whitechapel in 1888.If in fact he looked and acted as crazily in 1888 as he must have done in 1892 then I dont believe he could possibly have been the ripper.He would have been caught for a start.
The only thing is Mary might have known Kosminski and thought him a bit bonkers but harmless and possibly unwittingly encouraged him in some way earlier that night maybe.This is another aspect of Mary that seems credible-she seems to have not worried too much about who she let stay with her
like her pprostitute friends who had nowhere else to go and who Joe took famous exception to.
Best Natalie |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 8:08 pm: | |
Hi Nattalie,
I Inspector Abberline did give an interview to the Pall Mall Gazzet on March 1903 were he exspressed some views on the ripper case that you might be interested in reading if you have not all ready done so.
ALL THE BEST, CB |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 269
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Hi CB-yes I know Abberline said he thought George Chapman was the ripper when he saw him in court but then both Anderson who was assistant commissioner at the time and Machnachten who was assistant chief contable CID at the time have Kosminski -either as prime suspect[Anderson who categorically states he was the ripper]and Machnaghten who has him 2nd [after Druitt].None of them seem to have been able to agree though.
But I dont think these suspects can just be disregarded.They each must have been acting in ways that aroused suspicion.
Best Natalie. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
This thread has gotten way off the topic of whether it was MJK in that room or not, but as far as things that have come out lately:
Shannon's blood theory: He makes a lot out of the fact that it's called a "pool" of blood and that it thus must be wet, but other reports of dried blood have still referred to the blood as a pool. I think he's reading things into it that just aren't there so he can support the late death theory, but if he comes up with better evidence rather than just assumptions I'll reconsider.
Two minutes to unlatch a door: Maybe if the man had no arms and had to take off his footwear so he could use his toes to do it. A killer with arms could probably do it in under 30 seconds. And if MJK were asleep at the time (which someone peeking through the window could probably figure out beforehand), the length of time necessary to open the door really isn't an issue at all.
Police not catching onto Hutchinson if he did it: Even today police very often don't catch onto serial killers when they interview them, so expecting the ones in 1888 to do a better job of it seems rather strange.
Although even accepting that serial killers can be tough nuts to crack, I don't get how anyone can casually ignore someone who admits to hanging around outside of the victim's room for a long length of time for no particular reason at all the night she was murdered in a room with a lock that can be sprung from the outside and then gives witness testimony that just sounds wrong on every level. I don't know if he did it, but he'd have to be near the top of any modern police investigation's suspects list. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 273
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Yes it has got off topic but not everything is easy to compartmentalise all the time.I agree that
anyone wanting to get into Mary"s room would have found it easy.
I too find it astonishing that Hutchinson wasnt top of their list.Maybe they did carry out various checks such as searching through his belongings in the Victoria Home,questioning men who lived there about Hutchinson,questioning mutual friends or aquaintances about Hutchinson
and his relationship to Mary etc and wre satisfied with the enquiries. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
Hi NATALIE,
I was not refering to the suspect that Abberline pointed to. I was refering to what he thought at the time. He said we never believed the stories about Jack the ripper being dead or a lunitic or anything of that kind. He totally rules out Druit, Niel Cream and Kozminski/Cohen. He believed that the ripper had gone abroad. I believe the over all content of the two articles is more important then who he points to as a suspect.
I have read some stuff on the two Frenchies and the Brown murder in newyork that is interesting and Francis Tumblety also went to NY. So besides Chapemsn there are other ripper suspects that went to America. I almost believe all those freaks hung out together.lol
All the best, CB  |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 276
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
Hi CB.Yes Abberline certainly was very dismissive of Macnaghten and Anderson"s theories on the matter and it makes me think that possibly they had all lost face to some extent because they didnt catch whoever it was.I have also thought it strange that Macnaghten says that he destroyed all the evidence he says he had!
As far as this particular thread goes we seem only to have the word of Caroline Maxwell that she had definitely seen Mary Kelly on the morning
of the murder[9th November] and she says this on the 9th Nov apparently.Although its now being considered that Mary might have been murdered in the morning rather than the time given at the inquest of about 4am and this may be right I dont see how those who knew her well could have failed to identify her hair and what was left of her physiognomy the hairline,some of the jawline her height bone distribution denoting her form to some extent etc.People are often recognisable just from a back view for these reasons so I think it was probably possible for those who knew her to have recognised her.
As regards the American suspects well yes everyone needs checking through.
Finally I dont think we can just dismiss Druitt and Kosminski and Ostrog [or the later theories of Martin Fido re David Cohen/Nathan Kaminski.
Abberline seems to me to have been pretty desperate himself to claim glory for catching the ripper otherwise why say Chapman a convicted wife poisoner had changed his MO and actually was the ripper?
Good to talk to you CB
Best Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
CB,
That remark from Abberline about Chapman is in my view one of the most unexplainable nonsense that I have ever read in connection with Ripper. Why he pointed out Chapman I don't know, but not many in the police force today would buy that a systematic wife-poisoner could be the Ripper. I can't believe he was incompetent, so he must have had his reasons. Beats me, though.
As far as the American trails leading to the Ripper, I believe the most obvious one is La Bruckman. In my view Chapman and Tumblety are both out of the question -- I'd rather prefer Donald Duck (at least as far as the first one is concerned).
Regarding the real subject of this thread, I agree on Dan Norder's points regarding the unlatching of the door. I also think it is quite possible that Mary was caught off guard in her sleep and that somebody -- in my view, the Ripper -- broke in after having peeked through the window and discovered the broken glass and the door arrangement. It wouldn't take an Einstein to figure out how to get in.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 15, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 542
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Einstein eh??? does that mean that E = MJK squared!!!!??? Right for what it's worth IMHO Mary came home (!) cold ,wet and not....at her best,threw whatever was available into the fireplace,shuffled it into something resembling a pile and lit it...a fire maybe She knew the door had no lock and so did most of the residents around I imagine.Think she just then fell into bed (chemise NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and fell asleep.NOW......do you think that a passing 'mad man ' walking down Dorset St would have suddenly turned right into Millers Ct? what attracted him/..the fire............or the singing???
Cheers
Suzi |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
"Einstein eh??? does that mean that E = MJK squared!!!!???"
Uuuuh, don't make me go there. I may have many weak spots, but natural science I believe is the weakest one.
"NOW......do you think that a passing 'mad man ' walking down Dorset St would have suddenly turned right into Millers Ct? what attracted him/..the fire............or the singing???"
A good and fair question. I think it is possible -- if we consider this scenario (and I said IF) -- that the murderer had seen Mary at prior occasions walking into Miller's Court and possibly figured out that she hung out there. Maybe he tailed her and her last client and then waited for his chance? There are numerous options to consider -- I naturally don't think the fire and the singing would have been noticeable from Dorset Street.
I also believe that Mary could have possessed enough "qualities" to be able to draw attention to herself to certain characters, lunatics or not; I bet there is a fair chance that she was would have been well known among the customers of prostitutes, since she was young and obviously rather attractive.
Now, I am not saying that is what happened, but it is a possibility.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 545
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
Sorry that the Einstein natural history didn't appeal...it just made me laugh!!! Am quite sure that Mary had qualities enough...even if just a kick like a carthorse!!!!!!to be noticed...she was that sort of girl I reckon..not sure I'd have liked her though!!!Still have to go with the concept that she knew the man she finally took to her bed,or allowed into it
Cheers
Suzi
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1144
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Well, I really got my own to blame for bringing it up, but mathematical formulas makes me jump down from the balcony.
I am not so sure I would have liked her either; like many of the unfortunates they were quite often victims of ill-fated social circumstances, but they could also (from where we stand) be stubborn and make some rather irrational decisions for themselves.
I have studied a number of illegal prostitutes for the last five years, and I have always found myself feeling for them on one hand, and being angry and frustrated at them on the other. I would be a liar if I said that I understood them at all times -- some of those I've encountered in my studies really did have other options and much points at the fact that Mary Kelly also had other roads to choose in the beginning.
However, it is not our place to judge them, but not romanticise them either (which I feel is far too easy to do -- also on my own part -- especially if they are young and pretty). So it's is true, much of them probably weren't that pleasant people, and I believe the destructive environment itself may have had something to do with it, or at least hardened them further.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 15, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 646
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Glenn, Suzi,
I was just wondering why you two don't think you'd have liked her? I personally think I would have liked her and got on well with her. I'm not romanticising in any way but I believe that she didn't have many other options. There was cleaning and sewing, etc. but I am 99% certain that prostitutes earned more money than these other women. Many of her friends said nothing but nice things about her except possibly when she was drunk. She had many friends and if you just look at how many people turned up for her funeral I think that is a good indicator of the sort of person she was.
With regards to some 'mad man' wondering down Millers Court on the off chance, well I think that it was possible but not likely. This is another pro for Barnett being the murderer. Also we have to think, if she was killed in the morning then the entrance to Miller's Court would have been easily visible to everyone but then this would also be a pro for Barnett as the other murders took place at night so why would the murderer suddenly kill in the daytime. If it was Joe then he may have gone to see her early that morning and then killed her.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Now, I didn't imply that I absolutely wouldn't have liked her, just that I can't take for granted that I would. Neither of us knew her, right?
If you read my post thoroughly you may have noticed that I mentioned "other options" before they turned to prostitution (once they fell in, there really was no turning back, unless you as a woman managed to get married) -- and we do know that Mary kelly somewhere made certain unexplainable decisions for herself, like many others who happened in the same situation did. Furthermore, there are no reason to assume that she was a nice person just because she was young and pretty (although I do believe she had more positive character features than many of her colleagues). In order to be able to survive such living conditions and to fit into that special kind of occupation, you had to be harsh and crude -- that does not mean that she was a bad person or that she couldn't have been fascinating in her own way.
During my studies of prostitutes I have come across several young women similar to Mary Kelly (and who stood out from the crowd with a better behaviour and less drinking than the others). However, most of them didn't do much to improve their situation although opportunities did arise, and as persons they weren't always that nice to deal with. Many of the positive remarks about these women (who was somewhat of a minority) turned out to be afterconstructions anyway.
The environment they lived in was a ruthless and unpleasant one, and your character were moulded from that after a while. I am not saying this to put poor Mary Kelly down, but I believe she has been romanticized to an unnecessary degree -- these women were in general not that pleasant to deal with and it was their environment that destroyed their personality. I have on several times during my own research been forced to grab myself by the ear not to pity them or romanticize them, because that is so easily done -- believe me, I have fallen in that pit many times myself. But I am afraid that creates a distorted picture of their real conditions and the picture of who they really were. These women lead a depressing and destructive life, and certainly self-destructive, and so far I haven't come across a single one who have managed to come out of that with a personality that I personally feel I would have gooten on that well with. But I certainly hope Mary Kelly rests in peace and that she is far better off where she is now than she was in life.
The large crowds of people attending at her funeral I think has more to do with her being known as a Ripper victim, and the need for people to collectively express their emotions because of her ghastly fate. But they hardly knew her, did they? These kind of mass crowds are quite common under such circumstances.
Secondly, Sarah:
I didn't say "mad man" (at least I didn't) and neither that the man peeked through the window or found his way to Miller's Court "by chance". I have implied no such thing.
I said that the murderer quite possibly could have spotted Mary Kelly earlier and therefore knew where she lived (and maybe even could have seen her with her last client). How do you interpret that as "by chance"?
"...this would also be a pro for Barnett as the other murders took place at night so why would the murderer suddenly kill in the daytime."
Look at the time when Chapman was killed!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 16, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 11:45 pm: | |
Hi GLEN,
Thanks for your responce.
I think the the suspects Abberline rules out rather then the suspect he singles out is the importance of the article. You are right Labruckman is an interesting sort. I dont know if it is actually been proven that he was in WC at the time of the murders tho. However I have read some material on him and he definately has my interest.
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for the responce I agree. I have looked at the picture of Kelly and it seems to me the hair line is quite obvious. I feel that in order for anyone to believe that it was not Mary Kelly than you would have to believe Joe lied and then you start up all those conspiracy theories that I dont want to go near.
All the best,CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Hi CB,
"I think the the suspects Abberline rules out rather then the suspect he singles out is the importance of the article."
That could be a good point and I agree with it. Still I find his statement a bit puzzling, from where I sit. Sometimes I get the feeling that, as Natalie implied, many of those "suggestions" may have been a result of some sort of desperation.
Yes, LaBruckman is becoming more and more interesting as far as I am concerned. No, as far as I know it hasn't been proven that he even was in London at the time, but considering the cattle boats it can't be ruled out. However, it remains to be proven to raise him above "interesting".
I have no doubt whatsoever that the woman found in Miller's Court was Mary Kelly -- there is no evident reason (apart from Mrs Maxwell's testimony) to believe that it was somebody else. I agree that such speculations opens up to those ill-fated conspiracy stories, one more constructed than the other.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 648
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Glenn,
I didn't know Mary either but you said I am not so sure I would have liked her either to Suzi which implies that you don't think you would have liked her. I was only saying that from what I've heard about her that I may have liked her.
Also, what were these so called unexplainable decisions she made as I can't think of any.
I know you didn't say the words "mad man" and I didn't say you did, I addressed my post to you and Suzi who did say it. I was only using her words, not saying that he was mad myself. In fact all that bit was mostly aimed at Suzi not you, sorry if I didn't make it very clear, but I'd have presumed you realised that as it was Suzi who said it and not once in my post did I say that you said it.
When Annie was killed it was probably still dark as it was Autumn and would be dark still at 6 in the morning. Mary may have been killed around 8 am when it would have been light.
CB,
I feel that in order for anyone to believe that it was not Mary Kelly than you would have to believe Joe lied
What would Joe have lied about?
Sarah
|
morgane
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Hello all of you! I'm a french student and I have a big research to make for my studies about Jack. (sorry for my hopeless english!) could anyone of you could give me a clue about who was the most important suspect...Who was he?
Thank you for your help in advance.
morgane |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 149
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Morgane,
"Most important suspect"? A question sure start a fight on these Boards. But, a good place for you to start your own research would be to go to the Casebook home page and then check out the Suspects section. A lot of great stuff there.
Sarah,
Sun rise was 5:25 a.m. on September 8, 1888. All that information is also available here on the Boards.
Don. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
