|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:26 pm: |       |
Upon reflection I don't think he snuck in while she was getting water. If she had gone back to her room and Jack was there Abberline would have found a spilled teakettle lying on its side on the floor and Mary in her street clothes like the other victims. After she filled the kettle and put it on the fire she had time to undress down to her chemise and fold her clothes neatly on the chair. She was in her chemise and the kettle was full of water and heating when Jack arrived. The only thing I can think of that might blow my hypothesis sky high is if she kept a pitcher in the room. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1541
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
Would an entire box of matches going off provide the heat necessary to do in the kettle? I can imagine someone who wasn't quite right in the head lighting a fire, and then absent-mindedly throwing the box of matches on the fire instead of the dead match.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 285
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:02 pm: | |
Robert,
I doubt it. Not unless the kettle was right next to the exploding matches, almost touching them.
Andy S.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 3:22 am: | |
Hi,
There is some evidence , to suggest that Mjk, had intentions of making tea, Did not Maurice Lewis claim that she was returning to her room, with some milk?.
That would give some credence to him telling the truth , and if he was, so was Maxwell.
It would also imply , that Kelly lit the fire herself, that morning[ the most logical explanation]
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 3:34 am: | |
Hi Richard
Could you direct me to the Lewis quote? Thanks.
Robert |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 71
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:24 am: | |
Hey All,
You dont need that much heat to melt the spout off. If the solder was straight lead, less than 500F would do the trick. A lead/tin alloy may go as high as 700F. The flash point of most organic textiles is 850 to 1100 F. If the teakettle had lost all the water almost any fire would cause the spout to drop off. We're talking a very cheap container here. Dont get confused by the heat factor. You can boil water on an open fire in a paper cup. Ive done this. The flash point of paper is 400 to 500 F. As long as water is in the cup the temp will never exceed 212 F at sea level. Its a simple matter of physics....Brad
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 284
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Don,
Will have to look for that. I'm sure she said that she thought it had come from Mary Jane's room. I may be wrong though.
Richard,
That's a very good observation about her making tea. You are right, it would explain about the kettle being hot, except, didn't Maurice Lewis see her at about 10.00 am? If she was found at 10.45 am then the killer must have only just left which would be taking a huge risk.
Sarah |
NealeC
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 9:12 pm: | |
Alan, Donald & Sarah,
Your explanation of the "Oh murder" cry certainly makes sense, ie. it wasn't literally those words but a general cry of distress.
A common expression in Australia is to "cry blue murder" which means to scream loudly to attract attention. I would be surprised if the less than genteel folk of Whitechapel often cried "Oh Murder!", which seems more equivalent to "Oh bother", rather than various types of non literal screams, wails and cries which would eminate from a desperately poor and downtrodden neighbourhood..
Do we have any experts on 19th century linguistics visiting these boards?
Neale
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 2:23 am: | |
Another way the solder could have melted is if there were flames licking directly on it. This might happen if a large wad of material were stuffed into the hearth, bringing the flames up higher near the teapot. I'm not sure that the solder on an empty teapot would necessarily melt just because there were no water in it.
Saddam |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
Maurice Lewis, claimed to have seen her at just after 8am on the morning of the 9th, leave her room, and return to it shortly after. I believe I am correct in him seeing her at 9am, carrying some milk, then at 10am in the pub.
I am trying to find the source of the milk, which should not take long , for it is well documented, infact the police I believe checked, but no one appeared to have sold her some milk that morning.
Richard. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 263
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 11:44 am: | |
Richard
Manchester Guardian - 10th November
Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house and return with some milk. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:20 pm: | |
Hi Alan.
Thanks for that.
So we can assume if Lewis is being truthful , that the most likely time she would have attempted to make tea, would have been after quarter to nine that morning as, we can account for her being in Dorset street between 815am- 845 am, testomony of Maxwell, and the unknown tailoress[ Mrs Goode?.]
Richard. |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 285
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Richard, Alan,
That would make a lot of sense. I don't think it rational for people to go on ignoring these witnesses. It does point to the fact that she was alive that morning.
Sarah |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi Alan
Thanks for that.
Everyone
The thing is, the police did (in the end) ignore
these witnesses. But if we're going to get into the blood argument, I suppose the best place to go would be the "Questions about Joe" thread.
Re the fire, I'm puzzled as to why Abberline apparently did not examine it immediately.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 62
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
You wrote somewhere: “There is no evidence on the crime scenes that suggests planning at all, as far as I am concerned.”
Maybe it doesn’t suggest planning in the actual meaning of it, however, the fact that the Ripper didn’t kill his victims as soon as he was close enough to them but in fact waited for him and his victim to have reached the crime scene, to me points away from a disorganized killer, or is a sign of some self control or some self confidence. Furthermore, the methodical way in which he attacked, killed and mutilated – which ensured him to leave the crime scene without much blood on him – in my view is a clear indication that the killer was able to plan at least to some extent.
“I believe the murders were done when the instincts became too strong to resist.”
You said this to Peter Sipka in the context of the Ripper not leaving home with the plan to kill. How would you in general terms describe one of Jack’s ‘killing nights’, how would this have looked like? Did he leave his home with murder on his mind (but without a plan), or did he only decide to when he was strolling along on the streets? Did he need to be triggered by a specific kind of prostitute or by any prostitute? It’s not that I can’t imagine how it might have looked like (there’s nothing wrong with my imagination), but I’m just curious how you see it.
“But Hanbury Street is the ultimate indication of him not being that smart; but it definitely shows that he was confused at the time and didn't manage to calculate his risks correctly.”
I don’t really see how the yard of Hanbury Street 29 was much worse (higher risk) than the other locations, it’s mainly the timing of the killing that made it more risky.
Ending up in the yard of Hanbury Street 29 doesn’t ‘definitely show the Ripper was confused’, it simply indicates that to him his needs were more important than the risks he felt he was taking. He had been long gone when Annie Chapman’s body was found by John Davis, he only arrived in the yard at least half an hour after John Richardson had visited it and Albert Cadosh hadn’t discerned anything suspicious when he was in his garden at number 27 at the time of the murder. So, in this case the risks evaporated while the sun was rising. The fact that he wasn’t seen or caught in this case might have been sheer luck, but then again, (although less likely) it might also indicate that the Ripper assessed the risks well.
Hi Erin,
You wrote: “Even the most intelligent, organized serial killers did not take such risks. All but one of Zodiac's murders were committed in dark, isolated spots that presented easy avenues of escape. And in the one murder not committed under such circumstances, he escaped through sheer luck, not his own cunning.”
Although still risky, all but one of Jack’s murders were committed during the night and on dark spots. A thing to consider here is that Jack didn’t have means to take his victims elsewhere.
“Same with Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy (who used his own home!), and even the serial killer with the highest IQ on record, Ed Kemper, made sure his victim was unconscious before driving through the guard gates at the university where his mother worked. Risk-takers, yes, but not idiots.”
Although he was very intelligent, Ed Kemper didn’t start his ‘career’ all that organized. He killed his first victims by very clumsily stabbing them. I don’t remember if he decapitated all of his victims, but certainly most of them, and took heads with him, and these are not traits of an organized killer.
Caz mentioned that the longer cooling-off period between Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly might have been caused by illness on Jack’s part. Another reason for Jack not striking during the month of October might have been the increased police activity in the area during that time, which means that he must have restrained his urges. If we assume that to be the case for a moment I would say that it’s unlikely that a mentally ill Jack, who’s supposed to kill in the spur of the moment, when his instincts became too strong to resist, could have waited all this time before killing Mary.
Like I more or less said before, in comparison with modern serial killers an organized Jack the Ripper didn’t need to worry about fingerprinting, forensics, profiling or DNA-analysis. Next to keeping a low profile, he only had three things to see to: not being seen near a crime scene shortly before a murder, not being caught in the act and not being noticed between fleeing the crime scene and closing the door of his bolthole behind him. With this in mind I would say that especially the fact that he took the precaution not to get much blood on him is a very important clue and I don’t think this has anything to do with an instinctive sense of self-preservation.
As I wrote on 1 December on this thread, Mary’s case provides another probable indication of 'organisation'.
In case Jack was organized and entered Mary’s room as a client he would have been able to wait for her to undress and neatly fold her clothes before striking. If Jack was a disorganized killer, however, I don’t think he would have been able to.
If Jack didn’t enter Mary’s room together with her (because she was already inside), there are two possibilities: he entered with her consent or without it.
The first thing we’d have to consider is how Jack ended up in Miller’s Court. If he didn’t plan to enter Miller’s Court and kill Mary, the chances of him entering it would have been very slim, certainly if he didn’t see Mary, which would probably have provoked or triggered him to kill her. Of course it’s possible that he saw her in the street with a client and followed them to Miller’s Court, but why would he wait then, when there must have been other prostitutes available?
If he did end up in Miller’s Court without any planning, he’d still have to get inside her room. Entering her room with Mary’s consent would mean that Jack was accidentally present when Mary saw a client off or that he knocked on her door. Entering without her consent would mean that Jack wasn’t invited in after a knock on the door, that he tried to open her door without a knock and found it on the latch or that he found the window trick. Problems stick to each of these possibilities (Would Mary have opened the door after a knock? Would she have invited him in in case she answered the door? What would have happened if she didn’t? Would Jack have waited for Mary to lie down in case he was invited in? Was the door on the latch? Would Jack have found out about the window trick?) Although it seems less unlikely for Jack to have entered room number 13 when compared to Jack entering Miller’s Court in case he didn’t plan anything, all in all it remains quite unlikely that the Ripper entered Mary’s room as a disorganized killer. Not impossible, but quite unlikely.
All the best,
Frank
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 62
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | |
Frank,
To argue that Jack's risks were not that great at 29 Hanbury because he was at work long before Davis appeared and long after Richardson had had gone is surely an instance of post hoc, propter hoc. Yes, it worked out successfully for him, but that was simply incredibly good luck since he assuredly had no idea when Richardson had left or when Davis would appear and at almost any moment someone might be expected to enter the backyard. And all the more so as the sun rose.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 777
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 14, 2003 - 8:48 pm: | |
Hi Frank.
Donald beat me to it. I agree with him. The yard in Hanbury Street was exceptionally risky. The timing is probably the worst factor here to consider, but also the fact that there were some fifteen to twenty people sleeping or at home, and with their windows facing the yard open -- just right above the whole scene. That is not even close to being confused -- I correct myself -- that is being sheer suicidal!
As Donald puts forward, it was indeed an incredible luck that noone stepped right into the scene at the very moment of the drama itself. The passage-way from the front door of the house, facing Hanbury Street, and leading directly to the yard, was frequently used and when the murder occurred, some of the residents had started their daily work at the ground floor, which means that the risk for the yard being used to a greater extent was more evident.
But, apart from that, the time of day -- early morning -- was incredibly bad chosen for a murder with extensive mutilation as dessert.
-------------------------------
"Maybe it doesn’t suggest planning in the actual meaning of it, however, the fact that the Ripper didn’t kill his victims as soon as he was close enough to them but in fact waited for him and his victim to have reached the crime scene, to me points away from a disorganized killer, or is a sign of some self control or some self confidence."
Maybe, maybe not, Frank.
We can't really know much of this, but my thinking here implies that his violent streak could have been triggered by a certain behaviour from the prostitutes. I am not so sure he even thought about killing his victims during the first initial contact, but that something in the later stage of the situation triggered him to act. This is very hard to determine, since we can't really know that much about his personality, but even if it were so, that he waited "until the right moment", it doesen't have to indicate any organized features. I continue to return to the point about instinct of self-preservation. Just because he was mentally unstable, heard voices and wa paranoid -- IF he was -- doesen't mean he couldn't have self-control or feel when the moment was right. It doesen't take an intelligent person and it doesen't take any planning. Once again, I DO NOT think the Ripper was a raving lunatic. But I don't think he was mentally sane or a rocket scientist either.
"Furthermore, the methodical way in which he attacked, killed and mutilated – which ensured him to leave the crime scene without much blood on him – in my view is a clear indication that the killer was able to plan at least to some extent."
Now, THAT I can buy! Although I don't like the word "plan" in this context. But we can't know much of this -- at least it indicates that he knew how to handle a knife, and if he (just to take an example) had had previous work as a slaughter, he probably knew in which situation there would be blood-splatter or not. There are several options to consider here. I agree he had a methodical MO, but who knows where and how he learnt that? And does it necessarily have to imply he was intelligent?
"How would you in general terms describe one of Jack’s ‘killing nights’, how would this have looked like? Did he leave his home with murder on his mind (but without a plan), or did he only decide to when he was strolling along on the streets? Did he need to be triggered by a specific kind of prostitute or by any prostitute?"
Uuuuuh, Frank. You are leading me too much into the areas of wild speculations here.
I see it this way (and neither of this I can either prove or claim being the correct scenario -- it could all be utterly wrong):
I don't know if he left home with murder in mind, but I think there is a possibility that he didn't. I see him as someone who wandered around the streets of East End at night, without any certain goal. He carried a knife, which he probably had obtained from some earlier occupation and which he was used to bring with him everywhere he went, and possibly also for his own protection. I think it is probable, that noone could tell by looking at him or from his conduct, that there was something terribly wrong with him (there were most certainly a lot of strange characters in the poorer districts walking about at night). Occasionally he used the services of prostitutes -- or used to do so in the past -- but sometimes his illness and fantasies would get the better of him and tell him to do certain things. I believe the women that were killed, caught him on a bad night -- I don't see any reason for them being picked out for certain reasons. Maybe his murder instincts were triggered when the prostitutes were leading him to the secluded spot or when they were starting to begin the sexual act -- prostitutes could have quite offensive language and a pushy way of behaviour, a behaviour that could have been interpreted as threatening for someone with a paranoid disorder. Then he used a method to kill them that he felt comfortable about (to strangle or smother them first -- which happened to most of them -- is quite a natural and common part of an MO for a great number of killers), and the knife technique he could have learnt from some of his earlier occupations.
That is roughly some of the important parts of how I see him, but I must admit I wasn't prepared for that question. It is just speculation, of course, but it is how I interpret his actions. I could be wrong, though; maybe we're dealing with a cunning, calculating psychopath, but I think there are some points that talks against it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 14, 2003)
(Message edited by Glenna on December 14, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 519
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 11:57 am: | |
Glenn, Don,
To a degree Im with Frank.
Lets take the canonicle 5. There is only one site, if compromised during the act, from which escape is nigh on impossible in my opinion.
Thats 13 Millers court. The others (Nichols, Chapman, Stride (which may have been proven), and Eddowes) all had alternative exits.
That said, I wouldnt say he planned these sites. Just that he weighed them up ad hoc (sorry Don, couldnt resist), as he was taken there.
But I do see your points also.
Monty
 |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 85
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 1:02 pm: | |
Glenn, I do follow your reasoning.But I again come back to the fact that noone saw him[round the back,though the man heard "no"]and he didnt get caught.It is possible that he was a compulsive
/obsessive man whose addictions were several viz
taking high level risks in the open air;
entering women in a bizarre but for him maybe thrilling way[ghastly but this is what he actually appears to have hs pleasure from].
carrying off odd trophies[heart, kidneys,uterus]
and maybe he added to his addictions things like the thrill of reading about himself in the press
and causing an outrage.
Maybe someone with a knowledge of compulsive/addictive behaviours could inform us as to whether its possible-say combined with a sociopathic or psychopathic personality? |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 782
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 2:23 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
It is true that 13 Miller's Court didn't have a second exit, but then on the other hand, he could "work" undisturbed there. That wasn't possible in the other ones. I'd say 13 Miller's Court was ideal for his purposes.
Exits or not, I think the court in Hanbury Street is exceptionally risky, for the reasons I mentioned above. The situation in itself -- during when the murder took place offered in my view the worst conditions ever for him to work in. That murder site really doesen't make sense to me at all, if we're talking about a calculating killer.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 15, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 783
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
I think a psychopath can be compulsive and addictive also(he can as well be driven by compulsive forces), but what differs someone like that from "my" choice of category is, among other thing, that a psychopath or sociopath generally plans his killings in a more calculating and deliberate manner.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 784
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
Hi again, Monty:
"That said, I wouldnt say he planned these sites. Just that he weighed them up ad hoc (sorry Don, couldnt resist), as he was taken there."
That, I think is possible. And it doesen't take that much IQ or cunning to do that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 1:08 pm: | |
'"The melted teapot does suggest that there was a recent hot fire in Mary's fireplace. "
I don't see how. It's not like a partially melted teapot goes back to being unmelted on a night when there isn't a hot fire. Unless you assume Mary had enough money and drive to replace anything that was partially damaged within 24 hours, I can't see how this proves a recent hot fire at all...'
>>The presence of a lady's hat brim, wool clothing and other extraordinary items in the hearth on that particular occasion does indicate that something unusual was going on combustion-wise that night. How could we reasonably think it wise to blow off consideration of the melted solder that night as well? Nobody testified that Mary Jane was in the habit of using fabrics as fuel. Melted solder on a teapot spout is an extraordinary item, too. Melting is not something that is supposed to happen, and people who use teapots with soldered spouts are well enough aware of the dangers of melting and act accordingly to prevent it, and when melting does occur they must promptly take action to set matters arights if they wish to boil water next time, and they do need to boil water on an ongoing basis. We're not talking about a melted teapot in the cabinet, perhaps waiting for the money to become available to repair it; we're talking about a melted teapot on the hearth, where teapots are customarily used. The evidence is the evidence.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 2:40 am: | |
“Nonsense. That's assuming things to be true because you have no proof that they aren't, which is totally the opposite of how science, criminology, the legal system and common sense works. I'm not saying they are all wrong, I'm just saying that nobody should assume any of them are right.”
>>He who attempts to find proof in the Whitechapel murders winds up making lies and calling them proof. Happens every time. Science, criminology, legal criteria and, most of all, common sense have been warped into every shape imaginable without restraint, and then the author invariably blinks and announces, like Paul Bremer, “We got him!” In holding up the criteria of proof (together with all its failures) over satisfaction, Mr. Norder darkly functions as a kind of subversive sage, as opposed to a more constructive philosopher. He wishes to invite his hearers into a kind of rebellious and dissociative relationship with him, in which they would ostensibly be transformed, they being unable to solve the case for themselves. I think they’d be transformed all right, they’d be disintegrated. I see the need instead for a mediator of logical associations and oppositions, not a core value of dissociativeness. But hey, I can’t account for taste.
Saddam |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 7:49 am: | |
Sarah wrote:
"I don't think it rational for people to go on ignoring these witnesses."
Being rational means taking what we know and then coming to a logical conclusion. Here are some facts:
1) Witnesses often report things that aren't relevant to investigations. Remember the police looking for the white truck or van during the D.C. area sniper attacks? Turned out to be completely irrelevant to the case.
2) Numerous studies have shown that memories are highly flexible. Someone can extremely easily misremember what events happened on which days, turn ambiguous data into fully deatiled memories by filling in the gaps, and so forth. How questions are worded have a lasting impact on how the events are remembered. Memories are built after the fact. Witness statements in general are almost the least reliable things in investigations (the only thing I can think of that's less reliable is what "psychics" have to say).
3) A number of people like to sound important and will invent things just so they get in a paper or get to talk to investigators.
4) Newspapers often get things wrong, out of sloppy mistakes or sometimes inventing things on their own. Time after time after time, when you compare what the newspapers said about the ripper killings to other more reliable forms of evidence, we see that the newspapers were completely wrong on many details. Heck, the papers usually contradict each other, so you obviously can't count on them being correct.
You put that all together and it's highly irrational to accept what a newspaper claims someone said they saw as gospel truth. When you add in that the most highly touted witness for the "MJK was alive in the morning" theory misidentified Joe Barnett completely, the fact that all the other killings were at night, and that there is no reliable evidence yet offered that makes a morning death sound logical, odds are very good that MJK was dead before morning. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
