Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through March 15, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » A question why was kelly `mauled` so badly » Archive through March 15, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

d higgins
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

i have to admit i am one of those people who beleive in traits of the royal conspiracy.

and i thought why was kelly the one who was skinned and the last ripper victim

i read an article from someone who shares the same views as me and their theory is that she was bringing up alice crook and had her identity stripped from her and breasts cut off because she was lactating.

what are other peoples views into why she was the most mutilated victim?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1219
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 4:18 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Higgins,

There are mostly two prominent theories regarding that, that I know of.

1) That the Ripper was an evolving killer, and that his driving-forces were increasing and escalating. This is a point of view that has its basis in criminal psychology.

2) That she was killed by someone she knew (for example Joe Barnett) and that she was mutilated to such an extent because the murderer wanted to blame the deed on the Ripper.

Regarding the Royal Conspiracy, I usually don't pick on people's beliefs -- everyone is entitled to them, but conspiracy theories have usually really no basis in reality. The Royal Conspiracy is a hoax, based on misinformation, factual errors and attempts to twist facts in a way that they suit the theory. Everything is fantasies, and there are no facts whatsoever to support it. I wish people would leave this "theory" or rather, fairy-tale, where it belongs, namely in the trash-bin, because it has destroyed serious Ripperology already to such an extent that it should be enough by now.

Believe me, there would be a number of more discrete and less risky ways during the Victorian days to cover up an unlegitimate Royal child, than to murder some prostitutes -- and more importantly, to murder them in a way that in itself reveals secrets and points against the Masonic rituals (which wouldn't be that smart in the first place). Not to mention the media attention the murders achieved to attract.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

d higgins
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 6:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

thanks for your feedback glenn

yes those explanations of the skinning of mary kelly are very likely

i did say i beleive in some traits of the royal involvement but not as heavily as the masonic rituals and possible child
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Edgar Hadley
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 7:20 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi D higgins,

I believe Jack mutillated MJK so extensively because he had the oportunity to do so.
Unlike the previous murders he had the safety and cover of a locked room.

Think of what a petit thief,used to stealing the odd packet of cigarettes would do if he got his hands on the key to the warehouse!

As for Royal conspiracy theories?
Like Druitt, they are dead in the water.
It only takes a little consideration to realise how utterly ridiculous the Gull theory is.

Imagine queen Victoria carefully selecting her "Hit man" for the task of silencing these women.
"He needs to be young,fit quick and above all discreet".

"Now who fits the bill"?
"Ah yes,Sir William Gull an over weight 72 year old stroke victim,a surgeon of the highest order who will ride around in the Royal carriage and carry out the butchery.

Hmmm!

So laughable is the whole idea in fact,that I can picture Gull receiving his instructions from a wax cylinder player......

...Should you or any of your R.C force be caught or captured,the crown will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
This cylinder will self-destruct in five seconds!

Best regards,

Edgar

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1224
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 6:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Edgar,

Ah yes, you're right. I forgot about that one -- the indoors conditions. Sorry about that, Higgins.

Again, regarding the Royal Conspiracy nonsense; I believe all conspiracy stories one way or the other should be treated with caution and suspicion. They mostly origin from the human character's unexplainable need to turn the real world into fiction and complicated spy stories. Unfortunately they are incredibly common in connection with crimes; I for my part can't understand why; reality is usually less complicated than that and I personally feel that that is more interesting because it is easier to relate to. Modern conspiracy stories belong to the world of fiction, nothing else.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj

Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 8:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey Guys,

I have to agree with Glenn and Edgar about the Ripper having opportunity to take his time with MJK. Its kinda like almost getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar VS. being locked in the cookie factory by yourself with all the cookies.

I also disagree with some of the posters regarding Joe Barnett killing Mary Jane, and that is why her face was so badly mutilated.

Ive got just one question....What would Catherine Eddowes' face have looked like if Jack Had been locked in her house?????? He savagely rearranged her face also. I think he was just pissed off at whores and women in general.

I also think the Royal conspiracy is Dead as Fred!

Best regards,

Paul

(Message edited by paulj on March 03, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz

Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 7:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Paul,

I agree about the facial mutilations. When you look at all the victims, there is a developing pattern of wanting to possess these women after death, not simply to rid the streets of them, or, crazily, to warn Mary Kelly that an elderly stroke victim might be on his way to make her a young stroked victim, because she knew too much.

Annie's rings were wrenched off, making her free for Jack to own instead.

Liz Stride was perhaps seen in the too-cosy company of another man, and it was all too much for a lurking Jack to bear.

Kate's tatooed T.C. could have enraged him to the point where he left his own mark where it could not be missed.

And as for poor Mary - he was able to make her his, and to make sure she could never give her heart to another man.

Love,

Caz

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 861
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 7:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Paul,

It is possible that Joe knew Kate and apparently mutilating the face of your victim can indicate that it is someone you know. If that was true then whoever killed Mary REALLY knew her just like Joe.

Joe was also pi*sed off with whores just like you said so I really don't see why it's so hard to believe that he did it.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nah, Caz, not buying that.

Donít you think that young Jack could have come along, snipping bits and pieces off clothes lines, found a lit window at the yard he was in and then peered inside through a carelessly closed curtain by the drunken girl inside and then watched the first porno video of his life, watched all that stuff unfolding before his eyes, and then just like Heinrich Pommerencke had been so deeply influenced by the video he had seen that he felt obliged to go out and murder and mutilate an innocent woman with no connection whatsoever to the film he had just seen?
ĎI saw half-naked women dancing around the golden calf. I thought then that many women were evil and did not deserve to live. I knew then I would have to kill.í
Imagine if nerd Heinrich had actually seen an act of copulation rather than them dancing around the golden calf?
Jack just climbed in the window, after the sex was finished.
And nerd Heinrich answers the question of why so brutal.
She was evil. According to him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj

Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2004
Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ya gotta love Sarah...

You are SO die hard Joe Barnett....But thats cool though. I am So not Die hard Joe....But thats cool too. Thats what makes these boards interesting.

Wolf...thats a good point also,

CAZ....I think you got what I was trying to say.

You Guys Have a Good Day!

Paul
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 351
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 6:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

One of the main things that Barnettites go to time and again is the facial mutilations claiming it as proof that the Ripper knew MJK since he hadn't done it to any of the others. If there was a fire in MJK's room, perhaps he obliterated only her face because for the first time, he could really see her face. In other words, all the rest of the attacks had taken place in relative darkness...no dead accusing eyes staring at him. Perhaps not the case this time.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally

Post Number: 352
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 6:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

AP,

I thought you were maintaining that Jack was not a sexual serial killer?

Confused,

Ally


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko

Post Number: 229
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 7:47 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Mary Jane Kelly was killed while lying on the right side of the bed. The wounds in her arms and one thumb and the stabs through the sheet make it feasible that, only seconds before the Ripper launched his attack, she was aware that she was in danger. As the Ripper was used to render his victims senseless before he would cut their throats, he wasnít familiar with this situation.

This probably made him panic, which caused him to stab a number of times to try to avoid any further struggle. I think that he stabbed her in the face in this initial attack, which may have caused him to concentrate on her face again after first having mutilated parts of her body that were ranked higher on his priority list.

However, although Iím certainly no Barnettist, I donít discard the possibility that knowing her to some extent caused him to further mutilate her face. Allyís suggestion sounds very plausible to me as well. But it might also have been a combination of all of these three circumstances that made him destroy her face.

All the best,
Frank
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 940
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 6:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ally

I believe I might have touched - slightly - upon such a theory once or twice over the years.
But I was thinking more on the lines of absolute abhorrence rather than sexual desire. I mean if an impressionable young man can come away from a film which shows half-naked women dancing around a golden calf - it is a film remember so as realistic as an episode of thunderbirds are go - and then actually slice some poor woman up so bad that she long gone dead - in reality - then what effect could heaving copulation have on a similar young man when viewing the video through Maryís window?
The first case demonstrates that half-naked women evoked not a normal or even abnormal sexual response but rather an urge to destroy, so why couldnít a fully naked woman engaged in a sexual act evoke a response of total bodily destruction. I think it would and could, and did.
But it aint sex is it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 20
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 9:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hello,

There's really nothing about the Kelly killing to suggest the Ripper knew her any more or less than the other victims. We can learn many things from the crime, however. A few of these being: the Ripper had no intention of decapitating any of his victim, as has been suggested, or else Kelly certainly would have been headless; the wounds to her face were not mad slashes made in rage, but were carefully administered, as were the intricate designs to Eddowes' face. Proof of this is in the fact that neither of her eyes nor her forehead were damaged - same as in the Eddowes case. Part of her body were placed near her feet and head, just as the victim's personal belongings were in the Chapman case. Kelly's left hand was placed with intention atop her, as in many of the other murders. Similarities such as these point away from a copy cat killer, as is so often suggested. Although many more wounds were inflicted to Kelly, possibly due to the privacy the room afforded her killer, there is nothing to suggest a personal intimacy with her killer, though it's quite possible he harbored a stronger dislike for Kelly due to her youth and appeal. Otherwise, her killing, in many ways, is a mere repeat of rituals evident in earlier killings. The Ripper wanted a grand finale, and he got one. The Ripper, however, was not likely to have been Barnett.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

steven tavani
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Perhaps he simply had the light and time necessary to fulfill his twisted ambitions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Tom,
'The Ripper was unlikely to have been Barnett'
There is little doubt that Barnett is in the frame as a suspect.
He had a moral dislike of prostitution, and he is the only suspect, that although circumstancial, is the leading contender for the grave spitting incident.
I will always believe, that this oral history, is a fact, regardless of any disbelievers.
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Killers such as Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac Killer have a lust for the act of taking a life. They never feel any shame from it, in fact they enjoy it. They get a rush from getting away with it too. Many of these killers write something somewhere for the police to find. A taunt for the cops to find them. It's a delightful game to these killers. The hunt, the kill and the thrill of the fear they put into others. If they can best the police they find it amussing. Letters to the police or the press are a common thing for these killers. Son of Sam, Jack the Ripper and Zodiac used letters to poke fun of the police. They are not the only ones either but the 3 most noted ones.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 10:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

1. If the Ripper only had a straight-bladed knife with him, then there is no way he's going to get the head off. You must use a leverage tool like a meat cleaver to do that. Therefore he well might have had the intention of decapitating a number of his victims. The evidence--orbital cuts down to deeply notched vertebrae--certainly indicate it.

2. Comparison of the wounds to Mary Jane's face to those of Eddowes is absurd. Obviously in the case of Mary Jane he is being entirely destructive to all the structures he cuts. No he's not entirely wild, as he saves certain spots, but that's still a far cry from Eddowes.

3. The notion that body parts near Kelly's feet are comparable to personal possessions near Chapman's feet is absurd. He might have been doing an entirely different thing with one compared to the other. Besides, he put body parts in several different places on Kelly's bed. Why focus on just the feet?

4. The idea that the Ripper disliked women is purely Mr. Wescott's opinion, and is not necessarily supported by the evidence.

5. There is nothing to indicate the Ripper engaged in rituals of any kind.

6. How do we know he wanted a grand finale? If you know that, then you need to explain how you know it.

Bullwinkle

(Message edited by admin on March 14, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 23
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Richard,

Be careful when you say "I'll always believe..." I've had to eat my hat on that statement a few times! As for your convinction of the grave spitting incident, I admire your tenacity, but allow me to point out that at one time many people were absolutely convinced the Earth was square. That didn't make them right.

Bullwinkle,

I'm sorry you found my post so absurd. It didn't seem that way to me when I wrote it, and still doesn't, but I appreciate your taking the time to reply nonetheless.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash

Post Number: 520
Registered: 9-2003
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David pointed out:

1. If the Ripper only had a straight-bladed knife with him, then there is no way he's going to get the head off. You must use a leverage tool like a meat cleaver to do that. Therefore he well might have had the intention of decapitating a number of his victims. The evidence--orbital cuts down to deeply notched vertebrae--certainly indicate it.

This is an important point as it tends to suggest against the commonly held notion that the Ripper was a surgeon, butcher or similar person. Such a person would almost certainly have been aware of the importance of using the correct tools for the job.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah

Post Number: 880
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tom,

People used to believe the Earth was square and flat but they had never seen it with their own eyes from space. These women actually saw this event take place right before their eyes. I'm certain something happened that day and that the were telling the truth the way they saw it but I'm not necessarily convinced that Barnett was spitting on Mary's grave. There was another burial that day so it could easily have been the other grave and someone else entirely as these women could easily have got confused as they were only visting a grave and so were not paying that much attention to the burials going on. I wish we knew exactly what time of day they saw this incident and when Mary was buried.

Sarah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1279
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Regarding Bullwinkle's post.

Although I can't comment on point 1 (I don't have enough medical knowledge), I must admit that I for once agree on what David says.

There are notable differences in the wounds between Eddowes and Kelly; the placing of the body parts in connection with Chapman's and Kelly's murders doesen't necessarily have to imply anything significant or display any similarities at all; there is nothing whatsoever that indicates clear ritual elements in the Ripper murders and we can't naturally know if the Ripper himself decided that he wanted a grand finale (if the Ripper murdered Kelly, I can't see why he should have been aware of the fact that it was his last killing -- these types of killers seldom are, they just follow their instincts and are driven by them).

The only point that I may have to question is whether or not the Ripper hated women. It is true that we don't have any evidence supporting it beyond doubt, but the nature of the murders and the mutilations makes it a fair guess that he did, at least from where I sit.

All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna

Post Number: 1280
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

To be added:

It is very easy to interpret the "V"-shaped marks in Eddowes' face and the placing of the intestines over one of the shoulders in Chapman's and Eddowes' case as ritual traits. And they could very well be ritual elements. But we can't know that for sure. We don't know why he made those cutting marks -- if those were ritual, it is my belief we would have seen more of them in connection with the other murders.

Regarding the placing of the intestines, that could very well be a result of what was comfortable for him when he performed the mutilations. He had to get rid of them and put them somewhere, and we don't necessarily have to jump to conclusions about it. It is quite easy to read ritualistic features and mysticism into most elements here, but even though that necessarily doesen't have to be a wrong deduction in this case, it could just be that the reality is duller than that. The mutilations were doubtless the important part of his actions, but they don't necessarily have to mean anything, at least not in the sense of some kind of "message" from the killer.

All the best

(Message edited by Glenna on March 15, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott

Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 9:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sarah,

I've no doubt that graves get spit upon all the time. They even made a movie called "I Spit On Your Grave". But if there's no evidence on record that states definitively that It was Barnett doing the spitting and Mary Kelly's grave standing post as target, then this should not be something brought forth in the case against Barnett, as it only weakens it. Even if there is proof he spit on her grave, how do we not know it was out of pain and anguish. You might be aware that anger is one of the steps of recovery after a loved one's death. People cuss their name, destroy their belongings and, quite likely (though I've never witnessed it firsthand) spit on their grave.

Glenn,

You are obviously an intelligent and open-minded man (or woman, as a Glenna edited your above post), so it'll be my pleasure debating points of the case with you.
I do not agree with the idea of decapitation being a motive of the killer. If this were the case he would've learned after the first couple of murders that a new tool was required, and would have made the necessary change. He didn't, and I don't believe the Ripper was a fool. He simply wasn't interested in decapitation.
As for there being nothing ritualistic about the murders I must also disagree. Even Philip Sugden noted the ritualistic aspects of the murders. I've been studying this for some years and there are quite a few, many of which that have been commented on, some that haven't.
I must also disagree about Eddowes' mutilations not meaning anything. They clearly meant something to her killer, which is why he risked capture to leave them. They are one of the most important clues we have.
I've been on these boards since the 90's, but have been gone for the better part of a year it seems, so I'll have to get to learn about all the new people and who supports what theory. Forgive me, Glenn, but do you have a favorite suspect, and if so, who is he?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.