|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 368
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 8:30 am: | 
|
Hi Leanne,
Last Wednesday you wrote: ”So was the man that Elizabeth Darrell saw of "shabby gentile" appearance, the man Mrs. Long saw from behind, the man Constable Smith saw who carried a newspaper parcel, the two men that Schwartz saw, the man James Brown saw and the sailor Joseph Lawende saw. They were all at crime scenes yet none were spooked into coming forward and inventing a story just to get the police to focus on someone else!”
Well, Darrell (weren't Long and Darrell one and the same?) and Lawende may have seen the Ripper, so if they did, I think this man would never show up. Schwartz’ assaulting man wouldn’t want to show up either as he had assaulted a woman that was found dead 10 or 15 minutes after the assault. If he was actually Stride’s killer he would definitely not come forward. Perhaps the others didn’t want to get involved and didn’t feel the need to because basicly, they were not acting suspiciously. However, Hutchinson clearly was, he wasn’t just passing by, he wasn’t just talking to somebody, he stood alone opposite the entrance to Miller’s Court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.
“If her killer was an unknown, he had to have spied on her a number of times over the previous week, (to know that Barnett had left), plus to be sure that Maria Harvey wasn't going to return to the room he had to have been sure that she was gone too!”
Not that I’m saying he was her killer, but Hutchinson fits the bill here, regardless of whether it was stupid to come forward or not. Of course, if MJK was killed by the Ripper posing as a client, he wouldn't have needed to take such measures and could be sure he would be taken somewhere where they wouldn’t be disturbed much.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2330
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 10:08 am: |
|
"Well, Darrell (weren't Long and Darrell one and the same?) and Lawende may have seen the Ripper, so if they did, I think this man would never show up. Schwartz’ assaulting man wouldn’t want to show up either as he had assaulted a woman that was found dead 10 or 15 minutes after the assault. If he was actually Stride’s killer he would definitely not come forward. Perhaps the others didn’t want to get involved and didn’t feel the need to because basicly, they were not acting suspiciously. However, Hutchinson clearly was, he wasn’t just passing by, he wasn’t just talking to somebody, he stood alone opposite the entrance to Miller’s Court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out."
Quite right, Frank. I agree.
And yes -- as far as I know, Darrell and Long is the same person.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Glenn, this is not the place to post this, but I wanted you to know how sorry I am you have lost your job. I'll pray for you that God will bless you with an even better one and supply your needs in the meantime. If you look to Him in this time He will be your strength, and it can lead to a new and unthought of relationship with Him. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2331
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Thank you, Diana.
I needed that. Bless you.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 570
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 2:23 pm: |
|
As for innocent people turning up to "clear their names", didn't "black bag man" turn himself into the police as a result of testimony concerning Stride's murder? The cigarette box salesman? Where the shiny black bag comes from. He was spotted walking along, and later turns himself in, etc. Isn't this sort of like what GH does? Meaning, if GH were actually innocent, isn't he just doing what "innocent shiny black bag man" did (so innocent people do actually do this kind of thing)? Or are we to believe that "shiny black bag man" killed Stride?
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2332
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 3:07 pm: |
|
It's not the same thing, Jeff.
Hutchinson came forward with new information about a possible suspect he had encountered (which I would say would count as important information) -- the "black bag man" didn't.
I would say, Hutchinson's turning up so late, is more suspicious in that context -- not to mention with a suspect that is far from credible.
Hmm... I think we're losing the subject of the thread a bit here...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Frank,Glenn Don ,Jeff Dan
Many thanks for all your comments.
The site you refer us to was brilliant Frank and made it clear why there is this muddle over timing and other matters.
I suppose Glenn that its possible that the man Mrs Long saw was the ripper.But what I was meaning was that noone appears to have ever seen his face-neither Lawende nor Mrs Long.
Perhaps Sgt White saw him in the passage of what seems to be Mitre Square[but may not be].
As far as the killer of Mary Kelly goes though what I think I meant here was that Hurchinson may have been telling the truth-but the man he says he saw was probably not the ripper because he had let his face be seen-even if he tried to hide his face he seems to have made too much of an exhibition of himself for him to have been the ripper-waving red handkerchiefs around in Commercial Road and laughing loudly with Mary Kelly---doesnt sound like the ripper to me.Nor does Hutchinson-for the same reason.If he really did stand outside Mary Kelly"s court yard for 3/4"s of an hour where he could have been seen loitering by several passers by including Mrs Cox
then he wasnt acting in a way that was consistent with the evading and elusive behaviour of the ripper.
Glenn,All the Very Best Wishes for some breakthrough in the work situation.Over here we say "Its an ill wind that blows no good"---so here"s to your success!
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3518
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Just popped in to say Glenn, best wishes on the work front.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2334
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Robert and Natalie.
Thank you both. Unfortunately the job front is not as encouraging as it is in Britain (seen with Scandinavian standards) -- we have an incredible unemployment rate (I have recently closed down my business and the national labour market over here is practically non-existent), so unfortunately it's the Social Services for me at the moment.
Natalie,
You make a good point about Hutchinson and his loitering, actually. You nay be right -- standing there hanging about for so long and risking identification, would not be great move by the Ripper.
Of course, as a witness and aware of he had been seen, he could't possibly know this and was not prepared to take the risk, and therefore he probably came forward with his story. But that is of course a theory among others. But I believe he freaked out -- for what reason we don't know, just as we don't know why he was actually hanging about outside the court.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 21, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 573
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Yes, that's true, GH does offer information that black bag did not. I just wanted to remind people that innocent people did go to the police to "clear their name". It's not unusual for a killer to get involved in an investigation, but at the same time, people did appear to do what "innocent GH" might have done. And, just because black bag man doesn't provide a suspect may simply reflect the difference in what information they had.
All I'm saying really, is that innocent people did go to the police during this series of murders, simply because they realised someone spotted them in the area of one of the murders. GH's behaviour in that respect is not unlike other people.
However, given that GH claims that he knew Mary, and that he claims to have seen her with someone who could reasonably have been her killer, his delay in going to the police does limit the similarity.
Anyway, good luck on the job front.
- Jeff |
curleysangel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I have been reading posts and the casebook for two days now - have accomplished nothing on my days off, but have learned a lot!
My question/comment is that I'm having a hard time agreeing that Mary Kelly was a victim of Jack the Ripper. I don't claim to be an expert on this, but from my limited knowledge of seriel killers, they normally don't change their M.O. UNLESS the police are extremely close in catching them. Why would Jack completely change how he killed the women? The others were attacked/killed on the streets; we assume that the women unknowingly picked up a "john" that turned out to be jtr. Why then would he break in to a women's home and murder her in her sleep? There would have been plenty of prostitutes on the streets. MJKs murder suggests premeditation, where as the others seem to be random acts. I suppose mjk could have brought her john home with her...no, i still have a hard time seeing the connection. I would be extremely interested to hear from you all - I would love to learn as much about the case as possible! Thanks! |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 580
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
Hi Curley,
You wondered: “Why would Jack completely change how he killed the women?” I don’t think he did that in MJK’s case - if he killed her. In case he did, he didn’t change that what made him tick: the mutilations and quite probably the taking away of body parts. Even quite the opposite, I’d say, because now he could do as he pleased without much chance of being disturbed. So, yes, the approach was different, but the final result IMHO even speaks in favour of MJK having been a Ripper victim.
I know of a modern murder case that bears similarities to that of MJK. The victim was also killed and mutilated inside her own apartment. Fortunately, the police were able to catch the murderer in this case. This murderer turned out to have done a series of rapes as well, his first target having been a woman he had watched for some time before raping her inside of her own home, whilst the rest seemed to have been randomly chosen outside in a park. This was in the early 1990’s.
Recently, through DNA analysis he has become a prime suspect in an outside murder that bears similarities to the murder of Martha Tabram and which took place, I believe, less than 2 years before the murder involving the mutilations. The mutilated victim had been involved in prostitution as well, but as it turned out her murderer had also watched her for some time before actually ringing the bell at her door (which is how he got in). This murderer had been in contact with police earlier for ‘peeping tommery’.
This case shows that a (serial) killer for whatever reason doesn’t need to stick to raping or killing indoors or outside throughout his series of crimes.
In my view, if JtR chose MJK beforehand because of the fact that she had lodgings of her own, there may be 4 things that might have forced him to choose someone like her:
- out on the streets he could not fully focus on what he’d come for.
- he may have been very close to being caught in especially the cases of Nichols and Eddowes.
- he most probably had only a few minutes with them before he felt forced to leave.
- more and more police came to his hunting ground and less and less prostitutes wandered the streets alone at night, certainly during the month of October.
On the other hand, he may also, just like he most probably did in the other cases, have posed as a punter and found himself in heaven when MJK closed her door behind them.
As ever, these are just some of my views.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 455
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:04 am: |
|
Two immediate thoughts:
Of the victims usually associated with JtR, Nichols and Eddowes were killed in the open street or square.
Stride was killed in an entrance off a street (if she was a Ripper victim).
thus a maximum of 3 murders were in the street.
Tabram (again if a Ripper victim) was killed indoors on a landing; Chapman in an enclosed yard not the open street) and Kelly in her room. So again three possible victims could be said to have led their killer somewhere other than the open street.
I don't see a problem with MO here. In all probability, the women led Jack to the spot where they were killed. End of story.
Of course, there is a view that MJK was not a Ripper victim, but for other reasons. I do not hold that view, though I have not ruled it out. the alternatives are:
- she was killed by her lover Joe Barnett (who may or may not have killed the other women);
- she did not die, but another woman was killed in her bed. (This relates to the mutilations which made identification difficult; and to the possibility that Mary was seen by various people in the street AFTER she was supposedly dead.)
Hope this helps,
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:44 am: |
|
Curley,
The MO, or rather the act of killing someone can change. Quite drastically at times. I cite Zodiac who used differing methods. This could be due to various factors like the one you mention or the killer felt more comfortable doing it a different way. It an operational thing.
Its the signature, the acts after the event, that rarely does. As Franks states, the signature in Jacks case is the mutilation and removal of organs. This act can be seen in Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Not in Tabram or Stride.
Again as Frank says, its the signature thats the important thing to Jack. The way he killed was just the most effective for him...what worked best. To be honest this is why I feel there is much confusion and debate regarding the actual MO. Some say he strangled first while others state that he simply drew the knife across the throat and some feel he stunned the victims with a punch.
Maybe, just maybe, Jack did experiment with MOs.
Cheers,
Monty
Doc-tor? The Doc-tor??? - Dalek
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
Maybe the organ removal wasn't so important to him. Nichols is mutilated sure enough, but I don't think he took any organs away, did he? I might be wrong. I guess my point is if organ removal was so important, why wasn't there a Double Event on 8 September? Personally, I think part of his signature was shocking the public--that's what he liked, IMO, the shock people felt.
Just thinking aloud,
Dave |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 464
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Or could it have been a learning curve, David?
Tabram (if a Ripper victim) is simply stabbed multiple times in a fury.
Nichols is slit open - perhaps he had the idea of doing more but was disturbed by Cross' arrival.
Chapman, opened up and entrails flung about/removed.
Stride - either interrupted or not the Ripper's work.
Eddowes - extreme mutilation and organ removal.
Kelly - indoors, he has time for dismemberment as well as organ removal (assuming MJK was his work).
On balance, I don't think he had an agenda, just a lust/urge and he learned as he went.
But unless/until we have a firm list of the women he killed, nothing can me certain, because some of the work may not be his.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on May 06, 2005) |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Phil, "nothing can be certain." I certainly agree with that. Learning curve or just interrupted? Who should be on the list? I'll never be certain.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Dave,
Sorry, I wasnt clear enough. You are quite correct. Sorry.
Phil has beaten me to the punch with regards to the disturbance during Nichols.
I guess my point is if organ removal was so important, why wasn't there a Double Event on 8 September?
That depends on if you believe there was a double event in this series.
Monty
Doc-tor? The Doc-tor??? - Dalek
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 863
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
Indeed, indeed, there are no conclusions which can be set into concrete.
Sorry? What for?
Cheers,
Dave |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Dave,
Sorry for my misleading sentence.
Monty
Doc-tor? The Doc-tor??? - Dalek
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Monty,
It's a hundred miles from misleading. I thought your post was thought-provoking and interesting, like most of yours are.
Sorry if I gave the impression I was nipping at you.
Dave |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Dave,
No, didnt get that impression at all. You are quite right in correcting me.
Thanks for the complimentary words. To be honest, its the thoughts of others such as yourself that spark me off onto my own mind wanderings. Something thats been lacking on these boards for me lately.
Not that Im saying the boards are dull. Just that my interests within this case have not been discussed recently, thats all.
I guess I like bouncing ideas off people.
Laters
Monty
Doc-tor? The Doc-tor??? - Dalek
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 584
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
“Maybe the organ removal wasn't so important to him. Nichols is mutilated sure enough, but I don't think he took any organs away, did he?”
I’m thinking along Phil’s lines. Although it’s extremely difficult to visualise the actual wounds on Nichols abdomen, the available information gives me the impression that they were random rather than having the aim of actually opening her up.
“ “Personally, I think part of his signature was shocking the public--that's what he liked, IMO, the shock people felt.”
Shocking the public may have been a welcome side effect, but I doubt if that was initially on his mind. Of course, this would depend on what kind of man you think JtR was. If you think he was something like Walter Sickert or perhaps George Chapman, he might have liked shocking the public. If you think he was more introverted and ‘inwardly directed’, avoiding interaction with other people rather than seeking it, shocking people would quite possibly not have been the first thing on his mind, if it was actually on his mind at some point. Or at least, that’s what I think.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Could be, although I think the fact that her intestines were extracted and placed alongside her would argue that there was a purpose for the abdominal wounds. Just an opinion though.
I think signature is really a cloudier subject than we sometimes think. Anyway, I have no idea what was in the Ripper's mind--no mind hunting going on at my house! But it does occur to me that the "Look at this, are you shocked?" effect is the one constant in all the murders, if an intangible one. I don't really believe in an agenda either, nor the pre-selection of victims or sites, but it does seem that's what's being said when you butcher women in the middle of the city.
But I suppose Mary Kelly argues against that, as she was in inside. So you might be right that this wasn't on the Ripper's mind at all.
You know what? I'm turning into an expert at getting threads off-topic. Here I am going on about Nichols when everyone is really talking about Mary Kelly!
Cheers,
Dave |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hi Dave and Frank,
On the other hand the shock/horror and indellible lasting effect of the sight that greeted the eyes of all who saw it, tends to endorse Dave"s and many others thoughts on it viz. that he had every intention of publicising his "work" in as spectacular way as is possible.Some part of him craved to be an exhibitionist!
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 586
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
The fact that the Ripper was able to cut out a womb and a kidney without doing any damage to either of the organs, might make people believe at first glance he had specifically sought these organs and thus must have had some kind of medical background, when in fact this really doesn't have to be true at all.
In a similar fashion the fact that he killed and mutilated his victims in the streets and left them there for everybody to see, tends to make people believe that this was exactly what he wanted, certainly when ones considers the lasting effect of seeing such a sight.
But what if the Ripper just didn't see any other options than killing them in the street? What if he just didn't think ahead or plan too much? What if he didn't have a place of his own where he could have taken his victims? What if he wasn't the type who was able to charm his victims into following him into empty buildings?
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1891
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
But the ripper seems to have "spoken" to " future observers".Its almost as if he has developed a "language of mutilation"---if anyone can work out what exactly he means.
The positioning of the legs is instructive-
they were drawn up,feet flat on the ground,knees turned outwards.This was a main feature used by the doctors and police to identify the hand of the ripper in all the so called "canonical" victims.
It would therefore seem that this positioning was a part of the rippers "language"/"communication".
Next there is the fact that the actual sight of each of the victims[except Elizabeth Stride] was extraordinary and again,spectacular.
It was the sight of all the internal organs,freshly plucked from the body and circled round the upper half of the body in a decorative,carefully placed way that so stunned onlookers.This was as true of Mary Kelly as it was of Annie Chapman.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 468
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Surely, that is also a natural position of the female body in the "missionary position", Natalie. Why complicate things?
Could be, although I think the fact that her intestines were extracted and placed alongside her would argue that there was a purpose for the abdominal wounds.
But was that true of Nichols, David? It was of Chapman, but surely Polly was just "ripped"?
Phil
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Now it's my turn to apologize! I thought I had read yesterday that her intestines had been taken out and placed alongside her in one of the police reports in Ultimate, but it turns out my memory's bad because it's not there.
So I was incorrect to say the intestines were extracted in the case of Nichols. Many thanks for the correction, Phil.
Cheers,
Dave |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 469
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
No worries. Glad to help.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Phil,
I dont think so!Without getting into a discussion that is a bit indelicate-can I simply say that it seems to me to a position used extensively in the olden days for demonstrations in gynacology -abortions for example.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 587
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I agree that the organs and other bodily pieces were placed rather than just tossed about, but I think it might be a mistake assuming that they were carefully and decoratively placed around the upper body. Assuming such a thing would be subjective IMHO.
The Ripper may just as well have put them there for practical reasons (so that they were out of his way, for instance), just as his victims were undoubtedly laid down on their backs firstly for practical reasons. But even if he carefully placed them there for a decorative purpose that might just have been for his own pleasure only.
So I guess all I’m really saying here is that things may not be as they might first appear and I think we shouldn’t make more of them without considering (the) alternatives. But of course, in the end, everybody has to/can make up her or his own mind.
On a minor note, only Chapman’s and Kelly’s legs were found in the position you described. Polly Nichols’ legs were extended and only a little apart, Eddowes’ left leg was extended and her right bent at the knee (see the sketch somewhere here on Casebook) and although Stride’s legs were drawn up, I don’t know how they could have been apart considering she was lying on her left side.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 588
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Thanks for addressing Dave's 'slip of the keyboard' for me. I hadn't even realised this was about Nichols, but somehow thought it was about MJK. I must have been sleeping then.
Best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1895
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Gosh we do seem to discuss some queer things on this casebook!
OK Frank,what you say is quite possible.To be honest when I first read of this I understood how shocked people were etc upon seeing the victims
with all this internal stuff about their necks but like you I wondered was he just being practical-and neat!And this was when I was convinced he had some medical knowledge.I can understand anyone such as a student doctor,a surgeon or a mortuary attendant to post mortems
neatly arranging organs of the body while attempting to get at the stuff they were really after.
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2455
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Nats
Have a look at the MJK locked room thread I think we can make some more sense there!
Suz |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 1:19 am: |
|
Could a serial killer make as much of a mess as who murdered Kelly did for their first time?
Even as a crime of passion? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2463
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Gosh Wintergreen! We're reduced to the 'serious ' threads! LOL!!
I doubt that anyone could make that sort of "mess"!....although SOMEONE did!
Hmmmm as to being the last and the so called 'glut' I doubt that!...looking back over all this I have to say (or think) that this may JUST MAY have been a one off !......
OMG am trying to think about what all the 'previous' meant, and did they have any connection at all too Mary?
Lawks....just a thought though....the differences are VERY obvious,other women were killed after Mary of course, in a vaguely similar fashion....ok with the odd differences.but........
Mary is
SOOOOOO different in more ways than seven!
'praps we should detach this or maybe not I don't know.....
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2464
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Oh Gosh am off on one here!
Have been (as you do) reading and re reading 'stuff'...........
Mary is SOOOO different,There is no obvious or relevant connection to the 'others',am starting to think here that maybe we're looking at one serious ONE OFF in the wake of the other four!
The reasons for this massacre of course are still a 'worry'.
The more and more I read about 'conspiracy' and 'connection' between the 'girls' the more I start to think that Mary is something quite different,caught up in this horror but not directly involved.
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2465
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Nats,Glenn Lyn and everyone else....
What do you reckon??
Gosh have REALLY started to think here! (first time for everything!)
Suzi
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 197
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:04 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Well i'll disagree, just for fun you understand.
MJK has always seemed to me the logical next step. Not to say anything about the Glut mentioned before, I don't think the killer's mind snapped or that after MJK he had done everything he wanted to. I can't explain why he stopped. But looking at the mutilations two things seem clear to me. The most mutilated sections focus on the face and the abdomen of MJK. The facial mutilations seem to have become more prevelant as the killings progressed. The abdominal mutilations have certainly reached a point not seen in the other victims, but again, as time and opportunity allowed they seem to have become more pronounced through the series of murders.
The difference as I see it is that there are also mutilations to the chest and limbs. They are however the areas that the killer has focussed on the least.
One other thing that is worth mentioning is that I recall that the doctors mention in some (could be one) of the earlier cases that some attempt appeared to have been made to remove the victim's head from their body. This was unsuccessful. In MJK's case I believe that is stated that the head was almost completely seperated. I will reference this if anyone wants me too, but don't have the time to right now.
To me this all points to an escalation in the killers mutilations rather than a departure from them.
I also think the indoors thing and the age thing are red herrings. The fact that MJK was killed inside is most readily explained by chance, in that MJK could take him to a room. The closest we come to this with other victims is with Chapman. She actually took the killer home if you really think about it, she just didn't have a room of her own to take him to. MJK took him home as well but she did have a room of her own. Unlucky for her, a thrill for him.
Age wise, if we take the canonical five then we could say that 20% of his victims were of about the same age as MJK. What I am saying is that our sample group is too small to definitively set Mary apart.
What a rant, hope that all makes sense.
Scotty.
|
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Hi all
One thing that has struck me since reading about the 'Thames Torso murders' prompted by something AP mentioned on another thread, is the similarities between some of the mutilations of MJK and one of the torso victims, later identified as Elizabeth Jackson.
As Scott points out MJK's head was almost completely separated from her body, Elizabeth's head was of course severed off and never retrieved, but reading the autopsy reports both victims necks were sliced through in almost the exact same place.
Other similarities include large flaps of skin being removed from the abdomen and organs taken out ,skin and tissue removed from the right buttock , the chest cavity being opened up and organs removed.
Of course we will never know if Elizabeth's face was mutilated or not and I suppose dis-similarities between the two murders can also be picked out, but I would like to hear others opinions on this.
Elizabeth Jackson was described as a 25 year old unfortunate, stout with sandy coloured hair.
Underwear found with the body had the name L.E. Fisher written on it, the name Fisher was linked at one point to MJK too.
Elizabeth was 6-8 months pregnant when she was murdered and the foetus had been removed from her uterus through an incision, prompting a theory in the press of a female murdering midwife or botched abortion.
I wonder if Elizabeth Jackson's story and some of the similarities to MJK triggered off the stories that MJK was pregnant at the time of her murder and that a female or midwife was involved.
Does anyone know when did the story that MJK might have been pregnant first emerge?
Debra
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2065
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Funny you should post that right then, Debra, as I was just skimming through the reports in The Times concerning Elizabeth Jackson, and I too was struck by 'something'.
I think you should first look at a news article published in The Times 'Undetected Murders', June 15th 1882, which gives a good background to this whole subject, in particular with regard to bodies found in the Thames.
A few weeks ago I did find an even more interesting mutilated women in the Thames, but I sort of lost the report, so I guess I better sober up and find the thing again.
I would guess that most women were probably pregnant during the LVP, the amount of cases that I have found where newly born babies are stuffed down privies or strangled is absolutely staggering, and so many women were HMP'd for this offence that it is truly a fright to study. |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Debra,
I have always wondered about the killing of Elizabeth Jackson. There are a lot of people that feel as JTR progressed the killings got worse. Wouldn't a torso be the next step after MJK if in fact MJK was a JTR victim? Hard to imagine any thing worse than that terrible scene at Miller's Court, but beheading and removing limbs might be the next step. JTR was close to beheading his other victims.
Not sure if I completely agree with this, but your statement got me thinking, and am open to different possibilities.
Cheers,
Carolyn 
(Message edited by carolyn on May 13, 2005) |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Hi AP
599 bodies found in the Thames in 5 years!!
I also came across another mutilation, dismembering and throwing in the Thames case, the vicims breasts were cut off and her face mutilated...but I have lost it too!...and I never touch brandy!
I thought it had something to do with the trial of Kate Webster in 1879, or it is mentioned in a book about that case, I will have to have a look at it again and check.
Hi Carolyn
I am not necessarily saying that Elizabeth may have been a victim of JTR, maybe the other way around...perhaps MJK was intended to be dumped in the Thames???...the similarities just got me thinking too 
Debra
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 545
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
Is the implication here that MJK might have been an incomplete victim of the unknown torso murderer? |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 595
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
“I also think the indoors thing and the age thing are red herrings.
You’re probably right about the age thing. I think that, if you would look into the ages of the prostitutes of those days, you would find that the bigger part of them were older than 35.
I’m not so sure about the indoors thing, though. We know that in the outdoor situations he most probably attacked and killed his victims very soon after arriving at the crime scenes. He probably did that for two reasons. First, he silenced them swiftly in order to reduce the chance of attracting attention. Secondly, he killed them quickly so that he had as much time as possible to do what he really came for: the mutilations.
On top of that I think the Ripper wasn’t the type of man who felt comfortable in situations where he needed to act socially for too long. If he entered MJK’s room together with her, he would probably have felt forced to interact socially with her during the time she took off her several layers of clothes and folded them, lay them on the chair and laid down on the bed. That would at least have taken a couple of minutes and I just wonder if he would have been able to wait that long.
But - that’s just my humble opinion.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 596
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
"Wouldn't a torso be the next step after MJK if in fact MJK was a JTR victim? Hard to imagine any thing worse than that terrible scene at Miller's Court, but beheading and removing limbs might be the next step."
A torso like Elizabeth Jackson could well have been the next step, but what I wouldn't understand, in case it actually was the next step, is why he all of a sudden needed to dump his victim(s).
Unless he would have killed his victims in the privacy of his own home or building that he owned, I think he wouldn't have needed to bury them, or conceal or dump them elsewhere. If he weren't caught in the act, there would have been every chance that he didn't get buckled at all. Transporting and dumping (parts of) a body would yet again put the killer in danger of being caught.
This is exactly what happened in 1875, when Henry Wainright cut Herriet Lane’s body into pieces, just to be able to dump her body parts elsewhere and was caught during the transport of the parts from one place to another. Incidentally, this murder case was called "the Whitechapel murder" for many years.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Debra
on another thread I did muse on the slaughter of MJK - rather than the killing - and felt that perhaps her killer had been disturbed at his task, and fled the scene before he could finish hacking her to pieces, bundling the remains up, and then slinging it in the Thames... to join the other 599.
As I think you already known I don't give a bandicoot's burp for the idea that the remains of MJK were left as they were for some kind of shocking display.
I'll go through all my notes and see if I can't track down the murder/mutilation case I had. |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Frank,
You are probably right about transporting the body. I hadn't really thought of that, but something in what Debra said lit a spark in the back of my mind. I have always wondered if MJK was a Ripper victim, was she really the last... or did he go on to different killings. A torso seemed like it just might be the next step for him to take.(if you buy the progression theory).
Thanks for your views. 
Cheers,
Carolyn |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2492
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi all
I can't help but think that all this Thames related 'material' is proabably OK worth a look but not actually relative to 'Was MJK' etc etc
Sorry.... BUT.. there has to be a reason (about which we rumble and rumble!) WHY Mary was SO different...... Wish I could find Mary interesting!...... Dead ends are becoming culdesacs! hehe!..... Sadly I wish I could think of something sensible to say here but re the old Ghost thread... I do believe that Mrs P had her own door a yard or two up from Marys'.. for what that's worth!
Ooooooops cross threading!
Suzi
'Win and flounder...........Lose and grin!'
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
