|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 1:45 pm: |       |
As I was reviewing a chapter for a book concerning Howard Carter and the discovery of Tutankhamen’s tomb I was struck by something which put me in mind of the scene in Mary Kelly’s room.
It is a bold leap of adventure, but perhaps worthwhile.
I noticed that until Carter and his cronies actually removed the golden nest of coffins to reveal the mummy of the boy-king, they had acted with a respectful and scientific regard to the job at hand, carefully cataloguing and handling the artefacts with almost religious reverence… however, and oh boy! When they got to the actual mummy they went completely over board, ripping the mummy to bits and pieces in their greed for the precious jewels they knew would be hidden within the bandaging, the arms and legs were ripped off, the bandaging carelessly torn off, the head and torso were positively battered, parts collapsing and other parts - like the gold-sheathed penis - disappearing forever. It was as if these learned scientists from the Metropolitan Museum of New York and their mentor - Howard Carter - had been gripped by some form of madness when it came to the actual body of the boy-king and his personal jewellery.
I put this down to two governing factors.
Firstly the contained excitement of the scientists could no longer be leashed when faced with a human body rather than artefacts of human construction, they knew what was under the bandaging and by god they wanted it here and now, it was personal stuff, not the remote things they had been busy with up till then, this was the king himself in all his glory and humility and the urge to desecrate became all pervasive and all powerful, no power on earth could have stopped the madness they enjoyed in ripping that body apart to pull out those rich jewels concealed within. Even the jewellery hidden in the cavities of the king’s body were pulled out and greeted like winning lottery tickets. It was a shared madness, infectious and this leads me to my second point.
I don’t believe such madness, and such total bodily destruction could be possible in a single individual, it is a madness that needs the fuel of co-conspirators to feed it, it is a special madness, to be shared, and I just cannot see in the death of Mary Kelly the work of an individual hand.
I once studied this special condition, the one where two people act on one another like fuel and fire, and as a consequence do things as a couple that they would never do as individuals, but to my shame have forgotten the name of the condition.
I see two not one.
|
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 144
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:03 pm: | |
Hey AP-maybe they were seeing double!
I have thought about this myself apropos J K Stephen and Montague Druitt but decided these to be an unlikely pair.
I dont see Charles and Thomas doing a double act either unless as has been suggested there was a connection between Mary and the fenian movement.
Anderson revealed in his memoirs that the organiser of a fenian plot to assassinate Queen Victoria at the time of her Jubilee in 1887 was
a British informer and its just possible that the riddle of Mary and her "lost" husband was connected to her having wed aFenian who himself was killed leaving her to keep the flag flying
for hin and his cause in any way she could.Were she to have been mixed up in a cause such as this both her friendship with the nuns of the Crespin Sreet convent and her indifference to how she made her living makes some sense.
As you point out the senior police at the time
were an astonishing collection of Orangemen[Warren who resigned from his post on the day of Mary"s death was descended from one of the original Apprentice boys of Derry] Charles Cutbush
Anderson who apparently informed on key Fenians and so it goes on.I do think it strange nobody has been able to trace Kelly leaving the question who exactly was she?Where were her relatives?Did she really marry a Welsh miner [or an Irish nationalist?].Where were her roots-Ireland?Did she spin a yarn for most people including Joe.
Where there other people she feared were out to get her?
These are some of the thoughtsb I have had regarding Mary ever since I learnt that one of the nuns at her first refuge in Whitechapel is reputed to have said some years after her death,"If it hadnt been for Mary Kelly none of this would have happened." Natalie. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi, Natalie and AP:
Interesting anecdote about the opening of Tutankhamen’s tomb and the hysteria in regard to ransacking Tut's body and its possible relevance even if tangentially to what happened to Mary Jane Kelly. Thanks for sharing it.
Natalie, if we are to see an Irish connection in MJK's murder there is the same problem that exists with any Jewish connection theory concerning all the supposed Jewish associations on the night of the Double Event. That is, how do all the other murders fit into the theory? The answer seems to be, they don't, with either theory.
All the best
Chris |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
That Nun story, I have always taken seriously, There is truth somewhere in that message.
Hopefully Leanne, and yours truely will make a good case in our forthcoming book, which as you know implicates Barnett.
You make a good point, regarding Kellys possible, involvement with the cause.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 145
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:51 pm: | |
AP,Chris and Richard,
First apologies AP for going off at a tangent on this new thread.
After this I"ll go to another one if necessary.
There was another thought I had in connection with Thomas Cutbush.Why did Macnaghten protest so vehemently about Thomas Cutbush-was it just because he was related to a policeman albeit a fairly senior one or did he want to quickly deflect attention from Cutbush and any cover up of
anything any of the protestant/orangemen/anti fenian ploice may have been involved in to do with the Kelly murder.Was this the so called "hot potato"?
Chris,Yes I see the problem.However i have Always wondered whether Mary Kelly"s was a "copy-cat murder" executed to coincide with the other murders[by those who would know what the ripper did to his victims].[I still think our friend Kosminski may have been the actual ripper -possibly Druitt but thinking about Macnaghtens protests maybe he was just a timely scapegoat!
Richard,like you I happen to think this reported remark by one of the nuns is highly significant.
looking forward to your book Best of luck Natalie. |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 93
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 4:36 pm: | |
Richard-
Like you I have always taken the "If it wasn't for that Kelly woman..none of this would have happened" very seriously indeed..get this book going you two!!
Cheers Suzi !!!!!!!!!!! |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
I must admit that I am not one for conspiracy theories at all, but I do find something awfully persuasive about our Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush and his almost maniacal obsession with Catholics. His obituary speaks volumes, as the writer of that piece vainly attempted to soften the blow of his obvious mania. He did firmly believe that the Catholics of England were poisoning the water supply and that was responsible for his headaches and confusion. When he sat down and shot himself in his kitchen in front of his numerous daughters there is no doubt that he believed in his tortured mind that the Catholics of England had driven him to this sad conclusion.
One does wonder what he would have made of the Home Secretary of his time, his immediate superior, the first Catholic cabinet minister appointed in many hundreds of years, the Right Honourable Henry Matthews.
I do believe that Charles would have shot him, if he could.
It is always helpful when considering Charles and his relationship to the crimes of Jack the Ripper to remember that at the very start of the crimes Charles was directly in charge of the investigation - as two memos do record - and also that at the same time he was responsible for all the lodging houses in the Whitechapel area, which does mean he would have had an intimate knowledge of all the comings and goings of such dubious places. His removal from both offices was swift, being transferred to supplies and pay at Scotland Yard where perhaps his strange paranoia was not quite so damaging to the force.
I have always seen a massive damage limitation effort by the Metropolitan Police Force in the documents still left to us by time whenever it concerns Thomas or Charles Cutbush, which does not by any means indicate that either were involved in the crimes of Jack the Ripper, just that somewhere along the line there was one almighty balls-up where this most peculiar family were concerned.
We have a suicide by a very senior police officer intimately involved in the case we discuss, we have his nephew consigned to Broadmoor for the rest of his life for stabbing women in the very area we discuss, and then we have the totally implausible defence of a very valid suspect by the most senior police officer of his time, simply because that suspect was related to one of his officers.
It does merit further investigation.
Anyways what happened to the boy-king?
|
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 148
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
Chris
I"d be grateful if you can say why you dismiss
a suggestion such as I made about Mary Kelly
with such certainty.
We know virtually nothing about her except that in 1888 she was known as Mary Kelly or Marie Jaenette Kelly
-she lived with a man who is said to have been Irish
-she stayed in a convent for a brief time upon arriving in Whitechapel
she received letters from Ireland[or rather is said to have received letters from Ireland].
-she enjoyed drink
-she was a prostitute sometimes while she was in Whitechapel
-nobody knew who she really was or where she really came from
-her murder bore a resemblance to those that had happened in Whitechapel earlier.
-she claimed to have married at 16 and become a widow the same year.
Why does Mary have to be a ripper victim-who says?
A few problems for me are
_she died a fair bit later than the other victims
she looked nothing like the other victims[canonical]
she was much younger
she died indoors[and to my mind that is significant because I see the rippers "signature" as being his victims "on display" in the OPEN AIR.
Natalie |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 11:30 pm: | |
Hi, Natalie
First, I don't think anyone can be certain about theories in this case. It is too short a series, with a killer, moreover, who is unknown to us, to exclude certain different possibilities. However, again, the Jewish or Irish theories don't seem likely because the other murders don't seem to fit into such theories. That is, if Kelly was killed as part of an Orange plot against Fenians, as you seem to be saying, if it was Cutbush nephew and uncle who were the killers, why were Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes killed? If it was an anti-Jewish conspiracy, say, given the Jewish connections on the night of the Double Murder, that explains the graffito and the murders of Stride and Eddowes, but what about Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly?
As for whether Kelly was different because she was killed indoors, well, there had been a hue and cry for nearly six weeks since the Double Event. The killer had been laying low because of the stepped up police presence, the Vigilance Committee patrols, the threat of bloodhounds. So what could be more natural than, after laying low, killing indoors? As I said before, I don't find this to be a big exception in a short series with an unknown killer. As for Mary not being on display, as soon as her body was discovered, she was on display as we see in the infamous photograph. Perhaps that's one reason the killer placed her body facing the window, so that someone looking through the window, i.e., Bowyer, would see his handiwork. The removal of the kidney and uterus the same as in the Eddowes killing is strong evidence that it was the same killer.
Best regards
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 29, 2003) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 2:47 am: | |
Hi Chris,
I do not believe the killer was laying low, I happen to believe , and I always have, then the murders stopped, simply because MJK, was the reason why this series occured, and when she was killed , there was no reason to continue the killing spree.
I feel that the killing of Kelly was premeditated, and she was to die on the 9th Nov, in her room ,on her bed.
As for the killer, placing her body facing the window, I Cannot see how he could have avoided that , as the bed was in that position.
Regards Richard. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 9:45 am: | |
Hi, Richard:
What? Hmmm. The body could have been facing the wall, couldn't it? The body could have been on the floor, say, between the wall and the bed. But it wasn't. I think the body was positioned as it was for a reason, for shock effect.
If you are saying that Mary Jane Kelly was the reason for the whole series of murders, that is a common theory held by a number of people. However, to my mind, I think it's a bit illogical to have the true target of the murders be the last of the series. That's an awful lot of work, and an awful lot of exposing oneself to danger to get to the one object of the murder series, Kelly.
Rather the evidence appears to show the killer was showing delight and gratification with each individual murder and that the series was not directed toward Mary Jane Kelly.
Richard, I am aware of course that your forthcoming book with Leanne Perry will name Barnett as the killer so of course you have to have Kelly as the object of the killings and work backwards. If Kelly was killed by Barnett I could buy him as a killer if it was a one-off murder, a copycat. However, for the reasons I expressed to Natalie, the removal of the uterus and kidney, as in the murder of Catherine Eddowes, it is apparent to me it is the same killer as the person who killed Eddowes, not a copycat.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 30, 2003)
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 30, 2003) |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 150
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
Hi Chris, Thanks for your reply.Having slept on this idea of mine about Mary being the widow of an Irish nationalist and possibly someone who needed to be bumped off I decided not as why not then just bump her off rather than expose the mselves to being caught in the act.Unless ofcourse it were to carry some sort of warning
that would have been understood by those in the know.
I do take your point about the removal of the uterus and kidney-I didnt even know about that I thought it was only her heart that was taken.
As far as an anti Jewish conspiracy is concerned
while I dont think this is likely either I believe Kosminski could have been Jack and that
he would not have presented in 1888 as the devastated wreck he had become by 1890.
However I would [like everyone else who may think it was Kosminski]want to know just what was happening between 1888 and 1890 with regard to him and his incarceration because obviously
if he was free then why didnt he continue his "work"?
I suppose its just possible that his complete breakdown happened just after MJK"s death and his family were then able to present him as a harmless
mentally challenged individual.
Anyway-thanks for your deliberations.
Best Natalie. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 3:55 pm: | |
Hi, Natalie
The heart is important because there is the question of whether it was removed from the room. The other organs that were removed stayed in the room and for some reason the killer did not taken them with him. Apparently the police surgeons were able to reconstruct MJK after the murder, all except for her heart. There is always the possibility that the heart was burned in the grate.
All the best
Chris |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:16 pm: | |
Hi chris,
It may seem an obvious answer, but it would imply her killer only wanted her heart,he couldnt have it whilst she was alive, and if this was the only way he could have it , so be it.
Richard. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:24 pm: | |
Oh oh Richard, you Barnettite you. . .  But if you are indicating Barnett, since they did live together it would seem Joe had plenty to time to po- po- possess her heart, emo- emo- emo- emotionally. Please excuse me, the shade of Joe Barnett, wherever you are!
Chris |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 114
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
Chris/Richard
Wasn't it echolalia..lalia..lalia
Cheers
Suzi..uzi..uzi.uzi |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 154
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:37 pm: | |
Hi again Chris-just following on your words
perhaps the taking of her heart symbolised the
totality of his act -the total control he had had over her life and death culminating in the cessation of her heartbeat.[come to think of it-what does a doctor look for to establish death-the pulse/heartbeat and then lifts the eyelids to look at the pupils-werent her eyelids left intact?-just a thought,dont know where it might be leading if anywhere!
Best Natalie. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
Yes indeed Joe's speech impediment was known scientifically as echolalia, as you say. Though if a speech impediment were enough to make a person a serial killer, a large portion of the British male population must be made up of SKs!
All the best
Chris |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 118
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 6:21 pm: | |
Hi Ch-hr-hr-ris
D-d-d-dont know w-w-w-what you're r-r-refffffe-r-r-ing to!! Get onto my happy new year (bad typo!) thread on pub talk!!
Have a g-g-gooo0d one
c-c-c-c-cheers
suzi |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 7:49 am: | |
Hi AP,
Could the condition to which you were referring be folie a deux? This is a form of mental illness in which two people, generally close to one another, share the same delusions.
Not to be confused with folie de doute, a mental illness characterised by the inability to make decisions, however trifling, which I imagine would have hampered Jack to a fatal degree had he so suffered.
However, I could see our Jack possibly suffering from folie de grandeur – delusions of grandeur, and even perhaps taking an apprentice with him on one or more occasions, someone who looked up to him, believing in and pandering to those delusions.
If said apprentice ever thought of betraying his master, he’d have to be very careful – the master could twist the evidence to frame him for all the murders.
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 8:48 am: | |
G'day,
CHRIS: You say that Joe's speech impediment was known as echolalia. Nothing was known about the condition in 1888, in fact not much was known about psychology in general.
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:24 am: | |
Caz
Yes, thank you, that is the very boy I was after… ‘folie a deux’.
A fascinating condition which I’ve lost touch with I admit, as I studied it some fifteen years ago and have now quite forgotten everything about it.
It does reward further study though, as it offers a unique insight into crimes of the nature Hindley and Brady committed. Many felt that Brady was in charge but I felt this condition definitely applied to the two of them. I know the condition has been used by some defence council in murder cases, but I think not in the UK or USA.
I felt that this condition definitely also applied to the scenario with Tutankhamen’s tomb as I felt all along that Carter would have not acted like this if alone, and if one reads his own account of the opening of the tomb - written later when he was an isolated old man - an enormous regret comes across regarding his brutal treatment of the body.
I thought it would be useful to apply this admitted rare condition to the case of Jack simply because the circumstances of Kelly’s death do seem to indicate that someone was adding fuel to the fire.
The condition normally applies to lovers, who suddenly murder people who stand in the way of their supposed happiness, but I toy with such a condition when applied to two very close male relatives sharing similar barmy obsessions; and then what might come out of such a poisonous brew?
It is provoking.
|
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 126
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:35 am: | |
Leanne
G'day!! (and Happy New Year!!)
Do we know that echolalia wasn't known about in 1888-8-8-8?
Cheers
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:44 pm: | |
G'day Suzi,
'Echolalia' is a headache of a word to inject into ones search engine, because some rock band thoughtlessly gave themselves such a name!
But looking at 'psychiatry' and pioneers in the study I found that Eril Kraepelin, who is considered the founder of modern psychiatry, wrote what is considered his major work on the subject in 1883. He called for research into the physical causes of mental illness.
It wasn't until 1906 that he published a study stressing language disturbances in schizophrenics, (termed 'Dementia Praecox' at the time). Echolalia is a common language disturbance of schizophrenics, and the condition wasn't named until 1924.
LEANNE |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 8:47 pm: | |
Hi Leanne:
I am glad to see that you have answered your own question that although echolalia was not named until 1924, research on the disorder had been done prior to the murders by Eril Kraepelin, who was responsible for a major work on the subject in 1883.
Happy New Year, Leanne! 
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 31, 2003) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
