|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 6:29 am: |       |
Uuuups, this thread is like a Formula One race; I can hardly keep up.
Shannon,
I am not sure at all that Mary Jane Kelly was a Ripper victim; I think there is enough question marks regarding that point to seriously keep an open mind about other alternatives.
So no, I simply don't understand why we automatically should assume that if Barnett killed her, he had to have killed the other women as well. That assumption is based on that she was a Ripper victim without doubt. I am not prepared to assume that and take things for granted. She may very well have been, but I don't think it's proven beyond doubt that she was.
And more importantly, whether she was slaughtered by the Ripper or not, it is impossible to say or prove if Barnett did it anyway. There isn't enough evidence -- not even circumstancial -- in order to pin him down as the Ripper or even her murderer in the first place.
So therefore your pick-and-choose alternatives are problematic, since that kind of "logic" is based on the fact that you have already made up your mind about certain scenarios. That doesen't work for me. Sorry.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 377
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 6:54 am: | |
Glenn, either she was or wasn't a Ripper victim. Either she was or wasn't killed by Joe - those are the ONLY possibilities. This is NOT "pick and choose" logic.
You only have to decide if she was murdered by Joe and she was a Ripper victim, if she was murdered by Joe and she was not a Ripper victim, or if she was murdered by someone other than Joe regardless of whether the killer if other than Joe was the Ripper or not. Two of the three possibilites involve Joe, so he has at worst a 66% chance of being the killer...
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
Unfortunately I am not as sure as you are regarding the possibility of Kelly's murder being a non-Ripper. It doesen't necessarily have to be a copy-cat, though, but I can't rule it out completely.
I still find it most credible to see her as a Ripper victim, but looking at the modus operandi and the crime scene evidence I think there are just as many dissimilarities as there are similarities.
There are several indications on that the murderer have used a different approach; there is an unusual amount of blood-splatter and there are also what could be defense wounds on arms and hands (although that can't be established with certainty), indicating that she may not have been unconscious when was attacked by the knife.
Furthermore, when the crime scene is a domestic one, you always have to consider the individuals first who knew the victim and knew the premises -- that is normal police procedures. Now, that doesen't necessarily imply that Barnett murdered her, but if she did, I don't think there are enough strong points of evidence to establish beyond doubt that he killed the others as well, as the Ripper. Mary Kelly is so badly mutilated that you really not with absolute certainty can say that she was a Ripper victim, although there are similarities as well. But we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
One of the most common arguments against it being a domestic murder performed by someone like Barnett (and which I myself have put forward in the past), is that how could a (former?) boyfriend do that to his woman and regain his mental sanity. How would that be emotionally possible? Now, unfortunately, such reasoning is a complete fallacy. There are a number of cases where this actually has happened; for example, in the early 20th century (I can't recall the exact year and names at the moment) a doctor, without no prior criminal record, murdered his woman and mutilated her in to an extant that was even worse than Mary Kelly -- her face and head was mutilated and carved all the way down to the skull; I have seen the pictures.
If you have murdered someone close to you and you know you will be investigated, and you are quite keen on avoiding the death penalty, some people are prepared to do almost anything, like mutilate her in order to hide her identity or blame it on another killer. That case I just mentioned is not unique in any way. There are numerous examples of this.
I still think it's a bit far-fetched, but it can't be completely ruled out. To automatically assume that she was a Ripper victim, just because there are some similarities (although not more than there are signs pointing at the opposite) and because of the fitting Ripper context as far as the time and geographical area is concerned, is to read the forensic evidence and facts in a way that mirrors our own wishes and expectations. I am not prepared to do that.
So, even if he killed Mary Kelly, there is really no reason to believe that he killed the others as well. I don't agree with that conclusion at all. But still, all we are left with are speculations.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 7:30 am: | |
Shannon. You gave me three alternatives:
1, that Joe did it and he is the Ripper.
2, that Joe did it and it is a copycat killing
3, that Joe had nothing to do with it what so ever.
You forgot to add a fourth, namely:
4, that the Ripper did it and Joe had nothing to do with it.
I got the impression, that if it couldn't have been Joe, then it couldn't have been the Ripper anyway. And that I find hard to agree with.
But I'll tell you the reason why I can't pick out one of the alternatives:
because I just simply don't know which one is the correct answer! Anybody who does without questioning, please inform me immediately that the case is solved after over 100 years.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 967
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 10:36 am: | |
Glenn,
Glenn, either she was or wasn't a Ripper victim. Either she was or wasn't killed by Joe - those are the ONLY possibilities. This is NOT "pick and choose" logic.
Possibility No 4 is beyond some peoples logic.
66% chance of being the Killer ? A wise man once stated "Statistics are like a lamp-post to a drunken man - more for leaning on than illumination."
"Start with neither guilt or innocence. Start with the facts of the case and see if anyone fits what is known about the case. Dont make the facts fit the case, make the case fit the facts. Joe fits the facts of the case far better than anyone else and is my logical place to start. If you could clear him of the case, I would be the first to drop the investigation and look in another direction, but you cant.
Swap the word 'Joe' for 'Walter' and its almost verbatim of Patsy.
No Facts fit with Joe....only suppostion and conjecture, at best circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence that would have been left by the partner of the deceased, which is another reason Police look at husband/wifes/partners first.
And then there is the other victims. Joe is linked simply because he lived in the same street/area as they did. Thats good enough to suspect him.....but not to charge him. Not by a long shot.
It seems to me that the facts have been looked at, assessed and because no one matches them exactly the next best suspect is thrust into the hole.
As Michael Caine once famously said "Do you want the bloody killer or will anyone do ?"
CB,
Shannons work is there to be scrutinised. Just because a book is vigourously researched (and Kudos to Shannon for that) doesnt mean it shouldnt be questioned.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 253
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 11:16 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
You wrote: “Frank, if the killer hated women so much, why did he kill them quickly and do all the mutilations posty mortem? When a killer hates the victim he makes them to suffer which our killer did not do with any of the victims...“
As I’ve written on some previous occasions, some serial killers get a kick out of torturing their victims, others get satisfied only by raping and then killing them or the other way around, for some it’s the kill itself, and for another part of such killers mutilating fulfils their dark needs. Jack the Ripper undoubtedly belonged to this last category. So, each serial killer shows their hate in their own way and gets the most pleasure or satisfaction out of doing it in that specific way. To say a killer who hates his victims wants to make them suffer is not true and depends on what makes a particular killer tick.
I think the Ripper hated women and expressed this hatred by mutilating his victims. As you said yourself, anything you enjoy doing, you try to make last as long as possible to savor the moment. This is exactly why I think he killed quickly, because in that way he could quickly start doing what really satisfied him and he did it as long as he could until he felt he had to go, at what point I think he just left immediately. As torturing his victims was not what he was interested in, there was no reason to keep them alive. In fact, there was every reason to kill them quickly if he wanted to start enjoying the mutilating.
Like Jeff, I have already said in an earlier post that I think the Ripper was more of an opportunist who didn’t or couldn’t really plan that much. So, killing and mutilating his victims and fleeing the crime scenes in the way that he did, resulted in making his pleasure last as long as possible. Besides that, I’ve also already said that I think there weren’t that many places around where the Ripper could have taken his victims to prolong the enjoyment. Surely, he could have tried to find places where he could have prolonged the mutilations, but in my view he simply wasn’t that kind of planning killer. I think he may only have put more thought into Mary Kelly’s murder beforehand.
I have to say I wasn’t completely satisfied with my last post. It was quite late, but I had started to write it and just wanted to finish, so I just posted it to see what happened. I think I didn’t really get across what I wanted. It sometimes takes me quite a bit of time to try and neatly line up things in this whole case and then to put all that into the right English words and sentences.
So, I’ll try again. Jack the Ripper was a serial killer. I think the most plausible possibilities were that he was either a psychopath or a paranoid schizophrenic or something similar. There are no indications that Barnett was a psychopath. In fact, judging from what little we know, I think there are indications that he wasn’t.
That leaves us with the other possibility, that of a paranoid schizophrenic or something similar. Persons suffering from such a mental illness are people whose perceptions are disturbed (they may hear or see things that aren’t there), who might speak incoherently and who might be regarded as strange, which may result in them not interfering with anyone (except for their family perhaps), or them not being interfered with, certainly in those days. People might not notice that schizophrenics are strange until they start talking, and depending on the severity of their illness some of them are able to join society without being conspicuous, certainly if they’re not bothered or stressed.
This knowledge combined with the fact that the Ripper most probably hated women, which is shown in the way the Ripper tried to destroy his victims, has made me think that, if the Ripper suffered from schizophrenia, he wasn’t capable of living together with any woman in a normal way. Also, there’s nothing in what we know that indicates Barnett was suffering from schizophrenia or some similar disorder.
As to the undigested food, Dr. Bond stated that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken. If we count backwards from 10 a.m. and take into account only 2 to 3 hours for the partly digested food to have reached the stage of digestion that it did, we see that it was taken between 7 and 8 a.m., just in time for the woman Maxwell spoke to to have thrown it up. As the throwing up doesn’t agree with the partly digested food found at the crime scene, the Mary seen by Maxwell must have taken the food after that time, had she actually been killed later that morning, which is more in line with what you say. However, the taking of any food doesn’t agree altogether with the fact that the Mary seen by Maxwell had a bad hangover, which made her vomit in the first place. All of this makes it improbable – to me at least - that the woman seen by Maxwell and the one found on Mary’s bed were one and the same.
This is how I see things (for now).
All the best,
Frank
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 235
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
Shannon, do you know what I do for a living? No, you don't. obviously. Try reading peoples profiles. I know where of I speak. The marks, as described, are seen in many cases of strangulation. You can believe this or not. Period. I'm through with this subject and your neener, neener, neener behavior that you are absolutely right and the rest of us are absolutely wrong.
Respectfully,
Michael |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
Shannon,
You said, "You only have to decide if she was murdered by Joe and she was a Ripper victim, if she was murdered by Joe and she was not a Ripper victim, or if she was murdered by someone other than Joe regardless of whether the killer if other than Joe was the Ripper or not. Two of the three possibilites involve Joe, so he has at worst a 66% chance of being the killer... "
I think this is flawed, When you say she was killed by someone else besides Joe, you lump everyone else into one category, and that is wrong. It should be Frank killed Mary or Tom killed Mary or Howard killed Mary, there are a thousand other people that could have done the killing. We have many other suspects that are considered viable, and to lump them all together is wrong when coming up with a percentage chance that it was Joe that did the killing/Mutilations.
Vlad |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 296
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Shannon,
I guess it just boils down to differences here. The evidence doesn't lead me to Joe, but it seems you get there. The only "connection" I see for Joe is his past relationship with Kelly. But that is hardly enough to establish his guilt. I don't see the testimony as indicating the blood is wet, and if the murder was at say 9:30 am, well how long would it take for the blood to dry? I'm not sure, so it could be expected to be dry from either time (early am, or late am). Finding the body at 11, doesn't mean the murder was at 10:59. Anyway, even if it was after the supposed sightings, which are not very reliable, that doesn't implicate Joe.
As I've said, Joe is not cleared, but more importantly, the investigation didn't find any connections between Joe and the killing. And, not being able to place Joe at all the crimes is not the same as being able to give Joe an alibi for at least one of the series. (Oh, and there's evidence to suggest Albert DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangler; or at least not guilty of all the murders he confessed to).
Anyway, I've never claimed Joe has been proven innocent, only that the case for his innocence is stronger than the case for his guilt.
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 378
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
Glenn: "You forgot to add a fourth, namely: 4, that the Ripper did it and Joe had nothing to do with it."
Glenn, if you look at #3 you will see that it specifically says "that Joe had nothing what so ever to do with it. Ripper or not, if the killer wasn't Joe, then there are still only 3 possibliities...
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 379
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Michael: "do you know what I do for a living? No, you don't. obviously. Try reading peoples profiles."
Michael, profiles don't impress me, neither does your occupation. Logic and intelligence do.
One hand placed on the throat and squeezed tightly leaves one mark from the thumb on one side and four marks from the fingers on the other which is what we have in the post mortem report.
When you grab a person by the throat with both hands, you leave four marks on each side of the neck and either one heavy or two impressions near the center of the throat above the windpipe. Any first year forensic student knows that.
If you honeslty believe what you have written, perhaps a new career is in order.
Shannon |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 239
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Shannon,
You could show a little more respect. I believe what I wrote because I have seen it. In the cases described the main point of pressure is not necessarily on the windpipe, but on the artery, causing the victim to pass out very quickly. Strangulation is not entirely about keeping someone from breathing, but keeping oxygenated blood from going to the brain. By the way, any first year forensic student should know that things are not always as they appear. Please refrain from remarking on my intelligence, logic or career choices as you do not know me at all. I have not ever questioned your intelligence. I have not ever questioned your logic. I have stated that you should not make statements as absolute fact because I have seen the things I've seen. I'm not even asking you to believe me. I am not arguing the point that you have the right to choose any suspect that you want. I am not arguing with your methodology. I am only stating that there are more ways than one to interpret evidence and that autopsies during that time were very limited because of the technology available. We can definitely agree to disagree.
With all due respect,
Michael |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 240
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
My apologies to everyone on this thread. I will not respond again.
Mikey |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 297
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
It does appear that Mary put up more of a defense. But, for the following reasons, I don't see the differences as being substantial ones, rather circumstantial.
From Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, it appears the "approach" is to pose as a customer and go to the location of the victims choosing. This is followed by a sudden attack, in which the victim is strangled to unconsciousness while standing (possibly pressing them up against a wall?). They are then lowered, the throat cut, and then mutilated as time allows.
The "point" of the murders appears to be the mutilation itself. If that is true, then the approach and the strangulation are simply the means to the end, and are not necessary for the Ripper's enjoyment. They are the "MO", the mutilation is the signature. (Throat cutting could be part of either, so I'm not sure where to place that and will leave it as a "transition"; it's MO because it achieves the necessary goals of killing and silencing the victim, but it's signature because it's using the knife as part of the mutilation. The severity of the cut, down to the spinal column, suggests more than just pragmatics but that's obviously open to opinion.
Anyway, with Mary Kelly the approach appears to be the same. Posing as a customer (we know she was soliciting earlier in the night). She would then take him back to her room (we know she used her room for that purpose).
Now, it seems clear the attack occurred while she was in the bed. This is different from the previous victims, where no sexual activity took place. Mary, being younger and prettier, may not have originally been intended as a victim (killers of prostitutes usually, if not always, engage the services of prostitutes on a regular basis. It's one of the reasons they are comfortable selecting them as victims).
Anyway, moving along such lines, that would mean the attack occurred while she at least was in the bed. This position may have made it much more difficult to strangle her (bed sheets get in the way, or something like that). As such, he then attacks with the knife, she defends herself, gets some defense wounds on her arms, etc.
It just seems to me that the differences we see with Mary Kelly could be due to the specific circumstances of her murder location. Jack had more security, so more mutilations. The attack is while she's lieing down, and he's used to starting the attack while the victim is standing. She's much younger and stronger than his usual victims and can defend herself more vigorously. Etc.
Obviously, I'm not sure these very things happened, but it's the same general scenerio that works for the other victims as well. It's the "common thread" that appears to link the victims (apart from the mutilations themselves; the same story for the prior events is all quite similar).
So, it seems to me the differences for MJK are not strong enough to separate her case any more so than separating out say, Nichols, or Chapman, or Eddowes. I guess, I would say if one is confident of the previous 3 being by one person, then including MJK pretty much follows. Tabram is close, and Stride is, well, who knows about Stride really! I sure don't.
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 380
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Jeff, I think you are spot on with Mary. While the others allowed the attacker to approach for whatever reason (sex, conversation, ect...) Mary by being on the bed placed herself in a different position than the others which may have allowed her to see what was coming and assume a defensive posture. With her body so badly mutilated by her attacker it is hard to tell if the first part of the attack is the same as with the other victims; however, from what little there is to go on, it does appear to follow enough of the pattern to be included.
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Well, for once, I don't seem to agree with you. Or rather, I both agree and disagree.
I agree that the dissimilarities could be due to the different circumstances -- that is probably very likely the case, in my personal view -- but I disagree with that they are "not strong enough to separate her case any more so than separating out say, Nichols, or Chapman, or Eddowes." Because I think they are at least in order to consider other alternatives. To me it is completely obvious that the murders on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes bear more similarities than between those three and Kelly.
As you yourself imply, you can't possibly know what happened before the murder in Miller's Court -- that is all just speculations, not based on the forensics, but on wishful thinking and subjective interpretations of the facts. That is not enough in order to throw out other alternative scenarios. It is too easy to see Ripper victims all over the place and I would be cautious about that; it is the similarities that are circumstancial, not the other way around. The dissimilarities are there, whether we like it or not, and I believe we differ in how much importance we should give them. I for my part feel that they are too crucial to overlook, even though they are not as complicated as in Stride's case.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings; deep down I really do agree with you (and with my initial, similar views on the matter), but since I feel her inclusion among the Ripper victims is not proven beyond doubt and there are reasons to raise an eyebrow or two, I prefer to keep an open mind about it nevertheless.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 02, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 9:42 pm: | |
Shannon wrote:
"When you grab a person by the throat with both hands, you leave four marks on each side of the neck and either one heavy or two impressions near the center of the throat above the windpipe. Any first year forensic student knows that. "
No, as Michael already explained, you can strangle someone from the side, and then one mark would be on the side (thumbs) and other marks on the other side (fingers). For you to be right, the only possible way to strangle someone would be from the front... and since that doesn't make sense, your conclusion would be flawed.
"If you honeslty believe what you have written, perhaps a new career is in order."
Wow, that chutzpah.
Personally, I think his bosses would be better judges of whether he is a good investigator or not. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 381
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Dan, if as you say, you grab the person from the side and strangle them, you would indeed have the one (or two marks on the side depending on thumb placement); BUT, you would now have TWO sets of four finger marks on the other side of the victim's neck. There was only ONE set of marks on the opposite side of the victim's neck...
Shannon |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 298
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Actually, I think we're closer to agreeing than disagreeing, we simply fall on different sides of the line. I admit that Kelly could be separate from the others, but then, I also allow for the possibility that any of the victims could be "different" from the others (or any two, even all by a different person).
However, to me it seems very unlikely because the crimes are similar. The pattern that leads up to the crime for Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes works just as well for Kelly. And, given the common mutilation patterns, the taking of body parts, time, etc, it seems more likely she's a real Ripper victim than a copy-cat.
You're correct, it's not proven by the evidence and I don't claim it is (at least I hope I didn't). It just seems more similar than different to me. I don't think the location (inside/outside) was important to the Ripper, but if it was, it only became important because of the previous risks indicated to him to change things. That would imply he looked for someone with a room. Of course, MJK having a room may have been unknown prior to selection and it was just lucky for him. Hard to say, but I could see Jack deciding the street was getting too risky.
Anyway, the only differences I see are the location (inside), defense wounds that suggest strangulation was not complete and she fought back, her age (much younger), and evidence the attack did not start immediately upon entering the private location (her clothes folded, she's in bed, etc).
It's only this last one that seems to be a real change in Jack's behaviour. Selection of a younger victim is not a huge change as she's still a prostitute, and she may have approached him, etc. If Jack is waiting for MJK to undress, he's not blitz attacked right away. If he's broken into her house, this is a huge deviation from his prior pattern (hence, I tend to go for the entered as a customer).
The defense wounds, location, and such, can be explained by differences in the victim. The waiting until undressed, possibly are due to the same (younger, prettier victim).
If something could be shown that is very different, I would be more inclined to exclude her. So far, however, the only differences I see do not warrent separation.
So, after that long ramble, I have an open mind about it as well, but I'm more inclinde to include than exclude. With Stride, I'm on the fence, and with Tabram I'm more inclinde to exclude than include. For Tabram and Kelly I'm not on the fence, but I try not to get too far from it.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 299
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 4:36 pm: | |
Shannon,
I think you're misinterpreting the hand position described. Try this. Grab across your left leg with your left hand so your thumb and fingers are on each side. Now, place your right thumb on top of your left thumb, then place your right fingers ontop of your left fingers. This grip is what Michael described, and this grip will only leave the impression of one thumb and 4 fingers (from your left hand in this case as I've described). There's no reason to expect 2 thumbs or 8 fingers.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 254
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 6:01 pm: | |
Hi Shannon, Mikey (if you’re ‘listening’), Dan and Jeff,
There are no reported bruises on any of the victims’ throats that indicate one hand strangulation.
Dr. Llewellyn deposed at Nichols' inquest: “On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers.”
Dr. Phillips stated at Chapman's inquest: “I noticed a bruise over the right temple. There was a bruise under the clavicle, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the fore part of the chest.”
Dr. Phillips, recalled: “On the last occasion, just before I left the court, I mentioned to you (the Coroner) that there were reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the act upon the woman's throat (the person who had inflicted the cut on the woman’s throat) had caught hold of her chin. These reasons were that (on the lower jaw) just below the lobe of the left ear were three scratches, and there was also a bruise on the right cheek.”
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 255
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 6:55 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I agree with almost everything that you said in your last post(s).
However, in your last post you wrote: “If Jack is waiting for MJK to undress, he's not blitz attacked right away. If he's broken into her house, this is a huge deviation from his prior pattern (hence, I tend to go for the entered as a customer).”
I tend to see it the other way around. I think mutilating killers tend to kill quickly, so that they can start doing ‘what they came for’. I rather see abandoning this as a rather huge deviation from his prior pattern. The breaking into a house isn’t an uncommon thing for such killers even if they haven’t done it before in connection with a murder, and the Ripper might certainly have become more cautious by the time he killed MJK. Furthermore, him waiting for her to undress, fold her clothes and lie down in bed in my present view leaves too much room for anything to go wrong for the Ripper.
Would he have undressed together with MJK? If so, where would he have left or kept his knife? We know he had it with him when he first attacked her on the bed. We also know that MJK made a light when she entered her room with an earlier client, the blotchy faced man. If he did not undress, wouldn’t that have aroused MJK’s suspicions, at least a bit, with the chance of resulting in a more extensive struggle, one that would have been noticed by her neighbours?
I’m interested in your views.
All the best,
Frank
|
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
Wow,
You guys are getting vicious in here, so, I'll just move on to another thread.
Paul |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 382
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
Frank & Jeff, et all...
Just how large would the man's hands have to be to accomplish this feat? I stand 5'9" and am of average build. I placed my thumbs one on top the other and stretch them out as far as possible and was only able to grasp a 10 inch circumfrence and then the fingers barely overlapped (the index fingers didnt). Since I am about the same build as the men from 1888 I am cusious to know how this could be done? Polly and Annie were both a bit on the chubby side so their necks would be a bit larger than normal. Really curious about this one..
Shannon |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 256
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 5:05 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
I really see the ‘one hand strangulation’ as a minor point, especially since there doesn’t seem to be any indications of that in the information available to us. I’m not disputing that the Ripper might have suffocated or strangled Nichols and Chapman with only one hand, I’m just saying that there isn’t any evidence for this to begin with.
All the best,
Frank
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
