Was there more than 1 killer?

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Was there more than 1 killer?

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects: Was there more than 1 killer?

SUBTOPIC

MSGS

Last Updated

Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 05:04 am
Caz, Since everyone else ignored it, I nominate you: If you think Alice McKenzie is a possible Jack the Ripper victim, what about Kitty Ronan? Truly Jack, possibly Jack, or definitely not Jack? And, this is a rhetorical question, but Alice was stabbed, no real rippings, and Dr. Phillips said her killer would have had to have anatomical knowledge? To slice and stab somebody...? How did anyone take anything this guy said seriously? Dan
Author: Caroline Morris Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 05:25 am
Hi Dan, As a girl who never likes to say never, I'd go for 'possibly Jack'. Love, Caz
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 06:32 am
Garry, are you saying what I have thought for a long time, that Jack the Ripper was totally sane, as sane as it is possible to be?. I think of him as a kind of contract killer, but on contract to himself, to get something for himself, hence the display of the bodies, --there was no pleasure in it for him, it was just necessary as part of the contract. I can't regard a person who has the ability to kill as necessarily mad, --me, I won't/can't kill unless it's me or them,-BUT, there are hunters who can kill beautiful animals for pleasure, there are people who can butcher them, are they mad?. But I think the Ripper killed for a personal reason, something entirely for himself. When it failed, he stopped, because he was sane enough to see there was no point in going on. Rick
Author: ALAN SMITH Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 09:01 am
All this discussion has given me an idea so here goes. Who was Jack ? Maybrick 5/2 Chapman 6/1 Tumblety 8/1 Druitt 20/1 Kosminski 20/1 Stephenson 33/1 Gull/Eddy 100/1 None of the above 1/33 Please forward all wagers to my Swiss account. All winners paid in full when 100% proof is published in the "Sun" newspaper as to Jack's identity. Thank you Alan
Author: Robert Maloney Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 10:00 am
Alan, Wow, I guess what they say about the Scots is true. That's some margin! :-) Rob (and like all great posters should be - parent of 7 cats!)
Author: ALAN SMITH Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 10:11 am
Rob, We consider 160% books to be over generous to the punters Alan
Author: Robert Maloney Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 10:17 am
They have my sympathy. It's tough to beat 18%. Rob
Author: Raphael Aglietti Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 10:32 am
Is it possible that the first few victims (maybe victim #1) could have been murdered by two men, one somewhat sane(read not terribly interested in mutilation), one violently insane. Could they have originally planned murders as a duo? However, when it came to the "execution" of the murders violent one (#2) showed his dominance through the desire to multilate and the more "passive" individual allowed (#2) to control the situation after the first murder. For example Killer #1 and #2 agree to murder the first victim (still some doubt as to who this is, albeit a small doubt) #1 tells #2 two he will commit the act and begins to do so only to be pushed away or overwhelemed by the furor of #2. Is it possible that these two continue with #2 dominating the action while #1 perhaps either watches or even performs the throat slash or strangulation while #2 steps in after the victim is dead to satisfy his mutilation urges? This seems like a plausable although unlikely explanation to the double murder. Perhaps #1 and #2 came to perform their murder but #2 was unable to quench his thirst as a result of being interrupted. Thus they moved to another target to fulfill the dominant requests. Or perhaps they were to meet but both were presented with great opportunities? Certainly a wild bit of conjecture on my part I must admit but it struck me as plausible because of what a poster said about the police looking for one suspect on another thread. No I'm not pushing a conspiracy theory of royal proportions but rather a conspiracy at a much lower level. I think the link that the canonical victims were prostitues is more significant than most realize. Either from an opportunity standpoint or a motive standpoint. With two co-conspirators alibi's are much easier to obtain and especially if the police are looking for one man. Maybe I'm just losing it, but for some reason this idea stuck my fancy.
Author: LeatherApron Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 01:10 pm
Garry, Please don't take my comments personally. I prefer to comment strictly on the ideas or theories presented and do not attack someone with malice aforethought or evil intent. For the moment, I have to respond in kind. Here are your comments and my responses to them. "So let's get this straight. I made a statement regarding the Ripper's likely precrime behavioural characteristics, then you questioned the validity of that statement by citing David Berkowitz. I next pointed out that the Berkowitz information introduced by you was fallacious. And yet you are now accusing me of 'selectively choosing whom to believe so that it fits nicely into your theory.'" You chose to believe people who said certain things about Berkowitz and not others who had views to the contrary. It is YOUR opinion that they are fallacious, it is not fact. Just at is MY opinion that what others said about Berkowitz was true. Your train of thought could very well easily extend to the Ripper case, regardless of Berkowitz being insane or not. I'm not saying this is TRUE, but virgin Ripperologists who have not studied this case very long and don't realize that there were at the time of the crime, as well as today, differing views on a certain facet can be lead to treat opinions as fact rather than as opinion. Can we agree this is not a good thing? "As I have said on a number of occasions, psychiatry has a less than impressive record when it comes to discerning the validity of patient-presented symptoms." Agreed. "Many criminals have successfully convinced clinicians into a believing that mental illness was present when in reality it was not." Many have, but MOST have not. Another example of this is one of the Hillside Stranglers, but I'd better not bring up another case for comparison. "All the same, it is an approach that has led to major diagnostic errors in any number of criminal cases. And David Berkowitz, whether you like it or not, would appear to be just such a case." Whether you like it or not, that's just your opinion. "Just for the record, I have not only studied psychology to graduate level, I also worked for several years with schizophrenics. My knowledge in this sphere, therefore, is not, as was contended in your previous posting, confined to the mere reading of textbooks." I never contended that YOUR knowledge was gained from textbooks. I only said that MINE was, unfortunately and for a brief time, a little more. If I didn't state that clearly and you misunderstood me, my apologies. "Yet even in the light of this experience, I'm at a loss to understand how, on the basis of observation alone, it could be possible to make a definitive determination that someone might be experiencing hallucinations rather than feigning such. Equally, how does a search of someone's apartment provide unequivocal evidence of paranoid schizophrenia?" First off I never said "unequivocal evidence". I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that a reasonable and competent psychiatrist or psychologist might possibly get a clue as to Berkowitz mental state based on what was found in his apartment (to say nothing of his letters). Maybe you already knew that there was a hole in a wall in Berkowitz apartment where he had scribbled, "Hi my name is Mr. Williams and I live in this hole." And if you did already know that and threw it off as insignificant, that's your prerogative and you have a right to your opinion. Again, I don't want to squabble with you. I respect your opinion. Nonetheless, I'm going to point out anything that I see on these boards that is in IMHO dogmatic. And I don't mind someone pointing out my dogmatism too. Peace offering-> I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Jack
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 02:20 pm
Dear Jim Leen--A very well considered post. My thinking agrees with yours. "Intimacy" is precisely the right word. Neatly folded clothes, boots by the fire--I don't believe the murderer of Mitre Square, Hanbury Street, &tc. would have dallied, nor would have possessed the interest or even the self-control to go through the motions of such intimacy. It's difficult to say with any certainty, but it seems to me that the spray on the wall beside the bed might indicate that Kelly wasn't strangled first. Also, unlike the other murders, I think Kelly was killed in the late morning. As for mathematical probabilities, my view is that [fortunately] we humans aren't equations. No one can judge how the mood of Whitechapel might have influenced a subsequent crime, or how a subsequent crime might have been disguised to look like the Ripper's work. Kelly a 100% certainty? I can't agree. Thanks, RJ Palmer
Author: Garry Wroe Thursday, 26 September 2002 - 07:32 pm
Hi Jack. Thank you for your apology. To be honest, I perceived elements of your previous posting as an attack on my integrity rather than a critique of my ideas. But given that I seem to have been mistaken, I too would like to apologise for the acerbity of my response. Hi Rick. My belief is that people have been too eager to accept the FBI's interpretation of the Ripper as a disorganized (and therefore mentally dysfunctional) killer. Whilst I would not presume to question the expertise of men such as Ressler and Douglas, I firmly believe that, in this case at least, they simply got it wrong. Careful analysis of all the available evidence (including the historical reality of the Victorian East End) has left me in no doubt that the killer exercised far too much control over his victims and crime scenes for him to have been severely mentally disordered. This is not to say that I believe the Ripper to have been 'normal'. On the contrary, killers such as Samples, Sutcliffe, Kemper and Shawcross certainly appear to have exhibited a degree of psychosis, but not to the extent that they lost the ability to plan future crimes, adapt their behaviour when necessary, and exert control over victims and crime scenes. 'Abnormal' behaviour is not in itself an indication of mental illness. Take, for example, men who become sexually aroused when wearing a gas-mask or even a nappy (diaper). Some of these men function perfectly well as politicians, judges and TV interviewers. At some point in their lives they have made an association between (say) a gas-mask and sexual gratification. They have then reinforced this association by way of masturbatory fantasies. Jack the Ripper was no different. The association that motivated his behaviour was the interaction between egosexual gratification and the sadistic destruction of women. And just like the gas-mask fetishist, his behaviour was learned over an extended period and reinforced by masturbatory fantasy. Where I would question your interpretation of the Ripper's behaviour, though, Rick, concerns the notion that he might have fulfilled his ambitions with the destruction of Kelly and then simply given up killing. Remember that these crimes were sexually motivated. I doubt very much that you or any other man would give up sex after having experienced one particularly memorable night of passion. And neither would the Ripper. Whether he stopped killing altogether with the death of Mary Kelly or ceased his activities for a significant period, it is clear that something knocked him out of his stride in the six to eight weeks following the Miller's Court murder. He may have been imprisoned for an unrelated offence. He may have suffered a bodily injury that restricted his physical activities. He may have died. He may even have come so close to capture that he dared not risk another foray until the dust had settled. But I think it highly unlikely that he would have 'retired' of his own volition. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Jim Leen Friday, 27 September 2002 - 10:27 am
Hello RJ, Is this a case of great minds thinking alike, fools seldom differing, or perhaps even a bit of both? Seriously though, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to consider MJK as a genuine Ripper victim. The absence of strangulation would be, as you have hinted, a fairly defining point. On the one hand we have blood sprayed on the walls. On the other hand we have bruising around Mary's neck. Mutually exclusive? Perhaps not, as the bruises may have been caused by the force of the attack and not inflicted through strangulation. It would have been difficult, given the extent of the wounding to the neck, for doctors to draw conclusions as to strangulation or not. However, the signs would be evident on the tongue. Unfortunately my sheer laziness precludes any notion of searching through PM reports for a mention of this aspect. Is there any definite verification of strangulation? Finally, Garry and Jack, All too often debates drift off topic and descend into spiteful personal vendettas that ultimately spoil discussions and force posters from the boards. How refreshing to see a disagreement end so maturely and reasonably. Thanking you. Jim Leen
Author: Garry Wroe Friday, 27 September 2002 - 08:08 pm
Hello Jim. Many thanks for your kind remarks. It's just a shame that, here on the boards, a modicum of civility should be applauded rather than expected. But thanks once again. In context of the Kelly killing, the evidence does point towards strangulation. The presence of ecchymosis and a clenched fist are reliable indicators of asphyxiation. The probable sequence of events is that the killer gripped Kelly's throat with one hand and held the knife before her face with the other - defence wounds on one hand indicate the likelihood the she put up some sort of struggle. Once she had been throttled into unconsciousness (or semi-consciousness) her throat was cut, resulting in the blood-spray pattern found on the wall to her right. Throat cutting and strangulation are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, Annie Chapman's body revealed compelling evidence of asphyxiation, and the boundary fence to her left had been sprayed by a jet of blood that had clearly emanated from the throat incisions. Hope this helps. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: John Dow Monday, 30 September 2002 - 07:00 am
Hi Jim, "On the one hand we have blood sprayed on the walls." I don't believe we do. From the post mortem report: The wall by the right side of the bed & in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes. I believe the use of the word "splashes" would indicate blood thrown by ferocious knife movements as well as blood thrown by a still beating heart. Given the vagueness of the word "splashes", using a specific word like "spray" could be considered "leading the witness, m'lud" John
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 30 September 2002 - 06:04 pm
John, You can stop looking at the report and just look at the crime scene photo. The blood is consistent with a full on spray and not merely splatters from a knife. Dan
Author: Jon Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 06:40 pm
The shady images on the wall hide a multitude of sins, nothing is discernable enough to give good support to any argument, but if anyone can convince themselves as to what is dirt, what are otherwise soiled stains, what is shadow, what is deteriorated photo surface and what is blood then I guess they may be one step ahead of everyone else. (Not intended to solicite dubious exchanges concerning 'FM' and similar nonsense). The photograph is of limited value here, it is the medical report which takes precidence. However, when the report was written it is unlikely that Dr Bond ever thought his report would be subject to such a wide range of interpretations as has happend over the last few years. For instance, would Bond have thought that there would ever be questions as to whether the blood was 'splashed' or 'sprayed'?, quite possibly it never occured to him. I think the concern was to indicate that it came from the neck of the victim, nothing more. And in view of the bed being moved and doctors (possibly) edging their way between the wall and the bed we are likely looking at smears also. All of which are in keeping with her throat being cut in close proximity to the partition wall and evidently the victim was alive, heart beating, at that moment. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 07:30 pm
Dan, can you explain how you arrived at the conclusion below? "And, this is a rhetorical question, but Alice was stabbed, no real rippings, and Dr. Phillips said her killer would have had to have anatomical knowledge? To slice and stab somebody...? How did anyone take anything this guy said seriously?" Dr Phillips actually had this to say about the condition of the wounds to the throat. The wounds to the body were superficial. "...The witness (Dr Phillips) then described the wounds, of which there were several, and these were most of them superficial cuts on the lower part of the body.......The wound in the neck was 4 in. long, reaching from the back part of the muscles, which were almost entirely divided. It reached to the fore part of the neck to a point 4 in. below the chin. There was a second incision, which must have commenced from behind and immediately below the first. The cause of death was syncope, arising from the loss of blood through the divided carotid vessels, and such death probably was almost instantaneous.......he cut her throat with a sharp instrument. I should think the latter had a shortish blade and was pointed. I cannot tell whether it was the first or second cut that terminated the woman's life. The first cut, whether it was the important one or not, would probably prevent the woman from crying out on account of the shock. The whole of the air passages were uninjured, so that if she was first forced on to the ground she might have called out." As to the condition of the abdominal wounds, Dr Phillips had this to say.... "There were five marks on the abdomen, and, with the exception of one, were on the left side of the abdomen. The largest one was the lowest, and the smallest one was the exceptional one mentioned, and was typical of a finger-nail mark. They were coloured, and in my opinion were caused by the finger-nails and thumb nail of a hand. I have on a subsequent examination assured myself of the correctness of this conclusion." Just pondering how you could interpret 'Stabbed' from any of that. Throat cutting actually does require 'anatomical knowledge', even though today we may think certain knowledge is obvious. When the Coroner asked about 'anatomical knowledge', this was the reported exchange. "[Coroner] Did you detect any skill in the injuries? [Dr Phillips] A knowledge of how effectually to deprive a person of life, and that speedily. Makes perfect sense to me. Regards, Jon
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 08:45 pm
I'm still unsure about strangulation in regards to Mary Kelly. True, the right fingers were 'clenched'--but is this enough to indicate strangulation? The left hand lying in the stomach doesn't appear to be clenched, and the right thumb had a curious cut on it's interior. Since the right arm was lying on the mattress [away from the center of the horrendous mutilations] does this slice on the thumb possibily indicate that a cutting attack preceded any alleged strangulation? It seems like an unlikely wound to have occured after the victim was lying dead, with a clenched fist.
Author: Jon Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 09:23 pm
RJ There's a certain validity to your observation here. Visualize an attacker taking Kelly by the throat, it would take two hands to prevent her calling out. Yes, we are told there was a cry of "Oh, murder", or words to that effect, but if the wounds on the forearms & hands indicate resistance then the killer had to be holding a knife in his other hand, therefore he could not effectively be strangling her at the same time. Grasping her throat firmly with one hand while attempting to stab her with the other is what I see in this instance. This could be a failed attempt at his usual MO, or a bungled attack by someone who had no intention of strangling her in the first place. Therefore, bruises to the neck do not soley support an attempt at strangulation, especially as she carries wounds on her arms indicating resistance. Is this what you are getting at?, if so then I agree, you may be correct. Regards, Jon
Author: Dan Norder Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 09:48 pm
Sometimes I'm still just amazed at people... I'm sorry, but if you think that "cut someone's throat" turning into "must have had anatomical knowledge" makes perfect sense then you are just as biased toward that particular conclusion as Dr. Phillips was. Sharp metal object, soft fleshy object. Bring them together and what happens? Class? Anyone? You there, Mr. Monkey. What was that? There's a cut? Congratulations, here's your medical degree. Next I suppose we'll hear that Annie Chapman must have been a geneticist because she successfully combined DNA from herself and her husband to create children. Dan
Author: Jon Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 10:46 pm
With all due respect (though I dont know why) I think you missed my point completely. I have been looking for a reference for Dr Phillips actually stating that McKenzie's killer had "anatomical knowledge". What Dr Phillips actually did say, with respect to McKenzie, was something to the contrary. "..after careful & long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself, on purely anatomical & professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the 'Wh Ch murders' is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter" As we know Dr Phillips observed your 'anatomical knowledge' with respect to the previous Whitechapel murders, it appears here that he obviously does not see the same level of skill, therefore, as I quoted you above... "A knowledge of how effectually to deprive a person of life, and that speedily." That is what Dr Phillips actually said. (And that is what "made sense" to me, considering the wounds) Can you provide your source for your statement that he said 'anatomical knowledge' with respect to the McKenzie murder?. ~~And a source that describes the throat cuts as "stabs" (the A-Z is one, but that is not a quote, and not original.)~~ Can we assume you do actually read the sources? Thanks Jon PS, I edited out the second question because if you find it the quote only weakens your argument, and if you don't I don't care anyway.
Author: John Dow Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 05:23 am
Hi Dan, You said "You can stop looking at the report and just look at the crime scene photo. The blood is consistent with a full on spray and not merely splatters from a knife." I'm looking at the picture as we speak and I'm afraid I can't agree. Let's be realistic here - the picture contains a filthy stained wall in sepia tone. How do I tell the differance between blood, tobacco stains, soot from the fire and from the candles, soot from outside - london was a very smokey town - and general grime? The documentary evidence states that the walls were splashed. Cheers John
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 06:51 am
I would say a fight or struggle would be very difficult to describe or be so sure what happened during the process of it. I think you are all expecting to know and understand too much. By saying that, I hope no one will think I am trying to put it over that I know better than experts!. My opinion, (for what it is worth, and I've said it before) is that Kelly was attacked while asleep, or she ducked under the bed clothes when she knew someone was in the room, He attacked while she was under the clothes, he made an attempt to pull the bedclothes away from her face but she clung on too tight, so he used the knife through the bed clothes, ("the top right corner of the bedclothes were much cut, frayed, and bloodstained"). He was trying to get at her throat and in the process because of her arm struggles, her hand and arms became cut. His left hand was clamped across her face and mouth over the sheet,--NOT strangling. I believe at this stage he had a terrible kill urge, and he had an unusual strength to go with that urge, what chance did Kelly have? caught in bed in the dark, befuddled with drink and sleep, hampered with bed clothes, add his weight and the knife cuts, I'd say he had it easy. I'm no expert on this, but if Kelly had been violently awakened in this fashion, would it have caused her blood pressure to rise and so cause more mess, and wouldn't the Ripper flick the dripping blood off his hands before wiping them on the bedclothes when it was all over? Rick
Author: Jim Leen Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 08:23 am
Hello Everybody, For someone with a keen interest in Jack the Ripper I'm undeniably squeamish about certain aspects. For instance, I've looked at the Kelly photograph once and once only. No wonder those that witnessed the sight carried it to their graves. I don't think the Met were as big on counselling then as they are now! But Rick paints a vivid picture, a bit too bloody vivid if you ask me, which relates logically to the cuts mentioned in the PM report. Again, fair hearted soul that I am, I'm a touch vague on this subject. I firmly believe that the MO is all wrong for a Ripper killing. But that's only this week, next week I'll probably have changed my mind. Thanking you. Jim Leen
Author: Garry Wroe Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 09:03 am
Hello All. Dr Bond described the blood on the wall as arterial splashes. He also said that this blood had 'spurted on to the wall.' This, I would suggest, leaves no room for ambiguity. Bond was clearly decribing blood that had jetted from the carotid artery during the throat-cutting process. As for the attack itself, my belief is that Mary Jane was sleeping on the bed. The killer sat beside her, to her left. He gripped her throat with his left hand and held the knife close to her face with his right. He then roused her from her sleep. As she awoke, she saw the killer and his knife. He probably whispered some kind of threat. She would have struggled and at the same time managed a single cry for help. The killer's grip on her throat would have tightened and she eventually lost consciousness. (This could have been easily achieved with one hand. The bed itself would have provided more than sufficient resistance for the one-handed grip to have been effective.) Before losing consciousness, however, Kelly's arms would have flailed about as she attempted to break free of her attacker. This was the point when the knife caused the defence wounds to her right hand. Once Kelly had been subdued, her throat was cut. Since her heart was still beating, several jets of blood spurted from the carotid artery, causing the blood-spray pattern noted by Dr Bond. I don't know whether anyone would agree with this interpretation, but I'm certainly open to suggestion. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: Monty Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 12:32 pm
Scott E Medine, Ooooooh, Hold me back, hold me back !!! Monty
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 03:20 pm
Jon, I don't consider Alice McKenzie to be of any relevance to the case. Even if she were somehow a later Ripper victim where Jack has decided that throat slicing was all that was needed at this point (which I tend to doubt), I don't think there'd much of anything in her death that'd contribute to the case. So when she was brought up on this thread I just went to this website's page on her. You'll find "stabs" and "anatomical knowledge" and much along those lines there. If you think the info on this page is completely mistaken about everything, take it up with the webmaster. I could not care less. Rick, That wouldn't account for the bruises on the neck, and more importantly, MJK could have easily gotten some major sustained screaming noises off that way, as a hand over cloth on her mouth would not have silenced the vocal chords, just impaired the ability to form sounds with the tongue and lips. The kind of struggle where she would jump and hide under the covers, or purposefully hold the covers over her face, or thrash about as this scenario would have it, would have put up quite a ruckus. Nobody in that overcrowded residential area noticed anything except for a single cry out, of which the timing is still a little dubious but plausible. The lack of people overhearing the crime in progress would either point to strangulation or prior unconsciousness. There couldn't have been much of a violent struggle, as far as I can tell. As far as the photo goes, we know that blood was on the wall from the reports. Ignore the ambiguity some want to find in the wording and just take the indisputable point that blood was on the wall. Looking at the photo we see some awful stains. Some stains may not be blood, but that's not really relevant. What we don't see is splatters that would have come from a slashing knife. Blood flung from an object in motion makes fairly distinctive marks, involving horizontal or at least diagonal movement and more thin than rounded. Those are not in evidence. What we do see are stains that are round and others that are vertical. Assuming that we see any blood stains on the wall, they are jet splashes rather than splashes from a knife. Anyone who wants to experiment with splashes can do so with water. Compare water from a balloon filled and released, water flung from a spoon, water poured on surface and so forth. That gets you the basics. Garry, I think your scenario is the most plausible of the ones I've seen. The hand grib would have constrained the body's motion and greatly reduced thrashing about (and the noises that would have been caused). Minor details might be off, but overall it fits what we know very well. Dan
Author: David Radka Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 10:07 pm
Kelly was murdered as follows: The murderer stripped down to his union suit, Kelly to her chemise, in the usual preamble to sex-for-hire. He placed his clothing over a chair by the table. He had his knife rolled up in a towel in the jacket. She lay on the inside of the bed, he on the outside, as is the custom of men and women. After a little foreplay, he brought his hands up to her throat and applied the usual pressure. When she lost consciousness, he got up and got his knife from his jacket. Leaning over the bed, he pulled the sheet from the far side (nearest the wall) over her body and cut through it to her caratoid artery, causing death. After she was dead, he moved the body out toward the middle of the bed for the mutilations. David
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 11:09 pm
David, Wow, you sound so certain of that. Do you have the tape from the secret video camera you placed there to prove it? LOL. It's certainly plausible, other than you left out the "Oh Murder" cry (unless you think that was from someone else or at an earlier time). Dan
Author: David Radka Thursday, 03 October 2002 - 11:26 pm
Dan, I am inclined to accept the Maxwellian scenario, thus I feel the cry "Oh, murder!" may not have applied to Kelly. David
Author: Caroline Morris Friday, 04 October 2002 - 04:07 am
Hi All, And I think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine two killers, both managing to make their crimes so silent and violent (assuming either a rather lame "Oh, murder!" from Kelly, or an insignificant "oh murder" coming from another source). A second killer, killing for personal/emotional reasons, had to a) know how to keep Kelly from screaming the place down b) know the sort of weapon to use that would not be at odds with Jack's c) know how to kill her swiftly, then mutilate her and arrange her organs, in a style that would be accepted as Jack's, from having absorbed the previous newspaper reports d) pray that Jack's signature didn't include something only the police knew about e) be able to keep a particularly cool head afterwards, to ensure that no suspicion could ever be attached to him. If this was a crime of passion, it was also very well planned and very well executed, unless the killer was blessed with a huge amount of beginner's luck. To achieve all the above, as if he was one of life's natural born Jacks, makes me think he can only have been just that - Jacky boy himself. It was a crime of passion, of course - they all were; I reckon killing and mutilating was the one thing Jack could get passionate about. Have a great weekend all. Love, Caz PS I mean, let's face it - many people, including the medically trained, then and now, have questioned and wondered and argued about Jack's methods of subduing his victims. Yet Kelly's killer just took the plunge and got on with it, in that thin-walled building - and his chosen method didn't fail him.
Author: ALAN SMITH Friday, 04 October 2002 - 05:18 am
Those of you who are partial to a cocktail of an evening (a pastime to which I occasionally succumb) will know that after over indulging the proverbial brass band in the room wouldnt waken you. Jack, if indeed it was he, would have had plenty of time to overpower Kelly if this was her state, long before she could offer even token resistance. Re the blood splashes, I may be mistaken but I think I can detect something. Wait its getting clearer, yes its some initials, F something yes definitely its FM. Could this be a clue? Regards Alan
Author: Garry Wroe Friday, 04 October 2002 - 06:29 am
Hi Alan. I couldn't agree more about the influence of the alcohol. This is why I believe that Mary Jane's killer would have wakened her before commencing the attack proper. I don't know if you are familiar with the case of Jose Marcelino, but an important element of his murder ritual involved terrorizing victims with descriptions of the injuries he was about to inflict on them. Since a similarly sadistic mindset is only too apparent in the Ripper's murders, it seems unlikely that he would have been content to kill Kelly as she slept. Rather, he would have roused her and delighted in her terror as she saw the knife and listened to his threats. Only this scenario, I believe, or one very much like it, explains how a presumably sleeping Kelly incurred defence wounds and managed a stifled cry for help. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.
Author: ALAN SMITH Friday, 04 October 2002 - 07:33 am
Garry, I'm with you all the way. The scenario you unfold above is as plausible as any. My point regarding the drink was not meant to imply that the murderer merely killed her in her sleep, but that he would have had no problem approaching and disabling her without her raising the alarm. I am unfamiliar with the case you mention (Marcelino) can you advise me where to find details? Regards Alan
Author: Garry Wroe Friday, 04 October 2002 - 08:36 am
Hi Alan. If you'd care to click here you will find a brief outline of the Marcelino case in Chapter Six. All the best, Garry Wroe.
Author: Garry Wroe Friday, 04 October 2002 - 03:32 pm
Hi Dan. Whilst you may be correct in your belief that Alice McKenzie was not a Ripper victim, I'm not so sure myself. Interestingly, both Monro and Bond were unequivocal in their belief that her death was part of the series, and even Phillips, although holding an opposing view, was forced to admit that her death bore many of the Ripper's hallmarks. If just for the sake of argument we assume that McKenzie was a Ripper victim, her death sheds a great deal of light on the case as a whole. Not only were her injuries less severe than the previous (known) victims, but a different knife was used to inflict them. Added to these variables, of course, is the nine-month hiatus between the deaths of Kelly and McKenzie. Significantly, Peter Sutcliffe once refrained from killing for almost a year. When finally he resumed operations, he abandoned his trademark hammers and knives and instead used a length of rope to garrotte his victim. Once she had been killed, Sutcliffe tore away at her abdomen with his fingernails. Subsequent to his arrest, it emerged that Sutcliffe had been subject to close police scrutiny just prior to his temporary abandonment of operations. Indeed, such was the effect of this police interest in him that he began to experience panic attacks. It also emerged that he'd altered his mode of attack in order to fool the police. He intimated his belief that he would receive no further police attention if the Yorkshire Ripper investigational team rejected his latest killing from the accepted series. So Alice McKenzie may well have been killed nine months after Mary Kelly; the knife may well have been different from that which was utilized on the earlier victims; her injuries may well have been less severe than those inflicted hitherto. But once viewed in context of the Sutcliffe example, none of these factors are in themselves sufficient to render McKenzie a non-Ripper victim. And the coincidence of the abdominal fingernail scratches is intriguing, to say the least. So if McKenzie was a Ripper victim, her death tells us a great deal about the killer himself. Whilst he may have been incarcerated or temporarily incapacitated in the immediate aftermath of the Miller's Court affair, it is equally possible that he came under intense police scrutiny and, as did Sutcliffe, deemed it too dangerous to continue with his campaign until the passage of a significant interlude. When he did kill once more, he did so tentatively and with a different weapon, considerations which again mirror the Sutcliffe example of a man fearful of further police attention. Naturally, all of this is speculatory since we are unlikely to establish whether McKenzie was or was not a true Ripper victim. Yet I remain convinced that her death has been dismissed far too casually. Regards, Garry Wroe.
Author: David Radka Friday, 04 October 2002 - 04:58 pm
Kelly's door had a spring lock which cycled automatically when the door was closed. Therefore no reason to believe the murderer snuck into her room. If she had fallen asleep, then the murderer was someone she had let into the room. There is no reason to believe, however, that she had fallen asleep. Simply lying down to begin sex as usual with a client accounts fully for the physical evidence, with fewer speculative assumptions. There is no evidence to indicate that the Whitechapel murderer was sadistic, in fact there is considerable evidence he wasn't. His victims were killed by surprise, and he put them through the absolute minimum of pain. Thinking of him as sadistic is speculation. David
Author: Garry Wroe Friday, 04 October 2002 - 07:15 pm
Hello David. Irrespective of whether Kelly's door was secured by a spring lock (and many sources, Barnett included, made mention of a bolt), anyone who had visited the room during the fortnight prior to the murder would have been aware of Kelly's improvised mode of entry and could have easily adopted it themselves. As such, the murderer need not have entered the room at Kelly's invitation. Kelly was known to have been in her room at approximately one o'clock when a homeward-bound Elizabeth Prater passed by and noted that all was in darkness. Given that Mrs Prater lived directly above Kelly and yet still heard no sound from downstairs, it seems relatively certain that Mary Jane was indeed asleep. Whereas I would agree that the Ripper surprised his victims and killed them relatively quickly, I would contend that this was a strategy borne more of necessity than choice. Had he elected to inflict upon his victims a slow, painful death, the Ripper's career as a serial killer would have begun and ended in Buck's Row. In order to understand the killer's true mindset, one need look no further than the post-obit injuries he inflicted. None of the sharp force wounds to the genitalia, rectal area, abdomen or face were administered to hasten death. They were an expression of this man's raging anger against women. As if to emphasize the point, he even left his victims semi-naked with their legs spread wide apart. Sadism takes many forms, some very subtle, others less so. And it need not be enacted on a live person. Best wishes, Garry Wroe.

Add a Message