Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Victorian Apron Full of Questions...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post
    I started my Ripper journey by binge listening to the Rippercast, virtually walking the streets - foot by foot - on Google Maps, and carefully dissecting the book, The London of Jack the Ripper: Then and Now by Philip Hutchinson and Robert Clack. With this grand triad of info, I have some questions. Maybe some of you learned folks can supply me with answers or better research ways of examining these issues and coming to estimated conclusions. Here goes. Answer all. Answer some. Answer none. Try and not rip the Messenger, i.e. me. ;-)

    1) Goulston Street Graffito - why is Jack automatically carrying chalk? (Am I to assume he's created graffiti before? Why? Is he carrying chalk used on price signs because he was a Petticoat Lane merchant? There's not a lot to convince me here - time, purpose, risk vs reward - that the "Juwes" graffito was Jack's.)

    2) Is there somewhere a documented/ complete list of Mary Kelly's room? Were Joe Barnett's clay pipe and ginger beer bottles documented?

    3) Would Jack know where/when he would have crossed from Met police jurisdiction into City police, in Miter Square?

    4) Is the bloody rag from Goulston Street still in existence? And if so, has a DNA sequence ever been found? If not, do we know why not?

    5) Does anyone else see the uncanny resemblance to Annie Chapman and Martha Tabram?

    6) NC5 - Emma Smith - could she have been lying about a gang to cover up the ID of a single attacker?

    7) Polly couldn't be cold within the minutes before Robert Paul came up to Cross/Lechmere? (1.5 degrees loss/hour, hands may have been cold prior death)

    8) Could this be the serial killer's signature? (Left hand on chest/torso? Head facing left? Chapman, Eddowes, Stride, Kelly) Any ideas as to its meaning?

    9) Why are we assuming that Jack did his ripping in the dark? Light source, anyone?

    10) Bucks Row/Durward - although the street is fairly straight, it's a long way from the end of Bucks at Brady St to Nichols' body. I checked. A Bobby could have walked by that end and saw nothing in that dark. How could PC Neil have heard PC Thain passing by on Brady St? Was it quieter back then that you could hear footsteps? And how would Neil know it's a Bobby?

    11) if Stride was seen at 34 Settles, Bricklayer's Arms, why would she buy grapes at 44 Berner (Henriques)Street when located at 40? That's backtracking. Chalk up to embellishing/mistaken witness?

    12) As per Rippercast, Oh Dear Boss: The Ripper Had All The Luck Jun 24 2018 - I disagree. there was no going home to clean up. PC Long didn't see the rag. Jack dropped it, then went home, my guess Middlesex or thereabouts if you geoprofile a location and/or the street name, symbolic meaning for Jack?. He did not rush/flee at/from any scene. Sociopaths see themselves as righteous; therefore, destined to succeed in their minds, ergo, no need to hurry. Your thoughts?

    13) Steve Blomer on July 21, 2019, podcast Inside Buck's Row - is 100% right. PC Mizen doesn't do anything wrong. Car men don't say Polly was attacked. No protocol breach needed as per an emergency. There is no conspiracy here. Charles Cross (Lechmere) is not the perp. This is a non suspect. Your thoughts?

    14) Red handkerchief - Eddowes - around man's neck at Church passage, is it Mary who loses hers and is given a red one by a man? Is this a repeating object? What can it say about the perp?

    15) What if Jack did voluntarily stop after Kelly? What if he was carrying out an art form only he could appreciate and Kelly was his magnum opus? Similar M.O. to the Black Dahlia killer?

    16) Clay pipe repeat - Barnett, stranger at Stride scene - how do we know these are clay pipes?

    17) Ginger beer bottle letter reference - is this a slip up on Jack's part? or a red herring he's feeding us?Click image for larger version  Name:	Questions Cartoon.jpg Views:	187 Size:	123.7 KB ID:	796717
    Hi Books!
    Just a few points from me re your questions/comments:

    1) No-I dont think he was automatically carrying chalk. I think he was agitated that he was seen/interrupted by a bunch of jews that night and decided on a little pay back and obsfucation. I think he headed back to his bolt hole after eddowes, cleaned up a bit and a grabbed some chalk then went back out, dropped the apron and wrote the GSG. It would explain why PC Long didnt see it the first time around because it wasnt there yet.

    6) why would she? No-her attack has all the hallmarks of a gang attack, theres no evidence it was a single person, and she maintains it was a group even on her death bed.

    8) hmmm. dont think so. The rippers signature was post mortem mutilation, a vertical gash to the midsection and removal of body parts.

    9) its never completely dark-theres always at least an ambient light source, especially in the city. he did his killing low light. and IMHO him carrying a light source would have been too cumbersome, risky and attention drawing.

    13) Anyone who finds a body is de facto a suspect until they are cleared (today anyways). Someone who is seen near a freshly killed body before raising any kind of alarm doubly so, or should be. Lech also had a discrepency with a cop over what was said, his work route brings him near the victims locations and at the very least he is absolutely in the frame to be Pollys killer. hes as good (or least weak as I like to say) a suspect as any other, and better than most.

    14) the red hanky is interesting. Lawende and company describe a man wearing a red hanky with eddowes, the last victim before Kelly. Hutch includes it in his description of the interaction between Aman and Kelly. seems to make a pretty big point about it. IMHO hutch is trying to convince the police hes seen the ripper, a little too hard. I think hutchs Aman story is BS.

    15) I think he did stop after Kelly, for a while. then continued with jackson and mckenzie. Pinchin was his last victim. And yes I think the ripper and torsoman were probably the same man.
    Last edited by Abby Normal; 10-05-2022, 04:21 PM.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      Hi Books!
      Just a few points from me re your questions/comments:

      1) No-I dont think he was automatically carrying chalk. I think he was agitated that he was seen/interrupted by a bunch of jews that night and decided on a little pay back and obsfucation. I think he headed back to his bolt hole after eddowes, cleaned up a bit and a grabbed some chalk then went back out, dropped the apron and wrote the GSG. It would explain why PC Long didnt see it the first time around because it wasnt there yet.

      Good points. My gut has always felt that Jack didn't write that graffito, and yet I can't pinpoint exactly why I feel that way. I guess my feeling is this: say no cop sees it at all, or a resident comes down at daybreak and rubs it off.

      My question is: how was Jack so sure a Bobby would eventually see it before a citizen?

      If it was because he knew they were running right on his trail, there would have been no time to write those words, and even if he manages to evade capture, why go back out along that same escape route, knowing the cops are now swarming?


      6) why would she? No-her attack has all the hallmarks of a gang attack, theres no evidence it was a single person, and she maintains it was a group even on her death bed.

      A gang will rape her with an object so bad her insides are ruptured. Why? Why not just a beating and normal gang bang, if that was a typical gang's goal?

      I realize she maintained that story til death, but maybe protecting someone she knew was more important?

      I know this is a weird idea. I just have never seen that level of sexual abuse from a gang perspective before.


      8) hmmm. dont think so. The rippers signature was post mortem mutilation, a vertical gash to the midsection and removal of body parts.
      Right.

      9) its never completely dark-theres always at least an ambient light source, especially in the city. he did his killing low light. and IMHO him carrying a light source would have been too cumbersome, risky and attention drawing.
      Right.

      13) Anyone who finds a body is de facto a suspect until they are cleared (today anyways). Someone who is seen near a freshly killed body before raising any kind of alarm doubly so, or should be. Lech also had a discrepency with a cop over what was said, his work route brings him near the victims locations and at the very least he is absolutely in the frame to be Pollys killer. hes as good (or least weak as I like to say) a suspect as any other, and better than most.

      Question: post Polly-does anyone know what route to work Cross took afterwards? Did he continue to take Buck's Row?

      14) the red hanky is interesting. Lawende and company describe a man wearing a red hanky with eddowes, the last victim before Kelly. Hutch includes it in his description of the interaction between Aman and Kelly. seems to make a pretty big point about it. IMHO hutch is trying to convince the police hes seen the ripper, a little too hard. I think hutchs Aman story is BS.

      Gotcha.

      15) I think he did stop after Kelly, for a while. then continued with jackson and mckenzie. Pinchin was his last victim. And yes I think the ripper and torsoman were probably the same man.
      What level of injuries did Jackson & McKensie have compared to Kelly?

      Ripping to cutting off limbs - a pretty big jump. What makes you think those kills are connected?



      "We do not remember days, we remember moments." ~ Cesare Pavese

      Cheers!

      Books by BJ Thompson
      Author - www.booksbybjthompson.com
      Email - barbara@booksbybjthompson.com

      Comment


      • #18
        Re Emma Smith, there was an almost identical attack on a young Hungarian (I think) woman in Backchurch Lane in 1885. A group of men held her down and assaulted her with a walking stick.

        Comment


        • #19
          #14 I have mentioned before but I don't think it was picked up on (or of little interest lol). There was a language of handkerchiefs not very disimilar to that of fans and flowers. It was resurrected in the 1980's and 1990's as sexual indicators but this time in the homosexual community and was modernised by the use of bandanas rather than hanker/neckerchief.

          Helen x

          Comment


          • #20
            I should have said resurrected in the UK around the 1980's I'm sure the USA if not other countries were employing the bandana system a decade or so earlier.
            I also wondered if the offer of a handkerchief by a punter was an indicator of sexual interest to be either accepted (as in Kelly) or declined so not to offend women who were not in the sex trade. And/or the woman soliciting could discuss her lost kerchief without explicit language and if the punter was interested would furnish one. This would offer a non verbal transaction without fear of being seen as overt solicitation by an under cover policeman or offending a guy just on his way to work. Also the wearing of a kerchief (depending on colour etc) could have been an indicator of availability and/or services on offer. Just thinking out loud what are your thoughts on the matter?

            Helen x

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
              I should have said resurrected in the UK around the 1980's I'm sure the USA if not other countries were employing the bandana system a decade or so earlier.
              I also wondered if the offer of a handkerchief by a punter was an indicator of sexual interest to be either accepted (as in Kelly) or declined so not to offend women who were not in the sex trade. And/or the woman soliciting could discuss her lost kerchief without explicit language and if the punter was interested would furnish one. This would offer a non verbal transaction without fear of being seen as overt solicitation by an under cover policeman or offending a guy just on his way to work. Also the wearing of a kerchief (depending on colour etc) could have been an indicator of availability and/or services on offer. Just thinking out loud what are your thoughts on the matter?

              Helen x
              Annie Chapman had a neckerchief on at the time of her death. You maybe onto something here. I always thought Kelly's mention of a lost hankerchief was weird. Theres more going on, I think, do visual clues, and even a posing signature from Jack, thats been previously discussed/examined.
              "We do not remember days, we remember moments." ~ Cesare Pavese

              Cheers!

              Books by BJ Thompson
              Author - www.booksbybjthompson.com
              Email - barbara@booksbybjthompson.com

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                Hi Books!
                Just a few points from me re your questions/comments:

                1) No-I dont think he was automatically carrying chalk. I think he was agitated that he was seen/interrupted by a bunch of jews that night and decided on a little pay back and obsfucation. I think he headed back to his bolt hole after eddowes, cleaned up a bit and a grabbed some chalk then went back out, dropped the apron and wrote the GSG. It would explain why PC Long didnt see it the first time around because it wasnt there yet.
                hi abby. been awhile, currently in cali, doing my best to avoid the Stockton serial killer, seems like he’s causing his own autumn of terror round these parts.

                Haven’t read through this thread yet, so maybe it’s been mentioned before. However, your post inspired a random thought.

                taking “if’s” into consideration:

                at the eddowes inquest, inspector collard spoke of some of catherine’s items being found alongside her body (mustard tin, buttons). my questioning thought being, does the chalk belong to catherine?

                considering she is found with buttons, pins, needles, thimble… would chalk have been that random of a personal posession if, say, she had tendencies of sewing or tailoring?

                there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                Comment


                • #23
                  Welcome Back Kotter - Theme Song - YouTube
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    ooh oooh... pick me, mista kotter, pick me.. ooh oooh
                    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BooksbyBJThompson View Post

                      9) Why are we assuming that Jack did his ripping in the dark? Light source, anyone?
                      My thoughts on lighting:

                      Elizabeth Stride: Location was pitch black, so dark that Diemschutz would not have noticed the body had his horse not have wavered. even pulling his cart alongside her body, the form was indistinguishable to him so much so that he had to strike a match. if the location was this dark, it's doubtful that Jack the Ripper would have been able to see well enough to eviscerate and harvest her organs per his M.O. This point may be evidenced by the fact the Elizabeth Stride only suffered from having her throat slashed rather than suffering from Catherine Eddowes' mutilated fate only an hour later. My belief being, that lack of a light source forced Jack the Ripper to reconsider & move on from Berner Street.

                      Polly Nicholls: Buck's Row. Dark enough that Lechmere could not immediately distinguish her form as that of a woman. So dark that neither man noticed her throat had been slashed. Lack of a sufficient light source might be evidence why she was ripped rather than eviscerated.

                      Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper had sufficient light that he eviscerated and harvested her organs. Devil is in the details, he had sufficient light that he was able to: 1) dodge around her navel when he was cutting open her belly; 2) rifle through her pockets and place the items around her body. Considering that her location of death was in the gloomy corner of someone's backyard (with little/no light source?), my thoughts are that her ToD must have been closer to sunrise.

                      Catherine Eddowes: there was a light source in Mitre Square, he could see well enough to identify her organs as well as knicking her eyelids.

                      Mary Jane Kelly: Jack the Ripper showed what he was truly capable of when he had more than adequate lighting.

                      there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        A person who finds a body is just that,a person who finds a body.Before that person can be suspected of a crime regarding that body,it has to be decided a crime was committed,and that evidence of a guilty nature connects the finder to that crime.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                          My thoughts on lighting:


                          Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper had sufficient light that he eviscerated and harvested her organs. Devil is in the details, he had sufficient light that he was able to: 1) dodge around her navel when he was cutting open her belly; 2) rifle through her pockets and place the items around her body. Considering that her location of death was in the gloomy corner of someone's backyard (with little/no light source?), my thoughts are that her ToD must have been closer to sunrise.

                          Catherine Eddowes: there was a light source in Mitre Square, he could see well enough to identify her organs as well as knicking her eyelids.


                          Wanna try that again

                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                            My thoughts on lighting:

                            Elizabeth Stride: Location was pitch black, so dark that Diemschutz would not have noticed the body had his horse not have wavered. even pulling his cart alongside her body, the form was indistinguishable to him so much so that he had to strike a match. if the location was this dark, it's doubtful that Jack the Ripper would have been able to see well enough to eviscerate and harvest her organs per his M.O. This point may be evidenced by the fact the Elizabeth Stride only suffered from having her throat slashed rather than suffering from Catherine Eddowes' mutilated fate only an hour later. My belief being, that lack of a light source forced Jack the Ripper to reconsider & move on from Berner Street.

                            Polly Nicholls: Buck's Row. Dark enough that Lechmere could not immediately distinguish her form as that of a woman. So dark that neither man noticed her throat had been slashed. Lack of a sufficient light source might be evidence why she was ripped rather than eviscerated.

                            Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper had sufficient light that he eviscerated and harvested her organs. Devil is in the details, he had sufficient light that he was able to: 1) dodge around her navel when he was cutting open her belly; 2) rifle through her pockets and place the items around her body. Considering that her location of death was in the gloomy corner of someone's backyard (with little/no light source?), my thoughts are that her ToD must have been closer to sunrise.

                            Catherine Eddowes: there was a light source in Mitre Square, he could see well enough to identify her organs as well as knicking her eyelids.

                            Mary Jane Kelly: Jack the Ripper showed what he was truly capable of when he had more than adequate lighting.

                            Maybe it's just me, but there's no way I'd know my way around body parts that shone wet inky-black in even a low light source.

                            Does this mean anything?
                            Is this perp used to working at night?
                            Used to eviscerating guts at night?
                            (Ex. Stockyard killings done late at night in the East End?)

                            And as the Stride case goes, the killer wasn't thinking with his head -- that narrow entrance, no alternate exit without going through the club, zero light source, club packed -- I keep thinking Stride wasn't planned OR Jack needed to target Stride and couldn't locate her anyehere else, so he was forced to kill her there or not at all.
                            "We do not remember days, we remember moments." ~ Cesare Pavese

                            Cheers!

                            Books by BJ Thompson
                            Author - www.booksbybjthompson.com
                            Email - barbara@booksbybjthompson.com

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by harry View Post
                              A person who finds a body is just that,a person who finds a body.Before that person can be suspected of a crime regarding that body,it has to be decided a crime was committed,and that evidence of a guilty nature connects the finder to that crime.
                              Yeah, I'm not seeing Cross as anyone but a person happening upon a body.
                              "We do not remember days, we remember moments." ~ Cesare Pavese

                              Cheers!

                              Books by BJ Thompson
                              Author - www.booksbybjthompson.com
                              Email - barbara@booksbybjthompson.com

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                [QUOTE=BooksbyBJThompson;n796829]

                                Maybe it's just me, but there's no way I'd know my way around body parts that shone wet inky-black in even a low light source.

                                Does this mean anything? [QUOTE]

                                It means the killer did not remove the organs. and your own personal comments are spot on

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X