Jack the Ripper in America

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

The Ripper’s MO was to strangle his victims, then cut their throats and then disembowel them, just as Carrie Brown was.
Brown was struck on the side of the head, strangled and then mutilated. Her throat was not cut (a fact which apparently led Scotland Yard to dismiss her as a Ripper victim).

There is no evidence to suggest the Whitechapel victims were all murdered in the same fashion. Annie Chapman is the only victim who it would be fair to say was perhaps strangled first.

You may not have noticed Mr. Marriott but this thread is about a documentary shown on the Discovery Channel (USA) titled Jack the Ripper in America. As I said, I was offering a few thoughts on that programme, one which I would be surprised if you had actually seen. Had you seen it you may have realized that the first part of the section above which I posted was taken from the TV show. It was their “expert,” ex-policeman Ed Norriss, who stated that “The Ripper’s MO was to strangle his victims…”

Having said that, however, Chapman was definitely strangled, at least into unconsciousness, rather than the wishy washy “perhaps strangled” which you claim. Dr. Phillips stated this outright, as did The Lancet. There are also signs of strangulation apparent on the body of Martha Tabram and it has been pointed out by medical experts like Dr. Francis Camps that strangulation, or the interference with breathing, would explain the lack of outcry, no signs of struggle, lack of arterial spray, the odd lack of blood at the crime scenes and signs of congestion and finger marks on the faces of some of the victims.

Or are you suggesting that because the Ripper, in your layman’s opinion, didn’t strangle his victims therefore Carrie Brown, who was strangled, wasn’t a Ripper victim?

The wounds inflicted on all of the Whitechapel victims were not all savage. Nichols for one had less mutilations than the others. Those who beleive Stride was a Ripper victim will highlight her only wound being to the throat which was again different to all the others.

There was a progression of mutilation with each passing victim of the Ripper series so that earlier victims suffered less mutilation than later ones. This, I would have thought, was fairly obvious to even the most casual observer and explains why Chapman’s wounds were greater than Nicholls and Eddowes’ wounds were greater than Chapman’s and why Kelly’s wounds were greater than Eddowes’. The murder of Carrie Brown does not fit with the pattern shown by the Ripper murders. Not in ferocity, as a later victim, not in purpose and not in execution.

Interestingly, Mr. Marriott, you like to include every woman murdered by knife, and every prostitute murdered in any way, as possible Ripper victims. That is up to the 1st of September, 1894, when your particular suspect was arrested. After that date, however, women murdered and mutilated in Ripper fashion are ignored by you. You even state that there were no other Ripper-like murders anywhere, ever again, although there were. This seems to fly in the face of your above quote.

For some reason Wolf you keep raising this issue. You should remeber that just because there is no evidence to say a killer wasnt in the murder location at the time. Doesnt mean to say he wasnt there and did in fact kill. You threw this same old chestnut in with regards to Feigenbaum now you have thrown it in again with regards to Kelly. Take Ted Bundy the police knew he had killed many times in different locations but they couldnt place him at those locations, and in fact he is supposed to have made confessions to a number of murders prior to his execution with still no evidence to place him at those locations.

This statement is asinine. If we take this to be true then everyone in the world alive in 1888 becomes a viable suspect in the Ripper murders by the mere fact that we can’t prove they weren’t in London. Evidence that Sickert was in France during the murders? Still a suspect according to Marriott. Evidence that Deeming was in South Africa? Still a suspect. Cream in Joliet Prison? Still a suspect. All one needs is a willingness to do away with the tiresome constraints of evidence or proof. It’s apparently just that simple.

How about this: according to James Kelly himself he was in France in 1891 and didn’t arrive in New York until Spring of 1892, or a year after the murder of Carrie Brown. According to Mr. Marriott that’s not proof that he wasn’t in New York in April, 1891, and that he didn’t murder Carrie Brown. Then again, there is evidence from Carl Feigenbaum’s brother that he didn’t settle in the US until early 1892 as well. Mr. Marriott certainly doesn’t believe that this is evidence that Feigenbaum didn’t also kill Carrie Brown.

Wolf.

[Mrs. E. Nigma]

Oh, come on! We all know it was the masons!

In all seriousness, I think Unknown Male is one of the best suspects we've got. Hard for me to say, because I honestly want to believe that one of those names on the suspect list is our ever elusive Jack, but that very well may not be the case.

[Rick Mattix]

I am assuming the case on every suspect has some glaring issue or we would know who Jack was.

I'm not sure about this at all. We really don't know that any of the identified suspects, from the time or since, was Jack. For all we know, the real Ripper never has been named. He could well be some unknown maniac whose real name we've never heard.

[pr1mate]

I can't stand it when people ignore certain information and edit the evidence in order to fit a theory.

Of course they are going to omit some of the facts and perhaps take liberties in others. That is what people do when making their case on something. There is always a point to contend. There is no one truth just various versions of the truth. A written document can be interpreted 5 different ways by 5 different people even though they are reading the exact same words. If you throw out every suspect for lack of facts there would not be a ripper suspect left, would there? I do pose that as a question. I am assuming the case on every suspect has some glaring issue or we would know who Jack was.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Thank god for the Wolfs of the world.

This documentary, like the majority of suspect-oriented documentaries, is completely biased and picks and chooses which 'facts' that best suits its agenda; I can't stand it when people ignore certain information and edit the evidence in order to fit a theory.

There are a lot of promising suspects but unless they can be tied to the crime scenes and dates I'd say there's not really a case against them at this time.

Exactly.

[Rick Mattix]

Can't speak for Wolf or anyone else here but I'm not ruling anyone out myself, at least serious candidates (which to my mind would include Kelly and Feigenbaum). I'd have to see something more concrete to name anyone though. I wouldn't nominate any suspect named to date as definitely being the Whitechapel murderer, at least not on the currently available evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

May not be a concrete case but it shouldnt rule them out of the investigation as Wolf is suggesting.

Murderers are not caught by Detectives being negative in their approach

[Rick Mattix]

"this same old chestnut in with regards to Feigenbaum now you have thrown it in again with regards to Kelly."

Might be an old chestnut but it seems to me an important one. There are a lot of promising suspects but unless they can be tied to the crime scenes and dates I'd say there's not really a case against them at this time.

[Trevor Marriott]

[The Ripper’s MO was to strangle his victims, then cut their throats and then disembowel them, just as Carrie Brown was.
Brown was struck on the side of the head, strangled and then mutilated. Her throat was not cut (a fact which apparently led Scotland Yard to dismiss her as a Ripper victim).

There is no evidence to suggest the Whitechapel victims were all murdered in the same fashion. Annie Chapman is the only victim who it would be fair to say was perhaps strangled first.

The wounds to Carrie Brown were exactly like those of the Ripper’s victims in London.
Although Brown’s wounds were terrible they don’t compare to the wounds inflicted by the Ripper in London. The real Whitechapel Murderer opened the abdominal cavity from breast bone to pubis in order to gain access to the internal organs. Intestines were removed and placed beside the bodies of three of the victims and organs were taken away by the killer. Brown’s most serious wound, a deep, 9 ½ inch long gash to her left side, was much smaller than those suffered by the Whitechapel victims and most of the other wounds to her body were superficial cuts and abrasions, some literally light scratches. Brown’s killer did, however, remove two pieces of her intestines and placed them beside the body and the left ovary was found on the bed but it could have been unintentionally severed when the deep gash to the left side was made.

The wounds inflicted on all of the Whitechapel victims were not all savage. Nichols for one had less mutilations than the others. Those who beleive Stride was a Ripper victim will highlight her only wound being to the throat which was again different to all the others.

Kelly listed some of the cities that he lived in or visited during the 39 years he was on the run but he provides very few dates. You cannot connect him with any murders unless you can prove he was in a particular city on a particular date. This is now impossible and there is no evidence that he killed anyone other than his wife.

For some reason Wolf you keep raising this issue. You should remeber that just because there is no evidence to say a killer wasnt in the murder location at the time. Doesnt mean to say he wasnt there and did in fact kill. You threw this same old chestnut in with regards to Feigenbaum now you have thrown it in again with regards to Kelly. Take Ted Bundy the police knew he had killed many times in different locations but they couldnt place him at those locations, and in fact he is supposed to have made confessions to a number of murders prior to his execution with still no evidence to place him at those locations.

I rest my case


[Wolf.[/QUOTE]

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I heard an audio recording of the documentary Jack the Ripper In America last night (I still haven’t seen it) and I thought I’d share some thoughts on the programme.

The show is set up to investigate the “cold case” murder of Carrie Brown in April, 1891. we are told there are “no witnesses” to this crime.
Unfortunately, yes, there was. Mary Miniter, a prostitute and sometime assistant housekeeper at the East River Hotel, was the last person to see Carrie Brown alive when she and her killer rented a room in the hotel. Miniter provided an excellent description of the murderer – a tall, thin, light haired man with a blond mustache and long nose who appeared to be German. This was not James Kelly (as I pointed out to the Fulcrum Films people who chose to ignore me) and so the concept for the show becomes dead in the water before it even begins.

The Brown murder was never solved.
No, not conclusively, but Ameer Ben Ali was arrested, tried and convicted of the murder, although he was undoubtedly innocent and was railroaded by the police and the DA’s office. More importantly, there is compelling evidence that a Danish labourer named “Frank,” who worked on an estate in Cranford, New Jersey, was the probable killer. The evidence against “Frank” was convincing enough for Governor Odell to release Ben Ali after eleven years in prison (something else I pointed out to the Fulcrum people).

The Ripper’s MO was to strangle his victims, then cut their throats and then disembowel them, just as Carrie Brown was.
Brown was struck on the side of the head, strangled and then mutilated. Her throat was not cut (a fact which apparently led Scotland Yard to dismiss her as a Ripper victim).

The wounds to Carrie Brown were exactly like those of the Ripper’s victims in London.
Although Brown’s wounds were terrible they don’t compare to the wounds inflicted by the Ripper in London. The real Whitechapel Murderer opened the abdominal cavity from breast bone to pubis in order to gain access to the internal organs. Intestines were removed and placed beside the bodies of three of the victims and organs were taken away by the killer. Brown’s most serious wound, a deep, 9 ½ inch long gash to her left side, was much smaller than those suffered by the Whitechapel victims and most of the other wounds to her body were superficial cuts and abrasions, some literally light scratches. Brown’s killer did, however, remove two pieces of her intestines and placed them beside the body and the left ovary was found on the bed but it could have been unintentionally severed when the deep gash to the left side was made.

Brown’s murderer cut an X into her flesh which Ed Norris theorised was the Roman numeral for 10 signifying the killers tenth victim.
Wow, great theorizing Ed…except that the newspapers of the day were the first to make this dubious claim, a fact found in my article The New York Affair part 1 which Fulcrum Films used as part of their research.

“Searching through the old files Norris finds another intriguing clue…a letter sent to the NYPD and signed Jack the Ripper. This letter was sent not after Carrie Brown was murdered, but before. Was the Ripper already in New York?”
This letter is not found in “the old files.” There are no old police files from 1891 and no police file still exists on the Brown murder. I quoted this letter verbatim in The New York Affair part 2, which Fulcrum Films also used. More importantly, the documentary offered no date for this letter. It was actually sent to Captain Ryan of the 21st Precinct on the 19th of January, 1889, over two years before Brown was murdered.

The body of another woman, murdered and mutilated, was pulled from the East River on the “7th of August, 1891.”
Actually it was the 3rd of August, 1891, and the reason why the documentary didn’t mention the name of this supposed Ripper victim is that there is very little information about this murder. The victim was small, about 45 years old and had been badly beaten about the left side of her face. The body was then tied with a rope to a rock or some other weight and then dumped in the East River. This was not a Ripper, or even a Ripper-like murder.

James Kelly was in Whitechapel during the Autumn of Terror.
Although Kelly was in London at some time in 1888 we don’t know exactly when. We do know he left London for France sometime in 1888 so he might have been out of the country when some or all of the murders were committed. There is absolutely no evidence placing Kelly in Whitechapel at the time of the murders (something else I pointed out to Fulcrum).

Ripper murders were found in all the cities that Kelly visited in the United States.
Kelly listed some of the cities that he lived in or visited during the 39 years he was on the run but he provides very few dates. You cannot connect him with any murders unless you can prove he was in a particular city on a particular date. This is now impossible and there is no evidence that he killed anyone other than his wife.

Wolf.

[Archaic]

Hi, guys. I caught this documentary entirely by accident; I was on vacation at an Arizona Health Spa with my best friend, and she happened to turn on the TV one evening, right before this James Kelly doc started. I'd had a perfectly "Ripperless" week, but as I never watch TV the coincidence was pretty funny; my poor friend banged her head against the wall and went to sit in the hot-tub for an hour while I watched it.

I found the show interesting, but as many of you said, there was not enough time to develop it & not enough evidence was presented.
Personally I don't believe the Carrie Brown murder is connected to the Ripper Murders and this show didn't change my opinion.
I wish they had availed themselves of Wolf's information and had chosen to include him in the show, but it's quite apparent why they didn't. Too bad documentaries always insist on being one-sided in their presentation.

I was amazed that the Carrie Brown crime scene/autopsy photos were physically blocked out as being "offensive" when they showed poor Mary Kelly lying there disemboweled with her face torn off & kept the image on the screen for quite a long time; did that strike anyone else as strange?

> And does anybody know where the "witness sketch" of the Ripper came from? It looked to me like they just sketched James Kelly in a hat & then matched the sketch to an age-regressed photo of him... it strained credibility, to say the least!

All in all I felt it was very premature for Ed Norris to call the case against Kelly "airtight"... But having googled a few articles about his personal problems & his efforts to try to find a way to earn a living after unfortunately derailing his spectacularly successful career in Law Enforcement (including serving prison time on graft charges), I think it's understandable that he felt he to needed to pull something very dramatic out of a hat in a hurry. It's a sad story, really; Norris was a very skillful & effective cop.

It doesn't seem very likely to me that Jack the Ripper would get away scot-free with a dozen or so murders in England and in the US, then decide to voluntarily show up at the doors of Broadmoor no matter how old he was.
Another question which occurred to me is if Kelly was truly the psychopathic Serial Killer they claim him to be, could he really be expected to tell them the truth about his movements and activities?

Best regards, Archaic

[audiegrl]

Thank you Roy, I have added it to the post, and will definitely be ordering a copy. :-)

[Roy Corduroy]

If any one else has seen the show, please read what I described, and let me know if there is anything that is factually incorrect.

HI audieglr,

Yes I saw the program, and your review is accurate as to what was on the TV show. An addition I might suggest to your blog would be a mention of the book Prisoner 1167: The Madman Who Was Jack the Ripper by James Tully, 1997.

To all the new folks here via seeing the show, you have my warmest welcome.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

So he's not the ex-head of the NYPD's Cold Case Squad with years of experience working on old cases? Awkward.

Hi Wolf,

No, best I can tell from the web Ed Norris is a 20 year veteran of NYPD, including detective duty on cold cases. Then he was Commissioner of Baltimore PD 2000-2002 and of Maryland State Police in 2003. In Baltimore he was convicted of stealing $20K from a discretionary fund.

It's too bad the producers didn't take you on board for the show Wolf, to get a "second opinion."

Roy

[audiegrl]

that would be great, please let me know if you get them uploaded. :-)