Mary Jane Kelly (Another) New Theory

[Graham]

Sam does have it in his head, thanks. What baffles me is why I've yet to have an explanation for my observation that there seems to have been not one instance of a domestic killer going hog-wild with a hammer and screwdriver when Sutcliffe's evil gripped the public imagination.

The simple historical fact to take on board here is that the (multi-)media coverage of the Yorkshire Ripper case reached far more people than his namesake's in 1888, and covered a much longer time-span (years instead of months). Yet in all that time we have not one instance of a "domestic copycat" being inspired by Sutcliffe, never mind taking things even further than he had done.

Well said, Sam!

I also asked for any evidence of any other domestic murder of a savagery similar to that vented on MJK. Nothing heard yet!

Cheers,

Graham.

[Ben]

You're really desperate to start an argument over nothing, aren't you? Never mind that this isn't the appropriate arena for it.

And if you want to state that it can be proven that Hutch´s story cannot have been true, you are mistaken, for true it could be

Well, then, let us clarify, Fish: It cannot, of course, be proven that all of Hutchinson's statement is untrue. Indeed, I don't believe that to be the case at all (he could very well have been where he said he was, for example). It is physiologically impossible for all of it - every last miniscule detail - to have been true. That's a given, and long posts to simple points aren't going to ennervate that reality.

If you had spoken of a unicorn, it would have been a different thing. Then it would have been impossible.

How do you know? I think "highly improbable" is a better bet, since the unicorn may have landed from a special spaceship, and used it's unearthy dexterous hooves to quarry out a living space under my house. Sorry, but if you wish to accord unreasonable flexibility (or rigidity?) to definitions such as "improbable" and "impossible" just to start an annoyingly petty argument, you'll find that others can play at that game.

Now, there were points of light even in them dark dreary streets. There were lamps, and there were lit windows, offering at least some light. And if that meeting took place close to such a light, then there´s your answer, Ben

And it's the wrong once, since we're taking about arteficial light, and the tiny amount of arteficial light that illuminated what little it could of Mr. Astrakhan would not have enabled a witness to discern the colour red, certainly not in addition to the other clothing and assorted bling.

To rule it all out with a hundred percent certainty is to disregard the fact that both things actually and obviously CAN be explained.

Yes, like aliens and unicorns.

And there we are: If you feel that the facts given allows you to dismiss Hutch totally, be my guest. I will only offer two pieces of advice, if I may be so bold:

Which is where I reciprocate with:

1. Don't call my argument "worthless", and then tell me I can "see it". That's rude, and may cause me to scream at you. I don't like doing that, cuz you're a nice guy, but...

2. Don't start pointless arguments about the distinction between "impossible" and "improbable" just because you're bored. Just settle for the latter if you're hell bent on it and save yourself a headache, lest we get bogged down in aliens and unicorns.

[Ben]

Back to the current discussion:

Hi Graham,

Re: Fleming, I rather think that once he saw that Barnett had replaced Kelly in her affections, he did just thatg ive it best and melt into the woodwork to find someone else

Strangely enough, he appears to have done the opposite; continually visit Kelly and ill-use her on the grounds that she was living with another man.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It is physiologically impossible for all of it - every last miniscule detail - to have been true. "

Annoying or not, Ben, I really do believe that it is NOT impossible. And that is the reason I keep stating it, not to angry you. Which is of course also why I could not care less if you DO decide to scream at me (let´shope you won´t, since you just pointed me out as rude, and you would not want to be sorted into that same category, would you?)

Ben, when I went to school, I did so together with a bloke to whom I took a distinct disliking. The reason? He always had top grades, since he always knew the answers to all questions at our tests. That, though, did not stop him from being a fool. But he had photographic memory, and after having read quickly through a page in a book, he knew each detail of that page. Each! If there was a misspelling, he used that same misspelling in his answers to the tests, and our teachers did not see through it.

This is one of the things that keep unnerving me facing the leap of stating that Hutch could not have been for real in his testimony.

As for me being the stubborn, stupid guy when it comes to the discernability of colours in the dark, I would say that you are no less stubborn yourself, Ben. And I will gladly leave it at a tie. But I will NOT accept that no East end Victorian ever recognized any colour on a November night - there would have been light enough at numerous occasions out in the streets to make that distinction. If Hutch had that light, we just cannot tell.

...and that is the salient point!

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Annoying or not, Ben, I really do believe that it is NOT impossible. And that is the reason I keep stating it, not to angry you.

That's not a reason to "keep stating" something, is it?

Surely it's better to just say it once, then agree to disagree when someone disagrees, rather than diverting the course of the thread?

But he had photographic memory, and after having read quickly through a page in a book, he knew each detail of that page. Each

A photographic memory like...Ivan Milat, perhaps? Thing is, he didn't have a photographic memory. He just lied to the police to cover his tracks and confuse authorities. Try comparing the number of people with "photographic memories" with people who tell basic lies. Even an alleged photographic memory wouldn't have been sufficient to notice and commit to memory the sheer level of detail allegedly recorded. There simply wasn't sufficient studying or "photographing" time. If you disagree, and believe it to be just ridiculously unlikely, that's fine, but please don't keep on.

But I will NOT accept that no East end Victorian ever recognized any colour on a November night

The point is that colours only show up as shades in darkness and arteficial light, especially if the surface area of the object is small and the arteficial light in negligible in quantity.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. Here's an interesting article: http://www.pmemory.com/articles/trut...hic-memory.php The author claims that photographic memory is impossible.

[Fisherman]

"That's not a reason to "keep stating" something, is it?

Surely it's better to just say it once, then agree to disagree when someone disagrees, rather than diverting the course of the thread?"

Basically, Ben, when somebody ( you, for example) persist in saying something I believe is wrong, I take the liberty to point that out. You have seen it before, and there is every chance that you will see it in the future too. And if I am diverting the course of the thread, I must say that you seem to have nothing against to go along for that ride.

You remark on photographic memory, and send me a link to a passage where the author holds the opinion that such things do not exist. How on earth you think that may sway me into forgetting that I spent a year of my life with a guy who showed that talent off - no matter what you want to call it - I cannot understand. I´ve seen it done, Ben, and that goes beyond any authors opinion. There is a difference.

My final words on the chances of telling colours in dark with the help of artifical light (unless you persist stating your wrongful wiew) is this:
The arteficial light most lightly to have come into play here would be the fire in the gas light. A comparable source of light is the one coming from a lit match. What I did, was to take a yellow, a green and a red mug out to my loo, along with a match. I shut the door, and in complete darkness I lit the match, and guess what? The mugs were still just as yellow, as red and as green as outside the loo door!

That conclusively proves that the colour red is readily discernible in arteficial light in dark surroundings, and it baffles me that you have stated the opposite.

Such things are often the reason that I "keep on at it", Ben - I dislike the idea of somebody telling me what is obviously wrong. If I can disprove it empirically, so much the better. Consider it done.

...and NOW I am ready to lay that bit to rest. If you want to discuss photographic memory, I am here. If not, so much the better.

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Basically, Ben, when somebody ( you, for example) persist in saying something I believe is wrong, I take the liberty to point that out.

Yeah, once. But not over and over again, long after I made the good-natured suggestion that we agree to disagree and avoid derailing the thread etc etc. I'm not persisting in anything. I'm just responding to you.

How on earth you think that may sway me into forgetting that I spent a year of my life with a guy who showed that talent off - no matter what you want to call it - I cannot understand.

Trouble with that - and don't take this the wrong way - is that it's uncorroborated hearsay, and thus irrelevent for discourse of this nature, whereas the article referenced was at least authored by an expert in the field. So in that sense, it doesn't "go beyond" the author's experience if there's no way to corroborate your story. Frankly, you could be lying to score points for all I know.

That conclusively proves that the colour red is readily discernible in arteficial light in dark surroundings

Wrong, and the notion that just because you say you carried out an experiment that somehow proves you're right only makes you look idiotic. Hey, guess what? I carried out precisely the same experiement, and the results were precisely the opposite. According to your logic, that "proves" I'm right! Course, if you think that's remotely comparable to the Astrakhan encounter (where the witness claimed to have been paying equal attention to other things at the same time, and didn't even claim to have seen the red hanky then), be my guest.

There wasn't even an arteficial light above the entrance to Miller's Court where Hutchinson claimed to have seen the red handkerchief, and unless Astrakhan had the handerchief in some exposed location on his Astrakhan coat (where? and why?), Hutchinson would not have noticed it during the first alleged encounter. And even if he did, the colour red would not have been discerned unless, as Hinton explains, there was "a light blue light of extreme intensity shining directly on the object" (or a match held at close quarters in a non-apt comparison!).

My final words on the chances of teeling colours in dark with the help of artifical light (unless you persist stating your wrongful wiew) is this

See, this is what I find so insufferable and obnoxious about your positing style. You're basically saying that you're only prepared to let the issue rest if you're allowed have the last word and nobody expresses a contrary view.

If I can disprove it empirically, so much the better. Consider it done.

Uncorroborated hearsay counts for nothing, so no, I'm not inclined to consider it done.

In bewildered, horrified awe at your pettiness,

Ben

[Captain Hook]

Buck Ruxton

You have of course examples like Buck Ruxton, James Greenacre etc., not to mention Bury etc. and although some of them are not as excessive as the Kelly murder, they are gruesome enough and perfectly viable to illustrate what spouses are capable of - I have posted this now for over two or three years, and to be honest, for anyone who has some knowledge about murders are well aware of that the domestic ones often are the worst ones. All the best

Hello Glenn,

Sorry to backtrack a bit, but I have just read your post. I don't disagree with your general statement about violence in a domestic context, but I'd like to differ about the Buck Ruxton case. There is no doubt that the murder of his common-law wife by Buck Ruxton on 15 September 1935 was a domestic crime. Even the motive, jealousy, is frequent in such crimes. But the extensive mutilations perfomed on Isabella Ruxton's body were not due to a desire to obliterate her features, extract revenge or appease anger. Ruxton, who was a surgeon, was trying to eliminate any physical traits that could facilitate the identification of Isabella's body and thus escape detection. He removed her eyes, lips, ears and nose, pulled off her teeth and scalped her. He cut off her fingertips and dismembered her. At the same time, he performed similar mutilations on the body of the couple's maid, Mary Rogerson. She had apparently walked in while her employer stood over his wife's body and, as he eventually admitted, he had to kill her too.

Crippen's murder of his wife Cora was also domestic and involved extensive mutilation of her body. Once again, the violence committed during the murder, which was carried with poison, was minimal. The dismemberment of the corpse was designed to facilitate its disposal.

Cheers
Hook

[Dan Norder]

Let's get a reality check on domestic murders...

First up, yes, sometimes domestic murders are extremely severe. Typically it's for dismemberment to try to hide the body, sometimes just not performed very well (thankfully most people don't have much experience dismembering bodies). Sometimes the mutilations are quite extreme and for no reason other than an unhinged mind. These are an extremely small percentage of domestic murders, however.

Second, yes, sometimes media accounts of other murders inspire others to modify their actions to more closely fit what was reported. It's not that sane people suddenly up and kill someone, it's that people who are mentally unstable who were likely to do something bad do a particular something more similar to what they've heard about. Killers have copied reports of gun massacres, some of the more gory parts of the Bible, a particular attack method from films, and so forth... This is pretty well established.

Third, we already have a very good example of this having happened as a direct result of the Ripper hysteria: Jane Beadmore. This was a domestic killing, and it followed some of the main features of the Ripper murders quite well. The killer claims to have been inspired by the Whitechapel murders. But at the root level it was a case of a man who snapped and killed a former lover. Just how much of it was intentional or unintentional at the time copying of the Ripper murders is unknown, but the facial mutlations in this case were new (as it happened before Eddowes and Kelly). This goes along with the idea that such mutilations can show a personal connection.

But, here's what I think is most important about this case: Beadmore was not killed in the East End a mere couple of minutes walk from other Ripper crime scenes: she was killed across the country. Killers are rare, thank goodness. The distance between where Eddowes was killed and where Chapman was killed is really very small, and Kelly was killed in between the two locations shortly after they were killed. There's absolutely no reason to invent up some entirely different killer and separate out Kelly from the others. Any argument that could possibly be made to try to claim Kelly was the result of a domestic murder would be equally plausible for Eddowes or Chapman. It's bizarre to think Kelly was killed by someone other than the Ripper, and I honestly don't think it would have ever happened except for various people deciding that their own personal theories would work a lot better if Kelly were ignored. This rather convenient rationalization goes all the way back to when D'Onston claimed that Kelly was obviously killed by someone else because her body wasn't found on the point of the cross he claimed the killer was forming on a map of the East End and goes to the modern day for people who have particular suspects in mind that don't work with Kelly.

It's a question of common sense logic here. If there are reports of a zebra that escaped from a zoo and is now running around Trafalgar Square, and it's been spotted a number of different times by various reliable witnesses, if we now get a new report of a black and white striped wild animal walking up the steps of the National Gallery, the logical conclusion is "It must be that zebra!" and not "Hey, what if some albino tiger were running around too, wouldn't that be cool?!"

[Fisherman]

Ben now writes:

"I'm not persisting in anything. I'm just responding to you."

Yeah, right. I am the one making all the curious suggestions and you are just helping out by responding, for the benefit of the rest of the posters. Sure thing, Ben!

"Frankly, you could be lying to score points for all I know."

Thanks for that, Ben! I´ll make sure to give YOU the benefit of a doubt next time over.
Lying is not something I would not resort to. Those who come up with such ideas are the ones who are ready to do it themselves.
But if you choose to ignore empirical facts, so be it. It is your very own choice.

" Hey, guess what? I carried out precisely the same experiement, and the results were precisely the opposite. "

No they were not, Ben. As anyone who lights a match in total darkness close to coloured objects will easily find out. You are lying here, for some unfathomable reason, but that of course is your own business and I will leave it at that. If you have invested so heavily in trying to disprove what cannot be disproven, such pathetic behaviour is what you are left with. I blush on your behalf - and that would be readily discernible in darkness, using a match...

As for Bob Hintons passage, it referred to a stance where there was a large distance between Hutch and Astrakhan man, wheras you would be very much aware by now that I am speaking of the split second where the two met in the street, feets from each other. Please respect that!

"See, this is what I find so insufferable and obnoxious about your positing style"

Feel welcome to it, Ben - there is little I can or will do about it. Nor does it impress or move me, since my main interest lies in the case itself, and not in how various students of it choose other ways of understanding it or researching it than I do.

And that is all good and well, up til the point where someone tells me that the colur red can not be recognized in darkness in the light of a match. When that happens, we are not left with differing opinions - we are left with a desperate and shameful dishonesty.

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dan Norder writes:

"If there are reports of a zebra that escaped from a zoo and is now running around Trafalgar Square, and it's been spotted a number of different times by various reliable witnesses, if we now get a new report of a black and white striped wild animal walking up the steps of the National Gallery, the logical conclusion is "It must be that zebra!" and not "Hey, what if some albino tiger were running around too, wouldn't that be cool?!"

...and thus he graces the thread with more interesting animals, to add to Bens hippo. Where will it end?

That aside, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that though mr Norder speaks of the interaction between news reports and killers, creating possible patterns of behavior led on by the news sources and perpetrated by the killers, his modesty forbids him to mention the fact that he has written a dissertation on the subject, available on these very boards, where he points to the possibility that the Ripper may have have been responding to faulty reports and exaggerations present in the press of them days.

That is one hell of a piece of work, and it owes him my undying respect, much as I have had deplorable experiences dealing with him...
Goes to show that not everything is black or white in this business. Some things bear the colour of the heart, red - even in total darkness as it were...

The best,

Fisherman

[Ben]

Lying is not something I would not resort to.

I'm not saying you were lying, Fisherman. I'm saying you can't use personal experiences as "proof" that your version of events is correct, which is why your "photographic" friend (like Richard Nunweek's 1970s recording) can't be accepted as fact. Nothing to do with whether or not I believe you. I'm sure if you illuminate an object at close quarters and know its colour already, you'll be able to discern red from blue from yellow etc. Unfortunately, Hutchinson had neither a match to wield at close quarters, nor the luxury of being able to home in on a specific item in the time and conditions available. If he did, it would be at the expense of noticing and memorising all the other stuff, from "white buttons over button boots" to dark eyelashes, to horseshoe tie pins.

Might I suggest that this frosty exchange could easily have been avoided had you embraced by initial suggestion to settle for a "middle ground" compromise? I mean, arguing stroppily over something we both consider very unlikely is pretty silly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"Might I suggest that this frosty exchange could easily have been avoided had you embraced by initial suggestion to settle for a "middle ground" compromise?"

Perhaps, Ben. But is the objective of these boards to keep everybody as happy as possible? I think not.

We obviously have differing approaches to the questions that are involved in the Ripper case. And, as always, when two people have differing approaches, it is not for one of the two to say which approach is the best one.

For me, it has always been of essence not to disregard remote possibilities - like I said before, it WILL set you on the wrong track sooner or later, and I try to avoid that in the longest.
I of course know that Hutch is a subject that interests you deeply and that you hold strong - and interesting! - opinions about it. I have seen you challenged on the topic numerous times, many of them silly and malicious, and I don´t blaim you for being cautious when the topic is brought up.

But believe me, I would readily bet all I have that I - and you! - can discern red from blue, green from yellow and so on REGARDLESS IF I HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT COLOURS I WAS GOING TO BE SHOWN by the light of a match, at close range in total darkness. And since that was the core point of my argument - that there was a possibility that Hutch caught a glimpse of the red hanky at their close encounter - I will not have any further discussion on it. It is a closed chapter as far as I´m concerned.

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As My name was mentioned briefly in despatches, [thank you Ben] may I repeat what I consider to be the obvious solution.
Any person living during that period would have been accustomed to the dim of that period , simply because that was the norm, the lack of effective street lighting would have peoples eyes accustomed to identify[ at least believe] colours, as what they interpreted as seeing.
So in a nutshell.
Gh, gave a honest recollection of the colour description, according to what his eyes witnessed.
I have talked to many people that experienced the blackout of WW2, and they have said, that although one got used to the lack of light, they proberly could not have described colours if asked, however the blackout years was a shock to twentieth century folk, and not so in the 1800s.
And yes Ben, I did hear that broadcast...
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

But believe me, I would readily bet all I have that I - and you! - can discern red from blue, green from yellow and so on REGARDLESS IF I HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT COLOURS I WAS GOING TO BE SHOWN by the light of a match, at close range in total darkness.

I'll cheerfully give you that one, Fisherman, though I'm not sure I offered any resistance on that score. Still don't think that's comparable to the alleged Astrakhan encounter, but a closed chapter seems very sensible at this point.

All the best,
Ben