Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

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

  • Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

    Just thought I would start a thread to see if anyone believes Rose was a Ripper victim, and if yes, the reasons why? I have always been intrigued by the possibility that Jack strangled Mylett but was interupted just before he could cut her throat and mutilate her.

    Kind regards,

    Adam
    Best regards,
    Adam


    "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

  • #2
    The suggestion that Rose Mylett 'may' have been another Ripper victim has always been a controversial one. Although Dr Bond's opinion seems to have become the official one, that her death was accidental. Bond's peers seem to have formed a consensus that her death was murder.
    If I recall correctly, Dr Phillips was quite prepared to include her as another Ripper victim.
    The medical evidence does tend to lean towards accepting Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes as victims of the same killer. One common denominator between them is that they all had their throats cut twice. As the victims throats are all cut while they lay on the ground, obviously unconscious, only one cut through either jugglar vein is required. Why the 2nd cut?

    Perhaps... to hide the mark a cord (Garrott?) would make?
    This suggestion came about after the body of Rose Mylett was found with such a mark, according to the medical consensus.
    An interesting proposal very worthy of consideration.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #3
      Extraordinary Debate

      There is an extraordinary debate going on over at JTRForums as to whether or not Mylett was a Ripper victim and Anderson's part in the affair. Given some of the dubious opinions being bandied about I would be interested to hear what those 'over here' think about it. Have a read - it's an eye-opener.
      SPE

      Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

      Comment


      • #4
        My opinion on Rose is that there is no doubt in my mind she was murdered and I donít believe she was a Ripper victim. My impression is that whoever killed her had more than enough time to cut her throat and mutilate her.
        Andersonís report of 11 January 1889 is clear that he believed P.S. Golding initial opinion that this was a case of accidental death which is surprising because P.S. Golding didnít notice any marks on Mylettís throat and neck. Anderson visited the crime scene in Clarkes Yard, Poplar High Street (which had a reputation for being used by prostitutes) and examined the body of Mylett at the mortuary. What medical qualifications Anderson had, Iíve no idea. Itís staggering that after this he came to the conclusion that Mylettís death was accidental. And on the 24 December (4 days after Mylett died) Anderson (in my opinion) pressurised Doctorís Bond and Hibbert that Mylettís death was accidental and not murder.

        Rob

        Comment


        • #5
          In Another Place, there has been some discussion of Anderson's statement in his memoirs that 'the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper" scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.'

          Howard Brown said that Anderson appeared to have forgotten that the coroner's jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder, and Paul Begg responded that "Surely in saying that ... it is implicit that he was fully aware of the jury's conclusion".

          Perhaps so (though perhaps not). But whatever the truth of the matter, surely the relevance to Anderson's other pronouncements is clear. The point is that Anderson simply asserts as a fact that Mylett died of natural causes and implies that any suggestion otherwise was ill-founded. How many readers would guess from this that the majority of medical opinion and the verdict of the jury were that she was murdered?

          Anderson's personal opinion is presented as fact, and there is no adequate acknowledgment of opinions to the contrary. But in this case we are fortunate enough to have other sources of information to balance the account.

          But on other subjects where we don't have adequate independent information, surely the moral is clear. It is dangerous to take Anderson's claims at face value, even when he speaks of "definitely ascertained fact".

          Comment


          • #6
            There is an extraordinary debate going on over at JTRForums as to whether or not Mylett was a Ripper victim and Anderson's part in the affair.-SPE

            Actually, neither Mr. B or myself believe she was a Ripper victim. Our genteel conversation touches on other elements of the Mylett saga...particularly the reversal of opinion by Dr. Bond, in which he declared that Mylett died in due part to alcohol consumption....when the original examination showed none present in her system....and yet Debra Arif has just now stated that Bond found a minute amount of whiskey in her stomach. Good conversation all around....

            There's lots of space to discuss this... In Another Place, if anyone cares too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Note to readers in the USA: "Another Place" is a quaint expression used by speakers in one house of the UK Parliament to refer to the other house.

              Comment


              • #8
                Note to all Ripperologists,regardless of origin ( except the big European land mass that begins with an "F")..."another place" refers to Jtrforums.com...

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am in agreement with Chris and Rob.
                  Moreover,the topic has been aired a number of times Howard,and it illustrates Anderson"s intransigence and unwillingness to value medical opinion- although himself, a non -medically trained layman.There were five police surgeons he chose to disagree with, each a medically trained expert,one being the Police Surgeon -in -Chief.These were surely best placed to know whether a corpse was a murder victim or not. Instead Anderson rejected their findings as well as the findings of the jury,and sought to influence Dr Bond instead- to the extent that he , apparently against his own original and better judgement, came round to Anderson"s way of thinking .
                  It was a case of he,Robert Anderson, having decided Rose Mylett was not a murder victim, being right,and everybody else was wrong.
                  Therefore can you trust the word of this same man, who then states "he knew who the ripper was"----- when everybody else said " nobody knew " who the ripper was,and certainly were not aware that it was any kind of " definite fact"?
                  Last edited by Natalie Severn; 10-28-2008, 01:57 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Dear Nats:

                    "Moreover,the topic has been aired a number of times, Howard,and it illustrates Anderson"s intransigence and unwillingness to value medical opinion- although himself, a non -medically trained layman.

                    Nats...I agree with CGP & Rob Clack and others that Mylett was murdered. I'm not arguing against that at all. I also don't think that everything that is mentioned about Anderson in the negative is correct either. Just because a person is a poor cook doesn't mean he can't discern well cooked food from poorly cooked fare..

                    As to Bond swaying to Anderson's point of view, I have just now learned from Debra Arif that Bond conducted a test and extricated a tablespoon of whiskey from her stomach, which as you know,is in contrast to the original report which declared no alcohol was present in Mylett. Perhaps,in all fairness, this is why Bond changed his mind in the long run...... Whether or not Mylett was intoxicated is another issue altogether. It would take a lot more than a tablespoon of hooch to get someone accustomed to liquor intoxicated as Alice Graves claimed Mylett was just a few hours before she was found. Even she was three sheets to the wind,, I cannot see how she died from some self inflicted means. In any event, she sure picked an out of the way to kill herself or accidentally die,didn't she?

                    Cheers !

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                      Nats...I agree with CGP & Rob Clack and others that Mylett was murdered.
                      I didn't actually express an opinion about that.

                      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                      As to Bond swaying to Anderson's point of view, I have just now learned from Debra Arif that Bond conducted a test and extricated a tablespoon of whiskey from her stomach, which as you know,is in contrast to the original report which declared no alcohol was present in Mylett. Perhaps,in all fairness, this is why Bond changed his mind in the long run......
                      In Scotland Yard Investigates (p. 246), Anderson is quoted as saying "But that same afternoon Mr Bond went again to Poplar to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck, and he returned to tell me he had entirely altered his view of the case ..." That makes it sound as though it was the neck, not the stomach, that changed his mind. But perhaps Anderson's report was inaccurate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Murder

                        Personally I would go along with the majority medical opinion of the time that it was a case of murder. Indeed, that was the verdict of the inquest jury and the case remained on Scotland Yard files as an unsolved murder. There is absolutely nothing at all to indicate that it was a Ripper crime.

                        However, what really amazes me is that Paul Begg, that staunch Anderson apologist, pops up with untenable arguments in a perceived defence of Anderson and yet maintains he has no Anderson bias. His excuse is he is acting as devil's advocate but the result is the same. Another attempted Anderson vindication job. I shall be posting later on his extraordinary arguments.
                        SPE

                        Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi ,
                          Yes,I reckon Rose would have had to have had more than a tablespoonful of the hard stuff to have choked on her own vomit- or some such theory.
                          I do happen to think the case throws a lot of light on the way Anderson was able to "convince" himself something was so,almost to the point where he seems to have viewed himself as an infallible witness.
                          ---maybe it was his hotline to the Almighty that gave him notions of infallibility----
                          Cheers How!


                          PS Just read Stewart"s post-will be very interested to read these!
                          Last edited by Natalie Severn; 10-28-2008, 02:58 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I must confess I was left scratching my head after reading this:
                            None of the doctors viewed the body before it had been autopsied. [Y]ou will recall that Dr Brownfield conducted his autopsy ...

                            Perhaps it means he averted his eyes from the body before the initial plunge of the scalpel?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              The medical evidence does tend to lean towards accepting Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes as victims of the same killer. One common denominator between them is that they all had their throats cut twice. As the victims throats are all cut while they lay on the ground, obviously unconscious, only one cut through either jugglar vein is required. Why the 2nd cut?

                              Perhaps... to hide the mark a cord (Garrott?) would make?
                              This suggestion came about after the body of Rose Mylett was found with such a mark, according to the medical consensus.
                              An interesting proposal very worthy of consideration.
                              Hi Wickerman,

                              An interesting consideration for sure but there's a problem with that due to one of the few things the police surgeons examining the general Ripper victims did agree on. They considered that the second cut was an attempt to decapitate the head from the body of the victim after the first severed the carotid artery. The considered medical opinion on cause of death.

                              Further to this, the Ripper doctors were in general agreement that the severing of the artery was caused by a knife and is the main issue that keeps Elizabeth Stride in the picture.

                              Apart from the marks found on the neck of Rose Mylett, there doesn't appear to be any other evidence for a Whitechapel murderer using a garrot. Personally, I don't think she was a Ripper victim unless the Whitechapel murders were committed by several persons in tandem. That the inquest jury concluded murder should have been enough for Anderson but for some inexplicable reason, it was not with all the attendant theoretical confusion.
                              Jack the Ripper Writers -- An online community of crime writers and historians.

                              http://ripperwriters.aforumfree.com

                              http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...nd-black-magic

                              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X