Ripperologist 128: October 2012

[Tom_Wescott]

I received 128 and see that the 'All Phil Carter' issue much ballyhooed on another thread was just a publicity stunt, no doubt to muster a flurry of new subscriptions. But don't be fooled, there's no Phil Carter in here. Just a bunch of stuff about Jack the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Beowulf]

Totally exhausted, check several things on the net, lastly my mail and saw Ripperologist 128 is out.

As exhausted as I am I ended up staying up another 30 minutes reading and skimming it. I was not disappointed, the issue is superb.

Will reread it more slowly when I get back from a short trip east. I'm leaving in a day and will not get to do this until I return.

The information on Kosminski...

[curious]

stomach flaps

Hi Rob,

I think one relevant difference, maybe only due to time available, are the stomach flaps cut from Mary. An idea that may have originated with the Hanbury murder coverage.



Cheers Rob

Hi, Rob,
The stomach flaps in particular are of interest to me because I question whether someone could read that "stomach flaps" were used in one killing, then replicate them in such a convincing manner that the doctors and authorities would believe the wounds were by the same man.

I have read the term "stomach flaps" but have no idea how to create them, not that I have really studied on it.

However, if flaps of any type were normally used by butchers or offal dressers (just for instance), then we could expect people in a certain profession to be able to cut the bodies in a similar manner.

Is there a known skill or uniform way of making "stomach flaps." Any ideas?

As things stand now, I have no reason to think that different killers would be able to produce "stomach flaps" that would pass for the work of the same man.

curious

[robhouse]

My understanding of "flaps" is that the killer removed large sections of skin from Kelly's body, but I do not see how this would support the idea of a different killer. It seems entirely consistent with the mutilations to other victims... although it was not something he had done before, he had more time to perform the mutilations in this instance.

"The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation, and part of the right buttock."

- notable to point out that this means he removed a large section that included the "external organs of generation" which is entirely consistent with the Ripper's removal of organs, targeting the sexual organs. This brings to mind the Monster of Florence actually.

RH

[DVV]

My understanding of "flaps" is that the killer removed large sections of skin from Kelly's body, but I do not see how this would support the idea of a different killer. It seems entirely consistent with the mutilations to other victims...
RH

Hi Rob
that's not what I understood. It's consistent with the Chapman case.

[robhouse]

Hi DVV,

I agree that the Kelly case is consistent with the Chapman case.

RH

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear Rip,
another fantastic edition, well done to all involved, still digesting it thoroughly!

Jenni

[curious]

My understanding of "flaps" is that the killer removed large sections of skin from Kelly's body, but I do not see how this would support the idea of a different killer. It seems entirely consistent with the mutilations to other victims... although it was not something he had done before, he had more time to perform the mutilations in this instance.
RH

Hi, Rob,
Thanks for your reply. I don't want to derail this thread, but flaps were also mentioned in Chapman's case as David pointed out. Chapman is normally considered the quintessential Ripper work.

Which has led me to question the possibility of Kelly being by a different hand. She is so different from the other victims, I have thought she was by a different killer.

But with the flaps being mentioned I have to wonder were the flaps removed from Kelly so similar to the Chapman case one of the reasons the authorities believed it to e the same killer?

Would different killers create flaps so similar?

That's what I'm trying to settle in my own head. But this is the wrong thread for it.

Thanks, Rob, and David.

[robhouse]

I presume you are referring to this:

"2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen lay in a large quantity of blood above the left shoulder"

Thank you, in fact, this had somehow gone unnoticed by me before... I was under the impression that it was only the intestines that were placed above the (right) shoulder.

Well, in my opinion this considerably strengthens the attribution of the Kelly murder to the same "hand" that killed Chapman, as it shows both killers removed flaps of skin... and placed the flaps somewhat away from the body I believe. So yes, this is yet another aspect of the mutilation that shows great consistency with the Ripper's signature mutilation style in the Kelly case.

RH

[Michael W Richards]

Hi DVV,

I agree that the Kelly case is consistent with the Chapman case.

RH

Hello gents,

Aside from the stomach flaps there seems to be little in common between these 2 murders, starting with Victimology, Location, Methodology and the evident preference for organs, to mention just a few points. A glaring example would be that Marys uterus was under her head, intact. We can all agree that many published reports of the investigations mentions the "flaps", and that "flaps" are distinctive and therefore worth scrutiny. However, with the amount of mutually skilled workers in the area,...i.e. Doctors, Butchers, Slaughtermen,...and the documented reporting of that particular facet of the murder combined you have many men that could have done acts that would seem "similar" by virtue of the repetition of those kinds of acts in their trade.

That feature doesnt marry Kelly with Chapman by killer, it does however highlight the problems with isolating a suspect type, based on the criteria above. I believe that most of the murders show some sort of maturity with a knife, but thats not a "Jack" feature. There were many, many people living in London at that time that routinely cut up cadavers and cattle, for study or for consumption.

All the best

[curious]

Hello gents,

Aside from the stomach flaps there seems to be little in common between these 2 murders, starting with Victimology, Location, Methodology and the evident preference for organs, to mention just a few points.

Exactly, which is why I considered Kelly the victim of a different killer.

We can all agree that many published reports of the investigations mentions the "flaps", and that "flaps" are distinctive and therefore worth scrutiny. However, with the amount of mutually skilled workers in the area,...i.e. Doctors, Butchers, Slaughtermen,...and the documented reporting of that particular facet of the murder combined you have many men that could have done acts that would seem "similar" by virtue of the repetition of those kinds of acts in their trade.

Exactly, but similar, not exactly the same and done perhaps with individual style. Inspectors can tell which electrician wired a house by the way he does things. In some medical show, a doctor took one look at stitches and knew which doctor had sewn the patient up. Somehow, I wonder if the "flaps" or other traits were not distinctive enough to register with the doctors as the same hand.

That feature doesnt marry Kelly with Chapman by killer, it does however highlight the problems with isolating a suspect type, based on the criteria above. I believe that most of the murders show some sort of maturity with a knife, but thats not a "Jack" feature. There were many, many people living in London at that time that routinely cut up cadavers and cattle, for study or for consumption.

True, but would not that "maturity with a knife" have perhaps evolved into a distinctive style, different and recognizable?

For sometime, I considered Kelly to be by a different killer. Then I discovered the flaps, and I am no longer comfortable discounting her as a Ripper victim. I suspect that the medicos knew what they were talking about when looking for just one killer. The reports remaining are so sparse that we don't know what convinced the doctors it was the work of one man, but suspect there were signs and reasons we know nothing about.

curious

[Cogidubnus]

Rip 128

I was unfortunate enough to get my copy late, and so have only been able to quickly scan it this evening...Wow...thanks to both the editor and all the contributors...what a read! Think I'll be dipping in and out of this for some time to come...

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Tumblety's rings

I typically enjoy Mike Hawley's articles, and I especially enjoyed this one. It's hard not to get wrapped up in his passion for exploring small details to the fullest. I was very impressed with the depths of research he presented in arguing for Tumblety's 'cheap rings' as being those taken from Annie Chapman. He makes a good argument regarding the credibility of the men who gave the final appraisal of the rings, and the lack of credibility of the early reports that gave high estimations of the value of the rings, and almost certainly emanated from Tumblety himself.

However, the big problem I see with this is that these qualified men who appraised the rings did not point out that they were women's wedding rings, which they almost certainly would have done. Therefore, they were almost certainly men' rings that would have fitted Tumblety's hand, and not the rings stolen from Chapman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

I typically enjoy Mike Hawley's articles, and I especially enjoyed this one. It's hard not to get wrapped up in his passion for exploring small details to the fullest. I was very impressed with the depths of research he presented in arguing for Tumblety's 'cheap rings' as being those taken from Annie Chapman. He makes a good argument regarding the credibility of the men who gave the final appraisal of the rings, and the lack of credibility of the early reports that gave high estimations of the value of the rings, and almost certainly emanated from Tumblety himself.

However, the big problem I see with this is that these qualified men who appraised the rings did not point out that they were women's wedding rings, which they almost certainly would have done. Therefore, they were almost certainly men' rings that would have fitted Tumblety's hand, and not the rings stolen from Chapman.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Excellent point, especially when Chapman's 'keeper' ring had some kind of 'fancy pattern'. One thought I have is when his possessions in his pockets were itemized on earlier occasions, all of the other contents were mentioned, but no brass man rings. Of course, they may have been a later purchase, but he was not into wearing these items in his later life.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mike,

Again, I really enjoyed your piece and hope we see more and more articles which take a small but critical part of the mystery and explores it as fully as you're known to do.

I also realize from reading my last post back that I use the term 'almost certainly' way, way too much!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott