Tweet
Originally posted by Elamarna
View Post
whos Wilson?
-
hi el
whos Wilson? -
Jack the ripper didn't kill anybody,
Kosminski did that
and he killed more than 5, he was going to kill his own sister too
Two men saw him one night, a jew witness and a city P.C.Comment
-
Hi Steve,Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
What could explain the age difference between the victims killed outdoors and indoors (Kelly and include Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin Street)?
Any thoughts?
Regards, PierreComment
-
-
Originally posted by Pierre View Post
Not really considered it I have to admit.
of course i don't at this point think that the last 3 are linked to the Whitechapel killings.
do you have any suggestions?
SteveComment
-
Hi Abby,Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
looking at what i wrote it could be misleading, Wilson is not a possible attacker but Ada Wilson attacked March 88.
steveComment
-
The "codification" of the "autumn of terror" and the five victims only derives from Melville Macnaghten, and his belief, right or wrong, in Montague Druitt as the killer. He made this cognotion about Druitt retrospective not for himself -- bhe was not on the Force until mid-1889 -- but to improve the reputation of CID. Thus he wanted to give the impression, to the public from 1898, that the police were aware at the time about the drowned man as the likeliest suspect, that they wereclsoing on him, and that once they found him deceased they pretty much knew that Mary Jane Kelly was the final victim.
Much of this was quite untrue.
Working from the so-called draft version of the Chief Constable's report a rather sceptical Major Arthur Griffiths, a Macnaghten crony, provided the first salvo in this revision of what happened and what was known between 1888 and 1891. This is the pertinent excerpt from "Mysteries of Police and Crime" that caused a big stir in the press because its claims were so unprecedented and such a reworking of the original timeline (a protracted investigation leading to a dead end):
"The outside public may think that the identity of that later miscreant, "Jack the Ripper," was never revealed. So far as actual knowledge goes, this is undoubtedly true. But the police, after the last murder, had brought their investigations to the point of strongly suspecting several persons, all of them known to be homicidal lunatics, and against three of these they held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion. Concerning two of them the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined to an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court. The second possible criminal was a Russian doctor, also insane, who had been a convict both in England and Siberia. This man was in the habit of carrying about surgical knives and instruments in his pockets; his antecedents were of the very worst, and at the time of the Whitechapel murders he was in hiding, or, at least, his whereabouts were never exactly known. The third person was of the same type, but the suspicion in his case was stronger, and there was every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane or on the borderland of insanity, and he disappeared immediately after the last murder, that in Miller's Court, on the 9th November, 1888. On the last day of that year, seven weeks later, his body was found floating in the Thames, and was said to have been in the water a month. The theory in this case was that after his last exploit, which was the most fiendish of all, his brain entirely gave way, and he became furiously insane and committed suicide. It is at least a strong presumption that "Jack the Ripper" died or was put under restraint after the Miller's Court affair, which ended this series of crimes. It would be interesting to know whether in this third case the man was left-handed or ambidextrous, both suggestions having been advanced by medical experts after viewing the victims. Certainly other doctors disagreed this point, which may be said to add another to the many instances in which medical evidence has been conflicting, not to say confusing."
That established Kelly as the final victim, rather than Coles over two years later. In 1907 Macnaghten contacted another crony and close chum, the mega-famous George R. Sims, to further consolidate what the police chief believed were Druitt's five -- and five only -- victims. Interestingly Macnaghten feels no need to advice his friend, in writing, about his suspects' section for his article; the implication being that that subject was so well discussed between them, verbally, that no further communication was required:
Dear Sims,
Yet another "light" in dark, & not
generally known, metropolitan spots has
flashed across my mind:-
Eyre Street Hill - Clerkenwell - where
there is a large colony of Italians who
are mostly ice-cream vendors by day,
&, not infrequently, stabbers & shootists
by night.
It may also save you the trouble of
research if I give you the times &
places of Jack ye Ripper's pleasantries.
(1) 31st. Aug. '88. Mary Ann Nichols, found
at Bucks Row with her throat cut &
slight mutilation of stomach.
(2) 8th. Sepr. '88. Annie Chapman found in a
back yard at Hanbury St. throat cut & bad
mutilation as to stomach & private parts.
(3) 30th Sepr. '88. Elizabeth Stride, throat
cut only (no mutilations) in Berners*
St. near Anarchist Club.
(4) 30th Sepr '88. Catherine Eddowes, found
in Mitre Square, throat cut, bad mutilation
of face, stomach & private parts
(5) 9th Novr '88. Mary Jeanette Kelly, found
in a room in Miller's Court, Dorset St.
with throat cut, and the whole face &
body fiendishly mutilated.
Don't forget "Dowt" - which her name
is Devereux - & don't trouble to reply
to this.
Yours always
M.L.Macnaghten
In Sims' subsequent and largest piece ever on the Ripper, for "Lloyds Weekly News" in September 1907, he codified for his massive readership the C-5 victims:
"A good many murders with which he had absolutely nothing to do have in this country been popularly attributed to the Whitechapel monster.
I have seen six, seven, and eight East-end murders of women debited to the Ripper, but, as a matter of fact, his murders were five in all, and no more. The other murders of women committed about the same time were in a totally different "handwriting."
The crimes that brought him into public discussion were all committed in a limited area, and within a limited period. They were as follows:-
1. Mary Anne Nichols, forty-seven, her throat cut and body mutilated, in Buck's-row, Whitechapel, Aug.31, 1888.
2. Annie Chapman, forty-seven, her throat cut and body mutilated in Hanbury-street, Spitalfields, Sept. 8, 1888.
3. Elizabeth Stride, throat cut, in Berner-street, on Sept.30, 1888.
4. Catherine Eddowes, alias Conway, mutilated, in Mitre-square, Aldgate, also on Sept.30, 1888.
5. Marie Jeanette Kelly, fiendishly mutilated, in Miller's-court, Whitechapel, Nov. 9, 1888. ...
It would be impossible for the author of the Miller's-court horror to have lived a life of apparent sanity one single day after that maniacal deed. He was a raving madman them and a raving madman when he flung himself in the Thames. ... But no one who saw that awful scene, or its reproduction in the photographic exhibits prepared for the coroner's jury, could possibly believe that the perpetrator of the horror could return to the quiet enjoyment of the rights of citizenship, or even change the methods of his consuming madness and become a Deeming, a Neil Cream, or a Chapman."
The entirely false impression is given that the un-named Druitt killed himself immediately after the Kelly atrocity. And the entirely false impression is given that the police need only look at the horrifically mutilated remains of the poor woman, and then discover a month later (that timing is yet another deflective deception) that their prime suspect, the mad doctor, had drowned himself. Well of course he had, goes the logic, because nobody who did that could go on living even for a "single day" (in his memoirs, Macnaghten extends the gap between murder and self-murder to a day, a night, perhaps another day, perhaps another night ...)
As I have written before the so-called canonical victims are mostly the opinion of Macnaghten because of his belief in Druitt's guilt -- an opinion rejected by just about everybody interested in this subject in the modern era. Once you realise the chief is backdating his private realisation, about Druitt, then there is no need to keep with five victims only.
As an aside, I subscribe to the theory that Ada Wilson was Druitt's first attempt at murder, and that Annie Farmer was his last, also failed attempt.Comment
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
Thanks. Forgot about her. Yes I think it's possible she was an early victim of the ripper and also Millwood.Comment
-
Who's Macnaghten referring to here? Sarah Elizabeth Devereux? She was one of George Chapman's victims.Originally posted by Jonathan H View PostComment
-
[QUOTE=Elamarna;397746]
Hi Steve,Not really considered it I have to admit.
of course i don't at this point think that the last 3 are linked to the Whitechapel killings.
do you have any suggestions?
Steve
There are differences between the MO for the victims who were found killed outdoors and those (if we hypothesize Kelly, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin St) who were not found killed indoors.
Letīs call the first group of victims VO and the second group of victims VI.
So what differences do we think we can postulate?
VO - older victims / VI - younger victims
VO - weaker victims? / VI - stronger victims?
(An hypothetical question based on age differences)
VO - quickly found / VI - found after a longer time period
VO - higher risk profile / VI - lower risk profile?
but
VO - one risk taken / VI - more than one risk taken when distributing body parts
VO - killed in the East End and the City / VI - also killed in the West End (drawing this from the distribution)
VO - less heavy work / VI - heavier work with mutilations and carrying body parts
VO - short murder and mutilation time periods / VI - longer murder and mutilation time periods
VO- murders start in August 1888 / VI - murders start in July/August 1888
VO - murders end in November 1888 / VI - murders end in September 1889
Conclusion: We can construct a set of hypotheses saying it was the same killer if we want to.
This set of hypotheses (SH) could look like this:
SH for the same killer =
1. The younger victims were stronger and harder to kill outdoors than the older victims.
2. The older victims could not be dismembered since they were killed outdoors.
3. West End was partly the place for killing the younger victims.
4. East End (and the City) was the place for killing the older victims.
5. The time period is the same - August 1888 to September 1889 - and therefore we can not use a perspective where the Whitechapel murders was the "most typical" set or murders.
6. The risk profile is high for all the cases where bodies and body parts were distributed outdoors.
7. The VO murders are external in their character: killed outside, mutilated outside, but found outside.
8. The VI murders are both internal and external: killed inside, mutilated inside, found outside.
9. The reason for the difference in external/internal elements has partly to do with age.
10. This means that the killer could not do anything he wanted to do anywhere.
11. Kelly is the most interesting case: It is totally internal. Killed inside, mutilated inside, found inside.
12. There must be a very specific motive for this particular change in MO.
Conclusion: The finding of bodies and body parts should be studied and analyzed from a risk perspective.
The questions we can ask are:
A) How is risk construced for every case?
B) What are the similarities and differences?
C) Is it possible to construct one single risk profile for all the cases here discussed?
D) What is the risk profile in the case of Kelly compared to the other cases?
E) If it is different, what are the hypothetical explanations?
Regards, PierreLast edited by Pierre; 10-27-2016, 04:40 AM.Comment
-
Comment
-
The Ripper killed in the small hours when the streets were largely deserted of human and vehicular traffic. As a consequence it was the older and less desirable women who were still wandering the streets in search of their doss money. Hence the killer was not specifically targeting older women, he was attacking those who became victims of opportunity. Peter Sutcliffe's victims encompassed a broad age range, not least because he was prepared to target just about any woman when the opportunity presented itself. My guess is that the Whitechapel Murderer was no different.Comment
-
Hi,
I think he killed only four, although Stride is possibly not one of his.
Kelly in my mind now was not a Ripper murder but something completely different.
I'm working on a theory about this that will conclude that there never was a Kelly murder.
Keep tuned.
Regards.Comment
-
I love when people work on a theory when they've already decided the conclusion they'll reach.Originally posted by spyglass View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
But when every other angle has been covered, and there is only one avenue left to go down.Originally posted by GUT View Post
mind you, it will be complete speculation with not one ounce proof to back it it up.Comment
Comment