Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Annie Chapman

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

  • #31
    delusional

    Hello Chris. Thanks.

    Yes, and, I might add, a delusional one.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
      "A rummage through a bag-lady's scanty possessions taking precedence over the infliction of severe wounds, evisceration and the removal of internal organs? That doesn't quite resonate with me."

      Perhaps that's because you see this through the lens of a sexual serial killer?
      I presume you mean I don't see this through the lens of a sexual serial killer? (Hope so, anyway, Lynn!)

      Whatever you meant, I don't believe one's viewpoint - SK or not - makes much difference here. Chapman's belongings were pitiful, and very few in number, as the most cursory examination would reveal. Besides, the pocket almost certainly held the usual motley array of tatty practical items typically stowed in streetwalkers' pockets (cf Nichols and Eddowes). Why should he bother to pay the pocket much attention, still less rip it open, given the slim pickings that it undoubtedly held?

      On the other hand, if it was any old trophies he was after, why not take the pocket in its entirety? Given that it was mostly empty space, it wouldn't have been difficult to roll up and conceal.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen"
      (F. Nietzsche)

      Comment


      • #33
        Considering the "wrenching" of the rings, I wonder if post mortem science was good enough in those days to be able to tell if the rings were wrenched off before or after death? I think they could at this time.

        For whatever it's worth, some modern criminals have cut fingers off to get rings that were too tight on the dead victim's fingers.

        I wandered a bit in my introductory post when I brought this thread forward. I should have simply said that for me considering a Jack suspect, I always picture whoever he is, operating in the backyard at Hanbury St. then I think about how that particular suspect would have done it, left the premises, etc.
        The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

        Comment


        • #34
          For me the Ripper took tremendous risks in all the C-5 murders. What could have been riskier than murdering in Dutfield's Yard, for example, with literally dozens of people singing and talking and only a brick wall between him and them. Not to mention club members maybe leaving by the club door. I think Jack enjoyed the sense of adventure of danger, the adrenaline rush each time.

          With regard to leaving no. 29, having robbed and killed the lady, I'm inclined to think he just turned around and used the passage way to Hanbury St. He may, just may, have known that the ground floor of 29 was inhabited by elderly women and youths, whom he could easily push past if he had to.

          On the other hand, no 31 Hanbury was a mangling house, wasn't it? Not likely to be anyone there at approximately 5:35am so in theory Jack could have departed that way.

          He was cutting it fine, however. Plenty of people about at 5:30am, and apparently a dustman did say that he had seen a bloodstained man walking down Hanbury St at before six

          Comment


          • #35
            dissociated

            Hello Gareth. Thanks.

            No, there are subtle clues that betray a strain of SSK theory behind your ideas. But it's a common affliction. (heh-heh)

            "Why should he bother to pay the pocket much attention, still less rip it open, given the slim pickings that it undoubtedly held?"

            See what I mean? IF robbery were the intention then OF COURSE this would be counter-productive. But recall that my lad would stop and pick up rocks thinking they were diamonds and he also kept a collection of studs and other worthless trinkets.

            "On the other hand, if it was any old trophies he was after, why not take the pocket in its entirety? Given that it was mostly empty space, it wouldn't have been difficult to roll up and conceal."

            Yet again. But I think trophies had NOTHING to do with it. I believe this was done by a poor chap of unsound mind who was altogether dissociated from reality. He was unaware of both place and time.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
              Considering the "wrenching" of the rings, I wonder if post mortem science was good enough in those days to be able to tell if the rings were wrenched off before or after death? I think they could at this time.
              Thanks for resurrecting this thread, Anna.

              My thoughts on the "wrenching" are that if Chapman took them off herself she would not have left such obvious marks, and considering her health I imagine the rings would be easy to remove herself.
              Of course, I accept that the killer could have grabbed her hand whilst she was standing and removed them forcibly (but that would mean the killer using both is hands to do this and he would not be threatening her with a knife).
              For me, definitely a post mortem activity on the part of the killer.
              Even her left hand lies across her chest as if dropped there.

              Comment


              • #37
                Jon: I kind of picture Annie's fingers being swollen a bit. She was very ill and even considering what had been done to her I always felt she looked puffy in a medical sense, in her mortuary picture.

                Perhaps we can learn something from the wrenching of the rings if Jack did it. Seems to me if he did it after death and his hands were bloody, there wouldn't be so much question about whether or not he did it as what he did would have been notable from bloody finger marks. Fresh blood would also help the rings slip off easier perhaps. Maybe we learn from this that his hands weren't real bloody, or maybe the rings came off before he went for the abdomen.

                If rings are worn for a long time it is easy for the finger to get larger and the rings to become tight. Women also have fingers with more shape than men, meaning that near the knuckle most women have a narrowing. (I have huge hands, bigger than most men. Only my ring fingers are shaped this way. My other fingers are straight like men's fingers and rings tend to slip off.)

                Curryong: All what you say if part of the Jack lore. How and why did he commit such risky crimes and how did he get away? I figure with Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, if Jack had a strong personality he could have commanded any passerby to fetch a policeman to assist an injured woman. That was one of my first ideas years ago. That's why I don't participate in the Cross/Lechmere discussions. I already researched this, and the new research is unconvincing to me. Though I believe Cross and Paul were innocent I do think Jack could have covered three attacks with this scenario.

                If Jack was affluent perhaps he could have tossed MJK's rent money out the broken window & commanded Bowyer to go away. He could have gruffly said Mary was earning her living, go away. He could have said he just stopped by for some reason or other and look at the mess he found, go for a policeman.

                At Hanbury St. He could so easily have been caught in the act. If he didn't belong there, he had a lot of explaining to do. If there was not an opening in the back of the fence he could have had to fight or push his way out. Excellent observation about that address having weaker inhabitants. I never thought about that. That observation also suggests Jack at least knew about that address. Or maybe it was a favourite place for Annie and she used it for the same reason.

                Also considering the backyard, perhaps Jack could say he stopped by to use the privy and found an injured woman, if he needed an explanation. But there was a good chance a witness could say he or she was looking out an upstairs window and watched Jack with the woman over a period of time, thinking it was a sexual encounter or something.

                To me Hanbury St. was the biggest risk and it just might give us the best idea of who Jack was.
                The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                Comment


                • #38
                  rings first

                  Hello Anna.

                  "Maybe we learn from this that his hands weren't real bloody, or maybe the rings came off before he went for the abdomen."

                  The latter, surely?

                  Cheers.
                  LC

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                    Perhaps we can learn something from the wrenching of the rings if Jack did it. Seems to me if he did it after death and his hands were bloody, there wouldn't be so much question about whether or not he did it as what he did would have been notable from bloody finger marks. Fresh blood would also help the rings slip off easier perhaps. Maybe we learn from this that his hands weren't real bloody, or maybe the rings came off before he went for the abdomen.
                    Hi Anna

                    It`s possible that the killer used Chapman`s missing woollen scarf to wipe his hands before he whipped off her rings. After all, there were no traces of blood on the doors of number 29, and he may have wished to avoid blood and gore on the rings jangling around in his pocket.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X