Vicorian Era Question

Posted in Uncategorized on May 4, 2009 by megangaylor

Before becoming educated on dismal life led by the poor in Victorian England, I thought of the distinguishing clothing, royalty led to parties in carriages, arranged marriages of highly important people and famous icons and literature to name of few things. Movies, books and television series cemented the idea of wealth, royalty and ever present scandal as defining characteristics of Victorian London. Extravagance specifically enters my mind as an all encompassing metaphor. The peasants and middle class even illustrate themselves as somewhat closely resembling dress of royalty but on a much simpler scale; however, all of these uneducated assumptions proved very wrong as the semester began.

Police Improvements

Posted in Uncategorized on May 4, 2009 by megangaylor

The police investigating the murders of the five canonical victims seemed to accept persuasion when collecting and/ or neglecting evidence, for example, the decision to erase the chalk writing of the wall, so that a riot would not ensue upon it being seen. Because of this decision, there are not even any pictures of this piece of evidence. Along with that, even without technology available today, the simplicity of keeping accurate and detailed records should be a crucial role of any investigation. All clues, leads and evidence should have not only been recorded but confiscated by the authorities and properly restored and kept safe. Each of these suggestions ensures that down the road, there will at least be physical evidence to preside over word-of-mouth or stories passed down generations.

Questioning the Canonical Five

Posted in Uncategorized on April 28, 2009 by emilym90

After careful study in class, I have come to the conclusion that the canonical five may not have all been victims of Jack the Ripper. I specifically have issues with Elizabeth Stride and Mary Jane Kelly (more so with Stride).
First, the M.O. of Strides perpetrator was different than Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes. For example, the three other victims killed outside showed signs of strangulation before their throats were cut. It is believed that this was a very important part of the rippers ritual because it silenced his victims, making them unable to attract attention. Second, it unknown if the horse/witness actually startled the assailant away or if he was already gone when the carriage arrived. Conflicting witness accounts make it very difficult to find an accurate description of Strides assailant. Furthermore, the likelihood that a disorganized perpetrator would be scared away from a body and then venture back out to claim a second victim during the same night within an hour is very unlikely.
In regards to Mary Jane Kelly- could she too have been a victim with a different killer? The harm done to the body and circumstances were markedly different than other victims. The mutilation to the body was far worse and her murder was the only one that took place inside. It can be convincingly argued that Kelly led him to her room, whereas the other victims led the ripper to a secluded place. This would fit with the assumption that the ripper was led to quiet places primarily because women knew where they would encounter little disturbance from police. Since Kelly was the only full time prostitute, it would make sense that she was the only women whose secluded spot was an actual room. But how then do we account for the elevated nature of the attack in comparison to others? It is possible that the ripper behaved differently due to his new environment. Could he have, like many suggest, had a mental break? Or was it perhaps another perpetrator all together, such as Joseph Barnett?
I couldn’t post this without touching on these questions regarding the different nature of Mary Jane Kelly’s murder. However, I do believe that Kelly is much more likely to have been a victim of the ripper than Elizabeth Stride.

He’s a painter not a killer!

Posted in Uncategorized on April 28, 2009 by dbloss

Sickert was most certainly not the infamous killer.  He may have been a tad bit obsessed with the case, but that doesn’t make him a murderer.  Granted he did paint a few interesting subjects, there is no evidence to really point to Sickert other than a few works of SUBJECTIVE art.  Cornwell’s so called “DNA” tests do not prove anything.  Even if one believes that Sickert wrote a letter or two to the police that doesn’t make him a killer.  It may make him a pathological liar, but it does not prove he killed anyone.  Sickert was an important person during this time and he knew a lot of prominent people.  I feel that someone as well known as Sickert would have been caught if he had attempted to go on a killing spree.

Kelly…maybe not?

Posted in Uncategorized on April 28, 2009 by dbloss

I don’t really believe that Mary Kelly should be considered a suspect.  I have problems with the location most of all.  The fact that she was killed inside says a lot.  The Ripper had up to this point been almost flamboyant with his victims, so why hide Kelly?  Why was the door locked?  Yes, she had her own place but most serial killers do not like to go out of their comfort zone and it seems as though dark allies were JTR’s comfort areas.  I think that the Ripper might have tried to lure her away from the house either to a bar for gin then he would have taken her to an ally.  Also, not to get into the multiple conspiracy theories, but we do not really know for certain if it was indeed Mary Kelly’s body.  I mean she was identified by her hair color.  For me, there are too many inconsistencies, more so with Kelly than the other victims.  

Witness…

Posted in Uncategorized on April 28, 2009 by dbloss

Hutchinson is an important witness that should definitely be questioned.  It is not necessarily the fact that he should not be trusted, but his description of the man was way too detailed. It’s the middle of the night and it’s dark.  How could he possibly describe in great detail the clothes this man was wearing right down to the horseshoe pin?  And why would he feel the need to follow Kelly and wait for her for “three quarters of an hour”?  It just seems a bit overdone.  I don’t believe Hutchinson as a suspect, I just don’t believe his eye witness testimony.

Yes Officer That Was The Man…Two Years Ago!

Posted in Uncategorized on April 28, 2009 by emilym90

Psychologists and attorneys have demonstrated the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony. However, prosecutors and investigators still consider witnesses to be very influential in a court room.
The JTR case is riddled with conflicting eyewitness testimony. However, one that strikes me as especially unreliable is the positive identification of Aaron Kosminski.
Although I believe that Kosminski is the most likely ripper candidate, this does not change the fact that his identification was extraordinarily unreliable. Although the name of the witness remains unknown, Sugden suggests that it was most likely Joseph Lawende. Not only was it dark during his witness acount, but he positively identified Kosminski two years after Kate Eddowes was murdered. Did I hear that right?
Furthermore, after the murder, Lawende stated that he would not be able to recognize the man again and that he only had a “short look at him”.
Despite the circumstantial evidence, it is still possible that Lawende was not the witness that identified Kosminski, and it is important to keep this in mind when considering this witness.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.