Life in Whitechapel

LLOYD’S WEEKLY
The London Hospital

15th April 1888:-

“Malvina Haynes, who received very serious injuries to her head and scalp on the night of Bank holiday, has been from that time until this week lying quite unconscious at the London hospital, no sounds but moans having escaped her lips.
The sufferer has been under the care of Mr. George Haslip, the house-surgeon, and on Tuesday the patient, upon regaining consciousness, was only able to briefly to relate the circumstances of the outrage.
It appears, however,  that on many points her memory was an entire  blank : and when questioned  as to what her assailant was like, she replied, “I cannot remember; my mind is gone.”
The hospital authorities at once communicated Detective-sergeant William New, who  has charge of the case, and certain information,  which casually passed from the woman’s lips may perhaps lead to a clue respecting the would-be murderer.
Mr. Haynes, the husband, who is a hard-working house painter residing at 29, Newnham-street Great Alie-street, Whitechapel, has expressed his deep sense of the unremitting skill and kindness his wife has received from the surgical and nursing staff at the hospital, and from a statement which he has made, it appears that his wife, himself, and some friends spent the Bank holiday together by seeing some of the sights of the metropolis, and in the evening Mrs Haynes returned with them to their home.
She went out later on, and screams were shortly heard in the vicinity of Leman-street railway station.
A constable found Mrs. Haynes lying insensible on the ground, in a pool of blood.
Besides her brain being affected by the injury, Mrs. Haynes is suffering from a scalp wound of rather an extensive character.
A man who was said to have been near the unfortunate woman at the time of the occurrence, and who resided in the district, has since left the neighbourhood. The police hope that he may come forward, as his testimony might aid the ends of justice, by relating what he saw of the outrage.”

Thinking allowed, and aloud.

Okay, the difference between mass killers and serial murders is apparent. The first explodes into rage and kills suddenly and violently knowing he will be caught, killed, or intends suicide.
The serial killer is driven, ‘not by a slow-burning rage that erupts one day in a single, cataclysmic act of gun-crazed vengeance—but by a profound sadistic lust, a terrible joy in inflicting suffering and death on helpless victims.’
Therefore, the question is: why did Jack the Ripper kill women so quickly they hadn't time to cry out or show defence wounds – Mary Kelly excepted.
So what did he gain from slaying? It’s almost as if the women aren’t important. Okay, they’re not important in any serialists’ actions, but Jack the Ripper didn’t inflict pain on his victims – he didn’t torture them. He dispatched the women quickly, much as a slaughter man kills an animal in an abattoir – speedily and as humanely as possible. So what was his motivation if it wasn’t the fear on those women’s faces?
Just knowing he could kill and get away with murder? Showing his power, but to whom was he displaying his prowess? Not the women. They were no sooner in is orbit than he killed them. He was showing off his ability to capture, control, and escape, to who? Proving it to himself? He didn’t doubt his skills. His belief in his abilities caused him to place himself in sites of maximum danger – Two police constables Mitre Square, with minutes between beats. An ex-policeman worked as night-watchman, and a policeman lived on the square. It was a contained location, with just three exits, two of which encompassed the beats of the two officers on duty. The third exited into St James Place where a night-watchman oversaw a building site, and just to add to the potential difficulties, St James Place was the site of a manned fire station. Miller's Court had but one escape route.
Jack the Ripper was displaying his bravado and demonstrating his ‘skill’, but who did he seek to impress, or ridicule? Was he saying, “I outwit you.’ And consequently, ‘I am smarter than you.’ To whom was he shaking his peacock tail?
So, the question is: who is The Boss?
Even if a newspaper marketeer wrote the Dear Boss letters, who did the journalist (when he adopted the Ripper’s persona) think Jack the Ripper wrote to when he dipped his pen in red ink?
Boss: A person who exercises control and makes decisions. A person with control over workers. What was the organisation or company?

Mary Jane Kelly

No it isn't Mary Kelly, even though she has several internal organs at her feet. It's an Anatomical Venus. The “Venerina” or “Little Venus” wax anatomical model by Clemente Susini, 1782. Photo by Joanna Ebenstein at, appropriately enough, The Whitechapel Gallery. Courtesy of the Palazzo Poggi, Bologna, Italy. 2010.

Dear Boss letter

The 17th September letter isn't written by the same author as the Dear Boss letter of the 25th September. It isn't just superficially different but structurally distinct. Strange, considering the 17th September missive used language similar to the Dear Boss letter!

A herd of Marys

The most popular ten female names in Ireland of the 19th century, in descending order, were Mary, Bridget, Margaret, Ellen, Catherine, Kate and Annie. Kelly was the most common surname after Murphy. So Mary Kelly is the Irish equivalent of John Smith. Of course, that doesn’t mean Mary Kelly wasn’t her birth name, but if she wanted to hide it’s easier amid a shoal of Marys and a herd of Kellys.

And she certainly recoiled against the moniker, stating she was really Marie Jeanette and not plain Mary Jane.

During most of the 19th century, the most popular given names in England were Mary and either John or William.

She stated she married a Davies whose first name was John. Davies is the 2nd most common surname in Wales and 8th most common in England. Oh, and her brother Henry was called Johnto or John too. Seems plain Mary Jane had rather a theme going here.

If she wanted anonymity she certainly succeeded. The question is, as always, why?

And just to add to the anonymity she says her father's name is John (Kelly) – or John Smith if she were English. I don't believe her.

What's that mean?

I’ve endured several days of pedestrian research – e.g. what is the burn time of a bull’s eye lamp? Google has discovered every ‘for sale’ lantern on the planet. ‘Burn time’ linked to, and dredged various torture sites.  But never mind. I’m basking in the afterglow of discovering the meaning of that GSG word.

So blindingly-bloody-obvious, but it only appeared after an indirect search. Certainly wasn’t looking for it. It doesn’t mean Jews, feminine, woman or yours.

Lesson learnt: disregard consensus thinking.

I’ve completed three chapters of my book – times it by ten, and it’s finished.

That chalked message

This is a map showing the tangle of alleys en route from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. Something slightly amusing about several of the narrow alleys called Hutchison. The killer could have discarded Eddowes’ soiled apron anywhere in these back streets

. But he didn’t. The killer wanted that apron found, which means he was making a declaration. Flinging down his gauntlet, alright in this case apron, and it served to underline that chalked message.