|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 633
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 2:23 pm: | 
|
Hi Helge,
"Those are "solid" evidence (compared to simply making up theories today). To me, the "simple" solution is that they actually witnessed the same man. I mean, what are the odds of having two Rippers that even looked similar?"
The trouble is that witness descriptions are usually quite unreliable, as anyone with experience in that field might tell you. So unless it involves one or more outstanding features, which is/are preferably described by more than one witness, I wouldn't want to put too much faith into them.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Frank, have you seen the other descriptions? It runs the gamut from sailors to men in astrakhan coats! |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 80
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Frank,
Actually that was why I wrote "solid" and not solid.
There is very little solid evidence in this case at all, thank you for reminding me. Perhaps Jack never even existed. Perhaps he was the Crown Prince of Norway. Or the missing Dauphin.
(I hope the irony is clear enought)
Actually I agree. Witness descriptions are quite unreliable. But surely we can agree that both descriptions are reasonable similar (not quite, but that is to be expected!), and that this at least point in the direction of the POSSIBILITY that there was ONE killer. Statistically speaking I would find that reasonable as well.
The Jewish connection is there in words\writing\location.
It COULD be coincidence.
I cannot dispute that. So if you need ironclad evidence all I ever will say is:
There were women killed in Whitechapel. A person or persons unknown killed them, as it seems unreasonable to think they committed suicide.
I will not even stretch myself to say I know they all were prostitutes.
Sincerely Helge
(One extra caveat, Stride could possibly have managed suicide, if Diemschutz or others stole the knife) Hahah
(Message edited by helge on June 07, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 81
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Oh yes, one more thing. From my previous statement follows that anything else I write here is to be considered theory only.
Point is that isolated there are many weak points in my chain of thought, but it all adds up, and that strenghtens every link.
!!!Still only theory though!!!!
I hope I did not sound too pissed, Frank. Go ahead and comment as much as you (or anyone else) please
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 634
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Diana & Helge,
Lawende and Schwartz may very well have been describing the same man, that’s perfectly possible. But my point was simply that, because of the fact that witness descriptions are usually unreliable, I wouldn't lean too comfortably against them, using them as an argument or basis for any theory. But, that's just me...
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood (in 'The Rookie')
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 613
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
On descriptions, one thing I find interesting is that if you take any given suspect for whom we have a picture of some sort (photo or sketch:
Druitt, Barnett; Tumblety; Sickert are examples,
Then you can almost always find a witness description of jack that fits them. Writers always seem to seize on this.
Even Lord randolph can fit Mr Astrakhan, although one wonders whether that suggestion arose from someone looking at the famous drawing based on Hutchinson's description, and noting its similarity to Lord Randolph than vice versa.
I don't think descriptions in this case are worth much, except as the vaguest guide, UNLESS they relate to something else that is important to a theory. But in most cses we cannot be sure that the person described was actually "Jack". Schwartz may have seen someone entirely different (Kidney perhaps) and Hutchinson may have made his up!!
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 84
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
Frank, Phil
I know what you mean, and I hear what you say.
But you miss the point. The point is that certain indications (let me try that word then) points to a certain interpretation, and if you have several indications pointing in the same direction, that actually strenghtens each indicative (oops I almost used the word fact) indicative..indication.
It is still only a theory. But I'm using the eye witness reports here only in the widest sense. I do not use any detail. I simply say that they sound so alike, that it might be possible that the witnesses actually saw the same person.
I said: It might be possible.
Then, when you think about it. How many killers were about that night looking so similar that witnesses gave almost identical descriptions?
Two? Three? Or perhaps only one?
Now you are going to say that we do not know that the witnesses actually saw the killer.
I can't prove they did.
So you win.
Actually no. Because all I am saying is that we have a theory which fits with the facts..eh..indications..as we know them. And that is all we can hope to achieve! Maybe we might eventually prove some of this, if the theory is accepted at least as possible.
So I dare you. No, even double dare you..to say it is not at all possible.
(my emoticons don't work, but I'm smiling..)
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3499
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Helge,
Sorry, I am with Frank and Phil on this one. Witness descriptions is just a too blurry tool to use to draw any conclusions from, unless they corroborate each other on very extraordinary details and features.
(By the way; the emoticons seldom works for me either, but I usually write their HTML code and there is a list for this in the Help section; and to do a smiley all you have to do is to write : and then ) with no space between them.)
Frank!
What a great tag line! Haha.
I haven't seen that particular one; I must rent it immediately.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 08, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 616
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Helge - I think I understand where you are coming from.
Logically, it is very likely that Jack was seen around the times of the killings. Thus, it is likely that we DO have witness descriptions. The problem is to separate sheep and goats (ie reliable ones from unreliable or mistaken).
Where I agree with Glenn and others is that deciding - simply because two descriptions APPEAR to match - that they are of the same individual could be dangerous and misleading. They might simply be very general descriptions of two different men, phrased in a similar way and one that emphasises similar features.
Where i think witness descriptions might on day have a bearing is if we were able to nail down a known individual, of whom we have photographs, as a very strong suspect on other grounds - say a Tumblety, Druitt or Sickert - and then show that the descriptions very closely match that individual.
It would not PROVE anything at this distance in time, but it might strengthen or dismiss a case.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 86
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Frank, Phil, Glenn
But I am also with you on that one..
Don't you see it yet?
I was hoping someone could comment on how far we reasonably could extrapolate a POSSIBILITY here. If I had evidence I would not hang around these boards, I would write a book!!!
Actually I think we would NEVER be able to nail anyone on witness description alone. Never ever. Not in a million zillion years.
And why I brough in the witness reports here was just to do exacly what Phil said: to "strenghten or dismiss a case".
In my mind, as weak my case is, it IS certainly strenghtened by the witness descriptions.
But this is not getting us anywhere. I KNOW what you know.
I'm not stupid, guys. LOL
Helge Samuelsen
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 87
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:43 am: |
|
I forgot to add that no one have yet said that it is impossible!
So..
Triple dare you!
Oh, and Frank, my phaser is not set to stun.
Hahah
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 08, 2005)
(Message edited by helge on June 08, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3501
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
"I was hoping someone could comment on how far we reasonably could extrapolate a POSSIBILITY here."
And I think I just did. OK, I'll elaborate.
Very little possibility -- if any. In fact, not enough to make it worth-while to prove an argument with.
Sorry, but the witness descritions available in the Ripper case does not -- in my view -- take us very far even for the sake of speculation. I can't see any argument really being strengthen by the witness descriptions -- the only one I find interesting is Elisabeth Long's and possibly -- but only possibly -- Lawendes, but since they don't corroborate that much and we don't even know if any of these were the Ripper, I'd say it's a rather problematic effort.
See, the emoticon worked...
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 89
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
Thanks for your opinion, Glenn.
I was looking for some reference to Jewish radical socialism, but no one wants to discuss that.
I had a theory based on that where the similar eye witness reports was included. Not as evidence, but as indication.
Surely you agree that the more links that seem to fit, the more likely the proposition is, and the more the links strengthen eachother statistically?
No, I'm NOT saying that I know my theory was right. I'm not saying that I even think it is probable.
But theories being stopped discussed because someone questions one link, and stick to questioning that very same link, was exactly what Diana talked about on:
../4920/18236.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3502
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Oh sorry, Helge,
My mistake. I have been a bit of a sloppy reader here lately and I think you were the one that brought up the thing with the witness descriptions -- it never occurred to me that the issue was about something else. Sorry again, my mistake. But you could have expressed that clearer in your two last posts.
No, I have no opinion regarding radical socialism, really. Apart from the fact that I see these murders for what these types of crimes usually are -- personal murders committed by one perpetrator (usually) and done for psychological reasons, not political motives. I can't see why the murders should be directed towards any political or racial group. But, just my view. Besides that I have no elaborated opinions about such a theory.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 92
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
No offence Glenn!
I know why you did not catch what I was talking about, because it kind of boiled down to discussing witnesses, and even I was not discussing politics or the lack thereof anymore.
That was the problem.
But anyway. I was just airing a theory based around Berner Street and Arbeiter Fraint, trying to connect it to the Lipski! shout and the graffito.
I know your opinions on the graffito and Stride, and I concede that my views are only experimental and hypothetical at this point.
But always good to talk to you, old Buddy. (well, old???) If you are ever around Tau, pop in for a taste of my home brewed mead!
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3504
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Helge,
Thanks for the invitation; I most certainly will -- I love Norway but I am not there often enough. I will try and improve myself on that part.
I will probably move to England very soon, or else you would naturally get an invitation to Helsingborg as well.
And Helge, it is OK to say "old" -- heck, that is how I feel anyway.
Nice to speak to you too.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 635
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
“I know all (well, much anyway) about the need to be careful about witness descriptions. This is not what I want to hear.”
So I’ve noticed. Despite the smiley's you threw in, you actually did sound pissed, which was a bit of a surprise to me. Fortunately (for myself), I don’t take offence that easily (or I easily forget about it), because like the Bee Gees sang, “It’s only words.”
Why your reaction surprised me is that, a number of posts back, you yourself asked people’s opinions about the likelihood that the men seen by Schwartz & Lawende were actually one and the same. And so I did, and got a bucket of sarcasm poured out over me.
But, while it may have been stupid of me not to see what you actually wanted, I think it a tad strange that you didn’t expect people to react to that specific request. If you would simply have said, ‘Let’s for the sake of argument suppose that so and so were true, how do you think that could be explained?’, then you wouldn’t have been irritated and I would have needed a change of clothes.
But OK, let’s move on then. Let’s suppose (if that is what you want) that Stride and Eddowes were both killed by Jack the Ripper, that the shout of ‘Lipski!’ was indeed uttered by him and that the graffito was from his hand. That would be the simplistic view.
It’s possible that some or more Jews had wronged Jack, which caused him to at least dislike them, but like Glenn said, the motivation for such murders are usually psychologically based, so I don’t think he was politically motivated, nor do I think he was into radical socialism.
The anti-Semitic upheaval may very well have influenced him in some way nonetheless, and if it did, I think it would be in a way the alleged Nazis and UFO’s influenced Richard Trenton Chase. Perhaps his twisted perception caused Jack the Ripper to think the Jews ordered him to do what he did. Which might explain the small and rather enigmatic graffito.
By the way, in Dutch the meaning of the graffito wouldn’t have been such a problem. The double negative ‘not… for nothing’ is very commonly used today and among other things it means: ‘with good reason’ or ‘not in vain’.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood (in 'The Rookie')
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 95
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
I'm a stubborn one, so I'll try to explain my theory again.
Actually it is not so much my theory, as even Begg was on to this.
Actually he wrote:
"..it is remarkable that two of the murders that night should have been committed close to the clubs largely frequented by Jews, that both victims are said to have done occasional cleaning work for Jews, that in the one case there was a cry of 'Lipski!' and in the other that a piece of the victim's apron should have been dropped below a piece of graffito concerning the Jews"
Now, the two victims of the double event could have been killed by two separate killers. Sure. Possible. But slighly more complex than having one killer. And here is where the eye witnesses comes into the picture.
Since two reports match pretty good, that might INDICATE that it was in fact actually just one killer at large that night. Had they been wildly different that would have INDICATED that perhaps there were two killers.
No certainty. Only indication.
The SIMPLE scenario is then that there were only one killer. Not two. It is backed up (but not proven) by witness statements.
(I know it is still possible there was two killers, but that is not part of this particular theory. I would still mention that we have some differences in the killings, first and foremost that Stride was not mutilated. (cutting her throat was not mutilation, but a method to kill her) We also have some similarities, however, but I will not go furter into this. As I said, it is not part of this theory)
Because, to work, this particular scenario must have one killer. If two killers can be proven, then the scenario is wrong.
It is possible, even without the witnesses, that there was only one killer. That cannot be disputed (one may disagree, but it cannot be proven)
So. One killer. I did not say I could prove there was..
Simple scenario (this is what this thread is about. No?): Schwartz sees someone attack Liz. Proposition (meaning theory, as In NO I don't know for sure) given the few minutes between this attack and her death, the simplest solution is that it was actually Jack that attacked her.
Opinion alert! But it is based on "simple" as opposed to "complex" thinking.
The attacker shouted Lipski! This is anti-semitic.
If my proposition is correct, then this INDICATES that Jack had anti-semitic sentiments.
Stride was attacked close to premises that housed the Arbeiter Fraint, a Jewish Radical socialist paper that had its printing and editorial offices at 40 Berner Street. The same premises also housed the International Workingmen's Educational Association (Berner Street Club)
We have, even here, a Jewish element. Was Jack in the vicinity because of his political views?
Later on he kills Eddowes, carries part of her bloody apron to dwellings populated by..Jews. And just above the apron is a message that mentions..Jews..and blame.
Was he an anti-semite? Did he try to blame it on the Jews? If he was, he would hardly have been the only anti-semite in London! The times were rife with political discussions. This is not just speculation. He obviously frequented part of Whitechapel where such political discussions took place. He did not live in a vacuum. Odds are pretty high that he might have been an anti-semite.
We have an anti-semitic utterance.
We have an anti-semitic graffito.
Coincidence? Your guess is as good as mine. I say that I go with the simple solution. It all fits together, because it is no coincidence. This IS the simple solution.
I am NOT saying that he killed his victims because he was an anti-semite. I'm NOT saying that he killed Jews (obviously he did not) I say he might be an anti-semitic killer that eventually coupled his little "hobby" of disposing harlots into his dislike of Jews, probably thinking that to blame it all on the Jews was a good idea.
And so did Arnold and Warren!
Sir Charles Warren reported:
"I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost.."
And if so, Jack might have grinned.
The wiping of the graffito was, even though we lost vital pieces of that information, probably a wise decicion after all.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 599
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Frank,
"Not for nothing . . ." is also acceptable English since in that case the double negative is more or less an intensifier. However, something like "I didn't do nothing" is not proper English. The meaning of the sentence is that the speaker did nothing and would correctly be rendered "I didn't do anything" or "I did nothing."
And that is where the graffito causes trouble to Anglophones. Had the writer intended that the Jews will be blameless, than "nothing" should have been replaced by "anything." As it is, the two negatives -- not and nothing -- cancel out and produce a positive assertion the Jews are blameworthy.
Question is, was the writer just grammatically incorrect (either as an Anglophone or not), was he striving for a rhetorical flourish that failed, or is it possible that writing in the dark he didn't notice he'd already thrown in one negative?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 96
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Frank,
Just read you post. Its pretty late, so I need to be short.
Apologies for sounding pissed. I was not, just slightly annoyed. But honestly, the witness-statements in there were such a small part of it all, and nothing else got mentioned!
(yes, yes I'm whining, I know!)
Its hard to interpret emotions through the written word sometimes, and I often find myself sounding too hard on reading my own stuff later.
Again, that is just me, and I'll try to sound a bit more mellow in the future.
Ok, I tried to explain myself once more, and if there is any "sarcasm" there I apologize. Actually it is just my rather weird sense of humour that kicks in, not real sarcasm. But then you'll have to know me to know that.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
And I promise, that was not irony, nor was it sarcasm!
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 08, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 636
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 2:59 am: |
|
No worries, Helge - speak to you soon!
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood (in 'The Rookie')
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 99
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Here is a simple statement.The Killer gets up from his chair,puts on his coat,places a knife in his pocket,pats the cat on the head,says,"I'll be back soon",opens the door and goes into the night.
The perplexing part.Did he turn left or right,after closing the door?
This is how I see this case.Some parts may allow for a seemingly simple answer with only a few alternatives,then we have the graffito with maybe only a couple of alteratives,and it invites a torrent of explanations.
No!,I can't prove he had a cat. |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
However, "I didn't do nothing" (prononced nuffink) is perfectly normal Cockney for "I didn't do anything", even if it ain't proper English. I don't know how common it is now, having moved out of the area 15 years ago, but it was the normal way of speaking when I grew up in the 50's and 60's, and if Dickens is to be belived was also perfectly normal 150 years earlier.
The natural simple meaning (of either way the GSG is recorded), if the writer was speaking it in a conversation, would be - "Don't blame the Jews for no reason, because they will get angry / offended / take revenge" So, if the writer was JTR and using local dialect, he would in fact be saying, "Don't blame the Jews, it was ME!"
I've gone for the simple explanation here, but I do not assert it is the correct one.
Regards
Pete |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 102
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Pete,
Best explanation I've heard until now. If it is true, it certainly has the added benefit (from my point of view) of making it more plausible that Jack was actually the author! (one more indication)
But that is besides the point.
I would imagine it reasonable that Jack spoke an East End dialect, so this would really be a simple explanation. And also one that seems highly likely.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 103
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Ok, Just wanted to amend my thoughts on this issue, based on Pete's interpretation on the meaning of the GSG.
If it did mean "Don't blame the Jews, it was ME!", this would strenghten, IMO, the notion that Jack was an anti-semite. (Thus it would also reinforce my previously mentioned working hypothesis)
Also, it would strenghten my previously stated assumtion that Jack must have been influenced by the press. He was, in fact, his own copycat. He needed to be the "Jack" everyone was talking about.
If Jack was indeed an anti-semite, then it must have been annoying that there existed theories that the killer was a Jew.
And hence, it all makes even more sense to me than before. Lipski! Because Schwartz looked Jewish. The GSG because HE was Jack, and the Jews should certainly not get his "glory".
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 09, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 630
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:28 am: |
|
Sorry, Pete, but my interpretation of the double negative remains, "The Jews did it!", or "It was the Jews wot dunnit!!"
However, the problem doesn't end there:
If a Jewish or east European immigrant was Jack - a man like Kosminski - even the ungrammatical phrase and the round schoolboy hand would probably have been too much for him;
Had Druitt or someone like him been Jack, then the double-negative would not be natural. The wording would have to be disguised, but then the message is too inarticulate for a man of that class. We would expect, IMHO, attempts at "mockney" or something similar akin to the more famous letter such as "Dear Boss".
So at either extreme of the candidate range, I don't see this as being convinving.
And as for a local lad like Barnett, I don't see the message as relevant.
This graffito was, in my firm opinion the product ofan East End anti-semite (of which there were demonstrably plenty up to the 30s and probably still are). It pre-dated the apron fragment, though probably only by a few hours and was directed at the inhabitants of the dwellings either in general or in particular.
Phil
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 104
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
Phil,
Finally we agree on something!
"This graffito was, in my firm opinion the product of an East End anti-semite"
Yes, Indeed, this is very reasonable.
Of course, where we do not agree is that I think Jack WAS that East End anti-semite, where on the contrary you think he was not.
Fair enough, I guess. My earlier proposed scenario was an attempt on a brainstorming to put together what evidence (or indications) we got to either back up or discourage that idea.
On the complexities of Cockney dialect, I am obviously not an expert. The complexities of the English language itself baffles me at times 
For that very reason I do take the interpretation of someone familiar with the dialect in question (Pete) very seriously!
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
He was, in fact, his own copycat. He needed to be the "Jack" everyone was talking about.
I have suggested this in the past and I still think it fits very well with such a killer's supposed mentality - fragile ego and self-obsession.
I believe Mary Kelly's murder could have been a statement reflecting what he thought the public was expecting "Jack the Ripper" to do next.
Love,
Caz
X |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 106
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Caz,
Re Mary Kelly, exactly what I was thinking as well!
With such a huge media coverage, it would be surprising if he did not actually evolve his own self image according to what was expected.
After all, he probably suffered from Narcissist Personality Disorder in some form, and in his eyes, his self importance was paramount.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Hi Phil
I agree that the meaning I suggest would only be natural if a Cockney, or someone who had learnt English from a Cockney, wrote the message. This would rule out 'toff' candidates, and those so recently immigrant that they could not read or write clearly.
The phrasing is, however, reasonably natural for Cockney vernacular, and would be highly unnatural - or at least atypical - for a 'properly' (by LVP standards) educated person. This is a period when local dialect would be highly frowned upon by the upper classes. So, if one is proposing a toff as JTR, one has to have an explanation for why the message was written and spelled the way it was - not necessary for a local. Or, of course, point out that the message may well not be connected at all.
So, I was putting forward a 'simple' explanation. Many complex explanations could be devised, but then we are into the speculation of 'building a case' against a particular suspect.
Why was the graffiti seen as so inflammatory? Presumably because the police, well versed in local sensinbilities, would not like the implied threat of the Jewish community taking action to clear their name and thus disturbing a precarious peace.
As an aside, if one believes in the message and the 'Dear Boss' letter as genuine JTR utterances (and obviously I say 'believes' as there is no conclusive evidence) do we think the standard of literacy is compatible?
Regards
Pete |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 637
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
But Pete - the graffito could simply have been pointing a finger at (some or all of) the Jewish inhabitants of Wentworth Dwellings who had offended the writer in some way. Far more understandbale than some obscure link to JtR IMHO.
As for local dialects being frowned on, I would remind you that the great Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India and later Foreign Secretary, spoke with a pronounced Derbyshire brogue. He pronounced beano (beeno) as BE-ARNO (as in "Let's have a Be-arno!" and "brass" and "glass" to chime with ass, not arse.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 637
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
I don't know about the Narcissist Personality Disorder. Personally I think these type of murders imply someone suffering from some form of paranoia or paranoid schizophrenia rather than NPD.
Such loners, as I'm sure you know, have low self-esteem, distrust and dislike the world and hate women in particular and to a large extent live in a world of their own. The murders themselves probably relieve the stress that has built up inside the killer before each murder and the media coverage will probably even feed his self-esteem to some extent, but I doubt if their self-importance is paramount in such killers.
The fact that the Ripper was depicted as a blood thirsty maniac, a true monster, may have influenced Jack in such a way that it shortened the time between each set of murders (meaning that without media coverage it would have taken him longer to strike again) and may have caused him to take the mutilations a step further each time, but I think Mary Jane's mutilations were mainly influenced by the time he could spend with her body.
IMHO the Ripper may have derived satisfaction realising that his 'work' would be viewed by at least a number of police officers and doctors, but I don't think that notoriety was number one on his priority list, nor do I think he thought much about what 'the outside world', as he may have seen it, expected of him.
These are just my two cents, of course.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood (in 'The Rookie')
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3554
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Helge,
"With such a huge media coverage, it would be surprising if he did not actually evolve his own self image according to what was expected."
And with such a huge media a coverage, it would be surprising if someone else in her own environment actually wouldn't be inspired to perform such a crime. It is interesting to note that the authorities at the time, had a genuine fear of that the vast and detailed coverage of the crimes and their extreme nature would "influence weak minds".
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 110
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
Frank, Glenn
The NDP is only a possible explanation, not unreasonable though. The sufferer of NDP have a tendency to consider other people objects rather than persons, and does focus on his\her own importance. But that is in their private little world within. Psychology is complex, and they may still be everything you (or we) attribute to them in "reality" (what IS objective reality, anyway)
All this is an intellectual excersize to try to make a theory based on known facts, inferred probabilities, and some speculation. I will defend my position, even if I do not consider it "fact", though, so be warned (although sans the sarcasm in my new and improved style)
Frank, I totally agree on the Mary Jane case. Although a desire to do "worse" must be psychologically based, it is still relying on opportunity. The psychological factor is merely an addition to that.
Glenn,
I agree!
But as this is an intellectual excersize I choose to look at other possible scenarios. Everyone agrees that there might exist copycats, but what about Jack? Surely he was not unaffected himself!
What I am proposing, and that is hardly unlikely, is that a serial killer will actually interact with his environs. If the media makes him a "monster", then he might actually start believing in this himself. A person suffering from NDP is even more likely to do so, IMO.
I'm not saying there were no copycats. I'm just trying to connect the Lipski!, the Graffito etc into a "holistic" scenario that may or may not be accurate. For this theory to work Stride needs to be a Ripper victim. By connecting such elements in the case, I am actually endangering my own belief that the Graffito was written by Jack. But that is the purpose of this little game.
If we can show that certain things are probable if connected, but less probable if not, then we can more easily build alternative scenarios.
I would not be surprised if we one day could prove that Stride was killed by someone else. But for now, this is only theory. But if it WAS in fact proven, IMO, it would also apply that it becomes less likely that the GSG was written by Jack.
As I say, for now it is an intellectual excersize, where I play the devils advocate.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 11, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:25 am: |
|
Hi Pete,
I don't think you can necessarily rule out an educated person from writing the graffito. Look at the Lusk letter; there are plenty of indications that the writer was deliberately dumbing down for the exercise (which also makes sense if it was a medical student's prank).
If the Lusk letter was genuine, then I think the graffito may have been a similar attempt by Jack to pose as someone he wasn't, whether it be a Cockney sparrer or semi-literate Irishman.
Love,
Caz
X |
manricopacana
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Peter,
I agree.The graffiti seem to mean something,some event was blamed on the Jews and the jews won't take it lying low,they will strike back.
By logic it seems connected to the apron below,like this murder is in response to the blame.
It's seems a good way to put blame on the jews.It sounds like it came personally from a jew.
It also sound like,for a jewish (killer) writer, to say I'm making a stand.
It puzzles me why the killer did'nt bring the apron with him together with the entrails.Going home,getting caught with the entrails with or without the apron would'nt have made much of a difference.He managed with it for a few blocks.
Although he would have to burn it to get rid of it at home.But perhaps he did'nt live alone. |
manricopacana
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Or they are not the type of people to lie low I might add |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Frank,
Much agreed. Witness accounts are almost completely unreliable. Especially when you take into account certain variables. The fact that it was dark, and light at the time was not very ample. The often intoxicated state of the witnesses. These are just two. And even if someone was last observed in the presence of a victim, what exactly does that prove? Nothing. They could just as easily have been yet another "john", in an endless string of johns that piticular victim saw that evening. For all anyone knows, she could have performed her duties, been paid, and walked around the corner right into the Ripper himself. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page