|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 9:57 pm: | 
|
Have we been diligent in putting the question of the "missing dates" to our best suspects? Have we perhaps a suspect who we know was prevented from murdering on dates when a murder should have been expected?
One suspect -- Druitt -- has a reason for missing two of the "missing" dates. The "missing" dates, i.e. the dates when a ripper murder would have been expected but none were committed were:
October 12-14 (second weekend of month)
October 26-28 (final weekend of month)
November 30-Dec 2 (final weekend of month) We tend to forget about this date because we know the murders ended with Kelly. But wouldn't the murderer have been expected to strike again at the end of November?
Druitt visited his brother at Bournemouth at the end of October, explaining the lack of murder then. Druitt, of course committed suicide probably on Dec 1 which might mean that he selected himself as the last victim. The earlier October date is conjecture but I have suggested an explanation in my article in the July Ripper Notes.
I think we have too often failed to ask the question about the missing dates. If we had a strong suspect who we know was prevented from murdering on those date, the case against him would become stronger yet.
Andy S. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
I agree that the missing month of October is very intriguing, and the failure for the end of November follow - up is equally intriguing.
I was always toying with the October problem as due to the Ripper being sick somehow. Possibly (although I can't tell this would be a fact or not) because he had (as was said in that letter) eaten half of the kidney he cut out. If the kidney was diseased it would not have been something that Jack would have been unprepared for. And if he was asked why he was sick, or what he ate, he would have been precluded from talking about it. I could see (under this hypothesis) that Jack would have been deadly sick for part of October. Guessing the actual cause, he is very likely to have had an increased animosity to prostitutes. It would explain his literal dissection of Mary Kelly.
As for the failure of late November, a recurrence of his illness (possibly with fatal consequences), or death by other causes (suicide, murder, and accudent included), or even jailing or going abroad could be a reason. Too many possible reasons unfortunately.
There is another one I have mentioned from time to time. How was he to top the murder of Mary Jane Kelly? What more horrendous thing could he have done: Possibly killing a prostitute in the daytime in front of hundreds? Or attacking a prominent west end figure of loose morals (say like Lily Langtry)? Or going after a prominent female social figure? Anything one thinks of is more prominent, but they are all far more dangerous for the killer's safety than what he had done so far.
I think (literally) he had shot his bolt.
Merry Christmas
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5434
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Well, Jeff, I suppose eating the kidney would have made him ill, but if it was the reason why he couldn't kill until Nov 9th, then he must have eaten it just before sending the Lusk letter (as he was well enough to write that). But in that case he must have waited a couple of weeks between the Double Event and sending the Lusk letter, to eat the kidney. It couldn't have looked or smelt appetising, and he must have had a strong stomach!
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 3004
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Well, Robert, at least we have one suspect verified by the Metropolitan police as not being traceable on the nights of all the murders.
Thinking about that seriously, it does mean that this suspect cannot have been confined to an asylum during that period of 1888.
The police would have known that. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2734
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
I picked that up myself Ap- a little while ago.But as you indicate this may be more significant than has been thought up to now.
Natalie |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 707
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm not one but some in here don't think Kelly was a Ripper victim. If that's the case, then Lull-Schmull.
In either event however, the question still has to be asked; why did the killer stop? Another possibility is that he was scared straight and quit voluntarily because he was almost caught. Despite the tenets of the FBI, some serial killers have stopped or at least greatly postponed their next attack (a lull) because they where nearly captured. Some also seem to quit because they get too old but I don't think Jack was around long enough to fall into that category.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that my kidney theory was too difficult to prove to be worth developing. I asked my personal physician about the problem about the eating of a diseased kidney, and whether it could lead to ptomaine poisoning or not. He thought I was crazy asking.
Possibly, provided hospital records for all the leading hospitals of 1888 England still exist (extremely doubtful), one might track down somebody with a gastrointestinal problem that was nearly fatal, and was not too cooperative about how it happened. But it is extremely unlikely any of this is remotely possible.
Which is why I don't push the theory, or even write about it.
Sadly defeated,
Jeff |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 840
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:46 am: |
|
I'm afraid this all assumes (and you know what assuming does) that there was a pattern, something which I don't buy at all.
First off, if you are saying the pattern was last weekend/second weekend, then how do you reconcile Nichols and Chapman to this. They were killed on consecutive weekends. Therefore if you are taking the Nichols weekend as the last of the month, then the Chapman one is the first, not the second, and conversely if you take Chapman as the second, then the Nichols weekend is the first.
Furthermore you then have the days of the killings. Friday - Saturday - Sunday - back to Friday. In this period the majority of people worked six days a week, and in this area a good proportion of them worked seven. So Friday morning can hardly be called the weekend. If you throw in Tabram, which many proponents of this theory do, then you've got a Monday to factor in as well. It just doesn't work.
"The sun machine is coming down, and we're gonna have a party."
Visit my website - http://www.alansharp.34sp.com/weblog/
|
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi Alan,
You've got some good points. First, I was using the term "weekend" in the modern sense. I assume that most laborers worked 6 days a week in London in 1888. In America at least, the 5 day work week didn't come about until the early years of the 20th century. That in itself tells us that the killer was almost certainly not an ordinary laborer. He must have been either unemployed (e.g. an unincarcerated lunatic), employed in a trade with irregular hours (e.g., sailor), or a member of the professional class (e.g. barrister, doctor) or aristocracy.
With regard to Nicholls and Chapman being on consecutive weekends -- my goodness but you are right! I never caught that before. That does weaken the pattern. But you still have a pattern of "early month -- end of month" which was noticed at the time. Yes, it could have been coincidence. There just are not enough killings to tell for sure.
Regarding Tabram, I do not consider her to be a Ripper victim -- though I admit it is possible and that would further confuse the pattern, although it still fits the "early-late" monthly pattern. For example -- it's never the first two "weekends" or the last two "weekends" or even the middle two "weekends."
In spite of all this -- if we had a known suspect who was not able to commit murders in early October, in late October, and in late November that would strengthen the circumstantial case against him. Druitt fits the last two of these "missing dates" as he is visiting his brother at the end of October and commits suicide at the end of November.
Andy S. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
I know this thread concerns "missing dates". However, there is something i would like to ask concerning Druitt.
How sure are we that he played cricket on the day of the Chapman killing? Are we just assuming he was in the cricket team that day or is there more concrete proof? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
