|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through May 08, 2003 | Robert W. House | 25 | 1 | 5-08-03 10:31 am |
| Archive through August 03, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 8-03-03 11:07 pm |
| Archive through August 08, 2003 | Frank van Oploo | 25 | 1 | 8-08-03 8:32 pm |
| Archive through August 12, 2003 | Jon Smyth | 25 | 1 | 8-12-03 9:49 pm |
| Archive through August 14, 2003 | Robert W. House | 25 | 1 | 8-14-03 6:30 pm |
| Archive through August 16, 2003 | Robert Charles Linfo | 25 | 1 | 8-16-03 9:53 am |
| Archive through August 23, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 8-23-03 6:37 pm |
| Archive through August 26, 2003 | Jeff Hamm | 25 | 1 | 8-26-03 11:00 pm |
| Archive through August 28, 2003 | Andrew Spallek | 25 | 1 | 8-28-03 11:17 am |
| Archive through September 01, 2003 | David O'Flaherty | 25 | 1 | 9-01-03 1:23 pm |
| Archive through September 05, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 9-05-03 3:43 pm |
| Archive through September 10, 2003 | Alan Sharp | 25 | 1 | 9-10-03 7:26 am |
| Archive through September 11, 2003 | Joan O'Liari | 25 | 1 | 9-11-03 4:52 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 6:25 am: |       |
Hi RJ,
Are you going to publish this hot potato?
It sounds like a great read.
Love,
Caz |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 11:42 am: | |
Caz--Hi. Just a theory, just a theory.
In response to local wisdom about Grizzly bears. I think the difference would be a matter of expectation. Stride knew about the Ripper's past performance: Hanbury Street. With Kidney she had survived his assaults before; they never involved a knife, evidently. As you rightly say, though, this is merely my speculation. Cheers.
P.S. I see I got the dreaded red star. I stick to the point, however. Time has this frustrating tendency to move in a linear manner. Everything we see is in the distant past. There is no way of interviewing witnesses, gathering forensic evidence (despite Cornwell) etc. I You can't show Schwartz a composite drawing. I don't refer above to writing objective history, only in relation to how one might go about "solving the case." |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 2:24 pm: | |
Glenn, Caz & all.
A bit of dull post about historians being brutes...
You see, I’m interested in the theory behind history---the philosophy of history, if you will. How does one come to decide that they ‘know’ something about the past, when they have no direct access to it? When one is faced with a historical ‘puzzle’ what is the best way of going about cracking it? Can it be cracked? Are we stuck with mucking around with probabilities?
At a thousand different points in the history of these crimes, one is face to face with a heck of a lot of unknowables.
My image of a historian being a brute, and "beating out a confession" is a repulsive one, and I’m remiss. But I had a point (really). I don’t mean it as an insult. I actually love historians.
But since we have no direct access to the past, my outrageous implication is somewhat valid. How does the historian proceed? How is anyone going to “solve” the Stride murder? Is it “solveable”?? Is the crime historian Glenn Andersson correct in thinking that I am entirely insane? Or am I wrong.... should Historians really use the same methodology as Lawyers or Logicians?
To some degree, yes, of course. I hope that would go without saying.
But what about when the going gets rough?
Widely disparaged these days is Patricia Cornwell--she (it is said) “fitted the suspect to the crime.” It’s an extreme example. But I’m asking (not telling) how else does the historian go about his or her business?
Heresy of heresies, was Paul Begg or Dan Farson stuck with doing the same sort of thing?
Well, of course there is an immediate and important distinction!! For one: In Kosminski and Druitt we have a historical precedent for suspicion...both men were named by police officials.
Further, Begg & Farson, being true historians, are circumspect about their conclusions. They proceed with caution.
Still -- moving cautiously forward myself--- isn’t the historian to some degree ‘beating out a confession’ when he probes into these men? Now, let's put Saddam aside,--who’s ideas I’m interested in, despite all apearances to the contrary---because he is claiming to solve the Stride murder on the strength of the extant historical record, using logic. I’m interested, but skeptical.
The rest of the common run of sane men and women might well admit that the extant case evidence does NOT contain the necessary information to come to a definite conclusion...
I’m being a bore, I suppose. But if this is true how do we proceed? We can’t produce Schwartz and have him identify Kidney or Kosminski or Druitt There isn’t even any direct evidence that Schwartz identified anyone. [Let’s not debate this at the moment]. And we certainly don’t have any blood or dna or fingerprints.
Since conclusive evidence is outside our grasp, Begg, Farson, and every legitimate historian of the case is stuck, somwhat, in having to yard their suspect into the jail for questioning, --as I so brutally put it. Digging through historical records, one tries to discover what manner of man Druitt or Kosminski or Kaminsky was---Did Kaminsky live in a whore-house? Did Druitt have a mother complex? Can we exclude them by discovering an alibi? Can we uncover a history of violence?
At other moments, we might attempt to ‘fit’ the suspect to the ‘case evidence.’ Does Druitt’s known appearance fit with Lawende’s description? Does our reason and logic allow us to conclude that Lawende saw the killer?
Moving directly to the Stride murder, no one can now question anyone. The “evidence” is pretty miniscule. Wolf makes a sophisticated argument based on the post mortems (and the geography of the parish, etc.) that this might not be a Ripper crime. Seems ligit to me.
Eveyone agrees there's room for doubt. Great doubt. How then do we proceed? What is a legitimate course? Saddam states that Kidney’s presence in Berner Street is mythological. Future research aside, the presence of Druitt, Tumblety, Kosminski, or any other suspect in Berner Street is mythological, too, with the asterisk that Schwartz theoretically could have identified Anderson’s suspect. It seems to me, then, that this brutish historian (snort) might find it not altogether unreasonable to haul Kidney in for questioning. How do you do it? There’s only one way, really. Fit the blighter up. Research Kidney's past, look for violence, scrutinize his inquest statements. Sigh. Yes, it has the Cornwellian flavor, to some degree.
It's unsatisfying.
Nor do various critics of theorists do much better, really. Showing that Anderson exaggerated about J.S. Parnell doesn’t prove he exaggerated about his witness. Proving that Druitt played cricket on given dates or successfully practiced law doesn’t disprove that he was ‘sexually insane.’ It does, though, give us food for thought.
I don’t even like it, to be honest, fitting up Kidney. But I can’t particularly see how this is world’s apart from Begg or Farson's approach, or, even particularly see how discovering that Kidney was treated for syphilis in a workhouse in 1889 is less relevant than Cohen being treated for syphilis in 1888.
Alas, it’s not a happy situation. It’s a bitch, really.
That’s why I wonder whether or not history is fundamentally different than logic or law.
The logician can’t argue that Kaminsky living in a whore house has any direct bearing on the case whatsoever. And the lawyer wouldn’t even (in most circumstance) be able to introduce it into court as “evidence.” But this, I somehow feel in my gut, doesn’t make the research entirely irrelevant. I dunno. History is a slippery snake to wrestle with. Sometimes the theorist in question has little choice: he or she has to grope, dig, speculate, and toil, and then (one hopes) fall-back on fair-mindnesses in order not to be called a “brute” by the likes of me.
All that sh*t about Kidney might not be part of " the case evidence" but it is part of history, and 115 years is a great leveller in regards to what is evidence and what is not.
No answers here, only questions.
RJP
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
Lots of food for thought here.
I guess it comes down to personal choice again, and what one finds more satisfying - or perhaps less unsatisfying. Do we feel better if we fill the gap in the historical record, even if it means 'fitting up' our own idea of a legitimate suspect? Or are we ultimately happier to accept the gap, knowing that someone who could be entirely innocent (and this applies to each and every possible suspect in an unsolved case) hasn't been wedged in where he may not rightfully belong?
I'm guilty of feeling more comfortable filling the Stride gap with a nameless man who most certainly killed at least once that night, and not happy at all to fill it with Kidney, who may never have used a knife on a woman. Ditto with Kelly and Barnett.
To me, if the picture is left with gaps it is a sign of our ability to accept our limitations. What does it say about us if we are more pleased with ourselves for filling the gap with a possibly innocent individual than we are for being able to admit there is no real case against him and moving on?
Love,
Caz |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 240
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi Palmer,
Don't fall off your chair now, but I was actually the one giving you four stars for that last entry. I actually found it to be a very sensible and interesting post.
I am actaully a bit confused, because earlier you have stressed the importance of leaning against evidence, and now you admit that there are a great deal of uncertainties in the case. However, I have never stated you to be "insane"; I may disagree with you on several points, but that kind of personal attacks would be over the top.
Could the case be solved? I find it very doubtful (and as I've said in my profile page: do we really want to...?). I have some knowledge of criminal cases from the 19th century and I think the loss of modern crime scene investigation methods, the subjective tone of the news papers (although they on the other hand were more detailed in their information than they are today), missing files, the lacking of photograhs etc. etc., makes it almost an impossible task.
I'm not that much of a theorist, though, although I'm edjucted at university, I rely more on the empiric approach -- not necessarily because I think it's better, but because it personally suits me more. Of course the common sense approach has to be the next step from empiric studies. But although I'm originally a historian, I also think it's interesting to use modern methods to study old cases and to raise new questions where facts doesen't get us any further; that is why I think criminal profiling, although its controversiality and its elements of subjective interpretations, has something to offer here -- among other methods. Since the material we have is sparse and is pointing in different directions, I think it's a good plan to use these means during an investigation. That is also what ordinary police investigators has to do; they can't just solely depend on facts, they also have to interpret them and think out possible scenarios. That's the reasons for my interest in human behaviour, psychology and criminal profiling. And my belief fin the "gut feeling".
I don't think the research into a person's history and character are that Cornwellian. What she did was that she used the result in a way that I think was quite dishonest and academically flimsy plus that she claimed her own personal thoughts and speculations to be facts -- saying "this is how it is".
Nevertheless the research into the lives and characters of the individuals has do be done, I feel; the question is how one intend the interpret these facts or results -- and use them. It may not show the whole picture, and it may not give a solution. But it adds a bit more understanding of the persons involved.
Then what are we to say about the modus operandi? Well, we have two problems, as I see it. How much can we trust these doctors' experience and knowledge (with our measurements) and we must also face the fact that they are sometimes inconsistent and contradictory. That doesen't mean that we should ignore them, God forbide, but how much can we rely on them as true facts?
The same can be said about the witness statements. Some of them -- like Schwartz -- aren't backed up from that many other sources, and some are evidently results of seeking attentions. I have also myself experienced how witness descriptions can be completely worthless, when eight out of ten people mostly describes the same individual totally different, due to the fact that we all have different references. But should we totally disregard them? I think not, but I sometimes fear they are given too much credit.
But my point in the researchers using the same standards as the police or the lawyers in this case, is only meant to be applied when one tries to stress a certain suspect, and claim that one has found the thruth. This is my personal view on the matter, of course, but I think it's only fair when one is poitning at a certain individual to convict him or her of a murder. In Sickert case we have relatives still alive, and I also think that if someone is bold enough to do a suspect-oriented investiagtion -- which I find totally wrong and problematic in the Ripper case -- one must also be prepared to reveal compelling evidence. As we know, this is almost impossible, and I think this also shows the problem with suspect-oriented research. Only by finding new facts and interpret them from our own perosnal points of view we can come closer to the thruth. But it'll just be more or less valid speculations, but is what we have to draw our logic from.
A true historian studies the facts and circumstances from an objective point of view (this is not always the case in academic circles, but it should be), not by choosing a suspect or theory and then manipulate the facts, which most authors have done in this case. Gladly there are some exceptions to the rule. And I firmly believe, that the non-suspect oriented books are the one of biggest value to the case.
Now, if personal interpretations lead to disagreements, well that's the nature of these kind of studies. And I certainly don't agree with Wolf in his conclusions about the geography of the parish, and it's validity in Stride's murder. Some serial killers do have their own comfort zones, but I never understood why this couldn't include Berner Street -- but this is my interpretation.
"Are we stuck with mucking around with probabilities?"
Yes, I do believe we are. We may have to satisfy ourselves with the boring fact that there are no real truths here, and nothing really can be proven. All we have is our own personal logic and interpretations. Sounds flimsy? Maybe. But I'm afraid that's what we're dealing with here. And that may also be one of the reasons why the Ripper case has such an attractive flair to it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 12, 2003 - 9:59 pm: | |
Blindness! Blindness! If we're left with dealing with probabilities, with what coefficient of probability are we going to say the case is solved? If it is 80% probable that the man Schwartz saw was Druitt, and 28% probable that Druitt could have been in Berner Street that night, we are already down to 22.4% probability! Are we going to pronounce with only 22.4% probability anything at all that's useful to anyone at all? Probability doesn't cut the mustard. So think: What would? And that is the A?R.
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 245
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2003 - 8:11 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
"If every detective started by saying "if I don't have proof that it happened that way then I'm not even going to consider it" then no crime would ever be solved."
Couldn't agree with you more.
I'm not sure at all that Kidney could be identical with the man seen be Schwartz -- he could just as well be anyone -- but if he was, your alternative suggestion is a s good as any. The problem with the Schwartz testimony is that his observations -- like many others -- are not confirmed by anyone else; he was also a scared witness, according to himself, and therefore we must raise questions about its reability. How much of the scene he witnessed was the actual event and how much was his own emotional interpretations? But we can only speculate on basis on what we know -- to a reasonable degree...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 5:31 am: | |
Hi Guys,
Thank goodness,I have read a couple of posts, that allow freedom to speculate, to a acceptable degree, I thought the word speculation, was becoming a non starter to the vast majority of posters on these boards.
The basic facts must always hold firm, but the key is trying to interpret them in different ways, to hopefully gain access to the truth.
Every good detective has to have a imaginative mind, which enables him to delve into his case, from a lot of angles, to go strictly on A,B.C, facts, although one should always start with them, would result in a lot of cases past and present not being solved.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 246
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 9:03 am: | |
Hi Richard,
You are absolutely right. Now, I don't want to put you off in any way, but the Barnett connection -- which you represent -- are just based on pure speculation, not any real stated facts at all. I naturally haven't taken part of all of the material you and Leanne are using, but based on what we now, it is interpretations from speculations, not from facts -- there is a difference, I'm afraid. I wish you good luck with the book, though, I'm looking forward to it and it shall indeed be an interesting read.
Otherwise I agree you. Every good detective has to have a imaginative mind, which enables him to delve into his case, from a lot of angles. Please note that I don't want to disturb this thread with the Barnett suspect -- he has his own threads -- I just wanted to make my point regarding levels of speculations.
Now I'll go off on my holiday, so you good people out there are on your own for little more than a week (did I hear a sigh of relief and polyphonic cheering from Jon Smyth and Mr. Palmer?) 
You others -- Robert C Linford, Andy, Caz, Jeff, Rob H and Frank -- see you when i get back, and hang in there!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
Hej Glenn,
God semester! Have a good holiday! In one week's time I will be off too; I'm going to South Africa for a couple of weeks. See you after that.
Vi ses! Until then!
Frank
|
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 24
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 11:05 pm: | |
I thought the word speculation, was becoming a non starter to the vast majority of posters on these boards
Richard,
I agree, there should always be room for speculation in any enquiry, especially in this case where the evidence is so cold and fragmentary. Where many pieces of the jigsaw are missing, some imagination is needed to at least generate appropriate lines of enquiry if not to solve the puzzle. The problem comes when speculation is couched as accepted fact, particlarly when such speculation is aimed at the general public by a well known author. At least on these boards claims of "case closed" or unsubstatiated and illogical conclusions are questioned, if not attacked.
Neale |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 68
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 12:57 am: | |
Saddam,
Ummm, what you've presented would be pretty good reason to argue for Druitt actually. Let me put it this way, what you've suggested is that there's little reason, but not no reason, to believe Druitt would be in the area (the 28% likely to be in the area). However, you then suggest there is a lot of reason to believe that Schwartz actually saw him (80% likely to have been Druitt).
Now, this is obviously not conclusive since we have defined a 20% window of error for Schwartz's identification. But still, if Schwartz's identification is correct, and we have an 80% chance of this being true, then since there is little reason for Druitt to be in that location (62% likely to be somewhere else), his actual being there makes his presence very suspicious. And then, since he's seen assaulting a women who's later murdered (according to Schwartz), and since if he was the Ripper (as suggested by some), your presented probabilities go a long way towards raising suspicions against Druitt.
Of course, I recognise the values you presented were just made up, but you're using the probabilities in a way that doesn't quite fit for investigative evidence weighing. There's an entire area of probability evaluations that uses this kind of input to decide if the data is "supportive" or "disconfirming". It's called "Baysian probability theory", and comes from an area of the philosophy of science called "confermation theory".
Anyway, what it does is factor in things like the probability of getting some evidence on the assumption a theory is true and factoring in the probability of getting that same evidence even if the theory is not true. After performing a few calculations, one ends up with a "probability that a theory is true given this new evidence". You compare this with the probability that the theory was true before the evidence was included. If the weight for the theory goes up, the evidence is "confirming", and if it goes down, the evidence is "disconfirming".
Now, the big problem is how does one decide on the "probability that Schwartz saw Druitt?" and what is the probability that Druitt is the Ripper? Baysian stuff works well in theory, but it's awfully hard to put it to practice.
Anyway, if you are interested in such things, have a look for a text on Baysian statistics. It can be hard going (and exceptionally dry reading), but you may find it interesting.
- Jeff |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
Saddam--
"Dec 26th Takes food better now, but still only in liquid form.
Dec 28th Kept apart from other patients as patient is restless and agitated. Incoherent and rambling. Chiefly speaks in German.
Dec 30th Not so restless. Sleeps better at night. No violence recorded.
1889 Feb 5 Since last note has had several small boils on his arms near wrists which are now cured. Continues in an excited state, but not to such a degree as before..."
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
'...I would like to know in what way my scenario "directly contradicts" Schwarz's statement, which I was under the impression I had been careful to keep to as exactly as possible.'
Schwartz's testimony was directly contradicted numerous times in your scenario, in ways in which by the doing so you destroy the usefulness to others of your theory. You cannot write for public consumption, without shooting your readers in the eye just by so writing, material like the following:
1. The idea that Schwartz saw Stride arm in arm with anyone. He did not make any report of this.
2. The idea that Schwartz saw a man dragging Stride across the street. He did not make any report of this.
3. The idea that anyone called to the Pipeman from across the street from where the Pipeman was. Schwartz says that all four of the cast of characters were on one side of the street until he (Schwartz) crossed over to the other side, making three on one side and one on the other side. The Pipeman was never located across the street from Broadshoulders as far as Schwartz's account goes.
4. The idea that the Pipeman and Stride were seen together at any point in time by anyone. Schwartz is clear that he didn't even see the Pipeman until he (Schwartz) had already crossed the street, and his crossing of the street happened after he (Schwartz) arrived on the scene, and after Broadshoulders had thrown Stride down. Broadshoulders throwing Stride down has nothing to do with the Pipeman's presence, as far as the eyewitness account of Schwartz is concerned. The Pipeman was not near Broadshoulders when this event happened. The Pipeman in fact may never have even seen Broadshoulders throw Stride down, as far as Schwartz' report goes--the Pipeman may have happened on the scene only after this happened. Plus, Schwartz says the Pipeman was located down by the Nelson, not near the IWEC, and not even in front of Matthew Packer's store, which was located between the Nelson and the IWEC.
The idea that Schwartz is reporting the Pipeman together with Stride is a clever misrepresentation of the case evidence.
This is how I see your account in my mind. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
RJ,
Please explain what your above message means. Seems to be referring to Kosminski somehow. What did you mean by posting it?
Thank you.
David
|
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 6:43 pm: | |
Further to my previous post (which hasn't appeared yet so it may turn up after this one), regarding which side of the road the pipe smoking man was on, I have been reviewing all of the police and home office files.
According to the Home Office report (HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 110-11) "a statement had been made by a man named Schwartz to the effect that he had heard a person who was pulling about a woman identified as Elizabeth Stride 15 minutes before the murder off Berner Street took place call out 'Lipski' to an individual who was on the opposite side of the road." Again, this sounds very like the two men seen by Schwartz were on opposite sides of the road.
Robert Anderson said (MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, f 207) that the name Lipski "was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself" and Charles Warren repeats this (HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 200-01) "the opinion given upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name 'Lipski', which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself." It is surely not logical that Schwartz could have made a misjudgement about who the cry was addressed to unless he and the pipe smoking man were located somewhere close to each other, ie on the same side of the road as each other after Schwartz had crossed it.
The only reference in the police files I can find which might indicate otherwise is Abberline's report (MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, ff. 204-6) "There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe." However it isn't totally clear whether Abberline means on the other side of the road to Schartz or on the other side of the road to "the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman" who is mentioned at the end of the previous but one paragraph, Abberline in between saying also "I questioned Isreal Schwartz very closely at the time he made the statement as to whom the man addrssed when he called Lipski, but he was unable to say."
There is absolutely no mention in any police or Home Office report that I can find for this second man being located by the Nelson. The only place I have seen this is in the Star report where it mentions that "a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off". However the Star report contradicts the police reports in many respects including claiming that Schwartz "saw a knife in the second man's hand."
Anyway, the main reason for posting this is not to try to prove myself right in any way (I have said several times that my scenario was pure conjecture aimed at showing that it "could have" occurred a different way and not that it did), but because one line in two of these reports jumped out at me straight away. In the Anderson and Warren reports it is the mention of "the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest." In none of the existing reports of the inquest that I have seen is there any mention of Schwartz giving evidence. Yet Anderson and Warren both seem to think that he did. Can anyone shed any light on this? |
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 10:55 am: | |
Saddam
Your corrections
On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski'
This is from Schwarz's report. I take this to mean that the second man is across the street from the first man. Schwarz saw him "on crossing to the opposite side of the street". The first man shouted out "apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road". How does this indicate that the two men were on the same side of the road?
As to the other points, I never at any point suggested that Schwarz saw the pipe smoker arm in arm or together with anyone. I suggested that they may have been together earlier. As to the dragging across the road, I have already admitted that to be an error, when I wrote the post I was under the impression that Schwarz's report said that the man dragged her across the street and threw her down whereas it actually says he tried to drag her into the street then threw her down. That was indeed incorrect.
The police report I have seen from Schwarz does not specify exactly where the pipe smoking man was. If you have a more complete police report I would be interested to read it. If your information is coming from the Star report, I disregard this as newspaper reporters at this time frequently added information which had no basis in fact (and the Star was particularly guilty in this regard). |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 5:08 am: | |
'If your information is coming from the Star report, I disregard this as newspaper reporters at this time frequently added information which had no basis in fact (and the Star was particularly guilty in this regard).'
This is the second time recently that I have seen this mistaken impression that newspaper reporters are likely to be better these days at getting their facts right and sticking to them without misinterpretation, embellishment or fabrication - they are not.
I'm afraid we can never take newspaper reports at face value - then or now. Even the journalists who write them can find their words changed considerably by the time an article appears in print.
Love,
Caz |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 77
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
Hi All:
I suspect six. Tabram and the five canonical However I feel there is a strong possibility there were more. I believe given the nature of the attack, Emma Smith is not a credible suspect. Jacky worked alone in my humble and neophyte postition. Tabram was his first One weapon used. Stride I believe was a victim anad Jack was interrupted. Everyone makes valid points here but I agree with SAdaam that we must be grounded in the evidence if we're ever to solve this case. Thanks for the intellectual stimulation! Glenn, are your writing in print in the US. Neil |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
Hello,
I too, agree with Neil that ol Saucy Jacky killed
Martha plus the five canonical victims. I do believe he killed Liz Stride and was interrupted by Deimshutz. He was probably just getting aroused when the horse strolled up. Not having
climaxed with Stride, he wasted no time in finding good ol Catherine....who he obviously took out some frustration on. I hope ya'll will pardon my analogy here, but its kinda like sex...in that you're almost to "that point" and someone bursts in the door.
I also think that JTR could have possibly had a botched attack with Annie Milwood. Whether he killed Mckenzie or Coles is debatable. I tend to think that they were not JTR victims, but you never know. So my answer would have to be SIX. Best Regards,
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:33 am: | |
Hi,
Uuuuh, seems like thousand years ago this thread was active.
Sorry, Neil, so far I have only published stuff in Sweden, if that's what you mean. It has been roughly translated in English quite recently, though.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
