|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 53
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 6:17 pm: |       |
Hi Frank. Here comes a long one, so sit back, have a pint and take a deep breath. 
Glad to see you back. The board has unfortunately stagnated during the last couple of days with few interesting discussions, but maybe it's due to the awful summer heat, I don't know.
You're absolutely right in defending your views -- why shouldn't you? Nice to hear you're reading my posts, even if we appearently have different opinions about the case.
As for the character of the killer: As I see it, the fact that he -- more than once -- took enormous risks during the murders and took the time to trying to decapitate his vitims and cut them up under those conditions, actually shows that he is disorganized and not at all sane. A clever killer -- who plan his killings -- would probably choose other locations and better circumstances to "work" in. This has also been indicated and suggested by FBI-profilers John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, and even if criminal profiling isn't a science in an ordinary meaning, I believe that they have a good point, a point which also marked my first insticts regarding the Whitechapel murders when I first started study them. There are more "sick" features in the nature of the murders than organized and cunning, in my opinion -- that is what I see when I study the morgue and crime scene photographs.
Now, regarding the murder sites: I hear what you say, and you are absolutely right in pointing out the movements through the yard or in and out of the club, but it's not that different from the other sites.
Take Mitre Square, for example. At the time of the murder it was very quiet, but it was frequently patrolled by police constables, as well as the near-by streets -- the killer managed to meet his victim, kill and mutilate her in a few minutes between the police rounds.
If we don't count Martha Tabram or Mary Kelly in this context (although I claim that Kelly was a Ripper victim) all the killings took place right on the street, and just as in the case of Dutfield's Yard, it was sheer luck someone didn't pass by and walked right into the whole thing, even if those streets were calmer. You must also remember that the singing and noise from the club on Berner Street probably made it easier for the Ripper to act; if there was any cries from the victim they probably wouldn't have been heard -- and noone did hear anything. Because there was an event taking place in the club that also means that people's attention were focused elsewhere than into the yard. So I would say that the circumstances on this site wasn't harder than on the other ones.
You see, Frank, to me there are high-risk elements of some sort in all the crime scenes (besides Mary Kelly's), namely that they all were committed on public places or streets -- even if the Berner Street murder took place besides a building full of people and life, there were different risks connected with the other sites, and the fact that a murder site is quiet doesen't necessarily minimizes the risks -- on the contrary would there be no distracting noise or activity to hide the murder behind.
Just take a look at the murder site in the yard of Hanbury Street (Annie Chapman), there were two similarities with the Berner Street site:
1) It happened in a yard
2) It happened just beneath a building full of people. In Chapman's case it was no party or noisy event that took place, but otherwise the circumstances here were just as harsh or daring as in Berner Street:
* There were 17 residents in the building, many slept with open windows,
* The murder happened ca 5:30, the sun had began to rise so it was not at all as dark as in Dutfield's Yard -- far from it,
* Due to the late time of killing, after sunrise, some of the residents had already woken up and had begun their daily work (so there was already a lot of activity) -- the hall-way corridor that went through the ground floor from the street to the yard on the back were frequently used and several times during the night and in the early morning people actually passed through it and were in some sort of contact with the yard. So this was an incredible high-risk site.
So that is the reasons for why I don't find the conditions on the murder site in Dutfield's Yard that significant or different enough to rule out Stride as a Ripper victim on those grounds.
Jack the Ripper took unusual risks, and that to me indicates that he wasn't that smart -- the cunning part lay in the fact that he managed to escape, but that could just as well be a result of that he knew the alleys and streets inside out (as a resident in the area) and also had quite a bit of luck. I'd say he was a random killer who murdered on instinct and possibly had periods of insanity. That he carried a knife doesen't have to be that much of a big deal, considering it's East End and Whitechapel we're talking about (crude and violent areas) and it would also fit such a person's profile quite well. And if he, in addition, had (or have had) an occupation which included knife-work this detail becomes a even smaller problem and doesen't have to indicate pre-planning at all.
All the best. 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 8:40 pm: | |
There is one consideration which might have some relevance.
If the killer was a local, and likely this was so, then he would also be aware of the frequency of policeman patroling the area.
'Jack' does not need to know every beat and 'time' the police, not that they were expected to be always on time either, but I suggest 'Jack' knew where he was and that a policeman was expected to pass by with some frequency.
The prostitute he eventually locked onto was, I suggest, more able to tell how long a particular policeman took to walk his beat.
All she had to do was watch from a distance, like for instance from the bottom of St James passage (Mitre Square), for PC Watkins exiting the Square. From the shadows she peeks around the corner and waits till Watkins leaves, then she takes her client across the square to the darkest corner and "...well, m'dear, we've got abaht 10-15 minutes, so lets get started....."
The prostitute in each case is on her regular beat and although she cannot know the specific times that any patrolman will appear, not like clockwork, but she should know within a minute or two how long each copper takes to walk his scheduled beat.
I suggest that because I think it is within their interests to know such details as a consequence of conducting their business in less than 15 minutes.
It appears that where we have details of police beats they seem to be based on 15 minute intervals. The pros. would know that, I am sure, so 'Jack' was not necessarily as lucky as we might at first think.
The pro. already tells 'Jack' when the copper is due back and therefore 'Jack' has some idea of a time window.
Seem reasonable?
Regards, Jon
P.S.
I am not suggesting the pros. carried a watch, more to the point, I think we have evidence that before the working class carried a watch they had a better grasp on the passage of time, an estimate was all that was required. |
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 9:42 pm: | |
I posted an essay a while back on the inclusion of Stride as a victim, which addresses many of the issues discussed here: location of the murder primarily. You can read it at http://www.roberthouse.com/liz.html
I was really hoping to get some feedback on it, but had no takers.
To me it seems clear that Stride is a JTR victim... I think one of the main people who support excluding her is Stewart Evans, who puts forth Tumblety as the suspect in his book Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer . It seemed to me that he excluded Stride primarily because it did not fit with his Tumblety theory. Evans in fact attempts to dismiss almost all of the witnesses who saw JTR because their descriptions do not agree with Tumblety who was 55 years old and much taller than the person described.
I agree that JTR was an unorganized killer and also a risk-taker, but this does not differ from Ted Bundy, who I would also describe as an unorganized risk-taker. But clearly he was intelligent. |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 10:46 pm: | |
Hello Robert.
Regarding your essay, you present a plausible scenario which in all honesty could be just as applicable to Michael Kidney, Jack the Ripper or any other smooth-talker with the same inclination.
There is nothing wrong with what you propose but in order to lean towards JtR as her killer it would help your case if you provided some details which a reader can recognise as 'his' unique, known (presumed), M.O., as perceived in the murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.
Not that there is much by way of certainty to go on but at least you would be nearer than you are with the essay as it is.
Let me give you an instance, the evidence suggests that in the attacks on Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, the killer (JtR) did not draw attention to himself by way of a scene in front of witnesses, shouting, pushing, & physically abusing his potential victim in open view.
Thats a negative, and it's a big one, against it being JtR. You have to find positives to counteract that activity.
Please do not misunderstand me, your suggestion may be close to the truth, but if you cannot differentiate the killers style (M.O.?) from any other potential killer then you are no further ahead. And, I assume, it is your aim to provide some support to bring Stride firmly onto the victim list.
As it stands, for me at least, the essay does not meet that objective.
Just a few points concerning the murder of Stride, (off the top of my head.....)
- Noisey exchange in front of witnesses.
JtR is not known to have drawn attention to himself in that careless manner
- Single knife-slash to the throat.
JtR apparently, in other victims, made two cuts to the throat, one short slice at the carotid artery to release pressure followed by one longer, deeper cut almost encircling the neck.
- No apparent attempt at choking.
each of the bodies of his 'known' victims all appear to display evidence of some attempt at restricting the breathing by some means.
I think we can accept the killer of Stride was interrupted so no need to mention 'no mutilation', but, as with the other victims, JtR apparently laid out his victims in an ordely fashion. Stride appear to have been cast or thrown to the ground. If her killer intended to mutilate her abdomen he certainly did not help himself by allowing her to be prettywell curled up the way she was.
In all honesty, I think the strangling, if we can call it that, with the 'known' victims had a purpose. It's purpose was to enable him to lay out the victim flat on her back, he was going through some sort of ritual (in his mind), he was methodical with this approach.
So, now we look at Stride.......not even close.
However,.....that does not mean Stride was 'not' a JtR victim, but simply, it may be extremely hard to convince others that she was. The points I mention are just a few that need to be addressed before you will win over any researchers who presently take an opposing view.
Sorry I did not see your essay earlier.
Regards, Jon
|
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 9:34 am: | |
Jon,
I appreciate your response. The essay was intended only to supply a plausible account of what happened, and to explain some of the unusual circumstances of the Stride murder. For example, I was always curious about why in Schwartz's testimony the man is seen pulling Stride INTO the street, as opposed to into the alley. Also, given other witness testimony (most notably that of PC Smith), it is possible if not probable that this same man (who is almost certainly the killer, if not JTR) was hanging around with Stride for a considerable amount of time prior to the murder. This at least is consistent with JTR's MO... ie, he did not just jump out of the shadows and grab his victims, rather he talked with them and convinced them to go to some dark location, etc.
Another point which should be considered however is this: I think it is highly likely that Stride's killer was not, in fact, interupted by Diemschutz, but rather that he decided to not perform any additional mutilations because he had already been seen by Schwartz. In his own mind, he was probably thinking that he had already botched the murder and was in danger of being caught. This fits in better with the timeframe anyways, because Schwartz saw the attack on Stride at 12:45 and Diemschutz did not arrive on the scene until 15 minutes later. |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:35 pm: | |
Hi again Glenn,
I hadn't really finished, but pushed the wrong button ('Post this Message' instead of 'Preview Message') . Probably due to sleepiness.
The things I hadn't mentioned yet with regard to the question whether we should see JtR as an organized or disorganized killer, were the Goulston Street grafitto and the Lusk letter. Mind you, I don't say that Jack the Ripper was responsable for these, but I think it would certainly mean something for this discussion if he were.
And hello Jon,
I didn't see your last two posts (the ones of August 10) earlier, but I agree with you on both messages, especially the one about the prostitutes estimating the time. Good point!
Goodnight all,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 10:48 pm: | |
Hey there Glenn,
As you suggested, I've sat back & had a pint  - it's not wise not to in this kind of wheather! - read your post and before I hit the sack I give you some reactions.
First, I agree with you that especially with Annie Chapman Jack took considerable risks, even larger than with 'Polly' Nichols and Catharine Eddowes. Perhaps he hadn't been able to find a 'suitable' victim earlier, but couldn't 'let go' either, meaning he just had to do it that night, which of course means that he wasn't all that cool indeed (the same as I at the moment, I fear  ).
Secondly, I'm not saying that I think Elizabeth Stride wasn't killed by Jack only because of the murder site itself. It's the whole picture that gives me that idea (no marks of gagging, no bruises on face, no mutilations, medical testimony regarding time of death, Mrs. Mortimer's story, agressive broad shouldered man).
Then, you say "that the singing and noise from the club probably made it easier for the Ripper to act". You're probably right. However, you thought of that sitting (hopefully) comfortably behind your computer and looking at it from that side, whereas Jack - if it was him - was the one who actually was about to commit a murder and I can imagine that he could have considered the noise not as something to hide the murder behind, but as an extra risk.
Another thing you say is: "A clever killer -- who plans his killings -- would probably choose other locations and better circumstances to "work" in." Taken at face value, this sounds logical. But, if you take a closer look a slightly different picture emerges once the historical dictates of Jack's urban milieu and restriction of movement are recognized.
Living almost unquestionably in Whitechapel or Spitalfields, he wouldn't have had a car, nor would he have had a home of his own (where he could have 'worked' without being disturbed). Furthermore, Whitechapel was a densely populated part of London whose topography embraced few places where a body might lay undiscovered for any length of time.
During the night there were still a lot of people in the streets. First of all, there were the constables to consider, walking their fixed beats. Then, there were people coming home (Alfred George Crow (MT), Mary Ann Cox (MJK), etc.), there were people rising very early to go to work (Charles Cross & Robert Paul (MAN), John Richardson & Mr. Thompson (AC), etc.) and it wasn't uncommon for people that couldn't afford a bed in one of the lodging houses to spend the night in the streets.
So, to come back to your remark that a clever killer would probably have chosen other locations and better circumstances -- there weren't any. Jack the Ripper didn't have a car in which he could have abducted his victims or to find better locations and circumstances elsewhere. He didn't have a house to where he could lure his victims and where he subsequently could have done with them as he pleased. There were no places to conceal the bodies. All Jack the Ripper had was the streets of Whitechapel with all its beat walking constables and its other 'nightlife'.
In addition to this 'closer look' a couple of more things need to be considered. First, there's the way in which JtR very likely engaged Annie Chapman & Catharine Eddowes into conversation, engendering no hint of fear or suspicion in either woman nor in Lawende and Long. Then, there's the fact that no signs of a struggle were heard or seen, no-one discerned anything even vaguely suspicious (not even Albert Cadosh or night watchman George James Morris), which seems to indicate a certain amount of control from the part of JtR. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 206
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
Glenn,
Beg to differ mate.
A clever killer adapts and utilises the situation.
A cautious killer plans.
We are trying to pigeon hole him again.
I still maintain thats dangerous.
Jon,
Yeah, the prostitues gaging the time works for me. Where would Halse ect fit into this ?
Monty
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 54
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
Jon!
An excellent point about the prostitutes keeping the time.
Monty!
It could be due to language difficulties, but I must admit I don't think I understood a shred of your last message. What was your point, really?
To me a catious and a clever killer is the same thing -- in this context. I felt like you would want to seperate them and put them against one another.
"We are trying to pigeon hole him again.
I still maintain thats dangerous."
Absolutely not. I think that is the only interesting thing we can do, since the facts are sparse and contradicting. Digging into misleadning and sunjective testimonies, though, I find less useful. It is, in my view, only by trying to focus on his character we can study his actions.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 55
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hi Frank.
Yes, the heat is tough to deal with, at least for me who is a winter person. Can't take this weather for much longer. 
"It's the whole picture that gives me that idea (no marks of gagging, no bruises on face, no mutilations, medical testimony regarding time of death, Mrs. Mortimer's story, agressive broad shouldered man)."
Well, that's just it. If the murderer was interrupted (or, as Robert W. House so splendidly pointed out, simply stopped because of fear of have been seen) I don't think there's anything of value that's excluding her from being a Ripper victim as the other points are concerned. With the interruption scenario in mind, the MO doesen't say that much, and we can't be sure that the man who was seen throwing her to the ground actually was the murderer -- there is nothing to incicate that this is a proven connection. So he doesen't help us that much either. And by the way, there were bruises, but beneath her shoulder. The differences in the throat-cutting could also be a result of interrution. All these circumstances could mean that she was killed by another one than ol' Jacky, but I find it highly unlikely; the basis for such assumption -- in context with the time factor in connection with the Mitre Square murder -- shouldn't be that easily disregarded. Coincidences happen, but nevertheless...
"However, you thought of that sitting (hopefully) comfortably behind your computer and looking at it from that side, whereas Jack - if it was him - was the one who actually was about to commit a murder and I can imagine that he could have considered the noise not as something to hide the murder behind, but as an extra risk."
That is absolutely true -- that must be taken in consideration in connection with everything we discusses here. However, I stand firm on my point here. Anyway, as I've indicated earlier, I think we give him too much credit for thinking. A random killer -- which I think he is -- acts mostly on instincts, whatever the conditions.
"if you take a closer look a slightly different picture emerges once the historical dictates of Jack's urban milieu and restriction of movement are recognized. [...] ...a clever killer would probably have chosen other locations and better circumstances -- there weren't any. [...] All Jack the Ripper had was the streets of Whitechapel with all its beat walking constables and its other 'nightlife'."
That is naturally true and good points indeed. However, we have accounts of how the prostitutes -- to the police's great indigantion -- put themselves in great danger by showing their costumers to secluded spots of their own free will, despite the risks. Mostly this meant small dark alleyways or stairways in houses wtc. I do beieve there were situations that could have been less diificult to work in than those displayed in the Whitechapel murders, the latter I find extremely tough and high-risk labelled. There were also prostitutes that were fortunate enough to have their own lodgins and took the customers home, as in Mary Kelly's case, and if he were smart enough, he would have turned to these women from the start. Finally, he appearantly did (if that was Jack) but that could also be a choice based of total instinct, as the conditions for him finally became too harsh, with inhabitants of Whitechapel more and more on the look-out for strange men.
Regarding persuation of the victims and the dicussion about they feeling safe with him, I don't think this is at all of importance. As Sudgen points out:
a) the women had to work, if they wanted to survive (ironically enough)
b) the usual way of having intercourse with the clients were to stay with the front against a wall or a fence (due to the wet and dirty cobble-stones), that is, with their back turned against the killer -- taking them by surprise them would therefore not be that hard a task to perform. There was no need for persuading them or talk them into the whole thing (it would in that case just be to make them accept him as a client, but I hardly think they could afford to be picky). So the discussion of persuation or how he talked his way into the victims is completely worthless.
Nice talking to you again, Frank. Now, let's have another pint.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 56
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 1:43 pm: | |
Hi again, Frank.
Just a P.S.:
About the Goulston Street grafitto and the Lusk letter, we can get back on this next time, but I just want to say, that I don't think Jack wrote that message on the wall (although I absolutely don't know and I think noone else can say for sure either).
I have mixed feelings about the Lusk letter, though. The best way to indicate if this was a hoax or not, would be to study the included kidney more thoroughly, which we unfortunately can't. There are a few indicators on why the letter could be genuin, though. I'm no hand-writing expery, but to me the the writing seems quite disorganized -- not by someone totally without education (the misspellings could be dialectal -- some has suggested Irish), but the most convincing fact lies in the fact that it's not signed Jack the Ripper -- most likely the killer wouldn't want to use a signature that others had created for him. But this is tough areas to investigate, and we can only guess and leave it up the experts to analuse it (I think I read an excellent hand-writing analysis of it on one thread here on the board).
When we don't know if it was written by JTR or not, then it's hard to draw any conclusions about his character from it, I'm afraid.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 554
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 2:44 pm: | |
Hi all
I don't know whether the normal police beat took 15 minutes (Long's was about 30 minutes, wasn't it?) but if it was 15 minutes, of course the prostitutes would have known that. I'm not sure that Stride and Eddowes were on their normal beats though - surely they were both a little removed from their normal areas. At least, no one in the murder areas seemed to know them.
I don't see Schwartz's man as being likely to have been her killer, because of the cachous. Was she thrown to the ground, but still kept hold of them? Or stayed around to pick them up, with the attacker hovering? Or went into the yard with him and then took them out, despite having been attacked by him?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 557
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 3:32 pm: | |
PS Glenn, could you email some snow and ice from the frozen north? I too am a winter person, and hate this sun with a Draculaesque hatred.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 57
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 5:46 pm: | |
Robert,
I'm afraid I have to dissapoint you. The "frozen north" is somewhat of a terrible myth; we've had 25--30 degrees Celsius in the shade now for almost two months -- and it's been like that now the last couple of years, with extensive summer heat way into september.
I, who live in Southern Sweden, haven't seen a white christmas now for over ten years!
If you hate the sun and the heat as much as I do, then you have found yourself a faithful confederate in me!
Sorry, I couldn't be of any more help, Gov.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 560
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 6:05 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
You have my sympathies.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 58
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 6:09 pm: | |
Thanks, Gov.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 9:03 pm: | |
Hello Robert, you raised a question....
" I don't know whether the normal police beat took 15 minutes (Long's was about 30 minutes, wasn't it?) but if it was 15 minutes, of course the prostitutes would have known that."
The length of the beat is not relevent, in some cases it was 15 minutes (PC Watkins), in others it was 30 minutes (PC Neil, PC Thain, PC Harvey, PC Long).
The point being made was that so long as the prostitutes were on their own turf, they would know how long it took for the local bobby to make his rounds.
Then you say...
" I'm not sure that Stride and Eddowes were on their normal beats though - surely they were both a little removed from their normal areas. At least, no one in the murder areas seemed to know them."
The only comment that comes to mind on this question is that made by Sir Henry Smith, Commissioner of the City Police.
"..The 'beat' of Catherine Eddowes was a small one. She was known to a good many of the constables,...."
Now, Smith does say her beat was a small one but you could argue that he does not actually say she was on her 'own' beat that night. That is possible, but I suspect it is implied in the wording.
And remember, we know relatively little from the City perspective as all their records were lost in the War (London Blitz).
Regards, Jon
One small point about the 'beat of a policeman.
PC Neil describes his beat as 12-14 minutes, one way, whereas PC Watkins describes his beat as a 14-15 minute circuit. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 562
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 4:16 am: | |
Hi Jon
Well, she may indeed have been on her own turf that night. I just feel it's a bit doubtful, as no one in the crowd when she was arrested knew her name, nor anyone at the station, where she got away with giving a false name. Also Watkins and Harvey didn't know her.
Against this though it's possible that no one in the crowd wanted to "snitch" on her, and her face was mutilated when Watkins and Harvey saw her. And of course someone somewhere knew her, because the news of her arrest got back to Kelly.
Robert |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 208
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
Glenn,
Sorry, sometimes Im not as clear as I should be.
You picked up on my opening statement about clever and cautious killers. Thats the point I was trying to make. They can be one and the same.
I have a gripe when it comes to people putting this murderer into organised or disorganised pigeon holes and making statements that he is not at all sane.
Yes, pigeon holeing (is that a word ??) is dangerous. One of my favorite quotes is from Harris's Silence of the Lambs..you know the one...A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. For me thats a warning.
It is, in my view, only by trying to focus on his character we can study his actions.
Again I disagree. I feel that by studying his actions we get his 'character' (if thats the right word).
Im sorry if I seem a little antagonistic, I dont mean to come across that way. I do agree with most of what you say...even if it doesnt seem that way.
Monty
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 209
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:57 am: | |
John, Robert, Glenn.
Couple of ponderers for you.
Long..new bloke to the area...would that have an impact on how long he took to patrol his beat ?
Halse and his cronies where on house to house duties in Aldgate..would the local girls (and our boy) have known this ?
Finally, Stewart P Evans (Steward to his pals) stated on the old boards that the beat PCs altered their times and reversed theirs beats (which is what Neil may have been doing when he estimated the length of his beat only one way..fairly early on though when you consider that he encountered Nichols in August) during the height of the murders ? Would this effect both Jack and his prey ??
Just something whizzing in my head.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 59
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Don't worry. I don't find you at all antagonistic, and, by the way, I quite like antagonistic people -- especially as I belong to the category myself... You're very welcome to disagree indeed, that's why I'm here...
Now, let's clarify this once and for all. The way I see it, the facts we have to help us study the actual events are fragmentary, inconsistent and hard to value. I especially find it extremely "dangerous" to cut witness statements down to pieces and make them more important than they really are for the sake of the investigation. Everyone who's a bit familiar with police work know that these indeed can be helpful to create a rough picture of what's happened, but also can be misleading, contradictory and not at all reliable -- in fact, they seldom are reliable.
As we are short of facts in the case (which also in turn can lead to unnecessary speculations), I therefore believe that the murderer's character is essential to investigate if we are going to see a pattern in his actions and therefore give us a hint of who his actual victims were and why he did it -- which in turn could make it easier to narrow down the suspects. I know you think this is rubbish, but that's how I feel about it and that's the way I want to approach it. And I don't feel it to be more "dangerous" or speculative than other methods being displayed here. And, by the way, I happen to be very much interested in criminal psychology -- for what it's worth.
BUT!!!  I'm very well aware of the short-comings and possibilities of errors with such an approach. I want to make one thing clear, and that is that I don't in any way see criminal profiling or psychology as a way of solving this case. Profiling can NOT be regarded as science in the correct meaning of the word -- I've said it earlier and I'll say it again. I think Hazelwood have expressed it best: "Criminal profiling is not a science, it's an art." And that's what it is -- an art. It's subjective and it's mostly based on experiences from earlier cases being solved.
But that doesen't mean that the method should be totally disregarded -- even if the psychological conclusions drawn by profiling automatically is generalizing in its approach, there are patterns in a killer's movements and actions that can be traced and studied. Some have said that in an old case like this, we have no use for it. That is false and I simply don't get it. Even if the orders of society (classes etc.) was different than those in our modern times, a killer's mind and psychological reactions and reasons are the same -- even if they lived under different outside conditions, they wasn't that different from any of us -- at least not in the 19th century. That's my opinion.
The terms "organized" or "disorganized" may have thier roots in criminal profiling, but that doesen't mean that they are useless in this context. We do have at least two categories of serial killers, those who are intelligent and in control (and very manipulative) and the "disorganized, those who are random killers, act on instinct and probably are more scizofrenic than psycopaths -- these latters could fall into the "not sane" area. Then there maybe is a third group, the one that is a mixture of the two. (Yes, these are generalizations, but sometimes these are necessary!) Which group one considers the Ripper belong to is a matter of taste, opinion and of how one interprets the facts. I, for my part, believe that he falls into group 2 or 3.
I'm sorry to -- once again -- be so  and round-about things and delivering such a long message on this thread, but since I've been commented on this detail a few times, I just wanted to state, that I by no means am naive enough to believe that psychology or profiling has all the answers (and God knows I'm no expert on the field). I don't believe at all that JtR was a sane person (his crimes and the the photographs of the victims shows that, I think), but to which degree he was insane -- or in what way -- is another question.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 60
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 5:48 pm: | |
Monty.
Regarding your question: I'm not the one to say whether they really did change or revearse their beat -- I've never seen that information before. Interesting.
Well, why shouldn't they? If they did, that could mean that they knew the prostitutes were keeping track of their beats -- which doesn't surprise me at all. These women were tragic figures and lived on the bottom, but to survive you probably had to be shrude and keep one step ahead of the police. If you wanted to earn your living, then you couldn't be interrupted or bothered by the coppers, that would by all means scare away your "clients".
I think the police knew that -- if they didn't they had to be classified as naive. And if they altered their beats especially in larger extent during the murders, there very well could have been an ambition to trick the women, in order to take Jack and surprise him.
I think the women here were in a delicat situation -- on the other hand they had to keep away and look out for the police (in order to be able to work and earn the money), on the other hand they needed the police for protection from Jack. Hmmm. Not an envious situation...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 564
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I suppose if the police did reverse their beats, and Jack and the prostitutes knew this, then it would have given them a good window of opportunity for their various purposes - if I understand it right, reversing a beat would mean that some parts of the beat would be visited by the PC twice in a short space of time, and then a longish period without a visit, and then two more visits etc. So there'd be parts of the beat where the PC wasn't expected for some time.
I don't know whether Jack and the prostitutes knew about Halse and Co. But if Jack did, and also knew about Watkins and Harvey, then it almost makes you think that he was trying to outwit the police as a personal challenge, or make them look silly - particularly when ex-policeman Morris had said that he'd like to see Jack try it in his neck of the woods!
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
Good afternoon Glenn,
As I have a week off from work, I can - for a change - write at this hour of the day (16:30 pm.) - it is too hot to do anything outside anyway! I think we're having a good discussion, which is hopefully of interest to some others as well.
You're completely right in saying that if the murderer was interrupted, MO doesen't say that much. And also in saying that we can't be sure that the broad shouldered man actually was the murderer. However, your comment that there is nothing to incicate that this is a proven connection, is a redundant one, for had that been the case, we would have known it for a fact.
You find it highly unlikely that someone other than "ol'Jacky" killed Elizabeth Stride because of 2 things:
1. the murder of Catharine Eddowes within an hour after Stride would be too much of a coincidence in your view.
2. the possibility of interruption
Here's a timetable of the last 15 minutes before she was found dead:
ca. 12:45 am.: Schwartz sees 'Broad Shoulders' pull and push Stride about.
ca. 12:47 am.: Mrs. Mortimer goes outside.
ca. 12:48-12:57 am.: Leon Goldstein passes through Berner Street with shiny, black bag. He was seen by Mrs. Mortimer and he later went to the Leman Street Police Station to report that he had been the man seen. This official statement corroborates Mrs. Mortimer's newpaper statements about her time after 12:47 am.
ca. 12:57 am.: Mrs. Mortimer goes back inside.
ca. 1:00 am.: Mrs. Mortimer hears Diemschutz drive by.
Except for Leon Goldstein, Mrs. Motimer doesn't see anyone, as does Diemschutz while approaching Dutfield's Yard.
Medical testimony puts Stride's death between 12:36 and 12:56 am.
If we assume this timetable to be quite accurate, it offers 2 possibilities for the murder: after Schwartz left the area & before Mortimer went outside, and after Mortimer went back inside & before Diemschutz showed up. As I said before, I find the first possibility more likely than the latter, because 'Broad Shoulders' displayed agressive behaviour and if he was Jack he would most probably not have waited until a few minutes to 1 am. to kill. And also because I estimate the chance of Stride remaining near Dutfield's Yard after the assault by 'Broad Shoulders' and the chance of her being attacked a second time - to say the least - slim. A thing to be considered in this context is that according to three Club members Berner Street and the yard in particular were frequented very little by 'low' women.
I undoubtedly will come back, but this is it for now. As I am more of a summer person I will enjoy the weather for a bit now that I can... 
Take care,
Frank |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 9:49 pm: | |
Hi Monty
"..Long..new bloke to the area...would that have an impact on how long he took to patrol his beat ?"
We know that beat constables were being drafted in from all over London and I think it is reasonable to assume the individual PC's were not too well aquainted with the East End.
Do you also agree that it was possibly the duty of a Duty Sargeant to familiarize each newly drafted PC with the beat he is to patrol?
(I don't know who's responsibility it was but it must have fallen to someone)
And the best way to familiarize a PC with his new beat was to walk him through it. Therefore, if these assumptions be realistic it is of no advantage to presume a new PC would walk slower because he was not sure where he was going?
When a PC is assigned a beat, regardless of whether it was a 15 or 30 minute beat, he is well aware that this is the time he must take. Sargeant's did patrol the area to make sure all was well, and likely to check up new assignee's.
So, sorry for the long reply, and I know it was not addressed to me, but I feel it is important to raise some thoughts on this question.
PC Long may have walked his beat backwards, he may have walked slower, he may have decided to use his initiative, he may have done a number of things that we are not aware of, but being his first night on a new beat should be no reason to "walk slower", unless it was his decision to do so.
(but also, lets not assume a 15 minute beat took 'exactly' 15 minutes every time. Maybe it varied from 13-18 minutes, especially if the PC did not carry a watch)
But, thats only my two-penneth.
Regards, Jon
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
