|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 74
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 7:54 pm: |       |
Hi Rob.
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I see what you mean, absolutely. We can't say anything for certain, really -- we can use the facts we have and interpret and analyse them in a way that suits our own logic, at best. The Stride incident is somewhat of a mystery, I think, and opens up to a lot of different possibilities and interpretations. It surely opens up to interesting discussions.
I agree, for my part, with your canonical list and the fact that he probably did some early "experimentation" first. In this context especially Millwood and Tabram are interesting, I think -- I'm more doubtful when it comes to Ada Wilson, where there was a clear robbery motive (we can't forget the fact that East End was a highly criminal area).
I'm having trouble with counting Frances Coles, though, as a Ripper victim, due to the fact that she was killed several years later (what had the Ripper done in between?) and that she only had her thoat cut and no mutilations (remember, this is after the brutal slaughter of Mary Kelly, if one agree that Kelly was a Ripper victim). Her clothes wasn't dissarayed and the weapon is said to have been a blunt knife.
The arguments for her incorporation are just as many, though (like being killed while lying down, with the murderer on the right side or in front of her etc.), but I think the time-frame is the most important detail to probably (I said probably) dismiss her. In 1891 I personally believe the Ripper was either dead or incarcerated. But I'm more than willing to discuss it! 
Glad to hear Boston's got power, Rob. Appearently they are not that lucky in New York...
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 9:07 pm: | |
Glenn,
I agree with you about Coles actually.. I would say only about a 15% chance she was a JTR victim, but you never know. You know interestingly, Ted Bundy, for comparison, thought that he could stop killing... it was his plan to stop, to somehow control his urges. Of course he failed. But this is something to think about. I say this in reference to the fact that Coles murder was so much later. Perhaps JTR tried to stop, who knows.
The Ada Wilson thing makes me think of the whole 2 killer theory... like the Hillside Stranglers or Otis Toole and Henry Lee Lucas. It is not unheard of for this to occur, although I do not really believe it was the case with JTR. But did you read the interesting article on La Bruckman that sort of suggested the idea of 2 killers (Tale of 2 Frenchies). Perhaps Jack initially went in a group, a gang of violent thugs. And then later, his taste for violence became more extreme than that of his friends. Who knows. In any case, Millwood is a distinct possibility. I think Tabram is more likely... about 80% or so.
Rob. |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 76
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 10:04 pm: | |
Hi again, Rob.
I must say that we totally are in tune here; I fully agree with your opinions and estimations regarding the victims you mentioned.
And yes, I find it also hard to believe that a killer of this kind just could "decide" to stop, especially as a "smart" and calculating killer like Bundy also appaerently failed to control his killer instincts.
It's true that serial killer has collaborated in pairs, even if it's unusual -- mostly one of them has had a more active role in the killing or the planning, like in the case of the Hillside Stranglers. It's an interesting theory that Jack the Ripper could have worked with someone else -- it is, however a theory that comes up every now and then, and some has even suggested that there were several killers working independently from one another (theories by Alex Chrisholm among others). I think, though, we must treat these suggestions with a good deal of suspiction; It's certainly, if we look at some of the evidence and facts, hard to make them fit into this context (by the way, no I haven't read the article you refer to).
I find it hard to believe that Jack had the right kind of character to be a part of a group -- he probably (without me trying to play amateur shrink) would have been to anti-social in his behaviour already from the start for that to work out. But it's an innovative thought.
Coles ca 15% and Tabram ca 80% seems quite reasonable also in my view. And the fact that Cole's murder was committed much later was also my point exactly.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Julian Rosenthal
Police Constable
Username: Jules
Post Number: 7
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 1:13 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
Thanks for your response. I haven't been around the boards fo quite some time and haven't had the chance to catch up on everything. My apologies.
The reason I discount Lizzie as being a 'Ripper' victim is from the autopsy report and Schwartz's statement (which I take with a grain of salt).
The throat cut might have been similar to Jack's other victims but if you have a look at the dissimilarities compared to the other victims ie: blunt knife, the amount of people traffic in the area, etc, it just wasn't Jack's style.
As for Tabby I've debated her demise with a number of people for quite a few years. My opinion (again) is that she was a victim of two murderers. The only 'evidence' which I can use to support this theory is the two weapons used in the attack. Once again that was not Jack's style.
Thanks for the debate. It's about time I got the cob-webs out of my grey matter.
Take care
Jules |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 217
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 4:08 am: | |
Glenn,
Susan Ward.
I'll explain more (unless someone else would like to do the honours) when I finish work.
Monty
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 77
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 5:53 am: | |
Hi Julian,
Thank you for your answer. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsch. Of course one can't ask of you to have read all earlier messages, but since I've just recently had a longer discussion with Frank regarding the conditions on the murder site, it feels a bit repetitive to go over the same arguments once more. (Check out the two last archives on the thread, especially my answer to him in the last archive, August 10, 6:17 pm.) But if you like I'll naturally bring it up with you again -- it's hard to keep me from a discussion.
I'm going to review it anyway, for what it's worth -- my apologies to all you others. Those who've followed that debate earlier can stop read now and do something more useful!
As I've stated earlier, I'm not certain of anything (I think the evidence lead either way in Stride's case actually). The reason for me not wanting to dismiss my fellow countrywoman from the JtR victim list is the coincidence factor, that two murders involving throat-cutting on a prostitute should happen within an hour, first one in Whitechapel where Stride was killed, then the Eddowes murder in City, with clues indicating that the murderer was heading back to Whitechapel again. Both bodies were warm and the incidents had just occured when the bodies were found. That is too much of a coincidence, and I think there is a clear movement pattern of the killer.
In short, the murder site. I don't find the conditions on Dutfield's Yard/Berner Street that different from the others, and that was also one thing I reacted strongly against in your otherwise interesting article. All happened in dark, secluded places. The fact that there was a club meeting next to the murder site doesen't stand out that much. Chapman was also found in a yard (and beneath the entrance) but that murder site I feel was even more risky; it was early morning, the sun had just stood up, there were 17 residents in the building who had slept (or were sleeping) with their windows open, some of them had already begun their work on the bottom floor; the hallway leading through the bottom floor out to the yard was a frequently used corridor, so anyone could have stepped out in the middle of the scene. That is what I call a place "teaming with people". The conditions in Dutfield's Yard were the same, but it was much darker and since there was a party in the club with a lot of noise, their attention wasn't that focused on what's happened in the yard, which was so dark that Diemschutz had to light a match to see anything at all.
There was no certain evidence that it was a blunt knife. That information originated from a blunt, long and rounded knife that was found and that had no connection with the murder, and from a short statement from Dr. Phillips, but many others have disagreed with him. The medical doctors couldn't fully agree on which knife that could have been used (more than in the other murders) so this is absolutely not a stated fact. I don't belive the modus operandi have to be exactly the same in every detail when a serial killer's at work -- there can be slight discrepancies and on each murder site there are different conditions and every victim is a human being that doesen't necessarily acts the same way as the others. The fact that the knife wound was more shallow on one side of the throat could -- just like the lack of mutilation -- be contributed to that the murderer was interrupted.
We can't be sure, but as far as I am concerned Schwartz's testimony about the man throwing her to the ground is worth nothing. I don't believe for a minute that this was the man who killed her; that was probably just another street quarrel, a daily feature in the life of the prostitutes. (see the last conversation threads about this point.)
"It's about time I got the cob-webs out of my grey matter."
Yes, why not? Welcome back to the board, Julian.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 78
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 5:55 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Yes, who is Susan Ward? Anybody, please???
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 6:26 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Still being an 'unregistered guest', this message will probably get on the boards later than the one announced by Monty, but I give it a shot anyway.
I quote from John J. Eddleston's "Jack the Ripper, an Encyclopaedia".
"On 3 October 1888 the Daily Telegraph carried a report that about 10 days earlier, around 23 September, a drunken prostitute had been attacked as she turned off Commercial Road. Fortunately for her, her screams scared the man off and she sustained only minor injuries to her arm.
In fact, the only person who was given treatment at the London Hospital during this perid was a woman named Susan Ward, who was admitted on 15 September suffering from a cut upper arm, though there is no guarantee that her injurie had been sustained on that same day. It did, however, fit the Ripper's pattern of attacking on or about weekends, and it has been suggested that this case was an unsuccesfull attack on his part.
Suggestions for further reading:
Begg, Paul, Martin Fido and Kieth Skinner.
The Jack the Ripper A-Z. Headline, 1996."
All the best,
Frank 
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 218
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:25 am: | |
Glenn,
There you go...thats Susan Ward....a failed attempt ?
I bet there are many other cases like Ward throughout the metropolis....its just that we havent found them yet.
I cannot believe this killer had a 100% success rate.
The thing that gets me with Wilson is the description of her assailant. Its very close to the Blotchy faced man seen with Kelly. I have other reasons also but these were pointed out to me by someone else.....and Im not going to break a confidence.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 79
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
Hi Frank.
Yes, now it's your turn.
Well, regarding the medical testimony I may have jumped to too hasty conclusions there (math is not my greatest subject, mind you); unfortunately the medical statement isn't at all precise in the estimating of tme of death, it's merely a question of personal interpretation and estimating. I first came over this "information" in Sugden's book and I thereafter sat down and tried to figure it out for myself if he could be right. Sugden (who quotes the inqest testimonies) says:
"Precisely when did the woman die? [...] It was Blackwell's opinion, nevertheless, that when he arrived in the yard the woman could not have been dead 'more than twenty minutes, at the most half an hour.' We know that Blackwell reached Dutfield's Yard at 1.16. He was saying, then, that the murder took place after 12.46 and very possibly after 12.56 a.m.
Dr. Phillips informed the inquest that the woman had been alive 'within an hour'of his arrival at the scene of the crime. [...] Blackwell thought that Phillips arrived arrived between twenty and thirty minutes after himself. If so Dr Phillips' evidence places the time of death after 12.36--12.46 a.m."
Sugden 2002 (1994), p. 173.
As we see, this is Sugden's own calculations and there are really, in fact, two time possibilities given here, depending on which doctor you believe to give the most accurate testimony on the matter. The word "after" is Sugden's own invention, a detail I didn't discover at first unfortunately. However, according to the inquest, Blackwell consulted his watch and could therefore state 1.16 as the time for his own arrival.
The above corresponds with what you wrote just earlier, indeed. Now, when I studied this more thoroughly, I concluded that Sugden's "after" is probably based on the formulations "not more than" and "at the most", indicating that Blackwell's time account should be interpreted as it couldn't be earlier than this, rather later. That is also how I personally interpreted Blackwell's formulations. I think I mislead you, however, when I, too boldly, gave the impression that this was a stated fact. It absolutely isn't!
And it is absolutely right, Frank (and Saddam); Mrs Mortimer stood in the door looking out Berner Street! That actually never occured to me! That's the price one has to pay for not yet being enough well-read on the case, and therefore mixing up testimonies and facts with one another. Sorry about that. 
However, that only makes her testimony even more riddling. This means that she had no clue whatsoever about what was happening in the yard at all! And why didn't she see Stride and her companion(s) on Berner Street between the time 12:30 and 01:00? And why didn't she appear at the inquest? Quite puzzling, I think. And I would be a liar if I said I had any aswers.
The murderer could have been sneaking out through the darkness during the time Diemscutz went inside to get help (I think he himself suggested that) -- PC Lamb didn't close the gates until 01:10.
So, I am afraid I have to dissapoint you, Frank, I can't argue against much of what you presented. The fact that Mrs Mortimer stood looking out Berner Street doesen't seem to give us at all any clue about what took place in the yard, on the contrary.
By the way, Frank. Thank you for the information regarding Susan Ward. Interesting. The Ultimate Source Book and Jack the Ripper A to Z are the only major books I yet haven't read, but hopefully I'll get them later. Especially The Sourcebook seems reliable and worthwile looking into.
"I think there are two possible scenario's for Stride's murder: she was killed only a few minutes at the most after Schwartz witnessed the assault on her, or only seconds to 1 am., just before Diemschutz showed up."
I'm afraid to disappoint you even further, but I totally agree with you. We unfortunately don't have information enough to sort that out. 
I stand by my instincts, however, saying that Stride fell victim to the Ripper and not to Schwartz's man (who I don't believe for a minute was the same as the Ripper either), since I haven't seen proof of the contrary. Evidence could lead us in both directions, so this is merely a matter of opinion. There are just as many reasons for stating her as a canonical victim as to exclude her, I think the tip of the scale still lean towards the former, though.
Well, once again I totally failed the attempt of giving a short answer...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 80
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 12:36 pm: | |
Hi Monty.
"I bet there are many other cases like Ward throughout the metropolis....its just that we havent found them yet.
I cannot believe this killer had a 100% success rate."
Yes, that is my belief also. At least in his early attempts (if there were any we don't know of) he must have been unsuccesful sometime.
I also reacted to Wilson's description of the attacker. However, witness descriptions are hard to value. I find the totally different motive, though, a thing that most probable could rule him out as the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 576
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Hi all
Diemschutz's pony is supposed to have shied to the left, because it smelt fresh blood. But surely, there was blood all around the east end in those days. If Diemschutz's pony shied every time it smelt it, Diemschutz must have had a pretty bumpy ride.
I just wonder if the pony shied because it saw or heard or smelt the murderer moving to hide himself behind the gate as the pony turned in.
Robert |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 2:50 pm: | |
"......unfortunately the medical statement isn't at all precise in the estimating of tme of death, it's merely a question of personal interpretation and estimating."
Yes, and to the best of my recollection in the 19th century they used three methods to attempt to establish time of death.
1) Body Temperature, (Algor Mortis).
2) Extent of Rigor Mortis.
3) Lividity, (Livor Mortis).
That known, they had to make allowances for the results of each reading.
For instance 'Body Temperature' can be affected by: Ambient Temperature, blood loss, surface contact, body mass, clothing, etc.
Rigor Mortis can be affected by: Ambient Temperature, physical activity prior to death, drugs, .....basically anything which can have an effect on tissue temperature, as higher temps accelerate the onset of Rigor while cooling delays the onset.
Poste Mortem Lividity appears in many colours from pink to red to brown to purple to blue and in each case the colour is due to a variety of anti-mortem circumstance affecting the victim.
Movement of the body immediately after death also affects the formation of lividity, this and the various colours mentioned above make it the most unreliable of the three means of estimating time of death.
But, results from all three measurements were taken together, not one by itself, and the doctors knew very well it was a precarious estimate to attempt to arrive at a 'time of death'.
Regards, Jon |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 81
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi Robert.
It's not impossible at all. As a matter of fact, I find it quite likely. Although, if the murderer stayed behind while Diemscutz went inside, the horse would have continued to be disturbed as long as the killer remained there. However, the killer could have sneaked out as soon as Diemschutz jumped down to investigate the body -- if there was any room for him to sneak out through the gates round the horse's left side. Or did he dissapear through the yard and jumped over the fences? Just thinking out loud... don't take any notice of me.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 82
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 3:32 pm: | |
You're absolutely right, Jon.
The ambient temperature seems to have been a bit of a problem, though. Its effect on the result seems to have been overlooked or at least been one of the reasons for so many different interpretations of the time of death, like in the Mary Kelly case (the warmth from the fire was never considered etc.).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 4:00 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
Yes, re; ambient temperature, it would be a problem but I believe the doctors were aware of the fact that the ambient temp. does have a bearing on determining time of death.
It is most unfortunate that we do not have a complete autopsy report from any of the victims (Tabram, Nichols, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly), even Dr Bond's report is only a summary and not the complete document.
We do, however, have available an itemized autopsy report which is more detailed and specific in the case of Alice McKenzie. The report is written by Dr Phillips and shows us what an autopsy report should look like when complete. You would have to refer to 'The Ultimate Sourcebook' pages 455/6/7/8/9/60.
And, Dr Phillips notes the ambient temperature in the 3rd(?) line, "...temp. moderate...", followed several lines down by " Temp. of Body..."
So, they were aware of the importance of ambient temperature, but then again, doctors today would not get away with recording it as "moderate".
regards, Jon
P.S. you may also recall Dr Phillips self-correction with regard to the time of death of Annie Chapman. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 577
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 4:10 pm: | |
Hi all
Jon, do you know if the doctors were aware of the rise in body temperature after strangling? (I believe this has a technical name - the Something Peak - but I can't recall what it is)
Robert |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
Hi Robert.
I think you are referring to 'Pontine Haemorrhage'?.
I am not sure if doctors of the 19th century were aware of this suggested raise in body temperature after strangulation. To the best of my understanding it is controversial even today. I have read of thesis on both sides of the argument.
regards, Jon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 578
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 6:39 pm: | |
Hi Jon
I've found the place where this came up before. It's on the "Liz Stride - the murder" thread, July 21st. Bob Hinton mentions the "heat spike", and I give a case of Prof Keith Simpson's as an example.
Robert
|
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 7:38 pm: | |
Robert, ok, we are both on the same page then, Prof Simpson did a paper on the 'pontine haemorrhage'.
Anyway, in the spirit of the name of the thread.....
"How many did Jack really kill?"
What about the Torso at Whitehall?
Dr Bond did the autopsy and determined that 'she' had been murdered aprox within the first two weeks of Sept (1-14th) and that 'she' had not died from strangulation but, possibly, from haemorrhage (syncope?), and further, the uterus had been removed.
M.O.'s can change, but the signature?
Regards, Jon |
Julian Rosenthal
Police Constable
Username: Jules
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 3:28 am: | |
G'day Glenn, Jon (great to see you again), everyone,
Glenn, thanks for your comments and response. Although there are similarities with Lizzy's murder and the others Bucks Row was relatively quiet as was Hanbury St. Hanbury St was also a 'known' place for shagging. I surmise this by saying how did Annie know where to take her clients.
Cathy was murdered in a secluded area of Mitre Square, and Ms Kelly was murdered in her own room.
Lizzy's murder doesn't fit.
Once again this is only my opinion, but a great debate none the less.
Take care
Jules |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 583
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 7:35 am: | |
Hi all
Jon, I don't see Jack as a torso killer. If he was into that, why didn't he bring a chopper?
Re Stride, it seems to me that either she was attacked by Schwartz's man and then shortly afterwards murdered by someone else (who wasn't Jack), or she was attacked etc and then murdered by Jack. Either way it's a coincidence, but the fact that Jack was on the prowl that night (as Gory says) tends to incline me to think that Jack killed Stride. It's only a balance of probability, I'm not certain of anything.
If we ever found out that Jack was on the prowl on lots of different nights, then I'd feel that the balance of probability was levelling out again.
Julian, re the Berner Street site being different, I suppose it partly depends on how you feel about Cadosch. If Cadosch actually heard Jack at work, it would mean that Jack carried on despite his presence - which would seem to imply either desperation or ice cold nerve. I personally am not convinced that it was the murderer whom Cadosch heard.
Robert
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 84
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 9:07 am: | |
Hi everybody,
Jules (nice talking to you again; glad you're enjoying the debate -- we aim to please), thanks for your comments as well:
Yes, Buck's Row was relatively quiet, I think, but -- as I indicated in my earlier message -- the yard in Hanbury Street most certainly wasn't; added to the fact that it was almost complete daylight and the house as well as the neighbourhood had begun to come to life, this site was very risky indeed. It also isn't true that Dutfield's Yard shouldn't have been a place freqently used by prostitutes -- on the contrary, testimonies from some of the near-by residents told otherwise (if we can belive them, but I think there are stronger reasons for not beieving those who denied it). So in that respect Dutfield's Yard probably didn't stand out that much from the other murder sites.
The corner in Mitre Square may have been dark and badly lit (and with few inhabitants), but it certainly wasn't a "secluded spot" -- it was frequently patroled bt police constables with only ten to fifteen minutes between them. It's a total miracle that someone didn't step right into the whole the event.
So I can't possibly see why the murder site in Dutfield's Yard should be so different; that it was more risky and filled with movement than some of the others is a total exaggeration and a whopping fib.
What it does show, I feel, is that the conditions on the murder sites wasn't that important to him, and it also strengthen me in my personal belief that Jack the Ripper was a random, more or less confused, individual who worked on instinct and took the opportunity when it arrived. It's my personal opinion, but nevertheless I think most facts point in that direction, as far as I am concerned.
"Lizzy's murder doesn't fit."
I can't see why not, Jules. But -- we may never know for sure, I'm afraid.
Hey Robert C L,
"Re Stride, it seems to me that either she was attacked by Schwartz's man and then shortly afterwards murdered by someone else (who wasn't Jack), or she was attacked etc and then murdered by Jack. Either way it's a coincidence, but the fact that Jack was on the prowl that night (as Gory says) tends to incline me to think that Jack killed Stride. It's only a balance of probability, I'm not certain of anything."
Extremely well said, as usual. You're absolutely right about that it is a balance of probablities.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 584
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
Thanks, Glenn.
I agree with Monty - he probably tried and failed sometimes, either wounding a woman or even simply walking away because someone came and stood nearby, etc.
I can't see where the blotchy-faced man comes in, though.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 1:58 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
"And why didn't she see Stride and her companion(s) on Berner Street between the time 12:30 and 01:00? And why didn't she appear at the inquest?"
Perhaps the answers to these questions are:
- Because she was only outside after about 12:45 am. She didn't see the comings and goings of constable Smith, William West & company, Joseph Lave and of course, Israel Schwartz either and they all took place between ca. 12:30 and 12:45 am. She didn't see anything of Stride because Stride was either already dead when Mortimer came outside or remained in Dutfield's Yard during Mortimer's 'doorstep vigil' or Stride left Berner Street before Motimer came outside and returned after Mortimer went back inside.
- Because the statements she gave to some of the newspapers were at least a bit contradictory, which - like Packer - made her too unreliable in the eyes of whoever decided who was to appear at the inquest.
This is all I can offer for now.
Have a nice weekend!
Frank  |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
