|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 12:32 pm: |       |
Hi Robert.
".....I don't see Jack as a torso killer. If he was into that, why didn't he bring a chopper?"
Chopper?, you mean 'saw' (hack-saw?).
I don't know, I have no opinion either way, just seems strange to me all these occurances involving a 'uterus', the American Doctor (theory), the Whitehall murder, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, etc, and all so local in time & space.
Maybe we just have not found the connecting thread.
Coincidence? 
Regards, Jon
Hi Jules, nice to hear from you again, sport.
|
Julian Rosenthal
Police Constable
Username: Jules
Post Number: 9
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 5:20 am: | |
G'day Glenn, Jon, Robert, everyone.
Glenn, in regard to Mitre square and the police patrols, the place was vacant when Harvey walked by. In fact he didn't even go into the place. Watkins found Catherines body about 10-15 minutes after Lawende and co saw her. At the time it was 'silent'. Not even the guard at Kearley and Tonge's heard anything.
As for Lizzie, I still believe the different type of knife used ie: a blunt one as compared to a sharp one, plus the locality and also witnesses. Sorry mate but it doesn't work for me:-)
Hey, do you wanna debate about whether it was one or two people who kil;led Tabby:-)
All the best.
Jules |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 90
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 6:40 am: | |
Hi Jules,
Well, I see you've already made up your mind, since my arguments seem to pass you by completely. I am not that sure whether Liz being a Ripper victim or not, but I feel my common sense says she is, the alternatives seem too far-fetched and illogical. But I am not sure of anything, she is somewhat of a mystery in this context.
The locations doesen't differ from each other enough to claim that they should be significant. Don't you read my messages? Or do you just prefer to disregard circumstances that doesn't fit your own beliefs? How can we interpret facts so totally differently?
Once again, it has not been established for sure that different knives were used, Jules. You can't take that as a true fact, the blunt knife is not a stated feature; to claim that is a total falacy and an attempt to once again pick uncertain facts from litterary sources and make them into false corner stones in your own theories. It's OK to disagree, but please don't stick to questionable information -- it's meaningless to debate if you choose to avoid reading or to disregard the other part's arguments. Then the debate just becomes repetitive and frustrated.
As far as Tabby is concerned, I actually have no clue at all. One can speculate about this, but the information about this is too sparse. It could be two perpetrators (since it's been estimated that two different weapons were used) and it could be one -- he doesen't necessarily had to use both hands at the same time, he could have changed weapon during the process, if he carried more than one knife on him (this has happened). If it was a lone killer, I very well could see Tabram's murder as an early attempt by the Ripper, but I actually don't know. I have no real opinion.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 9:30 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
For this round I only have a couple of things.
In your post of Aug. 17 to Jules you say: "I am not that sure whether Liz being a Ripper victim or not, but I feel my common sense says she is, the alternatives seem too far-fetched and illogical." I'm afraid you have to explain the last bit.
In your post of Aug. 14 to Rob House you say: "However, my point was that I found it, mind you this is only based on my common sense and fairly specualtive, a bit unreasonable that he should continue the act after he already had been discovered and found quarreling with the woman. It doesn't really add up with reason, I think (even though it's not impossible in theory)."
One thing to consider here is the Lipski-exclamation. One explanation is that it was called out in the sense of: "I'm going to Lipski this woman," but this isn't very likely and this theory wasn't given any real credence at the time. Another possibility is that the man with the pipe was named Lipski, so a search was launched, but wihtout succes.
Inspector Abberline himself gave the most likely explanation. He knew the term Lipski was used as derogatory label for Jews, and as Schwartz had a Jewish appearance, Abberline believed that the broad shouldered man called it out to warn Schwartz off. In other words, the assailant told Schwartz to leave and mind his own business.
If we assume this actually was the case, the assailant obviously being in aggressive mood (and thus not really using his head), what would have been the purpose of warning Schwartz off? 
I hope this post gets on the boards faster than the one before this, 'cause I haven't seen that one yet. It's probably wise to register...
All the best,
Frank |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 94
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 5:20 pm: | |
Hi Frank.
Nice to see you back again. What have you been up to?
Firstly: "In your post of Aug. 17 to Jules you say: 'I am not that sure whether Liz being a Ripper victim or not, but I feel my common sense says she is, the alternatives seem too far-fetched and illogical.' I'm afraid you have to explain the last bit."
I have already done that too many times the last two weeks or so; I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy to go over it all again once more. It is mixture of factors, that lay behind my views (those we've talked about) such as the location, MO etc.
Now to the more interesting parts:
Regarding the (in my view totally overrated) "Lipski" incident, I find Abberline's theory upon this the one most interesting -- Sugden seem to be of the same opinion. So that is most likely what happened.
"Because she was only outside after about 12:45 am."
Funny, I've read somewhere (can't remember where, though -- now I'm totally confused) that she was ouside off and on between 12:30 and 12:57. But I could be wrong here -- don't take my word for it. If what you're saying is correct (I don't have time right now to look it up) then this is obviously the logical explanation, and the answer to my question. Thank you.
I also agree with you about her statements; I thought that could be why, but I nevertheless found it irritating that she weren't at the inquest -- the information we get from witness statements in the press should taken lightly -- the Packer example shows us why.
Haven't you registred yet, Frank? I thought you just waited for it to come through. I live in Sweden, as you know, and despite the time of post delivery I must say -- to Mr Ryder's compliments -- that the registration came through quite fast and the process worked like a charm.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Julian Rosenthal
Police Constable
Username: Jules
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 7:30 pm: | |
G'day Glenn, Frank, everyone.
Greetings from another miserable day in Canberra.
Glenn, I guess we're just gunna have to agree that we disagreee. And yes mate, I do read your posts. It would be ignorant of me not to do so.
Take care
Jules |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 12:10 am: | |
Frank,
Your assessment of the timeframe sounds pretty plausible... also, I do believe that the broad shouldered man was JTR, so maybe I am not being objective, who knows.
I have a question for the group: does anyone have any evidence as to which way JTR walked from Berner St to Mitre Square? (of course I am assuming for the sake of argument that Stride was actually killed by JTR). I remember reading about the man seen in Church Lane, about 1:30 AM, sitting on a doorstep wiping his hands. Is there anything else? For some reason I was under the impression that his route went more south, like down Backchurch Lane, then west on Cable St/ Royal Mint St, then north on Minories. I can't remember where I got this idea from. Maybe I read something to this effect (?)
Sorry if this is a bit off topic. Cheers.
Rob H |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 6:39 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
For now - as it is quite late here in Holland - I have only a short reaction to your post of Aug. 18.
I don't believe the broad shouldered man to be JtR. This man was nothing like the men seen by Joseph Lawende and Elizabeth Long, who most probably did see Jack the Ripper. For the man they saw was rather quietly talking to Eddowes and Chapman before killing them only minutes afterwards, while the women didn't seem to be afraid or suspicious of him. This man didn't attack until he and his victim were in a quiet place where they could not easily be seen.
Also, except for the Stride case in none of the other cases (including Tabram's) anything even vaguely suspicious was discerned.
Good night,
Frank  |
Richard P. Dewar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 12:42 am: | |
It really isn't surprising that there is some doubt as to precisely who "Jack the Ripper" murdered.
Although it is something of a minority position, I agree with Stewart Evans that you can really only count three as definitely linked (modus operandi). Those victims would be Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
Stride's murder is problematical - she did not suffer the mutilations of the other victims. Those who choose to include her as a Ripper victim do so under the theory that the killer was disturbed. This may be so - yet it is still guesswork.
Many case afficianados advance Kelly as a Ripper victim - though her murder is definitely different from the others in the series in many ways. Again, this is explained with the theory that the killer had the privacy and time to commit the savagery in Miller's Court.
I find it odd that those who insist Kelly be included, though her murder was different, explain away the differences under the theory of escalation. Under such a theory, one might include the Whitehall and Pinchin St killings.
My personal view is that the murder killed at least three - and may have murdered as many as eleven.
Rich
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Frank.
I agree with you one hundred per cent, the man seen with Eddowes, and Chapman, and the man seen attacking [ broad shoulderd] Stride,were different but I am of an opposite opinion, I believe that Strides attacker was Jack, and the man Mrs Long saw, and the man Lawande saw were only hopeful clients, the first actually having sex with Chapman in the yard at number 29, the latter failing in his attempt to perswaude non prostitute Eddowes for sex.
I believe Eddowes was dragged into the corner of the square by the same killer as Stride, after the man Lawande saw had giving up his quest, and Chapman was killed by the Ripper, after he saw Mrs Longs man leave number 29, with Chapman still in the yard.
The perpretrator of these murders was such a savage when in his state of mind he was incapable of foreplay, the approaching of a victim , like stride, and sudden manhandling was his appraoch, not verbal cummunication, and gentle attitude.
All the best
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 7:30 pm: | |
Hey there Richard,
A couple of weeks ago I started to follow the Message Boards and since then even posted a few messages myself. From reading your posts I understood that you - probably for the sake of debate - like come up with, to say the least, surprising theories.
Of course, that's alright, you always seem to do it with great enthusiasm! I hope it doesn't come as a surprise, but the only sensible things I can offer as a comment on your suggestions is that no sign of intercourse was ever detected and no indications of what you're suggesting have survived, if they ever once existed .
I am of a different opinion than you, but hey, who knows...
All the best,
Frank  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 3:16 am: | |
Hi Frank,
You have noticed I like to speculate, I Admit to using my imagination, for the simple reason, the facts are all laid out for us from press reports 115years ago, and they never change, but facts if one can call them that ,can be interpreted in diferent ways, and I try and gain a better understanding of this baffling case by seeing things differently.
I believe that you may have misunderstood by post, I was not implying that Chapmans Killer had sex with her, but the man Mrs long saw was just a client, she was murdered shortly after, when this man left the front door, also the man seen in church passage talking to Eddowes, was also a person trying to obtain sex, but he failed in his request with her, and after he moved on , she was attacked by someone watching her, and this was Strides attacker.
Richard. |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 259
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 11:19 am: | |
Hi All
I believe Stride was killed by street thugs as I've explained previously. The problem with my belief is that the man seen with Stride sounds a lot like the man seen with Eddowes and I believe Lawende almost certainly saw JTR.
As for my view that Tabram was killed by JTR, I cannot understand why the soldier who went off with Parly Poll for sex at 11:45 was still waiting for his chum when Constable Barrett saw him still waiting at 2:00 am.
This sounds very suspicious to me.
All The Best
Gary |
Frank van Oploo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hello again Richard,
I did understand your post, but perhaps I didn't express myself clear enough  . What I merely wanted to say was that - if we assume that indeed no sign of intercourse was found on Annie Chapman's body - she would probably not have had sex with the client you refer to just before Jack the Ripper entered the stage. And that would make it questionable if this client was really there.
It was clear from your post that you meant that the broad shouldered man was both Stride's killer and Jack the Ripper and that he also was the one responsible for the deaths of Chapman and Eddowes.
Take care,
Frank |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 5:37 am: | |
Hi All,
A possible double event here in Croydon in the early hours of last Saturday morning has some potentially intriguing parallels with this current Stride/Eddowes debate.
From our local paper, the Post:
Police are hunting a man who battered a mother-of-two to death just hours after he tried to strangle and sexually assault a prostitute.
The man picked up his first victim, the prostitute, in London Road (the main road in the dodgy West Croydon area) at around 2.30am before entering an alleyway with her where the pair argued. He is alleged to have grabbed her by the windpipe and strangled her until she passed out.
When she came round her screams alerted some youths who gave chase but lost her attacker.
Between 4am and 5am he is believed to have attacked and killed a 38-year-old Asian woman as she made her way home after buying cigarettes from a late night shop.
The half-undressed body was discovered at 7.30am, slumped face down in an alleyway. The woman had suffered a series of blows to the head and neck. Pathologists described her injuries as some of the worst they'd ever seen, and were unable to say how many times she had been struck.
The DCI in charge of the investigation said that this man was clearly out to kill someone that night.
The suspected killer has been described as white, in his late twenties and 6ft tall.
If the same man turns out to have been responsible for this double event, as is being suggested here, I would be even more reluctant to eliminate Jacky Boy from our enquiries into the Stride murder.
Have a safe weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 105
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 8:14 am: | |
Hi Caz,
An interesting and striking report, indeed.
I have also stumbled over similar cases in Sweden, so incidents or "coincidents" (as some refer to label it) like these can surely happen.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 9:37 pm: | |
"the alternatives seem too far-fetched and illogical."
Au contraire, mon frere.
From the first outpourings of the contemporary press, through the speculations of Macnaghten, through Walter Dew--and further---on, on---through the Ripper books of the 60s and 70s and 80s, and up to the current moment it is CLAIMED...what? That Stride is to be placed with the other Ripper murder victims? That she was soliciting? That the murderer was "interrupted"?
What are these humbuggeries other than a rather transparent attempt to wish away the very fundamental differences between this murder and the murders of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes?
If you want to please the skeptic, you must give him a comfortable & cozy place to sit. I'm not finding it.
Mr. Radka informs me that Stride is a Ripper victim.
Mrs. Morris informs me that Stride's movements on the night in question are irrelevant to the question at hand.
But let me pose a few questions of my own.
When you point to something and indicate it is a this instead of a that, what thought lies behind your pointer finger? Indeed, what always makes something a this instead of a that?
What is it other than a matter of similarities or lack of disimilarities? Can it be something more? A certain continuity of thought?
Take for instance the following "fact."
Like the other victims, Stride is merely soliciting.
Why am I to believe this? And why (or why not) would the answer be relevant?
Are Stride's actions really those of a typical East End prostitute making a transaction? Are her actions similar or dissimilar to those of Eddowes or Chapman or Tabram?
Am I to believe that a punter wishing to spend twopence for a knee trembler will mill around for 45 minutes listening to revolutionary music? Am I to believe he will make small talk and share a bunch of grapes?
Is an East End whore just a whore, "a money making machine" as my friend once had it, or, is she something a bit more? What does Stride's red rose tell me? Is she someone still capable of love, hope, dreams?
What does Stride say, when she speaks to me directly? (Not through the mouth of a Ripper theorist with an agenda or a through a historian, but directly?)
"Not tonight, some other night," she says.
A remarkable statement for a money-making machine.
Compare with:
"Will you?"
"Yes."
Now, I don't claim to be any Mr. Fishman, but my reading suggests that East End prostitutes weren't usually apt to turn down clients.
Unless, perhaps, they were in love, and free from the locked cage that Michael Kidney kept.
But let me move on.
The drunken sod that Mr. Schwartz witnessed staggering down the sidewalk immediately attacked Liz Stride. (vide The Star)
Is this how anyone pictures the Ripper operating? In the previous cases, as far as we know, or as far as our logic can take us, did the murderer ever behave in such a fashion? Or did he use persuasion?
"Will you?"
"Yes."
And through a narrow corridor on each side of which slept many people, Chapman willingly went. And Eddowes sneaked back into the shadows of Mitre Square, so quietly, the watchman didn't hear. This we know... as perfectly as if we had been there.
Liz, in the meantime, shouts three times, while her assailant also shouts idiotically across the street, drawing attention to himself. A racial slur that only a Gentile would make and only a local would know, a piece of slang we know was only one year old and thus not old enough to be transmuted into anything else than what it was, and, certainly, not irony.
And, of course, there are no mutilations, and the knife appears to have been somewhat dull.
Ah, but "the murderer was interrupted."
Excuse me, but from where does this brilliant piece of speculation spring? What logic defends it? How much time passed between the initial attack witnessed by Schwartz and the arrival of Diemschutz? Anyone? How does this compare/contrast with the murder in Mitre Square, and the time ticking on the watch?
Questions, questions.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 8:40 am: | |
Hi RJ,
'Mrs. Morris informs me that Stride's movements on the night in question are irrelevant to the question at hand.'
Why do you do this to me every time, RJ? You read stuff into my words that was never there, and never intended.
Caz (why Mrs. Morris all of a sudden?) actually wrote, and actually meant:
I'm ready, willing and able to be swayed by a good argument...
I'm not sure any actions by Stride can determine whether her killer was Jack or not.
Why is this relevant? (Note this is a question, not a statement informing you that it isn't relevant, and you are now addressing my question - thanks.)
But I have no strong views either way. I just don't think you can use anything Stride did to conclude her killer was or wasn't Jack.
There are lots of ways at looking at this, and I wouldn't like to exclude any of them.
Now, a topsy-turvy question for you (which does not imply a strong opinion, or belief, on my part that Stride was or was not killed by the ripper):
If Stride had encountered a prowling Jack one night, and said to him "Will you cut me throat, ducks?", do you think Jack was the kind of man to say "Not tonight, some other night", or might he have taken the opportunity offered, even if he judged the location and circumstances to be too risky to hang about for a spot of after-play?
Love,
Caz
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 114
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 10:53 am: | |
First of all, Mr. Palmer,
You could at least have the deceascy to adress your quotes to whom it is concerned. But since you obviously were referring to an extract from one of my earlier posts (intended to Jules, I think, not you), I guess I'm one of the targets here as well.
I've always said that Stride's murder is somewhat of a mystery, with details hard to explain -- regardless on which side you're on in the debate. The words "Not tonight, but some other night" is such a detail I certainly can't explain -- that is, if the woman who said it was Stride (this has actually been disputed by some). It is absolutely true that the prostitutes took several risks and couldn't afford to turn down customers, I can't regard from that; in fact, I for my part have stated it myself at least five times on this board.
Then I don't understand you at all. Do you now question whether Stride was soliciting or not? Well, we can assume that most of the women in this area and who lived in the lodging houses did, we also know that Stride was a prostitute in Sweden before she left for England, and when her husband John Thomas Stride later died she had to make her living somehow, like hundreds of other female inhabitants of East End in the same situation. The fact that she drank heavily at occasion, like the others, didn't help her economic situation either. What do you think? The same dicussion has occured regarding some of the other victims as well; Stride is by mo means different in that aspect. I am not saying that her being a prostitute is a proven fact, I'm just saying that it's most likely.
"Is an East End whore just a whore, "a money making machine" as my friend once had it, or, is she something a bit more? What does Stride's red rose tell me? Is she someone still capable of love, hope, dreams?"
Of course she was capable of these things. I myself have studied hundreds of cases regarding the lives of prostitutes around the time of 1900, and not that few actually did marry later on. Even if marriage also meant security, this doesen't mean they weren't capable of falling in love, and there is no reason to believe that Stride couldn't, even though she lived and worked in a harsh environment. Why shouldn't she be able to appreciate a red rose or romantic courting? It is also known that prostitutes had clients they liked better than others and had better personal relationships with, while others they just "did" for money. I'm afraid your friend is somewhat prejudice and revealing "black-and white"-opinions on the matter. It's true that they had to "work" to get the doss money and to finance their drinking, but the extreme term "money making machine" is an absolute falacy.
Regarding the details surrounding the murder, I have absolutely no intention of "please you" as a sceptic, especially as I feel you've made up your mind anyway. When you use expressions like "this brilliant piece of speculation", "these humbuggeries" and "wish away" you obviously already believe that every fact points in your way, and this in a tone of writing that I find most sarcastic and condescending.
Well, Mr. Palmer, allow me to fall down to your level and state the following:
There are authors that have put serious question marks at whether Stride is a Ripper victim or not, and even if the've come to the conclusion that it is most possible, they haven't claimed it to be an absolutely stated fact. When you state that that's been the case in books on the subject in general, I therefore would recommend you to catch up on your reading (Sugden among other), and there you'll see that it is NOT taken for granted at all.
And if you'd bother to read the earlier discussions, you would have noticed that -- although most of us have personal thoughts on the subject -- we're very careful not to say anything for certain about anything regarding Jack the Ripper, that's why I often use words like "possibly", "probably" and "could be". I'm not sure of anything here -- I have said it a million times in different threads. I can only regret the fact that you've missed out on that.
Then you do the mistake yourself to take things for granted, like the following "facts":
The grapes. Packer's testimony about him selling grapes to the woman and her companion became somewhat of a countinuing soap-opera in the press, and this was probably nothing but a hoax by Packer himself in order to get personal attention. The grapes are NOT a stated fact and Parker's testimony should therefore be taken with a pinch of salt.
Then there's the "drunken sod" attacking Stride (Schwartz's man) and here (if I understand you correctly) I actually agree with you when you're questioning this detail. But I actually (which have been discussed here now for over a week) have never fully accepted that this man was the one who killed her. There are nothing to prove that he was, other than circumstancial issues. So therefore the time passed between the attack and Diemschutz appearing is not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Once again, his involvement in the actual murder is not a stated fact, not even in books, but you obviously mean that it is. Good for you.
I don't know about your logic, but mine tells me that Stride was murdered, the murderer was interrupted and after that committed another murder only less than an hour afterwards and more gruesome than the ones committed so far. He then (according to Eddowe's bloody apron) was heading back again into Whitechapel. Noone can say that this is what actually happened, but there is a logical pattern in this continuinity. To regard from this could just as well be called speculative and illogical, as far as I am concerned. This scenario may well be the one that's most laid out in Ripper media, but that doesen't mean that it's less valuable. If she was a Ripper victim or not is impossible to say for sure, but my bet is that she was.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 12:11 pm: | |
Glenn--Tone can be very easily mistaken. Let me first state that my above post was only meant in good fun; people walk on tip-toes around here and I find it sometimes rather tedious, so I thought I'd take off the gloves for a bit of good natured sparring. I did use your quote to begin my rant (my apologies) but I was really only directing my thoughts in a general sort of way towards many different posts by many different hands. I mean no offense (the best thinking often comes from lively debate---even if it arrives the morning after) and believe me when I say that I always consider the opinons of the posters here carefully. Let me softly remind you, however, that you are the one who stated that the arguments for Stride not being a Ripper victim were "illogical", while Mr. Radka accused me of making a poor economic transaction, and Caz (Or at least I think--I seemingly misunderstand the woman) considered my main point irrelevant.
Please allow me to let my post stand as it is, but let me respond briefly to a couple of points.
I'm from the western U.S. We are from pioneer stock out here (plenty of Scananavians by the way) and have a long tradition of independent thinking. We like experts, we just tend to think they are superfluous. New thinking for a new nation is the true American philosophy. Thoreau is our man.
First off, I'm well acquainted with Phil Sugden's work and I would be among the last to criticize it. He does not, however, really ever approach dismissing Stide as a Ripper victim. You are certainly correct in saying that his thoughts on this point are well considered and cautious, but, in the end, he tends to accept her place in the 'canon' and finds no reason to dismiss her. I, on the other hand, don't see any real good reason to include her. In the case of Tabram we don't know a hell of a lot, and should give great weight to the opinions of Reid and Anderson; I tend to include her. In fact I completely accept her as a victim. In the case of Stride, however, we know nearly as much about the murder as the police would have known (it is probably the only Whitechapel Murder for which this is true) and I feel we have every right to question their opinions.
As for Mr. Packer. Yes, it is the common and weighty opinion to dismiss this good fellow as a news glutton. The man was perhaps a bit dim-witted, I can visualize that. But was he a liar? I think not. The fact of the matter is that Walter Dew confirms that there were grape seeds & skins in Berner Street. Walter Dew of the C.I.D. I say give the old man a break.
As for the drunk who assaulted Stride. If I understand you correctly, you are considering the possibilty that this man is not the same man who eventually killed her. This is certainly nothing but speculation, it doesn't spring from either logic or from anything we know. In general, I doubt it greatly, and I would suggest that Stride must have been singularly unlucky to have suffered two entirely independent attacks in ten minutes (and one of them by Jack the Ripper!) I can't entirely dismiss the possibility, but I see no reason for entertaining it other than a desire to make the evidence fit the theory. But I am glad you brought the point up because our good friend Swanson said EXACTLY the same thing! This has gone unnoticed by most. And there, hangs a tale. Because this proves one thing: that Schwartz was NOT the Jewish witness. He could not have been "the one man" who had seen the Ripper, because Swanson himself voices doubt about the attack Schwartz witnessed. And a mere smattering of doubt in his mind is all that is needed to dismiss the idea. And that, is a very important point.
By the by, the old message boards were a much more rabid affair. Baptism by fire and the like. [I highly recommend buying the C.D. ] We are urbane & civilized now, but at what price?
All in good fun, RJP
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 643
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 2:45 pm: | |
Hi RJ
I doubt if Schwartz's man was Strides's killer, because of the cachous found in her hand. How came they there?
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 115
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi Palmer,
Well I can't say you're totally wrong in your description of "tip-toes" in discussions. There is certainly a problem with message boards that gets too serious and where the discussions ends up all too "clean". I can agree with you on that, and I remember I myself raised question marks regarding the harsh rules on the board -- I even though it to be a bit pathetic and pretentious. And I do feel it can result in tedious arguments lacking of signs of human emotions.
I understood, though, that your post wasn't totally directed towards me, but there was something in your "tone" that made it come out a bit "cheeky" and pissed me off a bit. I have a fierce temper, I'm a afraid, and I have sometimes hard to control it. I don't lack sense of humour, though, although it can seem like that occasionally.
Well well, OK.
You're right that Sugden doesen't totally dismiss her as a Ripper victim, but I do think he's quite clear on the point that we can't know for sure -- he indeed raises question marks and he doesen't accept her without discussing it thoroughly -- that was my point. Your argument was that (now I'm taking the liberty to analyse your statement quite freely...) the including of Stride as a canonical victim was a common accepted fact, that wasn't questioned enough in the Ripper media -- I totally disagree with you on that, I would say it has been one of the most debated issues during the last fifteen years.
As far as Stride is concerned, I feel there are just as good reasons to include her as exclude her -- and vice versa. I do think, though, that it would be too much of a coincidence, however, if she weren't -- seen in relation to the context and the other murder less than an hour later. As I said earlier, I see a relatively clear pattern of actions and continuity between the two that I think it would be wrong to totally disregard -- and illogical. But that have I in my erlier posts tried to elaborate more in detail, no reason to do it again.
I must state, however, that I can most certainly think for myself and I learned early on during my university years that scientists and academic authorities can't be trusted, since they're usually good with manipulating facts. I'm a critical reader indeed, regardless if I read Sugden, Fido, Evans or Rumbelow etc. And I certainly think one should be careful with the information in witness statements, papers and police material as well. So I wouldn't say that you americans have got that much monopoly on individual thinking... 
When facts doesen't supply enough info, though, I try to apply common sense (which is not the same as speculating, mind you). And the situation on Berner Street that night and at that very moment, before and during the murder, tells me that Scwartz's assaulting man is totally uninteresting. You did read me right, when I meant he most possibly wasn't the murderer. I've never believed he was and I still don't. And it has nothing to do with me wanting to fit the facts into my own theories (don't lay that "Cornwell" approach on me, please  ), but I've never understood why everyone gives this man so much weight in the investigation. I believe it was a simple street fight and I find it highly unlikely that he should drag her into the yard and kill her after having being spotted and also himself have shouted across the street. And I do think Stride would have been quite on her guard with this particular man after this commosion and having been thrown to the ground. It doesen't add up. The fact that she possibly met Jack the Ripper a few minutes later and were killed by him doesen't strike me as impossible at all. You may think it's crap, but here it is a matter of personal opinion on what's logical or not, I think.
Yes, I do believe Packer was a highly dishonest witness. Walter Dew may have said there were grapes, but there were also those who said they never existed. And no grapes were found in her stomach. I prefer to lay my "trust" into that detail. I also think, that the way the Packer interviews escalated and became more and more fantastic could very well indicate that it all was a hoax from the beginning -- this is hardly uncommon regarding police matters of great public interest -- on the contrary, it goes with the field. And noone could comfirm his stories (in the way he told them).
Although I find facts on the matter too sparse, I do agree with you, though, on Tabram. She could very well be an early attempt by the Ripper, even though we also there can find dissimilarities compared with the other canonical victims
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 4:07 pm: | |
On the night of one of Ted Bundy's killings in Tallahassee Florida (incidentally he killed multiple girls in this one night), he went out to a disco prior to the murder spree. There, he had a few drinks and approached a young college girl and asked her to dance. In her police statement, the girl later said there was something creepy about the way Bundy looked at her, but she agreed to dance with him anyways. Afterwards, she joined her friends and said, giggling nervously, "I think I just danced with an ex-convict."
Bundy was a charismatic killer with charm, popular with the girls, good looking. He was said to be a master of deception. And despite this, there was something about his personality, the way he looked at this girl, that "creeped her out". She could sense that something was wrong with him.
If Bundy had asked her "do you want to go back to my place", her answer might well have been "Not tonight. Some other night." Or "sorry, I am busy." This is called the brush off.
I think it is dangerous to try to say too definitively what actually happened the night of Stride's murder. It can be speculated that if Stride was indeed hanging around with JTR on the street prior to the murder, she might have been "creeped out" by him. This was at the height of the panic remember. I think it is likely that prostitutes might been somewhat more selective than usual in choosing their clients. This interpreation of the scenario could also explain why they were hanging around for so long before the murder..... JTR trying to get Stride to go off with him; Stride trying to get JTR to buzz off.
Rob H |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 645
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
Hi Rob
It may be as you say - Stride hung around for a while with someone who in the end revealed a spooky side to his character. I myself, though, just find it hard to envisage Jack spending a lot of time sweet-talking his victims.
I tend to think that the killer was someone who arrived on the scene after Schwartz's man had left. This may have been the man in the very long coat, if he'd trailed her after being given the brush-off. Or it may have been someone else.
I have trouble seeing the clerkly man as the murderer.
Of course, we're assuming here that it was indeed Stride who told the man in the long coat "not tonight". If it was Stride, she may have said this because he gave her the creeps, or she may have felt that the clerkly man was better worth cultivating.
Unfortunately the times of all these events are not set in stone. I agree, what happened that night is all very uncertain.
Robert
|
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 117
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 6:37 pm: | |
Robert and Rob,
I agree with Robert here (as ususal!!!!!); I do believe the real killer turned up after Schwartz's man -- whether it was a clerky man or the man with the long coat is hard to tell, we can't be sure of anyone else besides these two characters appeared at the scene, but it's not impossible. And you're right, we could make a mistake to automatically assume that the woman saying "not tonight" was Stride. There could be another pair out that night.
I'm not at all surprised, Rob H, that there was a girl who felt there was something wrong with Bundy -- it do happens that these kind of individuals go too far and reveal themselves unknowingly -- but the fact remains, his victims fell for his charm and bought it. At his trial a large group of female spectacors protested loudly and claimed his innocence and demended his release -- although all facts were presented before them. Such great were his powers.
Of course we're wading in deep water regarding the Stride murder (as in most Ripper situations) but we must be able to draw up scenarios and point out the most likely and unlikely situations and debate the facts, or else these kind of discussions are meaningless. Some speculations can't be avoided as long as we refer to facts to a certain degree.
All the best
Glenn L 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.
|
|
|
|
