|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 221
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 10:17 am: |       |
Well Jon,
I'm very well aware of the domestic incident, and I think it's hilarious that it's being slapped in my face everytime, although it doesen't have anything to do with this case at all.
I can't explain why that husband slit his woman's throat, but then I don't know that much about his character or personality either.
I still stress, that cutting someone's throat is higly unusual in "ordinary" domestic killings, the usual approach -- when it comes to knives being involved -- is random stabbing. I have never in my encounters of knife attacks in Sweden (unless it's serial killing or the offender is a experienced murderer) come across a single thoat-cutting where the two parties know each other or are romantically involved. Throat-cutting I think is quite extreme and not something that the ordinary, drunk or frustrated man would perform. You can bang that article of yours in my head a million times, Jon, but you need better arguments than that.
"...to make a remark such as that, tut, tut, - shame on you."
Right back at ya, Jon.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 222
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
Hi Alan,
Interesting scenario, I believe it is as good as any. I myself do believe that the Ripper saw his opportunity after the assaulting incident, and took it.
Welcome to the board, Alan!
-----------------------------------
Hi Jeff,
I'm not sure knife-stabbing takes that much time or generally should be noisy, really -- I would assume it depends on the situation. And that's not the important thing here. The point is that domestic knife incidents are mostly done in a frenzy and in affect, and therefore stabbing is the more natural approach, while throat-cutting is a more deliberate act, and an act that to its nature is not something anyone would manage to perform or choose to do.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 10:28 am: | |
Turn the equation round, RJ.
The attacker (if Kidney) is spotted by one, possibly two witnesses, and yet responds by not only showing aggressive behavior towards the witnesses, but even continues on to "cut her throat and get out of there"? Kidney, who was known to be violent towards this woman, would have run an enormous risk, turning a small physical altercation with her (which would not have meant much to the legal authorities had she been left with a bruise or two but in one piece  ) into capital murder and the prospect of dangling from the rope.
Slitting her throat would be a double-edged sword - while the police may have looked past a guilty Kidney thinking this was a sign of the ripper's work, Schwartz or pipe-man had only to identify Kidney for the police to look straight at him and possibly look no further for Jack.
Again (to my thinking) it's her very lack of a struggle that is consistant with her knowing the man who is assaulting her.
I would agree with you if Stride was also confident that her life was not in danger from this man. But it worries me that your Kidney theory relies on you knowing, better than Stride evidently did herself, what violence her man was capable of doing to her, and the limits of her own ability to calm him down. He went on to cut her throat, and up to that point she had absolutely no fear of him becoming really nasty on account of her having dumped him?
Love,
Caz
|
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 12:40 pm: | |
"The assault witnessed by Schwartz, made by a man whose drunkeness, threatening shout of 'Lipski', and continuing ferocity in the presence of male witnesses is all quite incompatible with the normal conduct of Serial murderers." (A-Z, pg. 387, 1st Ed.)
Hey RJ,
I don't think drunkenness is incompatible with serial killers. Ted Bundy said it was often drunkenness that got him into the state of mind to kill. I think Dahmer used to drink and take drugs while killing.
Also, (I asked this before), but why is the Star report on Schwartz different from the police report, which makes no mention of a drunken man staggering down the street. I may be missing something, but did not the newspapers sometimes embellish stories?
Rob H |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 18
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:06 pm: | |
"...Schwartz or pipe-man had only to identify Kidney for the police to look straight at him and possibly look no further for Jack. "
This is a good point Caz. If a was a detective investigating the crime, I would have simply shown Kidney to Schwartz... "Is this the man?" Either this was not done, or it was done and the police did not make any note of it....?
(I apologise if I get any facts wrong, I am at work and dont have my books)
Rob H |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Caz---If Mr. Andersson will excuse another of my "puzzling excursions" into the stygian depths of human behavior, what I am speculating about here is the psychology of the man witnessed by Schwartz. Yes, we agree on one point: the man who attacks Stride---if he carries his action to the point of murder--runs a very serious risk of having a future date with a length of hemp. So what might one surmise?
Is this consistent with 'Jack.'? The authors of the A-Z had their doubts, and I have to agree. But is it inconsistent with a domestic murder?
Here you & I evidently go our separate ways.
I reckon by your above comment that you are suggesting "yes" ---it is inconsistant, or at least hard to swallow. Reasoning onward (correct me if I am wrong) the assaulter makes a hasty exit....only to be supplanted with a not-so-good Good Samaritan.
But you see, I wish to stay the course, and only allow for what I am seeing. The Good Samaritan is entirely theoretical. So I say that the man who assaulted Stride is the same man who killed her (I have no reason to think otherwise). Surely then, this tells me he was hell-bent on killing her regardless of the consequences. As I said before, this rather makes me suspect that the murder was extremely personal. Jealousy is the oldest motive in the book, one of the great destructive elements in the world. Like Alan, I see more in Stride's movements that night than a woman turning tricks.
I don't recall suggesting that Stride had no fear of Kidney, by the way. On the contrary, she snuck back to gather her things rather than have a row. However, if confronted with an abusive man, a woman might well attemp to use charm or submission as a means of self-defense, not kicking & clawing. Out here in the west, the local wisdom is that if attacked by a grizzly, it's better to roll over & play dead.
I think I've about run the course now, and have nothing more to add.
Cheers, RP
Finally, as I crawl away: no one seems to have found much interest in an earlier question. Obviously, the police very closely compared the descriptions furnished by Schwartz & Lawende. Why then does Anderson eventually write about "the one man" who had a good look at the Ripper? Is he dismissing one of the witnesses or is he being sloppy? Lawende, we know was later used as a witness. What happens to Schwartz? He didn't fall of the face of the earth: there he still is in the 1891 census, still in St. George-in-the-East, plugging away as a tailor's presser, wife & two kids.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 224
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:31 pm: | |
I understand what you say, Palmer, the problem is that you disregard from the possibilities of human behaviour in certain situations, because you see this as arguments based on loose speculations, which it is not -- compared to other aspects. And that is probably where we differ from one another -- you concentrate on the facts, altough there aren't any!, while I am trying to come to terms with what's reasonable or logical for someone to do in a certain situation. Considering that, I see where you're coming from. But I really think you're doing a mistake when you don't take these matters in consideration. And I am surprised to see, that you do not -- as usual -- choose to comment on why someone she knew should have cut her throat, which would be quite an extraordinary deed to perform.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:37 pm: | |
Robert--It's not merely the man's drunkeness, it's the fact that he almost immediately launches into an assault on Stride when there are witness about. He then becomes abusive when spotted by Shwartz. Bundy & Dahmer may have imbibed, but they were also great manipulators. The very fact that there are so many witnesses in the Berner Street murder (as opposed to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, etc) certainly suggests to me that it isn't a Ripper murder. The man who killed Chapman used persuasion, if he hadn't, the entire house would have started from their sheets as she bellowed down the hallway.
Good question--but Schwartz wasn't at the inquest; and no evidence exists that he was ever was confronted with Kidney. Unknowable.
As for the Star, I just think it is a little too knee-jerk to dismiss all news reports as being embellished. Of couse many contained errors. Some were complete fabrications. (I've uncovered a few myself). Many, however, hold up very well when compared to police reports &tc. Journalists were just men like anyone else; some good, some bad, most struggling to get at the truth. The Star evidently used an interpreter, but I see no reason to disregard the story out of hand. It's credible. Cheers. |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
RJ,
I appreciate your response, and respect your opinion on these issues. I certainly would not be inclined to dismiss the content of the Star's report on Schwartz... I just am not sure how we should be interpreting it.
I tend to agree wholeheartedly with the tone and attitude of Jeff's earlier post:
"Did the attacker, for instance, really walk down the road and just assault Stride? Or, possibly, were they talking for awhile, he walks off a few paces, turns walks back, and then attack her? Did Schwartz only see the last bit? I don't know, nobody does."
The circumstances can be interpreted many ways... I think it is wrong to infer from this that a man came walking down the street and attacked Stride with no previous interaction. This is an important point, because if that were indeed the case, it would support the theory that either 1. the attack was just a sudden, unprovoked attack by a drunk, or 2.) the attacker KNEW Stride.
It is indeed difficult to put these supposed "facts" together into a scenario that answers all the "unknowables". So I don't dismiss that piece of evidence in the Star, I just want to be careful in supposing what we can safely infer from it.
As to the fact that there were "so many witnesses in the Berner Street murder (as opposed to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, etc)" - OK agreed, this is a valid point. But, how can we guess or assume how JTR would have acted if he HAD been seen in one of those instances. Certainly it was by pure chance that he was not seen at Eddowes and Nichols, etc. So it is not against MO that he was a risktaker. The circumstances of the Chapman murder were at least as risky as those in the Stride murder. IMO, It is just pure random chance that he was not "witnessed" more often than he was.
As to the statement about "the normal conduct of Serial murderers", I would have to look into this further; especially in regard to "continuing with an attack after being seen". I dont want to just take this statement at face value. Does anyone have any info on this, or are we just to take Evans, etc. at their word/opinion on it?
Rob H |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 63
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
The problem, though, is that we don't know how any of the attacks occured at the time they happened. Schwartz's testimony may have only included the last phases, Stride may have shrugged off her attacker shortly earlier. He leaves, comes back and attacks. There could have been a lot of interaction between the two, all the charm he used with Nichols and Chapman just didn't work, let's say.
With Nichols and Chapman, and later Eddowes and Kelly, he may have been able to persuade then blitz attacks them when he can. This time, with Stride, she shruggs him off for whatever reason one can think of - it doesn't matter why. Then, she moves on down the street. She not hugely afraid of him, but she's not interested.
Anyway, he gets angry because he's been ignored. He comes back down the street towards her, and assaults her. This is what Schwartz sees.
Now I'm not saying this had to happen. What I am saying is that there is no way to decide between if something like this happened or if her attacker simply found her and assaulted her without prior interaction. Make an assumption like what I have presented here, and you get Jack. Make the assumption you put forth (attack out of the blue upon first meeting), and you get Kidney.
All we have as "facts" is that one person (Schwartz) reports seeing someone assault a women in an area where a murder took place. The witness identifies the murdered women as the one he saw assaulted. According to the witness the attacker shouted out "Lipski", but the witness was unsure of whom that comment was directed. The victim shouts out, but not very loudly. Witness becomes scared, and flees. He's followed by "pipe man" who may or may not have been associated with the attacker.
And, we have details from the point in time from when Stride's body is found.
What we don't have is information from the minutes prior to the assault. From the beginning to the end of what Schwartz saw we are probably dealing with 60 seconds worth of time. Remember, the event he reports is just "he grabbed her, threw her to the ground, shouted at me, and I fled". This whole thing wouldn't take that long. Let's say he covers 3 minutes, including 2 minutes before this (where nothing is reported because nothing of interest happened). What I described above could have simply happened 10 minutes previous. The attacker has been brooding and working himself up over getting rejected, etc. See? We don't know, can't know, what happened prior to the attack. So we can't say the attack "came out of the blue when the attacker first meets Stride" because we don't know if this is actually the first time the attacker met Stride that night.
Anything else we try and argue about the interactions or lack thereof between Stride and her attacker is conjecture. If that conjecture is reasonable and meshes well with the events we have, then it's worth considering as a possible event.
So, if we assume the attack comes "out of the blue on first meeting", which it may have and that is reasonable if the killer is Kidney and doesn't sound like Jack. So, this is a reasonable possibility. But, it's not proof of Kidney because we have no proof the attack did come out of the blue.
If there was some interaction between Stride and her attacker prior to the assault, it fits just fine with Jack. But it's not proof of Jack because again, we have no proof they did interact. It's just a reasonable alternative to the above.
Given what little evidence we have, anything is possible, so nothing is ruled out. Stride could have been killed by Kidney or Jack. Depending on which killer one picks determines what details one fills in the gaps with and there is nothing we have as evidence to tell us when we're filling in the gaps correctly. We aren't constrained by the evidence, so we can't assert one way or the other about whether or not Stride is a victim of Jack or of Kidney.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 64
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I suspect stabbing is much more common today. I'm just wondering if the same holds for 1888 when people might have been more used to useing a knife in a "slicing" kind of way. Especially if "part-time work as a slaughterman" was common in the area.
Anyway, that's why I was wondering about the breakdown of murders in the area at the time. What percentage of known domestics in the area were performed by "throat cutting"? If that's low, it points away Stride being a domestic killing, if it's high, it doesn't. Hmmmm, I like numbers too much.
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 731
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hi Saddam
Good point. Such care over the blood flow certainly doesn't fit in with the Kidney "crime of passion" theory.
Robert |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 6:42 pm: | |
Hi all,
Robert House writes:
"Also, (I asked this before), but why is the Star report on Schwartz different from the police report, which makes no mention of a drunken man staggering down the street. I may be missing something, but did not the newspapers sometimes embellish stories?"
Schwartz was a recent immigrant from Hungary who reportedly spoke no English. Both his statement to the police and his interview with the Star were given through an interpreter. It is extremely unlikely that either interview was transcribed in the original Hungarian, so we have no way to assess the accuracy of either translation. We don't even know if the same interpreter was used for both interviews - the wording of the Star article raises the possibility that two different interpreters were used. So, we must consider that at least some of the difference in detail between the two accounts may be due to translation error.
Some newspapers embellished stories more so than others, the extent to which they did so was dependent in part on the character of the paper. The Star was considered to be a "radical" publication, as opposed to, say, the far more conservative Times, and as such was not above sensationalizing a story in order to boost circulation. If you examine the differences between the two accounts, I think it's clear that this practice was responsible for the differences in the Star version.
For example, in the police version Pipeman is lighting his pipe prior to the assault, merely follows Schwartz afterwards, and Schwartz is not certain whether the two men are together or known to each other. In the Star version, the pipe has become a knife, Pipeman shouts a warning to Stride's assailant, then "rushed forward as if to attack."
Clearly, in the more dramatic Star version, Pipeman is an active participant in the crime, and not simply a frightened bystander as Schwartz was. IMO, this is exactly the sort of detail the police would have tried to pin down when they interviewed Schwartz. The very fact the police report says that "Schwartz is not certain whether the two men are together or known to each other" indicates to me that Schwartz was specifically quizzed on that point, and that he was unsure. But there is no doubt whatsoever in the Star account. That, in conjunction with the Star's reputation, leads me to conclude that the police version is probably closer to what actually happened.
All IMHO of course, other interpretations are possible. The interview with the police happened on the evening of September 30th, the Star interview was published on October 1st. Could Schwartz have changed his story so drastically in less than 24 hours, thus casting doubt on his reliability as a witness? Could that be why an ostensibly important witness such as Schwartz did not appear at the inquest??
Cheers, 
Jim
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 226
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 7:28 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
I don't have such figures, I'm afraid, and I don't know if they exist -- I'm not that much of a statistics fan, anyway (and I certainly don't like numbers).
Regarding stabbing versus throat-cutting, I find it hard to believe that now or 1888 is of any greater significance. What I'm talkning about is behaviour based on instinct, anger and affect. Even if they would have a greater experience in the old days (which I doubt) from slaughterhouses when it comes to cutting throats, that is not the same as using this in affect killing during quarrels or domestic conflicts. I don't think this reaction would have been different in 1888 than it is now; it is quite a brutal and excessive method to use if you're not a violent killer, and a method that is more deliberate.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 65
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 7:50 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I see what you're getting at, and agree on an "instinct" level. I just worry, especially with this one case, about making too much without some form of information that might add to one interpretation or the other. I keep flopping between Jack and not-Jack I worry about falling over sometimes! ha! I suspect the data would be available from court records of the time, but that it hasn't actually been compiled along the lines I'm thinking about.
If, and just to play devils advocate here, Kidney was brooding and angry over Stride having left him, he may have worked himself up to where this wasn't a "flare up of anger" but rather he went looking to kill her. Something like that might explain the more deliberate throat cutting, combined with the recent press coverage of just such a method.
Mind you, why he got this upset this time when Stride apparently had left him before isn't really explained.
Anyway, as with everything about Stride, I seem to be able to see it both ways just as easily. Maybe I need new glasses?
- Jeff |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
RJ,
I'm not saying Kidney killing Stride is impossible, I'm only saying there is no evidenciary reason to believe he did. It must be considered POSSIBLE that he killed her until a convincing Berner/Mitre scenario appears demonstrating conconclusively that someone else did. All I'm saying above is there is no EVIDENCIARY REASON to believe Kidney was Broadshoulders.
Please understand I have good reasons for promulgating this position. If we allow logically unjustified positions to go uncriticized when they appear, they tend to spin off even more unjustified positions, and we find ourselves looking up from the bottom of a deep bowl of thick soup. Please notice for example the pro-Kidney position of Mr. Sharp, who posted soon after your "NO KNOWN EVIDENCE" rebuttal of my position. This Kidney scenario directly contradicts Schwartz's statement, yet it is later accepted as an interesting theory worthy of consideration by another poster.
See how embellishment works, RJ? Once it gets its foot in the door, it never leaves. We're stuck with it and have to live with it forever, or until we gather ourselves together enough to will it away.
So in a nutshell, let's stick with the evidence. Let's keep both our feet planted firmly on the logical ground.
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 228
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 10:41 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Yes I see what you mean as well. But even if he could have worked himself up, to suggest that he set out to plan to kill her, we still have to ask ourselves: do we know that much about Kidney's personality? Had he a history of such extreme violent acts in the past? What was the relation between him and Stride really like? Since we don't know the aswers to these questions we'll be stuck in the dark about that, I think. I personally think it is to stretch things a bit.
And once again, we have no evidence whatsoever that the man in question really was Kidney! But I see your reasoning.
"Anyway, as with everything about Stride, I seem to be able to see it both ways just as easily. Maybe I need new glasses?"
Well, I have glasses, Jeff, and I'm afraid that hasn't helped me the slightest in this case... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 66
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:10 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
You're correct in that we don't know much about Kidney's personality, probably even less than we know about Barnett's actually. I think there are some testimonies about their relationship (Stride and Kidney), and I don't recall any that struck me as indicating an especially violent relationship. However, I'll have to re-read things again as I could be confusing things with Eddowes and her partner.
Again, because we don't know, anything is possible so we have no direction to guide our theorizing. As I've said many times, it's because of that lack of direction that we should really go no further. Each unguided step is one more step too many. Mind you, a bit of speculation can suggest things to look for so it's not entirely bad. But untill that evidence is found (or evidence turns up that shows the speculation is wrong) it's nothing more than a made up story.
Most of my "made up stories" I'm presenting here are just to show how our lack of constraints can spawn many contridictory explanations. And there's no way to select from them for the very same reasons. I don't actually think any of them are necessarily true, only that they work just as well.
Oh, and I saw on another thread somewhere another domestic that involved throat cutting. Then, the husband tried to cut his own, but was restrained, stiched up by a doctor, tried for murder, then hanged. Mind you, this message board will, by it's very nature, over represent the occurance of such murders. Also, I can think of a 3rd, which is John Kelly. Didn't he cut his wifes throat before being put in an assylum? I suspect my belief that throat cutting wasn't uncommon comes from a false impression created by reading about JtR. You read about a lot of throat cutting murders, but of course the sample is highly biased.
- Jeff |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 - 11:57 pm: | |
Saddam--I can understand where you're coming from---really---but the way I look at, History is a different discipline from Law or from Logic. Reciting "the evidentiary" can be an awful lot like chanting a mantra in an airport. The 'evidence' is very thin. I always wish you & your fellow logicians all the best, but if your ultimate goal is to move from the evidentiary to enlightenment, I don't see anyone engendering life out of this pool of dead chemicals any time soon. It's work without hope. In Law it would be criminal, to the Enlightened, it is shunned, but here, now & then, you gotta drag a suspect in for questioning and try to beat a confession out of him in the holding cell. Historians are brutes, really.
As always, respectfully submitted. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 10:29 am: | |
Hi RJ,
You say: 'I wish to stay the course, and only allow for what I am seeing. The Good Samaritan is entirely theoretical.'
To be fair, anything beyond what we are seeing is entirely theoretical, and I think most of us have been saying as much. If you are really only allowing for what you see, you would have to go from what Schwartz is reported to have claimed to be witnessing to the moment Stride is found dead and conclude that the blind spot for the time in between allows for a number of entirely theoretical things to have happened.
If you prefer one over another, you are going beyond what can be seen by the rest of us. You prefer to see the same man who was seen assaulting Stride staying at the scene and cutting her throat. (You say you have no reason to think otherwise, but I say we cannot possibly know either way.) You can then 'see' that this one man was hell-bent on killing her regardless of the consequences. Looking back over Stride's movements that night, you can see what emotions could have been stirring in her ex-boyfriend and now finally you can 'see' Kidney occupying the blind spot. So now you can 'see' two murderers of street women operating on the same night, and Stride would have served as a target for both men. But you only choose to see the movements of one during the time in question, Kidney, even though Stride was potentially the victim of whichever of these killers found her first.
I'm not sure I understand your grizzly analogy. If local wisdom is that it's better to roll over and play dead when attacked by a grizzly, how does this relate to your views on local wisdom in the case of a Whitechapel prostitute finding herself assaulted by a male in ripper territory? Whatever Stride may have thought was her best method of self-defence, she was unable to save her skin that night, whether the grizzly was her abusive ex or a stranger.
Love,
Caz
|
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 11:48 am: | |
Jim,
I appreciate your response to my question above. You raise some interesting points. It seems that a newspaper like this would want to provide a "narrative account" of waht Schwartz saw, as opposed to the more objective police account. That is to say, they might fill in the blanks in a way that makes the narrative flow "work" better. It would not work to say "Schwartz was not certain..." etc. Newspapers are not as strictly critical in their intrerpretation as police would have been. I am really not buying the whole "man staggering down the street idea".. mainly because Stride was witnessed multiple times prior to the murder with a man whose description matched that of both Schwartz and Lawende. I mean look at the descriptions:
Marshall- Small, black coat, dark trousers, middle aged, round cap with a small sailor-like peak. 5'6", stout, appearance of a clerk. No moustache, no gloves, with a cutaway coat.
PC Smith - Aged 28, cleanshaven and respectable appearance, 5'7", hard dark felt deerstalker hat, dark clothes. Carrying a newspaper parcel 18 x 7 inches.
Schwartz - Aged 30, 5'5", brown haired, fair complexion, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.
Lawende - Aged 30, 5'7", fair complexion, brown moustache, salt-and-pepper coat, red neckerchief, grey peaked cloth cap. Sailor-like.
All with a dark peaked cap, same age, height. This is the most compelling link, IMO.
Rob H |
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Saddam---As many here haven't registered, their most interesting posts don't appear until many days after the fact. It was only through the greatest of flukes that I found your old message. Bravo, and many thanks. I was also delighted to find a post by the ever-lucid Harry Mann. Intriguing stuff; I look forward to the full Monty.
The following is for your ears only. Top secret, stuff.
1. “The Whitechapel murderer was responsible for six murders, Tabram through Kelly.” Don’t necessarily disagree, but see #11 below.
2. “He's covered in the A-Z.” Yup.
3. “He was not a lust murderer.” Not really, no.
4. “He was not the man seen by Hutchinson.” Nope.
5. “Significant clues can be found in the writings of Anderson and Swanson, not yet understood by Ripperology.” I would stress a specific piece of physical evidence not mentioned, but alluded to.
6. “The notion that he went into history unknown may well not be true. Numbers of people may have known who he was.” Agree again.
7. “He was a very smart man, PhD level IQ I'd say.” That’s not how I would put it, but yes.
8. “He was in a period of significant personal instability during the Terror, possibly related to alcohol. He may have been under the influence at all the murder scenes.” Utterly true.
9. “He murdered Mary Jane Kelly after she was seen that morning by Caroline Maxwell.” Almost certainly true.
10. “He was not Ostrog, Klowsowski, Bury, Deeming, Maybrick, Kidney, Cream, Netley, Gull or the Prince.” Nor Barnett, nor Sickert.
Now my some new ones.
11.The ‘decentrist’ idea is historically valid. I, too, believe that the primary murderer is knowable, but this knowledge can’t be used ‘holistically’ as direct evidence concerning individual murders: viz. Stride. To beg & borrw from separate crime scenes to build a case is theoretically on shaky turf, as I see it. Rung by rung, padre.
12. The murderer never left anything behind.
13. The murder dates have no significance.
14. The answer is ten feet to the left of the case evidence.
15. The precise point at where Anderson’s thinking went astray can be found in The Lighter Side of My Official Life. (Not recognized as such)
16. Druitt tells us something important.
17. Cleveland Street is not without significance, strangely enough, but not how you might think.
18. Where Anderson is silent, Bond speaks.
19. Tabram is the key.
20. Monro knew.
21. Swanson didn’t.
22. Those weren't rope burns on K---'s wrists.
23. The case has been solved for a long time.
Cheers.
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 4:37 pm: | |
RJ,
Thank you for a thoughtful response.
5. “Significant clues can be found in the writings of Anderson and Swanson, not yet understood by Ripperology.” I would stress a specific piece of physical evidence not mentioned, but alluded to.
>>Interesting, indeed. Anderson actually mentions the pipe on the hearth. Do you mean physical crime scene evidence the police actually collected? Otherwise, hmmmm.....
11.The ‘decentrist’ idea is historically valid. I, too, believe that the primary murderer is knowable, but this knowledge can’t be used ‘holistically’ as direct evidence concerning individual murders: viz. Stride.
>>I agree with you on this, although I do believe the case can be reasoned out holistically proceding in the opposite direction, e.g., from the crime scene evidence to the murderer. The identity of the murderer is a logical inference supported by the evidence, it is not evidence in and of itself.
To beg & borrw from separate crime scenes to build a case is theoretically on shaky turf, as I see it. Rung by rung, padre.
>>As I see it, all the crime scenes are united by a central factor 'X.' If you know 'X,' you can appreciate a unity. I agree, however, that you can't absolutely prove that 'X' is the central factor strictly from the crime scenes. You have to know 'X' almost to start. Therefore in 'X' I have a Nietzschean-like, post-decentrist, proto-centrist position. A kind of epistemological- metaphysical thought animates it.
12. The murderer never left anything behind.
>>If you mean at the crime scenes, correct. What you mean is that Barnett didn't do it--e.g., his pipe.
13. The murder dates have no significance.
>>Can't agree entirely. Most don't matter, some do.
14. The answer is ten feet to the left of the case evidence.
>>Ten FEET? How about ten LIGHT YEARS? Honestly, anyone who has a history of depression shouldn't read my thesis. It is very pessimistic, and reading it might engender suicide attempts.
15. The precise point at where Anderson’s thinking went astray can be found in The Lighter Side of My Official Life. (Not recognized as such)
>>I don't think Anderson's thinking ever quite went astray. Rather, that he was a type of person different from what is found nowadays, and so we don't readily recognize him for what he was and wasn't. He had his reasons for doing what he did. And yes, 'My Official Life' is crucial to understanding the case.
16. Druitt tells us something important.
>>Well, if you mean the Memoranda are significant, then okay, I agree. But Druitt didn't 'do it.'
17. Cleveland Street is not without significance, strangely enough, but not how you might think.
18. Where Anderson is silent, Bond speaks.
19. Tabram is the key.
>>These all seem interpretive to me. Elaboration would be appreciated.
20. Monro knew.
>>I don't think so. Neither did Anderson tell him all he knew and did, I don't think. But this is a minor point to me.
21. Swanson didn’t.
>>When you say this, you mean Kosminski was NOT the murderer, because Swanson says Kosminski was Anderson's suspect. But I do not exclude Kosminski.
22. Those weren't rope burns on K---'s wrists.
>>Are you joshing us, RJ? Haven't got a clue what you mean.
23. The case has been solved for a long time.
>>Hmmmmmm...Then you mean Anderson knew!--? Then on that point let me say that I think: Mr. Fido has been the most satisfactory Ripperologist thus far. Mr. Nelson doesn't know that he knows. Mr. Begg doesn't know what he's got in his lap. Mr. Chisholm has set the stage for considerable production. And I'd think the case has been at least SOLVABLE for a long time(!)
Ta-ta,
David
|
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
Saddam; Thank you for your reply. I will give you my reasoning behind those statements of concern to you;
There was a relationship between Kidney and the victim, and the behavior of the assailant is consistent with a man who was willing to abuse and assault a woman in public. He was also drunk, and Kidney was a drunk. His woman had left him, and he lived in the proximity of the area in which she was loitering that night.
As for the unseen person- by the time Schwartz witnessed the attack, he only saw Liz and the assailant. If there was another person involved, like a customer who happened to be Jack the Ripper- then he may have already been in the yard waiting for Liz to get rid of Michael by paying him some money. He was her pimp. Michael Kidney may have been the first interruption of the evening.
The point about the horse is easy to explain; If you hear a lorry or a car driving toward you, and they intend to make a turn or stop, you will hear the motor slowing down, gears changing, maybe even the brakes being applied. You can apply the same theory to a horse. Diemshultz is pulling up on the reigns and the horse knows he has to turn up the yard and slows down, perhaps snorting or neighing and other carriage noises preceeding his arrival. This is Jack's second interruption, and with the possibility of Kidney's return, he must abort the mission. Even serial murderers have a bad day once in awhile!
His manner of escape I will concede to you, that he was more likely to escape up the yard rather than out into the street.
The long coat man is my suspect because he is the man that Liz refused. She must have had some bad feelings about him, or felt uncomfortable. There had to be a reason for her to refuse a paying customer, unless she was waiting to meet someone from the club. And around this time she is suddenly wearing a flower and has sweets, maybe this is how he convinced her to go up the lane, and then they see or hear Kidney strutting up the street.
Jack still takes the time to properly dispatch his victim with the scarf hold and neat slice to the proper vessels without any spurting, laying her near a gutter for drainage. He does not like blood on his feet so that they can follow him, especially if hounds are brought in. He leaves no clue behind.
I do not believe that Jack the Ripper was under the influence of alcohol, because alcohol slows down the reflexes and inhibitions. I rather believe he was under the influence of amphetamine or stimulant drugs, as this would give him sharp reflexes, and the ability to stay awake late into the night and morning. This may also explain the weekend time of some of the murders, as this is when he was using his drugs and doing his stimulating "work".
Your long lists of hints say nothing definitive to me, so defecate or get off the pot, what are you trying to say?
Joan |
Alan Sharp
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 12:30 pm: | |
Please notice for example the pro-Kidney position of Mr. Sharp, who posted soon after your "NO KNOWN EVIDENCE" rebuttal of my position. This Kidney scenario directly contradicts Schwartz's statement, yet it is later accepted as an interesting theory worthy of consideration by another poster.
Without wanting to push this "theory" in any way, after all I think I made it perfectly clear that I was merely surmising a possible scenario by which Kidney could have been the attacker and still fit in with existing facts, I was not for one second suggesting that this was "the solution", however I would like to know in what way my scenario "directly contradicts" Schwarz's statement, which I was under the impression I had been careful to keep to as exactly as possible.
Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the oppos- ite side of the road, 'Lipski', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.
My scenario involves a. Kidney pulling Stride into the street and then throwing her to the ground, b. a man lighting a pipe on the opposite side of the road, c. Kidney shouting the anti-semetic "Lipski" at this man. Also in suggesting that the man had a residence in the region of Fairclough street I even, without saying so, provided a reason why this second man did not follow so far as the railway arch. I was not looking at Schwarz's testimony when I wrote the post so I will admit to some small confusion as to the side of the road on which things happened but I would say this was a fairly minor flaw and not a "direct contradiction" of the facts.
As I said, I'm not trying to convince anyone and I personally don't believe that Stride was killed by anyone other than the Ripper, but from this standpoint in history I cannot say that for certain. Part of any detection work is in trying to envisage possible ways that things "could have" happened. If every detective started by saying "if I don't have proof that it happened that way then I'm not even going to consider it" then no crime would ever be solved. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
