|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:22 pm: |       |
There is an English word -- chocoholic. My husband says he will not pay to send cookies to Sweden.
Your points are very good. He was organized enough to run when Diemschutz approached. He was disorganized and obsessed enough to risk another kill when his previous one had provoked a manhunt and an uproar. It appears that the dividing line was immanence. The danger could be very real but not immanent and he would ignore it.
(Message edited by Diana on December 23, 2003) |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 87
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 8:25 pm: | |
Hi Diana & Glenn,
There are two things to consider in your discussion/conversation.
First, the facial mutilations might have been done because the Ripper knew Catherine - at least by sight, that is. And if we discount the facial mutilations, I would say that Catherine Eddowes’ state was quite similar to that of Annie Chapman. In fact, perhaps then she could even be considered less mutilated, because with Catherine no flaps of flesh were cut from her abdomen (in Annie’s case there were 2) and Catherine’s throat was cut only once and the cut was less long than in Annie’s case.
Secondly, assuming for a moment that Elizabeth Stride was also a Ripper victim, one thing to be considered is that the Ripper might have passed the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police and entered the City of London because both the Metropolitan Police and the City Police didn’t expect him to go there. That would be two flies in one smack, as we say in Holland: he escaped the Met while at the same time entering the territory of a police force that wasn't expecting him. Which could be considered a smart thing, if true.
God jul och ett got nytt ar!
Merry Christmas!
Frank
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 7:03 am: | |
It would be difficult to say whether he headed for the CoL territory deliberately or if he just set off on a mad dash to anywhere that would take him away from Berners Street.
It might help us to consider our own situation. Most of us live in an area where we know the name of our local policing authority. We probably know what policing authority is responsible for the neighboring territory as well. Would any of us dare to say with certainty that we know with great exactitude where the boundary is?
As to organized or disorganized, once we have conceded a mixed individual and abandoned labels we can talk about how much rationality there was and where it began and ended. He was not afraid to kill Chapman in a yard behind a house where anyone might have looked out the window. But in killing Stride he fled when he heard the sound of Diemschutz's cart. Immanence!
(Message edited by Diana on December 25, 2003) |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 319
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 10:10 am: | |
Diana --
Re: Most people in the US would know within a few feet where their municipality ends because it is clearly marked by street signs. This I am sure was not true in Victorian London. But, today at least, one can easily tell when one is in the City by the difference in police uniforms and by those distinctive black posts that are everywhere in the City.
Re: "Chocoholic" -- I maintain this is not a word at all. It is obviously a coinage based on the word "alcoholic." But what is the suffix in "alcoholic?" It is not "-holic" but merely "-ic." We don't say "alcoholoholic! The "chocolate" word should be "choclatic." Similarly, there should be no such word as "workoholic" for the same reason. It should be "work addict" ("workic" doesn't work!). Incidentally, we don't say "drugoholic," do we?"
Andy S.
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 7:52 pm: | |
Andy -- lighten up.  |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 849
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 8:34 pm: | |
Diana,
I agree in your answer to Frank. We can't really know why he went off to the City district and whether this was a deliberate intent. I can't still see why he should do that anyway -- there is always a risk involved in changing your environment while committing a murder; apparently the Ripper didn't do such other attempts (as far as we know), which could -- but only could -- suggest that it might have evolved from the Stride incident.
Secondly, if what Frank described would be a smart thing, why didn't the Ripper consider this approach on more occasions, since he obviously got away with it?
No sweat, Diana.
I got quite a number of fine chocolate boxes for Christmas anyway, so I'm full at the moment. 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 850
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 9:01 pm: | |
Hej svejs Frank,
Hope you've had a nice Christmas so far, mate.
Regarding your first point:
We can't of course know why he did those facial mutilations on Eddowes, but I don't believe for a minute those were done because he knew her. There is a strong chance that he knew the others by sight as well, and we don't see such attempts in the earlier victims.
And some of the facial mutilations would in the case be considered useless in that regard; the V-shaped markings have really no purpose for such an intent, for example (considering he had to work fast), they seem more ritual to me, and her main facial features are also still recognizable, so I -- regardless of the lack of time he had to his disposal -- would in any case consider the facial mutilations as quite an unsuccesful attempt of disfigurement for such purposes. Although I can't prove it, I prefer to look at those as a result of increasing frustration and violent frenzy against his victims.
Then, regardless of the throat cuttings, I don't really agree with you as far as the descriptions of the wounds are concerned, compared to Chapman's. Eddowes was ripped up to a greater extent (at least upwards) and had also stab wounds in the genitals area. I am by no means a medical expert, but that is how I personally percept it, especially when I look at the scetches in the Casebook's own illustrated dissertation article concerning the wounds of the victims.
Regarding your second point: see my post addressed to Diana.
En god fortsättning, Frank.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 8:06 am: | |
Catherine had some random cuts on her face but notably there were vertical cuts through her eyelids, triangular flaps of skin removed from the cheeks, and the tip of the nose removed. It has occurred to me and I have stated before on the old message boards that this might be a ghastly imitation of the makeup of a harlequin. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 10:13 pm: | |
I love the above kind of discussions. Here are people in philosophical dialogue, really trying to face up to the implications of the case evidence.
One point I'd like to mention concerning a point made above about the murders always taking place on either weekends or holidays. This may merely have been because those were the times the perpetrator was accustomed to drink. I tend to think he started out with a drink or two, then murdered, then finished up drinking himself into oblivion and laying out. Many people who drink do so on weekends and holidays. I think he was drinking around Whitechapel, with a holiday/weekend habit well-formulated, long before he began killing. Remember, Schwartz reported the murderer walking tipsily, and neither soberly nor drunkenly.
Bullwinkle
|
LEA
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
'But his need to mutilate was overwhelming enough for him to mutilate another woman less than an hour later.'
Add to that the fear of failure, the need to tell everyone: "You can't stop me!"
I don't believe Stride's murder was planned. He didn't examin the location enough. There was more chance of being caught-in-the-act, (which he nearly was), than in the lonely backyard of 29 Hanbury Street. Plus Stride's murder was too early in the morning, if we compare it to the the other murders. There's some reason why Elizabeth Stride had to be killed. It's as though she threatened to inform the police of something, not Kate!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 858
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 8:49 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
Hope you've had a nice Christmas.
"Add to that the fear of failure, the need to tell everyone: 'You can't stop me!'"
I don't know; I am not so sure such thoughts ran through his head, although I can't prove they didn't. Why do we always automatically assume that every serial killer wants to send a message with their crimes? I am doubtful, really.
"I don't believe Stride's murder was planned. He didn't examin the location enough. There was more chance of being caught-in-the-act, (which he nearly was)..."
I can buy that. Sounds reasonable.
"...than in the lonely backyard of 29 Hanbury Street."
Well, both sites were at least equally problematic for him, in their own way. Hanbury Street especially regarding the time of the murder.
"There's some reason why Elizabeth Stride had to be killed. It's as though she threatened to inform the police of something, not Kate!"
Possible, but frankly I don't believe in any of those conspiracy stories. I am not sure there really is a personal link between the victms at all -- we have no real proof of it and there is really no reason to believe that the women were killed for one specific reason, as a part of a plan. I don't buy it, regardless if it's Stride, Kelly or Eddowes. But once again; just a hunch, I can't prove it. But the reality is mostle less complicated than that.
Hey Leanne! What has happened? Why are you an unregistred guest all of a sudden...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 859
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 9:05 pm: | |
Bullwinkle,
It's true that the fact that the murders were committed at weekends is a fact we can't disregard and I find it quite interesting as well. The question is: what does it mean? Was he a sailor, entering London on weekends? However, your suggesting about drinking is both simple (in the positive meaning of the word) and intriguing.
It doesen't explain why he made a break between the Eddowes murder and that on Kelly, but that could on the other hand of course have other explanations, like the increasing police force. An interesting thought in any case.
I don't want to be the one to drag up illnesses all the time, but I just came to think about a serial murderer and rapist in Sweden, who committed his murders under the influence of alcohol which led to some sort of intoxication, resulting in uncontrolled violence and black-outs afterwards (like some sort of alcohol allergy) -- there is a clinical term for this disorder (ending with "intoxication"), but I can't recall it at the moment. Just a thought, for what it's worth.
I must say, I prefer being a chocoholic, though. Any day.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 26, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 6:01 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
Yes thankyou, Christmas was nice. Beautiful weather! I was an unregistered guest, because when something goes wrong with this computer Dad takes everything off and puts Windows back on again. That messes up my Casebook registration, and I have to post as a newcomer until Stephen helps me fix it up. I don't know why other people never have this problem. I typed my last post days ago!
I read somewhere that it was normal for a serial killer to follow his investigation in the newspapers and the Ripper had a lot to read. That's why I think he wanted to keep the public frightened and didn't want people to read about his near-capture and failure to mutilate a victim. The media coverage gave him power. He dominated!
Now look at the times that each victim was found, and likely killed:
* Martha Tabram was found dead at 4:50a.m.
* Polly Nichols was found dead at 3:45a.m. and was last seen alive at 2:30a.m.
* Annie Chapman was found dead at 3:40a.m. and last seen alive at 2:00a.m.
* Diewmshutz rode into Dutfields Yard and found Stride at 1:00a.m.
I feel that Elizabeth Stride's murder was too early to have been a planned murder. If the Ripper had checked out the location he would have had to do this around midnight, and he would have been armed with his usual weapon.
Catharine Eddowes claimed to have returned from hop-picking to claim the reward money for information leading to the Rpper's capture, and I believe that fact has clouded everyone's mind towards the possibility of Elizabeth Stride having information. I do believe that police should have at least listened to what Michael Kidney claimed he knew.
I'm not saying that the victims all knew each other! They didn't have to be close friends. You say: 'There is really no reason to believe that the women were killed for one specific reason'
Don't you believe that the Ripper had any motive that seemed reasonable to him?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 27, 2003) |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 862
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 9:11 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
Sorry to hear about your technical problems. That seems like a real bummer. So your Dad (if I understand it correctly) probably cleans out the hard disk drive, then, and then reinstalls Windows? Uuups... I hope you keep back-ups of your book, Leanne...
"I read somewhere that it was normal for a serial killer to follow his investigation in the newspapers and the Ripper had a lot to read. That's why I think he wanted to keep the public frightened and didn't want people to read about his near-capture and failure to mutilate a victim. The media coverage gave him power. He dominated!"
I am not so sure he was that type of person. If he was a sociopath, I believe there is a possibility, but I also believe he would inject himself more in the investigation personally if that was the case. So I am not so sure about that, although we don't have enough information to confirm it. Not all serial killers are dominating or do function like that, that is a misconception.
"I feel that Elizabeth Stride's murder was too early to have been a planned murder. If the Ripper had checked out the location he would have had to do this around midnight, and he would have been armed with his usual weapon."
That could be true, but then on the other hand I have never felt that any of the sites really were that staked out or well thought out anyway. In East End his possibilities for doing things differently would indeed have been rather restricted, but nevertheless... Dutfield's Yard is not the only one of the murder sites that's a result of bad judgement, in my view.
"Catharine Eddowes claimed to have returned from hop-picking to claim the reward money for information leading to the Rpper's capture, and I believe that fact has clouded everyone's mind towards the possibility of Elizabeth Stride having information. I do believe that police should have at least listened to what Michael Kidney claimed he knew."
I don't believe that any of them had any information about the Ripper. There is a possibility, but I have always considered this as fairy-tales. But if evidence shows up proving otherwise, I'll reconsider, of course.
"Don't you believe that the Ripper had any motive that seemed reasonable to him?"
No, not necessarily. At least not necessarily a "motive" in the word's real meaning, that would make logical sense to us. I believe that he had his personal reasons more or less, but hardly necessary a planned motive or scheme as such.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 308
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 9:40 am: | |
Leanne
My own feeling on that has always been that Stride was a spur of the moment killing. I think that the Ripper was out every night (or at least every weekend night) trawling for potential victims, and that he came across Stride AFTER she had been attacked by Schwartz's man. In her vulnerable state, and in the entrance to a darkened yard which must have looked a likely location, he just couldn't resist going for the kill. This scenario explains the anomaly of his not having time to mutilate despite the 15 minute gap between Schwartz seeing the attack and Louis Diemschutz showing up. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 26, 2003 - 9:04 pm: | |
"...there is really no reason to believe that the women were killed for one specific reason, as a part of a plan."
>>If the women were killed 'as a part of a plan,' why would they necessarily be killed for 'one specific reason?'
Question is the answer.
Bullwinkle
|
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 87
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
Leanne,
Slight correction of what was doubtless a typo on your part -- Chapman was discovered around 5:40 or a little later in the morning. Anyway, Santa should have brought you a new computer so you don't have to keep reregistering.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 864
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 12:20 pm: | |
That's right, Don. I thought that was strange, but I assumed it was a mistake on Leanne's part. And she is not the only one who needs a new computer, I've had mine now for four years -- it's still hanging on, but just barely ...
Don!
I got your mail. I have recently for the second time tried to resend my message to you (both through the mail address and through your profile page on this site), so we'll see if you receive it this time. Or else you may have problems with your e-mail address or server, cause all my other e-mail connections are working.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 865
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Bullwinkle,
"If the women were killed 'as a part of a plan,' why would they necessarily be killed for 'one specific reason?'"
That is just playing with words, isn't it? I would think that would mean the same. If you kill someone because it fits a scheme you make, you kill someone for some specific reason, don't you -- in contrast to killing someone without a motive whatsoever. I don't see the problem. Please, bear in mind that I am dealing with a second language here; I am doing the best to express myself. It isn't always that easy.
"Question is the answer."
Isn't that Saddam's (David Radka's) famous last words?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 27, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 7:08 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I too do not believe that Stride was killed to silence her.
But let's suppose for a minute that she was. Would you agree that Jack would have had to be following her around, waiting for his chance? (It's a bit of a coincidence if he simply bumps into the very woman he wants to kill)
So if he was following her around, he'd have seen the business with Schwartz, then seen her alone at the yard entrance, moved in and seized his chance.
As he wouldn't be sure how many people she might have told about her suspicions, it might make sense not to mutilate her, for if a woman says "so and so is JTR" and then she's killed in a JTR attack, suspicions might be aroused.
So he just cuts her throat and leaves.
The trouble is, I feel he wouldn't have gone on to do the proper JTR job on Eddowes the same night, for the two murders would surely be linked in everyone's mind. Also he'd surely have done more to make the Stride murder itself look less like a JTR killing.
Robert |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 312
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 7:40 pm: | |
Glenn
I can see what David/Bullwinkle/Saddam is trying to say. If you plan to kill five women, it does not necessarily follow that each of those five have to die for the same reason. The plan may require them each to die for a different specific reason each of which fits into the overall plan. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 867
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 8:12 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
It's possible that was what he meant, although I don't see the point of it; I was -- when I referred to a scheme or larger plan -- speaking from the point of view that there was some personal link between them (which I don't believe).
Is David and Bullwinkle really one and the same...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 3:46 am: | |
G'day,
GLENN: Don't worry this book is saved on floppy disks, plus I burn a CD evry now and then after I add to it!
About 'injecting himself into the investigation': could he have attended a Vigilante Committee meeting, without having his name recorded? To see what the opposition was up to? There's a 'Barnett' name on that list, but that was likely the Reverend Barnett.
Don't you think the time of Elizabeth Stride's murder was a little strange? I think the Ripper would have at least staked-out each victim until he found out where her 'office' was. If the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street supported alot of 'traffic' and people sometimes drove their horse and cart through, I don't think prostitutes would have often used it as their 'office'.
DONALD: When I typed 'Annie Chapman was found dead at 3:40a.m.', I'd just flicked through the pages of the 'Sourcebook' to quickly locate times. I just wanted to make a point that 1:00a.m. was unusual.
ROBERT: Elizabeth Stride didn't have to know the exact identity of the killer. She may have just seen something that was very suspicious and thought she'd try to bribe someone first, before telling anybody.
Wouldn't it have been tempting, while everyone was rushing to Berner Street, to claim another victim on the other side of town?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 9:16 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Well if he killed anybody who suspected somebody then he'd have murdered everybody!
Re a second murder while the police were distracted by the first one, he still had to come back east afterwards, right into all that police activity.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 874
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi there,
Leanne:
"Don't worry this book is saved on floppy disks, plus I burn a CD evry now and then after I add to it!"
Good thinking. One would believe that such approaches would be regarded as elementary, but believe me, it is easy to get careless about this. Unfortunately I speak from own experiences...
"...could he have attended a Vigilante Committee meeting, without having his name recorded?"
An interesting thought. But when I said "injecting himself into the investigation", I meant in a more public manner, to let people know that he existed, since you suggested that he partly wanted to scare the community. And since the letters we know of are considered hoaxes (maybe apart from the Lusk letter) we have no real signs of such activity.
"If the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street supported alot of 'traffic' and people sometimes drove their horse and cart through, I don't think prostitutes would have often used it as their 'office'."
Since you're talking about Stride here, are you in fact maybe referring to Dutfield's Yard? I am getting quite confused here. However, if I have misread you, bare with me.
Robert:
"Re a second murder while the police were distracted by the first one, he still had to come back east afterwards, right into all that police activity."
An excellent point!
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.
|
|
|
|
