|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:56 pm: |       |
If you compare the eyewitness descriptions of Schwartz and Lawende you'll see they were describing the same man. On this basis I tend to include Stride. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 7:56 am: | |
Thanks Glenn
you'll be pleased to hear that I took on enough brandy last night to be reclassified as a tanker.
No, I wasn't running with the aggressive man scenario as it happens. I was very struck with what Diana said in her post and then by my reply to her, and it has started a cog turning in my brain which has weird potential, so I shall work diligently on that and get back to you in about five minutes. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
It occurred to me after reading through Diana’s and my own post that we may have stumbled quite by accident on a quite new method of measuring the ‘signature’ of a serial killer.
I would term this novel method as a ‘noise’ factor, indicating the amount of ‘noise’ associated with a crime scene directly before and after a murder, and by ‘noise’ I refer to witness sightings and statements linking an individual with a victim and other very similar consequence or circumstance.
To help explain my meaning, it is worth briefly considering two quite different serial killers and looking at the ‘noise’ associated with their crimes. Ted Bundy was a very ‘noisy’ killer, persuading, cajoling and kidnapping girls in full public view, leaving behind so much ‘noise’ that he really should have been caught a lot damn earlier. Peter Sutcliffe on the other hand left almost no ‘noise’ behind him, coming and going almost like a ghost, leaving precious little witness sighting or statement to help the police track him down.
On this point it is worth considering that Bundy was what I would term a ‘true value’ killer, he wanted sex with the girls and he killed them to avoid identification and possibly to enhance his twisted psyche and ego. Sutcliffe on the other hand was a typical ‘no value’ killer, he killed the girls because he wanted to kill the girls… there was no purpose or design, unlike dear old Ted.
This could be an important indicator of the type of killer we seek, the ‘noise’ could usefully point to him being either a ‘true value’ or ‘no value’ killer.
A quick look at some of the crimes of Jack is rewarding.
Martha Tabram. No associated ‘noise’ apart from a cry of ‘murder’ was heard.
Catherine Eddowes. One witness report.
Annie Chapman. One witness report.
Mary Ann Nichols. No associated ‘noise’.
Then we have Long Liz Stride with a total of four witness reports all of great detail.
This is only a very quick look - and someone should do this properly especially with MJK - but it does seem to indicate that the killer of Stride was a ‘true value’ killer, while the killer of the other women was most definitely a ‘no value’ killer.
The point is I think that the ‘no value’ killer does not make any waves before or after his killing, he is there to do a job in silence, whereas the ‘true value’ killer enjoys the public spectacle of his work and leaves a lot of ‘noise’ behind him.
Whoever killed Stride left the loudspeakers on.
Jack didn’t like music.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 2:58 pm: | |
Hi
There has always been a debate , regarding Stride, was she a Ripper victim?
surely the answer is yes, stride was a regular prostitute, standing offering her services,she was not mutalated, either by design, or circumstance.
The Rippers pattern was not to murder in pairs, so I think the answer is simple, he was Disturbed, and therefore deliberatly set out to finish the job, which Eddowes became.
we can discuss this point till the cows come home, we can use all sorts of profile, on serial killers, but the fact of the matter, stride was killed by a homicidal maniac, 'jack'
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 167
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Oh I have to disagree AP.Noiseless he may have been but also one of the biggest notice boxes in history[who still engages our attention!].
He comes on stage like a cat-stealthily but boy does he create waves as he leaves us his "spectacle"-completad in less time than it takes to skin a cat.
Its why I still favour Druitt.
The champion athlete.
Natalie. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 909
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 1:02 am: | |
Although I am not totally convinced about Stride's inclusion among the Ripper's canonical victims (even though I'd rather include her than exclude her), I tend to agree with Mr. Nunweek here.
AP. An interesting approach, but I am afraid you have totally lost me here.
"Whoever killed Stride left the loudspeakers on.
Jack didn’t like music."
I really don't see that and I don't get it. Why is the Stride murder site different from the others as far as noise and disturbance is concerned?
Hey AP! Remember, brandy is expensive... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 3:38 am: | |
Sorry Glenn
I do often write in riddles.
My meaning was that in the case of Stride there is a clear pattern of contact with other individuals right up to the time of her murder, and one of these individuals may well have been her killer. Whatever, we do have clear witness testimony, practically minutes before her death and in one case from a patrolling constable, that Stride was in close contact with others.
This type of close contact is not there in the other crimes attributed to Jack - perhaps apart from that of MJK - where we might have a single reported sighting or none at all.
So my meaning basically is that the person who killed Stride made a lot of 'noise' about it, whereas the killer of the others made no 'noise'.
This is what makes Jack so hard to catch. I guess the only reason the police never caught Stride's killer is that they were themselves too easily convinced that this was a crime within a series, such blunders still happen today.
On another note I am not claiming that the actual attacks of Jack were silent affairs, the opposite is what I claim, for as Robert has pointed out elsewhere there is a definite Calm-Noise-Calm nature to Jack's crimes.
When Jack actually struck it was like the 'Darkness' with 1000 watt amplifiers, but then before and after complete and utter silence. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 3:44 am: | |
G'day,
I've said this before but no one seems to have been listening. What's greater:
The odds of there being two murderers in the one neighbourhood in the same short space of time, or
The chances of the circumstances being different for one of the victims?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 3:50 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Out of those possibilitys.
The latter of the two is a absolute cast iron certainty.
Being a bookmaker, I would lay possibility one, till the cows came home.
Richard, |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
Well, fair enough you gang of two.
But it must always be remembered that if Jack did kill Long Liz than he in fact had even more time to mutilate her - finish her off if you like - than he did later with Eddowes.
Check the timing.
I'm sorry but everyway I look at the death of Long Liz screams out 'domestic' to me, and 'domestics' occur on such a regular basis that they can't be equated with the actions or purposes of a serial killer.
Anyways I have never been shy of seeing more than one killer at work even in a very small area, for human nature doth dictate that when a serial killer is knocking people off, then a few folks might well take the sudden and murderous opportunity to regulate their own personal affairs and allow such as Jack to wear the crown.
I like to keep an open mind even when facts don't suit my literary ambitions. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 6:59 pm: | |
I remember Dr. Ind quite well. He took the position that there was no way for anyone without serious medical experience to remove the uteri. He gave detailed accounts of pelvic autopsies, and held to the notion that the uterus is so deeply embedded in the pelvis that it would be difficult for even a trained physician to find and remove it under the conditions faced by the murderer.
Bullwinkle |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 170
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
The references to Dr Ind and the Lancer[sept 29]and theirview that medical knowledge was necessary
tells us more about the views of the medical profession.I have again been reminded of a surgeons clinical objectivity when consideration is given to the sight that met peoples eyes when they took in the victims mutilations AND where various organs were placed above shoulders under arms etc.Also Mary"s eyelids were apparently left[to lift and confirm death?] but her heart was removed[to complete the ending-never more to beat]
some indications perhaps of his mind"s working. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 910
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Hi AP,
I believe there are witness statements of interacting between Eddowes and her last customer as well, and also in Chapman's case. So I still don't get it.
And regarding time schedules and witness testimonies, I am a bit doubtful about their accuracy. Schwartz I have never really believe to a full extent, and his testimony is not backed up by any other source.
The Stride murder could indeed be a domestic murder, but I believe it is more logical to see it as a failed attempt be the Ripper (due to the interruption) -- I wouldn't rely too much of the events and descriptions displayed in the witness testimonies, there are too many question marks regarding those. I believe that the coincidence, as Leanne and Richard points out, are to great if these two murders wouldn't be connected. But as I said, I am not totally convinced either way; I prefer to keep an open mind about it as well, although I think my personal logic speak a bit more in favour of one solution than the other.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 911
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 8:55 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
Oh Leanne, I have seen that point a number of times, and I have put forward it myself at several occasions.
And I tend to agree with you and Richard here.
Although I am not as certain of Stride as Ripper victim as I used to be, I still find this conclusion a more plausible one.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:30 am: | |
G'day,
I know which 'horse' I'd put my money on!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:57 am: | |
G'day,
Liz and Michael Kidney had a stormy relationship right? But looking at the death statistics for Whitechapel in 1887 tells me that domestic violence was common, but domestic murder was non-existent! In fact murder was non-existent! There were 49 'violent deaths thru accidents', (which is the category I'd put domestic violence in, and that's only the ones that died.)
Liz often left, but Kidney took her back when she did. All he had to do was say NO! Why would he risk his neck?
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
Glenn
yes, you are quite right, there were single observations made in those cases as I did point out in my original post, and yes you are also right that much of the witness statement in Stride's case is now called into question.
However I was attempting to deal with the raw material of the events here and not out own personal opinions some one hundred years later, when it is obvious that much of the opinion generated here is biased towards those individuals personal theories and slants on the case.
The 'noise' I described was recorded 'noise' at the time in police, witness and press reports, and whether we like it or not we must accept that 'noise' as recorded history.
So I still stand by my view that the background 'noise' to the murder of Long Liz Stride was vastly different than that of the others.
There must be a reason for that, and it was patently not the fact that the killer was disturbed at his task, for all the recorded 'noise' took place before that moment.
I seek not an explanation for the lack of mutilation, I seek an explanation for the unusual amount of 'noise' connected to this crime when compared to other crimes associated with this killer where there is almost no noise.
The only explanation that occurs to me is that this was not the work of a serial killer. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 674
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
Leanne
without probably realising it, you have just given us the two most solid reasons why your Joe was not our Jack.
You cannot have the best of both worlds my dear down under friend.
For you seem to claim that Joe's motives were of a 'domestic' nature but here you deny that such crimes ever took place, and then you go on to say that Kidney could have said 'No', well so could Joe.
If you are going to shoot yourself in the foot please ask and I'll lend you my service pistol. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
G'day Wolf,
Joes 'domestic' stems much deeper than Mary Kelly. He did say "No" to Mary when he walked out on her, but he kept returning daily to give her money because that's what she wanted and needed, and I'd say to see if she'd changed her mind. With Michael Kidney, it was the other way around. She kept returning to him.
It was Mary who said "NO" to Joe, about comming home once Maria Harvey had left.
LEANNE |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
AP, when you speak of 'noise' are you referring to literal auditory input or in the broader sense multisensory input, activity that the assailant allowed to be perceived by others through a variety of sensory modalities? Schwartz saw Liz thrown down, he heard her cry out, etc. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
I talk merely of background, nothing more complicated than that. To all events and situations there is a background of noise, clutter if you like, much like if you leave a radio on very loud on an untuned station you will hear the mobile phone call signals a few seconds before you hear the mobile phone ring, it is a precedent in time and situation, an indicator of events about to happen, never an indicator of events that have happened, a way if you like of predicting the immediate future. Follow the events closely on the night of Stride's death and you will see that the background noise indicates that she will be attacked, not murdered I agree, but the events of the night are sliding to a deliberate conclusion, there is a recognisable pattern of established events with exact timings. We watch a play. With other crimes associated with Jack we sit in the dark. There are no early signals. The phone just rings and no-one picks it up. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
I just remembered something I haven't thought about for decades. When I was a child of about 11 we acquired a kitten. We all loved him desperately and christened him (unimaginatively) Spotty. There were many times when I hugged him with great enthusiasm when he really didn't want to be hugged.
As he grew into cathood we began to be aware that we had a problem. He would be sitting at the window looking out at the world. One of the denizens of the neighborhood was a white cat. When he saw that cat crossing our yard, he would leap on the nearest human, biting, scratching, growling and hissing. There were several times when he did some rather serious damage. He came within a hair of getting put down but we couldn't bear to do it. He was so lovable otherwise. As kids, my sister and I learned to give the warning, "Look out! He's white-catted!" and we'd all run and make sure there was a closed door between the cat and us until he cooled down. With time it got to where it didn't have to be that one white cat, any cat would do. He would go berserk. I guess it was some kind of displaced something.
After we grew up my sister became a veterinerian, but to this day she is at a loss to explain the phenomenon. She even asked her professors at the college of veterinery medicine about it. Spotty departed this earth about 1968, gone but not forgotten and still loved.
The point is that his craziness was not brought on by any action of the victim but by something else in the environment. The trigger had nothing to do with the victim.
Secondly the trigger became less differentiated with time. In the beginning it was one specific white cat that set him off. Later on any cat at all would have the same effect. Mary Kelly was different from the first four, younger, prettier.
Whether I lived as a child with a feline JtR is debatable. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 6:30 pm: | |
Bless your old Spotty
this displaced something is merely displaced aggression, or more correctly redirected aggression, it is the table thumping of humans.
When an animal is unable to target the instigator of its aggressive urge it will target the nearest available object, whether that be animate or inanimate. As humans we suffer from this on a daily basis, the way we fold our newspaper, the way we thump a wall, the way we sometimes kill people, the way we don't like people to leave jackets on our chairs, the way we run to other people for love.
Redirected aggression is a very very interesting area with much reward in such a case as we discuss.
But an important point is that when redirected aggression is eventually allowed to be pointed to its original target it produces the opposite, a calming effect.
So to go off the wall, if Jack took his redirected aggression out onto the streets to harm willing prostitute victims because his female relatives treated him bad, then if he was finally given the rare chance to direct his aggression at his female relatives, it is likely that his aggression would disappear, and that forever.
Weird stuff. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
Guess we should have let him out so he could beat up on that cat. Do you suppose it was a territorial thing? He was neutered. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 915
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 9:52 pm: | |
AP,
Let's see if I read you correctly. With "noise" prior to Stride's murder you refer to the Schwartz incident and the assaulting man (I am afraid your use of terminology is still confusing me -- bear with me)? Because if you do, than I can agree on that there are special circumstances in the Stride case, with a lot of activity, an aggressive noisy encounter and so on -- features that we don't see prior to the other murders.
But my question would still be: so what? I certainly agree that it doesen't fit that well with a serial killer IF the assaulting man was Stride's killer -- I have pointed that out several times. But since I find it questionable that he was, then I don't see the prior recorded events to her death as that important. It has earlier on the Stride thread been discussed that a serial Killer (or Jack) would have no trouble with jumping in on the scene AFTER Schwartz man. A serial killer would most likely not make such noise and draw that much attention to himself as we see in Schwartz' assaulting fellow. But a serial killer would on the other hand find it quite suitable (organized or with mixed disorganized traits) to attack her AFTER that incident, when the coast was clear.
So that's why I think the "recorded noise" in connection with the Stride murder really has no real bearing. But I think the commossion was one of the reasons he could have spotted or chosen her as a victim. But I don't think he himself had something to do with it -- and therefore doesen't really feel like such an important aspect in my view. The noise you refer to could very well work with a serial killer, if he himself wasn't responsible for it. The timings you refer to is to me sheer coincidences, the Ripper just happened to be at the right time at the right place, and I also think it was a coincidence that the "background noise" came prior to her murder -- I don't believe it necessary had to lead up to it.
It is of course true that it's a necessity to deal with the raw material, but not without evaluate it or look at it through critical eyes, without personal interpretations of it.
I have always put forward that too many has over-read the importance of the Schwartz testimony and the incident in question. I can't be sure, but I don't believe that had anything to do with the murder whatsoever, and I stand by that notion.
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.
|
|
|
|
