|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 90
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 12:19 pm: |       |
Hi 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."
This is not necessarily true, because Elizabeth Stride was killed near the south border of the Ripper's hunting ground, if we can call it that, and the Ripper probably lived more to the north, close to the epicentre of the murders (the dropping of the apron in Goulston Street might be a good indication of this). Assuming the epicentre would be close to the intersection between Brick Lane/Osborn Street and Old Montague Street/Wentworth Street, the closest Jack would come to Dutfield's Yard on his way from Mitre Square to his home would be near this epicentre, which would be about 600 m or 2000 ft.
Frank |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 880
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
Hi Frank,
That is indeed true, but he would nevertheless have been moving in directions where it was stronger police activity as a result of the Stride murder, as I see it -- activity that I don't believe was restricted solely to Berner Street but also the quite a few blocks around it.
Then, on the other hand, both murders would also have led to some confusion, with herds of curious people moving through several blocks, which would have been to his advantage.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Frank
It still seems risky to me. He's walking along with organs in his pocket, and could be stopped any minute by police, and searched.
If the second murder took place in Mitre Square because it was more "out of the way" than Spitalfields, as Leanne seems to be suggesting, then he still has obstacles to surmount when he returns to Spitalfields. On the other hand, if Spitalfields was still OK for him after the Stride murder, because Stride's murder was on the periphery, then why not do the second murder - if he must - in Spitalfields, on his way home?
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 91
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 2:16 pm: | |
Hi again Diana & Glenn,
As I also had problems with my computer (a crashed hard disk) I only now react to some of your posts of the 25th.
Re the possibility of the Ripper fleeing to the City district purposely or not, I guess I was just trying to make sure you considered it. I myself am still inclined to think that Elizabeth Stride wasn’t a Ripper victim, but if she was, I wouldn’t think the killer deliberately chose to go to the City district either, considering he probably wasn’t that organized.
Glenn, you wrote: “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.”
I don’t agree with you here. When I was saying that the Ripper might have known Catherine Eddowes I meant it in the following way. He had seen (sighted) her on a regular basis shortly before he killed her (for work, in the pub or whatever) on which occasions he noticed her, maybe they even talked to each other. Or she might have done something shortly before her death, which had attracted his attention (singing in the street, for instance). In that way he would remember her. This would not necessarily be true of the other victims. Besides, a great many people inhabited that small area, so he must have seen many faces each and every day, but this doesn’t mean that he remembered all of them.
You also wrote: “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,…”
I wrote that Jack might have mutilated Catherine’s face because he knew her. So, maybe he cut her face ‘cause he knew her. I’m interested in hearing why the V-shaped (or whatever) markings really don’t have a ‘mutilating’ purpose.
“…and her main facial features are also still recognizable,…”
I don’t know what she looked like before she was killed and before the mortuary photographs were taken and although the quality of these photographs was poor, I would say that her face was ‘very much mutilated’, as a detailed postmortem report of Dr Brown stated. But, even disregarding this, why should the facial features not still be recognizable? We have to remember that the Ripper had to work fast and in darkness, which must have hindered him to do exactly what he wanted – regardless of the fact that he was or wasn't aware of that.
“…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.”
An unsuccessfull attempt is still an attempt, mate. 
And Diana, you wrote: “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.”
It might be Diana, but I don’t think we should try to go down such avenues, because it makes the case even more difficult than it already is.
“Is David and Bullwinkle really one and the same...?”
Glenn, I thought you would have been quicker to see this…
All the best,
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 93
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
Hi Glenn & Robert,
As I said on the thread about the Goulston Street graffito, although constable Halse walked through Goulston Street shortly after 2:15 am, constable Long was walking his normal beat which took him through this street up until he found the apron and graffito. So, as far as police activity in that neighbourhood was concerned everything seems to have been normal until about 2:55 am, after which it rapidly increased. Now, of course this doesn’t mean that police activity anywhere on Jack’s route from Mitre Square to his hideout was normal, but it does seems to have been the case. And like the prostitutes, surely the Ripper had some idea of the police beats in the area he operated in.
Robert, you wrote: “On the other hand, if Spitalfields was still OK for him after the Stride murder, because Stride's murder was on the periphery, then why not do the second murder - if he must - in Spitalfields, on his way home?”
Good point. Perhaps in the end the answer may be that Stride wasn’t a Ripper victim.
All the best,
Frank
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 4:48 pm: | |
Hi Frank
Maybe Stephen could carry out Board polls on such questions - "Was Stride a Ripper victim?" "Was Tabram a Ripper victim?" "Was the Ripper organized/disorganized?" If he did the polls every six months, the people who'd been on the relevant threads could see whether their arguments were tending to sway anybody.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 4:58 pm: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: 'Well, if he killed anybody who suspected somebody then he'd have murdered everybody.'
Lots of people suspected somebody, but none of them seem to have suspected the right person! And police would have checked out every lead they could.
'he still had to come back east afterwards, right into all that police activity.'
It seems like you're suggesting that he could have left the East End altogether. Of course it would have been risky all over the East End of London that night. I believe he would have had the best chance of going undetected by blending in to background. Maybe he went to work or looked for work, to try to appear like the people around him.
GLENN: We have put so much work into this book, I really fear losing it all and having to start again. I have all my spare copies, plus I send regular updates to Richard in England.
By mentioning '29 Hanbury Street', (where Annie Chapman was killed), I was comparing Dutfields Yard to the previous murder site.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 882
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 7:16 pm: | |
Hello Frankie boy,
Sorry to hear about your hard disk -- it is a real pain in the [biip!] when that happens.
"Re the possibility of the Ripper fleeing to the City district purposely or not, I guess I was just trying to make sure you considered it."
OK. Well, I haven't and I probably never will, until something crucial comes up. At this moment I don't see any reason to assume it.
Yes, that is what I thought when you suggested that he had seen at Eddowes earlier occasions. That may possibly be so, but that is too much speculations for me. We have really no indications on that this was the case. Drawing up unfounded scenarios about what might have happened (when we don't have any indications of it) is really not my cup of tea. He might have, but then he also might not. I have no idea why the Ripper set off in direction to Mitre Square, but I don't think he attacked Eddowes because he recognized her. That is for the conspiray-lovers to dwell about. Of course there is a possibility that he might have seen her before, especially if he was -- or had been -- a client of the prostitutes, but I don't think it necessarily was therefore she was picked as a victim. Once again, I may be misreading you here -- I really don't fully grasp this aspect of the discussion, I feel.
"I wrote that Jack might have mutilated Catherine’s face because he knew her. So, maybe he cut her face ‘cause he knew her."
But what would be the point of that? I don't get it.
"I’m interested in hearing why the V-shaped (or whatever) markings really don’t have a ‘mutilating’ purpose. [...]
why should the facial features not still be recognizable?"
Hmmm. I assumed that you meant that he mutilated her face because he wanted to wipe out the facial features of a person that he knew, or something like that (but as I said, I must admit I never really understood that). IF that was the case, the V-shaped marks are quite useless, aren't they? I believe they more point at a ritualistic aspect, rather than destroying someones face, as we see in Mary Jane Kelly.
And of course her face was badly mutilated -- I wouldn't dream of claiming otherwise, but as a former portrait painter, I think her facial features nevertheless are quite visible and interpretable. She would be quite recognizable to everyone who knew her. So if the purpose was to wipe out the face of somebody he knew (regardless of bad conditions), then I believe the result doesen't match such a purpose. The V-shaped marking, which really have no meaning by itself suggest to me that the facial mutilation bear more signs of ritualism and anger rather than any meaningful aspect.
"Glenn, I thought you would have been quicker to see this…"
Nope. Totally missed that. Must have been something going on on other threads. I have been quite preoccupied with other things during the holiday, just glancing through the web-page rather quickly.
"As I said on the thread about the Goulston Street graffito, although constable Halse walked through Goulston Street shortly after 2:15 am, constable Long was walking his normal beat which took him through this street up until he found the apron and graffito. So, as far as police activity in that neighbourhood was concerned everything seems to have been normal until about 2:55 am, after which it rapidly increased."
OK. That is probably correct. But I wonder if he himself thought about that? Maybe his instincts (yes, I know, but I couldn't express it any other way...) told him to get the hell out of the area after the Stride murder, as far away as he could or dared -- regardless of direction (as long as it was away from where he came from)?
All the best, old sport. 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 315
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 8:05 pm: | |
Simple suggestion. Jack runs off after being disturbed with Liz. Blood lust still up, he heads further afield than normal, finds Kate, carves her up, runs off with uterus and half a kidney wrapped in a portion of her apron. Runs back towards his lodgings in, say, Whitechapel Road, or wherever but in that general direction, not even thinking about the fact that he is about to run into all the police activity surrounding the Liz murder. Suddenly realises he is going through an area filled with policemen. Panics about the fact that he might be stopped carrying his incriminating little package. Throws it away on the side of the road and walks nonchalently onwards. Now along comes a dog, sniffs at the parcel, thinks "mmmm, uterus, I'll have me some of that". Grabs up the parcel in his mouth, runs off until he finds some quiet doorway where he can sit and enjoy his meaty treat in peace. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 885
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 8:21 pm: | |
Alan, exactly my line of thinking -- at least until the last two sentences (although it is indeed possible, at least it's funny)...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 7:19 am: | |
G'day, Alan, Glenn,
That's why I suggested that the Ripper wanted to boost his 'reign of terror', his power in the media. If he was almost caught in Dutfields Yard and couldn't make a specticle of Stride's body, that would make him want to totally destroy Kate's face.
I too believe the killer fled back to his lodgings before returning to Goulston Street. There was something like three quarters of an hour between the finding of Kates body and the finding of the apron/grafitti. That's the way it's presented in my book!
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 96
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 8:55 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
“…I was just trying to make sure you considered it.’
OK. Well, I haven't and I probably never will, until something crucial comes up. At this moment I don't see any reason to assume it.”
By ‘considered’ I didn’t mean ‘considered it to be true’ or ‘assumed it’, I just meant that you thought the possibility through, if you will. But forget it – it was only a minor point.
“That may possibly be so, but that is too much speculations for me. We have really no indications on that this was the case. Drawing up unfounded scenarios about what might have happened (when we don't have any indications of it) is really not my cup of tea.”
Well, I don’t think I’m drawing up unfounded scenarios. I based my suggestion that Eddowes was known to her killer on the facial mutilations and as far as I know it is not uncommon for serial killers to do this kind of thing in case the victim is known to them. I must admit that this is all I know about facial mutilations, I don’t know why they are done – I’m no serial killer, nor a forensic psychologist. I didn’t come to my suggestion with whatever conspiracy in mind, because I simply don’t believe in them – I try to stick to the ‘facts’ as much as possible.
“I have no idea why the Ripper set off in direction to Mitre Square, but I don't think he attacked Eddowes because he recognized her. That is for the conspiray-lovers to dwell about. Of course there is a possibility that he might have seen her before, especially if he was -- or had been -- a client of the prostitutes, but I don't think it necessarily was therefore she was picked as a victim.”
I haven’t said anywhere that the Ripper chose Eddowes because he knew her by sight or otherwise. I only suggested that he might have known her. Personally, I think there’s a good chance that the Ripper was attracted by St. Botolph's Church, on Aldgate High Street, which was also known as the “Prostitutes' Church” as you may know, and I think he walked into Eddowes there by accident. If the Ripper chose her, it was because of her age, height and her dark hair perhaps, but it wasn’t because he knew and recognized her.
“But what would be the point of that (mutilating the face)? I don't get it.”
As I’ve said above, I don’t either. That’s just one of those problems with (seemingly) motiveless serial killers. They do things, but it’s hard to understand why.
“Hmmm. I assumed that you meant that he mutilated her face because he wanted to wipe out the facial features of a person that he knew, or something like that (but as I said, I must admit I never really understood that).”
Again, I don’t know why they do it, I only know that it is done. Your suggestion sounds okay, but I don’t know if it’s done with the purpose of making her unrecognisable to everyone who knew her.
“IF that was the case, the V-shaped marks are quite useless, aren't they? I believe they more point at a ritualistic aspect, rather than destroying someones face, as we see in Mary Jane Kelly.”
Obviously Eddowes’ face wasn’t as mutilated as Kelly’s. The Ripper had the time of his life with her, I fear. And he probably had more light to do it in. If your suggestion about the purpose of mutilating a face is right, then he either knew her and didn’t do a good job or he didn’t know her and had something else (perhaps ritualistic) in mind, that’s true.
However, I’m not so sure that your suggestion is correct, because I remember (not very clearly though) a case in which the offender put tape over his victims’ mouths. He didn’t just take a piece and tape off the mouth, he wound the tape all around the head. But in one case he distinctly ‘exaggerated’ and not only taped her mouth but a larger part of her face. It was suggested that this was done because the offender knew this victim, and in the end it turned out to be that way.
So for now, I think we (or at least I) can’t close the door to the scenario where the Ripper knew Catherine Eddowes, as we can’t close the door to the ritualistic scenario.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 892
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 9:58 am: | |
Hi Frank,
I must say I still don't see your point regarding the facial mutilations. To assume that he knew Kate Eddowes IS speculating, because there are no facts whatsoever that points in such directions.
"I remember (not very clearly though) a case in which the offender put tape over his victims’ mouths. He didn’t just take a piece and tape off the mouth, he wound the tape all around the head. But in one case he distinctly ‘exaggerated’ and not only taped her mouth but a larger part of her face. It was suggested that this was done because the offender knew this victim, and in the end it turned out to be that way."
Oh yes, I remember that case. Her kid walked around the room for several hours while her dead body lay on the floor. Terrible. Yes, it's true the murderer knew her. And it was evident that he taped her face all over because he wanted to depersonalize her and turn her into an object, not a human being he knew. As he did this, he didn't have to see her face.
But I don't see a connection to the Ripper case. Once again, Frank, I don't think we have enough clues or signs in the facial mutilations on Eddowes whether they were done to dehumanize her or not (which of course could be the case, although I don't really believe it). I deduct a ritualistic meaning in them because some of the mutilations are quite unnecessary for that purpose. Some -- like the tip of the nose -- could indicate the thing you suggest -- but there are other features in it that are ineffective and unnecessary in that respect. It just doesen't feel right. I really can't express it any other way or elaborate it. As you say, we can't close the door on it, but I would rather see more evidence of such personal connections before I accept it; there is too much a conspiracy air about it, and that always makes me suspicious. At least I don't think we can draw such conclusions from the facial mutilations (or any other fact connected to the case).
"Personally, I think there’s a good chance that the Ripper was attracted by St. Botolph's Church, on Aldgate High Street, which was also known as the “Prostitutes' Church” as you may know, and I think he walked into Eddowes there by accident. If the Ripper chose her, it was because of her age, height and her dark hair perhaps, but it wasn’t because he knew and recognized her."
Ah! Now we're talking! That is exactly what I believe as well, possibly in connection to his attempt on Stride, that finally pushed him to cross the boundary to the City district. The square around the church was well-known for being the spot used by vagrant women and prostitutes, and it is a fair chance he knew that somewhere in the back of his head.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 97
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Tjena Glenn,
"... there is too much a conspiracy air about it, and that always makes me suspicious."
So I've noticed. You read things into my earlier post that weren't there.
Anyway, whatever the reason behind the facial mutilations, I don't think it has any bearing on the case as we ('non-conspiracists') know and see it, so we shouldn't break our heads over it. I merely brought it up as a reaction to your saying that Catherine Eddowes was clearly much more mutilated than the victims before her, which in an absolute sense is... absolutely true.
Groeten,
Fran |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 98
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
k! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi.
If Eddowes was standing facing her attacker, whilst being observed by Lawande, and co, she would have looked upon, her murders face, which may have inspired him to destroy hers.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1023
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
G'day Rich,
I think they all would have looked upon the Ripper's face at some stage....but that's speculation,....too much conspiracy air about it, isn't that right Glenn? 
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
But Eddowes was reported to have stood facing this man , hand on chest, looking at him., stride was not in the position to be that intimate, and judging by Nichols rough treatment her not also. and as you know, chapman would not have had time for social chat, Kelly would seem to have plenty of time for foreplay, and look what happened to her.
Rich. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 3:52 pm: | |
G'day Rich,
I don't consider facing someone as intimate. do you? I think Liz and Polly would have looked at him at some stage. I think all prostitutes would have pretended to be friendly with their paying clients. Try not to read too much into this!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 894
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
"I think they all would have looked upon the Ripper's face at some stage....but that's speculation,....too much conspiracy air about it, isn't that right Glenn?  "
You said it, Leanne.
-----------------------------------
Good thing you have Leanne grabbing you by the collar once in a while, Richard. Isn't it?
She's right, don't read too much into that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 512
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 4:52 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I am not reading to much into that, It is merely a observation, yes sure all of the victims unless attacked from behind, would have had a glimpse of their murderer, i was just mentioning that Stride was manhandled, proberly Nichols, and chapman was proberly in my opinion attacked without warning , and not , again in my opinion by Mrs longs deerstalking gentleman.
It was simply an attempt at a explanation, to explain possible severe mutalations to Eddowes face.
By the way Glenn, I Dont need collar grabbing, I speak my own thoughts, when I feel obliged.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 897
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
"chapman was proberly in my opinion attacked without warning , and not , again in my opinion by Mrs longs deerstalking gentleman."
Aha? Can you tell me why? Just asking, out of curiousity, since quite many seem to think that the man she saw was the Ripper. I have no point of view on the matter myself, but it would be interesting to hear why...
"By the way Glenn, I Dont need collar grabbing, I speak my own thoughts, when I feel obliged."
Oh I know, Richard. I know.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
Glenn, re Long, I think you have now wandered into the forthcoming book!
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 900
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 12:17 am: | |
Yes, but Richard started it!  !
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 2:15 am: | |
Hi Robert,Glenn,
Yes indeed, so I Shall gag myself forthwith,
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
