|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 3:39 am: | 
|
Correction of my last post
(since it for some unexplainable reason isn't possible anymore to edit the messages after fifteen minutes they've been written!!!):
The last passage naturally should say:
"This thread is about Do We Agree on Anything? And when it comes down to it, it really isn't that much."
I am not used to write at 8.00 in the morning, Swedish time...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 197
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 7:48 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
“Still, on the other hand (to further complicate matters) one can ask this: if Kelly was murdered by someone else -- let's just say Barnett -- and mutilated in order to threw the attention to the Ripper (and himself avoid a death penalty), why the unnecessary and excessive mutilations? In doing an attempt to copy the Ripper, why not just settle to copy the things done to Eddowes and Chapman? Why filet her beyond recognition?”
The point you put forward here is a very good and important one in that it at least points away from a ‘sane’ copy-cat killer. And based on what we know about Barnett we have no reason to believe he was something other than sane. So, it doesn’t complicate matters further, it makes things somewhat easier again.
By the way, I always wondered what the ‘L’ in your name stood for, but isn’t this a bit too much for us, revealing a third name on top of it?
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 8:30 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
"The point you put forward here is a very good and important one in that it at least points away from a ‘sane’ copy-cat killer. And based on what we know about Barnett we have no reason to believe he was something other than sane. So, it doesn’t complicate matters further, it makes things somewhat easier again."
Yes, it's true -- it simplifies things if you are completely certain of the notion that Kelly was a Ripper victim. However, I am just juggling with different kinds of weighting scales here, pointing in each directions.
Nevertheless, you are correct about the fact, that it absolutely is an important point to consider for those who definitely claim that she was murdered by Barnett and that he mutilated her to blame it on the Ripper. Because her wounds are indeed unnecessary excessive seen in such a context.
However, I have for the moment left the organized/disorganized discussion, since I feel it is turning into too much theoretical psychology mish-mash, and this is hardly the thread for it anyway.
But otherwise I agree completely with what you say.
"By the way, I always wondered what the ‘L’ in your name stood for, but isn’t this a bit too much for us, revealing a third name on top of it?"
Well, I've never been that much for keeping myself anonymous, so I don't mind. Look at my signature at the bottom of the post
(erh.. I don't mean "signature" in that way...). 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1193
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 9:08 am: |
|
Now, I don't want to be accused of going off thread and turning it into a Kelly/Barnett one -- I believe this subject matter is supposed to be dealt with on a broader scale -- but in addition to the above, let me just state the following:
Here is what I think speaks in favour of Barnett as a Kelly suspect:
1) He was her closest relative or friend, and those are the top rank suspects as far as domestic murders are concerned.
2) He knew how to handle a knife.
3) He had the opportunity and the access to her and her/their room.
4) They just recently had a row, and he was frustrated about her prostitution activities.
And this is what I think speak against his candidacy:
1) He left her, not the other way around, so even according to himself it was due to his own decision they had parted.
2) If he killed her, we don't know why he mutilated her, but if it was done in order to avoid the gallows and blame it on the Ripper, it is problematic that he should be so badly informed about the Ripper's MO that he made such a mess out of her, far beyond what the Ripper had done so far. (However, we can't be sure of that this was the reason for the mutilations -- if he did kill her.)
3) We have absolutely no record or witness statement confirming that he was violent. On the contrary, others who knew the couple seem to indicate that he was good to her and treated her kindly.
So there you have it. If I have left something out, please elaborate further.
-------------------------------------------
If we continue along the thoughts about the canonical five:
Regarding Liz Stride, I find it more and more doubtful whether she was a Ripper victim or not. I believe now that she just as well could have fallen in the hands of a drunken or mad customer, not necessarily Jack the Ripper -- and yes, maybe even the Schwartz man. Eddowes' murder could very well be a coincidence. The differences regarding the circumstances around her murder is worth considering. But I will never believe that Schwartz' assaulting man was the Ripper, although he may have been her killer, maybe even Kidney.
However, I feel quite ambiguous here, because at the same time, the interruption theory (with the Ripper killing and mutilating Eddowes in a frustrated state) and the Ripper's alleged movement pattern (along S:t-George's-in-the-East -- Mitre Square -- Goulston Street) also works for me.
This is where I am at the moment. I wish I could make it easy for me and say that I have equally strong opinions on the matter as I used to, but that is unfortunately not the case.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Glenn,
You tell me that I should read properly but then go ahead and misread everything I posted. Go figure.
I merely pointed out that your statement that MJK was "completely different" from the other killings was a gross exaggeration. Perhaps you were sloppy in your choice of words, perhaps you think that the differences that are there somehow erases the many, many more blatant similarities, I don't know, but the phrase "completely different" is simply not an accurate description.
"The fact that we had copy killers in Coles' and MacKenzie's case"
That's not a fact, that's an uproven conclusion.
"the immense blood-splatters on the wall and large quantities of blood on the floor "
What, and you are claiming that there was not an equal amount of blood spilled in earlier killings?
"no strangulations"
I don't know that we've conclusively established that the rest were all strangulations or that MJK wasn't.
"no womb disappearing"
So, what, two wombs disappearing and MJK's only being removed is a significant difference? You have an awfully small dataset to be trying to make a conclusive decision there.
"the longer time lapse between hers and Eddowe's murder"
And the time between the night of Eddowes' murder and Chapman's murder was much longer than the one between Chapman's and Nichols'. An increasing gap between nights of murders could be seen as a similarity, not a difference. In fact, the increase of the gap between nights with ripper murders, taken as a percentage, was larger from Chapman to Eddowes (275%) than it was from Eddowes to MJK (182%).
When you compare such questionable differences in MJK's death to the very obvious and very dramatic similarities (prostitute, geography, mutilations increasing in same way as others, parts taken/removed in same increasing way, etc.) it seems to me to be rather foolhardy to call the MO "completely different." |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 5:46 am: |
|
Well, Dan,
Where did I misread you post?
Regarding expressions, it is typical, that when one is discussing with you, one have to weigh every word on a scale. Because that is usually all the means you have in an argument, namely to pick on certain choices of words. Go figure!
I know that "completely different" was somewhat of an exaggeration. So what; I have tried to summon up some things for or against to more thoroughly clarify what I mean anyway, so that should really not be much of a problem.
Yes, I know that a copy-killer in Coles' and MacKenzie's case is an "unproven conclusion", but it is my opinion that they are. It was not my intention to put it up as a fact, I should have written "probably" in there somewhere, but somehow I forgot or it all went too fast. Satisfied? Jesus Christ...
"What, and you are claiming that there was not an equal amount of blood spilled in earlier killings?"
No, not in the same amount and not in the same fashion. We do have some blood-splatter on the fence in Chapman's case, but otherwise we "just" have some pools of blood under the bodies. If you have studied the case for some time, you should know by now that they were killed in a manner that didn't make the blood spurt all over the place. If you can't see the difference between the bloody scene in Miller's court and the circumstances in connection with the others regarding that detail, I can't help you.
"So, what, two wombs disappearing and MJK's only being removed is a significant difference? You have an awfully small dataset to be trying to make a conclusive decision there."
Nevertheless. It is still a difference and it is still a fact to consider in our assumptions, whether you like it or not. Mind, that I am basing that thought upon that there were three canonical victims, not five or six.
Regarding the strangulation, I don't think it is fully established in all of the victims, but there are signs suggesting it and I don't think that many are disputing that there were some sort of suffocation in the earliest stage of the attack. I believe though, that we can state for a fact that Chapman was, because of the protruding tongue and the swollen face.
If Mary Kelly was strangled first, there wouldn't have been that much blood anyway all over the place.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't see any differences in the crimes scenes of Kelly and the others...
I believe the differences are stronger in the MO than you perceive. As I said, I am basing this on that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are the only three victims we with certainty can attribute to the Ripper. The others "just" had their throat cut or had stab wounds, and then we have a complete slaughter in Kelly's case.
As far as I am concerned, we have three canonical victims we can attribute to the Ripper, although I personally believe they were more than that.
I don't rule out Kelly as a Ripper victim, but her inclusion is based upon the fact that it happened indoors and that Jack was en evolving killer with progressive methods. The last part we can't establish for sure and to me the crime scene in Kelly's case is too different in order to with complete certainty say that she beyond doubt was a Ripper victim. If you want to do that, it's fine with me. I prefer to keep an open mind about it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on February 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 16
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Hey Frank,
Though I may be a little late to your previous comments, the mutilations done to Kelly are insane. The facial mutilations make me believe more towards somebody she knew.
But, MO can change and I think it is possible that JTR killed Kelly. The environment was totally different, so he could have tried other methods of killing because of the time available to him. There are so many variables.
Otherwise, I'm going to agree with Glenn here, Barnett is the prime suspect for the Kelly murder if the Ripper didn't do it.
BUT, I have to say that if I believe Kelly was a Barnett victim, then I'm going to have to say Stride was a Kidney victim. Really similar events that took place. Arguments and so forth, and
Sarah, I am almost 100 percent positive Barnett and Kelly had a row. First off, I believe the neighbors told the police there was one when they were questioned and also, the neighbors mentioned that Barnett came back to Kelly and they were on "good terms." Why would they even bring it up if they didn't have a row?
I am pretty sure this is correct, if not, I’m sure somebody will correct it.
Peter
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 3:00 am: |
|
Glenn wrote:
"Where did I misread you post? "
Well, for one you assumed that when I mentioned indoors vs. outdoors, etc., that I was claiming you thought that those were major differences instead of addressing what other people have also said on the issue.
You also assumed I thought you meant that MJK was not a ripper victim, and berated me for it, when I said no such thing.
There were a number more, but I don't want to beat a dead horse when what I've already pointed out should be sufficient.
I disagreed with you saying that the MOs were completely different, and now you admit you exaggerated and mistated several things and somehow try to paint that as a reading comprehension problem on my end. I guess I was supposed to know that you really meant something substantially different from what you actually said.
"It is still a difference and it is still a fact to consider in our assumptions, whether you like it or not."
I'm not saying it's not a difference or that it should be ignored (reading comprehension again), I'm saying that it's nowhere near the sort of thing that makes it "completely different." But since you now admit that the phrase "completely different" was wrong, you agree with what I was pointing out to you and there's no point to arguing it anymore.
"If Mary Kelly was strangled first, there wouldn't have been that much blood anyway all over the place. "
If she were successfully strangled first, yes, but not if she had woken up from the start of being strangled through the bedsheets and fought back, and for some other similar scenarios.
"Oh, but I forgot, you don't see any differences in the crimes scenes of Kelly and the others... "
You know, it seems like you criticize me for arguing against what you did say and you insist upon arguing against things I never said. Odd debating tactic, that.
I see differences, I just don't see the clear cut supposed overwhelming differences some people try to make them out to be. Any killer is going to have some differences here and there. The drastic and substantial similarities to me severely outweigh any minor differences that can be found.
I personally don't know how anyone can look at the Eddowes killing and MJK's and not say that those two were the most likely to have been made by the same person of any of the set. That's a personal thing, of course. But when someone says they have to be by different killers (not what you said, but many people have said) that's when they go from just being open minded to jumping to an unsupported (and, based upon studying other cases with changing MOs, completely illogical) conclusion. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Sorry, Dan, but I get irritated when people are picking on choices of words and concentrating on that instead of trying to read and understand the content. What irritated me was that you made such a big deal out of "completely different" when I think my meaning really was quite clear anyway.
"Well, for one you assumed that when I mentioned indoors vs. outdoors, etc., that I was claiming you thought that those were major differences instead of addressing what other people have also said on the issue.
You also assumed I thought you meant that MJK was not a ripper victim, and berated me for it, when I said no such thing."
I'm sorry, but I think you were rather clear on these points. But it may be your way of coming across; you have a ... erh... certain aggressive way of saying things that is totally your own ...
"You know, it seems like you criticize me for arguing against what you did say and you insist upon arguing against things I never said. Odd debating tactic, that."
Just using your own methods, Dan. See how irritating it is?
Now, to the main issue.
"If she were successfully strangled first, yes, but not if she had woken up from the start of being strangled through the bedsheets and fought back, and for some other similar scenarios."
Exactly. Now, that doesen't really with absolute certainty sound like the Ripper, does it? It could be, of course, but I think it would mean that he had changed his approach in a way that can't be over-looked. After what I've read (although I can be wrong), she had defense wounds on her arms and hands, which we don't see in the other Ripper victims. Among other things.
As I said, I am not stressing an opinion here that she wasn't killed by the Ripper, just that we should keep an open mind about things. It is of course logical to assume that she was a Ripper victim, but we should nevertheless consider the possibility that she may not have been. I think the differences are strong enough to raise such a question, without jumping to (I can agree) far-fetched conclusions in other directions.
Of course a killer can change and evolve his MO in a progressive manner, but I must admit that the differences between Eddowes and Kelly are in my view big enough to keep an open mind about other alternatives. I don't believe the similarities are so "drastic and substancial" as you point them out to be.
I can agree on that picking up differences and from them automatically draw the conclusion that she fell into the hands of another killer and claim that without doubt, is dumb. However, doing it the other way around -- and with equally strong beliefs assuming, in spite of the differences displayed, that it is the same killer -- is in my view equally illogical. Keeping an open mind about it is all I ask.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Glenn wrote:
"Sorry, Dan, but I get irritated when people are picking on choices of words and concentrating on that instead of trying to read and understand the content. "
Choices of words IS the content. What you claim you wanted to say but didn't actually say was your intent, not content.
"However, doing it the other way around -- and with equally strong beliefs assuming, in spite of the differences displayed, that it is the same killer -- is in my view equally illogical."
But you have strong beliefs that the person who killed Eddowes was the same one who killed Chapman and Nichols, despite the differences there. So why is one conclusion illogical and the other logical?
There is always going to be differences between any killings within a string of them. You have to look at the factors that have the most importance to the killer, in this case the mutilations. Eddowes and MJK match better than any other of the victims. You can disagree with that and consider me illogical, but I'm not going to be too concerned about it. The thread is, afterall, about not agreeing. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Dan wrote:
>But you have strong beliefs that the person who killed Eddowes was the same one who killed Chapman and Nichols, despite the differences there.
Yes, because I don't think there are equally great differences between them as between those three and Kelly. Kelly stands out in quite a remarkable way from those other three, even if I can agree that there could be natural explanations for it. The differences between Eddowes and Kelly are way stronger and more numerous than between Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes individually.
"There is always going to be differences between any killings within a string of them. You have to look at the factors that have the most importance to the killer, in this case the mutilations."
I know, I know. I haven't disputed that. Once again you are reading meanings into my posts that aren't there. I have never said that I disagree with that, just that the differences in my view are strong enough to keep an open mind about other alternatives. But what you say could just as well be right -- I don't argue against that.
"Eddowes and MJK match better than any other of the victims. You can disagree with that..."
Well, that I certainly disagree with.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 04, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 4:04 am: |
|
Glenn wrote:
"I know, I know. I haven't disputed that. Once again you are reading meanings into my posts that aren't there."
I very clearly said that the mutilations are most important *AND* that the mutilations between Eddowes and MJK were the closest. You disagree with the second part but instead choose to claim that I was trying to say you disagreed with the first part. And then you claim *I* am misreading *your* posts. Wow. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Just for clarification:
What I have disputed is your claim regarding the similarities in the mutilations between Eddowes and Kelly.
However, I am very well aware of that a killer can develop and partially change his MO; that is what my statement (that you quoted here) referred to. That exact passage I cut out from your message didn't concern the similarities between Eddowes and Kelly. If you are going to quote me, please make sure you first have understood what it is I'm commenting.
I have never disputed that "there is always going to be differences between any killings within a string of them", as you yourself put it. That is why I -- in contrast to you -- am willing to keep an open mind about it. And I have never disputed that the mutilations could point at the Ripper, but -- as I've said -- I don't think they are similar enough in order to brand her as a Ripper victim with complete certainty. You on the other hand seem to think that it is no idea to keep an open mind and to look at alternative options. That is your call. You are the one who's stressing a sure opinion here, not me.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 162
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
This thread is sure working. We are finding out that we just don't all agree on much of anything. At least Stephen has given us the right to agree to disagree on this forum.
Mikey |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1249
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 2:09 pm: |
|
I agree, Mikey.
So why don't you put in your own views?
What do think is the points there is to agree on?
Actually, I think it's a tough question to ask anyway in a case with so much lacking information and unanswered questions. Heck, we don't even know how many the victims were!
As I see it, the only things that I can think of for the moment, are the year the canonical victims were killed, how they were killed and where -- East End, London. Besides that, I think it's one great mess anyway.
So it is really a difficult subject for a thread, not to mention impossible.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 225
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
“As I see it, the only things that I can think of for the moment, are the year the canonical victims were killed, how they were killed and where -- East End, London. Besides that, I think it's one great mess anyway.”
In addition to this I’d like to say that I have reread the posts on the thread ‘How many people killed Ol’ Jacky’ and found that out of 22 persons who gave a full list of victims who they think were killed by JtR, 22 agreed on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Including myself makes 23. So, that’s also something everybody seems to agree on.
But besides that, it regularly seems one great mess indeed.
All the best,
Frank
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 163
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Glenn and Frank,
I think we all agree on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. My personal opinion is Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Stride and Kelly and maybe two others. (Sorry, saving those for a later date.)Anyway, anyone agree with me on that?
Mikey |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Hi Mikey and Frank,
Thank you both for putting this thread back in its right direction.
Well, I agree with Frank's view regarding Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. I personally (on strictly modus operandi basis) consider those to be canonical victims.
My personal intuition -- or hunch -- also tells me to include Stride and Kelly, and possibly Tabram and Annie Millwood. However, there remains question marks around them nevertheless. Their possible inclusions are very much based on assumptions, personal opinions and interpretations of facts, as I see it. And as far as Stride, Tabram and Millwood are concerned I prefer to be extra cautious. Their inclusions are based on the fact that all of them had their throat cuts (and some of them had additional stabs or mutilations, although not necessarily exactly similar to the Ripper's) and that it happened in a restricted area in east End during the same year. That makes it probable, from a logical point of view, but also not totally clear-cut enough, beyond doubt, in order to call them canonical.
But as many have stated already, how much can we rely solely on the modus operandi? Is that a strong or static enough measurement, in order to count or discount some of the victims. Probably not. As many here have pointed out on several threads, there are other factors to consider as well. But when there are differences in the MO that diverges them from the three canonical with clearly similar wounds, I feel it would be wrong to not question them. But that is just my personal opinion.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
A. Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Just wanted to point out that Barnett, I believe, was initially viewed as a suspect, interviewed (probably extensively) by the police, and cleared of the Kelly murder. That must carry at least some weight. The police were not stupid.
I think the differences in MO are explained by the fact that the Ripper lucked out with Kelly, being that she worked indoors. He probably established through conversation with poor Mary that the location was secure and nobody would intrude on them as they conducted their business. I don't know if the Ripper tried to strangle Mary as he did the others. Her (probable) cry of "murder" was not particularly loud which makes me believe that, once again, the Ripper quickly rendered another woman unable to cry out further or fight back. It's very likely that Kelly was assaulted in a blitz style, just like the others. Maybe the killer felt that, since he was in a more secure environment, it wasn't necessary to strangle her to death before cutting her throat. He would have plenty of time, and there was an abundance of clothing with which to clean himself, so blood spraying all over the place may have been acceptable. This may have been a bonus to him, not having to be careful as he did in his previous killings.
Overkill of this type, particularly to the face, usually indicates a suspect who was intimate with the victim (see Nicole Brown Simpson). But again I think it was probably because the Ripper knew he could work undisturbed. (Mary probably told him something like, "Don't worry. No one will bother us.") It does seem that in the five victims the extent of the injuries depended on the amount of time available to the killer.
And do we really even know if Kelly was indeed more attractive than the other victims? She was younger, of course. But we don't know what she looked like. We do know that she was not a high class prostitute or she wouldn't have lived in Whitechapel. Mary had a room because Barnett helped her out and the landlord had been kind in not evicting her. Like the others she was an alcoholic spending what money she could earn on drink rather than on rent. I believe she fits in perfectly with the rest of the Ripper's victims. Now if she looked like Heather Graham... |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I think that most detectivews that worked the case were certain that the ripper killed 5 woman The canonical 5 his victimes. I see no reason to disagree. I feel Bunker makes a good point that we cant assume the police were idiots. If I had to choose one that was not a ripper victim then I would choose Stride. I like Kelly for a ripper victim and Tabram could have been a victim as well. Right now I will settle on the cononical 5 all being ripper victims.
Hi Bunker,
I feel there is reason to believe Kelly was attractive. I have read reports that she was. Inspector Dew had some real flattering things to say about her in his book. I am not sure on just how accurate some of his recollections are but he doese give you a good idea of the atmasphere at the time of the murders. Heather Graham is cute. That is a fact we can all agree on but Lysett Anthoney was the best Mary Kelly. She was actually british I agree Kelly had the same flaws as the other ripper victims but she was a lot younger.
All the best,CB |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 2:45 am: |
|
The only things we can agree on is what we know for sure. In 1888 Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were all murdered and mutilated in similar fashions suggesting it was done by the same hand.
Possibly the murderer had a go at Tabram, Stride and possibly still a small host of others.
Certain witnesses saw people around the scene of some of these murders which correspond. The general consensus is that they were 5"6, shabbily dressed, between 25 and 40, with some kind of a moustache and at times a deerstalker hat.
However these are the only facts about Jack the Ripper and we can't get past them, the next thing we can rely on is the FBI profile of what a serial killer is like, which basically tells us they're inconsequential loners which helps us look for Jack no end.
Everything else is speculation which has more to do with the minds of Ripperologists than Jack himself. In fact a lot of people will completely disregard what the witnesses said, instead of 30 he becomes 50, instead of being poor he's a doctor, instead of being a man he's a woman. Because obviously the people who come up with these winning theories got a much better look of Jack the Ripper than the people that lived in Whitechapel in 1888 did.
But aside from what I've written here, most of us agree on little else.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page