|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 685
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 3:58 am: |       |
Hi,
A lot of discussion , has recently been on the subject of to much speculation, and a prime source of that has been fingered at yours truely.
I would like to start this thread, by inviting registered members ,and guests of this site, to offer their own speculative opinions, on a list of known facts, or occurances.
This will give enthusiasts of this case, an opportunety to aire an opinion, and to use their imagination, on one thread, without being critized,and can therefore speak their mind, on what they considered happened next.
The list I recommend are.
What happened on the morning of the 31st august 88.
What happened on the morning of the 9th sept 88
What happened on the morning of the 30th sept 88
What happened on the morning of the 9th nov 88.
I am asking people to comment, on these actual events, and to speculate, what they consider actually took place.
I am sure everyone reading this thread has their own opinions, but feel that they may sound ridiculous in stating it, so heres the chance, just use the facts of the case as we know them, and specualate.....
my opinions.
Nichols was attacked in Brady street, and chased , then dragged to her final spot in Bucks row.
Chapman was attacked by someone entering the backyard, after the punter , mrs long saw had left.
Stride was killed by the man seen to have attacked her, and put a end to her life after the witnesses had fled.
Eddowes was killed whilst she was walking through Mitre square, and not by the man of sailor like appearance, seen by lawande,
In the case of kelly, I believe, she was killed after 9am , and hutchinsons man , was not her killer, although the police certainly thought he was.
My brief opinions, pure speculation.
Regards Richard.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2100
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Hi Richard
I'm not against speculation, provided people remember that's just what it is - speculation. It's awfully easy for speculation to harden into "fact".
So here are two totally unfounded speculations of mine. The first concerns Kelly's rent.
It's been suggested that McCarthy's leniency over the rent could have been due to sexual favours supplied by Kelly - or alternatively, that he and Kelly were blood relatives.
But what if Joe and Mary were paying the rent in another currency i.e. fish? McCarthy and his brother were grocers. Later on, apparently, McCarthy became something of a local crook. Joe worked at Billingsgate, but then was sacked. Stealing was one (among other) sackable offences.
Perhaps Joe was stealing fish for McCarthy.
Maybe when Joe lost his job McCarthy gave him a few weeks grace to try and find another position that would be advantageous to them both. When Joe actually left Kelly, McCarthy became more insistent over the rent.
Just speculation.
The other flight of fancy concerns the shed. I am one of those who tend to envisage the murderer coming into the room unexpectedly and killing Kelly in her bed. But why would Jack enter a house when he couldn't know what or who he would find within?
Well if Jack was a loony he might not care about that. But another explanation might work whatever kind of killer Jack was.
I believe the shed had recently become defunct, i.e. McCarthy no longer allowed the homeless to shelter there. It was raining hard all through the night of Kelly's murder. Maybe Jack tried the front doors of the shed, found them locked, and tried to get in via what he thought was a side entrance to it. Or maybe he knew in advance that the front doors were locked, but still tried to get in via the side doorway. And then, to use one of your favourite phrases, the rest is history.
Just speculation.
Anyway, that's my four pennyworth (or piece of haddockworth).
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Thanks for that.
Firstly I must correct the obvious error in my post .It is obviously the 8th sept 88 [ not 9th]
I tried to correct it as soon as I posted this morning , but the site went down, and I had to go to work [ yes on a sunday]
Just to make things clear regarding this thread , what I am refering to is imagination, for speculation, and imagination , go hand in hand.
For example, when one reads a book, a adventure story , a romantic novel, or fiction, or non fiction, one conjures up a picture , in ones mind, of the characters , and places, that picture will never leave you, you can read the same book a year later, and the same thoughts will enter your mind.
Imagination is a powerful tool, and reading any book armed , with that weapon, is what makes reading such a joy.
With regard to the 'Ripper' every time I Read a new publication, I have a picture in my mind , how I see certain events, and every chapter , regardless , what that particular author suggests, will not alter that vision.
This subject is a very personal one, that is why there is so much difference of opinion, on these boards , and quite rightly so, what I am requesting is that people reading this thread, enter their own minds, and give a honest opinion, of what they think happened at these murders, without naming a suspect, what is there gut feeling?.
What I am hopeing for is a thread full of intresting , yet plausible speculation, giving ones opinions, on what happened at these events.
My reasoning for all this , is take this scenario, there is a massive man hunt, in operation, and fifty detectives are involved in the case, the facts as presented , lead them nowhere, but , on interviewing each detective,and asking them their gut instincts, they find different avenues to pursue there investigation, this is precisely what could happen here, if everyone, connected to these boards , shared there own visions.
Regards Richard. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 7:17 pm: | |
Hi Robert and Richard,
I think Kelly was killed between the hours of 2:30 and 4:00 I do believe that it was the man that GH saw with Kelly. However I dont believe GH story was true. I feel that ne might have been something more to Kelly. This is pure speculation and someone might have already proven it false but I feel he could have been a pimp or some sort of protecter Kelly was shaken up by the murders and it would not be to far a stretch to speculate that she may of had a pimp or protector. Just maybe Hutchinson set Kelly up with the man he discribed that would explain is accurate describtion. Maybe George did not want to incriminate himself so he made up the story of haveing seen Kelly in the street with the man
I believe that Chapman was killed by a man that she walked with in the yard. He would loose the eliment of suprise and a certain advantage by charging after Chapman. One thing always catches my eye when ever I see the crime scene. The out house could have been a place were Jack maybe waited for Chapman to finish with the punter. or maybe the out house could have been a spot were chapman used to entertain her johns. That could explain why no one saw any thing from there windows.
I dont feel Liz Sride was a ripper victim I think the man Liz was fighting with killed her. I dont know what the odds on Liz getting attacked two time just minutes apart.
I do believe that Eddowes was a prostitute and the man that Lawande saw her with killed her. I think that the man offferd her money and then killed her. I dont feel she would of had time to meet to Johns.
I just cant picture the ripper chasing his victims or dragging them down I feel Nicholes was killed at the spot the body was found.
One more question on the Kelly murder. Do you think it is possible that the ripper chose the day of the Lord mayors day parade on purpose? As a response to the Lord Mayor posting a reward on the rippers head?
All the best,CB |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi CB
Re the last point, I suppose it depends how organized/disorganized Jack was. If organized, then yes, I think it's possible this could have been a way of hitting back at the Lord Mayor.
Robert |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Hi Robert, Thanks for your response.
I do think the ripper was organized perhapes for the most basic reason off all. He never got caught. At the very least I Feel he engaged his victims first in conversation befor killing them. The detective at the time working with Abberline I Think put it well. I think his name was Herman Moore when he put forth the idea that what makes it so easy for him is they take him to the place were detection is least likely. I feel the ripper was at least smart enough to use that to his advantage. This is the reason prostitutes have been targeted by serial killers then and now.
I am not sure what you mean when you say organized/disorganized. The ripper is the only serial killer I have studied. I do feel he was out of control but smart enough not to get caught.
I agree whith you on speculation I dont know how you can investgate a crime that is 115 years old without a little speculation. I think that is what makes the case so interesting for so many people. I dont feel the biggest problem with the boards is speculation. I BELIEVE IT IS FEAR. people may be afraid to post because there spelling is not good or there grammer or they may feel that there idea is stupid. Of course all this is rubbish I dont care if someone is posting useing one sylabol words and run on sentences. I find the case interesting and I am interested in anyones observations. Someone could come up with some fresh Ideas so I enjoy this thread and thanks for starting this thread.
ALL THE BEST, CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 7:36 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Thank you for starting this tread too. I think the last part of my post was a bit unclear. Great idea and I FEEL IT COULD BE USEFULL. I hope more people post and take advantage of your good Idea.
All the best, CB |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 815
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 11:59 am: | |
Guys,
Speculated opinion here...duh, does exactly what it says on the tin ! OK, something may come out of it.
OK, mines all to do with Eddowes.
Kate was heading/or arrived at St Boltophs looking for trade.
Lewande spotted Kate and her killer together.
Watkins is a good honest copper.
Harvey is also a good honest copper.
I agree with CB, cannot see Jack as a chaser. A swift, silent and very efficient killer.
Kates body was there when Harvey looked into the square. His lamp just wasnt powerful enough.
Harvey didnt cause Jack to flee.....Morris did when he opened his door.
He escaped via St James Place ect.
The apron was there a 2.20am....but Halse seems to disagree with me on that. Curses.
The graffito doesnt fit with the murders.
Long is not a good honest copper.
Montys speculation about Kate is only half done....the rest will be completed when he can be bothered.
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 785
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Random speculations of mine:-
Nichols was not chased anywhere and was attacked where she died.
Chapman was killed by a man entering the yard after a client had left her.
Stride was killed by Jack and he was interupted but I haven't yet got an opinion if he was the man seen attacking her or not.
Eddowes was not a prostitute.
She was attacked near the entrance of Mitre Square.
She was killed purely for knowing the identity of Jack as she slept in the shed by Mary and Joe's place (obviously I am favouring Joe as the killer here).
Mary was not the body found in 13 Millers Court.
Joe killed someone thinking it was Mary in the dark as there was no light on. He attacked her face first after slitting her throat and so did not realise what he had done. He therefore identified her easily as he believed he had killed Mary (don't have a go at me on this one, I'm letting my imagination run wild here).
Err and that's all I can think of at the moment.
Sarah |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi all,
I think that there is only three ways the killer stops. He either dies. He either is incarserated for some other crime or put in an insane house. He either goes abroad and his killings or never connected to Whitechapel.
I prefer to lean twords suspect who were in London at the time of the murders and were suspected by the men investgateing the crimes.
Here are a few who fit my criteria. Dr.T who was a suspect at the time of the murders and fled to America. Kozminski who was a suspect at the time and was locked up in a insane house. Druit who commited suicide and was a suspect at the time of the murders. Chapman who went to America and was later hung for killing three of his wifes. I have left out the frenchies because they to the best of my knowledge have never been confirmed to have been in WC at the time of the murders but there connection to the Brown murder in Newyork does make them interesting. If I have left out a suspect who fits my criteria please let me know.
Hi Sarah,
Good food for thought on the Eddowes murder. I never knew that she had slept in the shed next to kelly's place. If I remember right Eddowes told the casual ward superintendent of Mile end. " I have come back to earn the reward offerd for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him. " Do you think that Kelly might have known that Joe was the killer or that she could have been involved?
One of the problems I have with a few of the suspects such as Joe,Sickert and others is I feel that they would have been caught at some point. I dont believe that the ripper could just stop. I dont think he could control himselfe and he would have kept killing untill he got caught or something else happend to him.
Take care, CB |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
Whatho CB,
Yes Jack may have died but did not have to commit suicide. He may have been killed.
Some on this site have suggested he escaped the East End by walking along railway lines. A good possibility. If he did he may have selected the line with a train coming along and - well, you can guess the rest.
He was probably a little odd and got involved in a brawl in one of those quiet East End hostelry Pulled out his nice big knife but his opponent had a nicer, bigger knife.
He may have been crossing the Thames on the Woolwich Free Ferry and fell off. No one noticed and he was carried out to sea never to be seen again.
The scenarios are endless. He may have died naturally, accidentally or by violence. But in a way never to be associated with Jack the Ripper.
Cheers, Mark |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 221
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 8:41 pm: | |
Hmmm, this could be fun.
My list of some tentative conclusions (another way of saying speculations!) would be:
1) Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly were all killed by the same person. With Stride being listed as "to be strongly considered".
2) None of the victims knew each other by name, or were associates of each other
3) All victims, with the exception of Stride, were killed by someone posing as a client soliciting the services of a prostitute (Stride was killed by the man seen assaulting her)
4) None of the victims, with the possible exception of Stride, knew their killer or suspected they were in danger
5) The killer does not have human anatomical knowledge, and does not necessarily have animal anatomical knowledge
6) The only letter that might be from the killer is the Lusk letter
7) The "Irish" fellow who asked for Lusk's address sent the kidney
8) Jack is in regular employment, and lives alone. His job pays enough to survive, but money is tight (he's not wealthy). Robbery, however, is not the motive.
9) Jack lives close to both Hanbury Street and Miller's court, but not in either, and he lives a greater distance from Nichols and Eddowes and Stride.
10) Jack is beginning to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, which is agravated by alcohol. However, his symptoms are not as yet so severe as to cause him to lose his job.
11) Stride kept her cauchous tucked up under the sleave of her dress. They fell out when she was assaulted on the ground. In other words, she never had them in her hand to take one.
12) The attacks may not have been as super-silent as is usually presumed, although there was not a huge amount of noise either.
13) If Stride is a victim, Jack may work somewhere further along the line from Flower and Dean and her murder location. If he does not work here, this may be the location of the Public House he tends to frequent. If Stride is not a Ripper victim, I've got no idea on this point.
14) Eddowes and Jack saw PC Watkins patrol Mitre Square from Church Alley, knowing it was free from patrol for about 10 minutes. Jack fled out through St. James Passage and towards Ghoulstan street when he saw PC Harvey come up Church Passage.
15) The apron was dropped immediately after the murder and went unnoticed as just another piece of rubbish until the murder was reported and a "search of the area" began.
16) The man seen with Chapman by Long and the man seen with Eddowes by Lawende are one in the same. If Stride is a Ripper victim, then the man seen assaulting her is also the same person.
17) Hutchinson saw Kelly's killer, and has "good intentions" in making his report. However, his attempts to recall what he saw has created a "false memory" of the suspect and is therefore useless as a description.
18) The descriptions given by the eye witnesses are all generally useless beyond telling us the killer is probably average height, probably around 30ish (+- 3 years), not destitute, has some kind of accent.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 223
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 9:37 pm: | |
Oops, missed the time limit for editing the above. Anyway, point 14 should also include the possibility that Jack fled when Morris opened his door (as suggested by Monty). Either event gives him enough time to clear the area, so it's six of one half dozen of the other.
- Jeff |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 791
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 7:35 am: | |
CB,
It has never been proven that Kate slept in that shed but it is a possibility as it was mentioned in a few newspapers which I can't think of off hand. Leanne would know more about this.
I also think that Kate quite possibly knew Mary if she did indeed sleep in that shed on occasion.
Sarah |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
If Jack fled when Morris opened the warehouse door, why would he go out the St. James Place passage? He would literally have to run past a just-opened door. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 823
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 10:41 am: | |
Scott,
The door was ajar....not open.
I do see your point. But going past an open door in the dark is nothing compared to gutting a woman in an public spot.
I just feel that having seen Harvey come from Church passage and Watkins disappearing via Mitre st the only exit Jack may have thought open to him was St James Place.
But thats my speculative opinion.
Monty
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 225
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
Hi,
From my "escape route" simulations (under the Maps thread), both the exit out of St. James Passage and the exit out the main entrance to Mitre Square (which also leads up to St. James Place), are safe for Jack to leave if he leaves just before Harvey patrols Church Passage. And, if the door is opened just before Harvey patrols Church passage, then Jack could go either way and not be spotted by PC Watkins, or by PC Harvey. Which exact route, however, can never be determined based upon the currently available data (both produce reasonable routes towards Goulstan st.)
- Jeff
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 2:25 pm: | |
Hey Mark,
Good Idea about the railroad lines. I never heard that theory before. I feel that this is what this thread is all about people throwing out ideas and the railroad lines are interesting.
Hi Sarah,
I do think it is possible that Kelly knew Eddowes. I dont think that they would have been best friends but I dont think that it is impossible that Kelly would lend a hand to a women in need.
All the best, CB |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | |
G'day,
* I agree that the graffito doesn't fit the crimes, Monty.
* I agee that Nichols was attacked where she died.
* Eddowes was not a regular prostitute, but she was desperate that night and knew how to get it! (money that is)!
* Mary Jane Kelly WAS indeed the body on the bed.
* I think the Ripper simply changed his M.O., and frequency of murder. The death of Mary Kelly, ended the desperate need to inflict fear on the population, by using a mythical 'monster' image.
* Elizabeth Stride WAS a Ripper victim. It's easier to believe that that the circumstances of her 'job' were different, than to believe that there were two such crazy minds existing in the same small area at the same time in history.
* The Ripper didn't need to have an expert amount of anatomical knowledge!
* That tall Irish fellow who asked for George Lusk's address, (and was given it minus the house-number), was the guy who hand-delivered the kidney.
* Jack the Ripper was a costermonger, who travelled all over the East End, and observed the frightened public and stalked his 'cattle', behind the 'safety-zone' of his barrow.
* Hutchinson definately had more to do with Kelly's past; Abberline knew the real reason why he lingered for 45 minutes; instead of prossecuting him for the illegal activity he thought of Hutchinson as: 'a valuable witness to have at this stage of the investigation', and considered him an 'insider' who worked alongside of prostitutes.
* It's never been proven that Kate slept in that shed, because users names weren't recorded, but it was very close to where she stayed with John Kelly, and she would have used it if she knew about it's existence.
* Jack was on his way to fill his costermonger's barrow at St. James market, when he stopped and encountered Elizabeth Stride, (who also lived on Dorset Street), was disturbed before he could 'finish' her, ran to St. James to secure his alibi, met Kate and took his frustration out on her.
That's it for now,
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 802
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 5:19 am: | |
I think that if Joe was Jack then, on 29th September, he went out out looking for Kate after hearing a rumour that she knew who Jack was. He lost her after she was arrested and got very angry and scared that she may be telling the police at the station. He went off drinking and/or just walking the streets feeling very frustrated. He sees Elizabeth Stride and she tries to pick him up and he loses it. He gets interrupted and runs off, he then sees Kate and follows her. He is the man seen talking to her and then attacks her and drags her into Mitre Square.
That's my speculated opinion on those murders.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 486
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
Yup I agree Jeff, could be fun. Here's some from me, but off the top of my head and certainly not a complete list.
1. Annie Millwood was attacked by the same person who murdered Martha Tabram. This may or may not have been the Ripper, but I tend to think it was.
2. Jack moved the area of his attacks around as each area became to hot for him to operate due to the police presence.
3. He lived somewhere north of Whitechapel Road and east of Brick Lane.
4. Liz Stride was not prostituting herself the night she was killed, she was on a date.
5. Stride may not be a Ripper victim, if she was not then she was killed by Michael Kidney.
6. Alice McKenzie's killer was not the Ripper, but after killing her he deliberately tried to make her murder look like a Ripper killing but didn't have the stomach to mutilate her too badly.
7. Ada Wilson lied about her attacker calling at the door and demanding money. She was a prostitute and he was a client.
8. Elizabeth Long was mistaken about the time she saw Annie outside 29 Hanbury Street. It was actually quarter of an hour earlier, and she had mistaken the time because she thought that the Brewery clock chimed for half past when it really chimed for quarter past.
9. Caroline Maxwell met a woman called Mary at 9 on the morning of Mary Kelly's death, and later believed this to be the woman who was killed, but she was mistaken.
10. After Kate left Bishopsgate Police Station she went to St Botolph's Church. Then she decided to check out the Imperial club and Jack, who had been watching the church, followed and approached her later when she was alone in Duke Street.
11. None of the victims knew each other well. Mary knew Annie Chapman by sight, as they lived opposite each other and frequented the same pubs, but with the transient nature of the area she was not aware that this was the woman who had been killed.
That's all I can think of for now. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
G'day Alan,
Oh what makes everyone think that Caroline Maxwell spoke at close range to a 'Mary' at 9a.m.?
* 'The London Times' November 12, said she didn't call the woman she saw by that, or any name at all.
* 'The iIllustrated Police News' says that Maxwell said: "Hallo, what are you doing up so early?" From across the street too.
Then suddenly at Mary Kelly's inquest it became: "What MARY, brings you up so early?"
SARAH: The Ripper didn't have to go out specifically looking for Kate! Kate may have hinted that she knew something at that very moment! The Ripper would have been so uptight because he was nearly caught, that he didn't care that she was not a regular 'low-life'.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 809
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Leanne,
I'd be more inclined to believe the inquest than the newspapers which may have lied or changed the story. Also she may have just said to the papers "I asked what she was doing up so early", whereas at the inquest she would have been asked what she said word for word.
That may have been the case but in my "speculated" opinion I believe he went looking for her.
Sarah
(Message edited by sarah on March 03, 2004) |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 488
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
Aha, Monty on another thread has just reminded me of another one.
12. The Ripper approached a number of other women over the period of the killings, but did not feel that the situation was right. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 834
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
Alan,
Yes...that Monty is a bright fellow isnt he?
Monty
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
