|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 9:10 pm: |       |
I have posted a short essay on the Stride murder at the following link (I thought it was a bit too long to post on the message boards):
http://robhouse.tripod.com/liz.html
This is my first foray into the message boards community. I welcome everybody's comments. Thanks.
Rob |
Diana
Police Constable
Username: Diana
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 9:37 pm: | |
Robert -- There have been postings longer than your essay on the boards but I like the way you handled it. Some of them have been too long to wade through. It's possible it happened the way you said. |
Brandon Krogh
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 10:21 pm: | |
Hello Robert,
'Grabbing her by the arm, persuading her, he attempts to pull her into the street.'
This has always struck me as curious, the assailant pulling Stride into the street rather than deeper into Dutfield's Yard. Your proposed scenario addresses this problem nicely. Of course, if Michael Kidney killed Stride, as has been suggested elsewhere, then this scenario of trying to get her to come away with him,being rebuffed, and finally growing frustrated and violent would equally apply. |
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 48
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 15, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
Well written and thought provoking article. Just a couple of comments:
1. You're really describing the MO of a prostitute rather than a killer - they probably do coincide in some respects.
2. Your comment There are perhaps elements of the Ripper's personality that can be inferred from the evidence is spot on. I have tried to infer something of his personality from the only fact no one disputes - that he was never brought to trial for these murders. You have to make assumptions about whether he lucky or his planning mitigated risks (or a combination of both) but whomever is put forward as a suspect, how they evaded arrest must be included.
3. I tend to agree with the "defensive" site selection of Mitre Sq. It must have been almost impossible for these women to find a "place of business" secluded yet safe. Even though Liz did use such a spot she was killed anyway. I suppose nothing much was easy in the lives of these poor women.
Regards
Neale
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1145
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
Hi Rob,
We've had a couple of discussions since you wrote this article, but I agree with Neale -- a well written essay and with many interesting points. I certainly wish, that more people indulged in such efforts.
I agree on your description of Dutfield's Yard and also on many of the points regarding the prostitutes and their working spots.
As you may know by now, I do have other opinions on some of the details, and those we have discussed earlier (like Schwartz) I won't take up more time with -- I think we both know where we stand there -- but I have some other minor remarks, which only is to be considered as my personal interpretations of things, nothing else.
Firstly, I think the term "modus operandi" is sometimes used too widely. MO refers strictly to the method of killing and nothing else and I agree with Neal that you are actually more thorough in your description of a prostitute's working method, while there really is no description in your article of the killer's MO. The MO in the Ripper's case is the strangling (when and if such occurred) and the throat-cutting, while the mutilations and grabbing of the organs are the signature.
Then I don't agree in your view on the killer's type and personality. We have no evidence whatsoever that indicates a killer of a charismatic "Bundy" type, and I don't believe he was. Virtually all profilers that has looked at the Ripper case agree on that the Ripper would have been far from this type of character, but rather of average intelligence (even below average), asocial and quite ordinary in his approach, and I agree with them.
First of all, Hutchinson's testimony is questionable; his "suspect description" is too detailed in my view to be credible and Hutchinson himself is something of a dark horse. Apart from that, there is no reason to interpret the other witness observations into a cunning and smooth-talking man. Besides from making rather casual conversations (although we not many indications of the Ripper being that chatty or social), the point is the Ripper didn't have to be!
As long as the women didn't encounter a raving lunatic, they had no cause to be alarmed -- their financial situation and the nature of their occupation wouldn't allow it, and I believe most of their clientel would have ranged from drunkards and dreg to (at their best) lower middle class clerks -- hardly any prominent or well-dressed customers. So no smart talking or manipulative efforts were necessary -- the prostitutes themselves approached and led their clients to a suitable spot, and they couldn't afford to turn anyone down, unless the person were raving mad or was well-dressed carrying a doctor's bag! Furthermore, not all serial killers are of the "Bundy" type or even close to it -- we have quite many other categories to choose from. But unfortunately it is this type that attracts people the most when serial killers are being discussed. I personally believe that -- although he managed to slip away into obscurity -- the Ripper made too many irrational decisions and took too many unnecessary risks in order to fit the personality described. Now, that doesen't mean that he didn't knew how and when to act (and how to get away unspotted) in order to pull off the murders the best way possible, but he didn't have to be charismatic psychopat.
And finally, one reason for the Ripper being undetected is that he was rather discrete in his own way and didn't like to draw attention to himself (that is one of the reasons why I don't believe in Schwartz's assaulting man as her killer). To me it is unlikely that a man like the Ripper would have stayed on the scene while Stride put up such a resistance; my belief is that he would have fled to avoid the attention.
Besides that, an interesting essay which I quite enjoyed and I agree with quite many statements therein.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
Hello Rob,
I just stumbled on to this thread. I liked it.
It very well could have happened that way. I agree that the witness' descriptions of the man they saw with Stride are very similiar. He could have been wooing her with his ways for that long. Who knows. But, yes I liked it.
Paul |
steven tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:33 pm: | |
Robert, very well thought out and well written. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:55 pm: | |
Well, I can't believe I am finally getting some feedback on this essay... I posted it ages ago. I guess it went unnoticed. Anyways, thanks for everyone's comments.
As I said, I wrote this a long time ago, and since then I have probably changed a lot of my ideas concerning the Stride murder, although in the context of the whitechapel murders, I still find it to be the most interesting because of the large amount of circumstantial evidence.
Hello Glenn,
Well I am glad you read it, and we have been over these grounds before. I saw on another thread that you had recently been considering the possibility that assaulting man may have been the killer.... I can only hope my badgering had some effect in this.
I agree on MO, I used the wrong terminology.
As far as the personality thing... I am not committed to this idea. I think the main point I wanted to get accross is that he would have had some sort of "persona" that he had to keep up in order to lull his victims into a sense of security. I dont necessarily think he was as charismatic or as intelligent as Bundy, but I do suspect he was at least a somewhat controlling and confident personality. My main idea is to suggest that IF Stride deliberately chose this location for the fact that it seemed less isolated, this could have led to the unravelling of that persona, resulting in the scuffle in the street.
As I said in the essay, this is only one possible interpretation of events. I do not even believe it is likely to be correct, but mainly use it as a way of showing how unknown variables in the scenario could be explained or resolved in a variety of ways. The interpretation of Stride's murder is still very unclear to me.
I will go back to something I have said before however because it is being discussed in the escape from Dutfield's Yard thread..... the assumption has always been that Stride's murderer was interrupted by Diemschutz. This leads people to wonder how he managed to "escape" from the yard, etc. I want to put forward again, that it may have been Schwartz himself who interrupted the murderer, causing him to kill Stride quickly, then leave the scene before police or anyone else showed up.
I just feel there are too many assumptions being made about the Stride murder. To me, there are many, many gray areas, and I am not sure of much of anything. It may even have been 2 killers. I do feel she was a JTR victim though.
OK, that was too long winded. Later.
Rob H} |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 938
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Rob,
I read it.
Its just that Glenns post summed it up for me and there was nothing else I wanted to add.
I will go back to something I have said before however because it is being discussed in the escape from Dutfield's Yard thread..... the assumption has always been that Stride's murderer was interrupted by Diemschutz. This leads people to wonder how he managed to "escape" from the yard, etc. I want to put forward again, that it may have been Schwartz himself who interrupted the murderer, causing him to kill Stride quickly, then leave the scene before police or anyone else showed up.
Yeah, fits in the time frame.....but you know how they take to change !
Well done anyway.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
A friend and I were having a peaceful argument last weekend, regarding whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not.
I am of the opinion that she was, my friend however is of the opinion that Kidney was the perpetrator.
His argument ran something like this.
Stride and Kidney had lived together for three years. Their relationship he maintained was not all love and bliss, as they had separated on a number of occasions through Strides heavy drinking. Kidney had actually said as much, when he told the inquest, “During the three years I have known her she has been away from me about five months altogether”.
So the Tuesday week (i.e. 11days) before Strides murder, Kidney and Stride separated. Kidney told the inquest that this was the last time he saw Stride, apart from seeing her on the mortuary slab.
He was of course, according to my friend, telling lies.
Kidney he maintains fully expected Stride to return to him after their separation. After 11 days of waiting he realised that the only thing for him to do was to go and look for her.
On the night of the 30 September Kidney drank in several of the bars that he and Stride had frequented, he didn’t, as he had hoped, bump into her.
The reason for this my friend went on, was that Stride had had enough of Kidney and was keeping out of his way.
Kidney after drinking in several bars, then realises that he is not going to find her in any of their favourite haunts, and knowing that she actively solicits in Commercial Road and the roads running off it he decides to try his luck there.
He finds her alone at approx 12:43 a.m. on the corner of Berner Street and Fairclough Street. As he talks to her, James Brown walks past them, he hears Stride say, “not tonight some other night”, this my friend reckons, is Stride answering Kidney’s question, “ Come on Liz come back home with me”, or words to that effect. Stride realising Kidney has been drinking tries to humour him, by saying these words.
But Stride doesn’t want to go back to Kidney and breaks away and walks up Berner Street, Kidney follows remonstrating. As they get to the entrance to Dutfields Yard Kidney gets hold of Stride and pushes her to the ground. Stride not wanting to incur Kidneys wrath only cries out softly.
Shwartz by this time is upon them and Kidney seeing that Shwartz has observed them calls out “Lipski”. A reference to the fact that Shwartz is a Jew. The 12:45a.m.attacker it follows was not a Jew, was it Kidney?
Kidney now out of control pulls Stride into the Yard and cuts her throat. He steps back into Berner Street and makes his escape.
Monday 2nd October sees Kidney confronting the police, demanding why they are doing nothing to apprehend the killer. He, he says, if given the men could catch him easily. This finally convinces my friend that Kidney is the killer, for the best form of defence is attack. Kidney he says, is putting the idea into the minds of the police that JTR is the killer of Stride.
One thing bothers me in this scenario, why did Kidney in his search for Stride go armed with a knife. According to my friend his motive for finding Stride was to make up with her, why carry a knife?
In my mind, one thing good came out of this discussion, for I realised that if the 12:45 a.m. attacker of Stride was her Killer, then that person could not have been JTR. Deimshutz found the body at 1:00 a.m. If the 12:45 a.m. attacker was her killer then he would have had ample time to mutilate the body in the intervening 15 minutes, but he chose not to. It then follows that if 12:45 attacker did kill Stride, then he was not JTR.
You might ask,if the 12:45 attacker was JTR, might he have been scared away from the scene by Shwartz,and didn't carry out any mutilations for this reason. I personally think not. Once JTR had cut her throat, then I believe that he would not have been able to restrain himself. JTR was such a determined killer, this would not in my mind have put him off.
The other alternative is of course that JTR lured and killed Stride after the attack of 12:45a.m. and was disturbed by Deimshutz at 1:00 a.m. thus he was not able to carry out his mutilations.
|
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 10:18 pm: | |
Hello Cludgy,
I have to say that, for one thing, Schwartz didnt have a watch and could have easily been mistaken about the time. James Brown, who's man
had a coat that almost touched his shoes, wasnt even positive that the lady at the morgue was the same lady that he saw with the long coat man.
Furthermore... Fanny Mortimer, if she is to be believed, stood at her door and looked out till almost one o'clock and saw no one leaving dutfields yard. So its my himble opinion that the murder occurred much closer to one o'clock and Schwartz was mistaken about the time.
Its quite a coincidince that Schwartz'man and
Lawende's man are almost identical. Just food for thought. Best Regards.
Paul |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 545
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 5:39 am: | |
The thing that has always struck me is that there was another "wife murder" that night somewhere in the East End---Can"t remember where I read that but anyway even if it was that week not that night the police knew it wasnt done by JtR.This is the point really:they said the "throat cutting" was in the same vein as the other four victims.None of us has seen this as the doctors at the time saw it so I think Its better to give them the benefit of the doubt.They seemed "convinced" whereas they were not "convinced" that Martha Tabram was a "ripper" victim os Francis Cole etc[which doesnt mean they definitely were not but does mean that they were being discerning and taking their cue from the doctors who examined the corpses as well as their own eyes. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 11:52 am: | |
OK. this is a general concept but it applies to some of the ideas expressed in this thread.
When an event has occurred like this, and the facts are for the most part unknown, our instinct is to try to figure out what happened. We imagine possible scenarios that "make sense" to us, and try to see how they fit with the known evidence.
The danger in this is that we are projecting our own often simplistic "readings" onto scenarios which are complex, often filled with subtleties, unknowns and truths which are often stranger than fiction.
Our intense desire for a "rational" common sense explanation is in many ways misleading. We often seek the most simplistic interpretation of the event based on the known evidence, gravitating towards theories such as "Kidney did it because" or "Barnett did it because"... because these guy had a motive that makes sense to us in a rational, simplistic way.
In the time Liz was standing with this guy on the corner, how many words do you imagine were spoken? Probably hundreds of sentences were spoken... yet we focus on and endlessly interpret "Not tonight", then try to fit this piece into the jigsaw puzzle.
99% of the information is missing... Why did she have the cachous? And more importantly, what else happened that was not witnessed by anyone? We may never know.
My point again is that we are jumping to conclusions. To make a statement like "It then follows that if 12:45 attacker did kill Stride, then he was not JTR" is an extremely unfounded and simplistic extrapolation based on a very small amount of fragmented so-called "factual" evidence.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1380
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Hi Rob, et. al.,
I agree with Rob that it is dangerous to set up fictional scenarios when so much information is missing. All we can do is to make as much sense as possible out of the available facts -- which is a tough job as it is.
We can't be sure of how accurate Schwartz was in his time estimations, neither can we be absolutely sure of Fanny Mortimer's. Still, I think some points indicate the time of murder to occure closer to 1.00 a.m. than somewhere 12.45, but even that is hardly something I would bet my money on.
Yes, it's true, Robe, that I am actually having second thoughts regarding Schwartz's assaulting man and also regarding Stride herself as a Ripper victim. Of course the discussions here have contributed it, but actually quite a lot happened to me during my visit to London at the end of February!
I have always strongly believed Stride to be a Ripper victim; now I am leaning more and more to the notion that she wasn't, at least I am having my doubts. To me it is actually quite possible that the "double event" just simply could have been an unfortunate and morbid coincidence.
I still think it is a big coincidence with two murders with two murders some twenty or thirty minutes apart, in a relatively close area and then the apron indicating the murderer heading back into Whitechapel from the City district.
What do we really have that eventually links Stride to Jack the Ripper?
-- her throat was cut;
-- she was a prostitute;
-- she was murdered approximately some 30--40 minutes after an undeniable Ripper victim, Eddowes.
But there are also some serious problems (I know that I have earlier argued against these points with great enthusiasm, but -- to be honest -- it is never too late to gain new insight and change ones opinion):
1) the knife seems to be of an entirely different kind compared to the more "Ripper-like" one used on Eddowes;
2) no mutilations and her close relatively untouched;
3) From 1888--1891 murders involving throat-cutting seems to have exploded in the area; we even have a throat-cutting of a woman in Westminster the same night (although that was a domestic one) and we also have a couple of mutilation incidents that probably can not be attributed to the Ripper -- so the Ripper wasn't the only one indulging in these kinds of activities at the time; these wre harsh areas of East End and really it is quite astonishing that we don't have more accounts of similar incidents;
4) her strained relationship with Michael Kidney and his recorded violent habits against her;
5) the incident with the assaulting man, witnessed by Schwartz.
The most important points to consider against her being a victim of the Ripper is, in my view, number 1), 2) and 5).
Especially the first point, regarding the murder weapon, is crucial in this context. Why would Jack the Ripper use a knife that wasn't his ordinary one on Stride and then suddenly some 30--40 minutes later switch to the "ordinary" sharp, long-bladed one in Mitre Square? It doesen't make sense. One can certainly always find arguments to go around this, but the dissimilarities in murder weapons disturbs me, as it would certainly be an important crack in any police investigation.
Furthermore, regarding Schwartz... I still want to point out that we only have Schwartz's own account of what happened during the "assaulting man" incident, and that his testimony is completely unsupported by evidence or other witnesses!
However, if we consider this incident to be true (and Schwartz wouldn't really have anything to gain from making the story up, he was hardly a publicity seeker), the man was with most certainty not Jack the Ripper -- his behaviour doesn't in any way fit the psychological characteristics of the person that committed the other crimes. Jack the Ripper was not a man that shouted across the street or drew attention to himself.
Then was the man seen by Schwartz really Kidney?
I can't say, but I think three points must be taken in consideration:
-- most murders have domestic reasons, and not that many men would enjoyed that their female companion took to the streets and made themselves available to other men, unless they earned money from it -- not even in East End in 1888.
Finally, Kidney's very strange and arrogant conduct at the inquest is in my view incredibly suspicious. Taken his violent and abusive temper in account, I wouldn't trust that man the slightest. He indeed had both motive and possibly also the personal capacity for it (although that, of course, is -- like everything else -- based on pure speculations).
There is at least one thing that bothers me with the assaulting man being her killer, though:
-- Since the incident happened outside the gates to the yard, the killer must have dragged or pulled her in there. The evidence that contradicts this, is the cachous in her hand. They indicate at least to me, that she was murdered under relatively calm circumstances and that she was taken by surprise (or else they wouldn't be clenched in her hand unless they were put there).
And here it becomes really confusing, since I don't think that fits the assaulting man approach.
It is indeed a puzzle and quite a mystery in its own right.
And once again, who was the pipe-man, really, and what was his role in the drama?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 7:49 am: | |
Cludgy wrote:
>Once JTR had cut her throat, then I believe that he would not have been able to restrain himself. JTR was such a determined killer, this would not in my mind have put him off.
I am afraid I totally must discount this as a credible possibility. A killer of this kind would without doubt be very strongly affected by being caught in the act, and to flee the scene would be the most natural reaction for him. We have very strong indications from the murders that he (although he took considerable dangerous and sometimes irrational risks) was quite determined not to get caught and that he possessed a considerable amount of instinct of self-preservation. If he were that kind of killer that would continue his act in spite of being spotted and disturbed, he would have been captured long before the "double event".
I know that Cludgy only put this forward as one alternative among others, but I just had to make that point nevertheless.
If the assaulting man was her killer (and I do think that is quite probable), we can surely ignore the Diemschutz disturbance factor, since there is no reason to assume, that that man had any intention to mutilate her in the first place (the interruption theory is based on the fact that the Ripper never managed to carry out the mutilations).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 8:57 am: | |
Correction:
Two main errors in my larger post, and unfortunately there is a comletely unnecessary time limit for editing:
-- "Fanny" Mortimer should of course mean Mrs Mary Mortimer.
-- In point 2): should say that her "clothes were relatively untouched", not "close"...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thats certainly an interesting point or points.
It does make you think. But, for me, I am still going to consider Stride a Ripper Victim. Just for jollies, wouldnt you? haha
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
I am not trying to convince you of anything, brother. I haven't made up my mind myself, actually, just keeping myself open to other alternatives.
The Stride murder is a tricky one.
They say I'm a pipe-man now. haha.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
Glenn,
You are basing your argument on evidence which simply does not exist. And this is exactly what I was writing about in my previous post.
You say that if assaulting man was Stride's killer, then he was "most certainty not Jack the Ripper", because "Jack the Ripper was not a man that shouted across the street or drew attention to himself".
Exactly what evidence are you basing this deduction on?
Lets assume for a second that "assaulting man" IS Jack the Ripper. If this is the case, then Stride's murder is the ONLY murder in the series in which witnesses observed the murder (or the prelude to murder) taking place.
Now how can we base a theory of how JTR WOULD react when he "caught in the act" on other murders when he is not observed. This just does not make sense. You are projecting your own prejudiced ideas about JTR's profile and personality onto your interpretation of this murder.
This is exactly what I was talking about before... when there is a hole in the evidence, we fill that hole with the most simplistic or rational deductions, which are in fact baseless, and then use these baseless deductions as the foundation for pointless argumentation and theorizing.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Rob,
Not everything is possible to base on evidence. Somewhere we have to make our own interpretations and then decide what's reasonable or credible and what's not. If we should verify everything in the Ripper case with physical evidence, we wouldn't get anywhere. However, that does not necessarily mean that one has to indulge in unsound speculations but obviously you think that everything that can't be read straight out from a police report is groundless speculations. You really disappoint me.
"You say that if assaulting man was Stride's killer, then he was 'most certainty not Jack the Ripper', because 'Jack the Ripper was not a man that shouted across the street or drew attention to himself'.
Exactly what evidence are you basing this deduction on?"
No evidence at all, mainly common sense, Rob. Do you really think JtR would have been unspotted and gotten away that easily (or the murders being unobserved) if he had that kind of conduct? Come on, Rob. You don't need "evidence" to take a stand on that. It's elementary psychology, based on what we know about his approach in connection with the other crime scenes -- nothing else.
"Now how can we base a theory of how JTR WOULD react when he 'caught in the act' on other murders when he is not observed. This just does not make sense."
It makes absolute sense; I think it's obvious that Jack the Ripper was a person that very clearly was keen on not getting caught. Or else he wouldn't be so elusive as he was. Doesen't the fact that he left every murder scene without being seen tell you anything?
You on the other hand suggests that he would be so stupid and completely obsessed with his task, that he would continue to mutilate even if he was caught right up front. What on Earth do you base that on? Because that really doesen't make any sense whatsoever.
"You are projecting your own prejudiced ideas about JTR's profile and personality onto your interpretation of this murder."
Not necessarily true (I've heard that one before), but even if I do: we all have those, haven't we? As I said, you just made your own deduction based on one single incident we don't even can be sure of has anything to do with the Ripper in the first place. And you talk about baseless?
As I see it, you are interpreting from your own point of view as well, aren't you? And I sure haven't seen you produce any evidence supporting your ideas.
If you find my deductions baseless, then you do the same mistakes I do; you have decided for yourself that the Schwartz man is JtR -- even though we have no real evidence supporting it whatsoever -- and from that you try to "profile" Jack's conduct. Hmmm... glass houses, Rob...
You are implying that we should base our deductions strictly on facts and not make our own interpretations. That is just ridiculous. I hate to break it to you, Rob, but unfortunately we have to many blank spots on the map to be able to approach it in such a orthodox and rigid way. The crime scene evidence and the few written, documented facts we've got, tell us some of it. Then it's up to our own interpretations to take it further. That is not the same as "baseless deductions" or "pointless theorizing". We have to use our own heads too, based on knowledge and experience. Heard about common sense, Rob?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
I see what you're saying and you make great points. The one piece of evidence that is hard for me to get past is the descriptions of the "suspect" by Schwartz and Lawende. They are so similiar that its almost scary. That is a strong reason for my belief that Stride was a JTR victim...but Im not trying to go down that road.
One other thing that I find interesting, and Im not sure this was discussed in my Escape from Dutfields Yard thread, but, Speaking of Fanny Mortimer...if Schwartz was correct in his time(and I dont think he was) wouldnt Fanny have noticed the Struggle...if her story of standing at the door of her house and looking out for most of the time between 12:30 and close to one is true.
Yet, she claimed to have heard PC Smith walking on his beat and also heard Louis' horse turning in the yard...yet she heard no "Lipski" or anything like that. I find that strange. What do you think about it? Regards
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 7:34 pm: | |
Hey Paul,
Well, they are not that alike; besides the height and the peaked cap, the rest is unreliable or quite ordinary features that could fit any person. I do have some experience from studying witness testimonies, and I think witness descriptions are not that much to base an opinion on, unless we talk about really outstanding feature descriptions. Age is very problematic to determine and so is colors.
So besides the peaked cap (which quite many labourers used anyway -- it was quite common indeed), there is really nothing of particular interest as far as the corroborations are concerned. Lawende speaks of a red neckerchief, Schwartz doesen't. Lawende speaks of salt-and-pepper coat, Schwartz just says "dark jacket". Lawende says he the man bore an impression of a sailor, Schwartz doesne't. The moustache is unimportant, since nearly all males had moustache in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. So I would say their corroborating witness descriptions are a somewhat of an exaggeration. A peaked cap (which colour they didn't quite agreed on anyway) and a height of approximately 5'5" -- that's all. That doesen't really cut it for me. It is interesting, but not enough to consider it as evidence.
Yes, Mrs Mortimer (sorry, it should be "Fanny" after all -- that was the last time I wrote a post after having attended a wine tasting gathering the night before!) is probably the most interesting but also the trickiest witness testimony we have to deal with in order to pin down the tim table.
Believe me, I have gone over that again and again in my own head and I can't really get it together. Mostly because there are certain holes in it. I don't think she stood there already at 12.30; actually, I don't think she went outside until after 12.45, because if she had, she would have spotted PC John Smith, Matthew Packer and Israel Schwartz. But she saw and heard no one (except for Goldstein with his bag). Then she returned indoors just seconds before she heard Diemschutz's cart arriving. She first estimated in the initial reports that she had been standing in the door for about ten minutes, so I think the real truth comes down to 7--9 minutes, if we want some time margins.
If that is correct, then the murder must have been committed at least somewhere around 12.45, unless she went in and out a couple of times instead of standing there the whole time (which of course could be a plausible possibility).
I must admit, I don't really know what to make of it otherwise. I've said it earlier and I say it again: it's all a big mess, as far as I am concerned...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 28, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
I know that witness testimony is a little questionable sometime..But, I still think they
were describing the same man. Plus, its just too much of a coincidence that if someone else killed Stride, that The Ripper would strike 30 or so minutes later. That is a big, big coincidence...and even though its possible,
In my humble opinion, JTR killed both.
I also agree that the Fanny timetable is a bit confusing. It seems that there were several things going on that night in Berner Street, and
several witnesses...but No one person can confirm the others testimony. They were all supposed to be doing this or that at whatever time...but No One can say...."Hey, I saw Fanny standing at her door" or.."Yea, I saw that couple standing at the corner near the school" Or "I saw that man too" whatever. As you said...Very confusing. I hope you understood what I was trying to say just then. I was rambling. Best Regards
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 28, 2004 - 8:51 pm: | |
Hey Paul,
Don't get lured into thinking that I am definitely trying to argue for an exclusion of Stride as a Ripper victim, because I don't. I just want to point out some factors pointing in other directions, factors I myself stubbornly refused to accept when I first entered the case. She could very well be a Ripper victim, but I think there are enough contradictions to consider otherwise as well.
"Plus, its just too much of a coincidence that if someone else killed Stride, that The Ripper would strike 30 or so minutes later. That is a big, big coincidence."
Oh yes, Paul. I know, and I agree. In fact, that used to be my main argument in order to support her "candidacy".
Still, stranger coincidences have happened, and we also had a throat-cutting incident that very night, although that occurred in Westminster and was a domestic one. But still.
And if we want to talk about evidence pointing against her being a Ripper victim, I think the different weapon used is far more crucial than some rather unreliable witness descriptions or a "coincidence".
Not only have we medical testimonies stating that a blunt, broad and short knife probably was used (in contrast to the long-bladed sharp one in connection with the other canonical Ripper murders), we must also consider the differences in the throat wound. That clue is extremely important and is stronger evidence than any witness description ever.
There really is nothing to suggest with certainty that Schwartz and Lawende is talking about the same man -- I demand more corroborating points than that. And as I said, I don't have that high regards for witness descriptions anyway if we have evidence seriously pointing in another direction.
Regarding the Berner Street witnesses and their time tables, not seeing each other... Yep, I know exactly what you mean and I feel the same way about it. It's frustrating, isn't it?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi Glen!
You've sure got me beat.
You are a mass of contradictions.
You wrote,
" I think it's obvious that Jack the Ripper was a person that very clearly was keen on not getting caught. Or else he wouldn't be so elusive as he was. Doesen't the fact that he left every murder scene without being seen tell you anything"?
You then wrote, " he took considerable dangerous and sometimes irrational risks".
Which of the above do you believe?
You can't have it both ways.
You said, "Doesen't the fact that he left every murder scene without being seen tell you anything"?
It tells me something, the fact that he was a lucky swine.
Surely the facts point to him as being reckless and lucky, rather than calculating.
Remember he took Chapman (in near broad daylight) through to the backyard of a tenement that was occupied by numerous people(some who were in the process of rising from their slumber) and not only did he murder and mutilate her, he decided to take the time to rifle her pockets and arrange her meagre posessions at her feet, and you say he was "Clearly a person keen on not getting caught"! Come off it.
There is even a possibility, (that while murdering Chapman,) he was aware of Albert Cadosh walking about in the next yard.
He was also lucky that John Richardson never bumped into him.
This in my mind points to the fact that JTR acted impulsively rather than calculatingly.
I made the comment, regarding the Schwartz attacker,
“Once JTR had cut her throat, then I believe that he would not have been able to restrain himself. JTR was such a determined killer, this would not in my mind have put him off.”
What I was trying to put over in that statement was that I didn’t believe that the attacker was JTR, otherwise he would have mutilated her.
You said in reply,
“I am afraid I totally must discount this as a credible possibility. A killer of this kind would without doubt be very strongly affected by being caught in the act, and to flee the scene”.
How do you know? You said yourself he took, “ considerable dangerous and sometimes irrational risks”. Do you think that after slitting her throat this would have satisfied his bloodlust? Think of the risks he took with Chapman, then think again to the Stride murder, with no one about after Schwartz had run off, I do not believe,(if JTR was the Schwartz atacker) that he would not have mutilated her.
But Stride wasn’t mutilated, thus I now believe, that Stride was not a Ripper victim.
It looks to me (If Schwartz’s statement is correct) that Stride was murdered at 12:45 a.m. by someone other than JTR. For I can not see Stride staying in the area for one minute, let alone five or ten, and entertaining another client after being attacked at 12:45 a.m. Thus I am of the opinion that Stride had been dead for 15 minutes, when Deimshutz’s cart entered the yard.
Of course the above scenario ( and there’s nothing dangerous about scenarios Glenn, they bring out some very interesting questions that would otherwise go unanswered) depends entirely on the statement of Schwartz.
If Schwartz’s statement however is fiction then Stride could indeed have been a Ripper victim.
Here is another “dangerous”, scenario. Shortly before 1 a.m. she gets rid of the man seen with her by P.C. Smith at 12:30a.m. ( in this scenario there is no attacker at 12:45a.m.) along comes JTR, he approaches and propositions her, and she leads him into Dutfields Yard where she becomes the third victim of JTR. Diemschutz of course would then disturb the killer, preventing his usual mutilations.
But here is another spanner in the works, another stumbling block, Dr Blackwell was of the opinion that Stride was lying down when her throat was cut, he could tell this by the way the blood flowed from her neck down into the yard, there was it seems no indication that Stride had had her throat cut while standing up. There was also in his opinion no signs of Stride being rendered unconscious by strangling, thus what I think he is saying is that Stride willingly lay down, he is quoted as saying “the position of the body suggested either that she was willingly placed or placed herself where she was found”.
The question I ask is this, it had rained heavily that night, would Stride have willingly lay down on the wet muddy ground in order to have sexual intercourse? Would she have clutched onto a packet of cachous while lying or being placed on the ground, ready for intercourse, surely she would have put the cachous in her pocket, prior to lying down?
It seems to me as if she taken by surprise while standing up, and was then forcibly put onto the ground, she then had her throat slit.
Is Doctor Blackwell wrong?
Is this getting complicated?
I suspect it is.
All The Best.
Cludgy
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
