|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 1:42 pm: |       |
Glenn,
I will just respond to points in your post, because trying to reason with you is pointless.
"you think that everything that can't be read straight out from a police report is groundless speculations. You really disappoint me. " -- OK, I never said anything like this, so you are putting words in my mouth. And incidentally this is a clear indication that you completely misunderstood my post.
"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?" --- Yeah sure, why not?
"Doesen't the fact that he left every murder scene without being seen tell you anything?" -- yes, it tells me that no one was around to witness him murdering anyone. And he was "seen" by numerous people... they saw a man walking down the street and this drew no special notice.
"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." -- this statement is so completely incorrect that my head is spinning. This is in fact the exact opposite of what I said. I said that if he had been seen, he would NOT continue to mutilate the victim, (as Stride was not mutilated.)... am I missing something? Maybe you wrote this sentence incorrectly?
"you have decided for yourself that the Schwartz man is JtR" --- well no Glenn, I havent. In fact I have responded to this same accusation by you probably 4 or 5 times now, but maybe your memory is failing you so I will repeat it. I believe that Schwartz's man MAY HAVE BEEN Jack the Ripper, in other words I do not count him out. You on the other hand are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that he could not possibly have been Jack. I mean you are absolutely convinced. OK? Got it? Just to clarify. Again.
"Then it's up to our own interpretations to take it further." OK, Glenn. Well have fun interpreting. Maybe you could write a crime novel about your theories.
By the way, I would not be replying in this nasty tone if you did not always respond to my posts so condescendingly and defensively. But I guess you prefer to have discussions with people who agree with you.
By the way Paul, I agree. The descriptions are very similar. As usual I disagree with Glenn, but then he chooses to discard whatever evidence contradicts his theory that "assaulting man" is CERTAINLY NOT JTR.
Cheers.
Rob H. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Glenn,
I am sitting here regretting the tone of my response. I do not mean to be personal in this and hope we can continue to disagree in peace. I was frustrated with your response and lashed back. Sorry.
That said, I do still I stand by my statements, so feel free to blast away.
Cheers.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1401
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Well, Rob...
It's OK. I am sorry to. I guess I got carried away as well. No harm intended, but I can get quite rough and when I do, I deserve everything that's coming to me.
Actually, Rob, I don't find it interesting to discuss with people I agree with on all points. I wouldn't be here, if that was the case, right?
"You are basing your argument on evidence which simply does not exist. [...]
My point again is that we are jumping to conclusions. [...] unfounded and simplistic extrapolation based on a very small amount of fragmented so-called "factual" evidence. [...]
You are basing your argument on evidence which simply does not exist. [...]
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."
Now, these lines certainly imply, that it's wrong to fill in the factual holes with our own "baseless" interpretations, and that we therefore should stick to the facts. That can't really be misunderstood. Or else, what was your point, really? I just want to know, nothing personal.
"'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?' --- Yeah sure, why not?"
OK. If that makes sense to you -- fine. Goes beyond me, though. But you are of course entitled to your opinion.
"yes, it tells me that no one was around to witness him murdering anyone. And he was "seen" by numerous people... they saw a man walking down the street and this drew no special notice."
Exactly my point. He didn't draw any attention to himself. Now, do you see why I don't think that suits the Schwartz man that well? I personally have never heard about a serial killer that acts like the assaulting man. I would suggest that the fact that Jack the Ripper managed to get away without anyone noticing him, indicates that he had a completely different character and not performed a violent act that out in the open and in such an indiscrete manner.
"You on the other hand are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that he could not possibly have been Jack. I mean you are absolutely convinced."
Yes, that's true. Somewhere we've got to reach some conclusions. But that is also the only thing I am relatively sure of. If you had read my posts correctly you would have noticed that I am not even sure of that Stride is a Ripper victim in the first place. I have tried to deliver some alternative views here, I have even accepted that that particular man could be her killer -- in spite of the fact that I didn't want to see it earlier. So don't call me rigid. She could be a victim of the assaulting man, she could also be a Ripper victim. The only thing -- note: the ONLY thing -- I am having problems with here, is that those two are one and the same. Besides that, I think it's obvious that I've been trying to reason from different directions and looking at different alternatives in the Stride case.
"OK, Glenn. Well have fun interpreting. Maybe you could write a crime novel about your theories."
No, I don't write novels; I prefer non-fiction, although there are exceptions.
"this statement is so completely incorrect that my head is spinning. This is in fact the exact opposite of what I said. I said that if he had been seen, he would NOT continue to mutilate the victim, (as Stride was not mutilated.)... am I missing something? Maybe you wrote this sentence incorrectly?"
No I didn't, but I can certainly understand why your head was spinning here, because it seems like I got that completely wrong, so I actually owe you a big and sincere apology here. I am not worse than I can admit that. So, sorry about that.
"As usual I disagree with Glenn, but then he chooses to discard whatever evidence contradicts his theory that "assaulting man" is CERTAINLY NOT JTR."
What evidence?
And very similar?
Well, I was just trying to point out that the description is not extraordinary enough in order to draw any real conclusions from it (that is the approach you were asking for, right?). I would hardly call a specific height and a peaked cap enough to make those two men identical enough in order to regard it as evidence, a peaked cap is too common in working class circuits. It could naturally be the same man, absolutely, I can't "discard" it, but I would prefer to treat it with caution, though, and not make too big a deal out of it.
Hope your head has stopped spinning, Rob.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 29, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Glenn,
In general I think there is way too much speculation and presumption that goes on in these boards. This has led to the idea that Kelly is not a JTR victim, Stride is not a JTR victim, Barnett is JTR, Sickert, Royal Conspiracy, etc etc. We must be careful not to entertain every marginalized speculation, or else a clear interpretation of what few "facts" actually exist will become hopelessly muddled. I say stick with the basics. Maybe we need to start over.
Your idea of how JTR would behave when he is caught "in the act" is mainly based on what you call "common sense"... well I disagree with your idea of "common sense", so I dont see how it is common sense. Serial killers come in all sort of varieties, but they are certainly complex and unpredictable. I do not see that your conclusion in this regard is based on much of anything. If you want I will scour the web until I find evidence of some serial killer acting in this manner, although I really dont want to waste my time doing it.
When I said "no one was around to witness him", I meant that this is maybe why he got away in the other instances.... not because of any special degree of caution on his part. If he HAD been witnessed "in the act" during one of the other murders, then maybe we could start to construct a factual basis for how he would be likely to react in that situation. But this was not the case, so it is just speculation, and we are in the dark on this one. Unless you want to fall back on common sense.
Fundamentally, I just think you are going out on a limb here by discounting assaulting man so definitively. And that is my main objection. You say you are keeping an open mind on this but I just do not believe it. It is like using physics and mathematics to "prove" that a bee cannot fly. I think you are overanalyzing yourself into a corner.
As far as the witness similarities.....Peaked cap, height, age, jacket. You choose to discard the jacket and the age. If I am correct, a salt and pepper coat is dark grey in color... or grey anyways. In a dark street this could obviously be seen as "dark." Both were said to be 30 years old, one was 5 foot 5, the other 5 foot seven, both fair complexioned with small moustaches. I mean I realize that witness testimony is often not very accurate, but there is nothing contradictory in these descriptions, and they are very similar.
Whatever. I eagerly await your ongoing assault on my opinions.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
Oh no, no assaults here. I actually liked that post very much, since I thought it was rather clear and informative. I believe you answered quite many of the questions I had or wondered about, which I am grateful for.
I agree that there are too much speculations, but the notions that Mary Jane Kelly and Stride may not have been Ripper victims, are actually based on how careful we want to be with the facts. I used to be what someone here (I forgot who) referred to as an "inclusionst" -- that is, someone who wants to see Ripper victims everywhere, and seen in retrospect I believe he was right although I laughed the poor bloke in the face when that occurred.
The problem with Stride is, that to me the "chances" for her being a Ripper victim is about 50--50. What I find most tempting, as far as the JtR connection is concerned, is the coincidence factor. I absolutely agree with Paul and many others, that it is indeed astonishing with two murders committed about 45 minutes away from each other, both involving troat-cutting and one of them we know is a Ripper victim. I used to think that would be totally conclusive.
Then I started to consider the actual evidence, and not what I wanted to see. We have medical opinions that stated that there were two different weapons in Eddowes' and Stride's case, and also that the wound in Stride's throat in many ways contradicts those found on Eddowes' and the other Ripper victims. Now, that is the forensic evidence, and I believe those are the strongest forms of evidence we have. Still, I refused to see it some months ago.
I still think the coincidence factor is a problematic one, but I am actually starting to having my doubts about Stride (sadly enough, as I see it) in the Ripper context.
If we are to consider actual forensic evidence and modus operandi, we really with absolute certainty can't count more than three canonical Ripper victims: Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. In the others I believe there is enough question marks regarding the forensic evidence to keep an open mind about other alternatives -- and note that I said "keep an open mind", not to discount them altogether (that would be just as foolish as accepting them without questioning). That is hardly over-analysing.
The Ripper wasn't the only one doing throat-cutting and mutilations at this time; we also have the Pinchin Street murder, and we have Frances Coles in 1891 etc. Stranger things have happened, and to acknowledge those discrepancies is to weigh the evidence carefully, not to speculate. On the other hand, to automatically include a large number of victims and attribute them to the Ripper just because they had their throats cut and it happened in 1888, is not to study evidence objectively. You said in an earlier post that we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Well, I think it is those who without questioning accepts Stride and Kelly (without considering forensic evidence and alternative solutions), who does jump to conclusions -- not the other way around.
Well, common sense does tell me, that if a serial killer would have that kind of conduct as the Schwartz man, he wouldn't be that hard to spot or get hold of. Of course we don't know Jack the Ripper's exact conduct since we weren't there and we have no witnesses, but the other murders do tell us something nevertheless, namely that it happened fast, quiet and the victims were taken by surprise. And it is my firm belief, that if Schwartz's assaulting man was the Ripper, then we would have had more people hearing and witnessing the murders. I can't naturally be absolutely sure, but it just doesen't ring true or logical to me. Jack the Ripper was careful not being seen and not being caught -- the crime scene evidence and the loss of witness testimonies from the crucial moments of the murders, gives us a rather clear indication on that and I find it hard to see that as speculations. But it doesen't fit the conduct of the Schwartz man.
So that leads me simply to two alternative conclusions:
1) Stride was a Ripper victim, but was murdered after the scene Schwartz witnessed (and not by the broad shouldered man)
2) She was killed by the man Schwartz saw assaulting her, but it ewasn't Jack the Ripper but another man, possibly Kidney (who might have had a plausible motive, who was abusive and who had a suspicious conduct at the inquest)
Now, this is pure deductions from the few facts we have, and they are not based on anything else but interpretation of facts and -- that's right (dear I say it????), common sense. BUT: Which alternative of the two is it? We really can't say. The only thing I feel rather secure about is that the Schwartz man wasn't Jack the Ripper, although we can't be 100% sure of that either. But I'm just saying what sounds logical to me.
Now to the witness descriptions...
Well, I hate to go on about it, but I have read quite many witness testimonies in my days, and as I said earlier, there are two main points that in my experience can be excluded and taken very lightly and never can be trusted (and I think most police officers would say the same thing):
-- colors
-- age
These two factors are incredibly unreliable and very hard to determine for every individual. For the most parts these factors are completely useless.
Then, yes, the two witness testimonies differ from one another. Only Lawende speaks of a red neckerchief (which would have stood out rather clear against the dark clothes -- I think that detail is probably the most interesting point in Lawende's description attempt) and I don't think a jacket and a coat is the same thing either.
As I said in another post, the moustache is equally pointless, since nearly all men had moustache at the time (just look at the police officials, to take some examples!). That is probably the most useless of all details in the witness descriptions. The peaked cap is interesting, I can agree on that, but also that proves nothing, since that was a headgear that was incredibly common. It is just not enough to draw conclusions from, Rob. On the other hand, witness descriptions can easily lead you astray and too easy throw you off your path -- ask any crime investigator.
Now, I have bored you enough.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 9:24 pm: | |
Do you think it was the Ripper's cautious, careful behavior that kept him from being seen killing Chapman? |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 10:22 pm: | |
here is a quote from David some time ago:
"If we fall into complete skepticism concerning what the case witnesses reported, then I think we have relinquished our ability to solve the case. Skepticism seems to many Ripperologists a powerful tool, at least to start, but too often we follow this muse too far and pay the price. ....
Plenty of asymmetrical features can be found in the testimony of the witnesses. Certainly some of the testimony is wrong, but that doesn't mean all of it is. "
I basically agree with this. Lawende and Schwartz are not likely to have been extremely accurate in their descriptions, but a certain percentage of their descriptions would be probably correct. That said, I can get a ballpark idea of the man they are describing, and it seems to be entirely likely to have been the same man.
Look, you spoke of coincidence. Two murders within 1 hour of each other, and near identical descriptions given of a man seen with the victim at each event.... I just do not think we can dismiss this so casually as you seem prepared to do.
RH
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 3:47 am: | |
Rob,
"Do you think it was the Ripper's cautious, careful behavior that kept him from being seen killing Chapman?"
I am not sure what you mean here, but I think that if he had acted in the same manner as the Schwartz man on Hanbury Street, he would have woken the whole premises up. I don't think the Ripper was especially smart or cautious on Hanbury Street -- he took some rather high risks -- but still he managed to do it quietly, below several open windows where the residents were sleeping inside and some had even stood up. The Schwartz man seems highly unlikely in this situation.
David is incredibly pragmatic in his view on the facts, and although he sometimes has his points, I think most of his "advice" would make any investigation impossible.
However, I can agree with much of what's being said in that quote. But I am not generally suspicious against witness testimonies as such, but against witness descriptions -- that is something completely different.
Unfortunately personal preferences makes it hard for all of us to really judge and describe things correctly, especially when it comes to appearences. In all murder cases I have investigated (studying numerous reports and testimonies), witness descriptions of the alleged perpetrator usually brings you more trouble than good. People usually describe the same man completely different and even if they do corroborate, they for the most part are so vague that it could fit almost any individual. It is extremely important to be cautious about this if you don't want to end up completely wrong. They can really make you tear your hair out by the root, and I can consider that type of witness information to be on the lowest part of the scale, unless they really mention very characteristic details that stands out a bit (that is why I think Lawende's testimony regarding the red neckerchief is interesting).
But witness information in general is no problem for me; sometimes those are all we have (but it is of course better if they can verify each other -- in the Berner Street case, not a single one is confirming each other -- but you can't get everything).
Lawende and Schwartz could very well speak of the same man -- I can't rule it out, it is possible -- but I wouldn't lean too comfortable against it, using it as an argument or evidence.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 30, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
Rob,
Only just found this thread. I thought your essay was well thought out and well written. I agree with most of it, however I disagree flat out out Kate Eddowes being a prostitute at all. I know that's only a tiny bit of the essay at the beginning but I thought I should say it.
The rest of your essay it was well explained and I think it's all possible.
Hey, you don't think you can drop by to do an identity essay for college for me can you?? 
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 767
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi,
I believe we would all agree, that the Ripper, was A violent person, who may have shown a verbal attitude to anyone near him at the time of his assault.
That is why I believe the person seen , standing with Eddowes in church passage, was not her killer, I would have imagined that the sound of three men passing close by, would have irritated him, if this was the same man , that was attacking Stride, who was also witnessed.
Yet Eddowes man, was calm and quiet, in complete contrast to the man seen to attack Stride.
So if strides attacker was'Jack' I Would doubt if Eddowes man were the same person.As people close to him , caused no reaction.
Richard. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
"David is incredibly pragmatic in his view on the facts, and although he sometimes has his points, I think most of his "advice" would make any investigation impossible."
>>The reason I am thought of as being too pragmatic is only because I haven't shared my entire theory of the case yet. When you read that, then you will see I am not so pragmatic but more holistic. Short of releasing my entire theory, I have tried to encourage others to think about the case as well as they are able, and make the most progress they can.
I have been reading the posts of Mr. House, and think he is a good Ripperologist, basically on the right track.
Bullwinkle
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
David (Bullwinkle) wrote:
>The reason I am thought of as being too pragmatic is only because I haven't shared my entire theory of the case yet.
Yes, we've heard that song now for quite some time. I wonder if that "theory" only exists as a ghost of your imagination? But by all means -- we're waiting. Share!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
B.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 6:21 pm: | |
"I'm the ghost with the most!"
--Truer than you know.
B. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
Hi Rob you wrote
"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”.
But if the couple seen by Brown, was Stride and an unknown man, then what are we to do with the "Not Tonight", part of Brown's statement?
Ignore it?
It’s all we have, why shouldn’t we “endlessly interpret”, it
Why not try to include it into a likely scenario?
"Not tonight some other night", (provided it is Stride saying this) is the only sentence we have, to try and interpret what happened that night. We don’t as you say, have any other sentences uttered by Stride that night. So what does it matter what the other sentences were?
You said,
“And more importantly, what else happened that was not witnessed by anyone? “
Everyone wants to know this Rob, but I’m sorry to say that we will never know what was said during these missing interludes.
Which is all the more reason to concentrate on the one fact that we do have, that is to say, that there is every possibility that Stride was seen shortly before her death with a man, no more than 50 feet from where she was found, and that she was heard to have said, “Not tonight some other night”.
You also wrote.
“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.”
If The attacker seen by Schwartz was JTR, and you yourself have argued with Glen that it would be unwise to state that the attacker could not be JTR (Glen of course discounted Schwartz attacker as being JTR because the attack didn’t fit JTR’s M.O.) then what in your opinion would the chances of JTR not mutilating Stride?
This is what I was basing my thoughts on. It is my opinion, and it is only my opinion that if the attacker seen by Schwartz was JTR, then after throwing her to the ground he’s dragged Stride into a dingy alley and slit her throat, he’s took that decision, what does he do next? Surely the odds are that he’s going to mutilate her. He’s taken risks in the past with Chapman, why would he turn and flee now?
Only my Opinion of course, simple but to the point.
All the best.
Cludgy.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 978
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi All,
I have only just caught up with this thread and have to say I agree with much of what Rob has written. What Glenn seems to have missed is the fact that the alleged assault witnessed by Schwartz happened before a murder took place that night. Therefore, if the assailant was Jack, he may still have had absolutely no intention of 'being caught in the act' of murder, and no need to be caught either.
Imagine this scenario:
Liz first meets Jack earlier in the day, who gives her a length of green velvet as a token of good faith and asks her to select a suitably quiet and safe meeting place for a second encounter later that night when more goodies will be on offer. She suggests Dutfield's Yard, preferring a location where she knows (but he might not) that people will be nearby in case she needs to raise the alarm.
Liz even turns down another proposition ("Not tonight") in order to keep her date with the generous stranger. But when Jack arrives for their rendezvous, he immediately realises that she has brought him to a very dodgy spot indeed, with many potential witnesses close by, and this makes him very angry because he has to rethink everything on his feet.
But Jack makes the best of a bad situation, creates the scene that Schwartz and pipe-man witness, and then waits for them to react. He doesn't have to kill Liz at all at that point, let alone be caught in the act, but when the two men depart, leaving him to it, he seizes his chance to strike quickly before departing himself.
Jack doesn't want Liz surviving to describe the man who gave her the velvet, nor does he want his witnesses to return with the cops while he is up to his elbows in the lady's guts.
So he is forced to cut and run, and find a second lady to treat before ripping. Kate gets the matching bonnet.
Love,
Caz
X |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 647
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Hi there Caz,I liked the idea of a prearranged rendezvous here.I too think he may have been a careful planner and observer.
This club though.I think he knew it well myself.
Also it had even by 1888 a very famous reputation as far as International Socialism went with the likes of William Morris and co speaking there each week and the VERY "radical"[socialist /Jewish] "Arbeter Fraint"-Worker"s Friend newspaper was printed at the bottom of Dutfield"s Yard which was still open at the time with people going in and out of the club and the news printing offices.I bet George Lusk was in and out of this club too and others in the vigilance committee.The ripper I bet knew these things its working out what he was up to, how it fits his thinking thats so tricky.
His next stop ofcourse[if you accept Elizabeth was a ripper victim]was The Imperial Men"s club next to the Great Synagogue and where I believe increasingly he was recognised-either by Levy who seemed reluctant to "say all he knew" at Catherine"s inquest or even by Lawende.
I really do think there was deliberate preplanned intention in all this even though it might have been prompted by delusion.
Natalie |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 109
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 8:30 pm: | |
Hey Guys,
Just wanted to throw this out....Weve got to remember that Brown wasnt even sure that it was Stride he saw. He saw "no color about either of them" when asked if he noticed the flower she had on. The description of the man he saw doesnt really match other witness descriptions either. So, while it is possible that Brown did see Stride, it is not likely. So whatever Brown's woman meant by "Not tonight....." is probably irrelevant since it was not likely to have been Elizabeth Stride.(Even though it could have been...for arguments sake) Regards.
Paul
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Caz wrote:
>What Glenn seems to have missed is the fact that the alleged assault witnessed by Schwartz happened before a murder took place that night. Therefore, if the assailant was Jack, he may still have had absolutely no intention of 'being caught in the act' of murder, and no need to be caught either.
No, Caz, I have not missed it.
And your scenario is quite OK, as far as I am concerned. But my objections against Mr Broad Shoulders being JtR, is based on the man's personality. I am still having a hard time with the notion that Jack would be in possession with those character traits as the rather indiscrete Schwartz man displays. I can't buy it -- and I won't. I see Jack the Ripper as a quite an cautious man -- not a rowdy trouble-maker, who, according to Schwartz, also appeared to be rather drunk.
I don't dispute the possibility that Mr Broad Shoulders killed Stride, but if he did, she was certainly not a Ripper victim (which we can't take for granted anyway).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Small correction:
If Mr Broad Shoulders killed Stride, she was certainly not a Ripper victim, in your opinion. 
Cautious is only how you see this man because he got away with murder on possibly just three or four occasions, when regular punters were getting away with spending the same amount of time with a prostitute every night of the week, with no one any the wiser. The only difference is that two people walked away from the scene on all those thousands of occasions instead of just one when Jack was doing his thing.
A 'cautious' man who nevertheless throws caution to the wind while in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, in Mitre Square and in 13 Miller's Court - and gets lucky because no one happens to catch him literally red-handed?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 653
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 3:35 pm: | |
Hi All,I do agree with Glenn here.I think too that there is a distinction between being cautious
and taking risks.
If he enjoyed plotting the times of police beats so that he could "fit in his work" between them he may well have planned the How/ Where and Who quite carefully beforehand.So he would avoid being seen if at all possible.Therefore he could have taken a seemingly ridiculous "risk" in Hanbury Street but calculated it on prior knowledge of the "police beats" and the fact that people knew there were "transactions" at all hours in the district and would turn a "blind eye"
to most of what went on.
All this might have been part of his planning.
I,increasingly think noone saw the ripper.I think it possible that Lawende or Levy saw someone acting suspiciously that nig ht but it might not have been the man they saw with Kate Eddowes it might have been someone they saw nearby.But I do think that one of thes men might well have seen someone they knew[or one of them knew] and that whoever it was-entering Church Passage or walking nearby-they were very wary of telling -maybe in case they were wrong.
Natalie |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 8:44 pm: | |
Hey Guys and Gals,
Im not sure that I agree with the pre-arranged meeting with the killer. If he knew ahead of time that he was going to kill her, you would think he would have chose a more secluded area than a club that had over 100 people in attendance. He would have known that the Jews had their meetings on certain nights and at certain times...so why he would have arranged to meet a victim in such a crowded place doesnt make sense.
Glenn.... you've got a good point in the "profile" of the killer. Why would Jack yell out if he was about to kill someone? But, we also dont know the circumstances of the "Lipsky" outburst. Schwartz didnt speak English, so that word could have been taken out of context of some sort of sentence or exclaimation. He probably wasnt expecting to see Schwartz walk by. What or who the person Schwartz saw attacking Stride was addressing with "Lipsky"...we can only guess. But, Im not ready to say that just because the killer yeld out...that it wasnt Jack the Ripper. But I do agree that if Jack was the killer, that he probably wasnt drunk...as Schwartz man seemed to be....by his description. Anyway, Ive rambled enough. Regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1515
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 1:38 am: | |
Hi Caz,
"Small correction:
If Mr Broad Shoulders killed Stride, she was certainly not a Ripper victim, in your opinion."
Of course. 
Well, Caz, it's true that Jack the Ripper wasn't seen during the act of murder on the other occasions, but so what? There are still too many elements in Mr Broad Shoulder's behaviour that makes him less credible as the Ripper in my eyes: intoxicated (if we are to believe Schwartz in the Star interview), quarrel on the open street etc. It is my belief that the other murders wouldn't have been performed that easily and quiet with such a man as the perpetrator. To me he's very unlikely as the Ripper. If he was Stride's killer is of course completely another question.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 9:58 am: | |
Hi Glenn, Nat, Paul, All,
The 'other' murders were performed as easily and quietly in the end as Stride's was. The early 'noise' in Stride's case is irrelevant if he could simply have chosen to abort her murder and go home, had conditions immediately following the Schwartz incident gone from bad to worse.
And if Jack left all his intended victims to pre-select the spot for 'business', whether the selection took place hours, minutes or even just seconds before they met their maker, his weighing up of the chances of cutting and/or ripping and making a clean getaway would, of necessity, be very much left to the last moment. His level of intoxication - or sobriety - in combination with street cunning and a bit of luck, led to him to take risks of varying degrees each time and all paid off.
I thought, Glenn, that you were very much against the idea of a Jack who picked his own murder spots, or planned the times carefully around police beats and how many people might be around.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1516
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Hi Caz,
"I thought, Glenn, that you were very much against the idea of a Jack who picked his own murder spots, or planned the times carefully around police beats and how many people might be around."
And I still am -- it's got nothing to do with this. I have never put forward anything that would suggest that Jack chose the murder sites or studied them beforehand. Anyhow, I fail to see its connection with this particular issue.
My belief is -- simply speaking -- that the Ripper seemed to have been quite cautious about not having any witnesses about, when the immediate act of murder should occur. I really can't see the Ripper behave like the Schwartz man; as I see him (yes, in my personal view) he would abort the whole thing and leave the scene without performing the murder if there was anybody approaching, not necessarily as a result of cleverness but as a result of instinct of self-preservation.
In the Stride scene we do not only have one spectator, but two (if the pipe man existed), who witnessed the whole incident. And instead of leaving Stride and taking a hike, when Schwartz and the pipe man (who we unfortunately don't know when he entered the scene) showed up, he begins -- like what you could expect from a violent drunkard -- to draw attention to himself by struggling and quarreling with her, and also starts shouting at one of the spectators (possibly Schwartz). This is as far as the conduct of the Ripper I can possibly get.
What Schwartz witnessed was nothing but another street brawl between a customer or male friend and the prostitute, a brawl that very well might have ended in her death, as far as we know it. But no, he was not Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 8:30 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
Glenn, Im not sure that the Star didnt invent a few details to go along with Schwartz's story.
The story talks about the "pipeman" threatening
Schwartz with a knife, which was is nothing like what he told the police. The Star could have easily included the "drunk" suspect detail as well. Not saying they did....but not saying they didnt. But I agree that if the Story from the Star is true, then yes....It does not seem a likely scenario for Jack the Ripper to attack
in a drunken stupor.
But my question is this: What happened to
Marshall's man? The witnesses at the pub(or bar as we call it) also describe a man similiar to Marshall's man. If Stride hung out with him for as long as it seems she did, did he just up and leave? Did Stride have sex with him in the yard, with all those people going in and out?
I doubt it. So, if he did leave....before the murderer came up...why was she still hanging out near the club? Did she just like Jewish boys? There are just so many questions and scenarios that could have happened. It gives me a headache thinking about it....haha. See ya.
Paul |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
