|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 4:30 am: | 
|
Jen & Rob,
Don is correct.
../4921/10743.html"../../clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>
Re Church passage. Any one who happens to visit Mitre square. Start at Duke St end of the passage. Look at the paving on the left, wall side. You will note that the paving is slightly different there than the rest of the open space that now occupies Church passage.
This line of paving is the old passage way. As you walk along it opens out in line with the exit at Mitre square end.
Basically its a 'footprint' of the old passage.
It gives you an idea, just as Rob mentions, how narrow the passage was and how it opens out at Mitre Square.
Fear. Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally.
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 5:51 am: |
|
Monty,
Thanks for the info. Believe it or not, I don't own the A to Z. And now I am even more curious about this Susan Ward. Do you know any more details about the attack?
And by the way, thats a hell of a photo in your user profile... is that actually you? If so, I am going to have to upgrade my photo I think. - RH
Adam,
I do not think he just stalked her then attacked out of the blue. My general idea is that the Ripper propositioned Nichols for sex, and she then took him to the location of the stable yard on Buck's Row, possibly thinking they could go into the yard for sex. And she is at this point very drunk. Finding out that the yard gate is locked, she maybe says "well, no worries, we can just do it right here". Then the Ripper kills her.
I think he used the same approach as with the others, but specifically selected her because she was drunk, alone, and vulnerable, and yes, because he was still relatively inexperienced and unsure of himself.
Rob |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 6:17 am: |
|
Hi Guys,
thanks for that. am off to check out my copy of the A-Z henceforth!
Jenni |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 6:26 am: |
|
Rob,
According to the A-Z Scotland yard MEPO file (dated 11/9/88) 3/140 folio 63 reports an attack on a female off the Commercial road.
See also the Daily Telegraph 3/10/88. Page 3.
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_telegraph/dt881003.html
Quoted…
“There is reason to believe that the monster of whom policemen and "Vigilants" are still eagerly but fruitlessly in quest attempted another outrage upon a woman of loose conduct some time between the date of Annie Chapman's murder and last Sunday morning. As we are informed, the metropolitan police have for several days past been in possession of every detail of this woman's startling narrative, a full account of which will be found in another column. Here we will merely observe that she was admitted ten days ago to a London hospital, in which a serious cut on her arm was treated; and that she has solemnly declared that she received the injury in question whilst protecting her throat from an attempt made to cut it by a man who, having engaged her in conversation and struck an immoral bargain with her, tripped her up, threw her heavily on the pavement, and attacked her, knife in hand, with murderous intent.“
Steven Willments (sp?) checked the London Hospital records and the only female matching the injuries described who was admitted around that time was a female named Susan Ward.
Monty
(Message edited by monty on December 14, 2004)
Fear. Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally.
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 6:38 am: |
|
Monty,
Thanks for the info. This sounds like a clumsy technique. But then again, it sounds reminiscent of the attack on Stride. It would be interesting to read the police report also as it would probably contain more details. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 6:43 am: |
|
Hi,
you mention that Stride is similar to Nichols.
Are these both not sometimes claimed to be the work of someone else?
Ok!! I know!!
Jenni |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 9:22 am: |
|
Hi Jen,
Actually I meant that the Susan Ward attack sounds a little like the attack on Stride, in that he "threw her heavily on the pavement" before attacking.
Rob |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:58 am: |
|
Rob,
Yes it does sound familiar doesnt it?
Monty
PS Re my profile....yes that is me. You may recognise Chris George and Jenni in the background.
Fear. Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt. Fear. Fear is my ally.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Rob,
ah sorry I did not mean to misrepresent what you were saying. i see now where you are coming from. my mistake.
Anyone know where the report is PRO?
Monty,
umm... there are a lot of things i could say to that. I am queueing a few up in my head right now, but i don't think I can bring myself to actually type down any of them!!
so we'll just leave it with - if that's you then you sure have changed!
Jenni
tuting loudly!! |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 23
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 5:12 am: |
|
Hi Rob,
"I do not think he just stalked her then attacked out of the blue. My general idea is that the Ripper propositioned Nichols for sex, and she then took him to the location of the stable yard on Buck's Row, possibly thinking they could go into the yard for sex. And she is at this point very drunk. Finding out that the yard gate is locked, she maybe says "well, no worries, we can just do it right here". Then the Ripper kills her."
Whilst I fully agree with the sex proposition theory for the victims starting at Annie Chapman and then for the rest of the others, I have my doubts about whether it was the same in the case of Polly Nichols. Remember, she was drunk. And he was inexperienced. Would he have the nerve and coolness about him to propose such a thing when he knew he was about to kill her, and on the same token, would she have had the capacity to make decent conversation and lead him to her death spot? And in any case, in front of a gate on a street seems a peculiar place to take a client, even if she was drunk, she could surely have chosen somewhere better than a street. There was no shortage of alleways or backyards, as the other victims demonstrate. Both those points raise my doubts, and since she was drunk, she could probably be taken down to the ground with little more than a nudge. Why risk spending more time with her by talking, and raising his chances of being witnessed by someone, if he could just do it the easy way? So, my theory is that he walked up to her, strangled her and then brought her down to the ground, where the slashing of her throat and the other mutilations took place. He then flees the scene back the way he came from.
Any thoughts on that? Other opinions?
Regards,
Adam.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 431
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 6:36 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
I think the suggestion is that Nichols was trying to get inside the gate and off the street, and Jack would have loved that, but then when it didn't happen because the gate was locked he couldn't hold himself back and killed her on the street.
Your theory is very plausible too. I think Polly, as drunk as she was, would have made a very tempting target.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 8:59 am: |
|
"As he was at this time, probably inexperienced, he may have been actively "hunting" for a person like this.... drunk, alone, and willing."
Rob, I think this is spot on as to why Tabram, Nichols and Chapman, perhaps Eddowes too, were selected as victims by the Whitechapel murderer.
Adam,I think there is a real danger in "situating the appraisal" in saying such things as:
"I doubt very much he, who ever he may have been, was involved in anything more than robberies, assaults, pickpocketing, etc before...." That would only be likely to apply to a suspect such as Kosminski, but would rule out the more prosperous (non-East End suspects). Are we in a position to be so certain? It would not apply to a Fenian killer; Druitt; Tumbelty... can you be so sure of your ground as to rule not only them out, but their kind (a different class of killer)?
"...it is just as likely that he lived in Whitechapel/the East End all of his life, and, as I said above, had been involved only in minor occurrences. "
These statements involve so many unsubstantiated and uncertain assertions. You need to have selected your suspect before stating them, which increases the risk of error with every assertion built on that foundation.
"I do think, however, that he must have been subject to a life of crime in order to do what he did. He didn't necessarily have to be insane, though I think he must have either moved, committed suicide or died shortly after Mary Kelly was killed. "
many wiser and more knowledgeable heads than mine - criminologists, psychologists; writers; would disagree I think. Where do you think he might have moved to? If he committed suicide do we have a record of his death?
Sorry to challenge, but I find it is only by doing so that we learn.
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 1:51 am: |
|
The throat-cutting was pretty severe - the head WAS ALMOST SEVERED from the body. No one, NO ONE could survive an injury like that and the accompanying loss of blood. SHE was dead, no doubt. Sorry.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:32 am: |
|
Hi Phil
And I think what you have just said "The throat-cutting was pretty severe - the head WAS ALMOST SEVERED from the body" apart from confirming that Nichols was dead also puts in question Adam's contention that this was, at this point, a timid Jack. I think the unsubstantiated idea that he was inexperienced is belied by the ferocity of the cut. If this was an inexperienced killer, we might expect a more timid cut and not what occurred. The facts of the murder and mutilation and the care that he took not to be detected indicate to me a confident but fairly careful killer rather than a nervous, tentative man attempting a first murder.
All my best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:59 am: |
|
Hi Dan, Phil & Chris:
Dan, you wrote:
"I think the suggestion is that Nichols was trying to get inside the gate and off the street, and Jack would have loved that, but then when it didn't happen because the gate was locked he couldn't hold himself back and killed her on the street.
Your theory is very plausible too. I think Polly, as drunk as she was, would have made a very tempting target."
Well, I think the idea that the Ripper not being able to hold off any longer could be challenged. Remember, there was almost 6 weeks in between the double murder and Mary Kelly. Previously to that, the murders had been remarkably consistent. If we include Martha Tabram, through to the double murder, in the number of weeks between the killings it would look like this:
3 - 1 - 3
So if the Ripper was able to hold himself off for double the time of the longest wait he had had before, then I can't see why he couldn't wait just a few more minutes for Polly to lead him elsewhere. He was risking his safety, anyway.
So, I think that it was therefore a surprise attack, because at that time he couldn't bring himself to try and engage this drunken woman in a discussion just before he was going to kill her.
In any case, I'm glad that you do atleast accept my idea as being plausible, and I accept just as well that I could be completely wrong. That's just my opinion.
Phil, you wrote:
"That would only be likely to apply to a suspect such as Kosminski, but would rule out the more prosperous (non-East End suspects). Are we in a position to be so certain? It would not apply to a Fenian killer; Druitt; Tumbelty... can you be so sure of your ground as to rule not only them out, but their kind (a different class of killer)?"
Yes, I can be positively sure of my ground to rule out Kosminski, Druitt and Tumblety. But that's only in my personal view, which is what I am posting. In that, I would unhesitatingly rule out all 3 of those men. I could write pages on why that is, but in a short summary for each, and why I would rule them out:
Kosminski: Was described in his records as a "Harmless lunatic". Had no record of violence in his 28 years in an asylum, apart from once throwing a chair at an orderly, which can hardly constitute for murder. Was on the loose for over 2 years after the murders ceased, and would certainly have killed again if he was the Ripper, in that 2 year time slot.
Montague John Druitt: He was a barrister, a sportsman, not a murderer. He has no criminal records, and no history of violence. His cricket schedule basically rules him out of the first couple of murders. He excelled at what he did in life, even close to his death, and it's hard for me to believe that he could turn to a murderer.
Francis Tumblety: The police knew about him at the time, and checked him out, but had no grounds for arresting him for anything other than 'gross indecency.' He was more than 20 years older than the average age witnesses described the man as, and lived on for another 15 years after the murders. As with Kosminski, ample oppurtunity for him to strike again. But he didn't.
I'll probably gain a lot of flames for my assessment of those 3 suspects, but it's just my view of them. My suspect right from the beginning of researching the Ripper was Severin Klosowski (George Chapman., though I admit the case against him is touchy at best too.
"These statements involve so many unsubstantiated and uncertain assertions. You need to have selected your suspect before stating them, which increases the risk of error with every assertion built on that foundation."
It is not my intention to build on false assertions, but rather combine facts with logic to come up with some answers. It has always been generally accepted that the Ripper was an inhabitant of the East End, in the district of the murders. Why travel so far if he wasn't? To be honest, I think the world has spent too long, over a century to be more specific, building cases against Prince's, Royal Doctors, Poets, etc that have nothing to do with the murders, and it's time that they are cut out of the pictures and we focus on researching serious suspects.
"many wiser and more knowledgeable heads than mine - criminologists, psychologists; writers; would disagree I think. Where do you think he might have moved to? If he committed suicide do we have a record of his death? "
Well there really is not much agreement amongst the Ripperology world, or so it seems to me. So naturally there would be those who disagree with me, and some who agree with me. But, to answer your question, I think the most likely place would be America, where he could disappear anywhere. That is if he didn't die or was thrown in some asylum before he left. But, be could have gone anywhere, America just seems the most obvious. In any case, I doubt he stayed in the East End for too long.
Chris, you wrote:
"And I think what you have just said "The throat-cutting was pretty severe - the head WAS ALMOST SEVERED from the body" apart from confirming that Nichols was dead also puts in question Adam's contention that this was, at this point, a timid Jack. I think the unsubstantiated idea that he was inexperienced is belied by the ferocity of the cut. If this was an inexperienced killer, we might expect a more timid cut and not what occurred. The facts of the murder and mutilation and the care that he took not to be detected indicate to me a confident but fairly careful killer rather than a nervous, tentative man attempting a first murder."
Well, as I mentioned above, there are very few Ripper theories by anyone that don't come under some kind of contention in one form or another, so it doesn't surprise me that my theory isn't particularly well received.
But I think "Was almost severed" is a bit of an exaggeration. Her throat was cut through, yes, but it was not so serious a cut as seen in the later victims, notably Annie Chapman, the next one. It was thought by some that she was completely decapitated.
If Martha Tabram is included as Jack victim, which I believe she should be, then the attack on her involved stabbing, not cutting. Though 39 stabs counts for a pretty serious mutilation, there was little cutting as seen in the later victims, which shows signs of an earlier version of Jack, developing his blood lust.
You also wrote:
"The care that he took not to be detected..."
In my opinion, he took little care at all, which I've described before. He killed her in a gateway, on a street, not in some secluded backyard, alleyway or dark corner as the other victims demonstrated he was capable of. And as I've also said, I doubt he could bring himself to coerce this drunken woman into conversation, knowing he was going to kill her, and so the attack on her was a surprise one, saving him the trouble of even more nervousness. She would be an easy target, in the state she was in.
The lead-up of attacks and eventual murders in earlier 1888 signify to me the 'Ripper' in the making. And Polly Nichols was the final victim 'in the making', after which he turned to full on mutilation.
As for her still being alive when found, I've already discussed before that Dr. Llewellyn's arrival time on the site, and the discovery time of the body, fit in well with Llewellyn's assessment of her not being dead longer than half an hour. Even if the times were a few minutes out, there could still have been movement within Polly. Remember, some people that got hanged, with their necks snapped and strangling, lived for an hour or more. A cut throat does not necessarily mean instead ceasing of all movement from within the body.
Just my long-winded 2 cents, once again.
Regards,
Adam. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 8:32 am: |
|
Adam, you wrote: "...My suspect right from the beginning of researching the Ripper was Severin Klosowski..."
So does this mean that you didn't start with an open mind? And Chapman seems to me to have such a different MO as practically to rule himself out without more ado!!
Phil |
Lu
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I'm a complete Newbie when it comes to all of this but having read this entire thread I've just had a thought ...
If Mary was as intoxicated as all the accounts seem to suggest, surely trying to engage her in coversation prior to "doing the deed" would have been too risky. Personal experience has taught me that people, especially females, that are trying to be quiet and inconspicious when drunk are the complete opposite. She may have been a "professional" but alcohol does have an amazing liberating effect on us all ...
Which leads me to believe JTR may well have simply seized the perfect opportunity ... random and vulnerable victim, ideal because of his (up till then) relative lack of experience and confidence.
It's just a thought .... anyone got any comments?
Lu} |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 469
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 3:23 pm: |
|
Hi Lu,
Fist of all, welcome to the boards!
Then - I don't know about what you suggest, I just don't know. The thing is that some 2 hours before she was murdered, Polly Nichols left her lodging house saying that she was going to get her 'doss' money soon. She repeated this when she talked to Ellen Holland about an hour later. The last thing Mrs Holland saw of Polly was that she was staggering eastwards along Whitechapel Road.
In this light, it just seems more likely to me that, being a prostitute, she finally found herself a punter, accosted him and lead him to a quiet backstreet with the idea of doing business.
But - that's just me.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Lu
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
Frank
Are you suggesting that she found a punter who killed her, or that the punter in question was JtR, or that JtR came along after the punter had left?
I agree that she left her lodgings with the aim of getting the much needed money, and that somewhere along the line a punter was accosted but I remain unsure whether this was JtR or someone else at the moment.
Given the location and the high chance of being heard, it must have been a surprise and quick attack, leading me to believe that JtR wasn't as inexperienced as some are suggesting at this time.
It amazes me that someone killing for what could possibly be one of the first times would be so "good" at it that the victim would be unable to make a single audible sound.
Again, just thoughts blowing around like tumble weed in my brain.
Cheers.
Lu}
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 486
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Hi again Lu,
Probably due to the fact that you’re an unregistered guest, I didn’t see your post up till now.
Anyway, yes, I’m suggesting she found a punter who killed her and that this punter was JtR. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Ripper only moved in on Nichols after a punter had just left, but as in Eddowes’ case and especially Chapman’s there is evidence that the Ripper posed as a client, I lean towards that notion.
I agree with you that he must have taken Nichols (as well as the others, I believe) by surprise and that he must have moved very quickly. What certainly might have helped in Nichols’ case is that she was most probably still quite drunk.
The Ripper seems to have come across a way to strangle or otherwise subdue his victims within a very short time (10-20 seconds or so). What that was and how he gained experience in it, I don’t know and I’m afraid it would be stirring up a hornet’s nest to start speculating about it. There are just too many things to consider.
For instance, none of the victims had any money on them when they were found. Does this mean that the Ripper attacked them before he was supposed to pay or did he take all of their money after he had finished the job (or thought he had to leave)? Or, like you’re suggesting, didn’t he pose as a customer at all in Nichols’ case and just snuck up on her and attacked her from behind?
Furthermore, although there’s evidence that Nichols and Chapman were strangled, none of the victims seem to have carried marks of strangulation on their throats or necks. And to me, it remains a mystery how Eddowes was subdued. There seem to have been no signs of strangulation at all, plus the amount of blood in her case seems to have been clearly larger than in especially Nichols' case.
So, the Ripper may indeed have been more experienced than some say he was. Perhaps he learned how to subdue his victims from having robbed women that way prior to committing murders. Maybe he learned it in the army, maybe he learned it from a book. Or maybe he was just lucky enough that Nichols was still too drunk. I really don’t know.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 442
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Frank,
or did he take all of their money after he had finished the job
All their money ... what money? Nicholls and Chapman were on the street late because they needed to find a client to get doss money and by all reports Eddowes was without a farthing as well when she left the lockup. Stride and Kelly may be different, but then they are so for other reasons as well.
It would be nice to know how a deal was made at the time in Whitechapel, but perhaps it was in the process of paying, when the woman's attention would be focused on the coins, that Jack made his initial assault.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 488
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Hi Don,
'All of their money' doesn't mean it has to be much - his could just the same have been the only the money they had. All I was doing here was taking into account the remote possibility that they'd somehow gotten hold of some money before they met Jack. So, I changed my initial phrase 'take back his money' into 'take all of their money', that's all.
I agree with the suggestion you make in the second part of your post. I have put forward a similar notion myself a couple of times, which is that he might have launched his initial attack while his victims were getting ready to put the money away they thought they were going to get from him. They would not be focusing their attention on him for a moment. In Nichols’ case this might have been the taking off of her bonnet, which wasn’t an unusual place to keep things of value. In the cases of Chapman and Eddowes this might have had something to do with the pockets.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 120
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
As far as I can see, there are logically only three possibilities for how Jack approached his victims:
a) he stalked them/waited in hiding and leapt out at them, in some way. This doesn't tie in well with Chapman (backyard) or Kelly (in a room); or with witness statements that had the women seen talking to a man who was possibly JtR shortly before their bodies were found;
b) Jack approached each woman as a prospective customer (or was perceived by them to be such, which is practically the same thing) and struck them down as they prepared to do business. This seems to me the most likely, and would fit a Druitt, or possibly Cutbush BUT
c) [not mutually separate from b] Jack knew each woman personally, well or by sight, and approached them as a friend, gaining their trust and killing them by treachery. This I find less believable, unless like Pizer/Leather Apron, Jack was well known in the area (for whatever reason). It might fit Barnett, or a suspect like Timothy Donovan, and would match Eddowes alleged claim to know Jack's identity, but one has to assume jack managed to throw suspicion off himself somehow.
Just my musings of course, as usual,
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page