|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:49 pm: |       |
Nice post "extendedping".
I agree with the sentiment you expressed. Now why dont you register and get in here and mix it up a bit. I need some backing for my rather unimaginative theories.
Rob |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:56 am: | |
Hi Dan, Maria & AP Wolf,
Dan, you wrote:
"One thing you'll notice if you hang around here long enough is that there are a lot of people who know the ins and outs of the case very well and still disagree on some of the key points. If you approach things by assuming that the people you are talking to aren't as informed as you on the case or else they'd agree with you, you'll run into problems."
I appreciate your advice Dan, and I'm sorry if anyone misinterpreted me, but it wasn't my intention to say or even imply that I knew more about the Ripper case than anyone else. I certainly don't. There would be people on this forum that have been researching the Ripper for decades longer than me, and are far more knowledgeable. I was referring to any Ripper historians in general, who knew a lot about the Elizabeth Stride case, and meant to say that for any supporter of Michael Kidney being the Ripper, a supporter for Jack the Ripper doing it should be able to counter that argument with stronger evidence than there is against Kidney.
"I think AP Wolf has the ins and outs of the Stride murder down too but just comes to different conclusions. And the possibility that Stride wasn't really a Ripper victim isn't exactly a fringe idea among others who study the case either."
Well, I'll admit it. I got annoyed. This poor woman was viciously murdered and she can't even have the peace of knowing atleast the pseudonym name of the man who killed her. As I said, so many victims come into contention that pretty soon there will be no Ripper victims left at all. I have always felt strongly about Elizabeth Stride and Martha Tabram being Jack's victims, and I always will stand up for my belief in that.
Maria, you wrote:
" We are inundated with stories of women who are in abusive relationships and who yet fail to press charges against their abusers, either out of fear or because they "love" them. Women (and kids) who are abused sometimes would rather live in familiar terror than jeopardize what little stability they have by breaking up their home, however unhappy it is."
That's true, and I agree with you saying that it happens too regularly, but it must also be understood that life in the 21st century has changed heaps in almost every respect since the 19th century. Elizabeth Stride had no need to concern herself with any love left for Michael Kidney, she was used to life on the streets, she could earn her living there. She had no house or children to be concerned with splitting up with him over. And she could go wherever she wanted in London and leave him behind.
So you see, really when you weigh things up, if things had been rough with Michael for 3 years, what reasons did she have left to stay with him?
AP Wolf, you wrote:
"Stride is seen in the company of a man - all night - who plainly is not Kidney. Among the many witnesses is a police constable."
But what does that proove, exactly? She was most likely living as a prostitute at that point. Her job was to coerce men into sex so she could make money. Perhaps this man she liked more than the others, and so she spent more time with him. But, what does it all mean? What are the chances that Kidney would see her with him amongst the thousands of others around the East End? And even if he did, would it warrant his temper to rise so much as to kill her?
"Confrontation with ‘gentleman’, gentleman leaves Stride to deal with Kidney, Kidney in a fit of temper kills her.
Gentleman and Kidney leave."
Anyone who had any conscience at all would not leave a defenceless woman against a supposed obviously enraged man. So do you think this 'gentleman' that was with Stride before was the '2nd man' that Schwartz reported?
"But one witness is convinced that the man he saw attack Stride actually pulled her into the road out of the darkness that hid them and commit the assault there."
First, where's the proof that the man who supposedly assaulted her also killed her? He most likely did, but there was time for that man to leave and the Ripper to grab her.
Second, what's to say that Liz didn't resist to the attack? What's to say that it didn't take some force from the man to subdue her?
As for the article you posted up, it's very interesting, and I don't deny any of what they are saying, but you must allow for changes in character in different killers. As I've said previously, if Michael Kidney was acting in a way in which the police considered to be suspicious, they would keep him locked up. And as I've also said, it was his partner of a matter of years who had just been killed, so his behaviour would naturally be abnormal. The shock of it all would have its effect on him.
And Jack the Ripper was and still is the most infamous killer in history, and back then, why wouldn't he heighten the scare of the time by committing a double murder, 2 in 1 night, to scare everyone even more? The same reasoning can be used to accept several of the letters he likely wrote, namely "From Hell", "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky".
Though I do still believe the failed attempt at mutilation to Liz lead to Cathy being killed that night too.
And I've asked before, and I'll ask again:
Is it not beyond coincidence that supposedly 2 killers struck on the same night, within a fairly short distance from one another, with similar mutilations, both in the same kind of spots -secluded and dark, and remarkably, with quite a few witnesses stating descriptions of the man they saw that are remarkably close to one another?
2 killers with the same outfits, same M.O's, same night killings, same area, AND same placement of the bodies? Really a coincidence!?
I think a major re-examination of all this evidence in support of the Ripper doing it and not Michael Kidney needs to be assessed by anyone who believes Kidney killed Stride, before he can be pushed any further as a suspect!
Regards,
Adam.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Hi Adam.
I agree i can not entertain Kidney, as a killer of stride, he certainly does not fit the bill as a broad shouldered person.
It is my opinion that the same person that killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly killed Stride.
Eddowes is a possibility however the soft approach seen by lawande and co, does not seem right.
Tabram I believe was running away from her killer, and entered George yard buildings to gain a shelter, but she was grapped as she reached the first floor landing.
Nichols I maintain was attacked in Brady street and attempted to flee her attacker, before finally being fatally caught in Bucks Row.
Chapman was forcibily manhanded in the backyard of 29 Hanbury street and she fell against the fence.
Stride was manhandled in Berner street, and kelly was rushed back to her room by a sharp walking man, who is believed to have pulled her up the passage.
I have my doubts if Eddowes accoster fits that bill, therefore i would assume that the man seen by lawande, was not her killer, and she encountered him when she entered the square , there is evidence that she too was manhandled note the bruise [ of recent origin] on her left hand between thumb and forefinger, which would indicate that she was grapped tightly and pulled in a direction the killer wanted.
To sum up the whitechapel murderer showed no signs of a chat up approach, he simply approached a victim and made his intentions clear, although he does appear to have shown more restraint with Kelly , that is of course if Mr Astracan was her killer?
Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Richard-
It's hard to know how the killer could have attacked the women as you described--with all the chasing and grabbing-- with no sound being made. I'd have thought they'd at least have screamed, yet no witnesses reported anything of the kind except for the famous "oh murder" that may have been uttered by Kelly.
Adam-
The problem with Stride being included as a victim is that the murders were not really THAT similar.The coroner's report makes a clear mention of the differences in terms of the kind of knife that had been used on Stride, much shorter and duller than Chapman. Also, though Stride's throat was cut and she did die from exsanguination caused by severing of the left carotid artery, there was no sign of the near-decapitation evidenced in the previous 2 (and later 2) murders.
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
In the case of Tabram, she would have been unaware that her murder was to have been the first of a series, and she proberly thought to enter a building would have secured her safety, in the case of Nichols screams were heard or at least sounds by at least two independant witnesses.
Chapman was ill and tired having walked the streets all night, and was defenceless.
Stride did scream.
Eddowes had just sobered up, and was proberly grapped by the hand and mouth by her attacker.
Kelly did utter a scream.
So in at least3 cases screams were reported.
Richard.
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 580
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi Mags,
Eddowes throat wound is not the complete "decapitation attempt" as shown with either Nichols or Chapman, but rather seems remarkably similar to the Stride wound. I posted a comparison of the two wound descriptions ages ago. I found the post, it's in the "Victims - Liz Stride - the Murder" thread, Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 5:36 pm.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 387
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hi again Adam,
Although I’m late, here are some comments on the post you wrote earlier this week.
You wrote about characteristics being much the same in Stride’s case, but I see a number of things that weren’t characteristic of the Ripper.
The crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were quiet and unfrequented at the time of the murders. Like AP eloquently pointed out, neither Berner Street nor Dutfield’s Yard were particularly quiet and unfrequented shortly before the murder.
Furthermore, besides that it’s questionable if Berner Street and Dutfield’s Yard were commonly used by prostitutes for servicing clients, it’s not clear either that Stride was visiting Berner St. and Dutfield’s Yard as a prostitute. There are strong indications that she was there with someone she was romantically involved with.
Jack the Ripper attacked suddenly, swiftly, silently and efficiently. He first rendered his victim senseless (strangulations seems to be the best fit), then laid her down on her back and then cut her throat. All through the murder he must have kept a keen eye and ear on his surroundings.
Although cutting her throat while she was lying on her back would have been easier, Stride was found lying on her left side. Her bonnet was 3 or 4 inches from her head. There were pressure marks on her shoulders and chest, which is inconsistent with the previous murders. The scarf around her neck was pulled very tightly with the bow turned to the left side, which led Dr. Blackwell to form the opinion that she was pulled backwards by the scarf and is also inconsistent with the previous murders.
So, except for the fact that Stride’s throat was cut from left to right and that she was lying with a wall close to her left side, to me Stride’s murder doesn’t seem all that similar to how the Ripper attacked and killed his victims. Besides, throat cutting was quite a common way to (try and) kill someone in those days. In fact, only 3 miles off and shortly before Stride was killed, another woman’s throat had been cut.
Furthermore, if the Ripper did indeed murder Stride, the dissimilarities indicate that he did not attack her in his usual way and at least suggest that he attacked when he’d already heard the approaching cart and pony. Otherwise he would have started his attack in the usual manner and would actually have been interrupted. But attacking and killing her even though the approaching Diemschutz may have been less than 20 seconds away seems very stupid to say the least.
As for witness descriptions, unless one or more distinguishable features were mentioned by at least two witnesses, I wouldn’t take them too seriously. It’s a fact that they’re usually unreliable anyway, however respectable and trustworthy the witness. A reddish neckerchief, for instance, might be considered such a distinguishable feature. But only Lawende mentioned it. On the other hand, features like a moustache, a height of 5 ft 6 or 7 and dark clothes can’t be considered distinguishable features at all, because they were all very common in the East End of those days.
What I would rather consider as distinguishable, however, certainly in those poor parts of town, would be features like ‘decently dressed’ or ‘respectable appearance’ and things like that. Only two of the official witnesses described Stride’s companion like that and they were William Marshall and PC Smith. Two others, Best and Gardner, were interviewed by a newspaper (Evening News of 1 October 1888), and mentioned seeing a respectably dressed man, who was hugging and kissing Stride at about 11 p.m..
Although I’m not sure Schwartz’ man killed Stride, I’m quite confident Schwartz’ man and Lawende’s weren’t one and the same. And I’m even more confident Schwartz’ man and the Ripper were different men. The behaviour shown by the man seen by Schwartz was most probably nothing like the behaviour displayed by the Ripper. His murders stood out because of the silence. Except for perhaps Albert Cadosche, nobody ever saw or heard a thing.
As for Kidney, he doesn’t seem to have been considered a serious suspect at all, despite his at least occasionally flammable and aggressive nature and probable jealousy, despite the break-up with Stride. The police didn’t seem to make much of the break-up, if anything at all. They seemed to believe Kidney instead of Catherine Lane, when he said that no quarrel had taken place between him and Stride, whereas unlike Kidney, Lane had nothing to gain by saying they did have a quarrel. Which makes it all the more probable that in fact a quarrel had taken place and it had been the reason why Stride left.
The police seem to have readily accepted his explanation that it was drink that made her go on previous occasions, which they probably considered true because Stride was convicted eight times for drunkenness at the Thames Magistrate Court. However, in July of 1888 Kidney went to prison for 3 days for being drunk and disorderly and for using obscene language, causing Stride to walk out on him. This might be considered quite a big quarrel. Walking out on Kidney and heavy drinking may well have been the result of an abusive Kidney.
Furthermore, like domestic quarrels, street brawl and rows were considered so very common that it possibly caused the police to take the assault witnessed by Schwartz less seriously as a possible murder being underway. On top of that, shortly after Stride a certain Ripper victim was slain, which made the interruption scenario in Stride’s case all the more appealing.
So, on the one hand we have the dissimilarities between Stride’s case and those of the certain Ripper victims and the fact that throat cutting was a common way to kill. And on the other we have an ex-boyfriend who may well have been the abusive and jealous man some of us think he was. His strange behaviour at the police station and the inquest fits exactly with the examples of murderers AP posted last week.
Although Kidney may have been perfectly innocent, with only today's information at hand I would still find him worth investigating if I were Abberline.
All the best,
Frank  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2379
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Frank,
I agree with practically everything in your last post -- you took the words right out of my mouth.
A splendid analysis.
---------------------------------------
Adam,
"Elizabeth Stride had no need to concern herself with any love left for Michael Kidney, she was used to life on the streets, she could earn her living there. She had no house or children to be concerned with splitting up with him over. And she could go wherever she wanted in London and leave him behind."
Adam, as myself being a historian specializing in 19th century history (and having investigated the lives of over a hundred prostitutes), I can't believe you actually wrote this. Are you kidding me? Have you any idea what kind of life the prostitutes led on the streets of East End in the latter half of the 19th century (and some lead a miserable life in the same situation even today)?
Getting married or living in a steady relationship with someone who could support them was mainly their only way out -- a lot of women have put up with abuse because of the rotten alternatives.
"First of all, if Michael Kidney had killed Liz, he was putting himself in a monumentally dangerous situation. If the police had found out he had done it, which they could have, then he would immediately be thrust into the Jack the Ripper position, and even if he was proved not to be, he'd probably hang for killing Liz alone."
And still these things happen on occasion.
Domestic-related murders are generally unplanned incidents deriving from desperation and anger. You are basing your opinion on the distorted fact that they are based on logic. If for example Michael Kidney was drunk and his aggression took over, he would not necessarily think of the Ripper context.
"Well, I'll admit it. I got annoyed. This poor woman was viciously murdered and she can't even have the peace of knowing atleast the pseudonym name of the man who killed her."
Yeah, and attributing her to the Ripper doesen't help her one bit, if the murderer was someone else.
"And Jack the Ripper was and still is the most infamous killer in history, and back then, why wouldn't he heighten the scare of the time by committing a double murder, 2 in 1 night, to scare everyone even more? The same reasoning can be used to accept several of the letters he likely wrote, namely "From Hell", "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky"."
There is absolutely no evidence of that the Ripper was someone who liked to communicate or leave messages; actually there are slight indications of the opposite. The Lusk letter is still a matter of debate and the part of the enclosed kidney would be necessary in order to verify its authenticy, but the other letters have been declared hoaxes. He certainly didn't write either the "Dear Boss" letter or the "Saucy Jack" postcard -- and the police didn't think he did either.
"Is it not beyond coincidence that supposedly 2 killers struck on the same night, within a fairly short distance from one another, with similar mutilations, both in the same kind of spots -secluded and dark, and remarkably, with quite a few witnesses stating descriptions of the man they saw that are remarkably close to one another?"
No it's not. Firstly, as Frank pointed out, the similarities are exaggerated -- and secondly, Stride wasn't mutilated.
But more importantly, stranger things have happened. And the same night another throat-cut of a woman appeared in Westminster.
The Whitechapel--Spitalfields--City of London districts were dangerous and violent turfs, and especially for those females indulging in the most risky trade of the world.
This type of coincidence may appear too hard to accept to begin with, but it's not impossible and can't be ruled out.
"2 killers with the same outfits, same M.O's, same night killings, same area, AND same placement of the bodies"
Wrong on all three counts, I am afraid.
As Frank has stated, besides Lawende's mentioning of a red neckerchief, neither of the men (and we can't be sure of any of them was a murderer in the first place) has any significant details in their clothing or appearance that makes them extraordinary enough in order to base any opinion from the witness description.
Furthermore, the MO is not that similar -- in Stride's case a throat cut that is more superficial and no mutilations (interruption or not). And as far as the placement of the bodies are concerned, Stride was lying on her side and not in the same degrading position as the other victims.
"So if Schwartz wasn't aware even of who the 1st man was speaking to, or what the 2nd man was doing, then what kind of a position does that put him in to say whether he could be so detailed as to call it a 'crime of passion' or an ordinary assault? How would he know?"
If Schwartz's man was Stride's killer, there is no way in the world that the Ripper -- who was very careful about not being spotted -- would use such a careless approach.
"So what that means is that Kidney was stalking her, waiting for the perfect moment to strike, yes? I doubt it. First, he wouldn't have any idea where in Whitechapel, or for that matter, anywhere in the East End, she had gone. [...] What are the chances that Kidney would see her with him amongst the thousands of others around the East End? And even if he did, would it warrant his temper to rise so much as to kill her?"
Why not? He was obviously known to be abusive, and he had motives to be angry with her. And I can't see why he wouldn't know where she'd hang out -- prostitutes mostly prefer certain spots so that they can be found by returning customers; I believe he could have gotten that information from anyone who knew her, if he didn't already know it. There are millions of scenarios to consider.
"I am completely confident in saying that the only reason they didn't match perfectly was because he was interrupted early on, and that is the reason why Catherine Eddowes was suddenly thrust from nobody into a worldwide known woman in 1 night"
True. That, of course, can't be totally disregarded. The interruption theory is indeed the only plausible explanation in order to include her as a Ripper victim, but it doesen't have to represent the truth beyond doubt.
The reasons for suspecting Kidney are several -- first of all the classic ones, he was her closest male relative and he had known abusive behaviour and motive for killing her. And secondly, his very strange appearance at the inquest, which I believe is quite deranged even for someone in grief. How his arrogance and his own reluctance to help the police with information could elude to arouse the police's suspicion goes beyond me. According to the transcripts, he appears as a first class slime and displaying a more than suspicious behaviour.
Then, on the other hand, if his physical appearance differ that much from the Schwartz man, it is indeed a problem for his candidacy (although he apparently wasn't too old or sick to abuse her earlier).
There is also the possibility that the Schwartz man (if he was her murderer) could have been a drunk, aggressive customer or someone belonging to the robbing or pimp gangs of the area (which could explain the second man with the pipe).
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 163
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 7:39 pm: | |
Glenn....
May I add to your outstanding post above,that while it is possible that the Berner Street murder was a domestic affair,that wifebeaters,wifekillers, and wifeabusers,are cowards. For them to be "seen" while in the act, shows them for what they are...and Kidney,had he been the perpetrator,was more than likely a "control freak" who used the verbal/physical abuse in a controlled environment,not in the open with a club full of people nearby and the Pipe Man in proximity,and would probably have not been in his "element", and inevitably preferring a dwelling to open visible murder...
I also want to ask you about your comment...
"There is absolutely no evidence of that the Ripper was someone who liked to communicate or leave messages; actually there are slight indications of the opposite.
I am curious as to what the slight indications of the opposite means.
Since its my birthday,I drink for us both,my good friend ! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 8:58 pm: | |
Hey Howard!
Happy Birthday and Congratulations, my good man! Enjoy the drinks; I may have one as well on your behalf. 
It's true that domestic violence generally is committed indoors. It is the fact that they attack women that makes them cowards.However, one can never rule out exceptions from the rule. If the aggressive male is drunk and out of control, I believe the circumstances is of no real importance. The individual's personal character also is a factor to consider here, and obviously Kidney -- according to the inquest accounts -- was no stranger to making himself a fool in public.
Besides, Stride was out this evening and since he couldn't be sure she would return home to him, it is quite natural that he in a state of rage went out to get her. But this is of course pure speculation.
Now,let me only clarify, that I by no means intend to make a case for Kidney here as Stride's killer with certainty -- I am only laying out some suggestions to why he could be. But she could just as well have been slayed by someone else.
The "slight indications" of a non-communicative killer -- which is not in any way to be reckoned as evidence -- is mainly based on my interpretations of his actions otherwise and the facts on the crime scenes. I see a killer who is psychotic and unsure of himself -- not someone who in a psychopathic manner is reaching out for attention.
Besides, maybe except from the "From Hell" package to Lusk, the letters in question have been regarded as hoaxes anyway. To this date we don't know of any form of communication from the killer. So apparently this detail was of no importance for him. I believe he killed for himself and not to create "shock value" (possibly with the exception of the displaying of the bodies). He was probably in my view not in any need of attention whatsoever.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 16, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 29
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
Hi Richard, Maria, Frank, Glenn & Howard,
Since there has been a large number of long posts added in response to my posts since I last posted here, I'll respond in 2 parts, to make it a bit more readable.
Firstly, Richard, you wrote:
"I have my doubts if Eddowes accoster fits that bill, therefore i would assume that the man seen by lawande, was not her killer, and she encountered him when she entered the square , there is evidence that she too was manhandled note the bruise [ of recent origin] on her left hand between thumb and forefinger, which would indicate that she was grapped tightly and pulled in a direction the killer wanted."
Whilst I agree with most of what you have said, and you've come up with some interesting points, I have to disagree with you on this point. Lawende thought he saw the man talking to Eddowes outside the square between 1:30 and 1:35 AM, most likely 1:32 or 1:33 AM. Her body was discovered at 1:44 AM. That gives the Ripper an absolute maximum of 15 minutes to get her in the square, murder and mutilate her, and then flee the scene. And infact, he could have had as little as 9 or 10 minutes to do it. Now if we assume that the man Lawende saw with Eddowes was NOT her killer, then it's safe to assume they perhaps spent atleast another 1 or 2 minutes there, then parted company. That knocks the time limit back to 8 minutes. She walks into square and gets grabbed - another minute. That gives the Ripper just 7 minutes to murder her, mutilate her in the way he did, and flee. Almost impossible, even for an experienced surgeon. He either wouldn't have finished or been caught in the act.
So, let's assume now that the man Lawende saw with her WAS her killer. Lawende and his mates leave, and the killer then leads her into the square, where he kills her. That gives him atleast an extra 3-4 minutes. Besides, if the Ripper was waiting there, how would he know where Eddowes would come in from? How would he know she would enter the square at all?
Based on all that, in my opinion there is enough evidence to say with a reasonable level of confidence that Joseph Lawende saw Jack the Ripper, and it was Jack that killed Eddowes.
Maria, you wrote:
"The problem with Stride being included as a victim is that the murders were not really THAT similar.The coroner's report makes a clear mention of the differences in terms of the kind of knife that had been used on Stride, much shorter and duller than Chapman. Also, though Stride's throat was cut and she did die from exsanguination caused by severing of the left carotid artery, there was no sign of the near-decapitation evidenced in the previous 2 (and later 2) murders."
It has been prooved time and again that serial killers do not always use the same M.O.'s every time. So therefore just because there was some differences in the cutting of Liz's throat and the positioning of her body, does not in any way mean that it was a different killer. He may have changed knives. Or, more likely, he was rushing because he knew Diemschutz was coming, and so didn't have the normal cutting precision he had with a knife. He cuts her throat, makes sure she is close against the wall, then flees out of the yard. Does that make sense?
The killings of Stride and Eddowes are similar enough to state that 1 man only is responsible for them. The coincidences are far too many to say that there was 2. Though I've clearly gained a lot of flames on this topic with my responses, I have always and will always stand by my reasoning that Elizabeth Stride was a Jack the Ripper victim.
It's also worthy to note, for all Michael Kidney being the killer supporters, that Elizabeth Stride is listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this very site, when other victims with strong cases like Martha Tabram are not, so it's clear that a large majority of the Ripperology community think Liz was a Ripper victim, as I do.
More to come...
Regards,
Adam. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
If Kidney had killed Stride, then why is it that the police were not interested in him as a suspect? I think it is dangerous to assume that we are today smarter or better informed than the police who were working on the case. And also, why wouldnt they just have Schwartz take a look at him and see if he was the "drunk agressor"?
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2381
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:23 pm: | |
Adam,
I must congratulate you for starting interesting discussions here -- the Boards have been rather dull these last months, so your appearance here is much appreciated.
Just some pointers, though...
"It has been prooved time and again that serial killers do not always use the same M.O.'s every time."
True.
"So therefore just because there was some differences in the cutting of Liz's throat and the positioning of her body, does not in any way mean that it was a different killer. He may have changed knives."
Hmm. But then he went back and used the same method and knife on Eddowes some 40 minutes later, as he had done on Nichols and Chapman? Why the sudden change or alteration on Stride just some minutes before Eddowes, when he in the case of the canonical victims didn't break that behaviour pattern and larger parts of his MO otherwise? It doesen't makes sense.
"The killings of Stride and Eddowes are similar enough to state that 1 man only is responsible for them."
No, they're not, Adam. No way. If Diemschutz never arrived there with his cart, giving rise to the interruption argument, we probably would never have had this discussion.
"The coincidences are far too many to say that there was 2."
Absolutely not. Not beyond doubt.
As I said, stranger things have happened, and since the facts doesen't support or prove her inclusion without doubt, that is a wrong thing to state.
"It's also worthy to note, for all Michael Kidney being the killer supporters, that Elizabeth Stride is listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this very site, when other victims with strong cases like Martha Tabram are not, so it's clear that a large majority of the Ripperology community think Liz was a Ripper victim, as I do."
Again, I disagree. Just because this site lists her among the canonicals (which I think is a mistake) doesen't in any way defend her her inclusion. As far as I know it is still not a proven fact.
And reading the majority of the Ripper literature, it is rather obvious that Stride is a question mark in many regards in the Ripper context. Most authors believe (in their personal opinions) that she may be a Ripper victim, but they don't claim it with certainty.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2382
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
Rob wrote:
"If Kidney had killed Stride, then why is it that the police were not interested in him as a suspect? I think it is dangerous to assume that we are today smarter or better informed than the police who were working on the case. And also, why wouldnt they just have Schwartz take a look at him and see if he was the "drunk agressor"?"
These are good question, and in my view probably the most important reasons for getting Kidney off the hook here.
Having said that, although I don't in any way regard the police force of 1888 as fools, I could list a number of strange evaluations and decisions on their part:
-- their lack of interest in Kidney's suspicious behaviour
-- their letting go of Joseph Barnett, dismissing him as a suspect that easily
-- their non-critical confidence in Hutchinson's more or less bogus witness account
-- Abberline's unbelievable statement from 1903, naming Klosowski as the Ripper.
The police of 1888 was under a lot of political and public pressure and had no previous experience of these types of killings. And they obviously made a lot of mistakes and bad judgements.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 30
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Hi Frank & Glenn,
This is the second part of my message.
Frank, you wrote:
"The crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were quiet and unfrequented at the time of the murders. Like AP eloquently pointed out, neither Berner Street nor Dutfield’s Yard were particularly quiet and unfrequented shortly before the murder."
I wouldn't agree with that assessment of the locations of the victims at all. Let me go through each of those 3 to point out what I mean:
Nichols: She was killed in a gateway, right near the edge of a street. Cross must have missed the murderer by a matter of only a couple of minutes, because he found her at 3:40 AM, thought he detected movement, and when Dr. Llewellyn arrived shortly after 4, he said she hadn't been dead for more than half an hour. So you see, in a number of cases, someone could have stumbled right over the Ripper in the midst of his work. A gateway was not a secure place, by any means.
Chapman: Whilst she was killed in a backyard, the backyard was accessible to anyone off the street. Plus that, she was killed at around 5:30 AM, when day was breaking, and people were on their way to the Spitalfields market. That's why Elizabeth Long witnessed her and, most likely, her killer, because she was on the way to the markets. And Albert Cadosch was up and about when he heard the thud against the fence. Anyone could have walked in on him while he was killing her.
Eddowes: Perhaps the least secure of any of these 3 victims. She was killed in the corner of a square! There was not just 1 entrance, there was 3! Anyone could have walked in on him at any time, and infact, the time between Lawende's sighting and her discovery is dangerously close together anyway.
And Dutfield's Yard was reasonably quiet. Though there was a social club next door, there was a door in the front off the street, so nobody had any reason to use the side door. And in any case, Diemshutz interrupted him, not someone from inside the club.
"Although cutting her throat while she was lying on her back would have been easier, Stride was found lying on her left side. Her bonnet was 3 or 4 inches from her head. There were pressure marks on her shoulders and chest, which is inconsistent with the previous murders. The scarf around her neck was pulled very tightly with the bow turned to the left side, which led Dr. Blackwell to form the opinion that she was pulled backwards by the scarf and is also inconsistent with the previous murders."
As I've said just before, serial killers do change their M.O.'s, and so there is no reason to believe that it wasn't the Ripper just because there was some differences. And besides that fact, if he was in a hurry because he heard Diemschutz, then that explains why she was grabbed and jolted down onto the ground quickly. He was in a hurry.
"So, except for the fact that Stride’s throat was cut from left to right and that she was lying with a wall close to her left side, to me Stride’s murder doesn’t seem all that similar to how the Ripper attacked and killed his victims. Besides, throat cutting was quite a common way to (try and) kill someone in those days. In fact, only 3 miles off and shortly before Stride was killed, another woman’s throat had been cut."
Well, we can start with the remarkably consistent descriptions of the man seen with the women in both Stride and Eddowes' case. Then, we can move on and say that if any of the Ripper letters are real, then one that is widely believed to be authentic did say that there was 2 victims. And if we disbelieve both those points, well we can use the remarkable coincidences of similarity between the 2 victims, as well as both on the same night, and other witness descriptions to basically rule out the possibility of 2 men being responsible, but just 1. And unless Michael Kidney killed Stride and Eddowes, then we are left with no option but to discount him as a suspect.
"Furthermore, if the Ripper did indeed murder Stride, the dissimilarities indicate that he did not attack her in his usual way and at least suggest that he attacked when he’d already heard the approaching cart and pony. Otherwise he would have started his attack in the usual manner and would actually have been interrupted. But attacking and killing her even though the approaching Diemschutz may have been less than 20 seconds away seems very stupid to say the least."
But not impossible. If she had lived, Stride could potentially have been able to give a detailed description of the man who attacked her, and who police could then link to Jack the Ripper. So even if only her throat was cut quickly, and she was left, that ruled her out as a potential key to the Ripper being caught.
"On the other hand, features like a moustache, a height of 5 ft 6 or 7 and dark clothes can’t be considered distinguishable features at all, because they were all very common in the East End of those days."
No, but then it's highly unlikely that Kidney and the Ripper would look so exactly the same. Maybe next it will be suggested that they tag-teamed, and killed 1 each? Really, it is the biggest coincidence in all of history if 2 killers attacked in the same district on the same night and looked almost identical according to witness descriptions. AND the victims do have similarities, and it's important to remember that Diemschutz almost certainly interrupted the Ripper in his killing of Stride.
"However, in July of 1888 Kidney went to prison for 3 days for being drunk and disorderly and for using obscene language, causing Stride to walk out on him. This might be considered quite a big quarrel."
Why then would he wait for more than 2 months to kill her after that? The Ripper scare hadn't started in July 1888. Why not kill her, if he was going to, when there was no danger of him being caught and labelled as Jack the Ripper?
"Although Kidney may have been perfectly innocent, with only today's information at hand I would still find him worth investigating if I were Abberline."
He was checked out, and he was cleared of any wrong-doing. To say that a jealous lover killed Stride - well, the same could be said for Joe Barnett and Mary Kelly, there is no difference. Both were investigated, and both were cleared. Doesn't that say something?
Glenn, you wrote:
"Are you kidding me? Have you any idea what kind of life the prostitutes led on the streets of East End in the latter half of the 19th century (and some lead a miserable life in the same situation even today)?
Getting married or living in a steady relationship with someone who could support them was mainly their only way out -- a lot of women have put up with abuse because of the rotten alternatives."
Life in the 19th century was bad enough for anyone. I know that. You know that. But my point was that all of those women killed, excluding Mary Kelly, were in their 40's. They had spent decades on the streets, they knew how it worked. They were used to it.
And could Michael Kidney support Liz Stride enough to keep her happy and off the streets?
Obviously not, or else she wouldn't have been on the streets and got killed in the first place.
"Domestic-related murders are generally unplanned incidents deriving from desperation and anger. You are basing your opinion on the distorted fact that they are based on logic. If for example Michael Kidney was drunk and his aggression took over, he would not necessarily think of the Ripper context."
Well if Michael Kidney was drunk, chances are he wouldn't have the capacity to kill her in the way he did. And then stumble away before Diemschutz entered the yard.
The entire Michael Kidney theory is based on unsubstantiated and circumstantial evidence, and simply pulling at straws. Show me one solid piece of evidence that Michael Kidney was the Ripper. When you look at it that way, I don't think you can knock my theory too far, when the Michael Kidney one is even worse.
"Yeah, and attributing her to the Ripper doesen't help her one bit, if the murderer was someone else."
No, and blaming her lover for something he didn't do won't help her either. The police didn't think it was Kidney then, and there's a huge amount of people that don't think it was him today. As I said before, if Liz's case is so uncertain, then why is she listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this site, when victims with just as strong cases like Martha Tabram are not?
"There is absolutely no evidence of that the Ripper was someone who liked to communicate or leave messages; actually there are slight indications of the opposite. The Lusk letter is still a matter of debate and the part of the enclosed kidney would be necessary in order to verify its authenticy, but the other letters have been declared hoaxes. He certainly didn't write either the "Dear Boss" letter or the "Saucy Jack" postcard -- and the police didn't think he did either."
It's a bit of a coincidence to note then that there was indeed a kidney missing from Eddowes, that got sent to Lusk, and that the kidney suffered from Bright's Disease, which Cathy Eddowes was known to suffer from. More to the point, why wouldn't he do it? Why shouldn't he do it? He had the whole of the East End of London, as well as a large part of the world terrified of him, so why wouldn't he add even more fright to it by sending in threatening and gruesome letters/postcards?
"No it's not. Firstly, as Frank pointed out, the similarities are exaggerated -- and secondly, Stride wasn't mutilated."
Not mutilated only because Diemshutz turned up with his cart before he could get that far. And the similarities being exaggerated, I disagree with as well. If you want to get a real factual insight into it, read Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" . He presents an extremely strong case for Liz being killed by the Ripper, and discusses the witness descriptions in full. Buy that, before you say it was all exaggerated.
"Furthermore, the MO is not that similar -- in Stride's case a throat cut that is more superficial and no mutilations (interruption or not). And as far as the placement of the bodies are concerned, Stride was lying on her side and not in the same degrading position as the other victims."
Once again, as I've stated before, the fact that the cut to her throat wasn't as serious as some of the other victims could indicate that the Ripper attacked her, saw or heard Diemschutz coming, knew that if Stride got away she could give a good description of what he looked like and how he attacked, and so he cut her throat which would ensure her death, not minding how he cut it. Make sense?
"If Schwartz's man was Stride's killer, there is no way in the world that the Ripper -- who was very careful about not being spotted -- would use such a careless approach."
A careless approach was to kill Polly in a gateway. A careless approach was to kill Annie in half daylight in a public backyard on a Spitalfields Market day. A careless approach was to kill Cathy in a square which could be entered any 1 of 3 ways. When you look at it, he actually did have quite a few careless approaches, so why would Liz be any different?
"I believe he could have gotten that information from anyone who knew her, if he didn't already know it. There are millions of scenarios to consider."
How would that sound? - "Bill, I'm going to be in Dutfield's Yard off Berner Street after midnight tonight. Tell Michael to see me there if he wants to."
Either she was extremely foolish and didn't think straight, or much more likely, it wasn't Kidney that got her at all.
"How his arrogance and his own reluctance to help the police with information could elude to arouse the police's suspicion goes beyond me. According to the transcripts, he appears as a first class slime and displaying a more than suspicious behaviour."
I'd bet because the police had more important things to concern themselves with, other than how Kidney's attitude was. A bad attitude hardly constitutes a murder suspect. And even if it did, there was 2nd murder to worry about at the same time. Police cleared him then, and when the evidence is closely re-examined, he should be cleared again today.
But, my suggestion to any Michael Kidney theorists is to get a copy of Philip Sugden's book, and read his brilliant factual account of it all. It didn't get 5 stars on Amazon for nothing.
Regards,
Adam.
|
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
Hi again Glenn,
In response to your latest posts,
You wrote:
"I must congratulate you for starting interesting discussions here -- the Boards have been rather dull these last months, so your appearance here is much appreciated."
Well thank you, I'm glad to know that I am able to add some excitement and interesting discussions to the boards!
"Hmm. But then he went back and used the same method and knife on Eddowes some 40 minutes later, as he had done on Nichols and Chapman? Why the sudden change or alteration on Stride just some minutes before Eddowes, when he in the case of the canonical victims didn't break that behaviour pattern and larger parts of his MO otherwise? It doesen't makes sense."
No, it doesn't make sense when you look at it that way. But I re-thought about that in my last post, and it might be worth considering that he heard/saw Diemshutz coming, and so cut her throat quickly and didn't worry about his precision too much, for fear of her becoming a potential witness.
"No, they're not, Adam. No way. If Diemschutz never arrived there with his cart, giving rise to the interruption argument, we probably would never have had this discussion."
I agree with you there. And Catherine Eddowes may never have been a Ripper victim, if it hadn't been for the interruption on Stride. However, there are too many IF's and BUT's to consider it as possible evidence.
"As I said, stranger things have happened, and since the facts doesen't support or prove her inclusion without doubt, that is a wrong thing to state."
Stranger things, yes, but 2 similar killings in 1 night within walking distance of one another...it's just too far fetched to believe that any more than 1 man could be responsible.
"Again, I disagree. Just because this site lists her among the canonicals (which I think is a mistake) doesen't in any way defend her her inclusion. As far as I know it is still not a proven fact.
And reading the majority of the Ripper literature, it is rather obvious that Stride is a question mark in many regards in the Ripper context. Most authors believe (in their personal opinions) that she may be a Ripper victim, but they don't claim it with certainty."
Not proven, no, but then what is in the Ripper case? Over the past 116 years, so many If's, but's, maybe's, what if's, etc have been developed that it's nearly impossible to see through to the truth. So that's just another 1 of those things.
"their non-critical confidence in Hutchinson's more or less bogus witness account"
Bogus? Where's the proof that what Hutchinson said was Bogus?
"Abberline's unbelievable statement from 1903, naming Klosowski as the Ripper."
It is not unbelievable at all. Infact, Severin Klosowski is my favourite suspect. Unlike many Ripper suspects, he was a known murderer, killing 3 of his wives. Yes, he poisoned them, but as we have discussed before, serial killers can change their M.O.'s. He lived in the district, as a hairdresser he may have possessed the tools, he fitted in with the age descriptions, and since he did have some money it explains why many witnesses stated that he was no slum. And he was single in 1888, so they are all points that go in his favour. So please, tell me, how come you think Abberline's thoughts are 'unbelievable' ?
Regards,
Adam.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2383
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 12:26 am: | |
Well... this is fun.
OK, Adam, you gave me a handful here, and some of the arguments have been run over here quite a number of times before, but I'll do my best.
Firstly, I think you underestimate many of us here who has studied the case for several years (and who also have been members of the site for a long time), when you instruct us to read Sugden.
Sugden's book is probably one of the more important and most cited ones. Very few people here have NOT read Sugden. And I naturally have my own copy at home. And yes -- I've read it a couple of times over, along with many others. I personally think it's the absolute best book on the subject from a factual point of view, but that doesen't mean one has to buy all of the author's personal opinions.
Secondly, you misunderstand me completely. As I've stated a couple of times, I am not arguing for Kidney to be her killer with certainty, I am just laying forward some reasons for why he could be. But I don't think there is any evidence about his involvement, although I've heard worse theories in connection with Stride.
"Well, we can start with the remarkably consistent descriptions of the man seen with the women in both Stride and Eddowes' case. Then, we can move on and say that if any of the Ripper letters are real, then one that is widely believed to be authentic did say that there was 2 victims."
Once again, there are no "remarkably consistent descriptions". Practically every man during the latter half of the 19th century wore moustasche, and dark clothes (jacket or whatever) says absolutely nothing -- that was worn by a larger part of the male population. The only interesting item that unites the two descriptions is the peaked cap, but that was on the other hand one of the most common headgears among the working class, worn bu hundreds in this area.
The only item that really stands out is the red neckerchief, and that was only mentioned by Lawende. Furthermore, both men was seen at night, in darkness and the places only lit up by gas lamps, the two men wearing dark clothes, Schwartz was a scared witness etc. etc... do I need to go on? There is absolutely no reason to believe that Schwartz and Lawende saw the same man.
And once again, apart from maybe -- and only maybe -- the Lusk letter, the letters have been declared as hoaxes, also by the contemporary police. According to several experts they are great examples of someone literate or semi-literate trying to pass off as uneducated.
As far as the kidney is concerned, although I can't totally dismiss its authenticy, it was believed at the time to be sent as a crank from a medical student. It is not at all established that Eddowes suffered from Bright's disease.
And you can read several explanations in Ripper books, Sugden's as well as Fido's and Rumbelow's etc., regarding the mentioning of the two victims on the Saucy Jack postcard.
According to the postmark, it was mailed after the murders had become public knowledge on October 1st, so this was not information only known by the killer at that time. This you can read about in any book.
"A careless approach was to kill Polly in a gateway. A careless approach was to kill Annie in half daylight in a public backyard on a Spitalfields Market day. A careless approach was to kill Cathy in a square which could be entered any 1 of 3 ways. When you look at it, he actually did have quite a few careless approaches, so why would Liz be any different?"
Completely wrong. There is a grand difference. The Ripper took risks, yes, but he was careful about not being spotted during and after the crimes and the murders were performed fast and quiet. Mr Broad Shoulder's clumsy and rowdy behaviour on Berner Street totally contradicts this. Furthermore, the incident with Broad Shoulders happened several minutes earlier than Diemschutz arrived, even within a presumed margin of time error, so there is no way he would have been interrupted by Diemschutz -- there is no reason for him staying that long with the victim before he killed her, if he was the Ripper. Either she was killed by Broad Shoulders, or she was killed by someone else (in that case maybe the Ripper) the minutes after the assault.
"Life in the 19th century was bad enough for anyone. I know that. You know that. But my point was that all of those women killed, excluding Mary Kelly, were in their 40's. They had spent decades on the streets, they knew how it worked. They were used to it.
And could Michael Kidney support Liz Stride enough to keep her happy and off the streets?"
Just because they knew their way around on the streets, didn't mean that they preferred this situation. It was probably closer to hell than we can ever imagine.
It is a fact, that many of them brought on their own demise due to their drinking (and therefore was left by their husbands), but it was indeed safer and more convenient for any of them to live with a partner. The only salvation for destitute women in the 19th century was to get married with a decent man -- that was the social code. That was probably also why Stride stayed with Kidney for so long. The fact that she went as far as filing a complaint about him, indicates that he must have been something out of the ordinary as far as brutality is concerned.
"Once again, as I've stated before, the fact that the cut to her throat wasn't as serious as some of the other victims could indicate that the Ripper attacked her, saw or heard Diemschutz coming, knew that if Stride got away she could give a good description of what he looked like and how he attacked, and so he cut her throat which would ensure her death, not minding how he cut it. Make sense?"
Yes, it does, but your problem is that you're holding on to this as the only alternative and allows yourself to be blocked by it. Try and play devil's advocat with yourself -- if you stir yourself blind on one scenario, you will end up constructing the facts fitting into it.
"How would that sound? - "Bill, I'm going to be in Dutfield's Yard off Berner Street after midnight tonight. Tell Michael to see me there if he wants to."
Either she was extremely foolish and didn't think straight, or much more likely, it wasn't Kidney that got her at all."
No, this is not what I meant. I didn't say that Stride told him where she was going. I simply meant that it probably wasn't the first time Stride stood on that spot (as I said, prostitutes usually try to return to the same spot so that they can be found by their regular customers), and I therefore think it would be improbable that Kidney wouldn't have found out about it. She must have been seen there by someone who knew Kidney, who in turn told him. If she had placed herself on Berner Street on earlier occasions, this is not a long shot, it is actually quite probable.
"A bad attitude hardly constitutes a murder suspect."
Yes, it does, if the man in question is the closest male relative connected to the victim, and therefore one of the most important witnesses! Furthermore, he not only had a bad attitude, his behaviour was also suspicious.
"And even if it did, there was 2nd murder to worry about at the same time."
True. By this time the police were set on the hunt for a serial killer. That doesen't mean that they were right when they dismissed certain people. And besides, we don't even know of they did; several of the suspect files with additional comments about people figuring in the investigation are lost.
"As I said before, if Liz's case is so uncertain, then why is she listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this site, when victims with just as strong cases like Martha Tabram are not?"
I just explained that in my other post above.
(And I don't think the Tabram case is as near as strong -- I give Tabram 15% chance of being a Ripper victim, not more.)
"However, there are too many IF's and BUT's to consider it as possible evidence."
Yes, and that goes both ways, Adam. One thing you must learn when you're discussing an over one hundred year old case -- where most of the documentation is in fragments or lost -- is that nothing is clear-cut or can be held for certain. There are just too many holes in the cheese in order to hold it together.
"Stranger things, yes, but 2 similar killings in 1 night within walking distance of one another...it's just too far fetched to believe that any more than 1 man could be responsible."
Yes, if you're too stuck on that approach, but not if you take several f the crime scene evidence and other circumstances in considerations. I used to be of exactly the same opinions on this matter as you, but the more I've studied the case, the more I've had to review them.
"Bogus? Where's the proof that what Hutchinson said was Bogus?"
There is no "proof" of anything. But it is common sense and pure logical deduction to reach that conclusion. This has already been debated lively on other threads about Hutchinson, so I'd suggest you check out the arguments there. Also several author's have discredited him, and rightly so.
Hutchinson found out from the Kelly inquest that a man had been seen hanging outside Miller's Court (namely himself, which he also admitted -- why he was there in the first place we will never know) and therefore probably felt he had to come forward himself with a story that explained his whereabouts at a presumed Ripper site, and -- surprise -- decided to throw in a "suspect" (constructed from Jewish charicatures in the papers) in order to gain the trust of the police. It worked.
All the best
G, Crime Historian,
Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2384
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 1:00 am: | |
Hi again, Adam.
"It is not unbelievable at all. Infact, Severin Klosowski is my favourite suspect. Unlike many Ripper suspects, he was a known murderer, killing 3 of his wives. Yes, he poisoned them, but as we have discussed before, serial killers can change their M.O.'s. He lived in the district, as a hairdresser he may have possessed the tools, he fitted in with the age descriptions, and since he did have some money it explains why many witnesses stated that he was no slum. And he was single in 1888, so they are all points that go in his favour. So please, tell me, how come you think Abberline's thoughts are 'unbelievable' ?"
Oh dear, oh dear.
As you yourself state, this has been debated over and over again for years now on these Boards, and I feel it to be a bit tedious to start it all over again, and this is hardly the right place for it. All the arguments have already been said on his own thread.
But still, here I go:
Klosowski/Chapman is probably one of the worst suspects that has ever derived from Ripperology, alongside The Royal Conspiracy and Jill the Ripper.
For the last time:
We are NOT talking about "change in MO" here!
A systematic serial poisoner is a completely different type of person than a systematic serial mutilator.
Firstly, poisoners usually have specified motives for their crimes, like money or passion, while mutilators have none -- they get the joy out of the act itself.
Secondly, a poisoner is a sadist and a torturer who in a rather cowardly way doesen't mind watching his or her victims suffer a slow death from afar.
A non-sadistic mutilator like the Ripper, on the other hand, needs to get and is not afraid of getting his hands dirty; it is necessary for him to kill his victims as quickly as possible, so that he can get on with the hands-on post mortem signature that drives him to committ the crimes. He is not displaying the same temper, nor the patience of the poisoner.
A poisoner has no signature -- he is only occupied with killing his victims for gain, while it for the mutilator is not the killing itself that is important, but the post mortem signature (the mutilations, which mostly have a sexual meaning).
So -- once again -- we are NOT talking different MOs here -- if we had one mutilated victim and one poisoned one, along with some battered with a hammer etc., I could buy the changing MO stuff, but here we are studying two serial killers with a row of victims killed more or less in a consistent manner in their own right. It is also highly questionable and improbable that a serial mutilator like the Ripper -- who needed to kill and mutilate from strong psychological driving forces -- would some years later turn into a clean poisoner of wives, without the same sexual driving forces that drove the Ripper to mutilate.
We are simply talking about different personalities here, with completely different needs -- not one killer with different methods. Such a scenario would go against all common sense and logic -- not to mention the basics of criminal psychology (which obviously wasn't Abberline's strongest point).
You will find NO police officer or investigator that would accept such a conclusion today, not in a million years. It is absolutely unthinkable.
In order to accept this, the Ripper/Chapman must have suffered from severe multiple personalities, where one personality died after the Ripper murders and another one -- representing the total opposite -- took over.
It is not even theory, it's just fairy-tales and to this day no serial killer is known to ever have committed a series of mutilations and then suddenly changing to a series of poisoning.
It shall also be noted, that Sugden doesen't really stress Klosowski as a personal favourite Ripper suspect -- he simply came across this villain and felt the need to introduce him. But he's not stressing him, in the same way Fido did with David Cohen or William Beadle with Bury.
All the best
G, Crime Historian,
Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
Hi again Glenn,
Well, quite a lot to reply to here, but here goes...
You wrote:
"Firstly, I think you underestimate many of us here who has studied the case for several years (and who also have been members of the site for a long time), when you instruct us to read Sugden.
Sugden's book is probably one of the more important and most cited ones. Very few people here have NOT read Sugden. And I naturally have my own copy at home."
I am not underestimating the knowledge of anyone, I know this site is packed with extremely knowledgeable people, who know far, far more than me. It wasn't my intention to even imply that. You must understand and remember that I am new here, I have only just been here for 1 week now. There is over 200 members, and I haven't got around to seeing who has or hasn't read what books yet. So by mentioning Sugden's book, I am simply stating that it is worth checking out IF you haven't already. If you have, then fine.
"Secondly, you misunderstand me completely. As I've stated a couple of times, I am not arguing for Kidney to be her killer with certainty, I am just laying forward some reasons for why he could be."
Then why is it necessary to have this debate, if you aren't even certain of Kidney's involvement yourself? I, on the other hand, am 99% confident within myself that Elizabeth Stride was a Jack the Ripper victim. You're supposed to go with your gut feeling - and evidence or not, that is mine.
"The only interesting item that unites the two descriptions is the peaked cap, but that was on the other hand one of the most common headgears among the working class, worn bu hundreds in this area."
So were top hats, etc as well. So a peaked cap can't be singled out, there were various hats that were quite common in the area at the time.
"The only item that really stands out is the red neckerchief, and that was only mentioned by Lawende."
That would simply be because Lawende paused to look at him. As for Schwartz, he was scared as you said yourself, and since there was an assault going on, either he wouldn't be able to see the neckerchief, or didn't pay any attention to it if he did. My personal feeling is that the Ripper tried to grab Liz, she resisted, and so he pulled her out into the street. She was probably a pretty tough woman, our Liz!
"As far as the kidney is concerned, although I can't totally dismiss its authenticy, it was believed at the time to be sent as a crank from a medical student. It is not at all established that Eddowes suffered from Bright's disease."
It is widely accepted that Catherine Eddowes was in a serious stage of alcoholism and Bright's Disease, and wasn't going to live for all that much longer even if she hadn't been killed. If it was a hoax, why was it sent to Lusk? And if it was a hoax, how would the medical student have gotten the information about her and the kidney that he required? Too much speculation.
"According to the postmark, it was mailed after the murders had become public knowledge on October 1st, so this was not information only known by the killer at that time. This you can read about in any book."
The name of the letter escapes me at the moment, but remember this from one of them:
"The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send them to the police just for jolly wouldnt you."
This was sent just a few days before the double murder. And guess what? Catherine Eddowes' ears had been cut through! What a coincidence!
"there is no reason for him staying that long with the victim before he killed her, if he was the Ripper. Either she was killed by Broad Shoulders, or she was killed by someone else (in that case maybe the Ripper) the minutes after the assault."
I tend to believe that either Broad Shoulders was the Ripper, and Liz resisted his attack, forcing her onto the street, or else he was not the man who killed her, and the Ripper took advantage of her being in a weakened state after the assault and struck then. Both are equally likely.
"The only salvation for destitute women in the 19th century was to get married with a decent man -- that was the social code. That was probably also why Stride stayed with Kidney for so long. The fact that she went as far as filing a complaint about him, indicates that he must have been something out of the ordinary as far as brutality is concerned."
The whole thing about her filing a complaint about him is taken way too far over the top. She didn't even turn up in court. And that was filed quite a while before the Ripper murders, and her murder took place. So if Kidney was holding a grudge, he held it for an awfully long time. And she obviously wasn't happy with their relationship, or what he was doing for her, or else she wouldn't have been on the streets.
"Yes, it does, but your problem is that you're holding on to this as the only alternative and allows yourself to be blocked by it. Try and play devil's advocat with yourself -- if you stir yourself blind on one scenario, you will end up constructing the facts fitting into it."
Please don't misconstrue this as me trying to tell others what to do again, but I think the best way to study Ripperology is to do it theory by theory, not letting about a dozen theories in all at once, that's much worse. If you realise 1 theory is wrong, you can change things around to investigate a new one. And since I've done that several times, I find what I have already stated fits in best when thoroughly considered. And until I find sufficient reasoning to re-think my theory, then that will be the one I stick with. According to the Kidney theory, then it could also be said that Barnett killed Kelly. Pretty soon, there'll be 3 different Rippers all killing in the same fashion at the same time - 2 is bad enough, 3 is ridiculous. But it's true, the same arguments for Kidney can be formed for Barnett.
"She must have been seen there by someone who knew Kidney, who in turn told him. If she had placed herself on Berner Street on earlier occasions, this is not a long shot, it is actually quite probable."
It certainly is probably, however:
a.) How would Kidney know she would stay in the 1 spot?
b.) How would an informant on Liz's activities know where to find Kidney quickly?
c.) How would Kidney know how busy the area was and how safe it would be to kill her there?
"Yes, it does, if the man in question is the closest male relative connected to the victim, and therefore one of the most important witnesses! Furthermore, he not only had a bad attitude, his behaviour was also suspicious."
Well the police obviously didn't see it as suspicious. They also obviously saw there was no solid ground or no ground at all for considering Kidney as Stride's killer. It is impossible for any of us modern day researchers to tell the real behaviour of Kidney, apart from what is documented.
"(And I don't think the Tabram case is as near as strong -- I give Tabram 15% chance of being a Ripper victim, not more.)"
I say the exact opposite. I give her 95% chance, and Liz 99% chance. To me, the killing of Martha Tabram seems like a build up of blood lust, as I have described elsewhere before.
If Ada Wilson and Emma Smith can also be attributed, or partly attributed to the Ripper, then a sequence of events can be formed:
Non-fatal robbery, (Wilson), Fatal robbery (Smith), Fatal stabbing, but not cutting, (Tabram) and finally the cutting and mutilation, starting with Nichols. It is highly unlikely that the Ripper just jumped out of nowhere and started ripping women to pieces. A build up beginning with assault/robbery makes more sense to me.
"Yes, and that goes both ways, Adam. One thing you must learn when you're discussing an over one hundred year old case -- where most of the documentation is in fragments or lost -- is that nothing is clear-cut or can be held for certain. There are just too many holes in the cheese in order to hold it together."
And so all we can do is theorise, nothing more, in a large number of cases to do with the Ripper. That is what I am doing.
"Hutchinson found out from the Kelly inquest that a man had been seen hanging outside Miller's Court (namely himself, which he also admitted -- why he was there in the first place we will never know) and therefore probably felt he had to come forward himself with a story that explained his whereabouts at a presumed Ripper site, and -- surprise -- decided to throw in a "suspect" (constructed from Jewish charicatures in the papers) in order to gain the trust of the police. It worked."
His story is supported by a witness who testified that she saw a man standing opposite Miller's Court, looking as if he was waiting for someone. That could very well have been Hutchinson. And it has also been theorised that the reason he was so interested was the he and Kelly knew each other, and perhaps had been carrying on a relationship, so he was interested to find out who this man with her was. If his story is to be believed, which I think it should, then the Ripper was in Mary's room for atleast 45 minutes, which is consistent with the horrendous mutilations to her.
"But still, here I go:
Klosowski/Chapman is probably one of the worst suspects that has ever derived from Ripperology, alongside The Royal Conspiracy and Jill the Ripper."
Really? And yet, he managed to make it into the Top 5 suspects in a suspect poll done on this site, which proves that a lot of people consider him a very plausible suspect. Rightly so, Lewis Carroll was right at the bottom. Klosowski is not a suspect to be taken lightly, and there is every chance that he might have actually been Jack himself.
"So -- once again -- we are NOT talking different MOs here -- if we had one mutilated victim and one poisoned one, along with some battered with a hammer etc., I could buy the changing MO stuff, but here we are studying two serial killers with a row of victims killed more or less in a consistent manner in their own right. It is also highly questionable and improbable that a serial mutilator like the Ripper -- who needed to kill and mutilate from strong psychological driving forces -- would some years later turn into a clean poisoner of wives, without the same sexual driving forces that drove the Ripper to mutilate."
Not true. There is absolutely nothing what so ever to suggest that a killer like the Ripper could not change from mutilator to poisoner. It would start getting a little bit suspicious if his own wives got carved up, wouldn't it? But he managed to get away with poisoning 2 of them, and he was only convicted with killing the 3rd one. Their causes of death were listed as different things, nothing like poisoning. He exerted little or no sympathy towards his victims, like the Ripper didn't. And another partner of his was horrified to find that, after he had assaulted her, there was a large knife underneath the pillow of where he had assaulted her. So you see, he still operated with knives.
There is the problem of the times between the killings of Jack the Ripper and those of Severin Klosowski, but perhaps his awful attack in Miller's Court was enough to satisfy his lust for a while.
Based on all of what I have already said, he certainly can be viewed with great suspicion, but let's leave that for his suspect section of the forum.
"It is not even theory, it's just fairy-tales and to this day no serial killer is known to ever have committed a series of mutilations and then suddenly changing to a series of poisoning."
Are you quite sure of that? I don't know, but I'd imagine there must be a case of it somewhere.
In any case, the Ripper was different. I don't know any other serial killer who has had so many movies, websites, magazines, functions, books and documentaries made about him. That doesn't proove anything, I know, but he was famous for getting away with such murders. There is nothing to disbelieve that he may have returned to killing some years later, just with a different way of killing. It actually seems more probable that he would change, rather than resort to the old methods from 10 and more years earlier.
"It shall also be noted, that Sugden doesen't really stress Klosowski as a personal favourite Ripper suspect -- he simply came across this villain and felt the need to introduce him. But he's not stressing him, in the same way Fido did with David Cohen or William Beadle with Bury."
That's true, and he does state that there are serious problems with case against Chapman at the same time. However, he is the odd one out of the other 3 suspects listed, which makes it interesting that he was included. In a way, I'm glad he was, it only strengthened my belief in Chapman being a major suspect.
Regards,
Adam.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2385
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
Hi Adam,
"Then why is it necessary to have this debate, if you aren't even certain of Kidney's involvement yourself?"
You are doing the same fatal mistake I was doing when I started out as a Boards, claiming things with "certainty". You just can't do that. The reason for us being here -- as you mentioned in another passage -- is to theorize. We can't state anything for certain (well, not much anyway...) in this case. But one can indulge in debates anyway.
"So were top hats, etc as well."
No, Adam, not in East End.
One thing one must remember -- and I have studied hundreds of witness testimonies from different cases -- is that our perception of details and our lasting memory of those details is among the most unreliable factors to consider in a police investigation. We all interpret things based on our personal experiences and preferences, and already after a short time, our memory starts to distort the information.
So in order for a witness description to be credited with some reliability, it must contain several very distinguished details that stands out and that is being corroborated by more than one person (and under good conditions -- not night time or stress). This very seldom happens or delivers pleasant results, and for the most part witness descriptions are as useful as a wooden stick on a sore back.
In the two witness descriptions argumented here, only one interesting item that really stands out is the red neckerchief and that is only mentioned by Lawende. None of the other details are of any use to either us or the police. So in fact, both witness descriptions are totally worthless, also considering the fact that we can't be absolutely sure of that any of them was a murderer anyway. Yes, I know you are -- but I'm not..
The only sure desription we have of the Ripper (although it unfortunately is unverified) is that of Elizabeth Long's, at Hanbury Street. Unfortunately she didn't see the man's face.
"So a peaked cap can't be singled out, there were various hats that were quite common in the area at the time."
Quite true, but peaked caps were one of the more common ones in this area and social class.
"And so all we can do is theorise, nothing more, in a large number of cases to do with the Ripper. That is what I am doing."
No, you're not. You're stating things more or less with 99 or 100% accuracy.
"It is widely accepted that Catherine Eddowes was in a serious stage of alcoholism and Bright's Disease, and wasn't going to live for all that much longer even if she hadn't been killed."
Actually no. That is a wide misconception that this is stated with certainty. This has been widely debated during recent years.
"The name of the letter escapes me at the moment, but remember this from one of them:
"The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send them to the police just for jolly wouldnt you."
This was sent just a few days before the double murder. And guess what? Catherine Eddowes' ears had been cut through! What a coincidence!"
Aha. You are referring to the "Dear Boss" letter. Sorry, I thought you meant the post card (which was probably written by the same person as this letter).
Well, I think you are over-interpreting the evidence, Adam. A piece of ONE of the ears on Eddowes was nicked, that's all. They were not cut off.
The police at the time -- as well as modern researchers and experts -- discounted this letter and the postcard to be the "work of an enterprising journalist", and this is corroborated by the fact that they were sent to the Central News agency (an internal network for people in the newspaper business). If a private citizen had written it, it would have been sent directly to one of the papers instead. Or to the police, which is the common fashion.
Believe me, Adam. Very few today believe the letters to be genuine (and certainly not Sugden either), and those who do, seem to belong to a very silent and microscopic minority.
"The whole thing about her filing a complaint about him is taken way too far over the top. She didn't even turn up in court."
Which is also a very common trait in cases of domestic violence. Very few of them are actually charged or filed. I thought you knew that.
"According to the Kidney theory, then it could also be said that Barnett killed Kelly."
And I actually think there's a 50--60% chance that he did. I am not at all convinced that Kelly was a Ripper victim.
As far as I am concerned there are only three clear-cut canonical victims: Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
As far as Mr Broad Shoulders is concerned, no I find it very improbable that he was the Ripper. As I tried to explain earlier (points which you totally seem to disregard), his behaviour is not the behaviour of someone like the Ripper.
"Really? And yet, he managed to make it into the Top 5 suspects in a suspect poll done on this site, which proves that a lot of people consider him a very plausible suspect."
Oh come on. What does that prove? So just because the idiotic Royal Conspiracy theory, for example, is being the most popular theory for a large audience and the one that Hollywood focuses on, this must be considered plausible as well?
You can't base an investigation on what the majority thinks. You must look at the facts. A line of suspects is not a popularity poll.
"Not true. There is absolutely nothing what so ever to suggest that a killer like the Ripper could not change from mutilator to poisoner. It would start getting a little bit suspicious if his own wives got carved up, wouldn't it? But he managed to get away with poisoning 2 of them, and he was only convicted with killing the 3rd one. Their causes of death were listed as different things, nothing like poisoning. He exerted little or no sympathy towards his victims, like the Ripper didn't. And another partner of his was horrified to find that, after he had assaulted her, there was a large knife underneath the pillow of where he had assaulted her. So you see, he still operated with knives."
Oh no no no, Adam.
I said that we are dealing with two different personalities, and I tried to explain why in my post. Not a change of methods due to planning or change of circumstances.
I'd suggest you read up on criminal psychology and that you listen to people who work in the field, like police officers and criminologists etc. No one supports such a possibility. And this non-support is also verified by crime history; you will not find one single case where one serial mutilator turns into a serial poisoner. And why? Because it has nothing to do with different methods, but of different things that drives certain categories of killers -- MOs can change, but not a serial killer's personality or personal driving forces. At least not in my book and according to my experience.
As far as the knife is concerned, that is not saying anything at all of importance. It is really a stretch. You can't accuse everyone who carries a knife, or threatening people with it, in Whitechapel for being the Ripper. This incident only shows that Chapman was a violent man, but he never seemed to have used it at his wives or anyone else besides threatening with it. A totally worthless piece of "evidence".
I am not sure of much in the Ripper case, but that and the fake Dear Boss and Saucy Jack communications, are some of them. Chapman is one of the most unthinkable suspect that has ever appeared in Ripperology.
BUT, he is indeed an interesting villain and character in his own right. I can certainly understand why Sugden wanted to study him. But Chapman has his own story, and its not the Ripper's.
With that Chapman should be returned to his own thread -- or even better ... in the trash bin, where he belongs in the Ripper context.
Al the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 17, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 5:27 am: | |
There is another difference between the murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, MJK (and even Tabram) and that of Liz Stride.
In the first five cases I cite it is very likely that the victim led her murderer to the scene of her death. All were killed in spots which might be known to and used by prostitutes (even the gateway in Buck's Row - a fairly quiet street).
I doubt any prostitute would have taken a man to the courtyard of Dutton's Yard at that time of day, given that that was a well-used entrance to the International Club. To me the difference between a darkened landing in a residential block in the small hours (Tabram); a dark and quiet back street (Nichols); a secluded backyard (Chapman); a dark, unillumined corner of a small square (Eddowes); and a private room (Kelly) are VERY different in character from the entrance to a club in which a function is still in full swing, on a demonstrably busy street (Packer's shop open and people coming and going as witnesses testified).
To me that reeks of a spur of the moment, hot-blood killing (ie as Kidney/Stride might be characterised) rather than a JtR scenario.
That doesn't mean I rule Stride out as a JtR victim, just that, on balance, I feel it unlikely.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
"Is it not beyond coincidence that supposedly 2 killers struck on the same night, within a fairly short distance from one another, with similar mutilations, both in the same kind of spots -secluded and dark..."
First, if it were known (say) that Kidney had killed stride and been convicted for it, having been caught before the Mitre Square attack took place - we would regard it as a remarkable coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless!!
One of the suspects later ruled out because he was in custody when a later killing took place, had been wandering around Whitechapel with a bloody shirt and shoes. as Sugden says, if JtR himself had not provided the proof, that individual (Ludwig??) would probably have been hung, though the "evidence" was coincidental.
"...2 killers with the same outfits, same M.O's, same night killings, same area, AND same placement of the bodies? "
But do the descriptions tally?
The MO's weren't the same - Eddowes multilated, Stride throat slit.
I'm not sure that a body on its bck legs wide is particularly special - it is a way body's fall. I certainly don't rule Stride out as a "Ripper" victim, but I think Kidney the more likely killer. It also avoids the panicy Ripper seeks second victim syndrome. One night: one victim - as on all the other occasions.
Phil |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:37 pm: | |
Hi,
For Adam Went,
You Wrote:-
It's also worthy to note, for all Michael Kidney being the killer supporters, that Elizabeth Stride is listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this very site, when other victims with strong cases like Martha Tabram are not, so it's clear that a large majority of the Ripperology community think Liz was a Ripper victim, as I do.
I agree, it is clear that a large majority of the Ripperology community think Liz was a Ripper victim, but that does not make them CORRECT.
Lets just remember, that prior to 1959, TABRAM was counted as a Ripper victim by probably everyone who was around at the time of the murders, or who had heard or read about the Ripper Murders Of 1888. It was not until the Macnaghten Memorandum was unearthed that Tabram was disregarded as a victim and the Canon became five victims only.
And again, lets remember, that this is only the educated opinion of Melville Macnaghten and is not the official police view of who was a victim and who was not. As you are no doubt aware the Official Police Files for the Ripper murders contains investigative notes on eleven victims.
The point I am trying to make therefore, is that just because Macnaghten says 'Jack' murdered five victims only does not mean that we have to accept his opinion, regardless of what position he was in to be able to state this about the number of Jack's victims. Especially when his Memorandum is so full of errors in regards the information he relates about the three possible suspects more likely to have commited the crimes other than Thomas Cutbush.
Also bear in mind that Macnaghten, who was not even actually involved with the investigation into the murders, was just one of many police officials who later had an opinion about the Ripper Murders, all of them different to one degree or another.
As I have mentioned before, maybe one reason why the "Jack The Rippers" have never been solved by the police, at the time, or by future researchers is because we have all been blinkered in our approach and understanding to the murders. One point in comparison;
In 1981 Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper) was tried and convicted for thirteen murders commited during a murder spree of six years . Since that time further research and investigation as established that he was also responsible for further crimes, including murder, crimes which at the time were written off by the investigating officers because they did not fit their "blinkered Pattern" of who was a victim of "The Yorshire Ripper".
So, at the end of the day, who is to say Macnaghten was right when he attributed just these particular five victims to Jack The Ripper.
Finally, IMHO Jack murdered five women, four victims in the East End of London and his final victim in ???
Cheers,
Michael |
B Perring
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
What happened to Michael Kidney after 1888? Did he ever marry? Or did he just disappear from the records? |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:22 pm: | |
Hi All,
Just a thought!!
Why would our boy 'Jack' be looking for victims/prostitutes in the unlikely area around Berner Street, which, to all intents and purposes, can not regarded as a very lucrative business situation for a prostitute's centre of operations. Not many public houses about, therefore not many, if any, potential clients.
When regarding any murder, a look at every aspect of the case as to be taken into consideration. This includes, topography, social environs, M.O., witnesses, the murder scene, events leading up to the murder and events after the murder, etc.
IMHO, these factors, when looked at abjectively, and singulary, and without the hindsight of the prevailing 'JACK' murders, point to the murder of Elizabeth Stride as being of the nature of "Murder La Domestique".
Of course some people may say that this train of thought can/should not be done and the murder of Stride should be taken as a whole within the Jack The Ripper murders. But, if this is the case, just remember this.
EVERY MURDER INVESTIGATION is unique and should initially be treated so. Only later are parrallels to be drawn between one murder and another to find solid points of matching evidence which then become unique to these murders, ie, wounds, DNA, M.O., witnesses, etc, whereby they then become part of a 'series' murder
Applying this method to the murder of Elizabeth Stride even a layman can see that it is totally "out of wack' with the other murders generally attributed to Jack The Ripper.
Finally, just for the record, as you no doubt have already guessed, my opinions about the murder of Elizabeth Stride are, that I DO NOT regard her as a victim of JTR.
As to who was her killer, IMHO Michael Kidney is a very strong suspect
Cheers,
Michael |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2387
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:24 am: | |
Phil,
Once again, your posts are an excellent read. Where have you been?
Michael,
"Why would our boy 'Jack' be looking for victims/prostitutes in the unlikely area around Berner Street, which, to all intents and purposes, can not regarded as a very lucrative business situation for a prostitute's centre of operations. Not many public houses about, therefore not many, if any, potential clients.
When regarding any murder, a look at every aspect of the case as to be taken into consideration. This includes, topography, social environs, M.O., witnesses, the murder scene, events leading up to the murder and events after the murder, etc.
IMHO, these factors, when looked at abjectively, and singulary, and without the hindsight of the prevailing 'JACK' murders, point to the murder of Elizabeth Stride as being of the nature of "Murder La Domestique".
Of course some people may say that this train of thought can/should not be done and the murder of Stride should be taken as a whole within the Jack The Ripper murders. But, if this is the case, just remember this.
EVERY MURDER INVESTIGATION is unique and should initially be treated so. Only later are parrallels to be drawn between one murder and another to find solid points of matching evidence which then become unique to these murders, ie, wounds, DNA, M.O., witnesses, etc, whereby they then become part of a 'series' murder"
My appaluse to you. All very good points indeed and I couldn't agree more.
Please register immediately!
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Hi, Adam-
Sorry for the delay in posting, but as it turns out Glenn has answered the points I would have made and done it in more telling detail than I probably would have.
I did want to make two points,though.First to answer the comment about Stride's not following through with her complaint against Kidney.
It's not uncommon for abuse victims to refuse to follow up after they've reported their abusers, even now. The whole scenario just says to me that the violence was an embedded part of their relationship, that physical abuse was very common for them and at that one point in time-at least- Stride had had enough and called attention to it even though she chickened out later.
Secondly,please don't mistake honest disagreement for flaming. I cetainly agree that your posts and ideas are very welcome and interesting. While there are posters on any board who can be quite rude, most of the people I've run across here just are really interested in the case and in debating the various ideas that come along. The nature of this whole JTR thing is so amorphus that we could -and maybe will!- go on forever. Much more exciting than angels on pin heads!
Mags |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 341
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Mags,
Do you have a particular pinhead in mind upon whom to dance? Oops, that was pin heads . . . never mind.
Don.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 175
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Don, it would never occur to me. What COULD you be talking about???
Mags |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 37
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:33 am: | |
Hi Glenn, Phil, Jfripper and Maria,
(I seem to be getting the increasing feeling of my posts on this topic being centred around a gigantic attack by nearly everyone else. Oh well, makes it all the more interesting to respond to, I guess....)
Glenn, you wrote:
"You are doing the same fatal mistake I was doing when I started out as a Boards, claiming things with "certainty". You just can't do that."
Well, we're never going to get anywhere if we just sit around saying "I think this" and "I think that", really, are we? So, whether it's a popular way or not, my way of studying the case is to select the grounds I feel the strongest for believing in, and will do nothing but try and build on that, and find more evidence to support it. That's why I say it with 'certainty', because that's how I study it, rather than letting dozens of possiblities into my head at a time.
"We all interpret things based on our personal experiences and preferences, and already after a short time, our memory starts to distort the information."
I agree with that, memories fade over time and we can confuse issues together. But that's in general. I know people who can remember details that happened 70 years ago as crystal clear as if it were yesterday, and they are right as well. So there's no reason to completely believe that witnesses could forget or confuse things over a period of a couple of weeks.
"The only sure desription we have of the Ripper (although it unfortunately is unverified) is that of Elizabeth Long's, at Hanbury Street. Unfortunately she didn't see the man's face."
There is no more reason for believing what Elizabeth Long said for what Joseph Lawende said. They both saw the victims standing, speaking to a man outside their murder places shortly before they were murdered. The difference is what exactly? It's also interesting to note that Elizabeth's description of the man she saw is the only one that states that he was "a man over 40." Most other descriptions are consistent around 28-35. Though this can be excused because she saw him back on, but it does throw into question the other descriptions she gave.
"No, you're not. You're stating things more or less with 99 or 100% accuracy."
I've explained it elsewhere before, that is my way of going about studying the Ripper. It's pointless to try and sort through 100 theories in your head all at once. I read through a lot of information at first, then developed what I thought was truth and fiction, and that is what I stick with, and that's what I will research and stand up for my belief in. It might not be considered a proper way to do it, but it's better than swapping your ideas around every time you read a convincing piece of information that tries to proove one of your theories otherwise.
"Actually no. That is a wide misconception that this is stated with certainty. This has been widely debated during recent years."
Really? I didn't know about that. But I bet it has been widely debated without any definite proof to say that she didn't suffer from it, right? That's the thing. You can't really 'debate' things that there is no solid proof against. You can only state thoughts and opinions.
"Well, I think you are over-interpreting the evidence, Adam. A piece of ONE of the ears on Eddowes was nicked, that's all. They were not cut off.
The police at the time -- as well as modern researchers and experts -- discounted this letter and the postcard to be the "work of an enterprising journalist", and this is corroborated by the fact that they were sent to the Central News agency (an internal network for people in the newspaper business)."
Well, a nicked ear is still enough to suggest that it was linked to the letter. And since he had a very short time space to work with Eddowes as well, I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't interrupted when he was almost finished with her either. He could have had as little as 7 or 8 minutes.
Yes, I remember reading about a journalist called Thomas Bulling who is a suspect in giving Jack the Ripper exactly that name. I don't really have any thoughts for or against that, because I haven't read into it much.
"Believe me, Adam. Very few today believe the letters to be genuine (and certainly not Sugden either), and those who do, seem to belong to a very silent and microscopic minority."
Most of the letters, I agree, are complete hoaxes and fakes. But I believe that "From Hell", "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" are linked, and possibly by the Ripper, though the handwriting and writing style do vary. And if that includes part of the 'very silent and microscopic community', then I guess that I am part of it. I don't have a problem with that.
"And I actually think there's a 50--60% chance that he did. I am not at all convinced that Kelly was a Ripper victim.
As far as I am concerned there are only three clear-cut canonical victims: Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes."
Only 3 victims? Well, there's not a great deal left to research then, is there? We may as well not research him if there was only 3, it's hardly got any point to it. Or so it seems. As I said before, pretty soon he won't have any victims left. From my view, I accept 9 victims to be killed by him, or atleast involved in it in the case of Smith: Ada Wilson, Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, the 5 canonical victims, including Liz of course, as well as Alice McKenzie. Now 9 victims is much more interesting and worth researching into more!
"As far as Mr Broad Shoulders is concerned, no I find it very improbable that he was the Ripper. As I tried to explain earlier (points which you totally seem to disregard), his behaviour is not the behaviour of someone like the Ripper."
As I also attempted to explain, Liz could have resisted his initial attack, ran out onto the street, been grabbed by him again to prevent her from running away and crying for help, Schwartz passes by, the Ripper strangles Liz, drags her back into the yard against the wall, where he cuts her throat, then he hears/sees Diemschutz coming before he can do any more.
That remains my theory on why Liz was seen assaulted in the street. There was evidence that Mary Kelly resisted the attack, and so I think Liz probably did too.
"Oh come on. What does that prove? So just because the idiotic Royal Conspiracy theory, for example, is being the most popular theory for a large audience and the one that Hollywood focuses on, this must be considered plausible as well?
You can't base an investigation on what the majority thinks. You must look at the facts. A line of suspects is not a popularity poll."
Actually, I don't recall Klosowski being regarded as the Ripper in any Hollywood movie. And the Royal Conspiracy Theory has been prooved to have no strong basis, that is not the case for Klosowski.
What does it prove? Well, for a start, it prooves that he is considered a more plausible suspect than William Henry Bury or David Cohen, neither of which made it into the Top 5. It also prooves that many people do regard him as a very strong suspect, whether he changed from mutilator to poisoner or not. A moment ago in your post, you disregarded the JtR letters as being in a 'very small and microscopic community', and now you are disregarding Klosowski even though he obviously does have a strong majority of votes, by saying "You can't base an investigation on what the majority thinks."
I think you just contradicted yourself, Glenn.
"As far as the knife is concerned, that is not saying anything at all of importance. It is really a stretch. You can't accuse everyone who carries a knife, or threatening people with it, in Whitechapel for being the Ripper. This incident only shows that Chapman was a violent man, but he never seemed to have used it at his wives or anyone else besides threatening with it. A totally worthless piece of "evidence"."
I never accused anyone who carried a knife or threatened people with one with being possibly Jack the Ripper. But it is a little peculiar that Klosowski, a Ripper suspect, should have big knives hidden underneath pillows. "Evidence"? No. But does it support the case against him? Yes, to a degree.
"I can certainly understand why Sugden wanted to study him. But Chapman has his own story, and its not the Ripper's.
With that Chapman should be returned to his own thread -- or even better ... in the trash bin, where he belongs in the Ripper context."
You seem to be stating this with quite a large degree of 'certainty', when you told me earlier that I am stating things with too much certainty. It's already been said that nothing much is certain in the Ripper case, and Klosowski cannot be disregarded as a suspect simply because he changed the way he worked. The entire theory that he can be discounted because of that is based on generalising of the serial killers mind. It's not "evidence".
The fact that the Inspector in charge of the case, Frederick Abberline, suspected Klosowski should be a strong enough thought train to keep him well up in the suspects list. And Abberline wasn't alone with that thought, either.
Phil, you wrote:
"One of the suspects later ruled out because he was in custody when a later killing took place, had been wandering around Whitechapel with a bloody shirt and shoes. as Sugden says, if JtR himself had not provided the proof, that individual (Ludwig??) would probably have been hung, though the "evidence" was coincidental."
Yes, it's the same story with John Pizer, just because he was known as "Leather Apron" in the area. I agree that suspects like Ludwig can't possibly be considered anyway, there would be hundreds of butchers, etc around with blood on them. The fact that he was singled out simply shows police desperation of the time, to apprehend anyone suspicious.
"But do the descriptions tally?
The MO's weren't the same - Eddowes multilated, Stride throat slit."
Eddowes' throat was slit at some point as well, that's got nothing to do with it. Eddowes was mutilated, yes, but Stride probably escaped mutilation only because of Diemschutz. A lot of people believe that Diemschutz must have almost walked in on the killer, and the damage done to Stride as well as the times that events took place are consistent for supporting that theory.
More to come shortly...
Regards,
Adam.
|
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 38
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:48 am: | |
Hi again all,
Jfripper, you wrote:
"Lets just remember, that prior to 1959, TABRAM was counted as a Ripper victim by probably everyone who was around at the time of the murders, or who had heard or read about the Ripper Murders Of 1888. It was not until the Macnaghten Memorandum was unearthed that Tabram was disregarded as a victim and the Canon became five victims only."
Macnaghten didn't get that position until mid-1889, well after the actual Ripper murders, even though the case was still open for several years after that. I still regard Martha Tabram as a victim, along with several others, even if she and the others aren't amongst the 'canonical' victims. Macnaghten's memorandum has serious flaws in it, and much of what it says has been proved wrong, so it can't be considered as strong and fully believable evidence anyway.
"So, at the end of the day, who is to say Macnaghten was right when he attributed just these particular five victims to Jack The Ripper."
You're right. You can't. There could be more than that, there's nothing to say he was right completely. It was him who introduced Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog as suspects, and all 3, especially the first 2 have developed into major suspects over the years. The Ripperology world owes a lot to Macnaghten, but not always for good things.
Sorry for posting the other information in my first response above, I realised you had already stated much of what I said again there, when I read the rest of your post.
Maria, you wrote:
"It's not uncommon for abuse victims to refuse to follow up after they've reported their abusers, even now. The whole scenario just says to me that the violence was an embedded part of their relationship, that physical abuse was very common for them and at that one point in time-at least- Stride had had enough and called attention to it even though she chickened out later."
I agree. She probably got really upset, filed the complaint, then when she had time to think about it she realised the potential problems that could arise out of that, and so decided not to go through with it. But that can hardly be connected to her murder, since it was a decent while before her murder when she filed the complaint against him. And he obviously forgave her, or else they wouldn't have been together at all after that.
"Secondly,please don't mistake honest disagreement for flaming. I cetainly agree that your posts and ideas are very welcome and interesting. While there are posters on any board who can be quite rude, most of the people I've run across here just are really interested in the case and in debating the various ideas that come along. The nature of this whole JTR thing is so amorphus that we could -and maybe will!- go on forever. Much more exciting than angels on pin heads!"
Oh, I don't really consider it as flaming, and it is an honestly interesting debate. It just starts to feel a bit like flaming when everyone is disagreeing with you and nobody is agreeing with you. But, that's how it goes I suppose, and I'm happy to debate my ideas/theories straight back. It's interesting, anyway.
Regards,
Adam. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2392
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
OK, Adam,
This is really getting interesting. Reading your posts is like reading my own a couple of years back.
But I admire your stamina and your enthusiasm.
"Well, we're never going to get anywhere if we just sit around saying "I think this" and "I think that", really, are we? So, whether it's a popular way or not, my way of studying the case is to select the grounds I feel the strongest for believing in, and will do nothing but try and build on that, and find more evidence to support it."
I do see what you mean, my friend, and I sometimes feel that it's frustrating as well. But the reason for taking a careful approach is that the Ripper case is very old, with no physical evidence and with a lot of police files lost. That makes it a bit difficult to state things beyond "probabilities", theories and personal opinions. I learnt early on the hard way, that if you go beyond that in most of the issues, you'll soon be decapitated.
"I know people who can remember details that happened 70 years ago as crystal clear as if it were yesterday, and they are right as well."
Yes, so do I, but that is not the point.
In a police investigation it is essential with as accurate information as possible, and therefore witness descriptions are more or less useless. You can ask any police officer about that.
The problem is not only time-related, but mainly that we interpret things differently, based on our personal experiences and symbolic reading. I can myself hand over to you a number of cases where different witnesses has seen the same individual, and described him totally way off, some say he has a beard, some say he has moustasch, dark hair, blonde, hat and peaked cap etc. etc. This is a common problem in police investigations. Like many others you are overestimating the accuracies in people's general perception.
And then we have to take the darkness and badly lit circumstances into account.
"As I also attempted to explain, Liz could have resisted his initial attack, ran out onto the street, been grabbed by him again to prevent her from running away and crying for help, Schwartz passes by, the Ripper strangles Liz, drags her back into the yard against the wall, where he cuts her throat, then he hears/sees Diemschutz coming before he can do any more."
No no no, there is no way the Ripper would act like that. As I said -- for the millionth time -- the circumstances of the crimes of the Ripper shows, that he was very careful about not being spotted while the crime was committed and afterwards. The person Schwartz saw could not have been able to perform the Eddowes murder so silent and invisible (and during that short time frame) if he displayed the personality traits shown by Mr Broad Shoulders. This man was in my view with great possibility NOT the Ripper, and we don't even know if he was Stride's murderer (although I think that's quite likely). Of course, nothing is impossible, but reviewing the crime scenes and testimonies and then studying this man's behaviour hardly supports it.
"There was evidence that Mary Kelly resisted the attack, and so I think Liz probably did too."
Exactly. And I believe that -- amongst other things -- might open up to the possibility that neither of them were Ripper victims.
"Actually, I don't recall Klosowski being regarded as the Ripper in any Hollywood movie. And the Royal Conspiracy Theory has been prooved to have no strong basis, that is not the case for Klosowski."
You're missing the point again. It was you who spoke about a suspects "popularity". The Royal Conspiracy is proven to be a hoax and a whopping fib -- yes -- but it is nevertheless still one of the most popular ones (beats me why) as far as the larger audience is concerned. If we should follow your reasoning and base it's accuracy on it's popularity (as you do with Chapman), then we should still consider it valid. This is just crazy. That is not how you perform a police investigation. I don't care one bit how popular a suspect is -- it is totally beyond the point. A murder mystery is solved by FACTS, not by personal likes or don't-likes of the general public. That is just ridiculous. The readers of the Casebook could put Donald Duck up there among the top ten, I don't care.
"But it is a little peculiar that Klosowski, a Ripper suspect, should have big knives hidden underneath pillows."
No, why? I don't see it.
He had one knife hidden under a pillow and he threatened one of his wives with it. So what? Kosminski, another Ripper suspect and a lunatic, threatened his sister with a knife. What makes Klosowski so special, besides the fact that he was a serial poisoner in his own right. He never used a knife in those crimes we know he committed. You are mixing pears with apples.
"Well, a nicked ear is still enough to suggest that it was linked to the letter."
Well, I think you are rather alone in that interpretation. You believe this because you want the ear to be linked to the letter, right? But if you consider the facts regarding how the letters were posted, what does it tell you? You said yourself that you hadn't gotten into that part yet... well, I suggest you do, before you argue against perhaps every possible authority on the subject (and I am not talking about the general public here, I am talking about experts from Scotland Yard -- not least modern ones -- and well read reserachers who totally dismisses the Dear Boss letter and the post card).
Furthermore, I must say it goes beyond me how you can link the Dear Boss letter and the post card with the Lusk letter! This is unbelievable. Except for a personal wish that one wants the communication to be genuine, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that connects the latter with the two others. The hand-writing is totally different, the language even more. I can't see the reason for why they should be connect the slightest.
"A moment ago in your post, you disregarded the JtR letters as being in a 'very small and microscopic community', and now you are disregarding Klosowski even though he obviously does have a strong majority of votes, by saying "You can't base an investigation on what the majority thinks."
No, I am not. I am basing this on modern criminology, case histories, some ounce of psycholoical profiling and on experiences of those who works in the field. In short, experts! You were referring to the ordinary general public, regarding the importance of a number on a popularity poll on a website. I'd say there is a difference.
"The fact that the Inspector in charge of the case, Frederick Abberline, suspected Klosowski should be a strong enough thought train to keep him well up in the suspects list. And Abberline wasn't alone with that thought, either."
Ouch! Misconceptions.
First of all, yes, Abberline was alone in that opinion within the force and his theory also gained very little support from parts of the press.
Secondly, Klosowski was NEVER a contemporary suspect during the height of the investigation -- Abberline made this statement as late as 1903, in connection with Chapman's execution and the press coverings of his murder spree.
There are strong indications on that Abberline was mislead by things he had read in the press about Klosowski. Abberline's opinion was based on fallacies and a bad knowledge of criminal psychology (this was only a few years after the revelations of psychology). His theories regarding Klosowski was met with quite a lot of critizism, which I believe was highly justified. He had his flaws, like any other human being -- he was certainly not a wiz kid in every aspect.
"Only 3 victims? Well, there's not a great deal left to research then, is there? We may as well not research him if there was only 3, it's hardly got any point to it."
That is a strange statement. Why should he be less interesting just because he "only" may have murdered three? Besides, three is enough to make him a serial killer.
I didn't say he only killed three people for sure, I said among the canonical victims we know of, we can only -- based on facts and evidence (and of course, admittedly, on personal interpretations of the facts)-- be certain of three. That doesen't rule out that he could have killed some of the others just the same.
An interesting discussion, Adam, I really enjoy this.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 389
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
Hi Adam,
I have some comments again. It’s a long post, so sit down and hold on tight.
As to the crime scenes and surroundings, I think you missed my point. My point is not whether or not anybody could have stepped into any of the other crime scene at any second, because there was always the chance of that. My point was and still is that there weren’t many people around these crime scenes just prior to each murder. Which, for instance, is also true of Tabram’s crime scene, but isn’t true of Stride’s case.
There were many people around: PC Smith, Fanny Mortimer, William West and two companions, Joseph Lave, Morris Eagle, Israel Schwartz, James Brown, Leon Goldstein, the broad shouldered man and the man with the pipe. Furthermore, the crime scene was right next to a club were people weren’t asleep. In fact, they were very much awake, which must have been obvious to the Ripper (IF it was him). Plus, like I said before, it’s not clear if Berner Street and Dutfield’s Yard were frequented by prostitutes. And, it’s not clear either if Stride was there as a prostitute. She doesn’t seem to have been.
I don’t really think the Ripper carefully selected his crime scenes ahead, but I do think that he knew the area well enough to know where he could find what he was looking for (prostitute-wise) and what locations would meet his requirements, if I may put it like that. He seems to have been careful enough not to want to be seen and I think he acted calmly right until he launched his sudden attack.
“As I also attempted to explain, Liz could have resisted his initial attack, ran out onto the street, been grabbed by him again to prevent her from running away and crying for help, Schwartz passes by, the Ripper strangles Liz, drags her back into the yard against the wall, where he cuts her throat, then he hears/sees Diemschutz coming before he can do any more.”
There can be but little doubt that Schwartz was close to Dutfield’s Yard when he witnessed the assault. Although they differed on a number of details, Swanson’s report of 19 October and the Star report of 1 October agreed on this. So, if Stride would have run out on the street like you suggest, he would surely have seen it, his attention would surely have been attracted by the clapping sounds of her boots on the pavement in the rather narrow street. Schwartz made no mention of any such thing and there would have been no reason to leave this important detail out. Furthermore, like I said somewhere before recently, there is no evidence whatsoever that Stride was dragged back into the yard. So, there seems to be no basis for the scenario you suggest here.
“As I've said just before, serial killers do change their M.O.'s, and so there is no reason to believe that it wasn't the Ripper just because there was some differences. And besides that fact, if he was in a hurry because he heard Diemschutz, then that explains why she was grabbed and jolted down onto the ground quickly. He was in a hurry.”
“Once again, as I've stated before, the fact that the cut to her throat wasn't as serious as some of the other victims could indicate that the Ripper attacked her, saw or heard Diemschutz coming, knew that if Stride got away she could give a good description of what he looked like and how he attacked, and so he cut her throat which would ensure her death, not minding how he cut it. Make sense?”
“No, it doesn't make sense when you look at it that way (changed MO from Stride to Eddowes). But I re-thought about that in my last post, and it might be worth considering that he heard/saw Diemshutz coming, and so cut her throat quickly and didn't worry about his precision too much, for fear of her becoming a potential witness.”
“First of all, if Michael Kidney had killed Liz, he was putting himself in a monumentally dangerous situation.”
First of all, to me the changed MO from Stride to Eddowes less than an hour later seems very unlikely, as he had used the same MO with Nichols and Chapman.
Then, Jack the Ripper was a mutilating killer, who was forced to work fast and efficiently and did so. The mutilating was THE most important thing for him in the sense of satisfying his dark needs. For this, he needed to slash their throats (kill) quickly & efficiently and needed his victims to lie on their backs. He also needed to work at a very high speed in order to get as much satisfaction out of the mutilations as he could, because at any time someone could step into the scene.
Elizabeth Stride was lying on her side, which made the cutting of her throat less easy than it would have been if she actually lay on her back. Also, while she was lying on her side he could not easily mutilate her. In short, that she was lying on her side wasn’t much efficient, knowing that it robbed the Ripper of precious ‘mutilating time’. In other words, I would hardly call the fact that she was on her side ‘some’ difference – it was rather a major difference than a minor one.
Like I said before, the dissimilarities clearly indicate that the Ripper (IF it was him) didn’t attack in his usual way, which makes it all the more likely he killed her after he had noticed the approaching Diemschutz. Or otherwise, he would have done business as usual. The Ripper didn’t do anything (too) suspicious until he actually launched his attack, or otherwise his victims would have raised an alarm or there would have been clear physical evidence of a struggle.
First, I have question, if Kidney was putting himself in a monumentally dangerous situation, like you said, why wasn’t the Ripper, considering that he knew Diemschutz was approaching and very close by? He would have been hanged just the same as Kidney. So, why the difference?
Secondly, if the Ripper didn’t kill Stride until after he had heard the cart & pony, then what would she have been a witness to, what could she testify to, considering the Ripper in the other cases most probably hadn’t done anything suspicious until he actually launched his attack? There would have been no reason for him to kill Stride for fear of her becoming a potential witness. Besides, he could have waited to see what the cart would do. It could have just passed.
“Why then would he wait for more than 2 months to kill her after that? The Ripper scare hadn't started in July 1888. Why not kill her, if he was going to, when there was no danger of him being caught and labelled as Jack the Ripper?”
There can be any number of reasons. If Kidney and Stride had such a relationship, I don’t think one in which the man abuses the woman is a simple one, but rather a very complex one. Abusive men are usually very jealous and want to control their girlfriends/wives. I can only say that this time, she had not only walked out of him, she also seems to have had (for that night at least) a romantic date, which, if true and if known to a seemingly controlling ex-boyfriend, may have caused him to find her in Berner Street and finally kill her minutes later in Dutfield’s Yard in a fit of rage.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 390
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Tjiena Glenn,
“I agree with practically everything in your last post -- you took the words right out of my mouth.
A splendid analysis.”
Thanks, mate!
“I know people who can remember details that happened 70 years ago as crystal clear as if it were yesterday, and they are right as well."
Yes, so do I, but that is not the point.”
I didn’t know you were that old!! 
Vi ses!
Frank |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2393
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Ah men tjena, Frank!
"I didn’t know you were that old!!"
Hihihi... there's a lot of things you don't know about me, Frank.
Swedes are a tough people. Must be the meat balls...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 43
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
Hi Glenn & Frank,
Glenn, you wrote:
"This is really getting interesting. Reading your posts is like reading my own a couple of years back.
But I admire your stamina and your enthusiasm."
Well, thank you. As I stated in another topic, if I feel something is right, then I will fight for it strongly and protest it vehemently when it is attacked. So, that's why my stamina is so high, because it's like I'm debating for what I feel is right, if you know what I mean.
"That makes it a bit difficult to state things beyond "probabilities", theories and personal opinions. I learnt early on the hard way, that if you go beyond that in most of the issues, you'll soon be decapitated."
Yes, I know. I've already learnt that the hard way myself. But if it means my posts get attacked, when I firmly believe in something, then I will stand up for that no matter what. If I am uncertain in my own mind about something, then I will not. It's not my intention to state things with 'certainty' overall, but I believe things with 'certainty' in my own mind, which is why I write like that. That probably makes no sense, but I hope you can understand some of that.
"Yes, so do I, but that is not the point.
In a police investigation it is essential with as accurate information as possible, and therefore witness descriptions are more or less useless. You can ask any police officer about that."
"Like many others you are overestimating the accuracies in people's general perception.
And then we have to take the darkness and badly lit circumstances into account."
As unreliable as they can be, it is the witnesses that gave us our only known descriptions of Jack.
If not for them, he could be anywhere between 4 feet and 7 feet tall, 20 and 80 years old, a slum or a rich/famous person, a raggy-clothed person or a well-dressed person...anything! You name it, he could have been it! It is thanks to the general descriptions of the witnesses that we have been able to narrow down that field quite well.
We know from their testimonies that he was around 5'5-5'8 tall, most likely 30-40 years old, possibly a foreigner, and not shabbily dressed or well-dressed, kind of in between. A general description, yes, but much more easy to work from than what I listed above.
"The person Schwartz saw could not have been able to perform the Eddowes murder so silent and invisible (and during that short time frame) if he displayed the personality traits shown by Mr Broad Shoulders. This man was in my view with great possibility NOT the Ripper, and we don't even know if he was Stride's murderer (although I think that's quite likely)."
I agree that he was most likely Stride's killer, but no, we can't be certain. The time frame of when she was last sighted and when she was found can pretty much restrict any chance of Broad Shoulders leaving and the Ripper coming along, although if that was the case, it would explain the rather superficial damage inflicted on Liz.
But there is nothing there to say that the Ripper would not act in that manner. If Liz attempted to run, just when he started to get prepared for another killing, I think he would go after her. If he didn't, then she would tell someone what happened, perhaps even the police. And if the police found out, as I said before, she may well have been able to give a very detailed account of the Ripper. And then if the same described man was seen killing Eddowes by Lawende, then the police would certainly come very close to catching him. He had to eliminate the risk.
"Exactly. And I believe that -- amongst other things -- might open up to the possibility that neither of them were Ripper victims."
Not at all, no way. You must remember this:
Polly Nichols was drunk, therefore was incapable of defending herself against any sudden attacks. Or for that matter, any attacks at all.
Both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were sick women when they were killed, in later stages of diseases, therefore not very strong, not as strong as they normally would be. That may explain why there was no evidence of resistance from either of them.
So, therefore, our Liz and Mary were most likely the strongest 2 victims out of the 5 that were killed. Mary Kelly, in particular, was young, and perhaps therefore more alert.
So, it then makes sense why only those 2 had evidence of a struggle. Being the strongest and most alert at the times of their deaths, it's no wonder they would have put up a fight. That not only explains why Liz was attacked on the street, but also why Mary was mutilated even more severely, because she put up a fight against the Ripper, and he completely lost it.
Let me just add to that point by reminding you that Chapman and Eddowes didn't scream, and Nichols probably didn't. Liz did scream, though softly, and several people testified to hearing a cry of "Oh Murder!" coming from Mary's room around the time she was killed.
A little more than a coincidence that these 2 victims, the strongest ones, had the most in common regarding their attacks, isn't it?
"If we should follow your reasoning and base it's accuracy on it's popularity (as you do with Chapman), then we should still consider it valid. This is just crazy."
"I don't care one bit how popular a suspect is -- it is totally beyond the point. A murder mystery is solved by FACTS, not by personal likes or don't-likes of the general public."
It doesn't really effect my opinions regarding Chapman because of his popularity, either. You missed my point. I am saying that in 1 instance, you say that I am in a 'microscopic community' if I believe in the letters, and then next minute you disregard Chapman as a candidate, because he obviously has a lot of public support. That seems backwards to me, and doesn't make sense.
Just because Chapman is #2 or #3 on the suspect list doesn't make him the Ripper, I know that. But it is still a point worth raising.
I believe in Chapman only because he has a huge number of facts about him that coincide with how we might expect someone like the Ripper to have. Location, knowledge, appearance, age, other history of crime, etc. I read with great interest yesterday, some of the posts which Peter Sipka made regarding Chapman as a suspect on Chapman's suspect page, and there is no need for me to elaborate on those any more here. This is a discussion about Liz and Michael, not George. If you want to question me any more about him, or anything else to do with him, then please post them on there, and I'll get back to you there. Let's keep this discussion on track.
"Well, I think you are rather alone in that interpretation. You believe this because you want the ear to be linked to the letter, right? But if you consider the facts regarding how the letters were posted, what does it tell you?"
Partly, yes, I admit, I want it to be proven that at least some communication was received from the Ripper, so atleast we know he was literate for a start, and was also sick enough to send disgusting letters to the police. That could rule out a hell of a lot of suspects. It just seems a strange coincidence to me that his letter mentioned clipping of ears, and Cathy's ear was nicked.
"The hand-writing is totally different, the language even more. I can't see the reason for why they should be connect the slightest."
Well, I've raised the question before. Why wouldn't he do it? Why shouldn't he do it? He had everyone scared as anything as it was, so why not add to the hype of the moment by sending the police and news agency's threatening, and sometimes plain disgusting letters? Try writing with your normal writing hand, then writing with the opposite. Unless you are ambi-dexterous, the result will be different, sometimes hugely. Perhaps he was playing a game of cat and mouse, trying to play tricks on the police with the letters? You said yourself, it's not uncommon for killers to want to be involved in their own crimes, by communicating with the police or whatever. Don't you think letters from him might point to this?
The letters are something I am unsure on myself. As you already said, partly because I want to think that some may be linked to him. But this is not one of my 'certainty' topics, but I do believe atleast a couple of the letters were from him. Perhaps with more tests we will find out just who wrote what some day.
"That is a strange statement. Why should he be less interesting just because he "only" may have murdered three? Besides, three is enough to make him a serial killer.
I didn't say he only killed three people for sure, I said among the canonical victims we know of, we can only -- based on facts and evidence (and of course, admittedly, on personal interpretations of the facts)-- be certain of three. That doesen't rule out that he could have killed some of the others just the same."
3 victims makes it much less interesting. Think about it, if you discount 2 of them..that's 40% of Ripper study, theories and debates on those 2 for over a century, thrown out the window. Would you like it if you spent decades researching those 2, only to realise you had been treading on the wrong path for all those decades?
As I've said before, there is no solid evidence at all against Kidney. Infact, it seems the only thing that keeps him in as a solid suspect is that he was the closest to Stride at the time, and they had a recent falling out. Well, the same can be applied to Joseph Barnett, Mary's partner.
In BOTH of their cases they were questioned and investigated by police. In Barnett's case, for 4 hours. In BOTH cases, they were cleared of any suspicion. More than just a coincidence, that much should be obvious.
Regards,
Adam.
P.S. Frank, I'll respond to your post later on.
(Message edited by Adamw on December 19, 2004)
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 7:04 am: | |
Hi again, Adam.
"But if it means my posts get attacked..."
No one is attacking your posts, just disagreeing. Don't exaggerate.
"As I stated in another topic, if I feel something is right, then I will fight for it strongly and protest it vehemently when it is attacked. So, that's why my stamina is so high, because it's like I'm debating for what I feel is right, if you know what I mean.
[...]
But if it means my posts get attacked, when I firmly believe in something, then I will stand up for that no matter what. If I am uncertain in my own mind about something, then I will not. It's not my intention to state things with 'certainty' overall, but I believe things with 'certainty' in my own mind, which is why I write like that"
I think you should be careful about this approach nevertheless, since it can be misinterpreted as your stating "facts".
Believe me, I've been there, and I've paid for it (and I sometimes still do...)
"We know from their testimonies that he was around 5'5-5'8 tall, most likely 30-40 years old, possibly a foreigner, and not shabbily dressed or well-dressed, kind of in between. A general description, yes, but much more easy to work from than what I listed above."
I don't know about that. That general description fits the common man in east End, so in my view it doesen't really tell us that much. A description needs to contain more specific and individualistic traits in order to be useful. It is completely dangerous to build a case on witness descriptions, if they are not of a specific and extraordinary nature and also confirmed by several people.
If a witness description wil be useful, it must lead to identification. Those we have in the Ripper case don't suffice.
"But there is nothing there to say that the Ripper would not act in that manner. If Liz attempted to run, just when he started to get prepared for another killing, I think he would go after her."
No, I don't think he would at all.
It was important for him to make as little noise and attract as little attention as possible during the crimes.
The fast killing and the nature of his "blitz-style" attacks indicate that he wanted no resistance at all and he wanted to surprise them and silence them as soon as possible. This is also supported by studies of similar serial killers who work this way. If his victim would put up too strong a fight, and he would find that people have been watching him during the attack, he would most likely drop it and run away.
This is where criminal psychology comes in.
Judging from the crime scene scenarios, Mr Broad Shoulders is as far from the Ripper as one can possibly get.
"you say that I am in a 'microscopic community' if I believe in the letters, and then next minute you disregard Chapman as a candidate, because he obviously has a lot of public support. That seems backwards to me, and doesn't make sense."
It is fair to say that you're in a minority if you believe in the letters' genuine status, since they have been dismissed (with some reservations for the Lusk letter) by several Scotland Yard experts and researchers. That's why. That is a huge difference from leaning against a result on a popularity poll on a website, regarding a suspect.
The letters have been declared hoaxes by a number of EXPERTS -- that's why it is valid to refer to you as a part of a minority, because it's a more serious basis for a conclusion that the personal opinions of the general public! I already explained that in my last posts; why don't you read what I write, for God's sake? And once again, if we should apply your reasoning here, we should also believe in the Royal Conspiracy theory since it is the most popular one among people in the US, because of Hollywood and people's love for conspiracies. Because "so many people can't be wrong", eh...?
"3 victims makes it much less interesting."
A completely unbelievable statement. I simply don't understand you here.
"Would you like it if you spent decades researching those 2, only to realise you had been treading on the wrong path for all those decades?"
Well, it wouldn't be the first time in Ripperology.
Besides, if one can't look at the facts objectively or are afraid of changing ones views because of "lost work", one should't really be involved in police investigations. What if the police used the same argument and refused to change direction (and instead decided to continue to stick to a false theory), just because of "wasted work"? It is an incredibly strange reasoning.
Regarding the discussions of the canonical status of the Ripper victims, I am afraid I have to direct you to the threads concerning this, not because I don't think it fits here, but because I've done those discussions a million times over already. It is getting tedious and repetitious and it would keep me here for a life-time if I would go over it again. Check out the thread "Was Mary kelly a Victim of Jack the Ripper?", for example. Also check out the Tabram and Millwood threads.
"Perhaps he was playing a game of cat and mouse, trying to play tricks on the police with the letters? You said yourself, it's not uncommon for killers to want to be involved in their own crimes, by communicating with the police or whatever. Don't you think letters from him might point to this?"
No, I don't. The nature of his crimes points in my view (and this was also the opinion of the FBI, when they studied the Ripper, for what it's worth) to someone who don't want to draw any attention to himself and who is uninterested in communicating with the press and the public.
It is a common fallacy to believe that all serial killers indulge in such activities. And most disorganized,psychotic (not psychopathic) killers certainly have no such urge.
"I read with great interest yesterday, some of the posts which Peter Sipka made regarding Chapman as a suspect on Chapman's suspect page, and there is no need for me to elaborate on those any more here."
Ah yes, my very good friend Peter.
I'll tell him via our daily e-mails that you support his views, when he gets back from his holiday. He'll be pleased to hear it.
"If you want to question me any more about him, or anything else to do with him, then please post them on there, and I'll get back to you there. Let's keep this discussion on track."
You started it, by mentioning him here...
"As I've said before, there is no solid evidence at all against Kidney. Infact, it seems the only thing that keeps him in as a solid suspect is that he was the closest to Stride at the time, and they had a recent falling out. Well, the same can be applied to Joseph Barnett, Mary's partner."
Yep. And those are really strong foundations of suspicions in any murder case, where the victim has had a husband or boyfriend. The Ripper context is incriminating but it can also be misleading. Each crime has to be investigated in its own right, and not just under sole influence from a serial killer context.
"In BOTH of their cases they were questioned and investigated by police. In Barnett's case, for 4 hours. In BOTH cases, they were cleared of any suspicion. More than just a coincidence, that much should be obvious."
Absolutely not. Nothing is obvious here; we have a lot of lost files to consider and those who exists only tell us half the story, so we have no idea whatsoever for the reasons why certain suspects were dismissed. And if they really were throughout.
Just because Kidney, Hutchinson and Barnett seems to have convinced the police of their non-involvements in the crimes, doesen't mean that the police were right. Several killers have slipped through the hands of the police in a large number of other cases, so this means nothing. It wouldn't be the first time and certainly not the last.
The police were on the look-out for Jack the Ripper and were on a good deal of pressure, so they could just as well have been missing other domestic scenarios and their objectivity. As far as the Ripper is concerned, there are also indications on, that they were set on certain types of characters.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 392
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 8:52 am: | |
Hi there Adam,
“Polly Nichols was drunk, therefore was incapable of defending herself against any sudden attacks. Or for that matter, any attacks at all.
Both Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were sick women when they were killed, in later stages of diseases, therefore not very strong, not as strong as they normally would be. That may explain why there was no evidence of resistance from either of them.
So, therefore, our Liz and Mary were most likely the strongest 2 victims out of the 5 that were killed. Mary Kelly, in particular, was young, and perhaps therefore more alert.
So, it then makes sense why only those 2 had evidence of a struggle.”
There might be something in what you say here, although you should take into account that it’s not an established fact that Catherine Eddowes suffered from Bright’s disease, certainly not that she was in the later stages. Annie Chapman did indeed seem to have been rather weak at the time of her death, but we have no indications that this was also true of Eddowes. What also should be considered in this regard is that Mary Jane Kelly was seen drunk by Mary Ann Cox only a couple of hours before she was probably murdered.
If you haven’t already read it, you can find an interesting dissertation about the Lusk kidney here: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html.
All the best,
Frank |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 48
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:56 am: | |
Hi Glenn & Frank,
Glenn, you wrote:
"No one is attacking your posts, just disagreeing. Don't exaggerate."
Exaggerate? I suggest you take a look back through some of the things you've said in response to my statements before. Perhaps our versions of disagreeing and attacking are different.
"I think you should be careful about this approach nevertheless, since it can be misinterpreted as your stating "facts".
Believe me, I've been there, and I've paid for it (and I sometimes still do...)"
Well, if it is a known fact, then I will say so. But otherwise, it's just a theory, opinion, thought, etc, nothing more.
"I don't know about that. That general description fits the common man in east End, so in my view it doesen't really tell us that much. A description needs to contain more specific and individualistic traits in order to be useful. It is completely dangerous to build a case on witness descriptions, if they are not of a specific and extraordinary nature and also confirmed by several people."
Well, he could have been anyone without those general witness descriptions, so they certainly have narrowed down that field quite a bit. Whilst I agree that they need to be confirmed to have any substance in an investigation case, without what JTR witnesses said about him, for all we know, he could be a 70 year old Chinese military officer that was 4 feet tall, really skinny and wore a Chef's cap. So you see, based on the descriptions of the witnesses, we have been able to narrow down the field quite a large amount.
"The fast killing and the nature of his "blitz-style" attacks indicate that he wanted no resistance at all and he wanted to surprise them and silence them as soon as possible. This is also supported by studies of similar serial killers who work this way. If his victim would put up too strong a fight, and he would find that people have been watching him during the attack, he would most likely drop it and run away.
This is where criminal psychology comes in.
Judging from the crime scene scenarios, Mr Broad Shoulders is as far from the Ripper as one can possibly get."
Wanted no resistance from them, certainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't going to get some resistance. And 'similar' serial killers aren't Jack. I'd imagine 'similar' could be quite a large field, if you're looking for throat-slashing serial killers. But Jack is unique. If he was the same as any serial killers, then he would have nowhere near the same fame as he does today. Not relevant, I know, but would be be able to control his blood lust so much as to not attack Liz anyway? Was he capable of that? And so, based on that, I think Broad Shoulders needs to remain high up in the suspect list. No, I don't fully believe the story about him, but I think the points FOR him outweigh the points AGAINST him, whether they are theories, similarities, etc.
"The letters have been declared hoaxes by a number of EXPERTS -- that's why it is valid to refer to you as a part of a minority, because it's a more serious basis for a conclusion that the personal opinions of the general public! I already explained that in my last posts; why don't you read what I write, for God's sake? And once again, if we should apply your reasoning here, we should also believe in the Royal Conspiracy theory since it is the most popular one among people in the US, because of Hollywood and people's love for conspiracies. Because "so many people can't be wrong", eh...?"
Why must you always say that I don't read what you say and don't take any notice? I already explained before that I do read it all, but it may seem like I don't when I respond to defend what I said. But believe me, I do. However, just because 'experts' have dismissed the letters, does not necessarily mean that they are right, does it? They probably are, and many letters definitely are hoaxes, but I wouldn't totally dismiss the Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky and From Hell. They are the 3 most convincing ones.
"What if the police used the same argument and refused to change direction (and instead decided to continue to stick to a false theory), just because of "wasted work"? It is an incredibly strange reasoning."
It's quite a gigantic jump between a historical interest and a police investigation. How the police tried to solve the case hasn't got anything to do with this, it's my personal way of working from a 'historic interest' aspect. Besides, it seems all roads on the Ripper path lead to dead ends anyway. Why not choose one and try to build from that? To connect the dead end to another road?
"It is a common fallacy to believe that all serial killers indulge in such activities. And most disorganized,psychotic (not psychopathic) killers certainly have no such urge."
More proof that each one varies, so the Ripper investigations can't be completely based on the actions of other serial killers. But, in any case, you are the crime historian, not me. I wouldn't know the first thing about a criminals psyche, so I better not argue that point.
"Ah yes, my very good friend Peter.
I'll tell him via our daily e-mails that you support his views, when he gets back from his holiday. He'll be pleased to hear it."
Excellent idea, please do! I'm sure the 2 of us are well and truly not alone in that belief either!
"You started it, by mentioning him here..."
Not quite. I asked you why you considered Abberline's 1903 statement to be 'unbelievable', and went on to say Klosowski was my suspect, and that's about it. You started the discussion on him after that. But, the blame game is not one that should be played here, let's keep any more discussions about Chapman to his suspect page.
"Absolutely not. Nothing is obvious here; we have a lot of lost files to consider and those who exists only tell us half the story, so we have no idea whatsoever for the reasons why certain suspects were dismissed. And if they really were throughout."
Well if there was anything important in the lost files, then it would seem pretty unlikely that there wouldn't be some mention of it in another of the files. Or atleast a note somewhere. I doubt very much there was much of importance in them, but I guess we'll never know.
"The police were on the look-out for Jack the Ripper and were on a good deal of pressure, so they could just as well have been missing other domestic scenarios and their objectivity. As far as the Ripper is concerned, there are also indications on, that they were set on certain types of characters."
Yes, they were desperate to catch the killer, and certainly may have missed quite a bit of interesting evidence on the way. But, through all the investigation, even for 5 years after the murders finished, nothing changed. Abberline stated himself, in the same interview in 1903, "Scotland Yard really is no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."
I'd like to close this post by just mentioning that much of this conjecture over Michael Kidney reminds me of a line I heard in the 1988 JTR mini-series with Michael Caine.
When referring to Prince Albert Victor, Commissioner Warren (Hugh Fraser) said:
"If he sneezes, he must have pneumonia,
If he comes within a mile of Whitechapel, he's obviously Jack the Ripper."
Movie or not, it says quite clearly that many people were falsely suspected. And Michael Kidney, in my opinion, should be amongst that list, since the only reason he is suspected is his relationship with Liz, and the fact that they split up shortly before her murder. That hardly points to him being her murderer, not at all.
Frank, you wrote:
"My point was and still is that there weren’t many people around these crime scenes just prior to each murder. Which, for instance, is also true of Tabram’s crime scene, but isn’t true of Stride’s case."
"Furthermore, the crime scene was right next to a club were people weren’t asleep. In fact, they were very much awake, which must have been obvious to the Ripper (IF it was him)."
Well, the Ripper wouldn't always know how many people saw him, would he? For all he knew, a policeman could have come along on his beat while he was killing Polly Nichols. For all he knew, a passer-by on the way to Spitalfields Market might walk through the hallway and see him mutilating Annie in the backyard, being half-daylight too. Same policeman on the beat theory can be applied to Catherine Eddowes. So really, he wasn't very protected anywhere, and Liz was actually reasonably well hidden, most witnesses or not. And only 1, Israel Schwartz, provided the most interesting testimony. One or another of the vicitms had to have the most witnesses. Just because Liz did, what does it prove? And as for the club, most people came in through the front door, not the side door.
"So, if Stride would have run out on the street like you suggest, he would surely have seen it, his attention would surely have been attracted by the clapping sounds of her boots on the pavement in the rather narrow street. Schwartz made no mention of any such thing and there would have been no reason to leave this important detail out. Furthermore, like I said somewhere before recently, there is no evidence whatsoever that Stride was dragged back into the yard. So, there seems to be no basis for the scenario you suggest here."
No, and there is no basis for suspecting Michael Kidney, either. It's all conjecture.
And Liz wouldn't have been running, since she was basically right outside the yard entrance. She may have been walking past, for example, and the Ripper grabbed her from just inside the gateway. Instinctively, she tries to run to the opposite direction, towards the street. She forces him to come out on the street, where Schwartz witnesses the assault. This is only my theory, so please, don't take it as any kind of evidence.
So Schwartz didn't necessarily have to see it. Perhaps he didn't pay any attention to it to start off with. He didn't speak English either, so perhaps a mistake was made with his statement. Or, he simply forgot. There is any number of possible explanations.
"Elizabeth Stride was lying on her side, which made the cutting of her throat less easy than it would have been if she actually lay on her back. Also, while she was lying on her side he could not easily mutilate her. In short, that she was lying on her side wasn’t much efficient, knowing that it robbed the Ripper of precious ‘mutilating time’. In other words, I would hardly call the fact that she was on her side ‘some’ difference – it was rather a major difference than a minor one."
Well, there is a couple of options that could be considered in regards to that. First, we've already established that he was in a hurry. If he saw or heard Diemschutz coming, then perhaps he just pushed her over and then fled.
Second, and perhaps a possibility that hasn't been considered before....when Diemschutz first saw the body, it was too dark to tell whether she was just drunk, dead, asleep, or what. So he prodded her to say if she responded. Now what if this 'prod' was strong enough to roll Liz, just slightly? What if this 'prod' was harder than it sounds? That would explain why she was found the way she was. Any thoughts?
"First, I have question, if Kidney was putting himself in a monumentally dangerous situation, like you said, why wasn’t the Ripper, considering that he knew Diemschutz was approaching and very close by? He would have been hanged just the same as Kidney. So, why the difference?"
Because the Ripper was just that, THE Ripper. But Kidney in that case would be a one-off killer, and if that was the case and the police found out, then he would be highly likely to get charged with all of the Ripper murders. And if he heard Diemschutz coming, he could make a get away. So long as he had cut the throat of Liz, he knew she would die. Then he took his full rage out on Cathy Eddowes. Sound like a plausible theory?
"Secondly, if the Ripper didn’t kill Stride until after he had heard the cart & pony, then what would she have been a witness to, what could she testify to, considering the Ripper in the other cases most probably hadn’t done anything suspicious until he actually launched his attack? There would have been no reason for him to kill Stride for fear of her becoming a potential witness."
Well if she resisted, like I believe she did, then she may have got a good look at the Ripper. She would have been able to tell of his attack method, etc. She may have even been able to identify him in something like a line-up. She could testify to a lot of things. And have Schwartz as a back-up witness.
"I can only say that this time, she had not only walked out of him, she also seems to have had (for that night at least) a romantic date, which, if true and if known to a seemingly controlling ex-boyfriend, may have caused him to find her in Berner Street and finally kill her minutes later in Dutfield’s Yard in a fit of rage."
Well if he did kill her, then he wouldn't have been able to be jealous of her and control her any more, would he? Besides, it's not just as simply as 'finding her', how would he know where she had gone? If she had left him, I think her whole objective, romantic date or not, would have been to avoid running into him again.
"There might be something in what you say here, although you should take into account that it’s not an established fact that Catherine Eddowes suffered from Bright’s disease, certainly not that she was in the later stages."
Bright's Disease or not, she was still suffering from a long time of alcoholism, probably effecting her reflexes and her responses. Liz may not have even been a prostitute, and Mary was only young. As I said before, it seems that they were the strongest of the 5, and therefore more capable of resisting.
"What also should be considered in this regard is that Mary Jane Kelly was seen drunk by Mary Ann Cox only a couple of hours before she was probably murdered."
She was also seen alive and well a couple of hours after she was murdered by Mrs. Caroline Maxwell. A case of mistaken identity there, more than likely, I think. And a couple of hours before her death was still enough time to sober up a bit. Enough to be more alert anyway.
Sorry for the long post!
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2405
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:14 am: | |
Hi Adam,
"Well, if it is a known fact, then I will say so. But otherwise, it's just a theory, opinion, thought, etc, nothing more"
I'm sorry, Adam, but that approach doesen't work on these Boards. Take me word for it.
"Well, he could have been anyone without those general witness descriptions, so they certainly have narrowed down that field quite a bit."
It doesen't matter one bit how much you narrow it down, if the witness descritpions aren't sufficient enough in order to pick a person out of the crown and identify him. Besides, since we don't know exactly which roles these men played in the Ripper context, it may be misleading to focus too much on them anyway. Just because you think that the men that were spotted, were Jack the Ripper, doesen't necessarily mean that they really were.
"Wanted no resistance from them, certainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't going to get some resistance."
And as I said, if he got resistance, he would most likely have run away, and not been standing there in full view in front of two witnesses, shouting things to one of them across the street. There is no way the Ripper would act this way.
"Not relevant, I know, but would be be able to control his blood lust so much as to not attack Liz anyway? Was he capable of that?"
Yes, I think it is plausible that he would be capable of that. His elusive actions show that he displayed a great deal of self-preservation and that it was important not for him to be seen or confronted by other people.
Ad if we believe the interruption theory regarding Liz Stride (as you seem to do to some extent), which in that case would make him later kill Eddowes, he had self-preservaton enough not to mutilate when he got disturbed. You see, it was not the killing itself, that was important to him, but the mutilations.
"And 'similar' serial killers aren't Jack. I'd imagine 'similar' could be quite a large field, if you're looking for throat-slashing serial killers. But Jack is unique. If he was the same as any serial killers, then he would have nowhere near the same fame as he does today.
[...]
... the Ripper investigations can't be completely based on the actions of other serial
killers."
Forgive me for saying so, but here you are clearly talking about things you know nothing about.
Firstly, no, a historical case like the Ripper murders should not be based on serial killer comparisons ALONE, but it is relevant to take this aspect seriously, since that is our only source of knowledge regarding these types of killers.
Secondly, Jack the Ripper is NOT unique! This is a complete misconception and a fallacy!
From a historical and modern point of view -- investigating crimes and crime history -- there are a number of cases that since his murder spree in 1888 are very similar (almost identical) to that of the Ripper and some of them even worse! His actions were extraordinary for 1888, but today, with modern glasses, they are nothing. I could give you a long list of such serial killers from the late 19th century and onwards, to prove this (although that would be a full-time job). Jack the Ripper was extreme for his time, but he is NOT unique in a greater perspective. Try to read up a bit on this subject before you state opinions with such self-confidence.
I can among other things urge you to read Geberth's Practical Homicide Investigation or to visit the website www.crimelibrary.com.
"But, in any case, you are the crime historian, not me. I wouldn't know the first thing about a criminals psyche, so I better not argue that point."
Yes, I think that would be best...
"Well if there was anything important in the lost files, then it would seem pretty unlikely that there wouldn't be some mention of it in another of the files. Or atleast a note somewhere. I doubt very much there was much of importance in them, but I guess we'll never know."
But please, Adam, what are you talking about?
In police files, certain issues are filed in certain areas, so the material concerning the suspects are generally placed in special files -- therefore this information is not displayed in other files. Each category and each suspect has their own files in these types of archives. The material we are stuck with today tell us very little about that. Those belonging to the Ripper case are lost and much relevant material was destroyed during the blitz.
"Abberline stated himself, in the same interview in 1903, "Scotland Yard really is no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."
And still, he claimed -- in the same interview -- that Klosowski was the Ripper. So on one hand, he didn't know who the Ripper was more that he did in 1888, and on the other hand he says Klosowski is the Ripper. It is a contradictory statement to say the least.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:08 am: | |
Glenn,
i see you are being quite modest there! Be kind to the newbie!!!
Adam,
i agree with Glenn about the police and wonder why they stated they new who jtr was!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2406
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
Ah, Jenni! But you see, when someone who clearly not has read up on the facts and is stating things with such certainty and stubborness and believes he's right, I think he or she has got it coming a bit (no personal offense, Adam). He's got himself to blame. I am always nice to mewbies, but our dear friend Adam hardly belong to the modest ones, although he himself is aware of that he still has got a lot to learn. To be stubborn in that situation is suicide, and it irritates me -- considering his approach and stubborness, I see no reason whatsoever to display modesty here.
And I know where he's coming from, since I once started out the same way here like he has.
However, in relation to many other people who have researched this case, I must consider myself a newbie in many aspects and i probably always will be. In comparison with several others here I am still a hopeless infant.
But in contrast to Adam I have been willing to learn and listen along the way.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2407
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Jennifer,
Yes, in spite of the statements made by McNaughten, Anderson, Swanson and Abberline, I think it is rather doubtful that they really knew who he was.
Their total contradictions against one another and each other's theories could be a sign of this. I can't help thinking, that if they really knew the Ripper's identity, they would be more at terms with each other on these points.
I see their statements as personal theories rather than true knowledge on the matter.
Adam,
Sorry if I'm coming off to strong, but you have been warned...
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 20, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
At least he is open with his stuborness!!
But seriously, i think they didn't want to admit they didn't know (the police0 as they all disagree which each other, how can we know which if any were correct?
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
Thank you Glenn.
Where have I been? For the last three years immersed in a tolkien website discussing Lord of the Rings, books and films.
But my interest in JtR (as a mystery) goes back over 40 years, my serious reading (I almost said "studies" but there are people on here who REALLY DO study the case, so I'll not claim that) about 30 years.
I think I did find casebook in an earlier incarnation a few years ago, but had not then discovered the magic and the possibilities - not to mention the friendships and fun - to be gained from active participation in a forum such as this. Now I have, and hopefully, I'm here to stay.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Sorry Adam, but both your long posts to me add up to nothing more than sophistry - arguing back to the position you want to prove.
Take one example - Stride's throat cutting is similar to Eddowes because Stride was not mutilated. Yet my point was, we don't know and cannot prove that point. Throat-slitting is a pretty effective way of killing anyione with a knife. it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE followed by abdominal mutilation.
It is for YOU to prove your point, not for me or others to disprove it.
I think I glimpse the reasons why you take the approach you do - your "certainty" but that could be perceived as very close to having a closed mind and not being open to argument. In which case why seek to discuss anything - it is a waste of time for us to respond to your posts because our arguments have no impact on you. That is a one way street.
I would also question whether your "certainty" approach does much more than be good for YOU. I find no problem in carrying several theories in my head and playing with ideas and cross matches as required. I would characterise it as like (and more difficult than) working on a jigsaw puzzle. "Here's a blue piece, could be sky, could be sea, or a part of the woman's dress..." one holds all the possibilities in thought until other information allows you to slot the piece you have securely into place. In the meantime you try it here and there...
I always enjoy reading your posts though, Adam,
Amicably,
Phil |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Despite that mr. Ryder may not like to read this, I'll say it again:
If Ladybird Johnson married Admiral Byrd, she'd be Ladybird Byrd.
Think about it, in context of this discussion.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
The linkage of Eddowes and Chapman as "sick" women, Adam, and the conclusions you base on that, constitute spurious logic and carelessness with the facts.
As Frank has said, there is no evidence at all that Eddowes was unwell. She had just returned from hop-picking after all. She was drunk - as all the women probably were (Stride perhaps excepted) - I agree, but not sick in any way that relates to your arguments.
Adam, INSISTING that something is true, no matter how vehemently, does not make it so, or convince others. It is convincing others that matters, for there is little other value in studying the case in a vacuum bar some private satisfaction - which is why people write books and articles or post on here. But that requires MARSHALLING ones arguments and using persuasive and consistent logic.
So far your posts lack this - they simply argue backwards to your original contention, rejecting or accepting in a willy-nilly way.
Sorry to appear so negative, but I am sorry to see you waste your time on a weak theory.
Phil |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:18 am: | |
Hi All,
For Adam.
You Wrote:-
As I also attempted to explain, Liz could have resisted his initial attack, ran out onto the street, been grabbed by him again to prevent her from running away and crying for help, Schwartz passes by, the Ripper strangles Liz, drags her back into the yard against the wall, where he cuts her throat, then he hears/sees Diemschutz coming before he can do any more.
Adam, I suggest you read Schwartz's statement to the police again. When you have, you will see that your scenario is all wrong.
SCHWARTZ POLICE STATEMENT:
12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, on turning into Berner Street from Commercial Street and having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the oppos- ite side of the road, 'Lipski', and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran so far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.
The Major points in Schwartz's Statement are:
1) He observed the man walk down Berner Street. He was walking behind him.
2) He observed this same man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.
3) Schwartz stated the man tried to pull the woman into the street, but being unable to do this instead he threw her down onto the pavement.
Quite a bit different from your scenario.
You can also check out the STAR newspaper report of October 1st.
It seems that he, (Schwartz) had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street. Before he had gone many yards, however, he heard the sound of a quarrel, and turned back to learn what was the matter, but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife in this second man's hand, but he waited to see no more. He fled incontinently, to his new lodgings.
Basically the same as Schwartz's police statement but with a bit a journalistic embellishment.
No doubt the journalist wanted to give the public the impression that Schwartz had definitely seen the commencement of the murder, (ie, stating that the man had pushed the woman back into the darkened passageway, instead of out onto the pavement), when really all he saw was this man attack the woman. An attack that had all the hallmarks of a domestic dispute and not a sadistic murder.
Note also, in the newspaper report Schwartz is reported as saying the man he saw attack the woman was partially intoxicated. I doubt that JTR would be murdering and mutilating his victims while under the influence of too much beer, especially if he was performing the kind of mutilations observed on four of his victims.
Cheers,
Michael
|
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:27 am: | |
Hi Again,
Glenn, you wrote:
My applause to you. All very good points indeed and I couldn't agree more.
Please register immediately!
I believe I will.
Cheers,
Michael
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
