|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Pat Hall
Police Constable
Username: Patti
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 1:02 pm: | 
|
I may have missed this somewhere, but is there any indication that the same type knife was used on both Stride and Eddows? I got the impression that a "special" type of knife was used in the killings which perhaps would not have been readily available to the average street person. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3113
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Chris George,
I would expect there too be some occasional missing cases hiding in the statistics -- like Alex Chisholm suggests, for example. I seriously doubt that all murders were registred, and I certainly know that was the case here at home at the same time period, so to base any deduction on the official death or crime statistics of -- let's say -- 1887 could be a misleading effort.
And even IF there were no cases of murder in the years previous of 1888, it doesen't really matter. Some years murders just explode out of nowhere and for no obvious reason.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 16, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3114
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Cludgy,
"On these grounds,In my opinion, the attacker as witnessed by Schwartz was not her killer. She never had the cachous in her hand during the Attack as witnessed by Schwartz. The cachous tells us this.
I am of the opinion that the cachous comes after this attack, but more of this later."
But you're not getting it. That is what I have been saying as well, but the point is that it could still be the same man! He could have returned directly after the assault, as both Frank and I described -- not 15 minutes later but directly after, and in the meantime Stride may have picked up the packet of cachous (which could explain why she was taken by such such surprise when he was killed)!
So therefore the cachous tell us very little about the important stuff. The problem still remains! The cachous, you see, do NOT rule out Mr Broad Shoulders; you seem to believe that they rule him out simply because you are convinced of that the actual assault was the murder itself (or the introduction to it) -- I have never suggested anything of the sort.
What I said was that Mr Broad Shoulders may have left Stride after the Schwartz incident and then suddenly just decides to head back. So it could still be the same man, and not JtR.
Surely you can see this possibility?
"So what is it to be Mr Andersson?
Quote…
“Leaves very little time for another man”
Or
Quote…
“Diemschutz arrived and this was quite some time later.”
It was 15 minutes later Mr Andersson, more than enough time for another man to approach Liz and kill her."
No no no, Cludgy.
When I said "leaves very little time for another man", I didn't mean right after the Schwartz incident -- I meant closer to when Diemschutz entered the scene.
You are forgetting the testimony of Mrs Mortimer -- or do you simply chose to ignore or discredit it????
She saw or heard no one on Berner Street at least ten or fifteen minutes BEFORE Diemschutz arrived. Surely she would have noticed Stride and the imaginary second man when she stood in her doorway.
I find it VERY unthinkable and very much a stretch that Stride was accosted by TWO DIFFERENT violent men in the time frame of maybe only a couple of minutes.
It is much more credible to think that the first man -- whom we already know was violent -- returned shortly after the first assault (and that Stride after that picked up the packet), and it is my strong belief (although it can't be proven), that Mrs Mortimer just missed the murder/second attack by only a few seconds or a minute or two depending on the correctness in the time estimates.
"I am of the opinion that Liz was murdered just on one o clock , and that the killer was disturbed by Diemshutz, I also believe that the killer was JTR "
I am no medical expert, but unless we totally want to shred Mrs Mortimer's credibility as a witness to pieces, Id say this is impossible. There is no way (even if she briefly went inside for 30 seconds) that Stride was killed shortly before Diemschutz arrive. Except for the feet of a patroling PC she heard or saw NO ONE on Berner Street during the time she stood in the doorway -- she ddn't see Stride, and she didn't see a man entering or leaving Berner Street.
This is what I meant by the tendency to "acrobatic intellectual exercises" in order to get around that fact, for those who wants to see her as a JtR victim.
In my view, Mr Broad Shoulders was certainly her killer, and he was not the Ripper.
"Liz was nine feet into a dark yard at the time of her murder, she was a prostitute, actively soliciting that night, what other reason can you suggest other than the fact that she was about to service a client when she met her death that night?
Her throat was cut, JTR Cut the Throats of prostitutes, 45 minutes later another prostitute is found dead with her throat cut.
And you call Stride’s a domestic murder?"
Firstly, it is not exactly a throat cut of exactly the same dignity and character. Secondly, yes, domestic in the word of who did it and why! As I said, a domestic murder doesen't have to be committed indoors in the home, you know. Have you read the article above submitted by AP and Robert?
Still, I am not as convinced as Phil Hill about it being Kidney, although I can very much see the possibility or even put it as my main option. Bt there are of course other possibilities.
That is why I, in one post above, wrote: "As I see it, everything points at a domestic-, client- or gang-related crime" -- meaning, Mr Broad Shoulders could be Kindey, a client, a member of a gang operating in Berner Street etc. Take your pick.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 16, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3115
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
Just one note:
"Haven't you ever heard the theory that Jack the Ripper never even existed, and that different women were killed by different people? Oh yes, there has been doubt on others at times too."
yes, I know about those theories and I can subscribe to some of it myself, but in those theories it has actually never been suggested that Nichols, Chapman and Eddows were NOT done by the same hand. Those theories never says ALL of the killings were done by separate individuals.
Regarding the others, it is an etirely matter, though. I would say those three murders are so similar in approach, that there is little doubt that it was the same killer.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
I am sick of hearing about Whitechapel being a place of violent crime in 1888.
It was no more violent than most other areas of London.If there were murders committed pretty regularly on prostitutes as well as domestic murders OK perhaps this is so but there is plenty of evidence too that it was a place where most of its inhabitents were decent people doing their best to cope with poverty and difficult working conditions or unemployment.
The vigilante committees,the rash of working men"s clubs throughout Whitechapel,the birth of trade unionism and the labour party pioneered for the most part because of the absolutely resolute and vigilant
activities of the women and young girls who successfully won a victory against their deplorable working conditions in 1888.For me these women were like beacons of light against the twin backdrops of the Cities unbelievable wealth and the sweated labour of the inhabitents of most of those who were lucky enough to have jobs in Whitechapel.
Finally the good neighbourliness and kindness shown by most of the Eastend communities to each other is legendary.
True there were many who couldnt cope with the struggle and went to the wall-amongst them Annie and Polly and people like Aaron Kosminski by all accounts-but I bet most were good enough neighbours to have and not just a bunch of hooligans who went arou nd mugging and murdering.Much like the London of today I would guess in terms of crime.
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 491
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Hi Cludgy,
Just some questions and remarks before I'm off to bed.
Liz was nine feet into a dark yard at the time of her murder, she was a prostitute, actively soliciting that night, what other reason can you suggest other than the fact that she was about to service a client when she met her death that night?
Stride may have been a prostitute, but where is the evidence that she was actively soliciting that night? Sure, she was seen in the company of a man by several people on different occasions shortly before she was killed, but it's far from obvious that she was on her way to find a spot where she could do business with her companion.
For instance, William Marshall saw a couple standing talking quietly on the pavement nearby. The man was kissing her and after about 10 minutes they walked away unhurriedly. The man had his arm around her neck when they passed Marshall by. Neither of them appeared to be the worse for drink. This doesn't seem the behaviour of a prostitute preparing for business.
And I think you can hardly say that Stride was soliciting when Mr. Broad Shoulders came along. He was the one who seems to have approached her instead of the other way around and he seems to have become aggressive almost immediately. So, it's not clear at all in this case either whether or not she was soliciting.
Consequently, we can't draw the conclusion that she was killed by a potential client or someone posing as one.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 311
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:29 pm: |
|
Hello all,
Regarding Jeff's idea that the cachous could have slipped from her sleeve into her hand - the idea is interesting, but doesn't add up considering the cachous was only loosely wrapped in a sheet of paper; so loosely wrapped that when Dr. Johnston went to remove it, they scattered. Had the cachous slipped out of her sleeve, they would have scattered at that time.
As for Schwartz's Man #1, I think most of us can agree he was not Jack the Ripper. Was he her killer? Not likely. When Edward Spooner checked Liz at approximately 1:03 the blood was still freely running from her throat. This would not have been possible had she been cut at 12:45-50. More likely, her throat was cut around 1a.m., lending creedence to the idea that her killer was, in fact, interrupted by Diemschutz.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 586
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
I don't have my books here for reference, but I seem to recall posts that have suggested some cachous (at least) were spilled about on the ground. So, if they were wrapped in paper and stuck up her sleeve, it all depends upon when the paper "pops out." For example, if it doesn't finally dislodge until after she's on the ground and her killer moves that arm out of the way (let's go with assuming at this point she's strangled to unconsciousness), then the paper with the remaining cachous falls out onto her hand.
In other words, I think it's quite possible (given how little we know about the exact sequence of events) to come up with a plausible scenerio with the cachous being "up the sleeve."
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that just because we can envision a "plausible scenerio" that this somehow "proves" the scenerio did happen. It only "proves" the scenerio does not conflict with the evidence. But, with so little evidence to conflict with, it's probably not that surprsing.
Anyway, somewhere on the boards I posted quite a long discussion on "blood clotting" times, and compared this with the time line extracted from statements concerning Liz's murder. And, the short version is that there is nothing that precludes the possibility that Liz was killed just about the time Diemshutz showed up; that fits with the idea of "he was interrupted before he had a chance to mutilate her". However, the statements also are consistent with the idea that she could have been killed earlier, meaning the killer left without being "interrupted", indicating that he didn't intend to mutilate her.
Stride's murder, to me, is always a balancing act. I can never fully rule her out of the series, but likewise, I can never fully rule her in.
- Jeff |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 174
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Hi all, just read this whole thread through and noted a few things along the way.
Let me say first up I probably lean towards Stride being a victim of JtR, but that is all, my mind is by no means made up.
Firstly I must bring up the thorn in my side in the Liz Stride murder, "the knife"
Glenn you stated in your post of Feb 2nd at 9:25am: "Throat cut and time of night -- means nothing; the throat cut was not the same and possibly not done with the same knife as Eddowes (although that is uncertain)".
We've been here before and I thought we had cleared this up. I will note that you do have the disclaimer "although that is uncertain".
Maria you also stated in your post of Feb 1st at 3:17 pm: "First the throat wound was judged to be made of a shorter ,different kind of knife than the other victims.".
Let me state this again as it frustrates me that such incorrect statements are made repeatedly. It is a commonly believed misconception in the JtR case that Stride was murdered by a different knife to the other victims. If you read the inquest testimony you will discover that neither of the doctor's who were questioned ever stated such a thing. What happened was that a knife was presented to them at the inquest, this knife had been found on the doorstep of a nearby building. (I don't recall the exact location but can check if anyone wants me to.) They were asked if this knife could have been the murder weapon of Liz Stride. They agreed that it could have been but found it unlikely. They found it unlikely because it had a rounded end as opposed to a pointed one. To paraphrase they believed that a round ended knife, whilst certainly able to slash a person's throat, would probably not be as practical for murder as a pointy ended knife. So in the murder of Stride, with only one slash type wound to her throat there was no way to tell which style of knife had been the murder weapon.
The Doctors never stated a different knife was used in the murder of Liz Stride.
Hope this helps you as well Pat, to my knowledge there was nothing particularly unique about the knife that JtR used.
AP on Feb 15th at 1:45 you were referring to the news story posted above and stated: "Chris
With the best will in the world I have to say that Robert previously posted an article from The Times where the killer did exactly what you say:
'lay her on the ground and dispatch her with one long single cut across the throat.'
And this was a self-admitted domestic killing brought about by jealousy and rage. "
I see the point you are trying to make and I actually readily accept that but your choice of illustration I do not. If you read the article clearly there are a few points which are not correct. Firstly no-one saw the killer lay her on the ground before the murder. Secondly the throat was cut three times not once. Thirdly the girl lived on in hospital for some nine days before dying.
If you were trying to illustrate how simple it is to kill someone instatntly with one cut to the throat this might not be the best example. In fact it probably strengthens the arguement that Liz was killed by someone who had killed in this manner before.
Glenn, in your post of Feb 9th at 10:05 you stated: "it is fair to assume that Mr Broad Shoukders killed her as soon as he was alone with her, which would have been some seconds later, and then split directly after. After this, no one was seen on Berner Street or in the yard according to several witnesses."
I am not saying you are wrong here, i'm just curious who other than Mrs Mortimer these 'several' witnesses were? If there really were that many witnesses in 15 minutes shouldn't they have seen eachother?
Glenn in another post on Feb 16th at 5:01 you wrote: "You are forgetting the testimony of Mrs Mortimer -- or do you simply chose to ignore or discredit it????
She saw or heard no one on Berner Street at least ten or fifteen minutes BEFORE Diemschutz arrived. Surely she would have noticed Stride and the imaginary second man when she stood in her doorway."
You seem to imply that she should have noticed Liz and a client but are perfectly comfortable that she did not see the body of Stride which of course was inside the yard. So if Mrs Mortimer couldn't see the body inside the yard why would she see an attack inside the yard?
Also according to the A-Z it is unclear exactly how much time Mrs Mortimer spent outside. Some reports say 10 minutes, others the full 30 minutes. If it was the full half hour then her testimony must be questioned as she should have seen Schwartz, Broad Shoulders and Clay Pipe, and also the attack on Liz. (Or Schwartz' must be doubted.) Conversely, if it was not the full half hour then the fact that she saw nothing in Berner Street means very little anyway as she may have been inside when the murder occured.
Whenever I read my posts back I feel very harsh. I don't mean to be so please don't take me the wrong way. (Especially you Glenn, one day we will agree I'm sure.)
Scotty.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Hi Scotty
For your information, the knife that was produced at the inquest on Liz Stride was the bloody knife found by Thomas Coram on the steps of Mrs. Christmas's laundry at 252 Whitechapel Road a whole day later (see The Times, 4 October 1888).
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 176
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Chris,
Thanks for that, I think I knew that once 
Scotty.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3118
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Hi Scotty,
"You seem to imply that she should have noticed Liz and a client but are perfectly comfortable that she did not see the body of Stride which of course was inside the yard. So if Mrs Mortimer couldn't see the body inside the yard why would she see an attack inside the yard?"
I am not sure what you mean by this. What have the yard has to do with anything?
As I understand it, Mrs Mortimer stood in the door that faces Berner Street, not Dutfield's Yard!
She couldn't have seen inside the yard anyway or anything going on there! How on earth could she have seen Stride's body inside the yard}?
"Also according to the A-Z it is unclear exactly how much time Mrs Mortimer spent outside. Some reports say 10 minutes, others the full 30 minutes. If it was the full half hour then her testimony must be questioned as she should have seen Schwartz, Broad Shoulders and Clay Pipe, and also the attack on Liz. (Or Schwartz' must be doubted.)"
That is true, and that I agree on. But I would say, if she stood in the doorway for more than fifteen minutes, I think she would have been seen by Schwartz and she would also have mentioned the commision on Berner Street. Therefore we can safely say, that IF her testimony is correct and reliable, then she probably stood there for about ten or fifteen minutes -- tops -- and therefore just missed out on the whole Schwartz incident and probably also Stride's murder.
"Conversely, if it was not the full half hour then the fact that she saw nothing in Berner Street means very little anyway as she may have been inside when the murder occured."
Now, that is to play things too simple, just in order to make the facts fit ones expectations. It is not impossible, but such an approach very much discredits any other witness statement that isn't corroborated by others.
According to Mrs Mortimer herself she did nothing of the sort.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Scott,
I actually found your post to be reasonable, well written and respectfully done. One of the better posts I have seen on this thread as it actually put forth evidence instead of just vaguely implied ideas. Incidentally, I feel, as I have always felt, that Stride is a JTR victim. Also, I do not rule out Broad Shoulders as the killer (and thus as JTR). As far as I can tell, the only argument for ruling out broad Shoulders as JTR is Glenn's idea that he does not fit with Glenn's concept of what JTR was like... in other words, what Glenn refers to as "the elusive Jack the Ripper". This was covered pretty well in extendedping's post about people making JTR into some sort of superhero or phantom like killer, who was incapable of making mistakes. The Stride murder was clearly sloppy... or if not sloppy and bumbling, surely the killer was probably lucky to have not been caught. This is no testament to his cunning, it is mostly luck. And if you read about other serial killers, you will find that they make mistakes, deviate from their usual behavior, etc. There is no reason to think that Mr. Broad Shoulder's behavior is in any way inconsistent with Jack the Ripper's personality, behavior, MO or anything else. Those who dismiss Broad Shoulders as JTR do so mainly because he does not fit their romantic image of the stealthy superhuman "elusive Jack the Ripper".
That being said, I do not necessarily believe Mr. BS was JTR... just that he MAY HAVE BEEN. In other words, I do not rule him out. I think it is possible, although probably not likely, that Liz was murdered by someone else (still JTR).
In respect to other things brought up, I tend to agree with Scott's assesment to Mortimer's evidence... she may have been inside as the Ripper ran off, and probably would not have seen or heard anything of the murder itself. Also, although I am going from memory here, was not the cut to Stride's throat very similar to the others, although not quite as deep a cut... i.e a rather efficient severing of the cartoid artery, left to right.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3120
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Rob,
Of course a person don't act the same everytime. But if you believe that jack the Ripper would perform a murder in full view and shout to other people across the street, OK, fine by me. I don't.
I don't have any romantic view of the Ripper whatsoever and I don't see him as cunning; he certainly took a lot of unnecessary risks in the other murders. But from the other murders we can at least deduct that he was careful about not being seen or spotted in connection with the other murders. He was elusive, because he was never seen in action and never caught -- that is not romaticism; that is facts.
But the behaviour in Berner Street is certainly not quite in the same league, and hardly a credible conduct of a perpetrator like the Ripper, who was quite careful about committing his crimes in secluded situations.
Secondly,
Of course Mrs Mortimer could have been inside during the murder. But that means that she may have been inside for quite a lot of time, not just some thirty seconds. I find that too much of a stretch, unless we want to twist her testimony beyond recognition.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
From Dave Yost's dissertation Elizabeth Stride: Her Killer and Time of Death
"The Evening News reported Mortimer's actions as being 'shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured heavy stamp of a policeman [ostensibly PC Smith] passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street door'. After seeing Leon Goldstien pass by, Mortimer returned inside. Shortly afterwards, she heard Diemschutz drive by, then heard the commotion at the club.
At approximately 12:45, Mr. Broad Shoulders "was witnessed (by Schwartz) accosting Elizabeth; once finished, he would have no reason to stay where he was; and, that could very well be around the time when Mortimer's couple moved into the area, forcing him to travel North, away from Dutfield's and from them to avoid suspicion. I would also think that he would not want to attract attention to himself by running, so he moved briskly with a measured heavy tread. Therefore, he would have passed Mortimer's house at c.12:47."
Yost then suggests that the footfalls heard by Mortimer were in fact Mr. Broad Shoulders, walking briskly away from the scene after killing Stride:
"Since Mortimer came out immediately after hearing the footfalls, then she came outside by 12:48. This time is corroborated by Mortimer's own statement that she was outside for about ten minutes, returning indoors before Diemschutz drove by."
"From 12:45, there would be enough time for Schwartz and the second man to leave, for the first man to "take" Elizabeth further into the yard, for him to cut her throat, and then leave himself in time for Mortimer to hear his footfalls and come out into the street by c.12:48. And, it corresponds with the medicos estimated time of death. This readily suggests that Elizabeth died by c.12:47 with Schwartz's first man as her killer. "
Rob House
(Message edited by robhouse on February 17, 2005) |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
I unknowningly left out a sentence in the above post, it should have read.
I will leave you with the words of constable Henry Lamb, who examined the body shortly after 1:00 a.m. he said at the inquest…
“There were no signs of a struggle. Some of the blood was in a liquid state, and had run towards the kitchen door of the club. A little - that nearest to her on the ground - was slightly congealed. “
How long does blood take to congeal?
What state would the blood have been in after 20 minutes(Schwartz’s attacker)?
Because some of the blood was still in a liquid state, the blood nearest to her was only slightly congealed.
This would suggest she had only just been killed.
I am of the opinion that Liz was murdered just on one o clock , and that the killer was disturbed by Diemshutz, I also believe that the killer was JTR
Regards Cludgy
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Hi Frank
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but.
Liz Stride was seen with three different men that night, if that's not soliciting then surely nothing is.
Regards Cludgy |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 492
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi again Cludgy,
She was seen with a man on 3 different occasions, which isn't the same. The behaviour displayed by Stride's companion on at least two of those occasions suggest that it might well have been a romantic date she was on (from before Marshall's sighting up to at least Smith's), or in other words, that it was one and the same man she was seen with. The coroner even said that "There was every demonstration of affection by the man during the 10 minutes they stood" in Marshall's view.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 312
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Yes, the cachous were scattered about, and by by Dr. Johnston, as I said in my previous post. He admitted to this at the inquest. It was also most likely Johnston who was responsible for the blood smears on Stride's hands, as he first unbuttoned her collar, felt for a neck pulse, then felt for a pulse on her wrist, probably transferring the blood in the process.
Robert,
You're way off in thinking that the only reason Man #1 is discounted is because he doesn't fit a romantic ideal image. Some of us are capable of a little more reasoning than that. Obviously you're not reading all the posts you're discounting.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 587
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
Ok on the spilling, but I was under the impression (but this could just reflect I'm basing things on memory; again at work, no books to check and short on time at the moment - sorry), that there were some already spilled prior to the doctor attempting to remove them from her hand.
Regardless, it all depends upon the details of the wrapping. He may have simply grabbed the paper in a manner that would unfold it when he tried to remove it, etc. I fully admit, this is all speculative, but without knowing what the evidience is it's hard for me to be sure of things. And, since I don't think it's impossible, given the right circumstances, for something like the "up the sleeve" thing to have occured, I think it should not be dismissed too hastily.
I don't mean to imply that this should be the "preferred" explanation, only that it's probably worth listing as "one of the possible" explanations.
And, I like your explanation for the blood transfer. Nice, simple, and very reasonable. But, weren't his hands checked and found free of bloodstains? I seem to recall that the police checked everyone's hands for blood, and I would think if any were found, it would have been mentioned, then explained as you have. But again, memory is a dangerous thing to rely upon for such details (at least mine sure is!)
- Jeff |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Tom,
Believe it or not I am reading all the posts, but I have yet to see any strong reason to completely dismiss Broad Shoulders as some people seem prepared to do. On the one hand, you are suggesting that Mr. BS did not do it because of the timing, Spooner's observing blood flowing from the wound. I admit I am no expert, and perhaps blood could still have been flowing if she had been dead for 10 minutes. These times are not precise anyways... when exactly did Schwartz witness this altercation? Probably around 12:45 or a few minutes after. Then Liz was murdered immediately afterwards. This corresponds to Dr Blackwell's estimate of death between 12:46 and 12:56. In any case, if Liz was approached by another man, and killed by someone else, isn't it likely that Mortimer would have seen or heard something? The method of the knife slash also in my opinion indicates some skill, although perhaps the killer was in a hurry... because he had just been seen accosting the woman and wanted to get out of there. A cut, left to right, severing the cartoid artery, done while the killer was probably kneeling to her right, and she was on the ground. As Sugden says, both doctors at the post mortem seemed to think the killer knew what he was doing. "There seems to have been some knowledge where to cut the throat to cause a fatal result" said Phillips.
Glenn and I argued this rather extensively last year (and never agreed). He is now of the opinion that Mr. BS killed Liz but was not the Ripper. You seem to be of the opinion that Mr. BS did not kill her. I still disagree with both opinions. I am tending to think that Mr. BS was JTR, and I realize that is the minority viewpoint on these boards. But I don't see any reason to suggest that I have not read your arguments carefully enough. I have. And I still don't agree with them. If you can give me one good reason for dismissing Mr. BS, please do so. I haven't heard any yet.
Rob H |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
"There seems to have been some knowledge where to cut the throat to cause a fatal result."
If true, this doesn't sound to me like the popular drunken, abusive boyfriend scenario, where he searches out his female, lashes out in a rit of fealous jage and - usually - bitterly regrets his actions immediately afterwards, when he realises what he has done to the woman he loves.
This sounds like a man who needs that woman stone dead for his purposes - not one who merely wanted to teach his best girl a lesson but overdid it.
Hi Glenn,
If you are looking for other reckless throat-cutting murders that could have got the culprit caught red-handed in an instant, you only have to go back to Sept 8 and the backyard of 29 Hanbury, or forward forty minutes to Mitre Square.
Both scenes could have gone from two's company, three's a crowd in a split second, and Jack, up to his elbows in entrails, could have done sweet F A about it. So exactly what precautions do you think Jack took with Annie and Kate, to ensure this wasn't going to happen? In short, how much of his success on these occasions was down to being so much more careful than your Mr BS?
Whatever happened in Dutfield's yard, Stride's killer, just like Jack, managed to do his final work unseen and unheard by another living soul, running off into the early hours, as free as a bird.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 177
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn I am amazed. You don't think the fact that Mortimer could not see into the yard is at all relevent? I guess not, I mean it's only the actual location of the murder after all! My point is that all that Mrs Mortimer can attest to is that no-one entered or left the yard in the ten or so minutes that she was standing in front of her house. It appears likely that that would have been about from about 12:47 - 12:57. It has been raised as a possibility by many that her killer may have been hiding in the darkness of the yard. If this were true then he would not have been seen entering or leaving the yard by Mortimer. Also don't you find it curious that Mortimer heard the steady beat of the policeman and the passing of Louis and his horse and cart from inside her house, yet she did not hear broad shoulders yell Lipski or Schwartz run down the street?
Glenn you stated in response to my assertion that Mortimer may have been inside at a key time: "Now, that is to play things too simple, just in order to make the facts fit ones expectations. It is not impossible, but such an approach very much discredits any other witness statement that isn't corroborated by others.
According to Mrs Mortimer herself she did nothing of the sort."
Let me say I have no expectations. I am reasonably undecided how this murder occured. I am certainly not trying to fit any theory but I will quote the A-Z for you: "She said she had been standing outside her door between 12:30 and 1:00am, 30 September 1888. Her earliest reported statements suggested that she had been outside for about ten minutes; later reports placed her outside for practically the entire half hour, which seems improbable as she did not see other people known to be in the street at the time. (Cf. Police Constable John Smith, Matthew Packer, Israel Schwartz.) She said she went outside shortly after hearing the measured tread of a policeman. While outside, she saw nobody except a man with a black bag who passed down the street, glancing up at the International Working Men's Educational Club as he went(later identified as Leon Goldstein). She returned indoors shortly before hearing Louis Diemschutz's horse and cart pass by, and five minutes later heard the commotion caused by the discovery of the body."
This suggests that she herself was unclear about when she stood outside or for exactly how long. It appears that given the facts we do know about the Schwartz testimony and when the body was discovered that her statement was molded into those events. And let me say it seems to fit that she was outside from between just after quarter to and just before 1 am.
Let me be clear about what I am saying, whilst Mortimer's story fits the other known facts well she herself cannot be more specific than that she stood outside her house for about 10 minutes some time between 12:30am and 1:00am. Also let's remember that her story was recounted in newspaper reports, those reports all had differing accounts. While Mortimer was certainly interviewed by Police we do not have her statement to refer to and she did not appear at the inquest.
I for one am willing to accept that she was not lying in what she saw, but I am not willing to include or discount Stride as a ripper victim on the basis of an account which is at the very least hearsay, and at the best states she saw nothing of interest for a period of ten minutes but not specifically during which ten minutes.
Scotty.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3124
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Scotty,
Reading your post, I am wondering if you are misunderstanding me.
Where on earth have I stated that I "don't think the fact that Mortimer could not see into the yard is at all relevant"? I have never said such a thing! Of course it is relevant -- what I said that it was impossible to see into the yard and to see the body -- unless she had a neck ranging twenty meters in length!
What I reacted to was your amazement over why Mrs Mortimer couldn't see into the yard! She obviously coudn't, since she stood in a doorway facing Berner Street! That is all I am saying, and that doesen't make her less important -- on the contrary. What she could see, however, is what occurred on Berner street and if someone came out of or went into the yard.
She saw no one. That is all we know.
"Also don't you find it curious that Mortimer heard the steady beat of the policeman and the passing of Louis and his horse and cart from inside her house, yet she did not hear broad shoulders yell Lipski or Schwartz run down the street?"
No, not at all, because I don't think she was near the doorway at that time. The house was full of music and dancing and noises from a lot of people upstairs. When she heard Goldstein and the PC, she was probably just inside the door. Not proven of course, but that is the only explanation I can see. The Schwartz incident probably occurred earlier than she as in the doorway anyway. I really don't see the problem; it fits in quite nicely.
"And let me say it seems to fit that she was outside from between just after quarter to and just before 1 am."
Exactly. And this is AFTER the Schwartz incident. therefore she probably just missed it.
I agree on, though, that it is a problem that she does not belong to those witnesses that appeared at the inquest, and since her statement only appeared in the papers, that of course discredits it a bit. I know all that. Still, she is the only witness we have from those particular minutes after the Schwartz incident occurred and there could be several reasons for why some witnesses didn't appear at the inquest -- she was certainly not alone in that regards. But I agree on that these circumstances do make her statement harder to evaluate.
However, regardless of Mrs Mortimer or not:
I have said it before and I'll say it again.
The chances for Stride to be attacked by a second violent man in a time frame of fifteen minutes is pretty microscopical, if not (although not totally impossible, theoretically speaking) unbelievable. Certainly not likely at all. I do NOT believe Stride was killed close to Diemschutz's discovery of the body, and I do NOT think the killer was disturbed.
I see no reason whatsoever to discount Mr Broad Shoulders as her killer, but if he was then she in my view not more a Ripper victim than I am the next heir to the English throne.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3125
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Caz,
"If you are looking for other reckless throat-cutting murders that could have got the culprit caught red-handed in an instant, you only have to go back to Sept 8 and the backyard of 29 Hanbury, or forward forty minutes to Mitre Square.
Both scenes could have gone from two's company, three's a crowd in a split second, and Jack, up to his elbows in entrails, could have done sweet F A about it. So exactly what precautions do you think Jack took with Annie and Kate, to ensure this wasn't going to happen? In short, how much of his success on these occasions was down to being so much more careful than your Mr BS?"
For the last time ... there is a hell of a lot of difference! In no case of the other so called Ripper murders, we have the killer operating in FULL VIEW and SHOUTING AT PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET!
Once again, the Ripper certainly took risks in the Hanbury Street yard and the other sites, but he was never seen in action, and it is quite apparent that he committed his crimes in situations when he THOUGHT there were no other people around.
I can't with all the will in the world see the Ripper displaying himself while attacking a victim, remaining on the scene of the crime and shouting at onlookers. We are not only talking about one onlooker here but two! We can't of course say how the Ripper would have reacted in this situation, but I say he would have taken off quick as hell.
What Schwartz saw was an amateur and probably -- according to himself (at least if we read the Star interview) -- a drunkard; not a serial killer. But that is just my humble opinion.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 18, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 178
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
Ok Glenn,
For once how about instead of sidestepping the issue as you usually do you take the point I am making instead.
The fact that she could not see into the yard is crucial. I don't believe that killing someone by one cut to the throat to be a noisy process. Admit it. Mortimer could have stood outside her house as the murder occured and known nothing about it. This makes her story less useful than you would like readers of your posts to believe.
"Once again, the Ripper certainly took risks in the Hanbury Street yard and the other sites, but he was never seen in action, and it is quite apparent that he committed his crimes in situations when he THOUGHT there were no other people around. "
Well, it's not the last time you'll have to explain this because I for one think you are being fanciful and Caz is right to question you. How you think the ripper would have reacted when faced with discovery of ASSAULT and nothing more is up to you. I am willing to bet if he was caught in the act of murder he probably would have run or tried to silence the witness.
I think Caz is absolutely correct. But for blind luck he could have been seen in Hanbury Street. Mitre Square and Buck's Row were also very public locations at which he could have been disturbed at any moment. Kelly's room was a death trap if someone appeared. I am not saying he didn't plan well, but luck still played a major roll in not being caught.
Sorry, but you have convinced yourself that JtR would not have reacted as Mr Broad Shoulders did. This is your opinion and you are entitled to it, please just respect that you present no EVIDENCE to back up your opinion and as such people will not just blindly agree with you.
Scotty.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3126
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Scotty,
There is no evidence of anything, and certainly not more evidence saying that Mr Broad Shoulders was Jack the Ripper than the opposite. None of us can prove our points either way, right? Or do you know something I don't?
"How you think the ripper would have reacted when faced with discovery of ASSAULT and nothing more is up to you. I am willing to bet if he was caught in the act of murder he probably would have run or tried to silence the witness."
Which is exactly my belief as well, but that hardly fit the conduct of Mr Broad Shoulder's, right? I sure don't think he would draw attention to himself, by shouting to someone across the street and remaining at the scene. But as I said -- that is my humble opinion.
"The fact that she could not see into the yard is crucial. I don't believe that killing someone by one cut to the throat to be a noisy process. Admit it. Mortimer could have stood outside her house as the murder occured and known nothing about it. This makes her story less useful than you would like readers of your posts to believe."
Yes, but she didn't see anyone on Berner Street or walking into the yard, Scotty! They must walk into it first from Berner Street! Or do you mean that both Stride and the killer spent time in the yard for several minutes, after the assault, before Mrs Mortimer came outside? Possible of course, but not very likely, if it was the same man. It could work if it was a second person, but as I said, I find the possibility of her being approached by a second violent man in such a very short amount of time, quite fanciful and illogical.
And for all we know -- maybe Mrs Mortimer was wrong or even made it all up? Who knows? We will never be able to establish this for sure anyway.
Believe me, Scotty, I am not expecting you to blindly agree with me (that'll be the day), and I have never ever claimed I have evidence of anything. But let me just remind you that you are pretty much as mindset on this issue as I am.
All I've been saying is that I don't believe Mr Broad Shoulders to be the Ripper, but that doesen't automatically rule out Stride as a Ripper victim.
I find it very doubtful, though, to say the least and you and I can argue about it til doomsday, but I would be a fool to rule her out 100%. But if she was murdered by the Ripper, it is my firm belief that she was approached by someone else after the assault. How unlikely that may be as well. And personally I don't buy it, even if I can't rule it out completely.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Carolyn
Police Constable
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
I have a couple of questions...
Was the gate opened into the yard when Diemschutz arrived?
If the gate was opened how are we so sure that he interrupted the killer?
Would the open gate mean that the killer was gone from the yard?
Or would the gate have even been closed during the killing?
Help!
Actually 4 questions, sorry.
Thanks,
Carolyn
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3127
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
As far as I recall, Diemschutz said that he gates were open, but apparently this was rather common, since the Workingman's Club and the printing office had their doorways inside the yard. And probably especially common in nights when there were meetings and gatherings in the club.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 170
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"yes, I know about those theories and I can subscribe to some of it myself, but in those theories it has actually never been suggested that Nichols, Chapman and Eddows were NOT done by the same hand. Those theories never says ALL of the killings were done by separate individuals.
Regarding the others, it is an etirely matter, though. I would say those three murders are so similar in approach, that there is little doubt that it was the same killer."
Have you forgotten that there was also a doctor (My memory fails me as to which one it was right now) who believed Chapman and Eddowes had been killed by a seperate hand.
Oh yes Glenn, they have been questioned as victims as well. No matter what way you look at it, all of the victims have been subject to question about their probability as victims somewhere along the way.
"Of course a person don't act the same everytime. But if you believe that jack the Ripper would perform a murder in full view and shout to other people across the street, OK, fine by me. I don't."
I've suggested this before and I'll suggest it again.
First, he didn't 'perform a murder in full view', it was an assault that Schwartz saw. Second, I doubt it was by choice. Elizabeth Stride was witnessed resisting him, as well as screaming slightly, and I think he attacked her in the yard, she resisted and ran onto the street, and to avoid her running away and quite potentially becoming a witness or alerting other people nearby, he attacked her on the street to subdue her. Schwartz passes, he takes her back into the yard. It's not very likely that she would get assaulted, assaulter leaves, the killer comes, gets her into the yard and kills her before Diemschutz came. It's just not very likely, I don't think.
"But the behaviour in Berner Street is certainly not quite in the same league, and hardly a credible conduct of a perpetrator like the Ripper, who was quite careful about committing his crimes in secluded situations."
As I just explained, that was not always possible. In every murder, except for Mary Kelly and perhaps Polly Nichols, he came very close to being caught. He was not as careful as he could have been, if you think about it.
"For the last time ... there is a hell of a lot of difference! In no case of the other so called Ripper murders, we have the killer operating in FULL VIEW and SHOUTING AT PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET!
Once again, the Ripper certainly took risks in the Hanbury Street yard and the other sites, but he was never seen in action, and it is quite apparent that he committed his crimes in situations when he THOUGHT there were no other people around."
Well, unless the Ripper was psychic (there's an interesting theory...haha!) then I don't think he could see in the future to tell whether he would get caught or not. It was just sheer luck that he didn't. He killed Annie Chapman when it was starting to get daylight, and people were on their way to Spitalfields Market. That was, after all, what Elizabeth Long was doing when she saw her with a man. If someone had entered the yard, he would have been seen. Albert Cadosch is an example of this, he was only a fence away from it all. And in the case of Catherine Eddowes, if the PC who passed Mitre Square at 1:32 AM but didn't go in had actually gone in, he may have just caught the Ripper making his escape. Or if the PC covered his beat a little faster and arrived short of 1:44 AM, he may have been caught.
As I said, it was just his good luck and everyone else's bad luck. He came very close to being caught, though. On more than one occasion.
You are fairly set in your beliefs it seems, but if you think that the Ripper was careful, or that Broad Shoulders isn't the Ripper just because he didn't make a perfect match of other known behaviours of the Ripper, then you are clearly missing out on several important facts.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
Glenn,
Thanks for your answer. I was going under the assumpion that the gate was opened as Diemschutz said nothing about opening the gate to get into the yard. But we know what happens when you make assumptions! Just wanted to make sure.
I was thinking along the lines, that if the gate was opened, then the killer was not interupted and that he had already left the yard. But, you are right the gate was probably opened all night. So means nothing...
Thanks also, for being patient with a "newbie", as I am trying to sift through so much information. I know you all have probably been over this all a million times.
Carolyn
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 494
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
“Have you forgotten that there was also a doctor (My memory fails me as to which one it was right now) who believed Chapman and Eddowes had been killed by a seperate hand.”
You’re rather short of memory, my Aussie friend. It was I who recently addressed a message to you in which I gave an example of why modern knowledge and methods should be used in old cases like the Ripper’s and this example involved Dr Philips. He was the doctor you're referring to.
However, I believe Glenn was talking about modern students of the case when he wrote “it has actually never been suggested that Nichols, Chapman and Eddows were NOT done by the same hand”, certainly not about contemporary people. (I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, Glenn.)
”Oh yes Glenn, they have been questioned as victims as well. No matter what way you look at it, all of the victims have been subject to question about their probability as victims somewhere along the way.”
I think since I’ve been studying the case I’ve seen only 1 or 2 rather cautious cases of people suggesting that Nichols might not have been a Ripper victim, but that’s about it. Out of 39 people out here on these boards, only Dan Norder has expressed some doubt as to Nichols as a Ripper victim, the others are convinced she was. 39 out of 39 believe that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same hand. If you have examples of what you state, please post them.
”Elizabeth Stride was witnessed resisting him, as well as screaming slightly, and I think he attacked her in the yard, she resisted and ran onto the street, and to avoid her running away and quite potentially becoming a witness or alerting other people nearby, he attacked her on the street to subdue her. Schwartz passes, he takes her back into the yard.”
How does this fit with Swanson’s report and the Star article? Swanson’s report reads: “…& had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.” The Star article reads: “… and presently 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.”
Both reports clearly state that Stride was standing in the entrance to the yard, she wasn't running or even walking. Furthermore, they both suggest that Schwartz saw Mr. Broad Shoulders walk over to the woman, which would simply be very odd if he was coming from the yard while she was standing at the entrance of it. Schwartz would've been unable to see him if she was standing there and in that case the logical thing for him would have been to just pull her back into the yard.
“Well, unless the Ripper was psychic (there's an interesting theory...haha!) then I don't think he could see in the future to tell whether he would get caught or not.”
Regardless of who he murdered, the Ripper took large risks because, of course, he couldn’t see into the future. There was always the chance that witnesses walked into the scene after he’d started his attack. He didn’t have any direct influence on that. However, what he could do was choose a neighbourhood that he knew to be quiet and unfrequented shortly before and at the time of the murders, that way keeping the chance of being caught in the act as slim as possible.
He seems to have done that in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. In Stride’s case there were about a dozen witnesses, while in Nichols’ there were 0, or 2 if you count Charles Cross and Robert Paul, in Chapman’s there were 2 (Long & Cadosche) and in Eddowes’ there were 3. Those established facts can hardly be called a coincidence. IMHO that’s a significant difference. Besides, at the time of the murder there were still some 20 or 30 people in the Socialists’ Club, well awake, which was nothing like the other 3 cases.
Furthermore, the Ripper seems to have been calm enough to avoid attracting any attention to himself in the cases of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes. Mr. Broad Shoulders first of all was very far from calm when he was seen with Stride and secondly, he didn’t care at all if anybody saw this. To say the least, that’s a very striking difference from what we know about the Ripper’s behaviour in the other 3 cases.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 179
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn you stated: "Believe me, Scotty, I am not expecting you to blindly agree with me (that'll be the day), and I have never ever claimed I have evidence of anything. But let me just remind you that you are pretty much as mindset on this issue as I am."
If you read the opening of my first post on this thread you will see clearly that I am not mindset on anything regarding the murder of Stride. My opinion however is that the police and others at the time had Stride pegged as a victim of JtR. I do not think that belief should be set aside lightly. You clearly state in your post above that "There is no evidence of anything". My point is simply that YOU are duty bound to provide EVIDENCE as to why you believe Stride was not a victim of JtR if you wish to put your point so forcefully. It is not enough to say that in your opinion BS was probably Stride's killer and because of his actions that night you don't think he could have been Jack. Frank has given far more clear thoughts on the subject in his post above and has gone some way towards producing if perhaps not evidence at least compelling arguement. (Although I have some questions coming for you too Frank )
Adam,
Thanks for your support above. You are right, Glenn seems to struggle with the concept that Mr BS was not caught in the act of Murder but rather in the act of Assaulting someone. I tried to point this out in an earlier post but to no avail. We will never know how JtR might have reacted if as Caz stated he was caught "up to his elbows in entrails". And Glenn is just plain wrong in his thoughts on how careful JtR was. You are right. I believe he planned as much as he could but he still required a significant ammount of luck.
Frank,
You state above: "In Stride’s case there were about a dozen witnesses". A dozen witnesses to what? There are certainly many witnesses who can claim to have been in the area at the time but if we want to count all of those then you are being biased aren't you? Surely there would have been many more at each of the other murder scenes as well.
If I've got that wrong can you tell me who you are talking about?
Scotty.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Shouting at me won't make me agree with you. 
Each and every murder was committed in different circumstances, at different locations and at different times, including the three that the vast majority of us accept as Jack's work. So to take your argument to its logical conclusion, you could say that the ripper acted 'out of character' each time after Polly, by waiting until nearly daylight before going into a backyard with Annie, and by killing Kate a lot earlier in the day in Mitre Square.
We don't know what fired Jack up for each kill, or whether alcohol or drugs assisted the process. And we also have no way of knowing - because luckily for him it apparently didn't happen - how he would have reacted if, on the way to 29 Hanbury or Mitre Square, he had been faced with a potentially troublesome witness while going through the motions with a potentially troublesome prospective victim.
You can have no more idea than I have whether drink would have made him loud and stroppy in such circumstances, as well as reckless and more determined to have his way, or whether a sober and circumspect Jack would have slipped off swiftly and silently, resigning himself to trying his luck again another night, when Whitechapel might have been a tad more deserted (ha ha).
Personally, I think the time and location of Annie's murder is very suggestive of a desperate killer, who could barely have waited a moment longer had his life depended on it. And this in turn would fit with Kate's murder and mutilation being the work of an unsated predator.
Love,
Caz
X
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Ok Glenn guess we will never agree here. As to your points you say:
"I think you are misinterpreting me quite a lot. You are so set in your own mind, that I must be someone to state things categorically, that you fail to acknowledge that this point is in fact the only one in the whole case that I would dare to make a bet on (and I never gamble)."
Who is misrepresenting whom here? Where did I say you speak of the entire case categorically? My post very clearly states my thoughts regarding YOUR statements regarding Mr. broad shoulders not statements you have made regarding other areas of the case. If you want me to acknowledge that you only speak in absolutes in this one instance ok here I acknowledge that. I have also publicly stated on this site more then once that that I always read your posts and think you are one of the better writers here even when I disagree with you (which is much of the time regarding Kelly and Stride). But that doesn’t change my belief that anybody who states unequivocally that Mr. BS could not have been Jack is way off base…especially if you only believe the Ripper committed 2 prior murders in the series. If we had a series of many murders in which the killer was never seen I might agree, but no way 2 is enough to make blanket statements like the killer could not have been seen or yelled something.
“fact remains that he DID assault a woman on an open street and shout to people on the other side, apparently totally unaware of the danger in the situation. This is a very strange conduct for the person who performed the other murders, who -- although taking considerable risks -- never performed his crimes in full view of others. You are free to buy this possibility, but I don't.”
Well I do. The history of serial killers is fill of individuals who at times acted with total caution and forethought and at other times acted stupidly and impulsively. I just saw a documentary on the Green River killer. He eventually admitted to killing over 50 prostitutes. He too for years was thought of in phantom like terms. But in the documentary he publicly stated that many times he had acted recklessly, and in fact should have been caught. One time he was actually questioned after one of his victim’s relatives said they saw her enter his truck. He said all the police had to do was conduct a thorough search of his house and they would have found plenty of evidence against him. And please don’t point out that he was caught…it was 20 years, 50 killings and modern DNA that got him. Man I just don’t get it There are soooo many examples of killers deviating from MO’s and so many instances documenting what were thought to be furtive killers, in actuality having been seen that I just don’t see how you can justify any blanket statement like you have made after only 2 killings.
You also say he was apparently unaware of the danger in the situation. And you know this how? Because he made noise? Because he was seen? If anything the fact that he yelled out a witness to the attack shows me that is WAS aware of the situation and the danger he was in. After all he intimidated 1 and possibly 2 witnesses to the point they ran in mortal fear. That to me shows an awareness of his position and a logical response to it, not the opposite. So when you state Mr. BS was unaware of the danger he was in and base this assertion on the very limited facts we have, imop you are reaching collusions you should not be reaching given the scarcity of available evidence. As to broad shoulders acting recklessly? We have no way of knowing if or why he decided to take action on the street as he did. It may be his intention was not to commit any assault on Stride till he had her in compete seclusion but perhaps she suspected something and he feared exposure. I’m not saying that’s the way it went down…but it’s certainly a possibility.
“Stride must have been killed just after Schwartz had left the scene, and therefore it is fair to assume that Mr. Broad Shoulders killed her as soon as he was alone with her, which would have been some seconds later”.
This is speculation. The timeline is not exact and as Scott Sutter says in his post “Also according to the A-Z it is unclear exactly how much time Mrs Mortimer spent outside. Some reports say 10 minutes, others the full 30 minutes. If it was the full half hour then her testimony must be questioned as she should have seen Schwartz, Broad Shoulders and Clay Pipe, and also the attack on Liz. (Or Schwartz' must be doubted.) Conversely, if it was not the full half hour then the fact that she saw nothing in Berner Street means very little anyway as she may have been inside when the murder occurred.”
You say:
“As for your strange belief that throat cuts on prostitutes and on women in general were uncommon” … Um…err…They were uncommon. Sadly they were to become more common but at this stage they were still very uncommon. In my post I acknowledged that murders happened though infrequently in the East End and then asked how many during the lead up to JTR were of prostitutes left dead on the street with their throats cut? Not many.
“I'll tell you what is bad detection work. Bad detection work is to assume that every murder that comes along belong to a series, just because you expect it to be just that -- that is to take the easy way out.”
I believe JTR killed the generally accepted 5 plus Tabram. I don’t assume every subsequent murder of a prostitute in the East End was by Jack. And I have no problem taking the easy way out if that’s where the evidence leads me. The reason the theory of another man slitting a prostitutes throat within walking distance of a second killing to take place within the hour IS the hard way out if because it’s a hard theory to buy. Sure coincidences happen, but that doesn’t mean we start by assuming that a coincidence took place when there is evidence pointing toward a more straightforward and plausable explanation.
Finally you say
“You are doing the ultimate mistake, like many others, to believe that those types of perpetrators are raving lunatics unable to control themselves.”
I believe the Ripper whomever he was did demonstrate he could control himself. I believe at times he demonstrated some self control bolstered by some good luck. No Glenn, you are making the ultimate mistake by thinking a person who is obviously demented but has displayed elements of self control in other situations CANNOT demonstrate a loss of control in a subsequent situation. And I still love your posts, but we really totally disagree here
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
1. Mr. "Lipski" wrote:
"I don't believe the Ripper would perform or finish an attack if he was exposed in full view. This is, as I said, not a credible behaviour from a killer who had eluded the police and disappeared without a trace. Mr. Broad Shoulders was NOT Jack the Ripper."
>>This assumes that JtR was a stealthy type of killer. But if he killed Stride, then he was a stealthy killer only sometimes, and other times not. Fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question.
2. Mr. Nunweek wrote:
“…one point however is clear the person who manhandled Stride , was almost certain not the same person seen with Eddowes in church passage, that could well prove your theory correct, however we cannot be certain that after Lawande and company passed the man left Eddowes, and then the killer moved in. which could have happened in the case of Tabram, Chapman, Kelly.”
>>This is really a striking theory when you think of it, if justified putting Mr. Nunweek on the verge of Ripperlogical stardom. It portrays JtR as being a type of killer that kills only directly after someone else has left his intended victim, so as to shift guilt. What JtR does is hang around Whitechapel where there are prostitutes and witnesses, and then when he sees a John leave a prostitute, he promptly kills her out of sight of the witnesses. The John gets blamed, not he. But why then don’t we have witness reports of a man hanging around the women killed? Further, JtR would have to do a whole lot of hanging around to be able to put himself into just the right sort of situations. Seems like a great deal of work for a small reward.
3. “In the case of stride she was in the company of a man for most of the time she was in Berner street, and was attacked when she was alone. Is it not possible that Broad shoulders approached her because of this pattern.”
>>Broad shoulders approached her in the presence of Schwartz!
4. Mr. “Lipski” wrote:
“…saying that I "steamroll those who hold opposing views in my responses" is hardly fair…”
>>It is fair IMHO. “Lipski” is a steamroller, and we must not submit to him to prevent harm from befalling us. Just look for his response to this post, and you’ll see what I mean.
5. “…none of us will probably never really know the answer of anything in this case, and we never will, no matter how long we argue about an issue.”
>>See what I mean? Steamroller tactics. The answer to the case may be available.
6. Cludgy wrote:
“Of course we'll never really know.”
>>This apparently noble Socratic abnegation of wisdom is in fact the cause of hundreds of books offering false solutions to the case. When we feel we’ll never really know is when we’re really dangerous to ourselves, and take advantage of others.
7. Ms O’Liari wrote:
“What if Liz's customer was ALREADY waiting in the yard for her, while she got rid of the ruffian (Kidney?) Then when she went to tidy up, he waited in the doorway and surprised her as she reached in for her mints.”
>>And what if Santa Claus is a real person living at the North Pole? See what I mean? Where is the empirical evidence to support either proposition?
8. Mr. Wolf wrote:
“…the cachous were a 'fluff', just like the flowers and grapes, and are all indicators of Stride's behaviour earlier in the evening, rather than indicators in the actual crime. They all mean she had a date, and was concerned to look her best, and that she was being wooed by a gentleman with another money to buy such things.”
>>Fluff, schmluff. We’re not talking about cachous, we’re talking about cachous in Stride’s hand being clutched firmly in death after she’d been thrown to the ground and walked back into the dark alley after having smoothed her dress. Two different things.
9. Mr. Hill wrote:
“As with most things Ripperesque it is a matter of judgement and opinion which way you incline.”
>>This is what the aestheticians want you to believe. It makes possible an infinite number of artworks (books) each solving the case on the same evidence in a different way. It is not what philosophers do, however, nor what a Ripperologist should.
10. Mr. Hamm wrote:
“Another possible explanation for the cachous is that Liz kept them tucked up the sleeve of her dress and they fell out once she was on the ground having her throat cut. As I recall, they were found between her thumb and index finger, which doesn't sound quite so much like she's grasping full onto them.”
>>The evidence says she was grasping onto them with her fingers. What you are claiming is that the packet came out of her sleeve as she was being attacked and just at that second an involuntary muscle spasm caused her to contract her fingers on it, preventing it from falling to the ground. What are the odds of this timing? One in a million? If the proposition is possible but very unlikely, and there is no evidence of it happening, why should we support it?
11. “If they just "fell out during the later stages of the assault", then no pause is necessarily required by the evidence. There may have been a pause, but there did not have to be in order to explain the evidence. A big difference, and one which means I'm not saying Liz must have kept her cachous up her sleeve, only that she might have. The important thing for us to remember is that we do not know which of these was actually the case.”
>>But if there is no evidence that the cachous fell out of her sleeve just as she was being killed, then there is also no basis for saying as you do that “no pause is necessarily required by the evidence.” You are not giving us any evidence, you are just assaying that there may have been evidence. But hey, there may once have been evidence of countless things, like unicorns. But do we believe in unicorns today? We do not, because we have no evidence of them.
12. Mr. Brown wrote:
“Dear Jeff: Thanks for posting that about the cachous being between the index finger and the thumb ! So much for the grasping of these sweetmeats ! A dozen possible alternatives surface...”
>>…Along with a dozen more unjustified books, at $29.95 per.
13. Mr. Hill wrote:
“{Mr. Radka’s solution is} one that clings to an inadequate single explanation that assumes all the evidence in {meaning “is”} "in".”
>>The empirical approach always looks for more evidence. And it always finds it, that’s the thing. Always it brings new evidence “in.” Not that the new empirical evidence found has anything to do with the Whitechapel murders, mind you.
14. Ms Taylor wrote:
“Mr. Radka, I respect your intellectual level, but I feel your approach limits the analasis unjustifiably. Are you calling the whole international community stupid?
For me, Stride clearly was a Ripper victim. Use your imagination, and you might spot some new evidence.”
>>Thank you. I’m forever trying to “spot some new evidence,” I can assure you, but I see no logic in adducing empirical evidence to the case that can’t reasonably be shown to have something to do with it. I think doing that is indeed stupid, and that we live in an epoch in which much of the Ripperlogical community has fallen for the ruse. Clink, clink, clink goes the cash register.
15. Mr. Wescott wrote:
“It was also most likely {Dr.} Johnston who was responsible for the blood smears on Stride's hands, as he first unbuttoned her collar, felt for a neck pulse, then felt for a pulse on her wrist, probably transferring the blood in the process.”
>>This account changes the empirical evidence for the sake of a pet theory. The A-Z (1996 edition, page 351) quotes Dr. Phillip’s account as follows: “The right arm was over the belly. The back of the hand and wrist had on it clotted blood.” This clearly describes a scenario in which the victim fell on her left side, using her left hand for breaking her fall. Her left arm was thus for the most part pinned under her body and unavailable for defense. When the murderer then began cutting her throat, she had only her right arm available, so she put it up with the palm facing outward near the point of attack. When her blood spurted, some of it went onto the back of her hand. Thus there were no “blood smears on Stride’s hands,” as Mr. Wescott says. There was blood spatter on the back of her right hand only. Don’t you folks see the illicit processes that are taking place throughout this thread concerning what is empirical and what isn’t? See what happens when we are left to out own devices? We pick up anything and start anywhere. Don’t you think we need a principled starting point that can clean Ripperology up a little bit?
16. Mr. Hamm wrote:
“I don't mean to imply that this should be the "preferred" explanation, only that it's probably worth listing as "one of the possible" explanations.”
>>What is a “listing of possible explanations” of the Whitechapel murders worth? It means fundamentally nothing more than the legitimizing of speculative vectors.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Scotty,
"My point is simply that YOU are duty bound to provide EVIDENCE as to why you believe Stride was not a victim of JtR if you wish to put your point so forcefully. It is not enough to say that in your opinion BS was probably Stride's killer and because of his actions that night you don't think he could have been Jack."
That is just a stupid thing to say. I am not bound to produce anything, and certainly not evidence -- since we all know that is practically impossible. Everything here is based on personal interpretations of the facts -- and opinions. If you believe otherwise, you really need a reality check big time.
You apparently make other interpretations than I do -- and yours not being more supported by facts or evidence than mine. And that is quite OK by me. But there IS no evidence of anything (regardless of what Mr radka says -- but the Radka also thinks he has cracked the case, so once again -- reality check, please...)
"You are right, Glenn seems to struggle with the concept that Mr BS was not caught in the act of Murder but rather in the act of Assaulting someone. I tried to point this out in an earlier post but to no avail."
Adam is compeletely wrong on this issue, and I find his remark very strange. If what Schwartz saw was an ordinary assault, it just even further illustrates the point, why it was not JtR. The Ripper totally took his victims by surprise and killed them probably before they knew what hit them. We have some medical evidence that supports this. As far as I know, the Ripper never in one occasion should have thrown them to the ground and then turned them around and let them scream. News flash, Scotty and Adam... the Ripper never made any ASSAULTS! He killed them quickly, so that they made as little resistence as possible! That much we DO know, judging from the medical and crime scene evidence. And most probably, he used strangulation first.
What Mr Broad Shoulders is doing is something else, he quarrels with her, he throws her to the ground and then turns her round etc.
Yeah sure, great act of surprise on his part.
I believe Schwartz saw the prelude of the murder, and that the idea of her being killed around 1 AM and the Ripper being disturbed as more or less nonsense.
Mr Broad Shoulders clearly was a complete amateur, rather abusive and probably a killer, but hardly a notorious serial killer. I agree with Sugden, that what Schwartz saw, was a street brawl (and in my belief that probably ended up in a murder as soon as the witnesses had disappeared), and not a Ripper attack. The chances for her being attacked by a second violent man in the next coming minutes are no more credible than the coincidence of the Stride--Eddowes murders.
Nothing in Mr Broad Shoulders' actions fits the Ripper's approach whatsoever. And the Ripper's approach is not a matter of speculation; the crime scene evidence and the medical facts tell us quite a lot of his approach and it is more or less totally consistent in te murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
"And Glenn is just plain wrong in his thoughts on how careful JtR was."
I have NEVER said that the Ripper was careful! I have several times stated that I think he took a lot of unnecessary risks. Don't pull crap on me I haven't said. If you can't quote me properly, don't bother.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 496
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Hi Scotty,
Yes, ‘witnesses’ perhaps wasn’t a good word there. By that I meant the people who were up and about in the street near the crime scene at some point shortly before the time of the murder up until the moment the body was found. I don’t mean by that that they would necessarily have seen Stride and her companion. Just that they were up and about outside and in the direct vicinity of Dutfield’s Yard.
They would be people like William West, West’s brother, Louis Stanley, Charles Letchford, Joseph Lave, Morris Eagle, Israel Schwartz, Mr. Pipeman, Fanny Mortimer, Leon Goldstein, James Brown & Louis Diemschutz and if he wasn’t her killer, Mr. Broad Shoulders.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3133
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
extendedping,
Yes, I did acknowledge what you said about my posts, and I thank you for that. If they at least can be considered entertaining, that is always something.
But you are right, we will probably never agree on this issue. I totally disagree with you on your points and I have in earlier posts touched upon the issues you deliver. It is obvioulsy a matter of of different interpretations and opinions, so we will probably not get any further. I think we've reached status quo.
As for speculations, the thought that a throat-cut murder could not be performed by another killer, within a 45 minute time-frame of a Ripper killing -- and that such coincidences are impossible -- is nothing but assumptions and speculations as well. It is certainly not less speculations than assuming that Mr Broad Shoulders had a different approach than the Ripper.
Those who believe her to be a Ripper victim, use their personal logic -- I use mine. And neither can be confirmed by evidence. Therefore people are making a serious mistake when they are bashing me for doing assumptions regarding Mr Broad Shoulders' character (versus the Ripper's), when in fact their beliefs are no less based on personal assumptions, speculative arguments and prefabricated views.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 180
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Ok Glenn,
You're getting personal so after this post I'll just leave you to your fantasies and sidestepping. Most people post here to have robust debate and discussion. You seem to have become interested only in taking a position and defending it as vehemently as possible. That's fine, and it's your right to do but as far as I'm concerned it makes your views next to irrelevant. But Mr Radka is correct to ask you to give supporting detail for your claims, and whether you agree with his views or not, he at least tries to justify his opinions with evidence. In my opinion that makes his posts of a far higher calibre than yours and certainly more worthy of serious debate. If you don't believe that we will ever know any answers to the questions posed to us why do you bother? Bit Futile isn't it? Finally let me say I am actually disappointed in how set in your opinions you have become recently. When I first joined these boards you were not one of those I would have categorized as having a theory or theories which all evidence must fit no matter what. It is clear to me that on some issues you have become that way and I think that is a loss to these boards.
Frank,
Thanks for the clarification, that's what I thought. So my point would be that there were probably plenty of people who could fall into that category with the other murders and probably some we don't know of at each murder site. Also you can't really have James Brown and Schwartz on the list as they both claimed to see Stride at exactly the same time, so one of them was actually not a witness, probably Brown.
Scotty.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3136
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:12 am: |
|
Scotty,
I have no idea what you mean by "sidestepping". I have tried to answer your questions the best I could, but it is apparently a pointless exercise. I am certainly not asking you or anyone else to agree with me.
Apart from Mr Boad Shoulders and maybe the limited possibilities of Klosowski as being the ripper, I am actually LESS certain on anything then I was in the beginning. For your information, I was totally convinced of that Stride was a Ripper victim when I once started out here. But I have changed my mind, or at least become less inclined to believe it. So mindset doesen't really quite cut it.
Actually, I was way more mindset when I began here. I even had a pet suspect!
As I see it, I am actually less mindset than those who are convinced of Stride being a canonical victim, and who claims that it has become "fashionable" to rule out certian victims, When I once started out here, J R Palmer, among others, knocked me in the head for doing the opposite and called me an "inclusionist".
News flash, Scotty: I am NOT 100% convinced of that Stride was NOT a Ripper victim. I find that the facts do point in a direction where she is not, but still, that is my interpretation. Your interpretation is not more correct then mine, and I can't see why I should respect yours if you do not respect mine and calling them speculative and irrelevant.
Yes, it is way off base to demand that someone should deliver evidence in a 117 year old case in order to be allowed to present interpretations and opinions. David Radka belongs to the instinct species -- along with a few others -- that believes that true evidence exists and that an over 100 year old case can be solved. If you believe that, fine by me. But I am afraid you will be terribly disappointed -- unless some very extraordinary documentation would be revealed by accident.
Unfortunately everything we can do here is to make personal interpretations of the facts. We can establish theories and come with personal opinions, but that's about it. What evidence do you mean should be presented? Witness statements from people dead since several generations? Physical evidence? Or have I missed something?
Aren't those who claim they have "evdidence" actually those who are the most mindset of all?
"If you don't believe that we will ever know any answers to the questions posed to us why do you bother?"
Could it maybe occurre to you that one might be interested in the case and the historical aspects without having the urge to solve it? Because that is not uncommon. Not all researchers are out there to crack the case, but are intrigued by the social and historical context and study the details surrounding the murders. I'd say it's a rather healthy and serious approach, and an approach that keeps you less subjective and caught on a specific suspect. To solve the case is of lesser importance to me, since I know that nothing can really be proven in one hundred year old murders. And I believe i am not alone in that regards.
If not even documents like the Swanson marginalia and the Littlechild letter have managed to prove a solution on the case, then what will? Or do we live on the same planet?
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3137
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:13 am: |
|
Mr Radka -- who insists on calling me "Mr Lipski", in spite of the fact that he knows I am not Jewish -- has never produced any evidence whatsoever, only HIS interpretations of the facts surrounding the case. Whatever one might think of it, they are not proof of anything, and they can't be -- regardless how hard Radka himself wants it to be. His theories are one of many, but they are HIS and they hardly fits the bill as evidence, only speculations. As every other.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 497
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Hi Scotty,
If the police didn’t catch a perpetrator in the act back in those days, I believe the most important thing they could do (and did) to try and solve a case was to find witnesses. I am confident that the whole Ripper case was no exception. The available evidence tells us that clearly more people were up and about outside close to Stride's crime scene just prior to her murder than in any of the other cases.
I am purely talking about people Jack the Ripper (or anybody at random) could have seen if he had been cruising around the neighbourhood of any of the crime scenes in the last half hour or so before the murders were committed. And I would leave out police constables and night watchmen, because they were there anyway, regardless of whether a neighbourhood or street was lively or not. That’s why PC Smith isn’t on the list I gave you.
To say that there were probably plenty of people who could fall into that category with the other murders as well would first of all be to speculate and would secondly be at least a bit doubtful, considering that witnesses were crucial to a police investigation back then. And to speculate about the ones we don’t know of at each murder site would lead us nowhere, if you ask me.
Also you can't really have James Brown and Schwartz on the list as they both claimed to see Stride at exactly the same time, so one of them was actually not a witness, probably Brown.
This is really a strange thing to say, considering I clearly said that the ‘witnesses’ I was referring to needn’t have seen Stride and her companion. But even regardless of that it remains strange, since Brown or Schwartz could easily have been off a couple of minutes on their timing, as they didn’t have any precise time reference to go by, as I recall. So for instance, if Brown saw Stride at 12:42 a.m., there would have been enough time for Schwartz to see her at 12:45 a.m. (which may also have been 12:47 a.m.). However, it’s also perfectly possible that one of them didn’t actually see Stride (I have doubts about Brown myself).
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 175
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
Hello all!
Frank, you wrote:
"You’re rather short of memory, my Aussie friend. It was I who recently addressed a message to you in which I gave an example of why modern knowledge and methods should be used in old cases like the Ripper’s and this example involved Dr Philips. He was the doctor you're referring to."
Yes, I remember now that it was you who mentioned Dr. Phillips. And yes, my memory isn't the best, but I was actually more concerned with stating the name of the wrong doctor had said Chapman and Eddowes had been killed by a different hand, because that's a pretty serious thing to say.
"I think since I’ve been studying the case I’ve seen only 1 or 2 rather cautious cases of people suggesting that Nichols might not have been a Ripper victim, but that’s about it. Out of 39 people out here on these boards, only Dan Norder has expressed some doubt as to Nichols as a Ripper victim, the others are convinced she was. 39 out of 39 believe that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same hand. If you have examples of what you state, please post them."
I already did mention the theory that Jack the Ripper never even existed. Besides that, you are focusing only on the modern day beliefs on these Boards. And whether it's 1 person or thousands of people who doubt candidacy of victims, it still means that doubt has been cast on them, somewhere on the way. And we aren't talking about message boards in 2005, we're talking about 117 years of Ripper research. There have been theories for just about everything else, and Chapman/Eddowes being looked into about their candidacy as JtR victims isn't excluded from that. It may only be a very small minority who doubt them, but it has happened. It's just that more emphasis is put on Elizabeth Stride and Mary Kelly.
"Both reports clearly state that Stride was standing in the entrance to the yard, she wasn't running or even walking. Furthermore, they both suggest that Schwartz saw Mr. Broad Shoulders walk over to the woman, which would simply be very odd if he was coming from the yard while she was standing at the entrance of it. Schwartz would've been unable to see him if she was standing there and in that case the logical thing for him would have been to just pull her back into the yard."
My bad. I hadn't read that before.
However, that still doesn't mean that Liz hadn't been in the yard. What was she standing in the entrance to it for? Also, Schwartz wouldn't have exactly been paying that much attentionat that point. He didn't see the whole thing happening, and so we don't know the circumstances of it. BS might have been a client of Liz's, for all we know. Or someone she knew. There is any number of possibilities, so I don't think what Schwartz said is the be-all and end-all of what happened to Liz just before her death. And it certainly doesn't mean BS (Or, quite possibly Jack the Ripper) wasn't Liz's killer.
"He seems to have done that in the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. In Stride’s case there were about a dozen witnesses, while in Nichols’ there were 0, or 2 if you count Charles Cross and Robert Paul, in Chapman’s there were 2 (Long & Cadosche) and in Eddowes’ there were 3. Those established facts can hardly be called a coincidence. IMHO that’s a significant difference. Besides, at the time of the murder there were still some 20 or 30 people in the Socialists’ Club, well awake, which was nothing like the other 3 cases."
You are badly over-exaggerating there, Frank.
There may have been many witnesses in Stride's case, but Schwartz is probably the most recognised. There was also witnesses like Matthew Packer, now widely believed to be nothing but liars, out to make themselves known.
In the case of Annie Chapman, she was killed at 5:30 AM, just when it was getting daylight, and on the morning of the Spitalfields market! That was how Elizabeth Long saw them in the first place, on her way to the market. It was getting busy! You have also forgotten people like John Richardson. If you include Stride witnesses like Fanny Mortimer, then you must also include John Richardson in the Chapman case. There may be more witnesses in Stride's case, but not so many as you make it seem compared to the other cases -- and one of the murders had to take the title of 'most witnesses' anyway, it just happened to be Stride. There are many others involved largely with the other murders, such as lodging house watchmen, policemen, etc. They all count as well.
"Mr. Broad Shoulders first of all was very far from calm when he was seen with Stride and secondly, he didn’t care at all if anybody saw this. To say the least, that’s a very striking difference from what we know about the Ripper’s behaviour in the other 3 cases."
It may not be that he didn't care, but that since Stride had screamed/resisted, he had no choice other than to attack her to avoid her getting away, and Schwartz just happened to be going past at the time. He may not have KNOWN that Schwartz was watching at that point, and "Lipski!" may have been an exclamation from shock/surprise at seeing him after that. Just a guess, though.
Scotty, you wrote:
"Thanks for your support above. You are right, Glenn seems to struggle with the concept that Mr BS was not caught in the act of Murder but rather in the act of Assaulting someone. I tried to point this out in an earlier post but to no avail. We will never know how JtR might have reacted if as Caz stated he was caught "up to his elbows in entrails". And Glenn is just plain wrong in his thoughts on how careful JtR was. You are right. I believe he planned as much as he could but he still required a significant ammount of luck."
Thanks Scotty, it's great to know that someone agrees with me!
I know what you mean, as well. Unfortunately many people are too set in their beliefs to be shaken from it, and no matter how many times you repeat points, it can become like trying to knock a brick wall down with a feather.
Thanks again, though.
Glenn, just one thing I would like to respond to that you said:
"That is just a stupid thing to say. I am not bound to produce anything, and certainly not evidence"
And yet:
"Adam is compeletely wrong on this issue, and I find his remark very strange."
Interesting, Glenn.
So, you don't want to try and prove what you are saying, yet you are more than willing to repeatedly say that what I and others have said is completely wrong? Where is your proof that what I have said is wrong, then? You can't just say things like that about posters opinions without something to back it up. You are more likely to get a nicer response then, too, instead of just shouting at someone. Just a tip.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3145
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
Adam,
"Interesting, Glenn.
So, you don't want to try and prove what you are saying, yet you are more than willing to repeatedly say that what I and others have said is completely wrong? Where is your proof that what I have said is wrong, then? You can't just say things like that about posters opinions without something to back it up. You are more likely to get a nicer response then, too, instead of just shouting at someone. Just a tip."
Now you are being silly.
Firstly, you are doing the same thing repeatedly -- stating that other people are wrong, and you do that in self-secure manner, indicating that everyone who doesen't agree with you is wrong. You do this all the time. And I never ask you to produce any evidence.
As I said, all we can do here is to deliver OPINIONS! (the reasons for why I am using capitals is partly because the cursive and bold formatting for some reason haven't functioned properly during the last weeks, since I've moved from IE to Opera. Therefore I am bound to use capitals in order to empathise.)
And when I say someone is wrong, I mean IN MY OPINION. News flash for you, Adam: NO ONE here can produce evidence of anything. Not you, and certainly not me. Not anyone. It still doesen't mean that you can't deliver opinions or totally disagree with what people are saying.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 21, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 588
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Below is the testimony of Dr. Blackwell at Strides inquest. I've bolded his description of how the cachous were found. To me, this does not sound like she's "grasping" them. However, if they have "fallen out" of her sleeve, this position fits with that idea. Of course, Dr. Blackwell continues on to tell us that he believes her hand to have slowly relaxed as she died, which of course could allow for her to have been holding the cachous rather than them falling out of her sleeve. Why is Stride's case always this way?
Anyway, here's the inquest testimony:
Dr. Blackwell [recalled] (who assisted in making the post-mortem examination) said: I can confirm Dr. Phillips as to the appearances at the mortuary. I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand. My impression is that the hand gradually relaxed while the woman was dying, she dying in a fainting condition from the loss of blood.
Anyway, this also includes the quote Tom mentioned, and seems to clarify things. It was Dr. Blackwell who "split" the package when he removed it, causing the cachous to spill. I think that could fit with either the "Stride is holding them when attacked" or the "up the sleeve" notion. Especially if the paper became damp (blood, rain, etc) during the time between her murder and when the packet was removed. Getting wet would make the paper weaker and more prone to tear or split. Therefore, it might have been sturdy enough at the time of the assault not to have split (however it got to the position it was found in), gets damp, gets weak, and gets split upon removal.
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on February 21, 2005) |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 498
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
“However, that still doesn't mean that Liz hadn't been in the yard. What was she standing in the entrance to it for? Also, Schwartz wouldn't have exactly been paying that much attention at that point. He didn't see the whole thing happening, and so we don't know the circumstances of it.”
I agree that Stride may have been in the yard before Schwartz appeared at the scene. And, as unfortunately his story isn’t corroborated by any other witness, I agree that Schwartz’ account may not be the be-all and end-all of what happened to Stride. However, it is there and it’s the best that we’ve got and IMHO we shouldn’t just change his account just because it doesn’t fit with a theory anyone might have about what actually happened.
Although we have no way of knowing for sure if she was actually standing in the entrance to the yard, there’s no reason why Stride couldn’t have been standing there, whether you can think of a reason or not. And why couldn’t Schwartz have been paying enough attention? Or why couldn’t he have seen the whole thing? To start speculating about such things wouldn’t get us any further, if you ask me.
“You are badly over-exaggerating there, Frank."
So, I’m not only exaggerating, I’m doing more than that and I’m doing it badly, eh? Hmmm… 
“There may be more witnesses in Stride's case, but not so many as you make it seem compared to the other cases -- and one of the murders had to take the title of 'most witnesses' anyway, it just happened to be Stride. There are many others involved largely with the other murders, such as lodging house watchmen, policemen, etc. They all count as well.”
First of all, let me say once more I agree that someone could have walked into each and every of the scenes at any moment and that the Ripper took a hell of a big risk in Chapman’s case striking in near daylight in the back yard of a crowded house where people were about to rise.
However, I see that you still don’t see what I’m really getting at. So, let me try something different - just for the sake of trying to get my point across. Just suppose for a moment that a couple of (infra-red) cameras and microphones were set up at and in the vicinity of each of the crime scenes of the ‘outside’ murders (Tabram excluded) and that we were able to watch the footage and hear the sound that they had produced in the 30-40 minutes before each of the bodies were found.
Let’s suppose that these cameras and microphones didn’t only capture the crime scenes themselves, but also the street(s) they were closest to (Buck’s Row, the part of Hanbury Street that included no. 29, Berner Street, Mitre & Duke Streets and St. James’s Place).
Of course, we would have seen the PC’s walking their beats and we may have seen some of the night watchmen, although they probably stayed inside the premises they were supposed to watch. But they were there anyway, regardless of whether a neighbourhood or street was lively or not, so, as to the numbers of people being around they wouldn’t make much of a difference between each of the murder scenes.
What else would we have seen in the 30-40 minutes before each victim was discovered? According to the evidence we would have seen some 15 people in Stride’s case (including Mrs. Mortimer) and we would probably have heard some noise coming from the Socialist Club, indicating there were people wide awake inside.
According to the evidence, we would have seen not nearly as many people in the 3 other cases (and we wouldn’t have seen John Richardson) and we would probably not have heard much noise. From the police files the conclusion may be drawn that in each and every of these cases the police did their very best to (among other things) turn up people who could lead them to whatever clue.
So, the way I see it is that, regardless of the fact that probably anybody could have caught JtR in the act, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed at what seem to have been quiet locations just prior to the murders, but not Stride.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3156
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Excellent points, Frank.
Very well put and I agree with every word of it. That is exactly the point I in my clumsy "Broad Shoulders"-manner more or less have been trying to get across.
Great approach; made it even more clearer for me, in fact.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 21, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 3:40 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Quick tip: if you have the following on your keyboard, you can still emphasise points quickly and easily without having to SHOUT:
\
b [for bold]
i [for italic]
u [for underlining]
{
[type your text]
}
I still don't agree that the ripper could not or would not have acted the way Mr BS did. I think the sample of murders is way too small to be sure about something like this.
Have a look at other cases that have been solved, like the Yorkshire Ripper, for instance, to see if the killer acted consistently on each occasion and 'in character', so to speak.
In 2003, my home town had its own double event, for which the killer has been convicted. Chummy was high on drink and drugs when he tried to strangle a woman who pretended to be on the game in order to cheat men out of money. Some youths witnessed the assault and gave chase when chummy ran off, but they lost him.
Later, in the early hours, chummy was caught on CCTV looking for a second victim. In a deserted spot, when no one else was around, he battered a woman to death with a lump of wood.
Had there not been CCTV, who knows if chummy would have been identified in time to prevent him seeking out more victims, in circumstances where he would be less likely to encounter troublesome witnesses? And would you now be arguing that the first assault could not have been the work of the killer because he acted so differently (including the method of attack and choice of weapon)?
Now tell me again: why couldn't Mr BS have killed Stride and gone on to kill Eddowes?
Love,
Caz
X
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Hi Glen.
You wrote
“But you're not getting it. That is what I have been saying as well, but the point is that it could still be the same man! He could have returned directly after the assault, as both Frank and I described -- not 15 minutes later but directly after, and in the meantime Stride may have picked up the packet of cachous (which could explain why she was taken by such surprise when he was killed)!”
Oh I am getting it, but In my own humble opinion, I think that the last thing on Liz Strides mind(after being thrown to the ground by Schwartz’s assailant) would be the retrieval of a packet of cachous she had been holding. Surely she would have had more important things on her mind at that time, i.e. her immediate survival.
Which is why(in my opinion) she never did have those cachous in her hand during the assault as witnessed by Schwartz, they were taken out(or given to her) later.
You also wrote
“You are forgetting the testimony of Mrs Mortimer -- or do you simply chose to ignore or discredit it????”
No Glen I have not forgot Mrs Mortimers testimony, and do not wholly discredit it, but I do question it, it is not consistent, she changed her testimony several times, as did Mr Packer, and I know what you think of Mr Packer Glenn, I think at one stage you called him a charlatan, poor Mr Packer, and all for changing his testimony.
Are you still as confident with Mrs Mortimer now Glenn?
Yes Mrs Mortimer. At one stage she said that she had remained at her door from 12:30, until 1:00, why then did she not see the Schwartz assailant?
She certainly never appeared at the inquest, so we'll never know just how long she stood at her front door, or EXACTLY what she saw.
I personally think that she stood at her front door(if at all) for 10 minutes max, and it is not inconceivable that she missed both the Schwartz attack, and the attack shortly afterwards, i.e. the JTR attack.
She certainly wasn’t on the street at 1:00, because she never saw Diemshutz. At what point did she go back into her house then?
3 minutes to 1:00a.m. 2 minutes to 1:00a.m.?
Because, if she went back into her house only 2 or 3 minutes before 1:00 a.m. then this was enough time for JTR to approach Liz Stride and kill her before being disturbed by Diemshutz.
How did she not see Liz Stride you might ask, it is not inconceivable that Liz Stride stood in the entrance to the yard, out of the sight of Mrs Mortimer.
Stop laughing now Glenn.
You also wrote Glenn
“I find it VERY unthinkable and very much a stretch that Stride was accosted by TWO DIFFERENT violent men in the time frame of maybe only a couple of minutes.”
I don’t get this.
Where do you get the couple of minutes from?
Shchwartz’s assailant struck at 12:45 a.m. Diemshutz arrived at 1:00 a.m. that’s sounds like 15 minutes to me, take 5 minutes off for the fact that she was murdered 1 minute to 1:00 a.m. and 4 minutes for her to compose herself after the first attack, and this still leaves 10 minutes
10 minutes between the attacks, what is so unthinkable about this?
Lastly you wrote
“Firstly, it is not exactly a throat cut of exactly the same dignity and character.”(Strides)
Glen, we are commenting on this case nearly 118 years after the fact. Let me quote you someone who was there at the time, someone who had seen other Ripper victims, someone who had stood in that yard in Berner Street a few days after Liz’s death, reflecting(no doubt) as he stood, on the nature of Liz Strides death.
His name was Mr Wynne E Baxter, he was later to sum up at the inquest, he said
“The ordinary motives of murder - revenge, jealousy, theft, and passion - appeared, therefore, to be absent from this case; while it was clear from the accounts of all who saw her that night, as well as from the post-mortem examination, that she was not otherwise than sober at the time of her death. In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful”
Entrapped, instant death,, daring defiance, no blood spoiled the operator,
Does this sound familiar Glenn?
It does to me.
Liz Stride (in my opinion) was quickly executed, by someone who knew only too well what he was doing.
And in my opinion that man was JTR.
Frank you wrote.
“She was seen with a man on 3 different occasions, which isn't the same.”
At least 2 of these sightings were of different men
The man seen by Best And Gardiner, was probably the same man as seen by Marshall.(short coat) However this was not the man seen by P.C. Smith, and Brown (long overcoat).
That makes two men.
The third client who approached her that night(apart from Schwartz assailant) was in my opinion her killer, JTR.
And(in my opinion) it matters not who approached who that night regarding Liz’s clients. A prostitute will just as likely approach a potential customer, as the client will approach the prostitute.
Regards Cludgy.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
