|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 296
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 3:34 pm: | 
|
Hi Sandy,
I hope you didn't think I was making fun of you, it's lovely to have you here and it's nice to have such a refreshingly straightforward question.
It's all good fun here on the boards, everyone has their views and we all have a good time expressing them. If there weren't bun fights it would be deathly boring!
Of course this is a serious subject and we have very serious discussions about practically everything JtR related, but when we have a little fun now and again it is done with affection.
I found the boards very bewildering at first and found it gave me confidence looking over the old threads so that I knew what the general concensus of opinion was on certain subjects.
It was actually a very good question. I agree with you that there is a very serious question mark over Liz being a JtR victim and you have given one of the reasons I hold this opinion, so if the buns do start flying, I'm now first in the line of fire!
Jane
xxxxxxx
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 297
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
That is actually a good point and well worth looking into, I think I'll go back over the whole evening to see if I can fathom out a few things which now need to be dropped into place.
Having read the Schwartz testimony several hundred times (well it feels like it anyway) I still can't quite come to grips with certain aspects of it, especially whether or not Liz was trying to go into the yard, away along the street or if Mr BS was trying to entice her elsewhere. Makes your head hurt doesn't it?
'The whole dodgy situation, coupled with a risky venue not of his choosing, could have soured the moment for him and dictated that his mutilation plans must be postponed. Perhaps he had to feel in total control before he could perform his mutilation rituals.'
Hadn't quite thought of it like that before, I'll have to spend a few sleepless nights mulling that one over..........
Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water!
Lots of love
Jane
xxxx
Still think it was a domestic though!
 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Hi,
I believe it is a question of identifying the mentality of the Ripper.
The person who could inflict such horrendous mutulations on his victims was obviously of unsound mind at the time of his attack, caused by insanity or drink induced.
The unsteady approach by Mr BS, suggests one of two reasonings.
A] He was as schwartz suggested intoxicated .
b] He had a walking disability.
Lets relate to the attack on Nichols.
Reports on her suggest that she may have been manhandled in Brady street, but managed to break free.
If this is a feasible suggestion, it is not unrealistic to suggest that either the killer was extremely drunk , or was incapable of speed through a incapacity......
Summing up I personally believe that MrBroad shoulders was infact 'Jack' and simply his M O. was to approach a potentíal victim, and manhandle her to kill her , it apprears on this night he was complete unaware of nearby potential witnesses, and when he became aware shouted abuse at the indignity of being interupted.
Richard.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3189
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
One might add, which subject doesen't make buns fly on these Boards...?
As for your very valid question, its controversy may lie in the fact that earlier similar questions have revealed that people here have different interpretations on what is a "busy" crime scene and what isn't.
Personally, I am thinking along the same lines, but then there are others that probably will tell you that the Hanbury Street yard would be complicated as well, maybe not "busy" in that respect, but quite loaded with people, sleeping with open windows towards the yard, and the fact that some already had started working.
So it's a difficult question. But somehow I think it is a legitimate one, since Berner Street and Dutfield's yard certainly was busy and a meeting going on with a lot of people attending and going in and out.
All the best
G. Anderson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 26, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3190
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Richard,
"Reports on her suggest that she may have been manhandled in Brady street, but managed to break free.
If this is a feasible suggestion, it is not unrealistic to suggest that either the killer was extremely drunk , or was incapable of speed through a incapacity...... "
Not only is this a total exaggeration ("reports"), but I am surprised that you continue to put forward this uncorroborated story, and there is absolutely nothing in the evidence or the police documentation -- except for one very dubious witness statement (where a woman heard someone running and screaming for help, as well as bolting on the door), which was not taken the least seriously by the police -- that indicates that Nichols broke free or was chased. Nothing whatsoever. That is a total fairy-tale.
She may have been picked up on another street, but there is nothing at all that suggests that she wasn't attacked where she was killed.
All the best
G. Anderson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 298
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
That would seem to make sense, except for one thing. Anyone that is extremely intoxicated might well act as Mr BS did, but as far as I understand it, JtR's method of killing was to strike hard and fast not giving the victims time to even know what was happening to them. Weren't Polly's eyes open indicating a very quick death?
Speed and intoxication are not two words that usually appear in one sentence. I can see where you could apply this to Liz's case, her attacker was displaying all the signs of someone that was drunk. If someone is extremely drunk, they do not move quickly, they are uncoordinated and would hardly be capable of such blitzkreig attacks as with the other victims. (Leaving Mary aside)
I don't think that 'manhandling' would describe any part of the attack on the other victims, although of course without eye witnesses that can't really be ascertained. it is true that Annie protested and there was a noise of some resistance from behind the fence as witnessed by Cadosche, but I'm not sure it could be described as 'drunken manhandling.' The reports of Polly being attacked and breaking free I am a little suspicious of I'm afraid. I don't think I would be happy using it to build any kind of case on.
I do believe that he could certainly have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but I can't really accept that it would be to the point where he would act the way the Mr BS did. That of course is just personal opinion. I just think that the phrase 'extremely drunk' is a bit too ill defined. How drunk is extremely drunk?
As to the incapacity question, well a disability of some kind is not implausible, but I might have to think that one through a bit!
On the point that he was angry at the interruption by others and his resulting abuse, wouldn't that be true of anyone that was in the middle of having an arguement with someone in a public place whether he was JtR or just a disgruntled boyfriend?
I can see where you are coming from though.
But I am not sure that the reasoning sits that well with me at the moment. I will have to have a think about this as well...... Okay definitely no sleep for me tonight!
Jane
xxxxx  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3192
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Yes, open eyes as in Polly's case, does usually indicate instant death.
This, along with no other signs on the crime scene that indicates a chase -- or other witness statements corroborating the chase and screaming for help -- makes the chase and struggle scenario rather unlikely. Certainly more people would have heard that commotion if there were anything relevant behind it. All the other questioned inhabitants said they had heard nothing.
All facts points at, that Polly Nichols was totally taken by surprise and killed rapidly.
Also, good point about speed/efficiancy and intoxication doesen't go that well together. I am no expert, but it makes sense to me.
"I just think that the phrase 'extremely drunk' is a bit too ill defined. How drunk is extremely drunk?"
Hmmm... OK, I better not go there... 
All the best
G. Anderson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sandy
Police Constable
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Hello everyone,
I am going to put my neck out on this one. If Mr. BS was staggering because he was intoxicated, then I find it hard to believe that he would've been able to attack Stride, and then stagger over to Mitre square and do what was done to Eddowes. There has been a great deal of argument concerning the behavior of the man that Schwartz saw and the behavior of JtR. Is there a chance that Schwartz was not telling the truth? In a way I have to admit his story does sound a bit much. The man turns her around, she's thrown to the ground, she cries out three times (not very loudly), Schwartz himself is chased a little ways down the street. It almost seems as if he is trying to make himself, through his statement, as part of the hysteria (for lack of a better word, sorry), like him saying "I was there". Does that make sense? It's just something I have been thinking about.
Sandy |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3193
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Hi Sandy,
A very justified and intelligent question. It is of course not a new one, but it is interesting and should more or less always be raised in connection with a witness that delivers an unverified statement. I used to think that Schwartz's statement seemed a bit dubious as well, and fact remains that his story is not verified by others. On the other hand, his is the only one that really covers those particular minutes on the night of the murder.
However, I feel no reason today to doubt the testimony he delivered to the police. Note that the Star paper also interviewed him, and there the story is different and more dramatic (and it is really in that statement we hear about him staggering behind the drunken man), which one naturally could assume, as the paper set out to sell as many copies as possible and probably make the story as juicy as possible.
Schwartz's statement is problematic in many ways, since he could not one word in English -- he had to bring a friend to the police station that could do the translation.
However, I see no real reason to doubt Schwartz's testimony to the police. I find it hard to see him as an attention-seeker (in contrast to Packer, who had a good motive for attracting curious people to his store on Berner Street), and in many ways his story is not something you usually come up with out of the blue; in my mind -- although it adds to the mystery and also contains some extraordinary elements -- it hangs together.
What probably makes his story most problematic is -- as have been said before -- the language problem and the fact that he was a scared witness.
I think most researchers agree on this.
Just my personal opinions and interpretations, though.
All the best
G. Anderson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Hey Glenn...ol boy!
Sandy, Welcome to the boards.
Greetings to everyone else also. My computer has been in the shop for a few weeks, so I havent been able to post or read the boards, but WOW!...this thread has exploded! Berner St has always been my favorite of the murder scenes...probably because there are so many scenarios and contradictions. Thats what makes it so fun is trying to figure it out.
Sandy....you do raise some interesting and certainly not stupid questions. As Glenn stated in the above post regarding the STAR article...The STAR often exaggerated the story...any story. But what is interesting about the Star article is that it was apparently written the day after the murder...before the police report was even out. So there must be some truth to it...even though, the part about Pipeman having a knife and coming after Schwartz is a bit too much. The police certainly would have included that little tidbit in their report I believe.
My opinion on the police report....and Im probably gonna get hammered for saying this......is this, Lets not forget that the date that the only police report that still exists was written by Inspector Swanson and dated OCT 19. This was 3 weeks after Schwartz was interviewed. Was he copying it from Abberline's report? Was he writing it from memory? I have never tried to read too much into Swansons report, because he was not the man who interviewed Schwartz and we dont know where exactly he got his "second hand info". Im not saying his report is not correct, Im just saying that its not an original report and could have been scripted from many sources.
IF, what Schwartz said about the suspect is true (Schwartz walking behind Mr BS from Commercial rd.) then that pretty much eliminates Constable Smith's suspect and William Marshall's guy.
If the suspect was drunk and staggering....then my opinion is that it was not Jack the Ripper....but if the Star just made that up then it could have been Jack.....WHO KNOWS??????????? Peace
Paul
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 136
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
I'm sure this question has been asked before but:
Other than it's being included in the "canonical list" by policemen at the time, what actual evidence is there for this having been a JtR murder?
If police had not linked the two murders that night as a "double-event", and one of Casebook's own finest researchers had uncovered reports of stride's killing - would we be rushing to include her in the list? or, like the earlier and later possible victims, would Liz be a "maybe"?
Phil |
Rickard Berglind
Police Constable
Username: Rickard
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Hello everyone,
I am quite new to both the "case" and the casebook site, so this is just some humble questions and suggestions concerning the mystery with Elizabeth Stride.
1. Michael Kidney is these days put forward as the possible killer of Stride, i.e. the man with broad shoulders seen by the witness Schwarz.
If Elizabeth was not killed by Jack the Ripper he would in my mind too be a top suspect, but would not the police at the time ask themeself the same thing? So my question is if it's known if the police questioned him of his whereabouts the critical night and if a lineup with the witness Schwarz was done?
It seems like an obvious action to take, even if they were more or less convinced that the murder in fact was commited by the real ripper.
2. There seems to be some confusion if knife murders (in particulary by cutting the throat) was common in Whitechapel at that time. For me this seems like an important fact to be able to consider the pros and cons of the possible coincidents that night.
So my question is: do we have any kind of numbers or statistics of this matter?
3. We know for a fact that there was another troathcut murder in roughly the same neighbourhood this particular night. My question here is if that fact both mathematicly and logicaly increase or decrease the possibility of a third throatcutting murderer acting the very same night?
4. The exact timing of the events is very crucial here, but is there known anything of how the different witnesses got there time statements and how conceivable accurate their information really is?
In this days when almost everyone is wearing some kind of timepiece you still does not check it every minute, and when observing something to you (at that time) insignificant event it would be very hard for anyone to at a later stage tell the exact time it happened.
What I am getting at here is that maybe some (or all) of the witness time statements should be looked at with a possible margin of error of five-ten minutes? If the times is stretched "inwards" the whole event could have taken place in perhaps only five minutes and if at the other "direction" it could be 25-30 minutes, which gives room for more alternatives.
5. Concerning the theory that the broad shouldered man could have been Jack the ripper I agree with those who say that this does not match his expected behavior and I have also this suggestion: If the goal of the broad shouldered man was to kill Elizabeth Stride then shouting the infamous Lipski-shout was a reasonable thing to do because it scared away Schwarz (and possible the pipe-smoking man too) and he could kill her.
On the other hand, if he was in fact Jack the Ripper and the generally held opinion is true that his real goal was not to kill, but to cut (which takes time) then shouting to scare away bystanders seems not to be a very reasonable thing to do.
6. About the theory that a second man, i.e. Jack the Ripper, showed up and killed her after the first man left you could easily object that the possibility is low in such short amount of time. I am thinking here that if the witness time statements are correct (first attack 12.45 and dead 1.00) a lot of things could still happen in fifteen minutes. If I sit at work 15 minutes will pass very quickly and feels like nothing, but if I would stand in a empty street at night the same 15 minutes will for me seems very different and much longer.
7. About the probability that Elizabeth was attacked twice by two different men in a short time (no matter of the exact number of minutes) it does seems low. Two such special events happening after each other seems of course strange. But that is mostly if she really was "attacked" the first time.
As far as I understand it she was just pushed down and did only protest in a non-loud voice. I do not know, but I do belive that living like a prostitute in these streets was quite brutal and incidents like that would proberly happen more or less all the time. If that is true then a woman living on the streets could get pushed by some drunk perhaps even more than one time each night.
This could mean that the event witnessed by Schwarz was not such a "special" thing for these poor women, but instead an "ordinary" unpleasent thing to deal with. If this reasoning is correct then for me the odds of actually being attacked by a second man 15 minutes later seems at least higher.
Just my thoughts! I would be happy for any comments. Sorry for any spelling or gramatical mistakes.
Best regards,
Rickard Berglind
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I still think that jealous, drunken and abusive boyfriends don't often strike with the express intention to kill.
I stand by my opinion 100%. If even a tenth of the men who ever got jealous or drunk and physically abused a female in their lives intended to kill her, and succeeded, do you have the remotest idea what the murder statistics would look like?
We know that the ripper murders did not all take place where Jack and his victim first made contact - unless you think he and Annie just happened to bump into each other in a Hanbury St back yard, and the same with Kate in a corner of Mitre Square.
So if Mr BS was Jack, and if his witnessed encounter with Liz was the preamble to another murder, why is it assumed that his plan would have been to kill and mutilate this woman right there in Berner St?
The point is, the witnesses in this case didn't hang around, and Mr BS was left alone with Liz, still very much alive. I doubt he would have gone on to kill her if the witnesses had not budged, whoever he was.
It's hard to imagine Liz willingly going off to a quieter part of town with this specimen of manhood after this little display, so if he was the ripper he either had to strike there and then or give up on his current mission. Liz had seen him close up and was a risk to his continuing career while alive.
Hi All,
I think we have to presume that Schwartz didn't make the whole thing up. But I can imagine that he would have wanted to defend himself if asked why he ran off instead of going to the woman's aid, and didn't even think to return with help in case she needed it.
It was handy that Mr BS shouted in a threatening way, and handy that Schwartz felt he was being chased from the scene by pipeman - knife in hand or just his pipe. Ordinarily, I would have thought Schwartz and pipeman could have joined forces and chased Mr BS off in the circumstances, as happened in the 2003 Croydon assault that was witnessed by more than one man.
Love,
Caz
X |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 507
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Although it seems a feasible scenario you’ve put forward a couple of days ago, I do have some ‘problems’ with it.
If Mr BS (as the Ripper) would not have known that Dutfield’s Yard wasn’t a quiet and safe place the moment he approached her, then he must have assessed it wasn’t in what must have been a split second, because he seems to have become aggressive almost immediately after he had accosted her (which is what Schwartz seems to have witnessed). On the other hand, if he did know it wasn’t quiet and safe, then why did he accost her then and there in the first place?
Another thing that I think casts doubt on your scenario would be the cachous. Thinking logically, it seems that she would only have taken them out of her pocket when she felt enough at ease, or confident enough. Or that they were given to her to soothe her.
If she would have already held them in her hand when he stopped and spoke to her, it seems unlikely that she would have held on to them when she was thrown down. If she didn’t have them in her hand already and if he continued the attack immediately after seeing the two men off, she must have taken them out when he was shortly focusing his attention on the Jew and the tall guy, which seems even more unlikely. Of course there’s the possibility that Mr BS gave the cachous to her to soothe her, but that would mean that he himself had calmed down enough, so why kill her then and, more importantly, there anyway?
The last thing has to do with the sort of person I think the Ripper may have been. I’m aware that a serial killer’s ‘success’ depends on the circumstances and the behaviour of his intended victim in each and every case. Reality may sometimes be very different than fantasy. Sometimes a serial killer is forced to act differently than he wants to and sometimes an intended victim even survives because of it. So, you may well be right that Berner Street/Dutfield’s Yard was such a situation and Stride was such a person. However, reading the evidence Mr. BS comes across as a bully and I personally don’t think the Ripper was this type of person.
“I still think that jealous, drunken and abusive boyfriends don't often strike with the express intention to kill.”
Like Glenn suggested, since there’s nothing in the evidence that tells us that it was Mr BS’ intention to kill Stride – in fact it isn’t even established that he actually did kill her – what you seem to imply doesn’t tell us a thing either way.
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3194
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Tjena, Rickard!
Välkommen i klubben.
OK, Rickard, some very interesting questions. Some of them have naturally been dealt with before, but most of them do evoke interest. Thanks for numbering them.
Here are my two cents.
1. The problem is, that those files in the Ripper case that are missing (presumably lost in the WW2 blitz), are the actual interrogation protocols and the police note books, which would include theories and personal opinions on suspects, witnesses etc. (besides that files are pretty much complete)-- what has survived, are the official reports and the documents attached to them.
So that is unfortunately a question that is nearly impossible to answer.
What we have is Michael Kidney's testimony from the inquest, where he displayed a very strange, arrogant and unpleasant behaviour. What the police really thought about him is quite hard to tell, and that goes pretty much for most of the characters in this play, with some exceptions.
2. No, there are no stats on this matter, and unfortunately there are indications on that the death statistics from 1887, for example, are incomplete and misguiding. Several murders have been discovered in retrospect, that does not show up in the statistics. Alex Chisholm has compiled an interesting study about this in the dissertation section. However, judging from the large number of throat cut murders in general at this time and in this area, once can expect this to be a rather common way of killing -- also in domestic situation. I wouldn't rely too much on statistics, though; sometimes things just happen or a certain kinds of events just happens to explode without any apparent logical reason or not within the borders of statistics.
3. The one you refer to is probably the wife killing in Westminster (where the woman got her throat cut)... well, to be frank, it is not in the same area; Westminster is quite far off closer to West End. But fact remains, that it happened the same night and that it was a domestic killing.
4. The discussions regarding the course of events on Berner Street and in Dutfield's Yard, have included margins of time error. Just recently we had a discussion on this thread whether or not the Schwartz incident might have occurred five or ten minutes later than what is generally accepted. Of course we can't expect the times to be completely accurate. I believe Diemschutz watched the clock outside the bakery, but the others I believe they made approximate estimations.
5. I agree on both your interpretations here.
6. Well, I still think the possibility for this to happen is low. It is not more believable than the "coincidence" (that some people support and accept) of an ordinary domestic/client-related killing happening 45 minutes prior to a Ripper killing.
7. I agree, I believe such incidents were common and happened to prostitutes occasionally. It was and is not the safest of occupations, and they are subjected to practically every representative of the dregs of humanity, also in 1888.However, I do see Mr Broad Shoulder's assault as an attack and I strongly believe that Schwartz witnessed the foreplay to the murder, regardless if Mr BS killed her directly after the witnesses left or turned back some minute later and finished her off. I'd say it really has no relevancy for the possibilities of a second man to appear. You still have to deal with the problem, where two violent men appears in a time frame of ten to fifteen minutes, where the second one should kill her. I don't hold that probability exeptionally high.
All good points and relevant questions, Rickard. Nice to have you with us.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 508
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
“I have never tried to read too much into Swansons report, because he was not the man who interviewed Schwartz and we dont know where exactly he got his "second hand info".”
I’m not going to hammer you, just going to give you my view. Swanson wrote summary reports on the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Stride on 19 October and he wrote one on Eddowes’ murder on 6 November. As the medical reports, inquest testimonies and all the other official police reports which have survived correspond with Swanson’s reports, I see no reason to think that Schwartz’ original statement differed from what Swanson wrote down. The original statement was probably a bit longer, but I think that would be about all that was different. So, it seems that Swanson based his summary reports on the official files and reports and to be frank (which I obviously have been since birth  ) I would expect no less from a high ranking officer such as he was.
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
I was transcribing some articles today and this strange story about the Stride murder was included in one of them. It is from the Morning Advertiser of 8 October 1888:
An extraordinary statement bearing upon the Whitechapel tragedies was made to the Cardiff police yesterday by a respectable looking elderly woman, who stated that she was a spiritualist, and, in company with five other persons, held a séance on Saturday night. They summoned the spirit of Elizabeth Stride, and after some delay the spirit came, and, in answer to questions, stated that her murderer was a middle aged man, whose name she mentioned, and who resided at a given number in Commercial road or street, Whitechapel, and who belonged to a gang of twelve.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3195
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Interesting story, Chris.
Thanks.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 10
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hello Rickard, Welcome to the Casebook.
On Sunday, 27 February 2005, at 7:03 am you wrote: "There seems to be some confusion if knife murders (in particulary by cutting the throat) was common in Whitechapel at that time. For me this seems like an important fact to be able to consider the pros and cons of the possible coincidents that night. So my question is: do we have any kind of numbers or statistics of this matter?".
You can find statistical tables about murders and murder weapons on-line at The British National Archives, which holds the records of the General Register Office from the late 19th century; The UK Data Archive-Great Britain Historical Database Online-Vital Statistics: Mortality 1851-1910. Catalog number: SN 4019, and Causes of Death in England and Wales, 1851-60 to 1891-1900: The Decennial Supplements. Catalog number: SN 3552, and The Great Britain Historical GIS Project at the University of Portsmouth.
The following books also contain relevant informtion:
Bars, Jennifer Ann
1994 Defining murder in Victorian London: An Analysis of Cases 1862-1892. Oxford University D.Phil. thesis. xvi, 377 f.
Plimmer, John F
1998 In the Footsteps of The Whitechapel Murders: An Examination of the Jack the Ripper Murders using Modern Police Techniques. Lewes: Book Guild, xii, 201 p. ISBN 1857763106.
Emsley, Clive
1996 Crime and Society in England, 1750-1900 Second Edition. Longman: London and New York.
Leps, Marie-Christine
1992 Apprehending The Criminal: The Production of Deviance in Nineteenth Century Discourse Duke University Press: Durham and London.
I'll also try to find some other sources for you.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Many thanks for your response.
There was, however, the suggestion that it was very much Liz Stride's killer's intention to leave her dead, and that he had what it took to do the job swiftly and efficiently, with steady determination.
I'm just not convinced that a jealous Kidney, worse for drink, would have possessed the wherewithal to do this, and then kept his cool when the realisation of what he had done hit him stone cold sober. I have a similar problem with the theory that a jealous Joe Barnett did for Mary alone what the ripper could only have dreamed about doing, and then went calmly on with the rest of his life.
For me, this only leaves Mr BS being Jack, not happy enough with the location of Liz's choice to do more than stop her identifying him later, or - less likely - Jack waiting in the wings until Mr BS has done with her.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3201
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
Caz,
No offense, but as I also told Natalie on the Barnett thread, I think your perception of what some people are capable of -- especially if they're drunk -- is based on misinformation and prefabricated opinions. I had hoped that we could leave this misconception about human conduct and psyche in the bin once and for all.
The notion that a drunken or agressive husband/boyfriend couldn't be capable of gruesome murder and then some hours later calm enough to handle an enquiry is total and complete rubbish.
We have loads of domestic cases that proves otherwise. Really, all you have to do is to open the daily paper. That you for some strange reason don't believe in it or haven't come across it, doesn't diminish the fact that it happens frequently. Most known murders (even of this kind) are in fact domestic -- it is actually quite rare that a brutal murder, no matter how gruesome, is a result of a serial killer or an unknown violent individual.
Secondly, who said that Kidney was jealous? As far as I know we have no information stating that with certainty. Really, drunk or frustrated would be enough. We know that he was of an aggressive disposition, at least according to friends of Liz Stride, and that she several times had been close to press charges against him.
And finally, his strange and very arrogant conduct at the inquest hardly displays a "calm" and rational individual -- I would say on the contrary, it is evident that he was not a particularly pleasant human being.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on February 28, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:28 am: |
|
Glenn,
I see your point and agree but its rare such attacks occur outside, in the view of the public.
Domestic murders usually happen in the privacy
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3202
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Monty,
That is indeed very true, and things gets complicated even further by the (possible) fact that she was a prostitute. That is also why I might consider it to be a client- or "member-of-a-gang-of-ruffians"-related killing. I can't rule out none of those alternatives.
Still, since we know she had a relation with a man that was known to be abusive and she had left him previously before the murder, I'd still say the most logical and plausible solution is to be found there.
A murder with a domestic motive doesen't have to happen in privacy.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I didn't say that a drunken or agressive husband/boyfriend couldn't 'be capable of gruesome murder and then some hours later calm enough to handle an enquiry'.
I just said I wasn't convinced this was the case here, or that Kidney could have got away with murder with such apparent ease.
Of course domestic murders happen all the time, and some of the killers will be able to handle themselves better afterwards than others. But what proportion of domestic murders remain unsolved, and what proportion retain a question mark over whether they were domestic or not?
I still maintain that if every man who ever physically abused a woman actually wanted and intended for her to die, as Liz died, the streets and houses of London would never be free of bodies.
Is it really 'total and complete rubbish' to suggest that Kidney may have been one of the vast majority of abusive men who don't go on to kill the object of their abuse?
Especially when we know there was already a killer out on the streets that very night, who did kill the objects of his abuse - at least three of them?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 28, 2005) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3203
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Caz,
Domestic murders are considered such because they are solved and the killer was caught.
Of course, we can't know about those murders that hasn't been detected or solved, but that goes for any murder category.
I am talking about solved murders, and that is why I said "most KNOWN murders...".
Besides, domestic murders have a larger possibility of being solved than murders where the body being dumped and where there are no personal connection between a perpetrator and the victim.
"I didn't say that a drunken or agressive husband/boyfriend couldn't 'be capable of gruesome murder and then some hours later calm enough to handle an enquiry'."
Yes, between the lines you did. If you can't believe "a" Kidney (as you said) being capable of it, then you practically don't believe anybody else could do it either, because there is nothing whatsoever that indicates that Kidney couldn't do it. Besides, you also mentioned Barnett in the same context, not just Kidney. Therefore one interprets it as you refer to drunken or aggressive spouses as a category.
What do you know about Kidney that we don't, that leads you to such conclusions about him especially? How do you know? After all, we we really don't have enough information in order to make such psychological evaluations about him.
All I am saying, is that it is quite possible for some individuals to pull it off and according to several cases they do -- and therefore we can't say that Kidney couldn't, especially since he had motive and also displayed less attractive personality traits.
Still, I am not totally set on Kidney (as I know Phil is), there are other alternatives (an ordinary client-related killing is a possibility), but I think he is the most logical person to investigate considering the circumstances.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1787
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Glenn
Your apparent determination to have Kidney considered as a plausible suspect for the murder of Stride does appear to be linked to your very recent determination to have Joe Bloggs considered as a plausible suspect for the murder of Mary Kelly.
It is as if you honestly believe that the consideration of Kidney being the killer of Stride will somehow prop up your consideration that Joe Baggins killed Mary Kelly.
Tell me that this doesn’t mean you have decided to cooperate in a joint venture with Leanne or someone else to produce a book with Joe Bloggs as the main suspect for the murder of Mary Kelly? |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 788
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Chris
"stated that her murderer was a middle aged man, whose name she mentioned, and who resided at a given number in Commercial road or street, Whitechapel, and who belonged to a gang of twelve."
The name given was "Johnny Donnelly". The full story is in my book. (plug plug plug)
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3206
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
AP,
No, I do not intend to corroborate with Leanne & Richard Inc. on their book; I have a couple of my own already started (not Ripper-related), so don't worry.
I don't see "Joe Bloggs" as Jack the Ripper anyway -- just a possible candidate to the murder of MJK.
I have no determination whatsoever to nail down any specific person as Stride's murderer; there are no evidence against anyone, unfortunately. I am just saying, that Kidney would be the most likely one.
But note that I have also said, that there are other possibilities; since she was a prostitute it could also be a client-related killing. I have said that many times. My point have been that I don't see it as a Ripper killing and Kidney is ONE way of explaining why, but not the only explanation.
I think Phil Hill really is way more convinced about Kidney that I am.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 598
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Hi,
Since I can't figure out if Stride was, or was not, a Ripper victim, or even settle myself on the time frame of the events near her death, I tend to see things this way.
If Stride was a Ripper victim, the attack on her witnessed by Schwartz happened shortly before Diemshutz's arrival, and shortly after Mrs. Mortimer went inside. As I've mentioned in a previous post, I think this "temporal sequence of events" can be considered consistent with the data we have; although there are alternatives.
Now, this framework, or interpretation, is supported by the blood clotting evidence that people testify at various time intervals. It appears that we have people indicating that as they watched Stride, the blood started off as "flowing" and ended up in a "clotted" stage. This, according to some reading I have done appears to take about 15 minutes (testimony of some medical person on Crimelibrary, with respect to the Lizzie Borden case). Based upon times of these statements, that would place Stride's throat cutting at just about 1 am, or Diemshutz's arrival. The cachous would most likely have been up her sleeve, and their presence in her hands indicates they fell out, probably during the final part of the assault when she's on the ground. Finally, the descriptions of men seen with Stride prior to Mr. BS (who would have to be JtR), are of people not connected with her murder.
This interpretation might also explain the similarities between the throat wound for both Stride and Eddowes. Neither had a wound which encirled the entire neck, so neither were similar in this respect to either Nichols or Chapman. Both had much deeper wounds on the left, that grew shallower on the right side. (Note, Stride's wound almost completely severs the left cartoid artery, and just misses the right; Eddowes's completely severes the left, and just nicks the right, etc) Both wounds were of similar length (though Strides was a bit shorter). Both wounds start and end at about the same anatomical location. In other words, unless these characteristics are common with throat cutting murders, these similarities suggest the same person killed both people. The mutilations of Eddowes links her to Nichols and Chapman, and the above may link Stride to Eddowes; and therefore the rest of the series.
The descriptions of couples, reportedly including Stride, are either of Stride and someone unrelated to the assault, or of two other people. If the former, this would suggest Stride may have been soliciting on that night. If the latter, well, then we can ignore them.
Finally, the person of interest seen with both victims could describe the same individual.
Now, I suppose I could try and present that as "the best we can expect, so we must go with Stride as a Ripper victim", but I just cannot bring myself to be quite so liberal with my interpretation.
Let's work backwards.
1st Witness descriptions of Persons of Interest:
The descriptions are so general, there is nothing that really indicates that the person of interest seen at both crimes is the same person. They very well could be different people.
2nd: People seen in Stride's company.
Stride may not have been soliciting, but with a new lover. She may have been preparing to move in with this new fellow. Hence, when Mr. BS (who is now Kidney), comes along, he realises what's going on and gets angry. New boy leaves, and Kidney starts up with Stride (about the time Schwartz wonders along). "New Boy" could also be a client, and Stride could have been soliciting. Kidney may just not be happy to see her in the process, or may be angry with her for leaving in the first place. Lots of things could have been the case.
2nd As hinted at, the similarities in the throat wounds could be like the witness descriptions; we only have the common characteristics of a throat cutting, nothing to really "individuate" the killer. So, Kidney could have killed Stride, and someone else kills Eddowes.
3rd: The Blood Clotting Timeline
As with any time line, there is variation. The estimated time of death for Stride based upon this information would be highly dependant upon temperature, and individual factors. She could have been killed maybe 10-15 minutes prior to her discovery by Diemshutz, and this would still fit with what we can deduce from the blood clotting testimony. Also, the opinion of the medical expert in the Crimelibrary story may be incorrect. I have no expertise in this area to be able to judge the accuracy of this information (similar to the throat wound similarities; I just am not qualified to make an informed call on these things).
4th. If Stride was killed 15 minutes earlier, this could still fit with Mrs. Mortimer's statements (now she's killed just before she comes out). Schwartz sees Kidney's assault on Stride. Kidney is upset as he's seen Stride with "New Boy", who ever he may be. Schwartz takes off, as does Pipeman. Kidney and Stride continue to quarrel, and he eventually gets so angry he kills her. And leaves. Mrs. Mortimer comes out, she goes back in, Diemshutz arrives, and so on.
Because Schwartz sees Mr. BS walking along, and then attack Stride, I think that we have to conclude that whoever Stride had been hanging around with prior to Mr. BS's arrival, has left. Or perhaps, he left, upset with Stride (she wouldn't go with him; now he feels he's been teased or been had, etc), and comes back to have it out with her? Maybe this is what Schwartz sees, is his return?
Anyway, already the possibilities grow. And, none of these little stories are at odds with the evidence. How can we pick between them?
I do think, however, the most likely candidates for Stride's death are either JtR or Kidney. However, it's not unreasonable to include a "jilted client"; someone who tried to pick up Stride, bought her a few drinks maybe, etc, but who she then turns down. I don't see evidence of a gang, since really Pipeman is described too much like another bystander in the official reports. It's only the Star that makes him sound more involved.
I think, though, if we had a forensic medical expert who could look specifically at the descriptions of the throat wounds and tell us if those similarities are "unique enough to suggest linkage", then the question would either be answered (Stride and Eddowes are most likely killed by the same person), or we're still left with all the alternatives.
JtR makes sense, since he was going around killing women in fairly populated areas by cutting throats.
Kidney makes sense because most murders are committed by someone close to the victim.
A jilted client makes a bit of sense, as this has been known to happen before. It's just less common. But it's not ruled out.
Hmmm, have I missed or misrepresented anything?
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
No worries Glenn,
just that your posts have in recent times seemed a lot more forceful than usual, and I did wonder the reasoning behind it?
I suppose that I might have thought you had thrown in your lot with Leanne because you were using a lot of capitals, exclamation marks and bold text.
I think it was Kipling who said: 'softly, softly.'
That'll catch the monkey. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Hey Everyone,
Jeff, I agree with what youre saying for the most part. If the reports are correct(Star and Police) it would seem that Mr BS just came up and started talking to or trying to manhandle Stride. If this is true, and that is the way it went down....then we can pretty much eliminate
Marshall's man and PC Smith's man.
It is interesting that Smiths man had the large parcel in his hand.
The thing about Kidney gets me though....I dont know how he could have known where Stride was hanging out if he hadnt seen her in 3 or 4 days. Berner Street is not exactly most peoples first guess if they are trying to locate a whore in whitechapel. Why would she be so far from her lodging house. For me, I dont think it was Kidney that killed her. Yes, he acted bizarre at the inquest....but, maybe he was just a lunatic as well.
Maybe BS didnt see Schwartz till after he had started his attack....apparently Pipeman too walked out of the public house just after the scuffle started....so far as we know, Mr BS could have thought he was alone. I think that Stride put up a bit more of a fight than he was anticipating.
Another interesting thing is that Mrs Mortimer's house was on the same side of the road as Dutfields yard. If your looking out your front door its not so easy to see whats happening 2 houses down on the same side of the road. Its just not a good angle....So that may be a reason why Fanny didnt see anything.
Paul
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 599
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
I've never been clear on where Mrs. Mortimer's house was in relation to the crime scene. So, it was on the same side of the street, but fairly close? It's starting to depend upon things like acoustics now, but since Schwartz says the attack started near the road (not in the yard or alley itself), I would think if she were on the stoop, she would still have noticed things. Basically, I think we have to conclude that Mrs. Mortimer was not outside at the time of the events that Schwartz relates.
Now, whether or not those events occurred before or after she was outside, is at present, hard to determine for sure.
As for Kidney knowing where to find Stride, not sure. If Kidney did kill her, that doesn't mean he knew she was there. He may have just come across her, with his presence in the area being for an unrelated reason. Thing is, if he killed her, he was there, and at the moment we cannot really demonstrate that he was unable to commit the crime. If, on the other hand, there was some reliable report that indicated his whereabouts around 1 am, and he was not near the crime scene, then I think we could dismiss him. Well, I think we would have to say the evidence clears him, but I suppose we could debate over the reliability of his alibi.
And, Smith's man with the parcel is interesting, but then Scwhartz does not mention this large parcel. He may have not noticed it as Mr. BS was walking towards Stride, or it suggests that Smiths man is not Mr. BS, or Smith's man was able to hide his parcel. For what reason, we cannot know, since one would presume that Stride had seen his parcel. Hmmm, that's starting to sound rude now.
Anyway, I'm not saying Kidney was her killer, and I'm not saying JtR was either. Only that, from what evidence we have, both are valid suspects. And, we can't rule out "disgruntled client" either. In otherwords, I do not think it's safe to say that Stride's murder is even "solved" to the point of being able to say she is or is not a victim of JtR. None of the evidence is really at odds with any of the theories; not even to the point where I think we can say one theory is more likely than the other. That latter, of course, being only my opinion. Obviously, other people are free to make their own judgments about which theory fits "best". We should just remember, that although we may not agree with someone over which theory fits best, that doesn't mean that their theory "doesn't fit at all".
What we would concentrate on is discussing why we think Theory 1 fits better, while acknowledging that Theory 2 through whatever, also fit, but we feel uncomfortable about them for some reason. That reason may be a subjective sense of probabilities, or some other aspect that isn't really straight from the evidence but more from our gut feeling and interpretations (a nice way of saying our own personal biases; we all have them, or at least I hope I'm not the only one!).
- Jeff |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 550
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 1:07 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
Ah, the Stride thread. Always an active one. I remember the good old days when Glenn would vehemently argue the exact opposite position that he is now. Good times, good times.
Anyway, there is an interesting question that's relevant to a lot of discussions on this board that Rickard brought up, so I thought I'd get back to it.
Hi Rickard,
You wrote:
"We know for a fact that there was another troathcut murder in roughly the same neighbourhood this particular night. My question here is if that fact both mathematicly and logicaly increase or decrease the possibility of a third throatcutting murderer acting the very same night?"
Statistics is one of those wild beasts that is hard to train. The way it works is often completely different than they way people ssume it does.
The short answer to your question is neither. Statistics of disconnected events do not magically influence each other just because you look at them the same time and compare them in a set.
When you randomly flip a coin and you've had six heads in a row already, the coin doesn't think and say, "Hey, I just had six heads, I should have a tail to try to get the other side in." or "Wow, six heads in a row, I should do another one because I'm really on a roll!" The coin just randomly lands heads up or tails up. People then try to read something into it. It's an illusion.
So, mathematically, a third knife attack that night that is proven to be unrelated in the same rough area neither increases nor decreases the likelihood that Eddowes and Stride were or were not connected.
What you're probably asking though is whether the math of the third attack supports or leans against the conventional wisdom that the Stride and Eddowes murders had to be linked because things like that don't just happen by accident. The answer there is that things do happen by accident, the third attack that night is but one example.
If someone tried to argue that, "Ok, so, a second knife attack could happen that wasn't Jack, but a third, gosh, that's just impossible," they'd be wrong. Random events can and do cluster as part of their randomness.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
I believe that the first part of Schwartz statement is more likely to be accurate.At that time he would only have been a little apprehensive of the drunk in front of him,but watching carefully as well.
He says,according to the paper report,that he saw the male put a hand on her shoulder,and push her into the yard,that she was twisted around and fell to the ground.
I will go along with the hand on the shoulder,but whether he could state emphatically that the rest was due to any action of the male,is debateable.
She might just have been backing away,twisted and lost her balance.It would have been instinctive action on her part ,from what she saw as unwelcome attention.
Besides, why assault with one hand only.Would be reasonable if a knife was already in the other hand,but there is no evidence of that.
Now a hand on the shoulder by anyone would not be a rare occurance in those days,or even now.It is akin to shaking hands.It was an old English custom to offer one hand only in greeting.Supposed to show that there was no ill intention.Believe it or not. |
Jeff Leahy
Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
Jeff read your thread with Great interest.
For me the most important thing is the Throat cut on Stride and Eddow's. If I'm correct in assuming that an experienced and meticulus Doctor Philips examined both wounds and reached the conclusion they were done by the same hand and knife, surely his opinion would be critical.
We have know detailed photo's of the wounds but I'm sure today the paphologist could give a very good sceintific link to prove either way.
Surely we have to trust Dr Philips judgement he must have seen enough throats cut to realize how one differed from another. If Philips say's Jack did both cuts then surely Stride is a ripper victim.
Having just said that I've trawled the site for Dr Philips autopsy's on Stride and Eddows but have been unable to find them.
My beleif is however that the police would have asked the Surgeon the obvious question, did the same man cut these throats, and I beleive that Philips would have seen enough wounds to give a fairly acurate answer.
The police were in know doubt that Stride and Eddows were Ripper victims. Two in one night.
The way the throats were cut the similarity for the incission is surely critical.
Jeff |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Hi Alan
Many thanks for the info - very useful
Don't worry about pluggin the book- it is on my list:-)
Anyway I have a new book out soon and will be plugging that myself!
All the best
Chris |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3213
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
"Ah, the Stride thread. Always an active one. I remember the good old days when Glenn would vehemently argue the exact opposite position that he is now. Good times, good times."
True indeed. Those were the days. Still, I'm in no less trouble now. See what these Boards do to ya?
"The answer there is that things do happen by accident, the third attack that night is but one example.
If someone tried to argue that, "Ok, so, a second knife attack could happen that wasn't Jack, but a third, gosh, that's just impossible," they'd be wrong. Random events can and do cluster as part of their randomness."
True again.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
On the subject of knife attacks on women during the LVP, the impression from the newspapers and court reports of the time does indicate that such assaults were commonplace - but seldom deadly.
Actual throat cuttings are as rare as hen’s teeth, but do occur sporadically, and are almost always of a ‘domestic’ nature. Several cases that I have flagged up on this board demonstrate this.
Even rarer are cases involving ‘stranger’ crimes where the woman has had her throat cut; and the perpetrator is never caught. These rare crimes almost always take place in the dwelling house of the murdered women.
Of course there are exceptions, like the case involving the other Inspector Cutbush which I posted recently where a young man slit’s a girl’s throat in broad daylight on a crowded street, but it is important to note that this was a ‘domestic’ crime, the man and the girl were in a long-term relationship which the girl had recently ended.
Looking carefully at the patterns evident in the various cases of the LVP it does seem that Stride’s killing must fall into the ‘domestic’ type of killing of which there are a considerable number.
That her killing took place in a very public area in front of several witnesses strongly suggests that it was an act of sudden passion, and the circumstances of the crime certainly fit into the pattern of domestic crimes of that period.
Even in the LVP ‘stranger’ murders were of a secretive nature, mostly taking place inside houses, and certainly not carried out in front of witnesses.
Obviously some will say that Jack’s own crimes were not of a secretive nature, with the mangled corpses apparently left on public display, but I’m prepared to argue that point.
Jack’s crimes were inherently of a secretive nature, it was the aftermath of the crime that was public. Once he had his strange way with the bodies he couldn’t have given a tuppeny toss whether the bodies were hanging off lampposts or stuffed head first down public sinks in Dorset Street. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 600
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I think the official medical reports have been lost for both cases, and the inquest testimony does not, to my recollection, clarify the medical opinion. It seems that the medical opinion was divided on even the anatomical skills involved in Chapman's case, let along the comparison between Chapman and Eddowes.
And, forensic medicine wasn't really an area of study at the time. I'm not sure how much information would have been gathered about things like "typical wound patterns", meaning depth, length, etc. Without putting this information together from all (or a large number) of such crimes, and then examining this data for commonalities and "deviations there from", the Doctor's could be greatly mistaken because they are forming an opinion based upon what they "perceive" the data to be and not what the "data has shown."
This is not intended as criticising the Doctor's ability, in the sense of saying they were incompetent. We have to remember that for a long time everybody figured if you drop a 1lb weight it would fall slower than a 10 lb weight. But, it doesn't (at least to the degree that people thought at the time), and this was shown by dropping weights off leaning towers and such. Until the "common perception" was put to the test and examined, the "informed individual" would express their opinion and be wrong. Simply because what common sense told them had never actually been tested for correctness. Sometimes what seems obvious turns out to be obviously wrong.
Anyway, I would feel more comfortable if the doctor's at the time expressed an opinion that was also agreed with by a modern forensic examiner, one who knows about knife wounds and throat cutting, etc. Unfortunately, such an individual would only have the brief descriptions that we have, and may simply tell us that these reports are not sufficient to make a positive conclusion. So, the best we may end up with would be a statement like "On the qualification that these reports are sparse, and by modern standards incomplete, ..."
and then either:
"... the descriptions show nothing unique between the murders, which allows for the possibility that two separate individuals were involved."
or
"... the descriptions are sufficiently similar to suggest that the same individual committed both crimes."
And most likely our modern report would end with a statement like:
"It must be remembered that due to the minimal information supplied, it is entirely possible that the conclusions reached are incorrect."
It's not just "covering their backside", but modern forensics is data driven. And without all the necessary data, one simply cannot draw a firm conclusion. We all know the problems we have in this case, and they all tend to revolve around the fact that there are so many things we just do not know.
- Jeff |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 34
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Did the drunk accosting Stride realise there were other persons in the near vicinity?.Schwartz was behind but catching up when the passage was reached,and the man at the corner had not then come into the open.These three appeared to be the only persons there.
Schwartz does not testify about any precautions the drunk might have taken,such as turning around or peering into the yard,or even hesitating.Just a few words then a hand on the shoulder.Not much of an assauly considering the circumstances. |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Hi Caz
I certainly agree with you re Mr. B.S.
If he was J t R he was sure being careless to be seen by witnesses and to shout to them on top of it all.Since he could be recognized he would be totally stupid to follow through and kill her.
I believe Mr. B.S. was someone like Kosminski, for example, a known lunatic, she rejected him for obvious reasons, he attacked her and as others have noted lost her footing due to his mishandling of her or maybe she was drunk.
Mr. B.S. shouts to Schwartz, he flees Mr. Pipeman on his tail, Liz is left alone.
Along comes Jack who may have witnessed the whole scenerio (from a secure unwitnessed location). He the gentleman offers his hand to help her up, engages in small talk re her attack. She feels safe enough with him to ply her trade. They go off into the darkness, he kills her like the others but is interrupted by Diemstra before carving her up.
Love to hear your comments on above.
luv
Restless Spirit
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 299
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
HI Restless,
I know you were asking Caz but hope you don't mind me posting on it as well, because you brought up some really good points.....
It's does seem obvious from the evidence that we do have that Mr BS was not exactly a charmer...........so I totally agree that for one reason or another Liz did resist his obviously less than enticing offer, whatever it was .......and this resulted in the assault, which has been pointed out was relatively minor in nature.
I don't think I would like to gauge the state of his mental health from Schwartz statement alone though......
There were two bruises on the front of her shoulders, which would suggest that at some point she was pushed fairly hard backwards and I personally think happened during this assault , which would indicate that he used at least enough force to push her to the ground even if she kept her footing quite well initially.
In my opinion, and it is purely personal, I feel that she was strangled and then lowered to the ground by her scarf before her throat was cut.....which is consistent with JtR's MO but could also apply equally to a novice killer, who just happened to use the same method purely coincedentally.
The premise that JtR came along after to console her is of course possible, and we have discussed the likliehood of this to death, but I personally think that because of certain other factors that it is a less likely scenario, but not an impossible one by any stretch.
I have already explained that I believe that if it had been JtR he would have tried to get her to go further back into the very dark and relative quietness of the yard, but instead killed her right inside the yard gates where the chances of him being discovered were very high.
Caz gave me food for thought, by suggesting that maybe he killed her there, because he was in fact trying to lure her away to a quieter location and that he lost his temper when she wouldn't go and killed her there in a fit of frustration and this did seem like a good premise.....
After I had thought about it though, I wondered if Liz might not have been quite glad to get away from that spot just in case Mr BS returned and starting causing more trouble. He had already called out to somone across the road and assaulted Liz, so it is possible that she might have been glad to move elsewhere ....I know if it had been me, I would had wanted to get out of there.....that is pure speculation of course and I just felt that it seemed a possibility based on what many women would be feeling that situation.
I also found it difficult to think that a JtR that had persuaded his other victims to a quieter, relatively safer location would have failed to do the same with Liz...
Of course she may well have not been bothered about Mr BS coming back and she might just have had enough for the night, then of course her refusing to go with her killer would be a very feasible one and Caz's scenario quite plausible.......
I think though, that if he did engage her in small talk and she felt safe with him as you put forward she would have gone into the dark recesses of the yard with him, especially if it was for sex. Nine feet inside the yard, by the kitchen door would not seem the best place to do it. The fact is they did not go off into the darkness, which is why I still personally feel that it was more likely that Mr BS simply returned a few minutes later as Liz was walking back from the loos in the yard and killed her in a fit of rage.
I have still got a very open mind on the whole subject and Caz certainly did make me rethink it seriously, but I still sway 60% - 40% in favour of it being a domestic.
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxx
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
Thanks for the response and your favourable comments concerning my post. You've made some excellent points as did Caz. I've thought about your points, but I do not believe that B.S. was J t R nor do you, according to your post. But the sex part did not seem important to Jack. From all accounts I've read, there wasn't any evidence of rape or sexual activity with his victims. This of course leads to another question or two.From what I have understood these ladies of the evening preferred anal sex and or oral obviously as a birth control method,if indeed this were the case I cannot understand why nothing (semen)etc was present in any of the victims. If I am not mistaken Annie Chapman or Polly had said that she had made her doss money several times that night but had to go out again due to having spent it. With that having possibly being the case why wasn't evidence of sexual activity present?? I am not convinced that all the doctors & or coroners at that time were experienced enought or had the proper facilities to accurately determine sexual interference (with absolutely no disrespect intended to these doctors etc)
Here I go spectulating again,Mr.pipe or knife man who for some reason was in the shadows came back after chasing Schwartz away.Could he have been Jack? Hiding in the shadows waiting for his next victim?
He scared Schwartz away,came back scared Mr. B.S. away, now becomes Mr. Knight in shining armor to Liz.
He killed her right away because she was by this time nervous & somewhat skeptical,she didn't want to go back into the darkness after her experience with BS. He intended to carry or drag her into the darkness to do his dastardly deeds but was interrupted by Diemstra.
Does this sound too off the wall?
all my best
Restless Spirit
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 602
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi Restless,
I seem to recall that the "preferred" method of servicing a customer was something which was known as a "knee trembler." I still think that's a quaint phrase. Basically, the women was not penetrated but rather gripped the fellow between her thighs. Apparently, this was done without the knowledge of the fellow, so it's not like guys were going around seeking this particular activity, but it was one of the ways the women avoided pregnancy.
Anyway, if such were the case, it might account for the "clean legs" reports for one of the victims. If they were washing their legs after such encounters, which I would presume would be of a high priority under the circumstances, then this could explain the lack of any evidence of sexual activity. There was no penetration, and the evidence would have been washed away.
As for JtR, he wasn't interested having any kind of sex with his victims. He didn't have the time, nor apparently the inclination. The only victim where he would have had the oppertunity would have been Mary Kelly, and she was so mutilated I don't know if it would have been possible to determine. Also, since she was spotted with a few fellows that evening, it would have been difficult to determine when the activity occurred (I think).
- Jeff |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 300
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hi Restless (little wave)
You are right, I don't think on balance that Mr BS was JtR, for various reasons, which Glenn and Frank have been over many times, so I won't go into them again.......I won't say it is impossible of course, but I think it unlikely......
I think I am right in saying that sexual serial killers do not necessarily have to have participated in any kind of sex act with the victims to be classed as a sexual serial killer. I'm afraid I'm not very clued up on the technical side of things in that respect, but I'm sure someone will be able to clarify that.
That is a very good point though, because yes Polly admitted that she had intercouse with clients that night and yet no mention was made of her having traces of semen on her. It was actually remarked that Polly's thighs were clean, which has been discussed on the boards and may have been a euphemism that no semen was found on her body......
The doctors testimonies certainly do seem to be tantalizingly vague on certain aspects of the condition on the victims and there have been inaccuracies in their reports that make it hard to tell exactly what the truth was........
But yes, certainly in Polly's case there should have been some semen present if she had actually had sexual intercourse. Without delving too far into the subject, presumably oral sex would have left no real trace and could have been overlooked by the doctors.
The other possibility is that actual penetration didn't take place, and again without getting too explicit here, the ladies would trick the client into thinking that they were have sex when in fact there was no real penetration at all. This too could account for the absence of semen.
Now I really am not sure about good old Mr Pipe man, because again Schwartz's report is a little vague. There is no reason to think that the Pipe man was anything more than a passer by, but again of course he could have been Liz's killer, in the absence of evidence either way, no way can say for certain.
However the chances of JtR just happening to be standing about lighting his pipe and being fortunate enough to find a victim delivered up to him, feels rather unlikely to me, Unless he had been following Liz for some reason as a potential victim anyway and was just waiting until she was alone.
If we look at the scenario in more detail it might make it easier to decide just how feasible it is......
Firstly Liz is assaulted by Mr BS and she is pushed down to the ground.The Pipe man is watching this and follows Schwartz to all intents and purposes chasing him away.
He then goes back and finds Liz still ruffled and asks if she wants to go with him into the yard to have sex. I have to say that sounds a tad unlikely. I can't imagine that the man that could coax the other ladies to their deaths when they were well aware that there was a killer on the lose would suddenly become so inept in lulling his victims into trusting him.
It is far more likely that he would have asked her if he could escort her either home or to the pub for a drink in which case I think it far more likely that she would have said yes.....
There is also the cachous to be taken into consideration. If the Pipeman did return it is highly unlikely that he would have still found Mr BS there.
Liz was found holding a packet of cachous in her hand when she was killed. Now if Pipe man returned and chased Mr BS off she would have not taken the cachous out of her pocket unless she had calmed down and was feeling more relaxed. It does not seem like something someone who was nervous and agitated would do. I think the last thing I would think of in that situation was freshening my breath. Again going back to the conversation earlier about methods used by prostitutes to service clients, what would you say was the most likely reason that a prostitute would suck a cachous?
I truly think that the most likely scenario is that Liz had either just serviced a client or a new boyfriend and was either assaulted by a jealous former lover or by that client for whatver reason directly afterwards. Mr BS was one of these.
After Mr BS had gone away she went into the yard to freshen up before finding another client or going home or to the pub, and just as she reached the entrance she was killed by someone, either Mr BS or possibly JtR who just happened to be on the scene.
Could he have been the Pipeman, of course he could, but I feel on balance that her killer was the man that had assaulted her and was still hanging around......it just seems the most probable scenario to me.........
As I say 60% - 40% in favour of a domestic, but keep going you might just convince me if you keep going, because you brought up some really good points there!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3215
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Hi restless,
As Jane and Jeff already have pointed out, it is not necessary for a sexual serial killer to indulge in actual sex with the victim -- in general, the mutilators we know of so far (often belonging to the category of sexual offenders), are not the slightest interested in traditional sexual contact in connection with murders -- for them the sexual gratification actually lies in the mutilations themselves (as they in some weird way represents their inner sexual fantasies).
We do have cases where sexual sadists rape (or have usual sex) with their victims before they kill them (often by strangulation etc.), and we can also find examples where the perpetrator after the killing and the inflicting of signature has ejaculated upon the victim's dead body or body parts (see for example Jeffrey Dahmer) but this is rather uncommon when it comes to mutilators like Jack the Ripper.
The focus on the Ripper's genitalia (and womb in tow of his victims) leaves little doubt that he was a sexual offender, but the kind of sexual power (sometimes in combination with rage and a sense of power and control) that drives these types of killers is something that rarely -- hopefully -- makes sense to the rest of us.
Therefore it is not at all strange, that we find little or no evidence of sexual contact between Jack and his victims, there seldom are in these types of murders. The mutilations generally function as a replacement for this.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 02, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 301
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Restless,
Just one more thought, which may or may not be pertinent. I think I am right in saying that Berner Street was a not a usual location for prostitutes to take their clients, although I believe the loos in Dutfield's yard were used by them on occasion........
I think that it is more likely that she was actually out with a boyfriend/new beau that evening looking at the testimonys of various witnesses and that she was not at that location for business, rather that she was out on a date. I seem to remember that she was standing outside the Club at one point listening to the music with her companion which does seem more in line with a date.
Also it does seem very likely that he bought a flower for her and she was seen having rather a passionate moment outside the Bricklayer's Arms by Gardner and Best. Not just the average client by the sound of it.
Just a thought...........
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for that, I think that was very helpful, I have read it before in different forms, but that seems to sum it up nicely. I might actually remember it this time......
Love to you both
Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on March 02, 2005) |
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
I agree that the sexual gratification for Jack and possibly other serial killers is the mutilation and or violence or possibly dominance.
All good points and reasonable explanations. I would be very interested in your views on Mr. Pipe or Knife that I noted in my post.
all my best
Restless Spirit
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
Again you've made some excellent points and observations. I've got some catching up to do on the boards which leaves me less informed and not privy to the many previous posts that have been presented concerning this topic. I certainly do not want to rehash ground that has been well covered by those more experienced than myself, but I do appreciate being heard and responded to in such a manner as to further enhance my understanding and knowledge of J t R, whom I've been intrigued by for years. We never know all, nor do we assume to know too much that we cannot be further educated by others or ourselves. I am open to constructive critism as we all should be, but my goal is to learn more from those who can teach me.
Thank you Jane/Glenn/Cas. I am certainly learning something new every day on the boards.
chow
Restless Spirit
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Jeff Hamm
Hi Jeff
I've learned something new again, re the thigh sex. I have been sitting here pondering how the heck they did this, no kidding. I practically fell off of my chair laughing trying to visualize how this was done. I am no prude, nor am I an old fart, but the majority of these women were large and I would assume rightly or wrongly that their profession and this stance would have made them some what bowl leggeded. How could a normal male with normal anatomy(so to speak) not know where he was. Please excuse the way I've worded this but it is somewhat difficult considering the tender topic.
Without sounding rude, I would think that their clientel would have needed a two-by-four to keep from falling in. I can explain further however I do not intend to sound like I am making a joke concerning their size or their poor unfortunate lifestyles but I am baffled.
Maybe I need to go back to school and further my education on the birds and the bees.
Embarassingly yours
Restless Spirit
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
