|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 151
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 8:10 am: | 
|
If Jack was watching Lizzie, why was he south of Whitechapel Road that night? What had made him change his stamping ground?
It can be argued that all the strong contenders as his victims (Tabram (?), Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly(?)) were killed NORTH of the Whitechapel Road.
Indeed, he struck north later that night in Mitre Square. So why should we assume Jack to have been anywhere near Berner St that night?
[I make it clear, if that is needed, that I do NOT rule out Stride as a JtR crime - I am just probing at other waters.] |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
Hi Frank you wrote in reply to Glenn
"Just one question before I drop the subject (since we seem to be in agreement on Stride): have you abandoned the viewpoint you had earlier that, based on your experience, witness descriptions are usually not very reliable, unless the include one or several more striking features?"
Best Gardener and Marshal reported a man wearing a short coat, and Smith and Brown told of a man wearing a long overcoat, surely this is striking enough to merit the fact that we are dealing with two men here.
Hi Glenn you wrote
"Still, that doesn't mean she DIDN'T HAVE a date after all! Maybe she WAS supposed to meet someone special, for all we know.
Or maybe she simply had one particular client she was more fond of than others or was more respectable than her usual companies of dregs, and therefore felt extra compelled to look as clean as possible?
I'll go along with the CLIENT she was more fond of than others, that's probably why she brought along the packet of cachous, to sweeten her breath, but why did she decide to get out the cachous after she had already been seen kissing one man(Marshals man),could it be that this man had already departed, and she was in the process of taking out the cachous in order to sweeten her breath again for another man?
Which leads me to this point
Frank you wrote
"However, if she did actually chose to service only regulars and if you believe Stride was a Ripper victim, it follows that JtR was either a regular, or that she for some reason aborted the idea of only servicing regulars the moment she met him."
Yes Frank I'm begining to think that possibly just possibly Liz Stride's killer was known to her, and that man was JTR.
Regards Cludgy
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 528
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Hi Cludgy,
According to the Daily News (DN), Marshall’s man wore a small black coat, while the Daily Telegraph (DT) reads that he had on a black cut-away coat and the Star says it was a black coat, but not an overcoat.
According to the DN and DT the man Brown saw was of average build, while the Times states he was stoutish and the Star says he was not so very stout.
While none of the newspaper versions of the inquest testimony mention the complexion of Stride’s companion seen by PC Smith, both the Police Gazette (PG) and Swanson’s report (SR) say it was 'dark'. The same goes for the mentioning of a moustache: no moustache is mentioned in any of the different versions of the inquest testimony, but in the PG and SR the PC’s man sports a small dark moustache.
Furthermore, the DN, DT & the Star say Smith's man, like Marshall’s man in the DT, wore a dark cut-away coat, while the Times states he wore an overcoat and the PG and SR give him a black diagonal coat. Unlike the other sources, the latter two also state the man had a collar & tie (which was white, according to SR).
As Brown, perhaps due to the fact that he had already passed the couple standing in a rather dark spot near the Board School, really didn’t tell anything substantial about the woman I’m not sure that he saw Stride in the first place. Furthermore, he remained vague about the man too. He was only able to say he was about 5ft. 7 in. (which was sort of average then) and that he wore a long dark overcoat that nearly came down to his heels, which may or may not have been true.
Because the sources we have at our disposal do not agree on all the parts of the various descriptions and because, as far as I’ve understood (and once experienced), such descriptions are usually not all that reliable, I choose not to put much faith into them.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 40
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
Glen,
I do not think there will be unanimous acceptance of what happened at Dutfield yard.Certainly it seems you and I won't agree,but nothing wrong with that.
It is generally accepted that witness statements cannot totally be relied on to tell the truth of an incident,so it is good policy to seek alteratives to what is implied.
Whether the man was drunk,or indeed what kind of a drunk he might have been is debateable.Schwartz saw a woman fall to the ground after a man put his hand on her shoulder.Whether she fell because of the pressure exerted,or whether she fell in twisting away from the contact,is also debateable.
The light was poor,and it appears that Schwartz was in a hurry to depart.He saw nothing else of importance,except the man coming from the doorway.
What seems undeniable,is that Stride was killed in the confines of the yard,and the only marks on the body was small bruises on the shoulder area,sustained,it is believed,when she was lowered to the ground.
My opinion,based on the information outlined above,is that there was only one assault on Stride,and that was inside the yard,and resulted in her death.
Horseplay(or fooling around) is light banter or non serious activity engaged in between two or more people.It is of a frivolous nature.It was a term widely used in the forces when I served.Widely engaged in when under the influence of alchol,and never ,to my knowledge,leading to murder. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
So why should we assume Jack to have been anywhere near Berner St that night?
Of course we shouldn't assume anything - including what limits Jack imposed on himself with regard to his 'stamping ground'.
The fact remains that Liz met her end when she met a knife-wielding prostitute killer who was in Berner Street that night, just fifteen minutes' walk away from Mitre Square, where a second woman was killed by a knife-wielding prostitute killer just forty-five minutes later. If someone else killed Liz, he couldn't have wished for more perfect timing to put the blame squarely on Jack. Any more than half an hour later, and the timing would have been disastrous.
We only know where, and in what circumstances, Jack felt comfortable enough to mutilate his victims; we don't know where - or even when - he first encountered them. This initial location had little to do with Jack's comfort zone while in the throes of an attack, but everything to do with a suitable victim happening to be there.
Is there any evidence that Jack intended to mutilate any of his victims where the initial contact took place? If not, then there is no reason to assume he would never have chosen to walk down Berner Street or that, encountering Liz by Dutfield's Yard, he would never have tried to get her to accompany him somewhere more his cup of tea.
Had Jack heard footsteps approaching Mitre Square before he could mutilate Kate there, and scarpered, you might now be arguing against this being one of his, because he operated on all the 'strong contenders' in Met territory.
Had Jack fled Miller's Court before anyone could investigate the cry of "Oh murder", you might now be suggesting this wasn't one of his, because all the 'strong contenders' were killed (and mutilated) outdoors.
Had Jack heard Cadoche, and managed to bolt back to the street leaving Annie in much the same condition as Liz would be found three weeks later, you might now want to exclude this victim, because none of the 'strong contenders' were attacked in a backyard with the sun coming up.
The sample is just too small to assume anything about what Jack wouldn't have done, and where he wouldn't have gone, in order to get what he wanted.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 08, 2005) |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
CAZ,
Very well put indeed.....Very well put! I liked that post! I agree 100%.
Paul
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I agree with Paul a excellent observation.
I Believe the killer had every intention of ripping apart Stride , but he simply did not have the time.
The fact is it is almost certain that 'Jack' attacked on Berner street, the writing on the wall could be refering to being seen by Schwartz, who the killer assumed was a jew therefore 'The jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing'makes perfect sense for in his own mind he blamed a jew for not being able to satisfy his lust, and a second murder occured because of that.
Richard.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Thanks Paul and Richard.
Well, Richard, others will think you are assuming too much by linking a) the cry of "Lipski!", b) the lack of mutilation in Dutfield's Yard, c) the second murder that did feature mutilation (and an escalation from Hanbury Street, despite the similarly tight time-frame) and d) the apparently racist message left in Goulston Street for returning Jewish residents to see, beneath which Jack left his one unmistakable clue.
And they may be right - but I, for one, am not the woman who will be blamed for assuming that these events are not linked. 
Love,
Cautious Caz
X
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Caz,
I also agree with your post above (the 6:55 AM one)... very well put, and a good point.
Rob |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 156
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Caz:
The fact remains that Liz met her end when she met a knife-wielding prostitute killer who was in Berner Street that night...
NOPE!! She met her end when she was murderered by person or persons unknown. She MAY have been a prostitute - that has been debated above - but she may well have been killed in a fit of pique/passion by an irate ex-lover/partner. Your approach situates the appraisal, rather than appraising the situation, and is IMHO ill-judged.
...just fifteen minutes' walk away from Mitre Square, where a second woman was killed by a knife-wielding prostitute killer just forty-five minutes later.
I probably agree more with that statment, but you imply a link that is as yet unproven.
Had Jack heard footsteps approaching Mitre Square before he could mutilate Kate there, and scarpered, you might now be arguing against this being one of his... I might well. But that is not the situation and thus I do not so argue.
...suggesting [Kelly]... wasn't one of his, because all the 'strong contenders' were killed (and mutilated) outdoors.
But that is the case is it not? It HAS been argued that Kelly was NOT a JtR victim for precisely that reason.
Richard:
I Believe the killer had every intention of ripping apart Stride , but he simply did not have the time.
Then I assume you believe JtR to have been an idiot of unparalleled proprtions, Richard. He'd have to have been insane to start mutilating a woman's body in a bust entrance to a Club that was operating, a yard from a busy street. This is vastly different from deserted Buck's Row in the early hours; the relative privacy (albeit at risk) of 29 Hanbury St's backyard; the darkness of Mitre Sq or the privacy of 13 Miller's Court.
I don't think that Jack was that sort of lunatic.
Seems I'll have to go on challenging and playing the devil's advocate.
Phil
The fact is it is almost certain that 'Jack' attacked on Berner street, the writing on the wall could be refering to being seen by Schwartz, who the killer assumed was a jew therefore 'The jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing'makes perfect sense for in his own mind he blamed a jew for not being able to satisfy his lust, and a second murder occured because of that.
Richard.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Well i certainly believe the killer[ whoever he was] was insane at the time of these attacks.
The fact remains he took risks of huge proportions in comitting these murders, not so much in the case of Tabram[ if indeed a victim] although a alleyway or somewhere more secluded would have been more desireable then a staircase to a building occupied by several persons.
If the reports of a disturbance in Brady street and Bucks row can be believed, he also seemed oblivious of danger.
Hanbury street approaching dawn, on a busy street would also have been highly dangerous, people rising and the risk that imposed of being disturbed.
In the case of Stride, to commit mutalation of a person inside a yard albeit dark was not recommendable owing to the club and visitors leaving via the yard.
Mitre square was policed every 15 minutes, and a huge risk was taken there, also occupants of the square and a opposite warehouse[ with a open door] would have added more risk.
And Finally MJK, to committ a murder in a room with only one exit surrounded by another six houses is danger ridden.
The fact is the killer seemed oblivious to any danger he could have faced either by pure insanity or a overwelming desire to commit these acts.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 157
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
There is no credible evidence of any disturbance at the time of the Buck's Row murder, Richard. This was gone into before in one of my early "Back to Basics" Threads. If you still think there was then please cite your source precisely so we can evaluate and debate it.
The risk in Hanbury St was of being disturbed and/or cornered - but at that time of the morning it was a relatively controlled risk; and could have been reduced if jack had local knowledge or had "cased the joint" previously.
Mitre Square was VERY dark and apparently much less frequented at that time of day than Berner St which had shops and the Club - they are different places in quality.
So I regard your last sentence as insupportable, a generalisation which does not stand up under detailed analysis.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 533
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
Just read my tag line below. One exit means that there was also only one entrance and probably few, if any, were expecting the Ripper to strike indoors in a place like Miller's Court.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hi,
There are reports of a disturbance by two independant people, one of them invoves a third party involving the Nichols murder.
Reports are not evidence, but should be not dismissed out of hand.
Richard. |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
The risk in Hanbury St was of being disturbed and/or cornered - but at that time of the morning it was a relatively controlled risk; and could have been reduced if jack had local knowledge or had "cased the joint" previously.
Here is a possible clue from the Daily News 10-September-88:
"The only possible clue that I can think of [Mrs. Richardson] is that Mr. Thompson's wife met a man about a month ago lying on the stairs. This was about four o'clock in the morning. He looked like a Jew, and spoke with a foreign accent. When asked what he was doing there, he replied he was waiting to do a "doss" before the market opened. He slept on the stairs that night, and I believe he has slept on the stairs on other nights. Mrs. Thompson is certain she could recognise the man again both by his personal appearance and his peculiar voice. The police have taken a full and careful description of this man."
The Ripper had used the house before, that's why he took such a risk in the backyard. He knew when the occupants rose and what their general habits were. Careful reading of the Inquest testimony and newspaper reports shows that Annie Chapman was never previously seen by the inhabitants of no. 29. Thus, it is likely that she had never previously been in the backyard of no. 29. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 454
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Scott,
Interesting notion, but it really sounds like a stretch to me. That the inhabitants of No. 29 had never seen Annie Chapman before doesn't necessarily mean she'd never been in the backyard previously. The denizens of that and other tenements in Whitechapel seemed to have developed a blindness and deafness to much that went on around them (e.g. the initial assumption Tabram's body was a drunk sleeping it off). There would appear to have been a culture of "leave it be" in the area.
After all, no one in No. 29 heard (far less saw) anything untoward the morning of the murder and Mr. Cadoche next door was evidently more concerned about his bowels than any contretemps over the fence. There were prostitutes using the yard and hallway, but while an annoyance they seem to have been tolerated as long as no one messed with the tools of the packing box business.
Moreover, since it was established that the yard was used by prostitutes Annie need never have been there before to still have known that it was a place where business could be consummated.
That Annie led Jack to the yard seems more likely to me than that Jack had dossed several times before and carefully made note of comings and goings in order to later use the yard for a mutilation murder. If he were that cunning and far-sighted I have to believe he could have found far better places for his depredations than he did.
As I wrote at the start, interesting but a bit of a stretch to my mind.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 158
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 1:55 am: |
|
Two things Richard:
There are reports of a disturbance by two independant people, one of them invoves a third party involving the Nichols murder.
References please so we can be precise in discussion. I am aware of the reports, and place no weight on them at all. Why do you? To establish that, we need to know which you rely on - not just bland, meaningless statements and assertions.
Reports are not evidence, but should be not dismissed out of hand.
So what principles (again precisely) do you apply when weighting evidence, other than "this suits the conclusion towards which i am working, so I'll use it; this doesn't I'll dismiss it." That is neither logical nor scholarly. But i recognise that I your approach may be different. What is it?
Phil
Richard. |
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
Hello all,
I am confused by a couple of the points that have been made...
I really did not think that a definite link had been established between the Stride and Eddowes murders. One killing, in my mind, does not necessarily follow the other. The chances to me that they were committed by the same person, seems very slim. They are linked together mainly because they happened on the same night.
I also did not know that the writing on Goulston Street was definitely linked to Jack. I thought that was an area still open for debate, and that type of racist message was common in the area.
I also do not believe that Jack was an idiot. I believe he was a risk taker and thought of himself as invincible. I have heard people say that he got more skill with each killing, I believe he also got braver.
He seems to have had local knowledge, but I am not sure about him "casing the joint" as conditions would not have been the same on any given night. He could have "cased the joint" to get a feel of the lay out etc, but I think that was all he did. It still makes him a risk taker in my view.
I agree with Don, "There was a culture of "leave it be" in the area." It was business as usual.
Funny, how little things have changed over the last 100+ years.
Carolyn
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
If you reread the relevant posts, you will see that we have been debating whether or not a 'definite link' between Stride and Eddowes can be assumed. We are discussing our various opinions on this, and no one has claimed such a link has been established, otherwise this thread would be dead, wouldn't it?
I tend to think the women dictated where business was to be done, and Jack simply went along and if the circumstances seemed ok for his own brand of business, he attacked.
Hi Phil,
Are you seriously suggesting Liz may not have been a prostitute? Have you not read about her known history?
I stand by the fact that her killer was a knife-wielding prostitute killer, whether he knew it or not - and the chances are he assumed she was soliciting, even if she wasn't at that particular time. "Hmmm, a woman hanging about on her own? At this time of night? Outside a men's club? In Whitechapel? Bingo!"
I wrote:
...just fifteen minutes' walk away from Mitre Square, where a second woman was killed by a knife-wielding prostitute killer just forty-five minutes later.
You wrote:
I probably agree more with that statment, but you imply a link that is as yet unproven.
Just stating the facts, I'm afraid. The link you see is implied by those facts, with no help from me. So why resist it so strenuously?
I don't think that Jack was that sort of lunatic.
I tend to agree - and, as we know, Liz wasn't mutilated in that risky spot, and there is no evidence that her killer intended to mutilate her there.
If it was Jack who slit her throat, he evidently wasn't the 'sort of lunatic' who would spend precious time mutilating a victim near a busy club; he was evidently the sort of lunatic who would take himself off in search of a more suitable victim, who would lead him to a more suitable location - and he found Eddowes.
So your argument works both ways.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 10, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 159
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Caz:
If you read myu post you'll see I am pedantically clear, if Kidney killed her he probably did NOT do it because she was a prostitute... hence your claim/definition falls.
Again, as I said, whether Liz was ever a prostitute, and/or operating as such that night, has been recently debated. Frankly I have no view (I lean toward the "she was but not THAT night" school) but that does not help the inadequacy of your definition of the killer.
For the rest, if you cannot see the distinction between Berner St and the other sites, you need to read more in the sources.
Phil |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 334
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
I can see why you need to have a few points cleared up, because I have the same feeling.
I feel exactly the same as you do........
Some things just don't add up and it is those little niggles (going back to the 'what are we missing theme') that gives me problems. All of the points you have brought up have been troubling me too..........
Hi Caz,
I can see from your post exactly what you are saying and it does make sense, but the niggles are still there and the reasoning there doesn't really resolve the issue for me........
I do agree that Jack was led to the locations of his victims choice in all probability...........but that doesn't resolve in any way what Liz was doing that night, in fact it actually negates that arguement, because it is very improbable indeed that Liz did lead JtR to Dutfield's yard that night.
This would on it's own be a departure from his usual MO. It would make Liz's killing less likely to be by JtR not more likely surely?
I tend to think the women dictated where business was to be done, and Jack simply went along and if the circumstances seemed ok for his own brand of business, he attacked.
The circumstances surrounding Liz's death couldn't have been further from perfect for an attack of any kind, by anyone, let alone JtR.
If I were setting out to kill and mutilate a victim, even as a rank amateur, I would not under any circumstances choose somewhere like Dutfield's Yard, especially not on that particular night.
I did in a earlier post give my reasons for thinking that the Berner Street site was different to the others, but I am not sure if it got missed or I didn't make myself clear, probably the latter. I am happy to give those reasons again if anyone wishes to hear them.
Even if he were goaded by her lack of co-operation in going elsewhere, why not just go and find another victim? I am sure some would reason that he was not acting rationally at the time and attacked in a fit of anger, but looking at the evidence, that cannot possibly be what happened.
If it was the case she would have been found with her throat cut at the very entrance of Dutfield's yard and not 9 feet inside it clutching cachous in her hand.
Did she scramble to her feet after the initial assault , whilst JtR stood presumably doing nothing, as she walked into the yard, taking out the cachous as she did so? When did he decide that she had annoyed him so much that he would kill her? I can't reconcile a dithering Jack, loitering at the entrance of Dutfield's yard, knowing that he had already been seen.
If she had been killed during that intial attack, then I would be able to go along entirely with a Jack who could not get his own way and killed in anger.
What I cannot accept is a Jack that paused in the middle of the assault that he knew had been witnessed and killed her after a 'time out' for Liz to recover her composure and get to her feet again. (Leaving aside the cachous which detracts even further from the sudden angry attack scenario).
I am sure we could reason that he thought that she could identify him and therefore thought it best to get rid of a potential witness, but there were two other witnesses that night who saw him as well, so that would not seem to be a very compelling reason.
As to Liz's killer being a knife wielding prostitute killer, well I have to say that there is some possibility that the knife that he used to kill her was actually one that Liz herself carried for protection. Of course there no evidence of that but it is a possibility. Many men and women at that time carried a knife for 'protection' anyway, especially those involved in some kind of questionable activity, so the man that attacked and killed Liz would quite probably have been carrying a knife as a matter of routine.
The phrase 'knife wielding prostitute killer' would seem to be implying that he was the exception in carrying a knife, when in fact he was, if not in the majority, then at least not a startling exception to the norm.
You are right of course that at the moment he cut her throat he was wielding a knife, but I think that the connotations in the phrase as it was used might be considered misleading in it's tone.
I really don't think we can second guess what he might have been thinking .....the area was not known for prostitution and her hanging about outside the club could have been for any number of reasons, including waiting for someone that was about to come out, or a date.
I don't think we are on safe ground assuming anything about her killer's motives at the time.....
I do have to agree with Phil, that it is also not safe to assume any connection between the two killings either. As Phil said, it is implying a link that is as yet unproven. The link is implied by the facts, but implication is not conclusive proof.
I can see your reasoning and it is valid, but I still cannot see that the case for it being JtR outweighs the evidence against him. I still have to say that the weight of evidence falls in favour of it being a domestic killing.
Lots of love
Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on March 10, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 456
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
When we try to analyze actions at 29 Hanbury or in Berner Street I think we can be much too rational and tend to forget the recklessness and self-endangerment of which human beings are capable when in the grips of powerful emotions.
On the noble end of the scale this behavior can lead to grand examples of selfless bravery and heroism on the battlefield and elsewhere. On the opposite end it can produce the heinous crimes of a Ripper. And for most of us it can result in rash, stupid and potentially tragic actions.
When I was an undergraduate (always a dangerous time) I once sought to impress a young woman (ever my weakness) who had locked herself out of her room by slipping out a window in an adjacent room and inching (literally) along a ledge until I could get in her window to rescue her keys. This was on windy evening in mid-November, the rooms were on the eighth floor, the ledge was only four inches deep and I'd never before or since manifested any "human fly" tendencies. And yet at the moment my emotions (impress the woman) made me absolutely heedless to any danger.
Obviously, I did make it, but instead of impressing the woman I only scared her witless. And now, just writing about it I am shaking and sweating as I contemplate how stupidly reckless I was. Yet nothing would have stopped me at the time, nor did reflection stop me from later doing equally dumb things when emotion overrode reason.
So, too, may Jack have reflected later with a frisson of terror at how close to discovery he was in the yard at 29 Hanbury. But such thoughts did not intrude when he was eviscerating Annie Chapman, nor did they stop him from equally reckless behavior in Mitre Square and possibly Berner Street and Millers Court as well.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 42
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 3:32 am: |
|
Both louis Diemschutz and Morris Eagle gave information that Dutfield yard was very dark,to such an extent that Diemschutz at least could not even see the body.Light had to be produced to see that a killing had been commited.So the killer could count on the fact that he would not be seen by anyone passing by on Berner St or by anyone entering or leaving that place.Only someone loitering in the yard,and whose eyes became adjusted to the darkness there,would be a danger.It was as good a place as any,except for Millers Court.
As the killer had managed to silence the victim and cut her throat,I see no reason why he could not have caused other mutilations if that was his intention.Only an interuption by Diemschultz entering and the horse hesitating, seem an impediment to further action by the killer.
So I do not find the location as hostile to the ripper.The darkness produced the isolation needed,and a cloak to hide his activities.There was very little pedestrian traffic reported,either in and out of the yard,or on Berner st itself,in the time that the murder must have taken place.
There is no reason whatsoever as to why he could not later kill and mutilate Eddowes.A chance meeting in or near Mitre square in his flight from Berner St,and the opportunity arose where he could succeed in doing what might have been his primary intention with Stride.The mutilation. |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
You are correct when you say that Stride was found in a dark area which JTR could have operated in. Diemschutz certinly couldn't see Stride's body until right up close to it.
However, unless Stride was attacked twice in a period of minutes, once by an unknown man and then by JTR, I cant see her being a ripper victim. Would JTR attack Stride in view of of so many witnesses? If it was JTR who attacked Stride was Pipeman an accomplance? Druitt + Stephens? Gull + Netley? I cant accept the latter of those pairings and only the slim possibility that Stephens hid messages in letters and grafiti (as suggested by John Wilding) can it be the former.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 163
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Difficulty in seeing a body lying still and supine on the floor (as Diemschutz had) is a different thing to a person standing and moving. The latter is much more likely to catch any ambient light, or the beam of a street lamp.
I'll admit, once Stride was down, she was easy prey for anyone, and what transpired would likely not be seen. But as schwartz' testimony amply demonstrates, the assault on her by someone was very clearly visible.
But the point about the risks and inappropriateness of the Club entrance as a murder site rests not (IMHO) on the darkness/gloom, but on the chance of an innocent member of the public chosing to enter or leave the Club at the wrong moment.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
It doesn't matter whether Liz was soliciting that night or not - it only matters that her killer cut her throat with a nice sharp knife because she was there, doing whatever he assumed she was doing, on her own at that time of night hanging about near a Jewish men's club.
My definition of a cut-throat killing a prostitute stands, and is quite adequate to describe what happened to Liz, without adding a speck of speculation to the mix.
For the rest, if you cannot see the distinction between Berner St and the other sites, you need to read more in the sources.
You still can't see that I too am making a clear distinction between the apple that was Berner St, being the one site we know of where a killer encountered his victim, and the oranges that were the other sites, where a killer chose to actually mutilate his victims.
You, me and Jane are all happy comparing apples and oranges, but we just don't know about the apples where Jack met Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary. So we have nothing to compare with the Berner St variety. Berner St was not an orange, whether Jack was there or not, since no mutilation took place there, and none may have been intended.
Hi Jane,
I'm slightly puzzled by some of your statements:
I do agree that Jack was led to the locations of his victims choice in all probability...........but that doesn't resolve in any way what Liz was doing that night, in fact it actually negates that arguement, because it is very improbable indeed that Liz did lead JtR to Dutfield's yard that night.
If Jack met Liz and didn't like the look and feel of the Dutfield's Yard location for any reason (and you and Phil keep providing reasons why he wouldn't), and Liz, for her own reasons, wasn't persuaded to go elsewhere, annoying and frustrating Jack in the process, it is immaterial to my argument what she was doing there and what her perceptions of her killer may have been. It's his perception of her that is all important.
And you may be quite right - Liz may have had no intention of leading her killer into the yard and, whoever he was, he may have had no intention of mutilating her there anyway.
The link is implied by the facts, but implication is not conclusive proof.
I never said it was. But in the twinkling of an eye you go from the implied link between the Berner St and Mitre Square throat cuttings not being 'conclusive proof' to '...the weight of evidence falls in favour of it being a domestic killing, and I have to wonder why.
Now you see a link, now you don't.
And I haven't yet seen a good argument for putting this link down to an overly vivid imagination, while speculating that Liz and the man who delivered the unkindest cut of all knew each other intimately.
I wonder if BS got the knock back by Liz; he reacted as witnessed by Schwartz, but then retreated for a bit, dejected and cross; then seeing she was still hanging about, freshening herself up, he was incensed to think she had just rejected him but was apparently prepared to accommodate the next man who might come along, and saw his chance to go in for the kill, unwitnessed this time.
Too many moments spent teaching the cow a lesson might have resulted in Schwartz coming back with Inspector Corner of the Yard, to - er - inspect a corner of the yard.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 335
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
You did raise some good points there, but there are a few proviso's to the darkness of Dutfield's yard. Phil had pointed out a few, but she was also killed very close to the kitchen door ( on the entrance side of it) and also the loos which were used by the club were further back in the yard if I remember rightly and people would have been coming out to use them.
I think also people from the street did go into use them as well, but I am afraid I can't quote the source on that one, even so the loo's were there and anyone needing to use them could have disturbed Liz's killer at any time. Bearing in mind, that men and beer usually ='s frequent visits to the loo! 
Even if they did not use the loo's as such, they would have gone outside to use the yard itself, so the same thing applies..........
I do have to say that I agree with Phil that the yard would have been pretty busy, even though it was dark!
Lots of love
Jane
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3255
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
I agree with Phil and Jane here.
We know from the witness statements that the club and the yard was a busy place this particular evening. Several people gave evidence of how they themselves walked in and out of the club before the murder occurred, and at the time of the murder the meeting in the club -- with singing and dancing -- was still going on.
It is not valid if the yard was dark enough (when Annie Chapman was killed it was early morning and daylight had begun to appear), the interesting point is that Dutfied's Yard and Berner Street was a more busy place compared to the other murder sites, with a lot of activity and people going in and out.
The other sites were risky, but they were pretty much empty of people (apart from sleeping residents or PC:s walking the beat) and hardly what I would call busy or filled with activity, and I find the view that the Ripper would find the circumstances at Berner Street and Dutfield's Yard inviting enough in order to kill and mutilate as a rather problematic one.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 340
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
If JTR had killed Stride, why didn't he mutilate her? He had more time with her than he did with Eddowes.
Mags
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 166
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Mags - how do you work that one out? |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 342
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Schwartz saw BS attack her at about 12:45. Deimshutz found the body at about 1:00.
Even allowing for inaccuracies in time keeping, that leaves at least as much time (7 minutes or so)as JTR is estimated to have had with Eddowes.
Mags
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Mags,
Conidering how busy Berner St. would have been, I'm not sure that JtR would have had the time to do the mutilations on her that he had done to the others. It just seems like there would have been a greater chance of getting caught. However I am intereted in your take on this. Could you explain why you feel that he would have had more time with Stride than with Eddowes?
Sandy |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Also I have thought sometimes that the noisiness from upstairs and the lights that came only from upstairs windows and left the yard in darkness might have distracted attention from anything going on in the shadows.
Dr Bond"s reports state categorically that Stride was murdered by the same hand as the rest of the canonical victims and he states he had examined all of them.He makes a point about the murderer"s position in relation to the victim and particularly notes the fact that whoever cut Elizabeth Strides throat used the same movement and orientation as in the others left-right and as in all the others the cut was exceptionally deep and nearly decapitated her.
A good point Maggie!
Natalie |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3256
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Natalie,
No way was the throat cut on Elizabeth Stride as deep as any of the others all the way through. The same orientation and left to right -- yes. But she was NOT -- unlike the others -- nearly decapitated (the cut was only superficial on the right side). All according to Dr. George Baxter Phillips, who was the one who examined her and performed the post mortem.
This is actually one of the arguments against her being a Ripper victim.
Besides, even if the cut was similar to a large degree we would never know (since she was not mutilated) if her throat was cut in a copy-cat style attempt, influenced by the ones on Nichols and Chapman. Since she was not mutilated (the Ripper's true signature), that possibility can never be ruled out, regardless if she was killed by Kidney or a client/lover.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 11, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 43
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 2:41 am: |
|
Now where is the evidence or information of all this supposed traffic on Berner St around the time of the killing.There isn't any.Mrs Mortimer only speaks of one passer by,Eagles speaks of an earlier time in the evening,and only Diemschultz seems to have entered at the relevant time.
It doesn't matter that the yard was accessible,but whether anyone entered or left while the killer was there,and to our knowledge there was no one.None was reported except Diemschultz.
There were two seperate incidents within a short time of each other.The accosting in Berner St(I have given my reasons why I do not consider that an assault),and the killing in the yard.There is nothing that supports both being by the same person.
The killer in the yard had the advantage even if someone should enter or leave.His eyes would be accustomed to the darkness,theirs would not.He was armed,it is doubtful others would be.
After all is said and done,he killed and cut the victim's throat,and that is fact.He escaped the yard without being aprehended.He could hardly have done so in sight or sound of other people.Dutfield yard served that purpose well.
Think what you may about the risk.The killer was there and only he knew the advantages or disadvantages of choosing the yard.He was successful,so it didn't turn out to be a bad choice.Maybe chance played a part,but don't underate a large measure of intelligent thought also. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 168
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
The traffic was certainly sufficient to encourage Packer to keep his shop open.
My reading of the evidence is clearly different to yours - perhaps because we have differing mental images of what happened and thus colour each of our interpretations of the events.
But to me Berner St was certainly not deserted that night, and we know of a considerable number of people being around.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 535
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Looking at the Stride murder I see:
· A street that was not particularly known for prostitution.
· A street where it seems to have been exceptional even to meet couples.
· A place that was still rather lively at that time of night, or at least, it was far from deserted.
· Stride was lying on her left side when found, with her head close to the wall and her feet probably even closer to it.
· While there was a small amount of mud on right side of her jacket, the left side of it was well plastered with it. There was also mud on the left side of the face and mud was matted to the head.
· There were pressure marks over both shoulders in front, especially the right.
· Her scarf was pulled very tight and the bow was turned to the left.
· She was holding cachous in her hand.
· There were no mutilations.
Dr Philips had come to the conclusion that Stride was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, while Dr Blackwell had formed the opinion that the murderer had grabbed her by the scarf from behind and had pulled her backwards. Dr Philips conclusion and the pressure marks don’t seem to fit with the mud that was on Stride’s face and jacket and the fact that she was lying on her left side, while Dr Blackwell’s opinion does seem to fit. If the murderer pulled her backwards by taking hold of the scarf with his left hand, she would probably have turned to her left while falling backwards.
Whatever the case, the evidence shows that Stride wasn’t killed in the usual way the Ripper did.
There are 3 possibilities:
1) Mr BS and JtR were one and the same
2) JtR killed Stride, but he wasn’t Mr. BS
3) Mr BS killed Stride, but he wasn’t JtR
Ad 1)
Especially Mrs. Long’s testimony and the absence of witnesses who saw any of the victims in the company of a man close to both the time and location of their deaths suggests that the Ripper met his victims close to where they were killed (perhaps with the exception of Kelly) and maybe that he was cautious about being seen. Judging from the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, the Ripper seems to have favoured rather deserted places, which makes sense since it diminished his chance of being caught.
If true, he abandoned this preference in Stride’s case.
Caz’s initial scenario of Jack killing Stride fast and out of frustration because she doesn’t comply with his wishes would fit and would be a feasible scenario if it weren’t for the cachous and (perhaps to a somewhat lesser extent) the location.
Yesterday she put forward another scenario: Jack hung around to see Stride was doing the same, freshening herself up apparently preparing to accommodate the next man who came along while she had just rejected him. This realisation infuriated him to such an extent that he walked back to her and killed her this time.
This scenario might explain the cachous, however, I don’t find the ‘hanging around’ or ‘retreating’ bit very feasible from the viewpoint that he was looking for a victim to mutilate and that, with this purpose in mind, he didn’t like the look and feel of Dutfield’s Yard.
If Stride would have retreated into the yard to freshen up, the only point from which Jack could have seen her rather well would be from directly across the street, in which case he wouldn’t really have retreated. If he would have loitered just across the street, it seems doubtful whether Stride would have remained where she was. The best place for retreating would seem just around the corner by the board school. From there he could have seen her standing in the entrance to the yard, but I wonder if he could still have seen her well enough, if at all, if she had withdrawn somewhat into the dark passage.
So, Caz’s second scenario would seem to require Stride to stay close to the entrance of the yard, or otherwise Jack wouldn’t have been able to see her, let alone see her freshen up, which according to her scenario seems to have mainly infuriated him enough to kill. Still, she was found about 3 yards from the gateway, which, although not impossible by itself of course, doesn’t really add up with an angry Jack who wanted to (just) kill her.
Also, to me it seems that the longer he took before he killed her, the unlikelier the cachous would remain in her hand. The cachous seem to have required a sudden, unexpected and fast attack. Another thing is that if Blackwell’s opinion was correct, Stride seems to have faced the wall or the gateway (or was in the process of turning towards it) when her murderer, who must have stood just to her left or behind her, took hold of the scarf. If Mr BS/Jack forced her into the yard with the intent to kill her, it seems improbable that he would have allowed her to be closer to the gateway than he was. It seems likely that he would have kept his body between her and the gateway from the start, to prevent her from fleeing.
Ad 2)
This would be the interruption scenario.
Like Caz wrote somewhere earlier, the Ripper could have stopped short of murder had the circumstances dictated it, right up to the very instant he would strike. In the other cases he seems to have been quite able to divide his attention between his surroundings and his victims. This was a simple necessity for him if he were not to be caught. Nichols might be regarded as a good example for that. The blood that was still oozing from her throat when she was found suggests that the Ripper left the scene when he heard Cross approach and found that he was too close, while Cross didn’t see or hear anything of him.
The later Jack in Stride’s case heard the approaching Diemschutz, the unlikelier that he was interrupted, because otherwise he would probably have started his attack in his usual manner, which doesn’t seem to have been the case judging from the way in which Stride was found.
Ad 3)
As long as we know nothing about this man, all the above points wouldn’t matter.
Those who think Stride was a Ripper victim seem to mainly do so because they don’t believe in the coincidence that 2 murderers could have struck within an hour of one another in or very close to the Ripper’s hunting ground. If any value is to be attached to what I’ve written, it seems that Mr. BS, not being the Ripper, is the most likely candidate for being Stride’s murderer. If this is true, than there would be no need to even consider the link between Stride and Eddowes in the first place.
Of course, these are just my views.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3261
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
What can I say, Frank.
One of the best posts I have ever read on this thread, if not the best all together.
Hats off!
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 337
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
HI Frank,
No way could I have put a better case forward than that........well done........
Hi Caz,
Just to clarify a couple of points that I might have not expressed clearly........(old age and poverty), I was trying in my inept way to say that I agree that Jack was probably led by his victims to their place of death, ergo I thought that you were saying that if Liz's killer was JtR then she led him to Dutfield's Yard under the same criteria.
Did you mean JtR's other victims, but not Liz? I think I must have misunderstood you. Were you saying that Liz was waiting outside Dutfield's yard when her killer came upon her there and made the decision to approach her then?
I think what threw me was your comment:
I tend to think the women dictated where business was to be done, and Jack simply went along and if the circumstances seemed ok for his own brand of business, he attacked.
I took that to mean that you were talking about Liz as well, obviously just a breakdown in communications.
As to any link between Liz and Catharine , you said.........
But in the twinkling of an eye you go from the implied link between the Berner St and Mitre Square throat cuttings not being 'conclusive proof' to '...the weight of evidence falls in favour of it being a domestic killing, and I have to wonder why.
Again I perhaps didn't express myself properly,
There are some links between the murder of Liz and Catharine, of course there are, but no conclusive evidence.......the evidence is open to interpretation both for and against a link between the two.
The weight of evidence I was talking about had nothing to do with Catharine's death at all, in fact it is completely disassociated with any of the other killings in many aspects......I was taking the case on it's own merit and trying not to assume as the Police did that it was linked to the others because it did happen on the same night as another murder.
If the case is examined on it's own merits, it seems somewhat more probable to me that it was a domestic killing. But of course I would never say that there isn't a good case in favour of it being JrR as well. It's just a question of balance of proof in my opinion, that's all.
I think other than that Frank has more of less said everything that I feel on the subject in his post above.......
All the best
Jane
xxxxx
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 338
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Sorry me again, just an afterthought......I really don't like using the word 'link' in this context anyway, but was simply following it's usage in earlier posts.......I think the word 'link ' is perhaps not the word I would have used in preference.....I think I would rather use the word 'similiarities'. That's just a personal preference of course..........
Love Jane
xxxxx |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Hi Caz.
BRAVO. I agree with every word you say. I don't believe that there were any "no-go" areas for a killer like JtR. You're right too, that it's really pushing coincidence to think that TWO knife-wielding killers should be operating on the same night, with a convenient forty-five minute gap between them.
The latest trend seems to be to try and eliminate various different victims from the Ripper's list.
The fact is, that all the leading police officers, Anderson, Swanson, Abberline, Reid etc., believed JtR killed all five canonical victims. With the exception of Dr.Philips, in the case of Eddowes, all the other Doctors confirmed police beliefs.
On the night of Stride's murder, more than one couple were seen by different witnesses, and times of these sightings were very uncertain. I don't believe that the clumsy & noisy "Mr.Broad-shoulders" killed Stride, but I believe that JtR DID, along with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly.
Keep up the good work Caz.
Best Wishes.
DAVID C.
|
LUKE WHITLEY
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Hi All.
When all you self-appointed experts(Caz excluded) have finished wallowing in your over-inflated sense of importance, you might start looking at FACTS.
Firstly, an opportunist killer like Jack the Ripper would hardly have known in advance, the risks of interruption in Dutfield's Yard. Secondly, there were sightings of more than one couple that night, by several witnesses. The times of these sightings were only approximate, and there is no certainty as to which of them were of Stride. PC Smith would have been by far the most reliable witness. Schwartz fled in fright, and would hardly have been able to make a reliable I.D. of the woman in such circumstances & poor light. Furthermore, the various witnesses were clearly describing different men.
Thirdly, the senior officers, Anderson, Reid, Swanson, Abberline, Arnold etc.,all believed that Stride was a Ripper victim, and their beliefs were supported by the leading Doctors, Bond etc.
So, 117 years later, where do you get these ideas that any of you know better than the professionals who were there on the spot?? Caz is one of the few who isn't trying to sell personal fanciful ideas that have no evidence to support them.
Regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Hi Caz.
BRAVO. I agree with every word you say. I don't believe that there were any "no-go" areas for a killer like JtR. You're right too, that it's really pushing coincidence to think that TWO knife-wielding killers should be operating on the same night, with a convenient forty-five minute gap between them.
The latest trend seems to be to try and eliminate various different victims from the Ripper's list.
The fact is, that all the leading police officers, Anderson, Swanson, Abberline, Reid etc., believed JtR killed all five canonical victims. With the exception of Dr.Philips, in the case of Eddowes, all the other Doctors confirmed police beliefs.
On the night of Stride's murder, more than one couple were seen by different witnesses, and times of these sightings were very uncertain. I don't believe that the clumsy & noisy "Mr.Broad-shoulders" killed Stride, but I believe that JtR DID, along with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly.
Keep up the good work Caz.
Best Wishes.
DAVID C.
|
timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
How about this for a theory ...
Mr Broad Shoulders (who *is* Jack) either approaches Liz in Berner St or perhaps they have come there from another location - I subscribe to the school of thought that says Jack is reasonably personable and therefore does not arouse undue suspicion in his victims. He assumes that she will lead him off to a deserted location to 'do the business'.
At some point in the encounter Liz gets a strong suspicion that this man may be the Whitechapel Killer and gives voice to this suspicion. Jack tries to placate her but fails. During this time Jack notices Schwartz and is getting worried about the amount of attention he and Liz are starting to attract, hence his verbal outburst.
Jack has to make a quick decision here. He knows that if he allows Liz to escape, she is likely to report the encounter. She can probably render a very good description of him and perhaps he has even told her some facts about himself (which may or may not be true, of course).
He knows from prior experience that he can render a victim unconscious in a very short amount of time. He does so and quickly completes the fatal assault. Things are far too hot - the location is relatively public - so he immediately makes his exit. He is now angry and frustrated. Later that night, Catherine Eddowes will become the target of that anger and frustration.
Just a theory ...
timsta |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Hi Donald, you wrote
"That Annie led Jack to the yard seems more likely to me than that Jack had dossed several times before and carefully made note of comings and goings in order to later use the yard for a mutilation murder. If he were that cunning and far-sighted I have to believe he could have found far better places for his depredations than he did."
Absolutely, I agree with you 100%.
I would go further and say that all of the victims led JTR to the place where they were murdered. It's no coincidence(in my opinion) that three of the victims were murdered just by, or in Liz Strides case, in a yard, flanked by double gates.
Surely Polly Nichols, Liz Stride, and Catherine Eddowes, were using the areas behind those gates to service clients. Had they also dossed there?
Kelly I feel sure had led her killer (if not on the night of her murder) back to her room in Millers Court Court, at least on one occasion,
Mrs Richardson had some trouble with the coroner regarding whether she knew of prostitutes using the yard of 29 Hanbury. I am of the opinion that she knew full well that prostitutes were using the yard, as did her son John.
For Mr Nelson to suggest that Annie Chapman had not been in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street prior to her murder on the grounds of the fact that she had not been seen there by the inhabitants(did they view the body?)is in my opinion unfounded.
Annie In my humble opinion had used that yard before.
I know the worth of physcological profiling has it's champions, and it's detractors, on these messageboards, but I have read a profile on JTR by an American profiler who was of the opinion that JTR would have found it very difficult to have a relationship with women, indeed he was of the opinion that to even approach a women would have been very difficult.
I think that this is born out by the fact that All of his victims seem to be taking the lead,
I'd like to bet that the victims approached him, not the other way around
Regards Cludgy
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Thank you for your support Robert. I'm accused of not really understanding the purpose of these boards because I state a theory that is well established and I guess not very inventive.
Phil you say "For the rest of us, however, it is a question of trying the "fit" of the pieces in various ways to see what picture seems to emerge...Stop us doing that, and this site will shrivel in no time. Speculation and playing with ideas is its heartsblood."
Problem is these boards are (IMHOP)currently tipped way in favor of the people who like finding alternate explanations for potential Ripper murders. Just look at this thread as an example, how many here have stated that they believe in the established view that Stride's murder was the work of JTR? So don't the people who believe in the more established views of the Rippers activities have a right to state their views emphatically..as do the many contributors of these boards who adamantly protect their alternate theories? In fact aren't we needed in order to keep the debates lively and to provide point to the counterpoint of the alternate theories that get bandied about? And really, do a few voices standing up for the boring established views actually threaten the livelihood of these boards? I don't think so. Finally, if the fun of the whodunit and the presentation of alternate theories is what makes these boards hum why do those who put forth Sickert or Maybrick as suspects routinely get hammered? Aren't these folks offering "Speculation and playing with ideas" hence keeping these boards lively?
I guess what I'm saying is if there was a large group of people arguing the boring theory that JTR killed stride I might agree that we needed to spice it up a bit...but in fact it is just the opposite.
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Hi Frank
I think we will have to agree to disagree on the subject of just how many men were with Liz Stride that night, although I remain convinced that the number was definately more than one.
Hoowever, it does appear that Liz Stride that night decided to use cachous to sweeten her breath. As I mentioned above, she was seen by Marshall at 11:30 p.m. kissing a man,in Berner St.
Now presumably she would have taken a cachous shortly before this time otherwise why would she have had them in the first place, my point is this, when she was found lying in that yard, at 1:00 a.m. she was holding a packet of cachous, now presumably she deemed it necessary to take another cachous, sometime after she had took the one she had taken just prior to kissing the man at 11:30 p.m.
Why would she do this?
To me it seems as if she had had her time with Marshalls man, and took out another cachous(very shortly before her death)in order to impress upon the man who would approch and kill her, that her breath was sweet smelling.
What I'm saying is, in my opinion, If Best, Gardners, Marshalls, Smiths, Browns man are one and the same, then I could not see Liz openly take out a cachous while in his company, it is tantamount to saying I've got bad breath but look I take cachous to sweeten it. That would be a bit embarassing don't you think?
Surely Liz would only take a cachous in secret, before an encounter with a sweetheart or client
I hope the above does not confuse you
Regards Cludgy |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Based on research conducted at several ancestry web sites, I have determined that the Swedish "Lauritz" surname is rooted in the Polish Semetic "Lobulsk." Israel Lobulsk changed his name to "Lipski."
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Hi Caz.
BRAVO. I agree with every word you say. I don't believe that there were any "no-go" areas for a killer like JtR. You're right too, that it's really pushing coincidence to think that TWO knife-wielding killers should be operating on the same night, with a convenient forty-five minute gap between them.
The latest trend seems to be to try and eliminate various different victims from the Ripper's list.
The fact is, that all the leading police officers, Anderson, Swanson, Abberline, Reid etc., believed JtR killed all five canonical victims. With the exception of Dr.Philips, in the case of Eddowes, all the other Doctors confirmed police beliefs.
On the night of Stride's murder, more than one couple were seen by different witnesses, and times of these sightings were very uncertain. I don't believe that the clumsy & noisy "Mr.Broad-shoulders" killed Stride, but I believe that JtR DID, along with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly.
Keep up the good work Caz.
Best Wishes.
DAVID C.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Hello Harry.
Well spoken sir. That is the most sensible and reasonable message I've read on this thread for some time. I agree with you absolutely from start to finish.
The killer's intelligence and daring should not be underrated. This man killed and escaped, right under the noses of patrolling policemen and a warehouse nightwatchman in Mitre Square, on the same night. The Dutfield's yard situation would not have deterred him.
I believe that the incident Schwartz witnessed is the biggest red-herring in the Ripper case. I don't believe that he saw JTR. But Stride DID shortly afterwards.
Best wishes Harry.
DAVID C. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
