|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 6:15 pm: | 
|
Hi All
I hope I can get in on the hugging also, what do you think Phil)
Luv
Restless Spirit
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3297
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Let me just say, that I think we all are pretty much aware of that the facts regarding this case are inconclusive, and that is exactly why at least I build opinions on what I "feel" and on interpretations. Your suggestions of method is of course sympathetic, but there are two problems with it. Firstly, we just simply have too little information, and secondly, it has already been done. Done to death, I would say. Not least by several researchers already.
No matter how you much you try to examine the facts, you will always end up in "for and against" camps.
The reasons for why people like me are basing their views on personal interpretations and opinons is simply because the facts are too sparse and inconclusive. I appreciate the way you are trying to deal with the problem in an as objective way as possible, but I am not sure if it leads to any sparkling debates.
In my view, examining the facts is clearly not enough in this case; every investigator has to base their deductions to some parts on intuituion and personal interpretation as well as hunches. This is an extremely important assett in every police and research work. Sometimes it leads you right, sometimes it doesen't, but it is an important part of the process. Therefore I think you are terribly wrong when you say that such an approach must be scrapped. On the contrary, the older the case and the lesser the information, the more valid personal intuition becomes, since the facts are so inconclusive. I mean, after all we should not be naive enough to believe that any of us will really solve this mystery anyway!
Your method, I believe, is more suitable for modern cases, where the we have loads on information and facts about every detail.
So I for my part will continue to rely on my intuition and personal beliefs. When so many facts are missing, all we can do is to interpret from where we all sit.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3298
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:32 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
Let me first state, that I do like the scenario you put forwar in an earlier post regarding what might have happened to Liz.
We can only speculate, but I can very well imagine that is what went down. Some real good thinking there (yes, imagination is good and rewarding sometimes).
But as I said, if fits better someone who knew her or a drunk, difficult client rather than Jack the Ripper. Just my opinion.
"But would you concede that Jack would at least have been capable of murdering Liz quickly and quietly without mutilating her afterwards, as long as he saw the point in doing so? He'd already killed at least twice before, and they say it gets easier to destroy human life on a whim the more you do it."
Anything is possible of course, so who know? I am almost afraid to put down any of my opinions now, since I might expect more continous personal attacks, but I personally don't believe in it.
As I said, it is the mutilations that are essential for the killer here, not to take a life. The mutilations means something to the killer, Caz. They are not there just because he had more time or he felt like it at the time. I may be misinterpreting you here, but you seem to be trying to diminish them into some obscure additional detail he just puts in whenever he feels like it. From what we know so far, that is usually not the way these killers operates (not my emphasis on "usually").
As I said, nothing is impossible, of course, but still...
"How would Jack have reacted if he encountered Liz and, unlike the others, she had not gone along with his funny little plans to the letter? None of us can guess, least of all you, since you believe that Liz never had a chance to meet Jack that night and make him react to anything, in any way."
Yes, we can guess, and simply because that is pretty much all we can do. It is all guess work, Caz! Or did you think you could actually solve it?
I have already explained several times how I picture Jack would have reacted to Liz resisting -- namely that he would have fled the scene.
It is of course all guess work and speculation, but if it was essential for the Ripper not to draw any attention to himself, getting involved with a struggling victim -- where the victim very much could scream out for help (even if Stride didn't) -- is not something that would appeal to him. Just my thoughts on the matter, though -- rigid or not. I don't expect you to buy any of it.
"But Glenn, all the other Liz doubters have been doing their utmost to give me perfectly normal and well-founded reasons why Jack might well have been dissatisfied with the situation in Berner Street, from the point of view of a man who sought to mutilate his victims after killing them. Are you now saying all their reasons are strange and unfounded?"
I don't know exactly what you mean, but if he was dissatisfied with the location or other aspects regarding the victim etc... why the heck should he attack her in the first place????
I just don't see your reasoning here.
Do you really picture in your own head, that he would attack her, kill her, slit her throat and then suddenly go... "ooops, sh*t... naaaaah, this just doesn't feel right. Sod it." Come on, Caz, give me a break.
I don't know which "doubters" you refer to, but I don't think I've heard someone propose that scenario, actually, and I can't really see it as anything besides a complete fairy-tale.
Could be that I have totally misinterpreted or misunderstood you -- if so, I apologise. I must admit I have never fully grasped what you mean by "dissatisfied" in this context. It puzzles me a bit.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 16, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3299
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:35 pm: |
|
As I see it, the assault is indeed a violent assault (I am sorry, Harry, but I prefer to rely on police documentation rather than a dubious paper account; even though Swanson's report is a summary, in my experience these generally don't differ that much from the factual content of an interrogation -- I can't see why Swanson would change the meaning and wording into something completely different!).
But it is not even an attempt to kill -- not at this point! Look at Swanson's report, and see what the facts say: that the man is pushing her into the street and then turns her around and throws her to the ground. Even if we accept, that someone like the Ripper would adjust his manner to the situation at hand, this is certainly not a blitz attack aimed to kill (and it is pretty obvious Jack the Ripper used blitz attacks in order to overcome his victims, regardless of the victims actions). Even AP Wolf and Frank have both pointed this out (although I am the only one who repeatedly gets abused verbally for it).
Nothing is impossible of course, and in Chapman's case he indeed didn't seem to succeed perfectly since she apparently managed to utter the word "no!", but surely Mr BS:s attack is something else.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:57 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
It's been a long time. How's life been treating you?
Sometime ago, Rickard Berglind posted a few interesting observations on this thread, which I believe are relevant to the arguments being discussed here. If you or the other readers have access to the information he referred to, it could add some insight to the mystery of the "double event".
Rickard 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?" (Berglind: Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 7:03 am).
What Rickard was looking for is statistical data. He stated: "We know for a fact that there was another troathcut murder in roughly the same neighbourhood this particular night". His question: "if that fact both mathematicly and logicaly increase or decrease the possibility of a third throatcutting murderer acting the very same night", makes it clear that he wanted to evaluate the probability of coincidence by comparing the number of females murdered by throat cutting in a specific timeframe, namely, 30 September, 1888, to the number of female throat-cut murders that occurred in Whitechapel over a longer period of time; say, one year. Contrary to some opinions, there really isn't anything "hard to train", magical, or "disconnected" about the information that Rickard sought.
After raw data is collected and analyzed, the variables are arranged on a chart according to correlation and/or typology, and become a table of statistical data. In this case, the number of women who died from throat cuts is compared with the total number of murdered women, generating a probability score for a single method. For example, if 1000 women were murdered in Whitechapel between December 1887 and December 1888, and 500 of them had their throats cut, a 2:1 ratio, then it's safe to assume that in Whitechapel, killing females by cutting their throats was not a random event; it was pervasive. Subtracting the murders of Stride, Eddowes, and a third woman from the total number of female deaths by throat cutting is not statistically significant; i.e., it would not change the fact that throat cutting dominated female homicides by a large margin. Once I worked this model out on paper, I began to wonder if there is anything that the actual statistics can realistically tell us about the number of cut throat murderers operating in Whitechapel during this period, and how that data might affect the Stride and Eddowes murders.
If the statistics contain the relevant data in the first place, they can be used to develop a sequence of probabilities that can accurately show us:
1. If there was one male cut throat operating in Whitechapel on 30 September, 1888.
2. If there were many male cut throats operating in Whitechapel on 30 September, 1888.
A census survey might collect a minimum amount of data showing only the total number of homicides in Whitechapel. A survey of police records would show data for each individual event, including (inter alia) the date of each murder; the name of the victim; the name of the murderer, if known, and a breakdown of the methodology; i.e., gunshot, strangulation, stabbing, et. al. With this information, we could determine:
1. The gender of the victims.
2. The gender of the murderers.
3. The frequency of multiple female homicides.
4. The ratio of women murdered by throat cutting, to the total number of women murdered.
5. How often two or more female cut throat homicides were committed in one day.
6. The number of multiple female cut throat homicides that occurred on consecutive days.
Having this data will enable us to develop probability models like the following, based on the actual number of murders, rather then the population at large. It can also be used to predict female homicides by throat cutting as a percentage of both populations:
1. In the Whitechapel area, there were a number of instances when in a single day, two or more women were murdered by throat cutting; occasionally, this would happen on consecutive days. It was later discovered that different men killed these women.
For this model, the statistics showed that for all murders in the sample, multiple female cut throat homicides by different men occurred six times, therefore, there is a one in six chance that three different men murdered Stride, Eddowes, and the un-named third woman. The probability that this scenario is representative increases proportionally as the converse probability decreases; i.e., the same man killed them all.
2. Occasionally, in a single day in the Whitechapel area, two or more women would be found dead with their throats cut. Later, it was discovered that one man committed all of these multiple homicides.
If the statistics showed that multiple female cut throat homicides by one man occurred five times, then there is a one in five chance that Stride, Eddowes, and the un-named third woman, were murdered by the same man. The probability that this scenario is representative also increases proportionally as the opposite probability decreases; i.e., they were all killed by different men.
In both models, the outcomes are a ratio of cut throat homicides based on the hypothetical number of annual homicides in Whitechapel, as opposed to a ratio of cut throat homicides based on the general population of Whitechapel, approx. 900,000.
In sum, reasoning with the correlations among the independent and dependent variables, shows that their relationships are asymmetrical; i.e., as one increases the other decreases. When random events are correlated by cause and effect, they form a pattern of co-incidents, and thus, are no longer random. Those events that retain their "randomness" and remain resistant to basic least squares regression, are outliers, and as such, they carry no statistical significance.
Counter to what some have suggested, statistical analysis neither harbors illusions, nor promotes deceptions. The numbers speak for themselves, and they always tell a compelling story.
Thanks for your time Caz. I'm feeling a lot better these days. Would you mind if I e-mail you to say hello?
Warmest regards,
Mephisto
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 197
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:06 am: |
|
The number of "coincidences" involving Kidney that you mention Caz:
...I can't see Kidney having quite that much luck: being in exactly the right time and place when he indulged this sudden fit of fatal pique, allowing him to slip unexpectedly and more than comfortably into Jack's silent slippers, just for this one sweep of the knife that did for his prostitute lover, minutes before Jack did for another man's lover - and blow me, not one of the idiots calling themselves policemen ever suspected things might not have been what they seemed.
First, Kidney could have followed Liz, or been told by someone where she was. "Say Mike, do you know your woman's parading around Berner St with another bloke!! Wotcha gonna do abaht that then?"
Second, given that the Ripper was at work in Whitechapel that autumn, any cut-throat murder might have been linked to the series - even if Eddowes had not been killed that night, but (she or someone like her) had died violently a day before or a week later.
Third, the press had widely reported the throat slitting. Even if involved in a "crime of passion" part of Kidney may still have recognised that to kill that way might confuse things somewhat. Equally, as others have said, throat slitting is a pretty obvious way to kill quickly and cleanly with a knife.
Finally, the police don't have to be regarded as idiots to have made a mistake. Modern police forces miss things, overlook things, and act on false assumptions. They were focused on JtR - it may have been easier, or just that pressure existed, to keep that focus. Kidney may have done just the things necessary to divert suspicion. But look how often Sutcliffe was interviewed and dismissed as a suspect in the Yorkshire "Ripper" case.
I don't think one can dismiss the Kidney connection/theory, so easily.
Phil
|
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 50
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Glen,
I rather preferred the time when you insisted that we stick closely to the known evidence and lay off opinion.There is nothing in Swanson's statement that mentions violent assault.That is your interpretation.I on the other hand see no evidence of violence,and that is based on Schwartz's testimony.
Some speak of a domestic situation involving Kidney.Well if Kidney was about 5ft 5ins tall,and stout, that would be fine,but was he?.Schwartz description is of a roly poly kind of individual,or squat person.A short,rotund fellow.If Kidney answers to that,well and good,but does anyone know.
Now let me put some more questions.Which hand was put on which shoulder.Which way was she turned.Is it important?.Of course it is.These are questions that I'm sure would be asked at an inquest.Can you answer them.Can anyone.?.Swanson mentions nothing of this,so did the police know.
Did they ask?. Could they prosecute successfully on what Schwartz said.Not in a thousand years.
If anyone gets the chance,try an experiment with a man and a woman of the same description as Stride and B.S.Untill then,it might be wise to lay off the assault angle between them. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3300
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
You are certainly not sticking to the evidence here, as I see it.
Unless you believe that Swanson was careless with his wordings in the report (if so, please provide evidence for this and for why he should have done so) -- note the words "pull" and "threw" -- I'd definitely say that it's speaking of an assault (what else did they do... dancing the rumba?) -- I can't understand how you can interpret it as anything else. Then, the degree of violence can of course be debated (maybe "violence" is a misleading word).
I'd say Swanson's report is evidence (at least it's as much evidence as anything else in this case), but you choose to disregard it or interpret it differently. And I believe you are the only one who can't see an assault in there, from what I've seen so far.
So as far as that is concerned, I stick more closely to the evidence than you do. You believe in disregarding or twisting the meaning of it in your personal way -- I don't.
As for apparences of Kidney and Mr BS -- I don't know, you tell me. There exists a sketch of Kidney (and it is not drawn by that idiot who produced the crap in Illustrated Police News -- this is a much better artist). I think he could fit the description of Mr BS quite well. It is not solid proof, but it is always something. It certainly doesn't rule him out.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3301
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Phil,
All good points there, as usual.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Glenn,
Cheers mate. I have a couple issues with some of the ideas you presented above (but then maybe I state the obvious, no surprise right).
First, regarding the mutilation being the main motivation for JTR's crimes. This is not a known fact, it is just speculation again. I think the reason you focus so much on this is that you have identified the mutilation as his "signature" and that you are separating signature from MO. In my opinion, there is not any clear border or line which separates signature and MO... I basically think the separation of the act of killing and the act of mutilation cannot be divorced as cleanly as you seem to do... more likely this is a murky, gray area in the killer's psyche. It is mere speculation on your part that he derived no satisfaction from killing. Also, as I stated before, I spoke with one of the leading criminal profiler's in the US, personally on the phone... this is a guy who trained FBI agents at Quantico... and he stated, rather matter-of-factly that JTR's mutilation is not signature, and that signature murders are more rare than commonly thought. So, just something to think about.
Secondly, as far as facts vs. intuition or gut feeling. I admit I do not see how intuition becomes more relevant as the case gets older and facts are more obscured. I admit, the facts are obsure and fragmented, but I do not see how as they may become more so over time, this makes intuition any more or less valid.
"The reasons for why people like me are basing their views on personal interpretations and opinons is simply because the facts are too sparse and inconclusive."
I guess I have said this before, and I say this respectfully Glenn, but I feel that the real "reason" for your personal interpretation regarding the Stride murder in particular, is not because the facts are sparse, but rather because the rather simple proposed scenario for Mr. BS as JTR does not fit with some pre-conceived image you have of the Ripper. It is that pre-conceived image of the Ripper which is in my opinion based on "sparse facts". Please do not take this personally, it is just my honest feeling.
In my opinion, quite the opposite is true and valid: it is BECAUSE the known facts about JTR are so sparse, that we cannot eliminate Mr. BS as being JTR. I am not saying Liz could not have been killed by Kidney, a drunk, or anyone else, or that maybe Mr. BS killed her and was not JTR. I accept that any of these are possibilities. But that is beside my main point, and my main argument with you, which is that we simply cannot eliminate the possibility that Mr. BS was Jack the Ripper.
Rob H |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Hi Guys.
All this talk of inclusionists & exclusionists has got me caught up in the middle. I must be an in-exclusionist, depending on which way you look at it.
On the one hand, I agree absolutely with Glenn, that the man who threw the woman down on the pavement in such a clumsy & noisy manner, in full view of witnesses, was NOT the swift & silent Ripper.
On the other hand, I believe that Stride WAS a Ripper victim. What I'd like to know is this. With four witness statements of sightings at around that time, including an alleged assault, how is it that Mrs.Mortimer, standing on her doorstep from 12-30 to 1-00, saw or heard none of this?? Some of these statements must be several minutes out for time.
I'm inclined to the view that PC Smith and Schwartz saw two different men. The calmer and experienced Smith positively identified Stride later, but I think that the frightened Schwartz saw only a drunken domestic altercation, and that the woman he saw wasn't Stride at all. Smith's man carried a parcel in his hand, and wore a deerstalker hat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a cap with a peak fore & aft, i.e. Sherlock Holmes??
I believe that Smith's man was JTR, NOT Schwartz's.
Now I know that NONE of you will agree with me, so I stress again that this is MY opinion only, so please don't ALL attack me at once. I've got a very nervous disposition.
Best wishes all.
DAVID C.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Hi Phil.
Well, first of all, I resent your innuendo that I have gotten my opinions from these threads. I have studied this case for many years, and given my age(I'm not saying), probably longer than you.
The difference is, I don't profess to know the truth any better than anyone else.
There is NO evidence, which is why this case remains unsolved. All that is said here is just personal opinion and deduction which rests largely on unreliable witness statements.
Times of sightings were vague and approximate, and there is no evidence to prove which of these sightings was of Stride for certain.
As Philip Sugden says of Schwartz, "A badly frightened man is NOT a good observer".
I would say that an experienced policeman like PC Smith would have been the most reliable witness.
Yes, you are right when you say that we should challenge old assumptions and evidence, but without EVIDENCE to the contrary, where will it get us, other than to form our own new personal opinions. You asked me to give you evidence that the same man killed both women that night. I can't. Now, will you give ME evidence, not personal deduction, that the same man DIDN'T kill both. PROVE he didn't, because that's what you're asking of me.
I admit to being influenced in some respects by Philip Sugden, the doy'en of Ripper historians, and the man who exposed the glaring mistakes of the previous so-called experts. Having weighed up all available evidence, Sugden believes that Stride & Eddowes were victims of the same man.
So do I, and that will remain my opinion until PROVEN otherwise.
I respect your views Phil, and you are clearly a very knowledgeable man on this subject. But you are dependant on the same sources as the rest of us, and can only put together a personal opinion of what really happened that night. I'd like to discuss with you, and get your views on, an alternative opinion I've formed concerning the Mitre Square murder. But that is not for this thread, so for the time being, we'll have to agree to differ on this one.
Best wishes Phil.
DAVID C.
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Rob, Mr. mature Glenn called me paranoid earlier on this thread and Phil told me flat out I don't understand the meaning of these boards...and not once have I ever said a bad word about either...so these guy calling anybody immature is really the pot calling the kettle black. I must confess I too get a big kick out of the love fest they have going back and forth when either of them make a post...stuff like "I don’t believe Ripper would have worn plaid on a Tuesday" followed by "Amazingly good point I totally agree". It’s actually kind of funny so don’t let it get to you. I guess what I'm saying Rob is before you try to talk sense to these phantom believing outsmarters remember posts such as Glenn's immortal "He was elusive, because he was never seen in action -- that is not romanticism; that is facts.".......then pound your head into the wall 3 times and remember you are wasting your time. I guess too much ABBA can turn anyones brain to mush. And Phil how shameful…telling someone they don’t understand the boards because the have an opposing point of view. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Hi Phil.
I've waited a long time to hear someone treat McNaghten with the decency and respect he deserves. The trend among Ripperologists has long been to discredit him in every way.
I agree with your assessment of him 100%.
Well spoken sir.
DAVID C. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
To the adherers of the theory that the Liz Stride murder was a "Domestic" murder and committed by the BS man, let me ask you these few questions
1) Do you consider the various sightings of men seen with Stride that night to be one and the same man?
The reason I ask this, is to determine whether Stride was soliciting that night, if she was seen to be with more than one man that night then in my humble opinion she was soliciting.
Frank and others seem to be of the opinion that Stride that night met only one man and was in the company of a lover.
Now I can see where they are coming from in forming this idea, i.e. she borrowed a brush in the doss she was staying in to brush her clothes prior to going out for the night, she had a packet of cachous on her person to sweeten her breath, she and the man (men) seen by Best, Gardiner, and Marshall were acting in a manner that can indeed be regarded as the actions of a courting couple, i.e. kissing and cuddling.
But
And I am in no way criticizing Liz Stride here
2) If you were a respectably dressed young man of 28 or so, would you have as your lover, a 45 year old prostitute with no front teeth, bad breath, a drinking habit, who lived in a doss house?
Because if you discount Packer (as most of you are wont) the man who did get a decent look at the mans face whom accompanied Stride in Berner Street that night was P.C. Smith, and he said the man looked about 28 years old. Packer incidentally agreed with this age regarding the man he said had bought grapes from him.
Now I’m not saying that Liz Stride wasn’t good enough to attract decently attired clerkish looking young men 18 years her junior as lovers, but I am of the opinion that if given the choice such young men would rather court younger women of more soberish habits.
Which is why I think the man seen by P.C. Smith was a client rather than a lover.
3) The attack as witnessed by Schwartz occurred at roughly 12:45 a.m. If BS was Strides killer then why was there liquid blood still flowing from the neck of Liz Stride at 1:05 – 1:10 a.m.?
Because Edward Spooner testified at the inquest
And he would have arrived at the yard sometime after 1:00 a.m.
“[Coroner] Was any blood coming from the throat? - Yes; it was still flowing. I noticed that she had a piece of paper doubled up in her right hand, and some red and white flowers pinned on her breast. I did not feel the body, nor did I alter the position of the head. I am sure of that. Her face was turned towards the club wall.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether the blood was still moving on the ground? - It was running down the gutter. I stood by the side of the body for four or five minutes, until the last witness arrived.”
Spooner had been alerted to the murder by two Jews running about shouting “Police”, and “Murder”, and they directed him to Dutfields Yard in Berner Street.
The cachous is a big problem to those who believe BS to be the murderer, for how did Liz hold on to that packet of cachous while being subjected to the attack as witnessed by Schwartz?
Someone remarked that after the initial attack i.e. the throwing down onto the pavement, Liz stooped down and retrieved it. I wonder if they really believe this to be the case, for I can’t see that happening. I will go on to ask them this, how then was she still clutching the cachous after she had been manhandled into the yard put onto the ground and murdered?
Someone remarked that after the initial attack the assailant briefly went away, Liz then retreated into the yard and calmly got out a cachous, the assailant comes back and bingo, he murders Liz
Can you see anybody retreating into a dark yard, and calmly take out a packet of cachous, after being attacked on the street the way Liz Stride was?
I know I am regarded on these message boards as one of the most outrageous posters,(disregarding Mr Radka) so I will continue in this vein, by saying.
Take Schwarz out of the equation, basically he’s telling lies, and the following scenario could indeed have happened. The man seen by P.C. Smith (12:30 a.m.) is JTR , he continues to converse and walk with Stride until just before 1:00 a.m. when Stride leads him into Dutfields Yard. Stride for some reason anticipates that the man will kiss her in the Yard and so to impress upon the man that she has a sweet smelling breath she takes out a packet of cachous, JTR gets hold of her and before she can react forcibly puts her on to the ground, he then slits her throat. He intends to mutilate her, but as he is about to do so, he first hears and then sees a horse turn into the yard, he retreats into the yard and when he sees the man (Diemshutz) go into the club he advances into the street and escapes.
Only Schwartz and Schwartz alone puts this theory to the sword.
Regards Cludgy.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Plausible gnoseology is still gnoseology. Never been much of a gnos myself. More of a gnu, I'd say.
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Cludgy,
I appreciate the basic idea that you are trying to get across here. Take Schwartz out of the equation and it is easier to envision a scenario that explains the cachous etc.
The main reason I continue to focus on the possibility that Mr. BS was Liz's killer is simply the blunt logical connection... he was witnessed attacking Liz, then minutes later she was found dead. It is hard to dismiss that.
Imagine you had witnessed something similar to that... you are walking down a mainly deserted street, and you walk past a man attacking a woman. You are scared and don't want to get involved so you keep on walking pretending not to notice. Then say 5 minutes later, you change your mind and decide you should go back and see if the woman needs help, and you find her there in the alley, just 10 feet from where you witnessed the assault, and she is murdered. You would not doubt for a second that she was killed by the guy you saw attacking her. Now that is essentially the scenario we have here, and the obviousness and simplicity of the explanation cannot be just tossed out.
All the other details of the crime scene may complicate our understanding of the details of the event, but the big picture is laid out by Schwartz's evidence, in my opinion.
RH |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3302
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hi Rob,
Well, this is tricky, since you take us into profiling country here. I am not totally devoted to profiling -- I know that you on several occasions have tried to make it look that way -- but all things that involves behaviour and common sense is not necessarily built on academic profiling generalisations; some of these things you actually don't need profiling for.
One of the reasons for why I in some ways treat profiling with doubt and caution is because it is so incredibly subjective and non-consintent. If you read or talk to one profiler, you get one answer, and when you consult another, you get a second one etc.
Hazelwood was indeed right when he stated that "profiling is not a science, it's an art".
If it was a science, it would probably be the least consistent and reliable I have ever come across.
Therefore I am not at all surprised over the fact, that your contact dismisses JtR as a signature killer. Frankly, I can not say with 100% if he was a signature killer or not, since the meaning of the term signature has changed and been revisited over the years and now it is actually quite difficult to determine who is a signature killer or not, since the borders (as you also imply) have been blurred out. I don't see this development as a positive one, and I am not sure if it leads to the correct deductions. Unfortunately this has lead to that several profilers have totally different views on the same issues, and then they call it profiling.
As far as i know, thropee-taking is a part of signature and I stand firm by it. It is also confirmed in several police handbooks -- both American and Swedish ones -- I have at home, no matter what your contact says.
Furthermore, the fact that mutilation is the essential bit to the killer is pretty much common sense, because (as I said to Caz), mutilations and other things that are performed post-mortem is of no importance if you want to kill someone. If a victim is already dead and you're inflicting injuries post-mortem, then you are also indulging in an act that is pretty redundant for the murder as such. You don't need profiling terms and generalisations in order to establish that.
From this, one can deduct, that since the mutilations are unimportant for the actual killing and they are done post mortem, then they are personally motivated and mean something special to the killer besides the actual murder (regardless if you call them signature or not)! It is pure simple logic. Do you see what I am getting at?
"Secondly, as far as facts vs. intuition or gut feeling. I admit I do not see how intuition becomes more relevant as the case gets older and facts are more obscured. I admit, the facts are obsure and fragmented, but I do not see how as they may become more so over time, this makes intuition any more or less valid."
Rob, I didn't mean that the age of the case as such was crucial here, but it is a common circumstance, that the older the case, the lesser facts -- mostly papers have been destroyed or moved, or just lost. Not to mention the fact that the sense for detail and recording every possible clue is not at all in the same league as in modern ones. Have you seen the files connected to a modern case? I am quite used to dig in old cases, and the lack of material and documentation is a common problem an more rule than exception. When you in modern cases can have fifty photographs of only the blood stains.
And therefore I definitely think it is easier to rely on facts and evidence in a modern case than an old one. If you lack a lot of facts, you are pretty much left to speculation, hunches and opinion. If you don't use those assetts and just think leaning on the facts is enough, you get stuck rather quickly; if we didn't use personal interpretations and personal logic here (based on our experiences and personal knowledge), the debates about JtR would probably have stopped twenty years ago. if not sooner. So that is what I do, when the facts are inconclusive, and I am not prepared to excuse myself for something that is a known valuable (although sometimes risky and non-reliable) assett in every detection work.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3303
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Extendedping,
"before you try to talk sense to these phantom believing outsmarters..."
[...]
"stuff like "I don’t believe Ripper would have worn plaid on a Tuesday"
[...]
"then pound your head into the wall 3 times and remember you are wasting your time. I guess too much ABBA can turn anyones brain to mush."
It's funny, you never seem capable of writing one single post without ridiculing other posters. How about posting something relevant for a change without including the personal stuff?
As for ABBA, I don't dislike them, but they haven't really played that big a role in my life.
Submitting prejudices about Swedes doesn't help your case one bit, but OK, that one is on me. I actually thought that was a little bit funny. I do have a sense of humour.
Read my tag line and weep.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I do not for a second doubt that the mutilation was an important element in these crimes. Surely, the killer enjoyed the mutilation aspect in some sick sense. However, I am mainly saying that the simple act of killing cannot necessarily be separated from the mutilation. This does not have anything to do with the fact that the mutilation is performed AFTER the murder, and I don't see how this would lessen the possibility that there is psychological importance in the act of killing itself. As has been pointed out before, the simple act of killing is acting out dominance and power over another individual. I am not saying the murder itself is the ONLY goal or motivation for the Ripper, but I am also not saying that the mutilation aspect is his ONLY motivation. I am just suggesting that he may have still gone through with the act of killing even if he had decided that he would not mutilate Stride (perhaps because he had already been seen, or because he felt threatened in the somewhat exposed location of Dutfield's yard.) My main argument is that you are speculating here by saying that the mutilation is the ONLY motivation for the Ripper.
On another note, you never really responded to my specific critique of your position on this:
That the data-pool is too small to formulate such a specific idea of how the Ripper would act given certain circumstances. And how your speculation that Mr. BS's behavior is inconsistent with JTR's supposed behavior is ultimately based on this very limited amount of information.
And I realize that in the absence of facts, we are left to speculate, but I do not see that it makes the speculation any more valid. In fact I would say that the less information we have, the less accurate any speculation will be. This is essentially the core of my argument with you on this subject. I just do not see that there is enough (or anywhere near enough) information to justify the speculation that Mr. BS's behavior is inconsistent with the behavior of Jack the Ripper.
Rob
(Message edited by robhouse on March 17, 2005) |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 638
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Hi Glen,
I agree that in the end, we have to use our best judgment, and some intuition, if we are to get further than what the evidence itself tells us. I just think it's important to first determine what theories are supported by the evidence.
Once we've listed those, then express why we prefer one over the others. At this point, however, we should be clear that our preference is only a preference based upon a gut feeling. And gut feelings are not evidence, and often two people can have exactly the opposite "insticts." Who's gut is right? It's hardly an issue that a debate will solve.
What I do know is that when I look at the evidence, there's nothing I can see that makes the "Stride as JtR victim" belief irrational. But I also know, when I look at the data from the point of view, I can find nothing irrational in the belief that she's not a Ripper victim either.
Because I want to know if she's a Ripper victim, not just feel one way or the other about it, I need to determine what the evidence suggests. And, as we all know, due to the limited evidence we have, it suggests a number of possibilities, some of which are polar opposite of each other. By listing these, however, it is my hope that it will focus us on things that need to be researched. If there is evidence out there that can refute some of the current alternatives, hopefully we can find it. But to know what that critical information might be, one first has to know what is currently possible. There's no need to refute something that is already impossible. But it's not solved if the only thing we use to refute an idea is our gut feeling.
My suggestion on how to approach things is simply something I find very useful. Often, I find that it helps me to understand where someone is comming from. I may not feel the interpretation is the "right one", but if I can't find any holes in the logic that builds it up, I can't really say it's wrong. But, my guts will tell me what parts of it "feel shakey", and then I may go look for evidence to see if my guts were right or not. Sometimes they are, sometimes I find evidence which destroys the idea that my guts thought was correct.
I guess I don't trust my guts all that much. Hmmm, must be eating too much fatty foods again! ha!
- Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3306
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Rob,
I just can't agree with your notion about killing and the mutilations.
Of course, he could be interested in BOTH the killing and the mutilation (nothing rules that out), but I can't see why he should be interested in JUST killing someone.
One reason for why I believe that the mutilations were his main goal, is
a) that he killed them quickly, like he wanted to get on with what he felt was the important stuff (if he really enjoyed the killing, then he didn't really spend much time with it). I know that there are killers that get an equal amount of gratification out of strangling someone etc., but this doesn't usually applies on mutilators.
b) the thropee-taking. As is commonly discussed, taking throphees is a psychologically motivated act, often in order for the killer to relive the crime in his own mind -- once again, some sort of sexual or power-related gratification. The thropee-taking is directly connected with the mutilations, so that both of these issues were of singular importance for him is pretty much left without a doubt. This is not something the ordinary killer do; when a person gets as far as taking body-parts (in contrast to taking personal possessions) he is really on the deep end, and something out of the ordinary.
From what we know so far, mutilations are sexually motivated and a main driving force for the killing. It is really no news flash; if one wants to refer to profiling, this have already been proposed by John Douglas, Hazelwood and several others. And this is not even common knowledge among profilers abut also within the police force. I am not making this up or speculating about it right out of the blue.
We also have to disregard the cases where a body is dismembered in order to be easier to transport and get rid of, since the Ripper victims were not dismembered, they were ripped up.
Then again, we will always to some extent be left in the dark here, but fact is that it both makes sense from a logical point of view and is also relatively well supported by known facts. So if I'm speculating, I am certainly in distinguished company.
This is my interpretation of the circumstances and I am not prepared to argue these points with you over and over again.
You have your views, I have mine. You can't tell me what is appropriate to think, Rob.
"That the data-pool is too small to formulate such a specific idea of how the Ripper would act given certain circumstances. And how your speculation that Mr. BS's behavior is inconsistent with JTR's supposed behavior is ultimately based on this very limited amount of information."
Well, small or not, Rob, it's only data base we have! And we have to deduct something from it. I know the circumstances are not ideal, but if we should follow your "careful" approach here, we would not get anywhere. We can at least establish three true canonical victims without a doubt; Nichols, Chapman and Eddows, who were all killed and mutilated in a similar manner, even down to the deep throat cut (although Nichols were not mutilated to the same extent, something that could -- note that I said COULD -- be a result of inexperience or the fact that he actually may have been interrupted by hearing Charles Cross approaching). In my mind these murders are so similar that they tell us something, and the forensic stuff as well as the crime scenes truly indicates a blitz attack -- most strongly illustrated in the case of Nichols, who had her eyes open, a sign of instant death.
You may not see those murders as enough data to draw conclusions from, but if we do want to draw any conclusions at all, that is what we've got to deal with. It is not ideal, but it does tell us something.
And it does tell us that the behaviour of Mr Broad shoulders is as far as it can be from this killer´s approach. You seem to support a blief that a sexual serial killer can act practically in any way possible, but I prefer to look at the patterns that exists.
And as I also said -- and a point you have disregarded now twice -- in Stride's case (who was not mutilated) we actually have a personal and domestic connection involving violence (at least according to one or two witnesses) that is worth investigating, and which in turn must be put in the context of the attack.
Therefore Stride just can't be included in a series of killings without investigating other options. I would advice you to read Alex Chisholm's excellent article Done to Death (if you can get hold of it), which opens up new vistas to the Ripper case and maybe delivers ideas that many of us may not want to face. But it is crucial to keep an open mind to other alternatives when there are facts that indicates it might be worthwhile.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3307
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
"What I do know is that when I look at the evidence, there's nothing I can see that makes the "Stride as JtR victim" belief irrational. But I also know, when I look at the data from the point of view, I can find nothing irrational in the belief that she's not a Ripper victim either.
Because I want to know if she's a Ripper victim, not just feel one way or the other about it, I need to determine what the evidence suggests."
Indeed, I know where you're coming from and I see what you mean.
But unfortunately we will probably never know one way or the other, no matter how hard we thumb the documents in the archives. We will most certainly always be left in the dark whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not, simply because the evidence are inconclusive.
That's the rotten facts.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 544
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
“More evidence please that they didn't investigate Kidney at all,…”
How can we produce such evidence? If the man wasn’t suspected at all, the police wouldn’t have felt the need to investigate him and if they didn’t investigate him, there would be no need to put any of this in their reports and nothing about Kidney would have gotten in the newspapers. And Schwartz would not have been asked to try to identify him in a line-up.
There are no indications in the surviving information that, say, night watchman George Morris was suspected or investigated, or John McCarthy, or even Inspector Abberline. Why? Simply because they weren’t.
“…or that they would have found evidence against him had they done so more thoroughly. And I'm talking evidence beyond the fact that, like so many men in similar circumstances, he didn't always handle his woman with kid gloves.”
You know as well as I do that that isn’t going to happen, because there just isn’t any – just as there isn’t much evidence that clearly points to Jack as her murderer.
The things we do know about Kidney - charges of assault against him, 3 days in prison, his strange appearance at the police station & at the inquest – their numerous break-ups, at least the last of which quite possibly as a result of a quarrel – would have made me want to investigate him, certainly when we (now) know from experience that most murdered women turn out to be killed by their (ex-)boyfriends or husbands.
Before the police could even consider someone like Kidney, a certain Ripper murder was thrown into their laps. Eddowes was found dead only about 45 minutes after Stride. The descriptions given by Lawende and Schwartz were quite similar. There was the graffito possibly implicating the Jews, there were the two Jewish houses close to both crime scenes. Schwartz, who was seen by Mr BS and seems to have been recognised as such, was a Jew.
“It's just that I can't see Kidney having quite that much luck: being in exactly the right time and place when he indulged this sudden fit of fatal pique,…”
Some time ago Scotty posted a perfect example of someone being in exactly the wrong situation, in exactly the wrong time and place. The case he put forward was actually exactly the opposite of what we might be dealing with here if we assume for a moment that Stride was killed by Kidney. The police in this case saw clear evidence of a domestic dispute turned violent and acted accordingly, while the woman was actually killed by a serial killer.
Here it is:
“In the late 50's in Perth WA a young man named John Button had his girlfriend Rosemary over to his house because his mum and dad had gone out. The two of them ended up having an argument and she stormed out. He followed her outside to try and make the peace but she was adamant that she was going to walk home and headed off down the street.
He jumped in his car and followed her. When he drew along side her he pleaded with her to at least let him drive her home. She refused and continued on her way. John decided he would give her time to cool off before following her again so he pulled over to the side of the road and lit a cigarette. He watched her walk down the street and under the railway overpass. She turned left and was out of sight.
After a few minutes he finished his cigarette and started the car, he followed her under the subway intending to try to make up with her. He turned left and not far down the street saw Rosemary lying on the side of the road. He got out of the car and examined Rosemary who was clearly badly injured and unconscious, realising something bad had happened he picked her up and carried her to the car placing her in the back seat.
For some reason he carried Rosemary around the front of the car to the door on the far side and in doing so some of her blood ended up on the bonnet of the car. Unfortunately for John he had also had a minor accident in the car some weeks earlier and therefore some elements on the front of the car were still dented and broken.
He took his girlfriend to the house of a local doctor who knew both John and Rosemary. When the doctor came outside he noticed the damage and blood on the front of the car. After he examined Rosemary it was clear to him that she had probably been hit by a motor vehicle. He called for an ambulance and then he called the police. John was arrested, the evidence was clear. The two had had an argument she had walked out, he followed in the car and ended up running her down with it. Later Rosemary died in hospital, John was convicted of murder, was initially sentenced to death, his sentence was later reduced to life.
Several years later the actual killer was caught. He was never charged with the murder of Rosemary although he confessed to it, he was later hanged for his crimes. He was a killer with a surprisingly varied MO, nevertheless he had stolen cars and run down other random pedestrians with them on four other occasions.
The coincidence is this. In the few small minutes when John sat in his car smoking and Rosemary was out of sight, the real killer spotted her and ran her over. The car the killer used was a similar make and model to John's. The car the killer used had a registration plate, which had only two different letters or numbers from John's. (eg: John's car XPD 454, killer's XDD 754) This all became important as three young men in another car witnessed a car speeding from the scene and later agreed it was probably John's car they had seen, which had caused the damage to the front of his car.”
Don’t get me wrong, Caz, whatever I wrote above, I respect your views. These are just mine.
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Glenn,
If you flip a coin three times, and it comes up heads all three times, you then will come to the following conclusion: "When I flip a coin it will come up heads 100% of the time". Someone tells you that this is an illogical conclusion, based on the fact that you need a larger data set before you will start to see meaningful and accurate results. To this you reply "Well this is the only data set we have to work with, so I have to draw my conclusions accordingly." And thus you stick with your original conclusion.
Glenn, this just makes no sense.
I have tried to appeal to your sense of logic and common sense. I have tried to appeal to you in the sense of respecting that other people will have different "gut feelings", and that yours is not the only correct possibility.
I have come to the conclusion that you are totally stubborn on this issue. You are still convinced, with 100% certainty as you have said, that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that Mr. BS was JTR. Please correct me if I am wrong. You have said that if Mr. BS was JTR then you are next in line for the British Throne, if I am not mistaken.
It is not as if I am trying to convince you that Mr. BS WAS JTR. I am just trying to get you to admit that he MAY HAVE BEEN JTR.
I have come to the conclusion that you are completely stubborn on this, and will not accept that the COMMONLY HELD BELIEF that Mr. BS may have been JTR, a belief shared by many of the most important researchers in Ripperology, has ANY VALIDITY AT ALL, therefore, I do not see the point in continuing this discussion again. You can believe whatever you want. Please do. But I believe you are in a fantasy realm, and that you have lost touch with the reality of the case evidence. I don't mean to sound rude saying that, but it is what I truly believe. And it is extremely frustrating trying to have a discussion with you because on a fundamental level you tend to dismiss the ideas of others. It is just a pointless waste of time trying to get you to accept that my position on this has any validity at all. Which I think is ridiculous. Sorry.
Rob |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3308
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Rob,
It really is pointless, because no matter what I write or what facts I display to back up my beliefs, you either disregard it or won't accept it, and then you demand that I should accept yours.
You continue to get hooked upon my "behaviour interpretation" of Mr BS, and naturally you bring up quotes I wrote quite some time ago instead of addressing the points I made in my latest posts. That is just weird.
It apparently made no difference whatsoever, that I also pointed at some facts (not just behavioural studies) that actually have to be reconsidered in Liz Stride's case, like the fact that Liz Stride lived with a man in a violent domestic relationship, a man that she several times had brought charges against and that she had left some time prior to the murder. In other words, you actually refuse to look at some aspects of the case evidence!
For the third time you refuse to touch upon this issue, and you pretty much refuse to comment on the other factual stuff either, like the profiling thing (things that YOU yourself brought up). All you do is nag, nag, nag about my stubborn position -- well, yeah, I heard you the first time, and the second one, and the third.. when are you actually going to address the points I am making in my replies?
I may have my ideas, but when I try to explain why, you never seem to be interested. So why do you ask, if you don't care about the answers you get?
No, I am not dismissing the ideas of others, only SOME of the ideas. As you may have noticed, I am supporting a lot of ideas also.
And no, I am NOT 100% certain that Mr Broad Shoulders was not JtR, but I think it is very unlikely.
If you had read my latest posts, instead of getting frustrated over things I said several weeks ago, you would have noticed that. I admit I worded myself quite carelessly in my earlier posts about this issue, but that is no excuse for you to avoid arguments in a debate.
You are pretty much as stubborn as I am (it comes across quite clear that you can't accept the idea at all that Liz may not have been a Ripper victim, and you are indeed fooling yourself if think that you are displaying an open mind -- no offense, promise). I am quite tired of standing on trial with you as prosecutor and have to explain myself to you on every issue where you don't agree, especially as you take the liberty of speaking on other people's behalf. I certainly have better things to do, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Go figure.
Oh well, to heck with it. I give up.
This is certainly not creative, and I never thought it would be either. And neither do I think the thread benefits from it. So I agree -- our so called discussion ends here -- period, at least for the sake of thread.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 17, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 639
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Hi Glen,
Indeed, we may never know if Stride was a Ripper victim for sure. From looking at it from both sides though, I place as my top two candidates Jack and Kidney. I admit, we don't even have enough to totally reduce it to just these two suspects, but I figure these two the most likely. If it were possible to rule out Kidney, then we're left with Jack, or the "violence did occur in this area sometimes" style of argument. Since we can never rule out such a coincidence, I would say that looks to be as far as we could get. After that, it becomes either one goes with the only good "suspect" (Jack), or one goes with the rather vauge "someone else with no readily apparent motive."
I don't know. I'll probably waffel on this one forever. 
- Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3309
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
You would certainly not be the only one to waffel.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3310
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
It's true indeed. The police was already subjected to large pressure from the press and the general public, and with a serial killer roaming the streets, drawing all the attention, it is not strange at all, that they may have missed to check out other leads -- especially after Eddowes was found murdered as well one hour later.
After all, if Kidney for example really was investigated as a suspect, then we would have something that indicates this in the internal police documentation. Several circumstances were pointing to the Ripper -- whom they desperately wanted caught -- and in spite of all the incriminating features in Kidney's background and personality he is not mentioned with one word besides from being interviewed as an ordinary witness.
If the police really were working with an open mind here, we would at least see some investigation in the police reports on Kidney, but they appear to have missed the boat. And if that is true, I believe they made a serious mistake, probably deriving from pressure (leading to tunnel vision) and inexperience in handling these situations. It is of course a pure speculative argument, but I do find his absence from the files in this particular context (even with the missing interrogation files and note books in mind) quite singular and puzzling, considering his relationship with Stride and his violent record. One can't help wondering.
"The things we do know about Kidney - charges of assault against him, 3 days in prison, his strange appearance at the police station & at the inquest – their numerous break-ups, at least the last of which quite possibly as a result of a quarrel – would have made me want to investigate him, certainly when we (now) know from experience that most murdered women turn out to be killed by their (ex-)boyfriends or husbands.
Before the police could even consider someone like Kidney, a certain Ripper murder was thrown into their laps. Eddowes was found dead only about 45 minutes after Stride. The descriptions given by Lawende and Schwartz were quite similar. There was the graffito possibly implicating the Jews, there were the two Jewish houses close to both crime scenes. Schwartz, who was seen by Mr BS and seems to have been recognised as such, was a Jew."
Exactly, Frank.
I couldn't have expressed it better myself.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 202
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 1:48 am: |
|
I'm pretty much with Glenn on this one. I'd say that, as I see the case at the moment, I think it VERY, VERY unlikely that Mr BS was JtR.
Got that??
I think much of the desire to see him as such is simply a reflection of a desire to magnify jack and to create a larger pool of evidence/more murders to attribute to him.
The funny thing is - and membership of Casebook has enhanced it - that as I get older and read more, I do begin to draw closer to the view that Jack may never have existed.
The only murders I'll definitely attribute to him as I write are Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Stride, I am increasingly convinced - largely by the paranoid nature of many of the contrary arguments - was NOT a Ripper victim; and I am more and more persuaded by the different style of the killing, that MJK may not have been either. Though that does not mean that I am yet ready to conceive of Barnett as her killer or as JtR.
I wonder very much these days whether press hype, combined with political pressure, and contemporary perceptions may not have created the enigma that is JtR - simply a sordid, petty murderer who struck three times and then (for whatever reason) vanished.
And it's the over-egged, frantic attempts to "make" Stride a Ripper victim (trying to force the crime into a certain mould) that is making me tend that way. I just suspect the Ripperphiles in the Stride case protest too much.
Question, question, question, is my motto.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 52
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
Glen,
I do not see that because I am the only one that disagrees with an assault situation,that I must be wrong.As you know I am rarely wrong.
Of course I am sticking to the evidence,what there is of it,and that is very little.A hand on the shoulder and Stride on the ground.We both agree on that.Mr B.S.not JTR,again we both agree.
Any eyewitness testimony not to be relied on.Again we agree,but most posters agree on that.
A reliance on Swanson,now there we disagree,but of course Swanson was not an eyewitness.He made an assumption based on an assumption,that of Schwartz.Doubly not to be relied on.
And Schwartz testimony,or part of it,is just that.An assunption.That Stride was thrown to the ground.Every one,except myself it seems, accepts there is no alternative.Well I have given the alternative in previous posts,such as a defence would have given had Mr B.S. been identified.The police too would have been aware of the alternative,and maybe that is why he was kept from the inquest where he would have been subjected to cross examination.Perhaps they felt he was not so reliable after all.
The autopsy evidence shows no sign of Stride being thrown to the ground in a violent manner.Only two small bruises under the front of each shoulder.Perhaps B.S.had a large hand with two thumbs.
A grip strong enough to throw a person to the ground would leave a most prominent mark,and somewhere her body would show signs of having been thrown on to cobbles or cement.
No Glen,you will have improve if you want to impress and convert an old codger like me. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3312
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
Harry,
"Of course I am sticking to the evidence,what there is of it,and that is very little.A hand on the shoulder and Stride on the ground."
No, that is incorrect. You are once again referring to the Star article. A newspaper account is not evidence and not a reliable source. Even an amateur researcher knows this. Swanson's report mentions nothing of the sort; in Swanson's report it is perfectly clear that the man pulls her into the street and throws her to the ground. She is not falling by herself. Furthermore, that the man is aggressive is also perfectly clear, since he shouts at the onlookers and appears threatening.
Once again, you are twisting it. Of course, what we've got here is Schwartz's own subjective account of an experience, but does that give us the right to change it or disregard it? What about some of the other witness statements then?
As for eyewitness, an eyewitness can never fully be relied on, and unfortunately Schwartz's story is not corroborated by someone else (which would have felt nice), but it is there, and chosing to discredit just because it doesn't fit ones expectations of the events won't do.
Swanson was not a eyewitness, no, but he DID not make an assumption. That is really not his job here; his job was to write a summary report, which doesn't mean (as you seem to think) that he can change the words and the meaning of them to his liking. He can shorten the interview and pick out the relevant pieces, but why he should change the words so fundamentaly goes beyond me, and I have never come across it while studying a summary report in a police matter.
But yes, Schwartz's testimony could very well be an assumption, since it is a subjective account. We all know the problems with witness stories. But so what? That goes for practically every witness story, not just Schwartz And this one is unfortunately the only one we've got. It could be exaggerated, but then again, it may not. It was at least dramatic enough for Schwartz and his friend (brother?) to go to the police.
"The police too would have been aware of the alternative,and maybe that is why he was kept from the inquest where he would have been subjected to cross examination.Perhaps they felt he was not so reliable after all."
I don't buy this at all. There is no indication whatsoever pointing at the police didn't find Schwartz's reliable -- on the contrary. The most probable reason for why he wasn't called was probably because of the language problems and the fact that he couldn't understand or speak a single word of English. It is quite possible that he had to submit a written testimony instead, which now may be lost. It can at least never be ruled out.
"The autopsy evidence shows no sign of Stride being thrown to the ground in a violent manner.Only two small bruises under the front of each shoulder.Perhaps B.S.had a large hand with two thumbs.
A grip strong enough to throw a person to the ground would leave a most prominent mark,and somewhere her body would show signs of having been thrown on to cobbles or cement."
Completely wrong. As you very well know, Harry, a grip or a fall doesn't always have to leave marks, and I fail to see that Stride would need to get any particular bruises from this. Besides, a stout man can easily throw a woman to the ground by grabbing her by the clothes. The women of the 19th century had quite a lot of clothing in different layers, so regardless of how hard you get a blow or fall, bruises or body marks doesn't always appear. You can ask any medical forensic about this.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 18, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3313
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
Phil,
Oh boy, now you are really stirring up the snake pit, but what you say is precisely corroborative with my own views. I absolutely agree.
Actually, you are wording Alex Chisholm's old theory here to the letter.
In many ways I am convinced of that Jack the Ripper in many ways was an creation of the papers (and I am not talking about the name as such). There still definitely existed a serial killer, since we at least can attribute three victims to him. But the circumstances regarding the others...
As you say, one must be open-minded enough to ask these questions. Even if it should prove to be wrong. And I for my part don't think it makes the case less interesting.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3314
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 5:29 am: |
|
Sorry, a lot of bad English there...
It shall naturally say: "In many ways I am convinced of that Jack the Ripper was an creation of the press..."
And yes, Phil, one wonders why the protests are so intense. MJK I can understand, but Stride has actually been held in some doubt by most researchers more or less for several years now. It is hardly a controversial issue, as I see it.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 203
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Glenn, thank you.
If some contemporaries are to be believed, even the name was coined by the "press" albeit indirectly!!
In some ways the less sensational the crimes the MORE interesting Jack becomes - at least for me. I have never been a criminologist in any wider sense, and the gruesome details tend to turn me off.
What I find fascinating - other than his identity, of course - is why these murders gained such huge notoreity at the time; the way they were handled politically and in terms of policing; the literature; historiography; and sociology.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 53
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Glen,
It isn't clear at all,unless you have seen the witness statement Swanson refers to,and of course Swanson's report is'nt evidence either.
Swanson can't be eyewitness to her being pulled into the street,or thrown down,only Schwartz can.
We do not know that he shouted threatening language as Schwartz could not understand what was being said.Appears threatening is an assumtion.Now who's doing the twisting.
It is good law enforcement practice to study witness statements in an effort to evaluate the strengh of such, and anticipate possible alternatives that a defence might raise.That is all I am doing.
You can not state that Swanson didn't make an assumption,police do it all the time.Aberline did it after his interview with Hutchinson,by stating in a report to superiors,that he believed Hutchinson truthful.You missed the boat there Glen.
Now that is another great assumption that he was maybe not called to the inquest because of language problems.Interpreters could have been used.
Nothing in your rebuttal of my last post makes sense so far.
The Star report was quite valuable in that it showed Schwartz changed his story.Even Swanson would be aware how damaging that was.
Stride was not seen to be grabbed by the clothes.Both police and the Star report make this clear.Where are you getting these idea's from Glen.
Schwartz only saw a hand placed on a shoulder,and a woman turn and fall to the ground.It would only be an assumption on his or any other person's part,as to whether force or accident caused this.
In a summary,one does not change the words or their meanings,you say.Of course one doesn't have to change the words,but the meanings will always be open to interpretation,and the compiler can always apply their own interpretation. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3316
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
No, Harry, you continue to miss the boat yourself.
You must learn to separate the official's personal evaluations from the actual facts from the interviews they put forward. It is not the same thing, and nothing at all in your post makes sense whatsoever.
"It isn't clear at all,unless you have seen the witness statement Swanson refers to,and of course Swanson's report is'nt evidence either.
Swanson can't be eyewitness to her being pulled into the street,or thrown down,only Schwartz can."
Swanson's report is not evidence, I agree, but it is after all a piece of fact, delivered first hand by those who investigated, and the demand on those to render the truth about what's been said is much higher than on a press related source. Paper articles are not even facts, because they are just too unreliable. Once again, even an amateur researcher knows this.
Soon you will probably also tell me that you believe in the press accounts of the "grave spitting" incident connected with the MJK murder.
Once again, a summary report is not supposed to change the words or the meaning of the words of what being said! Swanson, like any other officer with this appointment, is not allowed to let his own interpretation colour the things Schwartz says; he is supposed to deliver it as straight off as possible. Then he can deliver his own views on the matter, like Abberline did in the case of Hutchinson. What Abberline did was to enclose the statement from Hutchinson along with the report and then add his views (which of course is an even better and more recommedable solution).
And as for our own interpretations of the police statement, there is really little doubt that it was an assault. Actually, we don't need to interpret at all; it speaks of an assault loud and clear, and not a woman falling by accident.
"We do not know that he shouted threatening language as Schwartz could not understand what was being said. Appears threatening is an assumtion.Now who's doing the twisting."
No, it is quite clear that Schwartz himself found the whole incident threatening, unless you believed he made it all up while speaking to the police. According to Schwartz, the man DID shout something to one or both of the onlookers, and Schwartz apparently felt uneasy about the whole thing. Once again you are trying to dismiss and distort things in Schwartz's testimony that actually is there.
Then what Schwartz really saw or felt, we can't know, of course (and we wouldn't be sure of this even if we had the original interview notes), but the statement is there, whether we like it or not.
It was not Swanson that did the assumtions here, but Schwartz himself, based on his own feelings during the incident. No need to mix then up.
"It is good law enforcement practice to study witness statements in an effort to evaluate the strength of such, and anticipate possible alternatives that a defence might raise.That is all I am doing."
That is only valid if we have something to compare it with, like another witness statement, or some evidence from the crime scene. We don't have that here. If a defense raised these claims of yours, he would just deny them if they weren't true anyway, so even a defense needs some proof for their version of the event.
What you are doing is creating things and events that totally differ from his statement to the police, and that you have no evidence for whatsoever really happened.
With that kind of approach you can say that practically everything happened, even that Mr BS in fact was a barrel organ player singing a song called "Lipski" and that Stride wasn't actually assaulted, but that it was Mrs Mortimer who in fact slipped on a banana and that Pipeman tried to help her up, while Schwartz ran away because he was late for dinner. I can construct anything you want by using our approach; you name it, I'll do it. It might be fun and creative, but I am afraid it is really crappy research and police work, creating unreliable and questionable results.
To be frank, Harry, I fail to see how you can evaluate the "strength" of a witness statement by changing it altogether beyond recognition or by relying on a newspaper account. Even in "anticipating possible alternative scenarios", you must have something reliable to build them on, and a dubious paper article just doesn't cut it.
"The Star report was quite valuable in that it showed Schwartz changed his story.Even Swanson would be aware how damaging that was."
No no no, although Matthew Packer was an example of this, it was actually the papers themselves who did this, and they did it frequently. I have seen it time and time again in numerous cases during research (as anyone knows who have researched newspaper reports from the 19th century yourself).
The Star article is a typical construction by the paper itself in order to dramatise the event to sell more copies. It is a newspaper, for God's sake! Then you probably also believe in the article's claim that Pipeman actually had no pipe, but was in fact pulling up a knife, although that as well is totally unsupported by other sources? Come on...
As for its credibility, do you think Schwartz actually wrote the article himself?
"Stride was not seen to be grabbed by the clothes.Both police and the Star report make this clear.Where are you getting these idea's from Glen."
That is absolutely true, and I am glad you noticed that. I was just using your own approach here. After all, if you distrust the witness statement to the police, why not also distrust the paper account and assume that both are wrong? What if Schwartz got it wrong in both statements and actually in the dark, mistinterpreted it as Mr BS actually pulled her by the coat? See what I mean? That kind of artistic creativity just doesn't make sense.
"Now that is another great assumption that he was maybe not called to the inquest because of language problems.Interpreters could have been used."
Yes, it was an assumption, and I also made that perfectly clear. I have no idea why he wasn't called to the inquest, and that goes for a number of the other witnesses as well -- and neither do you. You seem convinced of that they weren't, because they were not seen as credible. I would say that is a totally unsupported assumption in its own right and that there could be a lot of other explanations.
"Schwartz only saw a hand placed on a shoulder,and a woman turn and fall to the ground.It would only be an assumption on his or any other person's part,as to whether force or accident caused this."
No, once again, that is turning a newspaper article into facts -- it is not a fact that Schwartz saw the man lay his hand on the shoulder on the woman. The statement to the police doesn't mention anything of the sort.
It is quite clear from Schwartz's statement to the police (even though Swanson wrote the summary), that it was by force and not by accident. Why you trust the wordings of a reporter before those of a police official really goes beyond me; no offense, but your source evaluation technique is a complete mystery, Harry.
We will never know the real truth about an event taking place 117 years ago, but dismissing a police statement in favour of a paper article is a weird way to go about things.
This is getting tedious, and although you make some good points, you seem totally unaware of the worthless factual evidence value of a newspaper article, and before you realise that you can't place such a source higher in credibility than a police report, this discussion -- although I've enjoyed it to some extent -- is unfortunately doomed to fail and a waste of time.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Hi All,
Where to start?!
First of all I must thank two or three posters for some laugh-out-loud moments (you know who you are), and one or two for some unintentionally hilarious statements (you may not).
Hi Glenn,
I think I’d better start all over again, because you seem to have seriously misinterpreted most of my arguments. I never suggested the mutilations weren’t important for Jack, and I certainly haven’t tried to ‘diminish them into some obscure additional detail he just puts in whenever he feels like it’. How absurd that you should think that, since I even used the term ‘trademark mutilations’ more than once when referring to the lack of them in Liz’s case.
Of course the lack of mutilation makes Liz the exception. I simply questioned your fixed belief that Jack would never have killed anyone he wasn’t intending to mutilate, or was unable to mutilate for any reason.
We only get the brief scene as witnessed by Schwartz. We don’t know whether BS and Liz knew each other, were total strangers, or could have met earlier that night. What Schwartz saw could have been ‘unfinished business’ on one or the other’s part. If BS was Jack, and we assume Liz had been his next intended victim, we wouldn’t know what stage he had reached in the game and therefore what he was actually trying to achieve when seen by Schwartz pushing her around. Far from being Jack’s opening gambit to murder and mutilation, this scene could have represented his frustration because his usual approach - whatever that was - hadn’t worked its charm on the lady this time.
And why assume that Jack’s original intention would have been to mutilate Liz near the scene of the witnessed encounter? He didn’t meet Annie in the backyard; they went there together from another - presumably less suitable - location. Ditto with Kate in Mitre Square. So why couldn’t he have been satisfied with Berner Street only as a pick-up location (Liz was there), but dissatisfied with its potential for carrying out mutilations?
You say ‘it is pretty obvious Jack the Ripper used blitz attacks in order to overcome his victims, regardless of the victims actions’. Fair enough, but that was only when the couple had already reached a spot in which Jack felt he could merrily mutilate in peace. We don’t know anything about the preamble. So in Liz’s case, one could argue that the preamble went wrong and he failed to get her where he really wanted her.
You’ve read my suggested scenarios, to explain why I think frustration at seeing his plans with Liz go down the pan may have triggered the witnessed rough treatment of her, and ultimately led to his decision to kill her when the coast was clear and sod off before Schwartz could return to interfere again. If he’d given Liz real cause for suspicion, he may have reached the point of no return. He’s not going to say to himself:
Oh dear, now I’ve killed her here, I’ve got to mutilate her before I go, regardless of the risk, otherwise Glenn won’t believe I did it.
I know your view is that Jack would have fled at the first sign of trouble. My suggestion is not all that different really. He fled, but just before he fled he dealt with the trouble in case it came back to haunt him - he cut trouble’s throat.
How can you seriously equate anything I’ve written with:
‘Do you really picture in your own head, that he would attack her, kill her, slit her throat and then suddenly go... "ooops, sh*t... naaaaah, this just doesn't feel right. Sod it." ’
Come on, Glenn, you give me a break - read what I’ve actually written.
And remember the words of Rudyard Kipling:
A woman's guess is much more accurate than a man's certainty. 
Hi Phil,
…Kidney could have followed Liz, or been told by someone where she was. "Say Mike, do you know your woman's parading around Berner St with another bloke!! Wotcha gonna do abaht that then?"
Possible, but no one came forward to say that Kidney was out looking for Liz that night.
Kidney may have done just the things necessary to divert suspicion. But look how often Sutcliffe was interviewed and dismissed as a suspect in the Yorkshire "Ripper" case.
I don’t see how that’s even remotely relevant. You are comparing what you see as a domestic - Kidney killing Liz - with a serial killer who targeted complete strangers. That’s what makes serial killers so hard to pin down and identify, and domestic murderers so much easier - you have the latter in the frame from day one, so it’s a rare bird indeed who gets away with killing his own bird.
Hi Frank,
Yes, most murdered women are probably killed by their (ex-)boyfriends or husbands. But the example you posted (yes I did read Scotty’s post), as you say, showed that even when it looked like an open and shut case of a domestic dispute turned violent, this one actually turned out to be a serial murder. Therefore I’m not sure how this example helps with Liz’s case, apart from showing us that very occasionally things prove to be the opposite of how they look.
The trouble is, we can’t agree on what Liz’s murder looks like. The police at the time thought it looked like one of Jack’s, not a domestic, and there is, as you suggest, at least a chance that looks were deceptive here. Conversely, everyone who now thinks it looks like a domestic could be seeing things that aren’t really there. My own view is that the murder looks sufficiently ripper-like to allow me to go with the flow. If I didn’t think it looked like Jack’s work at all I’d say so. Ditto if I could see any sure signs of another man’s hand at work, eg Kidney’s.
I readily agree with what Jeff wrote:
After that, it becomes either one goes with the only good "suspect" (Jack), or one goes with the rather vague "someone else with no readily apparent motive."
I imagine a large proportion of the Whitechapel prostitutes would have been subjected to abuse by one or more of the men in their lives, occasionally or routinely. I suspect much the same could be said of the Yorkshire Ripper’s prostitute victims. Men who take up with such women traditionally take advantage of the circumstances, help spend their earnings and give them a black eye every so often to keep them in line. (Joe Barnett seems to have been an exception - sincerely wanting to provide for Mary so she wouldn’t have to sell herself. No suggestion of any unkind treatment from him, so why do some people think this looks like a domestic too?)
For each and every case of domestic murder, where abuse is taken too far, there will be countless numbers of abusers who leave their victims alive to be abused again. Prostitutes come in for unfair shares of just about everything: targeted by abusive boyfriends and serial killers alike.
Why should we elevate Kidney - or some unknown character - from the countless ranks of abusive men in and out of the lives of women like Liz to the relatively small proportion who commit murder? It’s not enough that his woman was found murdered; every known prostitute victim of every serial killer from Jack to Peter Sutcliffe had no doubt put up with abuse from men in the days or weeks before they died.
Hi Mephisto,
Yes, please do email me - long time no speak!
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 206
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Caz - You missed the point of my post (incidentally, putting your's among those I find hilarious!!).
I was not tarying to argue anything, prove anything, or do anything, save to show that your earlier contentions were not the only way of seeing things.
Why should we elevate Kidney? We shouldn't unless we feel it appropriate. It's up to you what you think - there's no right or wrong here until evidence emerges - so if you are not convinced, that's fine. But I don't have to be convinced about your arguments either.
You last point makes no sense at all. Kidney is a suspect, in my eyes, because there is motive, opportunity, history etc to support it. We know he had been violent in the past, and there is evidence that Liz may have left him and was seeing omeone else who meant something to her. here, unlike Tabram, Nichols or Eddowes is a possible alternative killer. Parden me if i am wrong but are not most murders then and now committed by people who know the victims? Stride and Kelly, and to a lesser extent Chapman, had partners and both the former in recent years have been considered as possible victims of their former lovers. It's not illogical and it is is worth following up.
Why do you appear so against playing with alternative ideas and theories and questing past assumptions and conventional wisdoms? That way new light may get thrown into murky, even unexpected, places.
You wrote:
My own view is that the murder looks sufficiently ripper-like to allow me to go with the flow. If I didn’t think it looked like Jack’s work at all I’d say so. Ditto if I could see any sure signs of another man’s hand at work, eg Kidney’s.
In the meantime then you have a closed mind? How apathetic and lethargic and intellectually cramped that statement appears? That sort of thinking would have us still beileve the world was flat (I exaggerate for effect, of course) but it does seem very conservative and bland.
Just my view though,
Phil
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3317
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Caz,
"Of course the lack of mutilation makes Liz the exception. I simply questioned your fixed belief that Jack would never have killed anyone he wasn’t intending to mutilate, or was unable to mutilate for any reason."
You have every right to do that, and I heard you the first time. But you will still get the same answer from me, no matter how you try to twist your questions. I could be wrong, though.
"We only get the brief scene as witnessed by Schwartz. We don’t know whether BS and Liz knew each other, were total strangers, or could have met earlier that night. What Schwartz saw could have been ‘unfinished business’ on one or the other’s part."
Absolutely true. I have never doubted that.
"If BS was Jack, and we assume Liz had been his next intended victim, we wouldn’t know what stage he had reached in the game and therefore what he was actually trying to achieve when seen by Schwartz pushing her around. Far from being Jack’s opening gambit to murder and mutilation, this scene could have represented his frustration because his usual approach - whatever that was - hadn’t worked its charm on the lady this time."
Of course it could, but I don't think so. And I can only deliver my usual alternative to what I think he would have done instead if the prostitute were reluctant to go with him -- namely that he aborted the whole thing and choose another. Not attacking a woman on an open street and shouting at people across to the other side. But once again -- just my views.
"So why couldn’t he have been satisfied with Berner Street only as a pick-up location (Liz was there), but dissatisfied with its potential for carrying out mutilations?"
Of course Berner Street only could have been meant as a pick-up location, but why is this relevant? The fact that Jack the Ripper would attack her on a pick-up spot just because she wouldn't go with him, is nothing but your speculations. I think it's not credible, but that's just me.
"So in Liz’s case, one could argue that the preamble went wrong and he failed to get her where he really wanted her."
Yes, absolutely. I have never questioned that; and I have never questioned your scenario of events either.
But once again: this could fit any customer. And Mr BS could be just that, or he could Kidney, or he could be Jack the Ripper (although I find the latter very unlikely, for certain reasons).
I prefer to keep an open mind to other solutions than the Ripper alternative, since I believe there are other indications.
"My suggestion is not all that different really. He fled, but just before he fled he dealt with the trouble in case it came back to haunt him - he cut trouble’s throat."
I respect that, and who knows?
But there you go again -- assuming that the Ripper would kill just for the sake of it. I don't believe in it for one minute -- and Lord knows I could be wrong -- but that is my priviligue.
"A woman's guess is much more accurate than a man's certainty."
Yeah sure, Caz. Sure. That's Kipling's problem. Like gender has anything to do with it...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3318
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
Caz,
[Your answer directed to Frank:]
"Conversely, everyone who now thinks it looks like a domestic could be seeing things that aren’t really there."
And vice versa, Caz.
[Your answer directed to Phil:]
"That’s what makes serial killers so hard to pin down and identify, and domestic murderers so much easier - you have the latter in the frame from day one, so it’s a rare bird indeed who gets away with killing his own bird."
That is actually a terribly wrong argument. Domestic killings appearing in a serial killer context are in general quite hard to investigate.
As for Barnett and MJK, that has been debated to death, and this is not the thread for it. No need to go ver it all again here. You've already heard my arguments regarding this.
Besides -- and I've I told you this twice before -- many domestic murders have actually been perpetrated without the environment and neighbours ever knowing about any abuse.
In Stride's case we know Kidney had a record for this and that she several times was close to press charges against him. Therefore investigating this possibility, in connection with a Ripper victim that was NOT mutilated (because some people can't cope with the idea that the Ripper may not have been the killer, in spite of some relevant fatc pointing towards it), is just plain negligence and certianly least of all any display of factual objectivity.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 545
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
“Therefore I’m not sure how this example helps with Liz’s case, apart from showing us that very occasionally things prove to be the opposite of how they look.”
You wrote you can't see Kidney having quite that much (good) luck of being in exactly the right time and place when he slit Stride’s throat, allowing him to slip into Jack's slippers. My only reason for re-posting Scotty’s story was that it shows that people apparently sometimes do have such an amount of luck: (good) luck for the serial killer in this case and a same amount of bad luck for the boyfriend. So, why couldn’t Kidney have been as lucky as the serial killer in Scotty’s example?
I don’t think that Stride’s murder necessarily looks like a domestic, it’s just that, since I’ve discovered Casebook, it has never looked sufficiently ripper-like to me to rule out other alternatives and the most logical one would be Stride’s (ex-)lover. The fact that there were countless ranks of abusive men in and out of the lives of women like Liz doesn’t really make a difference, or to me it doesn’t anyway. Because that doesn’t mean Kidney couldn’t or wouldn’t have taken his abuse too far.
“(Joe Barnett seems to have been an exception - sincerely wanting to provide for Mary so she wouldn’t have to sell herself. No suggestion of any unkind treatment from him, so why do some people think this looks like a domestic too?)”
I’m not one of those - I think her murder looks sufficiently ripper-like.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 354
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 12:45 pm: |
|
HI folks,
I do hope you bear with me on this one, because I have absolutely no idea where I am going with this, but it does seem to be that both sides here seem to be at a stale mate because there is so little conclusive evidence one way or the other.
I am just about in the middle on this one, although to be truthful 60%-40% in favour of it being a non JtR killing, I have really tried to be objective here though and not allow my own opinions to come into it.
I started thinking about the throat wounds on the victims, and realised that although we keep talking about the similarities, dissimilarities etc., what exactly do they tell us about who might actually have killed Liz?
I know they have been gone into umpteen times, but perhaps it needs to be re- examined again here in the light of some of the posts recently.
I have recreated the throat wounds visually, using the post mortem reports and think they are pretty accurate.......I am happy to correct any that people think are not correct......
Here they are with a description of the wounds underneath. Once they are posted I will put any ideas that I have and hope that others might do the same. Hopefully it will spark a few thoughts in people minds, if not at least I hope I haven't put you off your dinner!
Here they are:
Polly:
Incision left side of neck, 1" below jaw, 4" incision starting immediately below the left ear; a 2nd throat incision starting 1" below and 1" in front of the 1st, running 8" in a circular direction around the throat and stopping 3" below the right ear, completely severing all tissues down to the spine, including the large vessels of the neck on both sides;
Annie:
The shortest throat incision ran from the front of the throat and terminated on the right side between the lower jaw and the breast bone; The longest throat incision completely encircled the throat, running along the line of the jaw; The incisions ran from victim's left to right; 2 clean and distinct cuts on the left side of the spine which were parallel to each other and were 1/2" apart;
Liz:
The throat was deeply gashed: in the neck was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of her scarf; the incision commenced on the left side, 2 1/2" below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 1/2" below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.
Catharine:
throat cut nearly ear-to-ear, dividing all tissues down to the bone;
Mary:
The neck was severed down to the spine
Well, there they are. I will post what my initial reactions were as I was doing them.......and I am sure I will get a few bricks thrown at me, but at least, they will be new bricks........
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3320
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Excellent piece of work, and quite an interesting new approach, that might shed some new lights on some aspects on the discussions. Quite different to actually see them in graphic than just reading about them.
If they are correct or not, or if it could lead to any new revelations as in terms of different discussions, I can't say, because the medical stuff is really my weak spot as far as knowledge is concerned, and therefore I rarely debate or comment on those matters more thoroughly.
What strikes me -- if your graphics are correct -- is how hard it actually is to determine similarities or disimilarities regarding the throat wounds. Because I was surprised to see, that they all do differ from one another to a larger extent than what I had expected.
This could of course mean, that the throat wounds actually are quite difficult to put forward as argument either way -- if the Ripper made some of them or not, for or against. At least that's how I feel when I see it like this.
And if that's a conclusion we can reach from it, Id say that's a breakthrough in itself.
Besides this, personally I am not sure what to say about it. Any thoughts on this, anyone?
Very interesting (apart from disturbing...).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 19, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Jane
Great job re diagrams and description of throat wounds.
all my best
Restless Spirit
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 355
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I do hope the post above didn't put too many people off their spaghetti, but I thought they might be useful to help people visualize just what the similarities and differences are with the wounds.
I noticed a few things as I was doing them, any I hope that they are completely impartial observations......
Firstly in Liz's case, the scarf would appear to have been tied quite high up on her throat, as the incision ran along the bottom line of it exactly. I was a bit puzzled about the measurements to begin with, so I did another visual to try and understand what was going on there. Here it is: Again I think I have this right as it is quite important.
I made the scarf transparent to show the wound underneath, but it would obviously have been a fairly ordinary silk. I think that the wound opened up under the scarf as shown in the illustration, but it does look as the scarf was very high up on the neck. This would be consistent with her being dragged backwards/ to the floor by the scarf and strangled with it. (Even only partially so). This is in line with the post mortem report,
'The deceased had round her neck a check silk scarf, the bow of which was turned to the left and pulled very tight.'
The wound is dissimilar to the other wounds in it's severity, although similar in size across the width of the throat. The post mortem says that it was deeply gashed, whereas the others all do indicate a much more severe incision. Annies, is the most similar in severity, but only in my opinion, but there were two wounds and not one...........any thoughts on this?
I do have to say, just purely on observation that the wound on Liz's throat does not seem to me to indicate as much force, or even frustration and anger as the others....... although that is a personal opinion..........
Many of the posts recently have been concentrating on the disposition of Liz's killer/ and or Mr BS around the time of her murder........I do hope that someone at least can see some use in this reconstruction in determining whether the throat wound itself gives us any clues as to what his frame of mind may have been at the time.........I really don't know much about anatomy and wounds, so I would be interested to see if anyone can come up with something, pertinent to this thread......if not I'll crawl into a corner somewhere and hide for a few weeks!!!!!
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxxxx
(Well at least I did try to come up with something different!)
 |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3321
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Jane,
"(Well at least I did try to come up with something different!)"
Believe me... you did!
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4271
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Splendid stuff, Jane.
"Well at least I did try to come up with something different!"
"Believe me, you did!"
And so did Jack. 
Robert |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 54
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
Glen.
Of course this arguement is getting nowhere,but maybe it will tend to get people to realize that there are alternatives to consider.
It is unfortunate that you continue to use the description'twisting words and meanings'.You did it to Caz in a post above.Also you tend to denigrate reporters and editors if someone should refer to their content.They are,for the most part,men and women of integrity.There is no evidence,and certainly no motive,for them to have lied about what Schwartz said.
You introduce examples that have no bearing on the subject under discussion.I have kept strictly to what was said,both by the police and paper.I have never indicated a belief of anyone having lied.My whole arguement is centred around the fact that Schwartz changed his story,so I question the general belief of an assault by B.S.
I have never said it couldn't have been as stated by Swanson,only that we do not have his source,a document,to make a comparison.
Most posters,yourself included,have expressed a tendency for eyewitness statements to be viewed with caution.I agree,and in the case of Schwartz,doubly so.Not only his ability to observe and remember an incident that happened in mere seconds,in poor light,but the distinct difference between a fall and a push backward.No one should be confused as to which occured,not in the space of ten days. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3322
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Harry,
Well, when we don't have that much more to go on, I'd say a witness statement can't be dismissed or reinterpreted just like that. What I and others have said is that witness descriptions are to be treated with caution -- not statements in general.
So that is irrelevant here.
But newspaper articles are even more unreliable, and should be treated with caution more than anything else, since they are producing stories in order to sell copies (and the Star version is without doubt a more juicy and elaborate one, and we don't even know who they used as an interpreter) and they are not particularly known for their accuracy either; they usually get everything mixed up or completely wrong. If you have indulged in any serious research, this would come to no surprise to you, Harry.
Therefore I am surprised that you tend to dismiss a statement to the police, but then you instead rely on a newspaper story like it was facts. That is puzzling, to say the least. And from a source evaluation point of view, rather unacceptable.
I agree on that we would be better off if we had his original statement.
I also agree on that Schwartz is not an ideal witness -- he couldn't speak English, he was scared, it was dark etc. -- but those problems are just as relevant for the newspaper article, not just the police statement. So therefore it amazes me that you treat a detail from the newspaper (like the ones about him putting his hand on her shoulder, and that she fell by accident) as facts in an argument, and then dismiss the details mentioned in a police report.
I am sorry, Harry, but it just doesn't work.
OK, we won't get further with this.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
