|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 274
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 1:00 pm: | 
|
Robert, since my post which you quote states specifically the victims I think were JtR's your proposal that I think Jack never existed is simple nonsense.
What I said a few days ago was that the arguments I see on here make me understand more the view that Jack was a myth. I have no doubt that there was a Whitechapel murderer.
However, his canonical victims may not be the right ones. I hear, though at this stage i am at least agnostic on the possibility that MJK was killed by another hand (possibly Barnett); and I am increasingly convinced - though not certain -by the case for Kidney where Stride is concerned. Earlier victims - Tabram Millwood, Wilson - might also be his responsibility.
Again - I ask you Robert as I have asked Caz - are you against questioning the conventional wisdom? do you never challenge views to see what new avenues creative tension will open?
Phil |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Phil,
I do not question conventional wisdom solely for the effect of opening "new avenues". I simply look at the case and draw conclusions from what I read. Some of my conclusions are in line with the conventional wisdom and some are not. However, I do not think that it is more valid or courageous to challenge the conventional wisdom on any aspect of the case. I only mention this because Glenn has said as much in the past with reference to my opinions, especially regarding the Stride murder. I merely disagree with you. I do not see why you see fit to attack those who have a different opinion than you do, by saying such things as "I don't know why you are SO desperate to have Stride as a Ripper victim." For myself, there is no desperate need to see Stride as a Ripper victim, I just do. You on the other hand seem desperate to have her not be a victim of JTR. I acknowledge that she may not have been, but I feel that the weight of the evidence points to the conclusion (for myself) that she was. Why is this desperate?
Rob |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 557
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Mephisto--
"As he[Schwartz] turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him,and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her." --Star, 1 Oct.
Do you not interpret this to mean that Broad-Shoulders rentered Berner from the direction of Commerical Road, ie., from the opposite direction of the Board School, with Schwartz a few yards behind? |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 275
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Robert - I simply keep stating that there is an alternative, to prevent complacency setting in in this thread. Complacency is the worst enemy of learning.
I don't doubt you have no desperate need to have Liz as a JtR victim, but that remark was not aimed at you. Other's I suspect do, given their arguments elsewhere.
like it or not, if Stride was killed by Kidney, Diary and watch are instantly sunk.
Phil |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 382
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
I did send you a private message saying it was okay to contact me, but I am not sure that it got through........I would be happy to have you send me a private message with any thoughts............I am always open to new ideas for reconstructions.
I found your last posts very thought provoking (in a good way) anything that gets my grey matter working is very welcome!
Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on March 29, 2005) |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
I dont think there has ever been complacency on this thread. I just think some people (myself for example) have been over this stuff so many times that it just seems like a circular discussion.
I think the real problem with this thread is the tendency to overanalyze an incredibly small amount of information and come to conclusions based on these. For example we are never going to be able to deduce the locations of Schwartz, Mr. BS and Stride in relation to the gate at Dutfield's yard, based on the very brief phrase in Swanson's report... this was discussed a few days ago, and it is just complete unfounded speculation. And it is in fact worse than speculation, if people come to conclusions based on these speculations, and then go on to base further theories on these conclusions. There is a tendency to try to narrow things down like this and say, well because of this, therefore such and such is true. This is ok if you have some information or case evidence to go on, but it is not ok if you have the merest smattering of fragmented, contradictory, and inconclusive evidence. It is just not possible or logical to speculate in such cases. It becomes more and more dangerous to over-speculate, the less and less information you have to go on. You may draw an invalid conclusion based on some speculation or personal interpretation of an event, or how you imagine a person of a certain type would behave in certain situations, and then base further speculations upon those unfounded conclusion.
I think therefore the problem is not complacency or laziness, it is just that this discussion is going round in circles, and we are trying to see things where there is nothing to see. We will never know why she was holding cachous. We may guess, but as much as we do so, and as much as we "want to know", we will never be able to determine what actually happened.
Rob |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Phil
Stride was obviously killed by Kidney.
We just need another hundred years to forget the previous one hundred years of vested interest to come out of this dream time.
After spending hundreds of hours looking back through similar domestic murders in the LVP, I am totally convinced that Stride was no 'casual' victim but an intended victim with an intimate relationship to her killer.
The background doesn't allow for anything else.
Ten years ago I gave up Stride as a victim of Jack, though it suited me very well at the time to have her as a victim of Jack.
But I bit that bullet. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 558
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
AP--I think it's a bit odd that H-Division's Supt. Arnold evidently thought it was the other way round; Eddowes was the one-off, and Stride was the canonical. A different sort of nightmare, and a more horrible one. RP |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 383
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I don't feel as you do that we are going around in circles.........I think that we constantly need to re- examine information or we simply stagnate.........
I have tried to put some of the written information into visual form, because I know there are lots of people out there like me, that balk at too much written information in the form of measurements, directions etc.,
There are also lots of visitors to the board that need to get an all round picture......all they get is those in favour of Liz being a victim of JtR saying over and over, ' the evidence is overwhelming that she was a victim of Jack the Ripper' and expecting everyone to know what that evidence is.
I know some people would say 'look back at the old threads, it's all been discussed before' But I have scoured every inch of this site and every other I could find and the evidence I have found doesn't satisfy me personally.
This is not because I am being difficult, I just can't accept anything that just doesn't feel quite right to me on a common sense level.
It does seem that I am not the only one either...... if the evidence was that overwhelming, Liz would be classified with Polly, Annie and Kate and being almost certainly a victim of Jack - true not 100% but a good probability factor.
I wish I could be more certain that Liz was a victim of JtR, but having examined all of the evidence, I have to say that the evidence in favour of her being a victim of Jack is sorely lacking in my opinion. That is why I feel we do need to look at other alternatives.......They may be inconclusive and some may be speculative, but on a personal level, I don't base any of my reconstructions on speculation.......I use what evidence there is and make the best of it. I also ask repeatedly that if there is a flaw in any of it to let me know and I will correct it.
If you would like to give me information to reconstruct any scene or event that would clarify your interpretation of the events, please just let me know and I will gladly work with you to get a more accurate picture of what might have happened not only with Liz, but with any of the victims. Of course you may feel that visual reconstructions are a waste of time in themselves, but it is a valid form of research in many people's eyes.
But you are right, we will almost certainly never be able to determine exactly what happened, but as for there being nothing to see.......well maybe there is something there, but we just need to look at it from a different angle?
Jane
xxxxxxx
 |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Jane,
I appreciate your illustrations, and indeed they have been helpful in many cases. I am an artist, so I think visually also. However, I just brought up the example of the illustration of Schwartz, Mr. BS, and Liz (their location in the gateway - your illustration from March 25, 10:53 AM) to illustrate the point I spoke of above.
In that particular case I think we do not have enough (or any) evidence to base such speculation on. The phrase "he got as far as the gateway [when] he saw a man stop & speak to a woman" is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You and I both know how people generalize when speaking. The other day a guy asked me the time, and I looked at my watch, it read 8:03, so I said it was 8 o'clock. He said "exactly?" then I said 8:03. When Swanson says that Schwartz "got as far as the gateway", I think that could mean he got approximately there, or Swanson was just simplifying and summarizing the general gist of the scenario. In other words, Schwartz was somewhere near Dutfield's yard when the incident occurred.
On the other hand I think your wound illustrations are quite helpful although I am not sure if they are accurate enough to deduce much from. It does indeed help however to see these things as it helps us to picture things... the position of the body etc. Generally well done.
Rob |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Great discusion! The pictures are great! Nice job Jane and Harry looking into the yard is spooky.
I believe that there were three murders commited. A man by the name of Brown killed his wife by cutting her throat and there were some mutilations. He killed her two hours before the Stride murder. If he had dumped the body in the street instead of turning himself into the police we may be talking about the triple event.
Your friend,CB |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
I find it hard to believe that Kidney was Stride's killer. It is certainly possible, but the image we have of Kidney is of a hard drinking, violent, hot tempered brute. Based on his past treatment of Stride, we can imagine him working himself into an alcohol fueled rage over something that she had done. Had he gone after Stride for the purpose of killing her, I can't see him cunningly hiding his true intentions. He doesn't come across as that intelligent or that clever. Based on his past treatment of her when drunk, would Liz agree to go off with him to a secluded spot when he would be loud, cursing and obviously drunk? I find it hard to believe she would. I also think that he was a man who would instinctively use his fists when in a rage and there were no indications of this on the body. Finally, to me anyway, it is almost inconceivable that he wouldn't have been questioned by the police and considered a prime suspect based on the testimony of neighbors. The question would be simple - where were you between the hours of such and such. If his answer was working or drinking in a pub, it would be a simple matter to check his story. If there was any doubt, the police would have asked Schwartz if this was the man that he had seen with Liz. Since we hear no more of Kidney in this case, I have to conclude that he had an air-tight alibi. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
The Stride murder really is a tough one to call isn't it?? Getting away from the throat wounds for a moment, I have to say this, and hope it doesn't bring me any "jibes" from anyone else. I'm absolutely in agreement with you, that the noisy and almost clumsy Mr.B.S. was NOT JtR. He simply doesn't equate with the swift, silent, & sure Ripper.
What do you think about Mrs.Mortimer?? She seemed to be telling SOME truth, as the man she saw with the black bag, Leon Goldstein, later turned up to the police and identified himself. So, if she stood on her doorstep for most of the time between 12-30 & 1am, how is it that she saw nothing else, apart from a young courting couple, who were apparently there both before and after the murder?? What about the alleged assault??
I can only believe, that the times given in some of the witness statements were awry by several minutes.
I can also only think that "IF" this was a Ripper killing, then the culprit was the man that PC Smith saw, the guy in the deerstalker hat, who carried a parcel in his hand. I say this, assuming that Smith was a good & observant officer. But Mrs.Mortimer doesn't mention seeing PC Smith or "HIS" couple either.
Every time I read the details of this killing, I'm left with only one word to say.....HELP!!!
Best wishes Glenn.
DAVID C. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3337
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Rob,
Although Stride has maintained a canonical status throughout, her inclusion has nevertheless been partially questioned for quite a long time.
As Jane says, if there wasn't facts and implications regarding Stride that might point in other directions than towards Jack the Ripper, then why the heck has her inclusion for several years to some extent been held in doubts, not only on these Boards but also in some literature and research?
I know at least two distinguished researchers -- with quite longer experience than you and I have of studying the case -- who personally don't believe she was a Ripper victim. Why would they do that if the evidence and the facts are clear enough to grant her her inclusion, as you seem to think? Simply for the fun of it or because there actually might be relevant facts to consider, facts and indications -- not to mention connections -- that you just choose to disregard?
When you say that people are over-analysing, I can agree with you to some extent (like regarding the cachous for example) and I have stated that several times. We can't know the truth about the case and we probably never will. But as far as looking to other alternatives and reasons for the Stride murder, there are actually quite a few facts that would make any police officer today look in other directions and not stir themselves blind on a serial killer. And those facts have been repeated over and over again. But for some reason you seem to think that the "speculations" supporting her label as a Ripper victim are of higher value than anyone elses -- if you looked objectively on the case, you would find that there are quite a lot of facts supporting alternative solutions in the Stride murder (and I am NOT talking about Mr BS:s psychological profile here); it is just that you choose to call them speculative.
The inclusion of Stride is based on just as much assumptions and wishful thinking, but so far it hasn't kept you from pointing finger at those who don't share your view on the facts. It may be that those speculations from the pro-Ripper camp are right in the end, but so far I can't find a legitimate reason for why only one camp should be allowed to speak their views. If you spent just as much time looking at the case from different perspectives (I know I have, because I once used to belong to those who actually whole-hearted supported her inclusion) than you do complaining and wining about other people's disastrous views on matter, you would get involved in less tedious discussions.
I am sorry if the nature of this thread annoys you, but participating is optional.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 29, 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: 3338
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi David C,
I agree, the Stride murder is indeed a mystery within the Jack the Ripper mystery itself. And it is probably one of the most confusing I have ever encountered. 'Help!' is indeed a legitimate reaction.
That seems to be true, thanks to the identification of Leo Goldstein we know that Mrs Mortimer at least stood in her doorway at some time that night. But besides that the details are pretty much obscure. The only reasons I can find is that she really didn't spend that much time in the doorway as she herself estimated she had, and therefore just missed the assault (regardless if it occurred before or after her presence there). Or else Schwartz got the time wrong. Or else... see what I mean? It is an impossible jigsaw. 
So, your guess is as good as mine.
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: 3339
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Hi CB,
The problem is, that particular murder occurred in Westminster, which is a bit too far away on the map in order for it to be a coincidence of similar kind -- it would at least have happened in some of East End districts in order to be connected with the Ripper.
But it is a good point and I see what you are trying to say. And I absolutely agree with the basic philosophy of it.
All the best
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: 646
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Hi Jane and Frank,
Sorry for the delay, but I've been away on a short fishing holiday over the Easter Break. Just getting back to checking things out here. Anyway, I agree that the "dragging" idea does seem to fall apart. There most certainly would have been evidence of this that would have been noted at the scene (caveat: That Diemshutz's pony and cart would not have masked this evidence). Notwithstanding the above caveat, I think it would be asking too much to accept it in order to allow the "dragging" conclusion.
What if, however, the "dragging" wasn't with her on the ground, but rather "pulling" her along? That might work, and it wouldn't leave any trail or signs? Basically, there's no proof for this either, I'm just wondering how she ended up in the location she was found. But then, that is one of the main questions.
And yes Frank, I agree that the idea of Stride holding the cachous at the time of the assault is probably more feasable than the "up the sleeve" idea. It's just that to me, that idea seems to get less and less feasible as one looks at the entire event, while the "up the sleeve" idea seems to become more appealing. I admit, however, that this "increased appeal" only occurs if you equate Mr. BS as Stride's killer, and don't allow for some pause between his assault of Stride and her death. Change any of those assumptions, and the "up the sleeve" notion goes "up in smoke." I just mention it because in the "Mr. BS as Jack as Stride's killer" line, the cachous problem can be solved. And, because it can be solved, it means the cachous do not, unfortunately, provide any strong evidence for or against this option.
Obviously, any theory that suggests that after the initial assault by Mr. BS, there was a pause in the assault, long enough for Stride to get out her cachous (for whatever reason), easily can explain why she's holding them. She had the time to get them out, and for whatever reason, did get them out. Why didn't she drop them? Who knows, but she didn't.
In the end, all theories can account for the cachous, each theory in a slightly different way, but since how they got in her hand is unknown, then all that really matters is that a theory can provide a plausible explanation. And "up the sleeve" is plausible, and "had them out to take one" is also plausible. Everyone is happy, except me, who is getting sore from sitting on this fence for so long. ha!
- Jeff |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3340
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Jeff,
I wonder, if the one who's sitting on the fence actually might be the happiest one, come to think of it...
All the best
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: 647
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Well, the view is pretty good up here! ha! Actually, I think almost everyone is sitting on the fence with me, but most people tend to face to one side or the other and try to get everyone to at least look their way. I, on the other hand, sit sideways on the fence and try and see both sides at once. And, sitting sideways on a fence is not at all without its own special sort of pain!
Problem is, if we all sat sideways, or all sat facing one direction, we never would see the whole picture.
- Jeff |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 277
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:02 am: |
|
c.d. some comments on your post:
...Had [Kidney] gone after Stride for the purpose of killing her, I can't see him cunningly hiding his true intentions.
Who said he did hide them - but killing her might NOT have been in his mind at first - it only happened when she showed perhaps unusual determination not to go back to him.
...would Liz agree to go off with him to a secluded spot...
I would argue she didn't. The entrance to the Yard/Club was a busy spot, she was only feet from a well frequented road, and as others have postulated, her new beau might have been inside the Club, not far away. Hardly a secluded spot.
I also think that he was a man who would instinctively use his fists when in a rage and there were no indications of this on the body.
Hardly evidence he didn't use a knife!!
Finally, to me anyway, it is almost inconceivable that he wouldn't have been questioned by the police...
He was.
Since we hear no more of Kidney in this case, I have to conclude that he had an air-tight alibi.
Perhaps he seemed to have. But the police were by then apparently focused on a double murder - as long as he could show he hadn't killed Eddowes (or Nichols etc) maybe they looked elsewhere. But the police have been wrong before - they interviewed Sutcliffe in more recent times on several occasions and let him go.
Sorry cd but you fail to convince me.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
Phil,
'Hardly a secluded spot".
Where is your evidence that it was a busy spot and the road well frequented at between a quarter to, and one A.M.,the morning Stride was killed.
Read the information that was given.Of course it was secluded when the killer struck,there were only two people in the yard,the killer and victim.And in the street outside,no information of anyone at all,except Diemschutz and his donkey.
Maybe the donkey did it?,and Diemschutz covered up for it. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 282
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Harry - this was discussed before, not long ago. I am satisfied that both the Yard and Berner St were at least potentially busy places (and certainly in a way other murder scenes were not).
There were numbers of people about that night.
Personally I think the wicket gate in the larger Yard entry-gate did it, and the gate covered it up. Don't please blame dumb animals.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3342
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 6:05 am: |
|
Just because there weren't that many people going about at the exact time of the murder, doesn't mean that the place wasn't busy -- or at least gave a busy feel to it -- in general that night.
Compared to other sites, like Buck's Row and Mitre Square (they were all risky, but much more quiet and not that many people moving about), the yard and Berner Street were relatively busy spots this evening, with people hanging outside or walking in and out of the Club.
The important thing is that the place probably gave a rather lively impression, in a way that it wouldn't suit someone who deliberately needed to kill someone -- there was a meeting and party in the Club, with a lot of noise and music coming from upstairs, and most people know that from such a place, there usually are people walking in and out -- going out to the loo, for a smoke etc. And even if they didn't these particular minutes we are discussing here, that is still probably something a killer would consider.
In other words, not a great prospect for a serial killer for committing a murder, and it doesn't really take that much imagination. Anyone who have walked passed a building were a party is going on, knows what it feels like.
To continue to bring up the point that there weren't that many people moving on the spot exactly between 00:45 and 1:00 is totally besides the point -- the party and the dancing was still going on -- and is a tedious and irrelevant argument.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
RJ
Your point is honest and good, for it is always wise to listen to the words of the men on the ground in 1888. I will look at the career of this particular officer and take in his experience with such violent crime, and then get back to you.
I did a similar search on Abberline, and I’m afraid he was way out of his depth on this case. He was more used to busting pit bull terrier thieves and soft porn merchants in Whitechapel and for that reason I have never held much by his insight into the case.
Perhaps it is worth explaining that I strongly suspect Kidney as the killer of Stride from a long look at similar cases, rather than my opinion or desire.
Domestic wounding and killings carried out with a knife are commonplace in the years leading up to 1888 - and after - and almost all have as their basis and motive jealously and anger usually fuelled by alcohol. Funnily enough it is not always the woman that gets it in the neck, there are also a considerable number of male victims.
On the other hand ‘Stranger’ murders of the nature of the Whitechapel Murderer are rare beasts indeed. Without being able to quote the exact statistics - as I’m a lazy sod and can’t be bothered to catalogue everything I find - I would say that a murder of the nature we ascribe to Jack would take place perhaps once a year in the LVP, whereas a Stride type of killing would take place once a week.
We can dispute it as much as we like, but the earlier events leading up to the murder of Stride do carry all the hallmarks of a ‘domestic’ killing: the quarrels with Kidney; the change of accommodation; the incident with the locked door and one key, and a new man in her life.
The actual night is a like stage set for such a killing.
The idea that Kidney carried out this murder at that time, so that it would be seen as part of the Whitechapel murders is I think magical thinking on our part.
He killed Stride in a fit of temper.
That’s it.
His remorse is obvious at the police station and inquest |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
RJ
I checked through Arnold's police career, and his experience in murder cases seemed a tad lacking.
He was involved in a domestic killing of a particularly nasty nature in 1876 (November 18th).
But apart from that he seemed to have been involved in illegal drinking houses and the like, and perhaps that explains his appearance at court hearings involving drunken PC's on duty (May 23rd 1873) and a case that you will enjoy where a Mister Palmer had his head knocked in by an over-zealous copper! (March 14th 1876).
A very low key cop I reckon. |
hemustadoneit
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Why do you think the police linked the murder to JtR if a domestic killing of this type was all so common (one a week average)? What would make them so blind that they couldn't see - politics, incompetance, media influence, public pressure?
Hi,
I sit on the fence, but, Joan raised a very interesting point which was along the lines of, is this a typical domestic throat cutting of the LVP.
Does the way it was performed look like a domestic, of someone who was acting in blind fury, or, one of more cunning, practiced and deliberately positioning Stride and himself to avoid getting blood on him?
I don't know the answer but would a domestic throat cutting have a different look and feel? Is a typical domestic killing with a knife a throat cutting or a stabbing?
Do Jane's graphics help us to see any clearer whether it was more or less likely a stranger attack or a domestic, or, is it neutral?
I can see the circumatantial case against Kidney but I can also see Caz's point that we _don't_ know how JtR would behave when confronted by a victim who isn't as compliant as he requires.
I used to think the shouting in the street and then compounding it by, after being seen, going on to murder Stride, would be not be typical of JtR but then Caz makes me realise that I perhaps do have a preconceived notion of Jack and how he would act.
If nothing else Caz has shown perhaps I do need to forget about the images of the top hat, flowing black cape, rubber soled shoes, doctors bag and a man who is cunning personified. Perhaps, just perhaps, Jtr wasn't.
Caz, I enjoy your posts on this thread; an uphill battle but you fight your corner well. Unlike Phil I don't see what you are saying as some sort of desperate attempt to keep Stride in the picture for the sake of The Diary or Watch.
Glenn: What makes you so sure JtR wouldn't shout in the street? Have you been reading your Cl*ckley again :-o Also, you've got a darn fine sig line.
Cheerio,
ian -- keeping one thread open and the other one closed.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I realise,that on a thread that has now become notorious for its less than ideal tolerance levels, and at times, downright insults, anything contrary that I say is bound to rattle somebody's cage.
As you said, despite the number of witnesses involved, times are vague and we can't be sure as to WHO saw WHO, WHAT, or WHEN. We've had some great graphics from Jane, which provided a pleasant deviation from all the usual, not so good-natured, thrust & parry. But I agree with you, that the whole issue is a mess of complications and contradictions.
So I will leave this thread now, by saying why I believe that Stride WAS a Ripper victim. Trying to find something simple, I spoke with a retired senior Police officer of my acquaintance, and discussed the use of knives in crimes. He told me that your average man, either angry, nervous, or desparate, and whether in drink or sober, almost invariably and instinctively would stab to the trunk, chest, stomach etc. He said that in his experience of angry or domestic, murder, throat-cutting was extremely rare.
Now, Dr.Blackwell was of the opinion that the killer had taken hold of Stride by the scarf. There was evidence of partial strangulation in the previous murders, so it seems to me that he used it like a ligature, to stifle any cries before severing the throat. This would be typical Ripper signature.
What I'm saying Glenn, is that it sounds to me like a "practiced" hand that killed Stride, whereas in an angry or drunk state, someone like Kidney, or a rejected client, would probably stab to the chest or stomach.
I know that some here say that the Ripper never before ventured south of the Aldgate-Whitechapel road, but he also only ventured ONCE into the city, to kill Eddowes. Anyway, as all the murders took place in the space of one square
mile, none of the sites took him too far out of his way.
Israel Schwartz spoke of the woman screaming three times, but not loudly. This, to me, translates as "angry squeals" rather than screams of terror. We've all heard this type of thing with women outside pubs. I think that the "tipsy" B.S. then lurched on his way, Stride, as someone here suggested, then went to the loo, or to tidy herself up, and emerged to meet the Ripper, who may have been observing the altercation with B.S. at a discreet distance.
Now I don't expect you to agree with a single word I've said, and I certainly don't want to go fifteen rounds with Phil either. THAT is just the personal opinion I've reached after thinking it out from every angle, and getting my theories about the use of knives answered.
Well Glenn, I've enjoyed my chats on this thread with you. You're clearly a very knowledgeable guy on criminal history.
Best Wishes.
DAVID C.
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Phil,
Thanks for your response to my post. You made some good points. After reading them, it is clear to me that I did not express myself as well as I could have. You are certainly right that Kidney could have killed her with a knife had he wanted to do so. The point I was trying to make was that, in addition to a knife wound, given his past record of domestic violence,I would expect to see evidence that she was hit in the face. Does anyone else agree with me on that?
c.d |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Phil,
It is a bad comparison to compare Sutcliffe's being interviewed and dismissed with Kidney's being interviewed and dismissed. Kidney was a person who was connected with the victim. Sutcliffe was just one of hundreds of anonymous men interviewed by routine police procedure. The main reason he was "missed" has to do mainly with the bad data organization of the police work... he was probably the only person who was listed on 5 or so completely seperate inquiries. However, another reason he was missed, as I have pointed out before, is that the police excluded certain victims (who were actually killed by Sutcliffe) because in their opinion, the MO was too different from the MO of the Yorkshire Ripper. And in a couple of these cases, the victims gave a description that matched Sutcliffe and his car very well. So in a sense, I see this more as a danger of sticking too closely with pre-conceived and inflexible notions of the MO of a serial killer. Sutcliffe clearly acted differently in different situations.
You bring him up mainly to point out that police work is often shoddy, and this may be true. But it does not really have any relation to the Kidney situation. We don't know exactly why the Police dismissed Kidney, but you are assuming that he provided an alibi for some other murder. It is possible he had an alibi for the Stride murder. We just do not know, so you can't just assume it was shoddy police work.
Rob H |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 316
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Robert: It is a bad comparison to compare Sutcliffe's being interviewed...
Your opinion. I disagree.
I never sought to say the two were similar in that sense. MY POINT was that the police are, even today, capable of having the murderer in their hands and "letting him go". No more than that.
However, another reason he was missed, as I have pointed out before, is that the police excluded certain victims (who were actually killed by Sutcliffe) because in their opinion, the MO was too different from the MO of the Yorkshire Ripper... I see this more as a danger of sticking too closely with pre-conceived and inflexible notions of the MO of a serial killer.
You make my point for me. I would argue that it is entirely possible (though by no means proven0 that the police did not recohnise Stride's death as a "domestic" nor Kidney as the killer, because they immediately assumed this was a "double event" and were looking for Jack.
You bring him up mainly to point out that police work is often shoddy, and this may be true. But it does not really have any relation to the Kidney situation.
I think, for the reasons I have given, and underlined by your comments, it is a revealing parallel.
We don't know exactly why the Police dismissed Kidney... No, nor do we have to. the discussion is to suggest there is room for questioning and doubt about the conventional wisdom on this death - not to provide one alternative to Jack.
... but you are assuming that he provided an alibi for some other murder.
I suggested that as ONE possibility.I know no more than you do.
It is possible he had an alibi for the Stride murder.
It is, but what some of us suggest is that IF he did not have a genuine alibi, he is an attractive and reasonable suspect, and a viable alternative to Jack as Liz's killer. But that's a proposal, not a theory. It opens up the possibility of looking at the JtR case and the eddowes murder in particular, in a new light.
...you can't just assume it was shoddy police work.
I don't assume anything!! I am looking at ideas and alternatives with an open mind.
I really don't see your point.
Phil |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Phil,
I see you are getting worked up again for some reason.
MY POINT was that the police are, even today, capable of having the murderer in their hands and "letting him go".
I conceded this was your point, but it is really nothing to argue over. I merely brought it up to show that making a comparison between Kidney and Sutcliffe is essentially a non-point.
You make my point for me.
No wrong. I am making a point about serial killers, which Kidney, if he killed Stride, was not. It is in no way a "revealing parallel". Do you in fact know anything about the Yorkshire Ripper case? I do. There is nothing parallel at all between Kidney being interviewed by the police and Sutcliffe being interviewed by police.
I dont know why you get so explosive in your responses, really.
Rob H |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3350
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Ian,
[To AP: ] "Why do you think the police linked the murder to JtR if a domestic killing of this type was all so common (one a week average)? What would make them so blind that they couldn't see - politics, incompetance, media influence, public pressure?"
This has already been addressed several times. Facts are, that the police -- after the murder of Chapman -- were under hard public and political pressure to catch the Ripper, further worsened by the media hype that was blown up by the news agencies and the tabloid papers.
This, combined with their obvious inexperience in handling a serial killer case, might have totally made them overlook other alternatives.
The police doesn't even seem to have been interested in Kidney the slightest -- more than as an ordinary witness (in spite of his very suspicious behaviour) -- and in a murder case, where the man closest to the victim is known for being abusive, that is an ultimate error in itself. Every facts points towards the sad conclusion, that they were so focused on the Ripper right from the start in the Stride investigation, they they never seem to have considered other alternatives.
"Glenn: What makes you so sure JtR wouldn't shout in the street? Have you been reading your Cl*ckley again :-o Also, you've got a darn fine sig line."
I don't read Cleckley (or particularly like him) and seldom any other follower of criminal psychology (at least I don't give it the highest priority). This have very little to do with advance psycholog, as I see it, just ordinary interpretation.
I naturally can't know that the Ripper wouldn't put up this behaviour, but I personally believe it rings against all common sense, considering how the other murders were done -- not only the so called canonicals. Looking at the crimes, it is rather evident, that the Ripper didn't like attention and I find it very unlikely that the Ripper would shout across the streets in front of three witnesses (counting the female), in a situation where they just as well -- for all he knew -- could turn against and attack him instead of being intimidated by him. It is really just a matter of common sense, not criminal psychology. I can't see Mr Broad Shoulders as the same type of personality as the one that killed and mutilated those other women without ever being seen or caught in action. The latter was obviously important to the Ripper, while Mr Broad Shoulders didn't seem to care one bit.
Mr broad Shoulders strikes me as just another rough bully and a violent, and possibly drunk, character. A dreg, to put it simple.
It is not conclusive, and I could be wrong, but it just don't seem right, especially in a murder case where we actually have a suitable suspect closely connected with the victim and with a suitable motive. Just my opinion, though.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 05, 2005)
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: 317
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Robert, I thought my response the model of restraint.
Maybe I am just used to robust argument.
I don't accept your argument and I don't think your point well-made. What's the use of beating around the bush?
...I merely brought it up to show that making a comparison between Kidney and Sutcliffe is essentially a non-point.
But I was not, and have not made any such comparison. My reference was solely to the fact that the police can make mistakes. maybe you have become too lost in your self-proclaimed expertise on the Yorkshire case to be able to see simple points?
Phil
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Ha ha ha Phil,
Nice insults again. I congratulate you. Your idea of a "robust argument"?
RH |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 318
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Well Robert, at least there was an argument in my post. None at all in your's!!
But enough of this, if you want to debate that's fine. if not we are spoiling the thread for others.
Cordially,
Phil |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
"The essential core of the signature is always the same, but its expression can be evolving and changing, and extraneous circumstances can affect the character or even the presence of the signature (for example if the offender is interrupted during the commission of the crime and escapes before being able to carry out an act which his fantasy might require).
Peter Vronsky, Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters, c. 2004
I realize that this stuff has generally been discussed before, but I just thought I'd post this as a quote that is generally being relevant to this discussion.
Another thing I have been thinking about lately is that JTR apparently tries to behead Annie Chapman. Clearly this goes beyond the definition of MO, and is extraneous to the simple act of murder. So should we now consider that perhaps the an attack to the throat is also a target of the signature, and not just the abdomen?
And Phil, there was an argument in my previous post (at 12:21 PM) so I don't know what youre talking about.
RH |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3353
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Not to turn this into an academic profiling thread... but signature is a collective description of ALL PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR that are redundant to the actual committing of the crime (like wound patterns, the presence or non-presence of a sexual act, the psychological means of control over the victim, souvenirs and throphee-taking, the ritualistic elements etc.). A signature can't change, although it can evolve (as in progressive nature of mutilations).
The modus operandi usually refers to the practical means necessary to commit the crime and the attempts to make it successful. M.O. is learned behaviour and can therefore change and evolve because of gained level of confidence and experience on the killer's part.
Scenario 1:
Rapist number one attacks a woman and commits the rape, and then kills her so that she can't identify him.
Scenario 2:
Rapist number two attacks a woman, commits the rape, kills her and then photographs the dead body positioned in degrading sexual positions.
Rapist number two is a signature rapist/killer, since he committed acts of personal fantasy that went further beyond what was necessary to make the actual rape successful and which made him remain on the scene of the crime longer than necessary.
Rapist number one limited himself to perform acts that were necessary for the rape and to make him less easy to identify. The rape was in itself the motive for the crime.
In the Ripper's case, the mutilations (as in other traits that forces the offender to stay longer at the scene that necessary and puts him at great risk) could be referred to as ritual signature. The trophee-taking is also a clear part of signature, since it is a part of the killer's motives and fantasies.
The throat cuts could be a difficult element to categorize, since they actually could be BOTH modus operandi and signature -- if the victims were already dead by strangulation before their throats were slashed, this element could be a matter of signature, but if the strangulation only had the aim to make the victims life-less and it only had the effect of smothering, and he then slashed their throats in order to make sure that they would be dead (in order to make the killing as successful as possible), then it could be considered as modus operandi.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 05, 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: 652
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 12:49 am: |
|
Hi,
Also, not to divert things away, the apparent decapitation attempt on Chapman could be a manifestation of the killer's desire to take body parts as trophies. Similar to the taking of the uterus, kidney, and heart from the other murders (with, of course, the assumption that the same person is involved in all of them).
Now, exactly how he was intending to take a head with him all depends upon what he had available at the time. Did he, for example, have a sack of some sort? etc.
On the other hand, if the intention was to remove the head in order to make the scene more "shocking" to whomever discovered the body, then this would also be signature, although reflecting a different "thought process".
The inability to remove the head on this occasion may have then lead to the idea of simply disfiguring the face, as with Eddowes, and again with Kelly (again, if you don't want to include Kelly, that's fine, Eddowes is enough).
If, however, the marks that suggest an attempt to decapitate Chapman are simply due to the ferocity of the throat wound (going against the medical opinion that interpreted them as an apparent attempt to separate the bones of the neck), then we're talking about something the killer did not intend, which makes it a red herring.
- Jeff |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 321
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
It seems to me that Jack's MO or technique developed with each murder. With Chapman, he perhaps found that he could almost sever the head, but found actual decapitation beyond him.
In other words it may have been an accident resulting from a particularly deep cut, and he "experimented".
Should we overcomplicate things?
Phil |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 653
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I'm not sure his MO ever changed, even if you stick only to "Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes" or expand to even beyond the canonical 5. Jack's MO appears to be:
1) pose as a client
2) be led to a private location by the victim
3) sudden attack to render victim unconcious
4) ensure death with a knife, generally by cuting the throat
5) recover his money (?)
Stride seems different because according to Schwartz (if BS is Stride's killer), this sequence appears to "start wrong".
However, the "start" seems to fit with Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly (if you count Hutchinson's testimony).
Part 3 is only speculated from the evidence to have occurred in all cases (save maybe Kelly).
Part 5 I've included because
a) none of the victims were found to have any money
b) customers have to "pay first" apparently
c) victims pockets appear to have been searched (getting his money back maybe?)
All the mutilations and body taking, attempts at decapitation, etc, are not "MO", but rather are "signature" aspects of the crimes.
Hmmmmm, what if, Jack only mutilated if he found the victim had no money apart from what he gave them himself?
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 567
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Hi all,
A thing that has crossed my mind regarding the throat cutting is that, other than to ensure death and perhaps to 'drain' her, he did that because he had some sort of preoccupation with the voice (his own or those of his victims).
So, maybe cutting their vocal cords was sort of a symbolic way of preventing his victims from ever being able to use their voices again. Because perhaps it was something his victims said which he didn't like and that set him off.
I know it's just an idea to play with, because of course, we'll never find out for sure (not even 'for perhaps').
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 654
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
That's an interesting twist on things. I suspect, however, that throat cutting is not quite rare enough to really require a "special interpretation." Tounge removal might have been more suggestive of what you suggest though (which of course did not happen). I want to stress, however, that the "insufficiently rare" argument above does not preclude your idea, that could have been the Ripper's thought pattern, but since throat cutting does occur when this is not the killer's thought pattern, then it's hard to make a "special case" for it.
Not sure if I'm being clear (again).
- Jeff |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
Glen in discussing Mr BS's behavior you stated
"I naturally can't know that the Ripper wouldn't put up this behaviour, but I personally believe it rings against all common sense, considering how the other murders were done -- not only the so called canonicals. Looking at the crimes, it is rather evident, that the Ripper didn't like attention and I find it very unlikely that the Ripper would shout across the streets in front of three witnesses (counting the female), in a situation where they just as well -- for all he knew -- could turn against and attack him instead of being intimidated by him. It is really just a matter of common sense, not criminal psychology. I can't see Mr Broad Shoulders as the same type of personality as the one that killed and mutilated those other women without ever being seen or caught in action. The latter was obviously important to the Ripper, while Mr Broad Shoulders didn't seem to care one bit."
As I have said before, which you have not addressed, and I can't see you addressing it this time. JTR's previous victims(Nichols, Chapman)willingly and innocently went with JTR to their deaths, no signs of a struggle were in evidence.
You automatically seem to equate this with JTR being a shy, retiring, stealthy killer, who would not court attention.
But you're missing one point, everything went his way with Nichols and Chapman, nothing incurred his wrath.
How can you assure me, (that if either Nichols, or Chapman had resisted JTR in the way that Liz Stride had) that JTR wouldn't have acted in the way that BS did.
You simply do not know.
Regards Cludgy |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:33 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I'm not sure at what point the money would normally have changed hands. There are reasons why it might have been preferable for both prostitute and customer to wait until they were safely off the main road and in a suitably private location:
Customer pays prostitute at point of encounter and she runs off down busy road - not good for customer.
Passers-by see money handed over - not good for either.
If he pays just before she services him, she can stash the cash but has less chance to do a runner - good for both.
So maybe your 3) could be:
sudden attack to render victim unconscious at point where she was expecting to be paid.
Could it be her demand for money that gets Jack reaching not for his pennies but for her throat? Typical bloody woman - always trying to take a man's hard-earned. Well, take this bitch.
Maybe a different kind of rage would have taken over if he encountered a woman who showed no interest in the contents of his pockets or his trousers.
I'll be away from the boards after this morning, and probably won't be back until the week after next. So be good everyone, and enjoy yourselves.
I think Oscar Wilde said something about some people causing happiness wherever they go, and others, whenever they go.
So you should all be extremely happy to be shot of me next week. 
See ya.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 07, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3359
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Cludgy,
"As I have said before, which you have not addressed, and I can't see you addressing it this time. JTR's previous victims(Nichols, Chapman)willingly and innocently went with JTR to their deaths, no signs of a struggle were in evidence."
Yes, I have addressed it -- several times, as a matter of fact. Obviously to no avail.
No, there was no sign of struggle in the Nichols and Chapman murders (maybe with some exception in Chapman, where she at least managed to utter the word "No!"), but how the crimes were committed do tell us something about how he acted; the key to his behaviour lies in the fact that he wanted his victims dead as quickly as possible, which is quite evident from the crime scene and the medical evidence.
The other lie in his ability to leave the scene of the crimes without being caught. I'd say not drawing attention to himself was quite important to him. You don't need to be Sam Spade in order to conclude that.
"You automatically seem to equate this with JTR being a shy, retiring, stealthy killer, who would not court attention."
Well, I for once totally agree with profilers that have made attempts to read his personality out of the crime scene evidence. Everything seems to dictate that he might not have been very self-confident; the blitz style attack, in order to make the victims sense-less quickly so that they could NOT resist is in my opinion typical of this. He was hardly a hardly a sadist who enjoyed the actual killing or got aroused by the victim struggling (if he were, then the crime scene evidence would look different).
You don't need a similar situation (where we know the Ripper was involved) in order to deduce what could have happened or not.
So this behaviour does not at all fit in with Mr Broad Shoulders. If what Schwartz saw at least had been a blitz style attack, where the killer tried to strangle her or cut her throat and totally took her by surprise, it would be another matter.
But what Mr Broad Shoulders does, is that he pushes her into the street and turns her around -- what we see is definitely not an attempt to kill someone quickly but in fact a simple street brawl.
And again, I find it hard to accept that the Ripper would shout across the streets in front of three witnesses (counting the female), in a situation where they just as well -- for all he knew -- could turn against and attack him instead of being intimidated by him. It is an incredibly risky, amateurish and dangerous behaviour -- in fact so stupid that the man must have been quite intoxicated in order to display it.
"You simply do not know."
Well, that's just it -- I DON'T know. I may be totally wrong in the end, but that is my opinion. It is what my common sense tells me, and it tells me that such a Ripper scenario is highly unlikely. It just doesn't seem right.
All the best
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: 655
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
That is also a distinct possibility. I admit, the basic idea struck me as I was writing the message so I've not really thought this idea through. Indeed, it could be that the attack generally happened at the time payment was expected, and at that point he reaches for his knife (she's thinking he's reaching for his money). But, that means he's holding the knife while she's still standing, making strangulation and silence, etc, rather difficult to achieve. So, rather than reaching for his knife, he would probably just have to attack her while she's waiting for payment? Sure, that would work (and if she's getting out her purse/pouch etc, then Jack may figure he knows where to look for more money - which suggests that Jack is not rich since these victims are clearly not going to have a lot of money on them and a rich toff would not be interested in a couple pence, but a poor man would be).
Anyway, this is all very unthought out on my part, but it's making me think that the fact that the purse/pockets were searched in at least a couple cases (Chapman and Eddowes I'm sure of, perhaps others?), this seems to point towards the Ripper being someone where even a few pence is of value.
By the way, I'm not espousing the idea that the motive for the murders was robbery, only that a few extra pence would be considered a "bonus".
- Jeff
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Hello Ian,
Long time no write, how have you been?
On Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 10:16 am, you wrote:
"JTR's previous victims (Nichols, Chapman) willingly and innocently went with JTR to their deaths, no signs of a struggle were in evidence".
If you read through the March 29 archive, you'll find a series of exchanges that address your argument:
On Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 6:36 pm I wrote:
"It is possible that Stride provoked her assailant; this would mean that she controlled her encounters that night. James Brown's inquest deposition tends to support this idea. Brown stated: "I saw a man and woman standing by the Board School in Fairclough- street. They were standing against the wall. As I passed them I heard the woman say, "No, not to-night, some other night'. […] The man had his arm up against the wall, and the woman had her back to the wall facing him" (Evans and Skinner :186). What's revealing about Stride's dialogue is not so much her rejection of this man's proposition; it is the context in which it's made. The man has assumed a position of power and dominance; i.e., he's facing her, her back is to the wall, and his arm, or hand, is against the wall, which closes her in on three sides. But she's not having any of it; she tells him in no uncertain terms that, whatever his proposal was, it wasn't happening that night. In the other "canonical" last sightings, witness testimony indicates that the victims are being manipulated; Brown's testimony suggests that Stride was beyond manipulation".
On Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:45 am, Caz argued:
"If Liz didn't behave like the victims we assume were Jack's, then her assailant/killer would not have been able to behave like the other victims' killer, even if they were one and the same man.
We are then left to speculate how Jack might have behaved with a potential victim who was beyond manipulation, and some of us admit we just don't know. Jack never lost his temper with Polly, Annie or Kate, because they apparently gave him no reason".
On Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:10 pm, in response to Caz' argument I wrote:
"I appreciate the symmetry of your analysis, i.e., the behavior of the last man seen with Liz Stride is commensurate with her behavior toward him, as the behavior of the men last seen with the other victims is commensurate with their behavior toward them. In your model, the men react to the women. My model contrasts the difference between the aggressiveness of Shoulderman, and the tact of Discreetman, to show that in the majority of the sightings, the women are reacting to the men. The difference between these characteristics is crucial in determining whether or not Shoulderman and Discreetman is one-in-the same individual".
Caz' argument suggests that the behavior of the victims restricted the behavior of the men last seen with them. I claim that the men last seen with the victims controlled the situation, because they influenced the victim's behavior.
Let's assume that Nichols and Chapman propositioned the men they were last seen with, and that these men were their killers. The killers controlled the situation by behaving passively to give them a sense of security; the historical record seems to confirm this, because Nichols and Chapman went quietly to their deaths. Conversely, the outcomes would have remained the same if the men had propositioned Nichols and Chapman, because the witness' testimony described the men as docile i.e., the men's behavior and the victim's reactions are the same in both scenarios. However, the elements of Liz Stride's encounter contradict the behavioral patterns displayed by Nichols and Chapman, and the men they were last seen with.
According to the witnesses, Stride was seen enjoying the company of one man for most of the evening. James Brown testified that she rejected the proposition of one man, and Schwartz' statement suggests that she might have rejected another; it is also possible that Brown and Schwartz saw the same individual. A comparison between the two scenarios reveals that in all likelihood, Nichols and Chapman were either actively soliciting trade, or were open to suggestion. Stride, on the other hand, seems otherwise occupied.
When Schwartz first saw Stride, she was standing near the hinge-side of the south gate of Dutfield's Yard, which is immediately adjacent to the front door of the International Working Man's Club. I think it is possible that her companion had gone to the loo in the rear of the yard (Or perhaps had entered the club through the side door), and while waiting for him to return, she was attacked by Shoulderman. In any event, it appears that unlike Nichols and Chapman, Stride wasn't soliciting trade or responding to propositions. This scenario corresponds with Caz' claim that Liz Stride's behavior influenced her assailant's reaction.
The passive behavior of the men last seen with Nichols and Chapman stands in stark contrast with the aggressive behavior of Stride's assailant, and suggests three possibilities:
1. The witnesses saw each victim with a different man; two of the men were passive, and one was aggressive.
2. Two different men, each with contrasting behavioral characteristics, were last seen with the three victims. Nichols and Chapman were each seen talking with a passive man, and Stride was seen talking with, and then assaulted by an aggressive man.
3. None of the above.
The first two possibilities produced the following questions:
1. How likely is it that the behavior of the men last seen with the canonical victims was affected by the victim's behavior?
2. How likely is it that the men last seen with the victims were influencing their behavior?
3. Did the men last seen with the canonical victims display a consistent behavioral pattern?
4. Did the canonical victims display a consistent behavioral pattern?
If we add the passive behavior of the men last seen with Eddowes and Kelly to the equation, we have four passive interactions and one aggressive confrontation; therefore, based on behavior alone, it is highly probable that Stride's assailant is the odd man out; i.e., he was not the same man, or one of the men, who was last seen with the other canonical victims. Furthermore, if in fact the men they were last seen with murdered Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, then the uniformity in their behavioral patterns increase the probability that the same man murdered these four women. In other words, the regularity of victim response to the same stimuli suggests that a single individual exhibited the same behavior with all four victims, because it was part of his signature. It follows that if the man Liz Stride was last seen with was indeed her murderer, then based on the disparity between his signature and the other murderer's signature, it is highly improbable that Stride's murderer killed the other canonical victims.
I always enjoy exchanging ideas with you Ian, and I look forward to your comments.
Best regards
Mephisto
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
A well thought out post and well presented, however i disagree that Stride was not attacked and killed by the man known as BS.
I see lots of pointers that suggest that the actual killer was a extremely aggressive man.
In the case of Tabram i see signs of her trying to flee her attacker by entering George yard and reaching the first floor landing before being caught.
In the case of Nichols there is the argument that she was attacked in Brady street and was running for her life at least three people including a child heard her feeble efforts to escape.
In the case of Chapman the attack on her in the yard appears to have been a violent one.
Stride was manhandled in a crude fashion.
Eddowes left hand showed a bruise between thumb and first finger[ of recent origin] which has all the hallmarks of someone grapping her hand and using a tight grip.
And in the case of Mjk, [Although circumstancial] there is a report that Kelly was led through the passage of the court in a rough manner which 'All right my love dont pull me along' indicates.
I therefore see the killer of these women as being someone who was a extremely aggressive person completely void of any charm, proberly heavily induced by alcohol, even signs of some incapacity in walking.
Most certainly not a person spending periods of foreplay on his intended victim.
Regards Richard. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 330
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
Richard, your last post seems to be based on the use of pretty tenuous evidence. Some examples:
In the case of Tabram i see signs of her trying to flee her attacker by entering George yard and reaching the first floor landing before being caught.
What are these signs? I see nothing in the evidence to suggest that she may not have led her attacker there for an assignation.
In the case of Nichols there is the argument that she was attacked in Brady street and was running for her life at least three people including a child heard her feeble efforts to escape.
This constitutes misrepresentation of the evidence (those who claimed to have heard something might well not have heard Nichols, though I do not myself believe the reports at all). Secondly, apart from these aberrant reports, which we have discussed before, the police looked into this possibility and found no supporting evidence.
In the case of Chapman the attack on her in the yard appears to have been a violent one.
But some of the bruising at least was caused by an earlier fight. What other evidence do you have to support your claim?
Stride was manhandled in a crude fashion.
But she MAY not have been a Ripper victim.
And in the case of Mjk, [Although circumstancial] there is a report that Kelly was led through the passage of the court in a rough manner which 'All right my love dont pull me along' indicates.
That could as easily be the result of a client impatient for sex walking faster than the tipsy MJK liked. I certainly don't see this as demonstrating (without corroborative evidence) that "the killer of these women [was] someone who was a extremely aggressive person completely void of any charm, proberly[sic] heavily induced by alcohol, even signs of some incapacity in walking."
[Where did the last bit come from about incapacity in walking!!]
Sorry but not convincing to me.
Phil
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
My post was my opinion to the claims that many people have that Stride was not killed by Jack' and a domestic dispute would be more likely.
My suggestions that the killer may have been not the charmer intent on foreplay with his victims is based on what i consider logic.
In the case of Tabram, I just do not imagine her leading her client[killer] into George yard up to the first floor landing for sex.
Why not down the nearest alley or just inside the entrance?.
A more likely scenerio is that she was trying to escape some unwanted advances from someone who appeared undesirable.
This fits nicely in with the Nichols murder, as reports clearly indicate that cries were heard in the vacinity, one awakening a young girl that informed her mother that someone was trying to gain entrance to their front door, the mother clearly heard a womans plight which decreased as the woman carried on.
Another witness in Bucks row heard a womans breathless breathing as if running[ which was drowned by a passsing train.]
We can not ignore these claims out of hand.
Chapman was forcibly attacked in number 29 and was knocked against the fence[ so it would appear]
Stride was attacked by a man appearing to be somewhat intoxicated as his walking indicated.
Eddowes was pulled along by the hand in a rough manner noting the brusing, although the explanation that it could have been caused by the arresting policeman when lifting up the drunken eddowes is noted.
And the apparent handling of Kelly if a later recollection from Mrs Cox can be believed indicates a forceful manner.
My points towards a incapacity for walking may be the result of severe intoxication or some disability which would explain how Tabram managed to reach a degree of safety, and Nichols was able to get from Brady street to Bucks row without being caught before.
I accept this is speculation however I am attempting to make my point that I believe the killer was a brute who wasted no time in his desire to kill.
Regards Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
