|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:58 am: | 
|
---Continued from Martha Tabram board....
re: Dissertation by Quentin L. Pittman, esq.
The Importance of Fairy Fay, and Her Link to Emma Smith
http://casebook.org/dissertations/importance-fairy.html
Just let me say (and we discussed this earlier re: Tabram also), this type of attack on Emma Smith was not a common type of attack, regardless of whether it is a high crime area or not. The attack on Smith is a brutal sexually motivated attack, which implies an intense hatred of women, and indeed "womanhood" or "femaleness" as symbolized (in the mind of the attacker) by the femal sexual organs, vagina, etc. So Glenn, as you implied by referring to prostitution as a dangerous trade and Whitechapel as "a destitute and unsafe area", this still does not mean that this type of attack was in any way a common sort of attack. Unless I am way off base here, in which case someone can enlighten me.
Rob H
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1783
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Rob,
I didn't say the attack on Emma Smith was an common one, it was indeed violent, but that's probably all it was -- violent, nothing more. To turn her into a Ripper just because a blunt object was forced up her vagina is in my view to jump to conclusions. You probably see this fact as a sign of a serial killer at large -- I don't. I am not at all sure the attack was sexually motivated in the way that we refer to in connection with the Ripper.
If she was attacked by a gang -- which I have no reason to doubt -- they could do a number of things to her -- especially if the gang had some sort of connection with the pimp trade (and therefore injuring her so she couldn't work again). And there is no reason to assume that the perpetrator couldn't have been an ordinary but extraordinary violent and sexually depraved customer. Thje environment wasn't exactly a cut-out from the Wizard of Oz.
Heck, prostitutes is even today subjected to all kinds of weird and sick characters every night -- the high crime areas of East End in 1888 was most certainly no different; it is unexplainable to me why the Ripper should have been the only one. OK, if we're talking mutilations of the same kind seen on Eddowes for example, but surely people are reading too much into the Emma Smith case.
And besides, Rob: what is a "common" and "uncommon" violent attack? Where shall we draw the line?
So, in an area full of over-crowded mazes and back alleys, loaded with prostitutes, public houses, drunk unemployed characters (some of them maybe more or less suffering from some sort of illness), I am supposed to believe that the Ripper was the only one capable of doing the things done to Emma Smith? I'm sorry, that is just unreasonable.
Most authors and researchers have ruled out Emma Smith from the Ripper line-up with relative certainty, and I personally think they have been right in doing so.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 13, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:51 am: |
|
Rob, Glenn,
Sometimes my work puts me in contact with prostitutes and, during my work, we chat about trade and so forth.
The impression I got is that though attacks are common the level of these attacks wasnt quite as violent as the assault Emma received.
That said, the chance of a violent attack on a prostitute is far much higher than on Gary Smith, IT Consultant from Harrow.
From reading news accounts and police information I feel that the attack on Smith wasnt that surprising but the ferocity was.
Just my views.
Monty
 |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 370
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Monty,
I totally agree. I too have occasion to deal with prostitutes (work related). These kinds of attacks are very common among prostitutes today. These kinds of Johns are known as rough trade. Granted, this attack was worse than the norm, but I don't think it had ANYTHING to do with the Ripper.
Mikey |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1786
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Monty,
That may be so from your end; unfortunately these kinds of violent assaults on prostitutes is quite common over here, and has increased since they came up with the stupid law to prosecute the clients -- leading to the result that the prostitutes now are forced to take their operations underground and are completely without any kind of protection.
Speak to the prostitutes over here, whose situation today isn't much better than the one in Whitechapel in 1888, and they can tell you their concern about the increasing sick violence against them and all the psychos they come across on a daily basis.
The violence inflicted on Emma smith was gruesome, but I can't see why it should be surprising considering the environment and social conditions in East End at the time (as well as the methods and great number of the prostitutes).
Now, I am only waiting for the suggestion that Daisy Duck also should be counted among the canonized Ripper victims, so we can expand the number even further. There seems to be lying Ripper victims in every corner.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 14, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 239
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Sorry, but to the best of my knowledge Daisy is not among the missing. However, (and as a great fan of Donald, Uncle Scrooge, et al., I vouch for this) around 1937 Donald's sister Dumbella (honest) Duck left her three sons, Huey, Dewey and Louie, in Donald's care and she has not been heard from since. Moreover, it is a puzzle where her husband was (if there ever was a husband!?) so the missing Dumbella is a mystery worthy of investigation, though perhaps on some other boards. One can only hope she did not become a blue plate special somewhere.
Don. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1787
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Don,
I bet you five dollars Dumbella was the Ripper's final victim. He just had to take a long break from 1888 to 1937 in order to be able to change his modus operandi and choice of victims, from prostitutes to cartoon ducks.
I think we solved the mystery at last, Don.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:16 pm: |
|
I think my grand mother may have been a victim.
Just kidding.
Paul
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Just to clarify,
I do NOT think Emma Smith was a JTR victim, I am just putting it up for discussion and further consideration, research, etc. But I do think it is helpful to keep open-minded about these things. And I am going to read the book mentioned in the article before I fully weigh in on the evolution of technique argument.
At this point, however I do believe that JTR probably committed attacks prior to the accepted series of 5, and that these attacks were probably of an unusually vicious nature, sexual and violent in motivation. If we accept this as a viable possibility, then we must look carefully at and consider these unusual early attacks... Millwood, Annie Smith, Ada Wilson, and especially Tabram.
Well Glenn, I am familiar with your tendency to ridicule ideas that differ from your own, like the idea of finding victims additional to the canonical 5 (or 4 in your view)... ok. Ha ha very funny. Daisy Duck etc etc. Great, that is really helpful and constructive.
Can we for once have a discussion in which we respect each other's opinions and try to have a constructive dialogue. Jeez.
And by the way, you said: "Most authors and researchers have ruled out Emma Smith from the Ripper line-up with relative certainty, and I personally think they have been right in doing so."
Yeah well that same line of reasoning doesnt stop you from excluding Stride as a JTR victim. I am willing to be open minded on all these things, consider all options, INCLUDING those that go against the consensus opinion. It was this same challenging of accepted dogma that I admired in Mr. Pittman's article in the first place.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Rob,
"Well Glenn, I am familiar with your tendency to ridicule ideas that differ from your own.."
Sigh. Oh, come on. Lighten up, Rob. Don't take everything so darn seriously. This subject is serious enough as it is. Just because I like to kid around a bit doesen't mean I ridicule it (although I admit I do find some of these ideas a bit hard to swallow).
"...like the idea of finding victims additional to the canonical 5 (or 4 in your view)...
Eh... no, 3 actually.
Note when I refer to canonical, I mean those I feel I can be absolutely sure of; in my view that is Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. The rest is up to debate, as far as I am concerned.
If being "open-minded" means that I am supposed to accept the possibility of attributing every single victim of serious violence with sexual implications in Whitechapel to the Ripper, so... NO, that is to stretch the expression way beyond its boundaries -- at least for me.
"Yeah well that same line of reasoning doesnt stop you from excluding Stride as a JTR victim."
Among noted authors and researchers, there are no strong opinion concerning Stride either way. Most of them seem to give her 60--40 % possibility of being a Ripper victim, but if you read closely, you'll find that Stride is very much held in doubt. However, although she was terribly and severely wounded (poor woman), none seem to favour Emma Smith as a serious Ripper victim candidate, and I can easily see why. You can't compare Stride with Emma Smith in this context.
If we disregard Emma Smith; to include a number of victims in the Ripper line-up is hardly to challenge things and be open-minded in that regards. To exclude them is way more controversial and to go against generally accepted notions (which I have easily noted on the Tabram and Mary Kelly threads).
I too believe JtR committed crimes prior to the Whitechapel murders, but I don't think some of those presented necessarily fits well into the picture. Just because he probably committed other crimes, doesen't automatically exclude other killers in this environment. I sometimes get the feeling, during the discussions here, that the Ripper was the only criminal in whole of Whitechapel and Aldgate to run around with a knife in his pocket and twisted mind. That is just way off base for me.
Even if Jack the Ripper as an evolutionary killer, which you seem to argue for rather extensively, I don't think either Tabram or Emma Smith fit the pattern, and probably not Annie Millwood either. And we can't even be sure of which crimes he started out with to begin with. Heck, it could be obscene conduct, it could be theft, and God knows what. But just because some women in early 1888 were attacked with knives against the abdominal area doesen't mean that it was the Ripper's work.
But by all means, I could be completely wrong. But I do think that people are jumping to conclusions here.
Although I don't find Tabram's inclusion that water-proof, I can still see and understand why people want to reach such a conclusion. But to even consider Emma Smith the slightest in this particular context is to take it to extremes. Keeping an open mind - yes, but there are limits.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 14, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 96
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:48 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Extremes? Oh come on, being open to the idea that Emma Smith might have been a Ripper victim is nowhere near as extreme as 95% of the theories that regularly get tossed around these boards.
We know that serial killers can and sometimes do change MOs significantly. If you think that even considering that Emma Smith might be a Ripper victim is ridiculous, then I'm afraid we'll just have to throw out a large number of victims of a great number of serial killers to fit your preconceived ideas about how things work. Because, oh, obviously a young boy attacked with a knife couldn't be a victim of the same guy as a prostitute killed by strangulation and sexually assaulted after death.
Frankly, to me it's a whole heck of a lot more ridiculous to try to remove Mary Jane Kelly as a Ripper victim than it is to suggest that Emma Smith might be one. But oh well.
Time and time again when serial killers are caught and discuss their crimes, we find out that they had more victims than originally thought, because the profilers were being understandably conservative when trying to get a reliable pool of statistics to run off of. DNA has linked killings that nobody thought had any relationship until the tests were run.
And I suppose all of this is supposed to be irrelevant because for some bizarre reason someone who kills prostitutes in Whitechapel in 1888 and takes a knife to their privates couldn't possibly be someone who kills another prostitute in the same area in the same year with a blunt object to the privates?
Amazing.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1790
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 5:42 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I see where you're coming from and we've been over this thing about change in MO before.
Yes, I think to even consider Emma Smith is to take it to extremes. It is not even consistent with facts. All we have is that she, according to herself, was attacked by two or threee young individuals. Besides the medical effects, that is practically all we know. The rest is pure unfounded speculation.
I know too that a serial killer can change his ways, but that is not the point. The point is that people still seems to believe, that only Jack the Ripper obviously was capable of doing these sex-related violent crimes. I must admit that really goes beyond me. Considering the nature of environment and the social conditions in East End at the time that is not consistent with logic.
Personally, I don't think Tabram was a Ripper victim, but I am by all means not sure. To consider Emma Smith, on the other hand, is totally ridiculous. There is nothing of real importance to link her to the Ripper.
"Frankly, to me it's a whole heck of a lot more ridiculous to try to remove Mary Jane Kelly as a Ripper victim than it is to suggest that Emma Smith might be one. But oh well."
Well, all I can say is that I totally disagree with you on this point.
"Time and time again when serial killers are caught and discuss their crimes, we find out that they had more victims than originally thought, because the profilers were being understandably conservative when trying to get a reliable pool of statistics to run off of. DNA has linked killings that nobody thought had any relationship until the tests were run."
And once again -- this is not a stated fact in all cases. Not all serial killers have a large number of victims; some have "only" three or four so it is a fallacy to take such serial killer behaviour for granted.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 10:54 am: |
|
Glenn,
I do not base my opinions on what other people think, so your statement that "to include a number of victims in the Ripper line-up is hardly to challenge things and be open-minded in that regards. To exclude them is way more controversial".... this is totally irrelevant. I mean are you trying to outdo me in being more controversial? Fine. My point about open-mindedness is that I want to consider all possibilities, regardless of what the historical consensus may be.
Like I said, I doubt Emma Smith is a JTR victim myself. But it is interesting to ponder, as it makes a clear picture of the evolution of technique, and the escalation of violence in attacks.
As has been suggested before, there are other possibilities to consider. Like for example that JTR may have been part of this "gang" of 2 or 3 men. This would also fit with other theories concerning 2 men... Tabram, Stride, etc.
I do not try to find Ripper victims everywhere, but as I said before, I do expect there were earlier attacks, so these are the ones to examine.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Rob,
"I mean are you trying to outdo me in being more controversial?"
No, I'm not. This is no competition. I'm just giving my view upon open-mindedness. What I meant was, that being "open-mided" by expanding the number of Ripper victims is more tempting and therefore really no big deal. People have done this for years now. But one must have valid reasons to do so.
Tabram and Millwood have nearly reached canonized status these last years, and especially Tabram, so I fail to see the open-mindedness about that. It is yesterday's news.
But OK, taking Emma Smith in consideration I can acknowledge as controversial -- I'll give you that.
I don't think Jack the Ripper was part of a gang. That old idea is absolute rubbish in my view. These types of killings are lust murders, where the motives and driving forces are highly personal and therefore generally is a result of a lone perpetrator. The only case I know of where sexually oriented male serial killers have committed murders in a comparable fashion (although there naturally are dissimilarities), is The Hillside Stranglers.
Furthermore, we have no evidence or witness reports supporting this. In order to accept this, we must establish Stride and Tabram as true Ripper victims (which is held in doubt), and even if we do that, it doesen't fit the other sightings.
The only relatively credible witnesses that may have seen the Ripper were probably Elizabeth Long and possibly Lawende (since we safely, I think, can establish Chapman and Eddowes as Ripper victims) and they saw a lone individual, not a company of two or more.
So I think I can safely exclude the possibility of the Ripper belonging to a gang.
"My point about open-mindedness is that I want to consider all possibilities, regardless of what the historical consensus may be."
Yes, but as I said... there are limits.
Emma Smith could have fallen victim to any drunk or sexually perverted assailant(s) -- I believe there would have been more of those than the Ripper in the Whitechapel area.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 15, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 108
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Glenn, Rob and all:
Is there a possibility that Jack was a member of the gang that assaulted and murdered Emma? Certainly. However, I believe that Jack worked on his own. I believe had he had accomplices, they would have turned him over either fro money or to save their own hides. In my humble opinion, Emma Smith was assaulted by a gang of men just as she said and their reason was to send a message to pay up and keep quiet. Kindest regards, Neil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2004
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Hi Neil,
"In my humble opinion, Emma Smith was assaulted by a gang of men just as she said and their reason was to send a message to pay up and keep quiet."
I agree with you; sounds quite plausible.
And no, I don't think the Ripper belonged -- or used to belong -- to a gang.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 100
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Hi all
I'm aways away from declaring Smith a Ripper victim but I have found her attack a little more intriguing than most.
What has puzzled me is her seeming reticence to report her assault to authorities. To effect, covering up for her own murder. And was her story even true anyway? There's really nothing to back it up.
The reason has always been given that she did so because she feared retaliation and that may be true but there is at least one other possibility. That is that she knew her assailant and that she did not want him to recieve severe punishment. This individual could be a "close friend", a relative or the relative of a close friend. If that be the case, I don't believe we should exclude this fellow as Jack the Ripper even though it would be difficult to pin it down to a single person.
The murder of Miss Margery Wren in 1930 was a case of this type. She lived for a while after her attack and gave police several conflicting accounts of the assault before clamming up altogether after saying that she did 'not wish him to suffer.' Police were sure she was protecting someone like a lover (she was 82), a nephew or even an unknown illegitimate son.
I prefer to keep an open mind on these things. Much too boring otherwise.
Goodies,
Stan |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Hi Stan
I've also been interested in the earlier attacks.
While I understand arguements put forward by Glen that the Ripper cant have been responcible for all the attacks, logic dictates to me that it is unlikely that the Ripper fell to earth with a ready formed MO, slashed Kelly and disappeared again.
I've always beleived that the killer evolves and gets better at his craft and desires.
For me the ripper started like many serial killers...getting his kicks from bullying and cruelty...probably expressing his earliest desires on animals, birds, insects.
I'm not certain about Emma Smith. Her story is strangly vague but then she is hardly likely to tell police she was soliciting and one of her tricks got out of control.
Glen is probably right when he say's that the Ripper probably didnt commit all the other known Whitechappel attacks and murders, but I think it equally likely that he may have committed some attacks before the Cannalonical 5.
The question is which ones?
For my money the attack on Ada Wilson is the most interesting (especially given the disciption of fair mostache man), although if you include Tabram then Annie Milwoods story and the wild stabs to the legs are very interesting. There are a number of acounts that do include more than one attacker in Ripper reports.
Logic would dictate a lone killer, but this case is unique. Just possibly there was more than one attacker on the street. We know chapman and Cream were about for a start.
I've been following the latest story of the girls in Reading with interest. It appears the six lads that attacked...what currently appears to be three girls might make an interesting comparission to the Emma Smith case. At least some insite into gang mentality.
I think we ignore the early attacks in the Ripper case to our peril. Somewhere in another report is an early attack commited by him, whether Emma Smith was one I'm not so certain.
Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 105
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Yes, I don't think that JTR was an upstanding citizen and then suddenly decided to rip Polly along Buck's Row. He had to start somewhere but the pace of the escalation suggests that there must have been something less than a near decapitation and disempowling for a start off.
Regarding Smith's "gang" story, if it is true, perhaps JTR needed the reinforcement of peers to get him started. Also, if he was a very young looking person, this might explain why the later victims did not feel threatened by him and blindly went off to their doom.
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3442
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Hi Stan, Jeff,
Well, I can't see any legitimate reason to doubt Emma Smith's story. Sure, one can come up with reasonable alternatives, but it will always remain unbiased speculations.
We know that gangs attacking prostitutes (and probably others) did exist in Whitechapel, so I'd say that's quite a logical conclusion to make in Emma's case. It would be strange, to say the least (not to mention illogical) if those didn't in some way delivered their share to the crime statistics. As far as the crime in itself is concerned, it has very little to do with the Ripper in my book.
I am pretty convinced of, that the Ripper was guilty of previous assaults or crimes, but I am not sure about their nature, escalation or not (fact remains that he didn't really need to have made any violent knife attacks before Nichols at all; his early offenses could just as well have involved only indecent exposure etc).
Among the early victims, I for my part am inclined to rule out Millwood, Smith and Tabram, BUT I do find Ada Wilson's attacker very interesting; he fits several of the witness descriptions and his conduct makes him worthwhile looking into.
One more thing, Jeff:
You say: "There are a number of accounts that do include more than one attacker in Ripper reports."
Actually there are not. The only account I know of is connected with the Stride murder, and we can't even be sure of that was a Ripper killing or not.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
John Malcolm
Police Constable
Username: Johnm
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Yes, it appears that I may be the sole living being that can't shake the feeling that Emma Smith quite possibly may have been a victim of JTR...for anyone so inclined to investigate just why I feel this way, check out "Mary Kelly is Dead" in the "Dissertations" section... |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 106
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:21 am: |
|
Hello,
John - I'm still holding the door open for Smith as a Ripper victim. For that matter, I think I rank her ahead of the favorite non-cons, those being Tabram and McKenzie.
Glenn - The Smith story could certainly be true but I say there are at least two reasons to call it into question. The first being, as I stated earlier, her puzzling reticence to report her attack to police. The second being (and that's why I call it the Smith story rather than Smith's story), is because, by all accounts I've read, it was not taken down when she stated it and the police didn't actually hear it from her at all. The story comes from hospital workers who said that's what she told them. There's no real reason to think they would lie but they supposedly repeated it from memory days later and hear-say evidence is notoriously inaccurate, usually unintentionally.
Regarding Ada Wilson, I too find her attack of interest and, if I understand you correctly, you consider her a more likely victim of JTR than Smith. You also suggested earlier that you tended to rule Smith's attack out because gang assaults were not his pattern. However, neither was his nature to knock on doors, demand money and then give the person a couple of jabs with a knife when they refused.
Bests,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3443
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
Stan,
I don't know; I can't explain it -- just call it a hunch -- but the weird and somewhat bizarre behaviour of the perpetrator in Wilson's case, is pretty much something I would expect from an early Ripper. And in that case we at least have a description of a SOLE attacker, with features that fits some of the other witness descriptions (for what it's worth). However, this could be worth nothing; since we have no facts pointing in any direction here, we naturally must hold her in serious doubt as well.
As for Tabram's killer, I see him (or they) as an entirely different type of perpetrator. But we also have facys to consider. We have a police recognising a grenadier hanging outside George Yard buildings the night of the murder "waiting for a friend". I'd say she was killed by one or two soldiers on a sex deal gone wrong and in my mind she was not a Ripper victim. But that's just me.
As for Emma Smith... once again, I see no reason at all to dismiss her story. To do so, when we have no information pointing otherwise, only leads to useless speculation. If we should dismiss a victim's own story, there must be facts or indications pointing in other directions that makes us suspect something. If not, it only becomes one of those tiresome attempts to put victims in the Ripper category just because we WANT to include them. No matter what we think of Smith's story, it is a piece of fact, coming from the victim herself and there is absolutely nothing that speaks against it. Until something comes along that puts her account in doubt, such efforts are non-productive.
And once again -- and more importantly -- we know that these types of gangs operated in the area, assaulting prostitutes among others.
The reason for why I tend "to rule Smith's attack out because gang assaults were not his pattern" is because I don't believe for a minute that he was part of a gang or that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed by more than one person.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Must agree with Glen, I dont think that the Ripper did belong to a gang. (even though I've often pointed out the more than one ripper facts, laters).
For me Jack is a local boy, a loner, late twenties early thirties, low acheiver, hatred of mother. Speculation.
So actually you do have to discount Emma's gang story. However surely what is interesting about Emma Smith is the Brick lane location. Heart of Ripper territory.
Also wouldn't Ada's story make more sence if she was a prostitute who'd taken man back?
Perhaps that s why Jack was put off going to house's until Kelly
Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 109
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Hello friends,
I'm only pointing out the possibility that Smith might have known her attacker and/or Jack might have needed the reinforcement of peers to give him the nerve to start his rampage. If you want to consider that useless speculation, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
As for wanting to rack up a bigger body count, I never said I thought Smith was a Ripper victim. I only say that she deserves more consideration than most give her.
There are always those who want to increase or decrease the body count. If I wanted to sum up a large tally, I could easily get it above 20. Going the other direction, one could also argue that Nichols wasn't a victim because there were no organs missing and her entrails weren't cast about. And if Chapman and Eddowes weren't killed by the same man, then there was no serial killer named Jack the Ripper at all.
Goodies,
Stan |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
I think that considring the attacks befor the 5 is fair game. Obviously people with differant Ripper theories will take differant aspects of these attacks. Look at cornwall she even took in the torso murders.
I digress..back to Emma:
The important thing here is whether you beleive the story Emma told the nurses/doctors.
The interesting thing about this case is the location on Bricklane and Wentworth Street near the Frying Pan where nichols spent her last evening. Also the close proximity of her house in George Street to the Tabram murder.
One theory put forward is this might have been an abortion gone wrong and advocates of the Jill the Ripper story and the disappearance of Fingers Freddie wil know this.
However on balance her story seemed pritty clear, she walked back to George Street and was obviously concious for some time.
I think doubt has arrisen because some people don't beleive that someone lossing so much blood would have been capable of such a walk and that the attack must have happened in or near George Street.
I dont see how you could recreate this sinario to see if her claims were possible. She must have been a 45 year old woman of some strength if her story is true.
Unless someone can find serious reason to doubt the story however, differing account in paper somewhere, I think logic dictates she was not a Rippr victim.....for the moment.
Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 111
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Yes, that one theory is an odd one. That is, the one that says that Smith, Tabram and "Fingers Freddie" were the only people slain by JTR. Stride being the victim of another killer and the remaining canonical four being women who accidentally died during abortions; the mutilations to cover that "fact".
Stan |
Brenda
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Pure speculation, of course, but...
I feel that Emma could have lied about the gang thing...especially if she had been attacked by someone she knew. I doubt she knew she was going to die....in her mind, she would know that as soon as she was better, she would be right back out there in the street and that this person would be also. Better to blame some random gang members than to name someone she would probably encounter face to face again. |
D A
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I have to disagree with you when you say that you think Jack is a loner, low acheiver. This isn't always the case in serial killers (Ted Bundy) I actually think Jack was smart and just did it for kicks. He may well have been that surgeon or a professional of some sort.
Dave |
JackTRipper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Has anyone heard any truth/speculation in the idea that JTR had the disease lycanthropy - making him a kind of werewolf?? Is there any evidence of what was happening with moon cycles at the time of the killings? |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 118
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Hi Jack
I wondered about the moon cycles myself. A couple of weeks ago, I went through the the phase charts for 1888 and could find no patterns.
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 566
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Brenda, the problem with Emma is that, even if one discounts the "gang her injuries were caused in a totally different way to those that Jack used.
I think some of the early cases might be Jack's practice work, but not Emma.
Phil |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 120
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Hi all,
Serial killers don't always follow a script. Peter Kurten started off drowning his victims, then went on to beat some to death with a hammer and dispatch still others by stabbing them with scissors.
Stan |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
I agree Stan,
I think there is way too much of a tendency to say, "the Ripper coulsn't have done such-and-such because it differs from his MO". I am a huge supporter of the concept of evolution in technique. The gang of 3 or 4 youths "beat and raped" Emma Smith, then "viciously jabbed a blunt object into her vagina, tearing the perineum."
As is pointed out in the dissertation "Mary Kelly is Dead: from Resselers FBI study of serial killers:
"They explored the dynamics of offenders’ sexual fantasies, sadistic behaviors, and rape and mutilation murders. These investigators noted several deviant sexual behaviors practiced before, during or after the victim has been killed. The act of rape, whether it be the actual physical act or a symbolic rape in which an object is inserted into the vagina, was found to be common among serial killers in this study."
I think it should at least be realized that Emma Smith's murder is at least somewhat consistent with JTRs targeting of the sexual organs/ lower abdominal region in his attacks.
Rob H |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 121
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hi Rob,
Yes, the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway, was another serial killer who inserted objects in the vaginas of his victims. He did not do in in every case however.
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 571
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
But Robert, you misrepresent the logic.
Brenda was discounting the attack on Smith by a "gang". My point was that even if one discounted that, there was still a problem with the weapon used and the way it was used.
Using your logic allied to hers, you could almost disregard the circumstances of any unsolved murder between about 1870 and 1914 which involved the female genitals or a cut throat and say - the Ripper could've dunnit!!
I know that is not your argument, and I am not trying to say it is. I do understand your point, and I agree we should not ignore anything. But I think we need to apply some sort of common sense and discounting evidence twice in a single case seems to me to be foolhardy.
Phil |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 122
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Everyone has to start somewhere. Peter Kurten was, after all, one killer not three.
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 573
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
And your point is, Stanley?
How would Emma Smith, assaulted with a stick, fit with the other possible early victims, Millwood, Wilson and Tabram, all attacked with knives?
I just don't see what the point is of deconstructing the Smith case? Where does it take us? What does doing so illumine - what assumptions does it allow us to make, what insights does it give?
You'll be telling me next that Fairy Fay existed - and it doesn't matter that the record says otherwise, because maybe she ought to have existed and because it suits the pattern you are looking for or the case you seek to make!! |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Phil,
I am not saying Emma Smith was a victim of the Ripper. In fact, I would guess that she was probably not. However, in my opinion, if a person starts out with a vague, undefined sense of anger, and this is directed towards some part of the body... the manifestation of this semi-conscious desire will often evolve. I got a sense of this from reading interviews with Ted Bundy, and I think often serial killers start out like this. So yes, I do not think he needed to have used a knife in the early attacks.
Glen for example says that he is interested in Ada Wilson, but then he dismissed Milwood. In my opinion, Milwood is more interesting as a potential early victim of JTR. I think Glenn prefers Ada Wilson because she was stabbed in the throat, even though the presumed motive was robbery. Annie Milwood, by contrast, was stabbed by a man she did not know, in the legs and lower abdomen... ie, the general vicinity of the sexual area, stomach. This is much more similar to Tabram, and in my mind, presents a rather clear evolution, if we look at Milwood, Tabram, Nichols as early victims.
If it were not for the "gang" element, I would be much, much more interested in Emma Smith as a possible early JTR victim. I suppose it is possible that JTR was a member of a gang or something of that sort, but I guess that I don't think it is very likely. If Emma Smith lied about the gang thing, then it is a whole different ballgame.
Rob H |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 576
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
I certainly don't think the JtR murders were committed by a "gang". Whether, separately, Jack might have been a member of a gang is something else - though I think him a relative loner with poor/weak social skills.
But I do see where you are coming from.
Phil |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 124
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
The point is, as I said earlier, serial killers don't always play by a script or use the same weapon in every instance. Jabbing someone with "a stick", if that's what it really was, is more like stabbing them with a knife than hitting someone with a hammer is like stabbing them with a pair of scissors. I could have cited examples other than Kurten to make my point; Sutcliffe for instance.
My original point was to suggest, if you'll check back, that Smith acted in ways that might indicate that she knew an attacker of hers and/or the Ripper might have needed the reinforcement of peers the get him started. I'll also repeat that I don't think Smith was probably a JTR victim but that she deserves much more considerstion than she's gotten so far.
As for deconstructing the case, there's really not been much of a case constructed to begin with.
We know that she was killed by a person or persons unknown. Everything else is pretty much just hearsay, conjecture and unsubstantiated testimony. Of all the murders in this era, hers is the one we should know the most about because she lived for a while after the attack but this is not the case.
Regarding Fairy Fay, she actually would help you case more than mine.
Goodies,
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 580
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
And what is "my case" Stan? I'm not sure I have one, except in trying be be on the side of common sense. As I am sure you do too.
Phil |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 125
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Phil,
By your case, I meant your single weapon assertion.
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 584
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
I don't think I ever asserted that (at least not intentionally). After all, Tabram was seemingly killed using two sorts of knife/blade.
Phil |
Patrick Strautman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 3:11 am: |
|
Rob,
I have a problem with "a vague, undefined sense of anger"... it is broadly accepted that serial killers do not kill out of anger but sexual arousal. True, the method may evolve to heighten the sexual arousal, but are we to believe a blunt object didn't "do it" for JtR? Also, if you take the serial killer "triad" into account, JtR should have arrived at his weapon choice well before any "test kill".
Stan,
"Reinforcement"??? Does JtR really have any peers? The object of his killing is to enjoy the mutilation postmortem. As a serial killer his urges should be undeniable. Does he really need coaxing? A fury of stabs in the Tabram case and a blunt object to the groin in the Smith case rules them both out in my mind. Would Jack get gratification from either of these brutal murders? I say no. As far as switching M.O.'s... can we that a character like Kurten had M.O. where he took pleasure in the myriad of ways he could take a life?
I completely agree that there are most likely victims of JtR before the canonical five. If one thing did evolve... perhaps it is the display of his victims. With his victim of choice being prostitutes of the East End, I find it much more likely that our pre-canonical victim(s) are in "missing" reports, if they were reported missing at all. Not to be cynical about the investigation of murdered prostitutes prior to the media's "Leather Apron/Jack The Ripper" of course} |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 126
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Hi Patrick,
Yes, peers can accelerate the acquiescence to the urges. There are examples of that with serial killers. We'll never know for sure if he had any peers or if he could change M.O. when he discovered a better thrill.
Stan |
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 127
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
P.S.
I've always wondered just how "blunt" an object could be and penetrate the vaginal wall, the rectal muscle and bowel wall as well as the 1/2" of tissue in between.
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3450
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
Patrick,
A good post and a lot of common sense.
"As a serial killer his urges should be undeniable. Does he really need coaxing? A fury of stabs in the Tabram case and a blunt object to the groin in the Smith case rules them both out in my mind. Would Jack get gratification from either of these brutal murders? I say no."
I totally agree.
"I completely agree that there are most likely victims of JtR before the canonical five. If one thing did evolve... perhaps it is the display of his victims. With his victim of choice being prostitutes of the East End, I find it much more likely that our pre-canonical victim(s) are in "missing" reports, if they were reported missing at all."
I absolutely agree again. I find that very possible.
Register immediately!
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stanley D. Reid
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 128
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Thinking inside the box is much to boring for me but I agree it has its place.
Stan |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1955
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
I am still unsure about whether the ripper was sexually aroused doing all this very busy,busy, top speed, postmortem mutilation work!
You can almost see him tongue on upper lip, a spare penknife,tucked behind one ear and a look of rapt [if crazed]concentration on his face.
I see him as a pretty disturbed and obsessive individual.
The series of images this strange ,silent killer and practitioner of macabre street theatre presents us with- bodies inside out and endless blood,gore and entrails patterning the corpse- has a fairly strong suggestion of a
"wages of sin" type message as far as I can discern.
Just as though he is acting on " Message".
Also apart from the letters which are believed to be almost all hoaxes ,it wouldnt appear that he was "enjoying" himself exactly.Strictly a time and motion exercise.
It all looks just very seriously,intensely and fanatically mad to me.
But ofcourse I may be wrong and others who know more about serial killers may see a lot more evidence of sexual arousal etc. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
