|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 11:52 pm: | 
|
The Reason I find that unlikely Stan is the depth of the wounds,think about it.From behind it is not possible to take it all the way down to the vertebrae,a wound like that takes applied pressure and a different angle.
Jacks signature could well have been swift blitz attack followed by that deep throat wound once the victim was supine.Helge hit the nail right on the head,this killer did not care about killing these women.He needed then dead as quickly and as quietly as possible only so he could mutilate.
It is only my humble opinion Stan me old boot strap,but I do think that signature runs through all the 'accepted' five.
Given a choice would you be Monty Burns and have the money or would you be Homer Simpson & have Marges love?
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
G'day,
'Actually we do not know if Eddowes was soliciting.'
The last recorded words of hers were: "I shall get a Damned fine hiding when I get home."
She had no money to take back to John Kelly.
At 1:30 a.m. she was seen conversing with a man at the corner of a street that led into Mitre Square. The couple weren't quarrelling, and everything was calm. Her corpse was discovered a quarter of an hour later in the darkest corner of Mitre Square. If we don't think she was soliciting, we must ask ourselves why she went there.
At her inquest John Kelly was told: "You were asked before if she walked the streets, and you said she did not!" His reply was: "Sometimes we were without money to pay for our lodgings and...."
LEANNE |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 25
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
"I shall get a Damned fine hiding when I get home." Not for staying out late? Not for getting drunk? Not for getting locked up?
From John Kellys sworn statement....I never suffered her to go out for immoral purposes
He was pawning his boots to buy them BOTH food & when they had no money for lodgings together they used the Casual Wards.
Being seen conversing with a male does not mean Kate Eddowes was soliciting,she may even have known him.
The lodging house keeper testifies that they we're in by 9-10pm each night as a couple when they stayed in Flower and Dean St.A man who will pawn his boots for food does not sound like a man who is pimping his common law wife and a woman who will walk miles to the casual ward does not have the sound of someone selling her body for the price of a bed.
Kate was a drunk and her and John Kelly were poor, but being poor and having a drink problem did not mean she was a prostitute.
Given a choice would you be Monty Burns and have the money or would you be Homer Simpson & have Marges love?
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 595
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Hi Steve,
First of all I think most people know that I have serious reservations about Liz being a victim of JtR, about 60/40 in favour still though.
I do think that all of the victims were either supine or lying on their backs slightly to the left when their throats were cut, partly because of the lack of blood on the front of their clothes and because of the depth of the throat wounds, plus a few other factors. Baron and I have had a few exchanges on this in the past and we have reached an understanding! 
It is because of some of the similarities of attack that I still go slightly in favour of Liz being a victim of Jack, although there are a great many circumstantial contradictions that trouble me.
I am very torn my myself about whether Kate was a prostitute or not.......first of all walking the streets meant exactly that back then, walking about on the streets all night because they couldn't get a doss and not soliciting. This is certainly what Kelly meant in his witness statement. It does put a different slant on things. I personally don't think that he knew she was, if she was.
I do think that Kate's soliciting or not is interdependent in my mind on whether or not Liz was a JtR victim or not to some extent.
If Liz was killed by Jack and he was intent on getting another victim quickly, it would seem logical to think that he would head for somewhere he knew he could find an abundance of game.
St Botolphs would seem to be ideal for this purpose, a known haunt of prostitutes, in the right area to tie in with Kate's death.
I am concerned that if Kate was not prostituting herself that night, then the chances of Jack just happening upon an innocent woman walking about the streets in so short a time is diminished. Why pick on her when he had as much knife fodder as he wanted right to hand?
Not only that but if she was not soliciting, why did she go with him to that dark corner of Mitre Square? Why was she in that area in the first place? It troubles me a lot.
That is of course supposing that he was in a great hurry to find a victim after he had failed with Liz.
If Liz was not a victim of Jack, then he would have had all the time in the world to look around for a victim, and it seems more likely that he might have happened on Kate, going from A to B and talked her into going somewhere with him for some reason.....what I can't imagine. Perhaps he literally was just waiting in the shadows and jumped her as she went passed.....it seems a little unlikely though.
I have a very soft spot for Kate, and find her relationship with Kelly a touching one. Sentiment wants me to believe that she was not prostituting herself, but looking at the facts it still seems more likely than not.
Of course Kate could have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time either way, but when weighing up the odds, I have to think that she is more likely to have been soliciting than otherwise.
Now all we have to do is prove conclusively that Liz wasn't a victim of Jack and I can get back to my knitting!
Love
Jane
xxxx
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 410
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Mike,
"Lions don't kill seals because they aren't aquatic, nor do they live where large quantities of seals are..."
My point exactly. This particular serial killer lived where there was an abundance of poor, desperate women more or less forced into prostitution by necessity. If he wanted to kill anyone, and get away with it, this fact made it that much easier.
Guys, I don't take credit for thinking the mutilations was more important than the kill. That credit is due Dr. Bond.
It makes a lot of sense, though. To kill anyone is easy compared to also doing the mutilations. It makes it all immensely more dangerous for the killer because of the time spent and the added possibility of being soiled. The mutilations in this case seems not to be because of rage or a frenzied attack, but a more calculated, and sinister, desire to mutilate.
This is what separates Jack from, say, a domestic attack, even if such events also sometimes involve mutilations. Here we have an effective kill, and only then do we see mutilation.
This is why I'm pretty sure MJK was also a ripper victim. The odds of anyone else doing the same kind of mutilations in the same time period is remote.
Stride is indeed a different kettle of fish, because there was no mutilation. However, I totally agree with Steve here that the less severe cut may be due to the killer being disturbed.
We cannot know for sure, however. It could also be because it actually was done by a different hand than the rest.
The reason I don't think this is the case is the fact that this happened in Jack's hunting grounds, in the middle of his spree. The similarities of the cuts are greater than the dissimilarities.
Personally I think Jack needed to kill Stride because he simply had gone too far to abort. Diemschutz' cart would have been heard many seconds (half a minute?) before he actually entered the yard, and Jack may have deliberately done the kill, aware of this possible disturbance. He could have waited to see what happened in the shadows, planning to continue with the mutilations once everything was clear.
Remember the loft door that was locked on the inside? Now that is an anomaly any time. But especially so on the night of a murder. Did Jack escape from that stable loft?
If he did, it might even indicate a more intimate knowledge of the yard and its buildings than one usually assume.
Leanne,
Good point. My point is that we don't know for sure. She may have been soliciting that night, and I guess the odds are actually pretty good that she was. However, she don't come across as a "hard" prostitute to me.
John Kelly's words seem to indicate that she only turned to prostitution when she had to. That makes her a prostitute by one definition of the word I guess, but it does not necessarily make her a hardened prostitute in my view.
However, we do know she was one to stay out late for drink... The man she talked to could have been an aquaintance. (I'm not saying he was, only suggesting that we don't really know) At least they seemed pretty comfortable together. This does not exclude that it was Jack. I'm aware it does not exclude that she was soliciting either. Actually we probably agree that the odds are that she was.
Point is, Jack most likely hunted prostitutes because they were easy prey, not because he necessarily felt the urge to kill prostitutes in particular.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 411
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Steve,
You make a lot of sense there.
Jane,
"Not only that but if she was not soliciting, why did she go with him to that dark corner of Mitre Square? Why was she in that area in the first place? It troubles me a lot."
It troubles me too. Maybe she needed some money. It was not unheard of for women prostituting themselves on occasion. But maybe she did in fact know the man she was seen talking to. He may have been a drinking buddy. A friend. And maybe something more sinister.
As I see it, both options are within reason. And maybe she did indeed know Jack...
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 27
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Hello Jane 
I must admit I've developed a soft spot for Kate too. Judging by the statements I think it likely she would know Kelly would already have a bed so she'd head for one of the Casual Wards?
Proving Liz was/was not a victim of a Whitechapel killer vanished in 1888 I think. Looking at the evidence leans me towards her being killed by the same hand as the others but of course it is always possible she was not.
I think Sutcliffe was very much a mirror of the Whitechapel Killer in as much as he stalked 'red light' areas for easy pray but basically any female in the area would do. So I agree with you Jane, I dont think it was important wether or not the victim was or was not a prostitute.
Helge,
Personally I think Jack needed to kill Stride because he simply had gone too far to abort. Diemschutz' cart would have been heard many seconds (half a minute?) before he actually entered the yard, and Jack may have deliberately done the kill, aware of this possible disturbance. He could have waited to see what happened in the shadows, planning to continue with the mutilations once everything was clear.
Could not agree more.
I suppose I'm off the fence and would say yes,Liz Stride was killed by the Ripper.....possibly ;)
(Message edited by swift on October 22, 2005)
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 480
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Yes, there's never been much doubt that, what we view as, mutilation was the killer's goal in chief. (Whether the fact that the victims were prostitutes may or may not have been secondary.) In his sick mind, however, it could well have been something else, such as, looking for something inside a woman's body or a number of other things perhaps beyond the imagining of our "normal" minds.
Stan |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 481
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
P.S.
For example, if we'd only found Ed Gein's victims and never identified a perpetruator, we would have thought that the killer's main goal was mutilation. In reality, however, Gein liked to handle the disembodied parts of women because he felt that would get him closer to them and move him closer to his ultimate goal of actually becoming one.
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 412
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Stan,
Certainly there was an element of a desire to handle and\or "study" organs with Jack as well. That is part of the mutilation as far as I'm concerned. We will never know what went on in his mind, we can only try to interpret what we know he did.
He mutilated. Perhaps with the intent to have a look-see inside women for any number of perverted reasons, perhaps he simply grabbed whatever was inside there as part of his destruction.
My guess is that he could never have even tried to explain why he did what he did. And as such any elaborate speculations on our part may have little value.
But, yes, you are right in that it is impossible to know the motives of Jack. This is why I keep it simple, and simply say that mutilations was the key. What significance it had to Jack, and what he was trying to achieve, if anything, will always remain speculation.
We can draw some tentative conclusions, though. It may appear that he at times attempted decapitation, but failed. Yet this failure did not make him change his MO. He did not, for example, carry a small axe or whatever in later attempts. This might tell us that he was simply experimenting, and that the actual attempt of decapitation was not necessarily important per se.
If it was, he would have found a way to achieve this goal.
Clearly we also see a well developed method of killing by cutting the throat. This may have no other significance than that it actually works very well. It is effective, and, if performed correctly, usually silent.
And yet, an amateur might still easily both it up.
What this tells us about Jack is difficult to interpret. Did he have prior knowledge to this method? Or did it simply come natural to him?
We may also be reasonably certain to say that he was drawn to the sexual organs of women. This may be analyzed psychologically in different ways, the most obvious reasoning being that it was either fueled by a general hatred for women, an extremely perverted sexuality, or a combination.
But he also seemed to show an interest for intestines. Nothing very sexual about that.
So perhaps the destruction was most important to him?
None of this necessarily imply a specific hatred for prostitutes. But it is obvious why prostitutes would become his main target nevertheless.
Just my two cents 
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 483
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
No arguments from me. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't oversimplify things by just saying that the motive was strictly mutilation.
Regarding the targeting of prostitutes, the two alleged serial killers that I've had some personal interaction with killed mostly prostitutes, however, they also allegedly took fatal advantage of drug addicts, acquaintences and women they met in clubs. Today is a different time though.
Best regards,
Stan |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4175
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Steve,
"A domestic crime is one that is defined by taking place in a home environ,between a couple who are involved romantically."
A murder can have domestic related motives without being perpetrated inside the actual home. That is why I have been saying that the Stride killing bears hallmarks of a domestic related murder, meaning that it was perpetrated by someone close to the victim, and preferably by a boyfriend/husband. The only difference is that the domestic problems have in such cases been taken outside, but the players in the drama and the actal motive is still the same. I am only referring to 'domestic' as opposed to it being the work of a serial killer, unknown to the victim, in search for better words and academic definitions aside.
"Speculation about what goes on in my head? Twenty years on the Greater Manchester force gave me my experience of domestic crime Glenn, and most domestic killings ARE manslaughter.Now that is not fantasy Glenn that is FACT - go look it up.
Next point, as stated above, killers involved in 'domestic' killings very very often only end up being charged with manslaughter - not murder."
Sorry, but I can't see your point with this. What has this got to do with anything? Where have I mentioned anything about manslaughter? My point was, that you said that in domestic-related cases deaths are usually preceded by arguments, struggle and fights. I said that is wrong and wondered what silly conventions that was based on. Because there exists loads of cases where domestic murders actually have been perpetrated with a blitz attack, and if you've been in the police force for twenty years you should know this. I can't see why people expect a domestic murder is supposed to follow a lot of screaming and yelling, because on many occaion that does NOT seem to be the case. It's the same thing with the dicussions that has been in connection with the Kelly murder.
And again, it is beside the point anyway since Stride's murder WAS preceded by a certain amount of commotion and struggle.
"I think you will find that 'throat cutting' was not a prefered style of murder anywhere in England in 1888,it was a type of assault.The fact that people died as a result of such assaults was due more to accident than design because, as Jack the Ripper shows us, it is very difficult to target the throat using a knife while the victim is standing, they need to be prone."
Now, I have seen a number of such domestic cases from the 19th century, digging through old Swedish crime records, and where the throat has been equally severed and sometimes with double sometimes with single cuts. Jack the Ripper's throat cutting technique demanded some force and practice, but I wonder if it really was that unique.
Yes, I would say that throat cutting was an ordinary method in the late 19th century to kill someone; in domestic cases it was also made in anger, thereby creating a lot of force. Quite many are assaults - yes - but many are also deliberate murder. I may not be a police officer but I am a historian and it is obvious that this technique of killing someone was fast and effective;
I disagree with AP that shotguns would have been more commonly used; yes - maybe in the upper or middle classes, but very few among the working class actually owned a gun. However, since most people in the working or poorer classes had some kind of occupation that involved knife work (butchers, shoemakers, barbers, carpenters etc.), they could also use it and that was the most common tool they had access to. Which is why quite many throat cutting incidents - assaults or murders - actually do pop up from the records at this time. We should not make the ultimate mistake by comparing modern people's practical problem with throat cutting with those of 1888.
I totally agree with Jane's thoughts regarding the incident with Eddowes. If now Jack indeed killed Stride but was forced to leave the site earlier without finishing his work - unaccording to his plans - he flees and then is lucky enough to bump into ... Eddowes? And within a short limit of time? And why was he fleeing towards Mitre Square in the first place if he came from Berner Street? I agree with Jane, that if he wasn't involved in the Berner Street affair, then he had all the time in the world that night to look for a victim.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 414
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn!
Just popped in to tell you that I agree with your definition of a domestic murder. And I also agree that such murders can happen without any argument at the time of the murder.
But here is where I disagree. And it is a minor detail. Most likely there would be arguments over time preceding a domestic murder. Not necessarily at the time of the murder, but certainly in the weeks, maybe months predating that.
Besides, there WAS (as I have tried to say before) a kind of argument preceeding the murder of Stride. Not necessarily in so many words, but in physical brutality. This might actually fit very well with the entire scene being an extension of previous arguments or disputes.
So have I come to the conclusion that Stride was not a Ripper victim? No. These indications may still be interpreted differently.
First of all, we may not be dealing with a pure domestic here in the sense that the killer was a "once loved one". We may just as easily have a situation where the killer was an acquaintance. A drinking friend. Even a regular customer with a grudge (I will not speculate for what reason, because that could be just about anything)
But hey! Do we know Stride did NOT know Jack?
I also think Jack bumping into Eddowes so soon after the Stride murder was lucky. But in no way is it impossible. Such things do happen.
We cannot even be sure Jack intended to kill another one (if he killed Stride that is) that night at all. Maybe it was not so much that Jack was lucky but rather that Eddowes was unlucky.
Jane is correct in that if he was not involved in Berner Street, then he would have had better time looking for a victim. But actually this means nothing. The murders were spaced pretty close together, and the astonishing thing would not be that Jack did a double event, but that he did his "thing" so close to another unrelated murder.
But, again. These things happen.
What I try to say is that bumping into Eddowes and getting a "second chance" might be considered an unlikely coincidence. But the coincidence that someone other than Jack actually killed someone outside a Jewish Club, and then a short time after Jack himself killed a woman and left a clue outside a Jewish tenement building, is also staggering in its apparent coincidence.
Even if Jack did not write the GSG, we are still looking at an "unlikely" coincidental scenario.
The odds here can never conclusively prove anything, because we are talking about a singular event (or actually two, related or unrelated), and there is no basis for doing statistics whatsoever.
Just the other day I met an old friend at one of the local groceries. Had not seen him for a year. He usually do not do his shopping in these parts, and I usually go to another store. Unlikely coincidence? Well, it happened. And these things do happen. They are actually bound to happen from time to time.
Anyway, all in all, you will once again notice that we do not necessarily disagree all that much. And still, we come up with different interpretations.
I'm not saying I am right. What I am saying is that none of us can be sure what really happened!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4178
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Actually, Helge, I agree with pretty much of what you say, and yes, coincidences certainly do happen.
Personally, I think the scenario where another prostitute is murdered by a throat cut 45 minutes prior to a Ripper murder in another district is easier to buy as a natural coincidence than Jack fleeing from a crime scene and comes across another victim in such short time. Not to mention strange thing that he would flee in the direction towards the City of London district from Berner Street instead of further into Whitechapel.
But that's just my opinion. I guess we all have our own different personal opinions about that.
And naturally we shouldn't take for granted that Stride knew her killer - if he wasn't Jack, hey, he could have been an ordinary drunken or deranged bully, and if she was indeed out soliciting that night, then it could have been another client.
Still, considering her violent history with Kidney and the fact that she prior to her death some time ago had left her, then I think a 'domestic' explanation feels more logical and closer to to the truth and that is probably also a lead that a modern police force would pick up on. That does not mean that it is written in stone, however.
"Most likely there would be arguments over time preceding a domestic murder. Not necessarily at the time of the murder, but certainly in the weeks, maybe months predating that.
Besides, there WAS (as I have tried to say before) a kind of argument preceeding the murder of Stride."
Which is what I've been saying also. And of course arguments and abuse could precede a 'domestic' murder over a longer period of time without preceding the actual murder, I absolutely agree with that. But I think the point here is what happened prior to the murder and under which circumstances it occurred. But as I've said, as well, that point is a bit redundant, since her murder WAS directly preceded by some kind of struggle or violent act or abuse. And regarded of which, I would say it supports a possible conclusion that she was a victim of ordinary abuse and not someone like Jack the Ripper.
But I am not prepared to put my money on everything. The Stride murder is a complicated and confusing one.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 32
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Still, considering her violent history with Kidney
What violent history would this be then? I take it you are reffering to the single court case(over a year before she died) brought about by Stride for assault by Kidney yes? For which she did not turn up for her day in court and for which charges were actually dropped.
So you are an historian? How many such cases were there just in Londons East End and just in 1888? I'm willing to bet it runs into double figures.You are talking about something that was a part of everyday life in Victorian Britain, men beat their woman.
Or maybe we should take Strides word that Kidney was violent towards her on a regular basis,a woman who,so far as we can ascertain,told the truth only inasmuch that she was from Sweden - and very little else.
One court case(not proven) is NOT a violent history Glenn.
The medical evidence however does point to the fact that Liz Stride was killed by the Whitechapel murderer and if you read the post mortem reports objectively then you will see the same signature that officers in 1888 saw which lead them to conclusion that one killer used one method to kill all five women.
The point of the post Glenn,which you cannot see,is that domestic crimes are committed in ANGER,in the heat of the moment which more often than not leads to a manslaughter charge.How long had it been since Kidney had last seen Stride?
Five days.
I suppose we could point to the fact that he was supposed to have padlocked her in, but did he? She had a key to the lock,Padlocks go on the outside of doors not the inside.
Michael Kidney had been up before a magistrate once on a charge of drunk and disorderly,Liz Stride eight times, so where does the 'storm' in their stormy relationship elicit from?
Kidney had in fact left the house they shared by the time Stride was killed which further suggests he had moved on.
In short Glenn,my point is that there is absoloutly nothing at all that points to Elizabeth Stride being the victim of a 'domestic', other than the supposition that she was NOT killed by the Whitechapel murderer.
Liz Stride may well have been cut down by one of the local gangs,by a random mugger or by the man she had spent the evening with once she refused his offer of sex('no not tonight,maybe some other night')but Michael Kidney? very very unlikely.
And finally..
I can't see why people expect a domestic murder is supposed to follow a lot of screaming and yelling, because on many occaion that does NOT seem to be the case.
Because the MAJORITY of domestic killings follow exactly the pattern you describe Glenn, and when you investigate a crime you follow the usual FIRST - if it leads nowhere then you look for the unusual,and that my friend is exactly what the officers of 1888 would have done, and exactly the reason they let Michael Kidney go.
(Message edited by swift on October 23, 2005)
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 596
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Just a very quick one.......I agree with a lot of what you say, but the connection between the IWEC as a Jewish institution and the building in Goulston Street being Jewish is probably quite erroneous.
Whitechapel at that time had such a high concentration of Jews that every other shop, building or premises was owned or inhabited by Jews. So that connection at least is rather tenuous.
Liz of course worked for Jews, which might well provide a connection with the IWEC anyway.
Good post though!
Hugs
Janie
xxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4179
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Steve,
Hold your horses.
I never said that there was a PROVEN violent history with Kidney (after all, Liz Stride was known for lying through her teeth - the ones she had left - so it is absolutely right that we shouldn't take anything she said herself at face value or as evidence), but there is still a indication of such that is relevant enough in order for any investigator to look into it. Apart from you, of course. And the police of 1888. That indication might be vague, it might not lead to something concrete, but you have already decided that it is nothing, in spite of not knowing more on the matter than any other.
Or do you mean that investigation methods should be based on odds and statistics?
It is true that Liz was probably at least as problematic as Kidney when she got drunk and as you quite correctly point out, she had several counts of disorderly conducts behind her. But that does not in any way rule out Kidney, and we certainly know from the inquest that he was an arrogant and spiteful character, quite similar to the kind of behaviour I have seen in connection with aggressive drunks, not least in real action and not just in documents. I am sure of that you have come across such individuals as well.
Apart from the 'bluish discolouration' that Baxter Philips said he had seen 'on two occasions since', I disagree with you that the 'medical evidence' clearly supports that it was the Ripper who did it. Liz's throat had been cut less severely than the others - the fact that the knife jagged the scarf could indicate someone who was a bit more of an amateur, unless the scraf had been cut in another way (and from what I can read from the so called 'evidence' I have seen recordings of other throat cuts like that in cases that do not have a serial or professional killer as perpetrator), she was dropped on her side and not on her back. But more importantly, there is no evidene of any smothering or strangulation, as could be seen for example in Annie Chapman's case.As far as the value of the medical 'evidence', let's also remember that Philips was of the opinion that in comparison with Chapman's case, there seemed to be 'very great dissimilarity between the two'. So as you see, referring to 'medical evidence' in a case like this is not exactly easy.
I also find it surprising that, from a historical and statistical point of view, you seem to be of the opinon of that as long as throat cutting murders in 1888 didn't reach three figures, it is not worth considering. Brilliant!
News flash, Steve, since Liz Stride wasn't mutilated there is no real proof of - or reason to support the idea that aggressively - that she was a Ripper victim. It will always remain a problem and there is simply not enough evidence in the case in order to exclude other possibilities. Accept it. If you can't, then you are the less objective one, not me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
I’m really enjoying this lively discussion.
Glenn, I was referring to small personal firearms, not shotguns, and they were very commonly used in the East-End of London by the poor folk to commit crime and murder right from the start of the Victorian period.
If desired I could post you some fine examples.
What Steve says about manslaughter and murder strikes a deep chord within me, and perhaps comes from his better working understanding of such circumstance. This is something that vexes me all the time, that we are dealing with statistics that are flawed by the moral judgement of the courts even when the police have presented them with a clear case of murder.
I just came across one case of ‘manslaughter’ in 1889, in Whitechapel, where the man beat the woman so severely over the head with an iron poker that he bent it out of shape, then he slit her throat with a razor, rammed his hands in the eight inch wound, and tried to pull her windpipe out, then slung her out on the street… but this never figured in my reports into murder in the LVP simply because the court counted it as manslaughter.
I somehow think that the word ‘domestic’ muddies the water. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4180
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Yes, I know that the small firearms you refer to was commonly used by villains of the East End, and as you say 'to commit crime and murder', but that is something quite different from the ordinary abusive man in a household in a working class environment. I could be wrong, but we are not talking about professional criminals here.
I think I would stick to my guns (erh...) by hanging onto the fact that for most people at the time in such environs, using a knife rather delicately was commonplace in another way than it is today since there was a more relevant use for a knife in those days, not least consdering the diferent occupations. However, if any facts should prove me wrong on that, feel free to correct me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 34
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
The signature Glenn is in the attack not only the depth of the wound.
The first four victims were attacked and rendered helpless having their throats CUT - not slashed - while supine.
As I am sure AP will tell you Glenn the 'usual' attack involving the throat is either from behind, having taken the victim by suprise and then slashing - not cutting - while one hand is over the victims face/mouth, or from the front using a fast blitz attack and slashing - not cutting - across the throat.
Liz Stride:The throat was deeply gashed: in the neck was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of her scarf; the incision commenced on the left side, 2 1/2" below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 1/2" below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.
Thats DEEP,as deep as Annie Chapmans wound and in keeping with a killer that does not know the exact position of either the carotid artery or jugular vein.As you pointed out....the fact that the knife jagged the scarf could indicate someone who was a bit more of an amateur Now read the report Glenn......
The throat was deeply gashed: in the neck was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of her scarf
Possible while she was standing,while she was struggling,while she was concious? I very very much doubt it, because a scarf wrapped around someones neck has a CURVE Glenn.
I would come to the conclusion that Liz Stride had her throat CUT, and cut while she was supine, a highly unusual way to kill someone and yet exactly the same way that Nichols,Chapman,Eddowes & Kelly were killed.
I would suppose that the officers of 1888 came to the same conclusion and I would suppose that is why they thought Liz Stride was a victim of the Whitechapel murderer rather then them 'guessing' she was for no other reason than Kate Eddowes died later.
One more thing Glen? Or do you mean that investigation methods should be based on odds and statistics? You believe modern investigation methods are based an anything else and you have been watching too much TV.
AP - you are quite correct,the mindset of a killer is VERY difficult to prove in a court of law and especially in domestic circumstances.If Ruth Ellis had killed David Blakely in her own living room she would have walked away with manslaughter.
(Message edited by swift on October 23, 2005)
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
"they had a vendetta against prostitutes in general"
Prostitutes are awfully easy targets...I think Jack was a coward at heart.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 178
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Steve,
We don't know they were supine. They had their throats cut, and that is all. If I were to cut a throat, it would be from behind with a hand over the mouth. Indeed, the last time I tried to do it from the front, there was an awful mess on my tuxedo. How would you do it?
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 486
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I don't see why moving from Berner Street to Mitre Square would necessarily be a big surprise or an issue.
Maybe that was on his way home. I've always suspected that Goulston Street might have been a falsely laid trail. Seems too obvious to me.
Maybe he'd scoped out the area before and knew it would be a good spot for a second try.
Perhaps he just randomly found himself in the area after blindly fleeing the scene of the previous attack, led there by the path of least resistance.
Or maybe he knew it was another police jurisdiction and thus might not have yet been alerted to the first murder.
There might even be more possibilities but those four are the first to come to my mind.
Best wishes,
Stan
(Message edited by Sreid on October 23, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4184
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Mike,
"We don't know they were supine. They had their throats cut, and that is all. If I were to cut a throat, it would be from behind with a hand over the mouth."
Yes! Exactly my point.
Stan,
I agree, those options are all possible.
I still think Jane has a good point, thouhg. But yes, quite likely explanations, at least some of them.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 183
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Is the argument that one cannot cut deep enough from behind? That one would have to push down from the front? I think Steve is saying that an attack from behind would be a slash. I don't know about that. I would think that the act of pulling the head back while cutting would do a tremendous amount of damage. That's how I always do it when I'm out and about.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 415
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:24 am: |
|
Good points from everyone here. And as I have said before, all options must be considered as viable.
Glenn, I really respect your take on this, even if I disagree. A good case can be made for your position.
I'm still pretty sure Stride was a Ripper victim, though, and Steve and Stan pretty much sums up why.
There is however one more point to consider. If we assume mr Broadshoulders was in fact the killer, which I find very likely, then we need to explain why Liz still ended up in the yard with him, without kicking and screaming.
The answer is obviously (IMO) that she had no clue as to the intentions of her killer at that point. This explains the cachous for example. She was relaxed. She was making herself ready for some interaction.
Would she do that with Broadshoulders after he threw her in the streets? I see no reason why not. It was a rough time, and he obviously calmed her sufficiently down after first roughing her up.
NOT the acts of a spurned lover, IMO. There was some commotion in the beginning, which probably do not fit Jack's MO at all. But then he calms her down, and get her into Dutfields Yard afterwards. With the intention to kill. Smooth. Probably calm and calculating.
This fits Jack to a T.
There could obviously be another calculating killer loose the same night, but somehow I find that less likely.
Also well worth noticing is the fact that Strides' legs were drawn up. This is obviously Jack's hallmark as well.
It all points in the direction of an aborted mutilation, IMO. And we even know what most probably caused the interruption!
Kidney was questioned. He must have been a prime suspect. Yet he was never charged with anything. This might give us some indication that he was not involved. Not bulletproof evidence, though, but I really do think the police wanted to solve this one with all the publicity involved.
AP, A very good point about the statistics being flawed. I still think we may use the word "domestic" to differentiate between a "family" affair and a random killer, but maybe your statistics should also include cases of manslaughter. I agree the difference is not major, and the LVP did go easy on husbands didn't they?
Jane, my sweet Jane.. (I'm so into Lou Reed you know...) Your point is valid. Indeed the thing about Jews could be entirely circumstantial. However, I have done some recent research that may indicate it is not after all.
Let me just briefly say that the IWES as such was an international socialist organization, but that the London Berner Street branch was heavily influenced by the Jewish Arbeiter Fraint, and was, indeed, mostly a Jewish Club. This is rather anomalous as to the organization, but the Jews were really influential in the movement, and particularly so in Berner Street.
I would imagine a lot of people found that offending. Especially Gentile socialists. Let's face it, anti-Semitism is (or should be) on our concience...
Just an example from the British Brothers League (1901)"
"Who is corrupting our morals? The Jews
Who is destroying our Sundays ? The Jews
Who is debasing our national life? The Jews
Shame on them. Wipe them out."
Shame on...who?
The Wentworth buildings were also primarily Jewish. But that may be besides the point. The most important factor is that this part of Goulston Street in itself was highly "Jewish". It was a major Jewish marked area, and known as such.
This could all be circumstantial. But actually I think not. This is, as yet, only a working theory, but here is a few points to ponder. Dutfields Yard was seldom used by prostitutes. An often used entrance to the club was in the yard. A loft door was found inexplicably bolted on the inside at the time.
I suggest the possibility that the killer was actually better known in the yard than previously assumed.
Sir Robert,
All predators are cowards at heart.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 36
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
Glenn,Baron..I'll try to run this by you one last time although, admitedly, writing has never been my strong point.
If you examine the in situ reports and post mortem results it is quite easy to pick up on the way these women were killed,not only from what IS written but from what is NOT written.
First of all lets look at attacks that involve throat slashing from behind or in front while the victim is standing.
Such attacks utilise a knife using the LENGTH of the blade not its depth which does not result in a wound of depth and,more often than not,the full length of the blade does not come into contact either.
Such attacks involve a struggle and/or the use of violence because the slashing attack is rarely enough to silence/incapcitate the victim quickly.
Arterial blood will spray as far as 12 feet from the severed artery of a victim who is standing and struggling - absent.
You will notice a lack of struggle as a feature of the reports.
Now the wounds:
Nichols: Throat cut from left to right with 2 distinct cuts being on the left side and with the windpipe, gullet, and spinal cord being cut through Here we see depth from a cut not a slash.Such a wound is made by driving the blade in by the point and then applying pressure from the handle in order to utilise the length of the blade.
Chapman:The throat was deeply severed by a jagged incisions which reached right around the neck
The longest throat incision completely encircled the throat, running along the line of the jaw; The incisions ran from victim's left to right; 2 clean and distinct cuts on the left side of the spine which were parallel to each other and were 1/2" apart
The muscular structures appeared as if an attempt had been made to seperate the bones of the neck Distinct,deep cuts utilising the depth of a blade.
Stride:The throat was deeply gashed: in the neck was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of her scarf; the incision commenced on the left side, 2 1/2" below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 1/2" below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side. Thats DEEP,as deep as Annie Chapmans wound and in keeping with a killer that does not know the exact position of either the carotid artery or jugular vein. Also note the wound follows EXACTLY the line of her neckerchief - virtually impossible if the victim is standing and struggling.
Eddowes:throat cut nearly ear-to-ear, dividing all tissues down to the bone Depth.
Kelly:the neck was severed down to the spine Depth
Note also the arterial spray close to the heads in situ in the case of Chapman & Kelly but not a great deal.
No signs of struggle,lack of arterial spray,deep CUTS - all indicate a supine victim already incapacitated when the throat was attacked - with Stride killed in the same manner.
Sorry but I would be looking for one killer.A man who attacked his victims,incapacitates(possibly by strangulation) and then kills by cutting through the throat....maybe.I think it may be possible(although there is not enough evidence in the reports to confirm this) that in all but two victims(Kelly & Chapman) they were already dead and the attacks on the throat were part of the mutilation.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
Leanne,
At 1:30 a.m. she was seen conversing with a man at the corner of a street that led into Mitre Square... If we don't think she was soliciting, we must ask ourselves why she went there."
I have great difficulty with the notion that Eddowes was at Church Passage enacting some pre-arranged rendezvous - perhaps you do too.
It's not as if Kate could have known that she'd be banged up in the police cells until the small hours. It's not as if she could have telephoned yer man, or sent him a text message to say she couldn't make it ("SRRY - GOT NCKED IMPRSN8ING FIRE NGINE - CU L8ER"). Why did she scuttle off with him into the shadows of the secluded and (almost entirely) uninhabited Mitre Sq with him at half past one in the morning?
The likeliest explanation is that she met her killer purely by misfortune and that - perhaps on the spur of the moment - she had decided to make a fast buck out of him by prostituting herself. That doesn't make her an habitual prostitute, only another broke East End woman who, on occasion, resorted to the sex trade whenever the need, or opportunity, dictated it.
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
Mike,
If I were to cut a throat, it would be from behind with a hand over the mouth. Indeed, the last time I tried to do it from the front, there was an awful mess on my tuxedo.
... and there's the rub. None of the Canonical 5 had bloodstains down their fronts. Ergo their throats are unlikely to have been cut (from behind or otherwise) whilst they were in the standing position.
|
Susan Birtles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Steve Swift, a real ex-policeman? In that case you should know that Eddowes was no one's common law wife. Such title pertains exclusively to a relationship where a man and woman live together but can not legally marry, generally as the woman is still married to someone else.
Two peope merely living together to not enjoy right of common law spouses.
As a solicitor, I will address many of your other legal lapses when I have an opportunity to do so. |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Hello Jeff,
You wrote:
However, the wound to Eddowes appears to be very similar to Stride's, and there are no signs that he was disturbed/interupted at this crime (at least at the stage of throat cutting)
I am afraid you are overlooking the most important thing, Jeff.
The common carotid artery is located in the throat , roughly an inch below the skin. It was partially severed and then the knife "deviated a little downwards" to use Dr. Phillip's words. That means that the throat wound must have been an inch or so deep.
But in Eddowes' case, the knife didn't stop at the common carotid artery. It slashed it completely, then went deeper, cutting "all the deeper structures" right down to the spine. The throat wound must have been at least three to three and a half inches deep.
I think this is a dramatic difference, but totally consistent with the throat wounds of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly: their heads were all severed down to the spine.
There is sheer ferocity and brute force at work here, which is conspicuously lacking in Stride's case.
Jack was a headseverer, not a throatslasher.
And this is exactly why I am so wary of the frustrated killer scenario. If a man is frustrated and fuming with rage, would his throatcuts be less powerful?
I don't think so.
Kindest regards,
Martin
|
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Hello Stan,
You wrote:
Firstly, I said hour(s), as per Stride/Eddowes, not years, that's the main key here.
So it's the time frame that is bothering you?
But then you have missed the point of my original post, Stan.
My point was this. You either accept the fact that in 1888, and in the very same area, there could have been a throatslasher not called Jack or you don't.
If you don't than I ask you: so why could there have been throat slashing prostitute killers not called Jack in 1889 and 1891, but not in 1888?
But if you do, I tell you that the odds that Stride's murder would happen an hour before Eddowes' can be calculated exactly and that the odds are exactly the same for every hour that year.
Now for argument's sake forget about Jack - only for argument's sake, Stan, for I wouldn't want to force my ideas on you - and try to imagine that Stride's killer was just another murderer,not a serial killer, but a garden variety murderer who, as in the case of Coles and McKenzie, happens to slit his victim's throat.
Furthermore suppose you could go to a bookmaker in 1887 and place a bet on the exact hour that Stride would be killed the following year.
You wouldn't know what hour to place your bet on, would you Stan? Every hour would be as probable as the next, be it one hour, two hours or a hundred hours before or after Eddowes was murdered.
That's why I said that the fact that Eddowes was killed within an hour of Stride is not significant or important in itself.
It only becomes important if you happen to believe in a certain scenario, the frustrated killer scenario.
Do you see my point?
Kindest regards,
Martin |
Matt Humphreys
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Hi everyone - interesting discussion.
I'd like to add my tuppence worth if I may.
Firstly as regards the method of throat cutting. It seems to me the most logical method of despatch was by standing behind the victim and holding the victim's head/chin with the left hand while making the cut with the right. This is without doubt far quicker than lying the victim down on the ground first. It also prevents any blood finding its way onto the murderer. I completely disagree that it requires any real pressure at all to sever the throat down to the vertebrae (the windpipe being essentially just cartilege). A sharp knife could easily achieve that and with the victim in front of the murderer he would have the added help of drawing the knife towards himself as he made the cut (which ties in strongly with the deepest incision being on the left of the neck). This is a far more "natural" act that cutting the throat while the victim is lying down. Indeed I fail to see how he could achieve any more pressure on the knife in this scenario unless he was actually pushing down on the knife with his whole body weight. In my view that whole scenario is far too complicated and unnecessarily so ! Jack wanted a quick kill.
As regards the arterial spray low down on the fence at the Chapman murder scene pointing to the victim being prone when her throat was cut, again I disagree. The blood found on the fence could just as easily have got there as Chapman was being laid down to the ground AFTER having had her throat cut.
I really cannot see the murderer making life any more difficult for himself than it needed to be. He was outside and often in places where his escape route could be compromised at any time (especially so in the case of Chapman). I'm sure he would have seen the rapid death of the victim as his priority not least because a severed throat prevents the victim making much noise.
Matt |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 38
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Susan Birtles,where I come from 'common law wife' is a euphemism or slang term for a couple who live together but are not married - not legal terminology - and thats the context it was used in.
As a solicitor I'm sure you are also aware that the Marriage Act does not come under criminal law so it is not something I am overly familiar with no.
It was also a term used at her inquest.
Look before you leap is another good one.
(Message edited by swift on October 24, 2005)
(Message edited by swift on October 24, 2005)
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Hi AP,
...I do think the person who killed Stride - if caught - would have been tried for manslaughter.
Really? I thought the police were of the opinion that the person who killed Stride - if caught - would have swung as Jack. 
Interesting posts all.
For those of us who think it most likely that the victims led Jack to their own secluded place of slaughter (and possibly between the police beats with which they were au fait) after a) they approached him on the street offering business or b) he approached them on the street posing as a customer, it kind of goes without saying that we would argue for Jack targeting women who were either actively soliciting, or he assumed that was why they were alone outside at a late hour.
This would also serve as Jack's self-justification for what he did to them - the fact that he could point to their immorality and say that they would not have been harmed had they behaved 'decently'.
Unless anyone thinks Jack attacked one or more suddenly from behind, before they were even aware of his presence, there was presumably some sort of interaction during which the victim was either making the advances herself, or wasn't repelled by the advances of this deadly stranger.
I seem to recall with the Yorkshire ripper, that when the victim was a prostitute, he was able to go through the preliminaries with her, posing as a regular punter on some occasions before attacking. But when he targeted non-prostitutes, this wasn't an option, and he tended to creep up from behind and hit them with a hammer.
For some reason, Eddowes chose to walk into Mitre Square that night and so did Jack. If she didn't do so in the hope of earning a few pence from him, it leaves a bit of a question mark over the behaviour and expectations of both, doesn't it?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 24, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 489
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Hi Martin,
The hour isn't bothering me; it's a fact. I think we have at least six major coincidences here and a number of more minor ones all in murders the perfect time apart. Way, way back there I asked for a comparable example in the total history of crime and still don't see one so the odds must be extremely low. Low odds don't equal impossible so you've always got that one. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.
Best wishes,
Stan |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
You are right, of course, Glenn.
Most gun crime in the LVP took place outdoors on the street, and is more usually associated with general criminal activity rather than a genuine desire to murder someone.
There are a few domestic shootings, but they are quite rare, one I remember very well is where a young man shoots two sisters, one indoors and one outdoors within seconds of each other.
When it comes to genuine domestic ‘manslaughter’ it does appear that in most cases the attacker just picks up the first thing to hand in the room, and that is usually a knife, when not then an axe, razor, poker or even a fire grate or tongs.
However my own inclination is still to see Stride’s killing as of a domestic nature, despite the ‘double event’ scenario going on another channel which had made me more susceptible to the idea that Stride and Eddowes may have been killed by the same man.
This is based mostly on the large number of attacks of a directly similar nature that took place on the streets of Whitechapel in this exact time frame; and having as their background a domestic dispute which usually involved a couple parting company under acrimonious terms some weeks before the attack.
When the attack came it came ‘out of the blue’, was carried out on the street, usually consisted a quick single strike to the throat with a knife and usually when the woman concerned was with her family or new male friend.
As you already know I have always maintained that Stride’s murder was far too ‘noisy’ to fit into a series of very ‘quiet’ murders.
The similar domestic crimes of which I speak were also very ‘noisy’ indeed. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 597
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Very good points and I am rethinking that it might have just been coincedence that two Jewish buildings were highlighted that night.....not sure where the rethink will lead, but certainly worth a second thought anyway.......
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 598
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
HI All,
I have a distinct feeling of deja vu here, but I know that most of the recent posters have not heard why I feel there is a lot of doubt about Liz being a victim of JtR, so please everyone else just bury your head in your hands or get on with your chores.......and please forgive me.
I do agree that there are enough similarities between Liz's death and the other so as to still come down slightly in favour of Jack being her killer. Yes there is a similarity in attack and method of kill.......but there are dissimilarities too.
BUT, these are the things which really trouble me.
Why on earth would Jack choose to attack a victim right next to an open kitchen door, with light coming from it?
This same door being the main way in and out of a busy club.......
A club filled with a goodly number of beer drinking men, who would certainly be going in and out of that door all the time to have a quick leak or to go home.
Why didn't he attack Liz further back in that lovely dark, secluded L shaped yard where he would have had all the time to do whatever he wanted to her without interruption.
A few moments before her death she was further back in that yard, and she walked back towards the entrance clutching her cachous. Why did he wait until she was in the most dangerous position as far as he was concerned to attack her?
Okay, maybe his survival instinct took a vacation for a few moments and he just went for the quick kill.......but there is so much about that scenario that troubles me. It just feels wrong.
If I, as a woman using intuition would have to guess at what I thought was more likely, I would say that after the initial assault by Broad shoulders, Liz went to the loo at the back of the yard to straighten herself out......she took out the cachous and began to walk back to the entrance......
Mr Broad shoulders decided that he had not finished the conversation and waited for her by the light of the kitchen door, just to talk....but the conversation did not go the way he would have liked it and he ended the argument once and for all.
Was Mr Broadshoulder Jack? I don't honestly know....but his actions would seem to suggest to me that he was not.
So where does that leave me? Still 60/40 in favour of her being killed by Jack, but with a lot of reservations.
Hugs to everyone
Jane
xxxx
I will await the bricks with eager anticipation......I want to build a rockery.
xxxxxxx
 |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 729
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Hi Martin,
I see your point (left side on Eddowes cutting the deep structures as well), and it's a good one. This contrasts with the fact that for Eddowes the right cartoid artery was only nicked, with only a small hole. So, the wound starts very deep but is shallow by the right hand side. With Stride, it is not as deep on the left, but also becomes shallower on the right hand side this time not touching the right cartoid (but passing over it as I understand the description).
As such, the two wounds seem similar, with the primary difference being the starting depth on Eddowes. For both Nichols and Chapman, the wound encircled the entire throat, which seems quite different from either of these.
But I agree, the wound is deeper on Eddowes than Stride, but the "path of the wound" is similar.
My question is whether or not this "path" is so common that the similarity means nothing, or is the similarity in paths indicative of the same hand at work? I do not know the answer, which is the critical bit of information before anything beyond speculation can be made concerning the link between the murders. The difference in starting depth, as you point out, would be important information to give to any expert to ensure that we do not bias their opinion through lack of information. Thanks for pointing that out.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I would still maintain that the killer of Nichols, Chapman , stride were the actions of the same man.
In the case of Nichols like it or not there are reports by more than one person of a noisy incident.
In the case of Chapman a violent attack seemed to have been the case because of Cadouchs statement of hearing No' followed by a thud against the fence.
In the case of Stride she was madhandled roughly shortly before her death.
However in the case of Eddowes the man seen with her appeared calm and placid which is in opposites to the first three victims.
It is possible that the killer of stride was her killer but i would suggest that she met him in the square either following in on her from behind or lurking in the darkness near the corner.
Evidence suggests that Eddowes was not a streetwalker in the actual sense and I would suggest that the man seen with her by Lawande was no more than a drunken sailor trying his luck and when it became obvious that Eddowes was reluctant made his way off. leaving her to sidestep his attentions by cutting through the square.
Of course my opinion only.
Regards Richard. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 416
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Jane,
The reservations about Stride is certainly understandable. Yet perhaps the most striking indication that this was Jack is the drawn up legs. As far as I know this is not a common occurrence in simple slash-throat murders. It screams Jack!
It is just as if he positioned the body as he used to, but then stopped. Knowing that Diemschutz arrived very shortly after the murder ties in very neatly with this.
And yet, it was a "strange" choice of place for a murder. I agree.
But there are more than one indication as I see it that the killer actually knew something about the place. It would be unlikely that anyone would come out the yard door at that hour. The regular program that night was over, and the few people staying was engaged in singing and jollies. This was something that happened regularly.
Only when the singing stopped, would it be likely that anyone would leave. Earlier there would be much more people present, and people would use that door at unpredictable intervals.
If it was to happen, it was the best hour...barring waiting until much later.
And it is not as if the Yard was such a possible trap at all. There was a stable. And there was a strangely bolted loft door there. Bolted on the inside.
One must assume there was a way out of that loft, unless we adopt the idea of a supernatural phenomena. Someone, and someone unknown, I should add, must have bolted that door at some time.
I can't quite get rid of the idea that there are more to this entire incident than what meets the eye.
Add to this the anti-Jewish theme.
And I'm not sure what we got... But I think Jacky might have been pretty radical. If you see what I mean.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 599
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
HI Helge.
I had actually never heard about the locked loft door before, which is interesting.....where did you find that out from? It would make at least some sense that he had a known escape route from the yard........
The only reason I think that the door would have been used a great deal during the entire evening is that the loos were in the yard, and unless they had a bucket inside to relieve themselves, I suspect a good few of those gentlemen would have needed to take a leak, either in the yard or if they could get that far in the loos at the back of the yard. I just can't imagine them holding themselves for that long........
The other thing that worries me is that unless he did have an organised escape route out of the yard, he would have been trapped from two possible sources......the yard entrance and the side door. I then have to ask, if he knew the yard very well and had an escape route planned through the stable, why not attack Liz where he knew it was safe.
I have always believed that his prime motivation for killing was the mutilation and not the actual killing, so unless Liz was unplanned.....possible.......I feel uncomfortable with the fact that he picked just about the worst spot imaginable to kill her.
The fact that he killed her where he did might suggest that he didn't know the yard very well and just got caught on the hop.
As you say though, I do feel that there is far more to it than meets the eye, a niggle that keeps surfacing and forcing me to think that we are missing something major. This is true, whether her killer was Jack or not.
I personally think that Liz was on a date that night and I might even wonder if she was waiting for someone that had gone into the club after the meeting for some reason. I can't honestly see much reason for her waiting outside the club for any length of time on her own. I do get the feeling though she was waiting for someone or something. I am certain she was not soliciting.
The fact that she worked for Jews might also mean something, but goodness knows what. I think we could go on speculating for eternity.......but you never know, something might surface that fills in a missing piece.......
Love to know more about that bolted loft door though.
Love
Jane
xxxx |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 417
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Jane,
Good points, as always.
I'm just playing with ideas here, as I'm sure you understand.
But then I think we do need a major new idea to actually get anywhere.
If Jack wanted Stride to be found outside a "Jewish" doorstep and the GSG outside another "Jewish" doorstep... (and actually AP once made me aware that Mitre Square also had Jewish connotations...another coincidence?)
Yes, all this is speculation.
Maybe his plan was to get her into the stable? Maybe it did not work? Maybe something made him think he needed to kill her quite suddenly or loose the opportunity? (a potential disturbance like a cart down the road?)
Point is we can't be certain what really happened. So I'm not excluding anything.
Except maybe a royal conspiracy and a painter with magical powers to fly between England and France, haha..
The thing about the loft is from the inquest, and related by Detective-inspector Edmund Reid.
"The door of a loft was found locked on the inside, and it was forced. The loft was searched, but no trace of the murderer could be found"
This is pretty much all we know. And it seems unlikely (though somewhat inexplicable) that it was followed up by the police at the time. But it is also obvious that it was considered possible that the murderer might have been there. Also, since the door was in fact bolted from the inside, we may assume another exit (probably through a window) existed.
This last observation has nothing to do with any killer, but is a necessity because of the fact that someone must have locked the door and escaped from the loft anyway, as doors are not in the habit of locking themselves
It seems reasonable to me that a possible escape route would lead to one of two other yards actually behind Dutfields yard, leading to Fairclough Street and Back Church Lane respectively. Possibly an escape might even be possible through Batty's Gardens.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
Why on earth would Jack choose to attack a victim right next to an open kitchen door, with light coming from it?
This same door being the main way in and out of a busy club.......
But we know that Stride's killer did just that, whoever he was. And unless he had been living in a vacuum, he would know what would happen if he had been caught red-handed, slitting her throat ripper-style, with a sharp knife. In those circumstances, he may just as well have been Jack, whether or not he was.
And I don't see why Jack isn't allowed to have an 'off' day, or even a silly five minutes where he acts foolishly, maybe due to the influence of recently taken alcohol. This was, after all, the earliest murder of the five, time-wise, which means he could have sobered up a bit and regained total control by the time of night that he attacked the others. A botched job on Stride could have concentrated the mind too.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I have a question for anyone about knives.
Would Jack have needed to sharpen his knife between each kill? I know there is some controversy over whether the same knife could have been used for both Stride and Eddowes. But if for the sake of argument Jack did kill Stride and then wanted to use the same knife again on Eddowes, would it have been too blunt as it was?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 25, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
G'day,
Just a quick comment after reading these last posts: Wasn't it the back entrance/exit to the club? and hadn't singing began inside the club? Perhaps that was an indication that they had a few private minutes. Another thought is that perhaps Stride HAD to die. Maybe she knew or saw something. MAYBE.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
G'day,
I just read a past post of Helge's that offered the same suggestion that the singing inside the club may have been an indication that no one would use that exit for a while. Sorry Helge I wasn't trying to steel your fame and I agree!
LEANNE |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 40
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:19 am: |
|
Hello Caroline
Would Jack have needed to sharpen his knife between each kill? I know there is some controversy over whether the same knife could have been used for both Stride and Eddowes. But if for the sake of argument Jack did kill Stride and then wanted to use the same knife again on Eddowes, would it have been too blunt as it was?
No.Butchers kept a sharpening steel handy because their knives came into contact with bone a lot, which takes the edge off, but as a rule they were only sharpened once a week (by grinding)
Your post does however bring up a very interesting point Caroline.
In a couple of the victims it appears that he had two attempts on the throat, contrary to popular belief even a well honed boning knife does not cut through cartilage(such as the windpipe) easily, does this actually suggest a knife that was less sharp,or even a different blade altogether?
And I don't see why Jack isn't allowed to have an 'off' day, or even a silly five minutes where he acts foolishly, maybe due to the influence of recently taken alcohol.
*grins* I agree,to be honest I've never been a fan of the all singing all dancing Jack, I think he had an 'off day' every time he stepped out of his front door.The aura of mystique that was dropped over Jack at the time still survives to this day, but since 1888 murderers have killed many more than Jack ever did, and nobody ever saw a thing.
Good, thought provoking, post Caroline
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 600
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I have to say, that the only way I can reconcile Jack being Liz's killer is if he was having a very bad day..........which is why I still come down in favour somewhat of her being a victim of his.
I think that if Jack did kill her then he did not intend to mutilate her, but had to silence her for some other reason.
There is actually a little recess in the wall by the kitchen door and an ideal place for someone to hide to attack someone from behind as they walk back to the entrance. Looking at the position of Liz's body I would say it was almost certain that was the exact spot they were both standing on when she was killed.
This would also account for the position of her legs, which is in fact the natural position for them to fall into if she was attacked from behind and then lowered to the ground for her throat to be cut. (Sorry Baron)
If as you say, Liz had maybe seen too much or was able to identify him as Jack.....then he would obviously have needed to silence her. That would explain more or less everything that disturbs me about the whole scenario, including the differences in throat wound. Your point about him not being prepared as it was earlier than his usual kill time is very valid.
I think if that is the case, then the dangers of someone coming in or out of the club are negated anyway. It only takes seconds to cut a throat if there is no intention to mutilate afterwards.
Steves point about him having an off day every time he stepped out of the door made me smile, because he is almost certainly right. We have demonized Jack to the point of lunacy, and it probably was just a case of him being very lucky a lot of the time.
I think that the two cuts to the throat might have been a way of minimizing arterial spray, a smaller cut first to let some blood out and then the major death stroke. Mind you it was only on the first two of his victims......trial and error?
Jane
xxxx |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 419
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Leanne,
No offence taken. Rather a comfort that other people may think as I do...
A point to ponder is that for Jack to know about what was going on in the Club, he had to know that the singing and stuff was a routine occurrence to begin with...
If it was not Jack, whoever it was needed to have some familiarity with the going-on's in the club anyway to feel safe. But why should not that somebody be Jack?
The "inside" possibility is far from certain, but an intriguing feasibility IMO.
Those still left in the club had a routine of ending the night with some wholesome singing. Unlike our Jacky Boy. He had other interests. But anyone unfamiliar with the routines and premises might actually find the yard seemingly more dangerous than the open streets.
It is unlikely that any prostitute would choose to do her job right by the open gate or indeed the door, and in the more secluded area of the Yard, anyone exiting from the club would block the exit through the gates!
So did the killer know any of this? Or did he simply not care? Or was he oblivious to the danger because of his state of mind, alcohol or drugs?
In which case, why did he not kill Stride on the street anyway?
Riddle me this. Riddle me that...
One proven fact: The correct name of the Club was the International Working Men's Educational Club. This is also revealed at the inquest.
Caz,
I'm pretty sure a knife would not need to be sharpened after being used to cut "only" one throat. The cut on Stride did not cut to the bone. Certainly a good quality knife would still be good for another job. He may have wanted to sharpen it as part of a ritual or fetish. But that would be speculation.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
