|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 19
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:29 pm: |       |
I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that there were "thousands" of people "around the corners." First of all, this is 1888 we're talking about. Second, all of the crimes were committed either very late at night or very early in the morning. Even given the large transient population I seriously doubt that here were more than a few dozen people at most out on the streets of Whitechapel at that hour. Granted, there were the policemen walking their beats, and of course men like Cross and Paul, on their way to work, but hasn't it been a fairly common refrain that these men, and the others who happened to be on the street prior to one of the Ripper's crimes, that they saw no one else on the street at that time? If there were in fact "thousands" of people out and about, don't you expect that more than a handful of people (if that) would have seen the Ripper or come upon one of the bodies? Furthermore, the apparent blitz-style attacks didn't leave much room for any of the women to cry out or draw much attention to themselves. And let's face it: It wouldn't have taken much charm to get one of the Whitechapel prostitutes to go with you. These were desperate women who would have approached and/or gone with just about anyone who promised them a few shillings or a loaf of stale bread, to paraphrase Jack London. The mutilations also seem to indicate that this wasn't someone with a lot of sexual experience.
As to the matter of Schwartz, his statement does seem to indicate that the entire situation frightened him, which is why he ran away instead of just casually going about his business. Furthermore, I haven't read anything about him wetting himself, although perhaps I don't have access to the materials in your possession, Saddam.
For all we know Pipe Man could have been the perpetrator, but I haven't seen any evidence that precludes the involvement of a fourth man, either. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 529
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 5:29 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I think the Assistant Commissioner has a point here. Regardless of levels of drunkedness, the suprise effect in Stride's case (due to the lack of struggle) and the efficiency related to the murder doesn't indicate a killer intoxicated by alcohol, in my mind. And neither does it in the canonical Ripper murders. Yes it's true that "alcohol is a way of inticing bravery, regardless of risk" but it also makes you sloppy and unfocused. But that's just my opinion (please notice that this is not based on own experiences...).
-----------------------
Thank you, Robert. 
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 110
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 6:48 pm: | |
Glenn, Saddam and all
Yes. I can introduce a fourth man onto the scene and fit all of the known evidence. James Brown saw Stride talking to a man next to the board school and the time reported, 12.45 is the same time as the Schwartz sighting. Obviously the two events cannot have happened at exactly the same time but we can also assume that they were not far apart in minutes. There is no evidence that this man was either one of the two men seen by Schwartz, ipso facto, possible fourth man.
(Sorry, just trying to be a clever clogs  ).
There is something else which has been troubling me about Schwartz for a few days. According to his statement the other man did not follow him so far as the railway arch. But also, according to his statement, he lived in Ellen Street. Now I have looked at several contemporary maps and no matter how often I look at them I cannot find a railway arch you would need to pass under to go from Berner Street to Ellen Street. Surely I am not the first person to notice this. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 150
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 8:55 pm: | |
Glenn, I agree. These murders were comitted in areas where the killer risked being discovered as it was. Had he been drinking before hand, it is extremely unlikely he would have been able to complete the crimes and escape without detection...
A "drink" is considered to be 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits. Each of these drinks contains roughly the same amount of absolute alcohol--approximately 0.5 ounce or 12 grams (3).
Within 1 hour of the first drink:
1 - 2 drinks - BAC (approx) 0.055 - Beginning Impairment. Mild to Moderate Euphoria. Decreased Inhibitions and Attention.
3 - 4 drinks - BAC (approx) 0.072 -Impaired perception, balance. Drowsiness.
5 - 6 drinks - BAC (approx) 0.100 - Legally intoxicated in the USA - Confusion, mild Disorientation, speech becomes slightly slurred.
7 - 8 drinks - BAC (approx) XXX couldn't find the front door of the pub without assistance at this point...
Alcohol affects women differently than men. Women become more impaired than men do after drinking the same amount of alcohol, even when differences in body weight are taken into account. This is because women's bodies have less water than men's bodies. Because alcohol mixes with body water, a given amount of alcohol becomes more highly concentrated in a woman's body than in a man's. In other words, it would be like dropping the same amount of alcohol into a much smaller pail of water. That is why the recommended drinking limit for women is lower than for men.
In addition, chronic alcohol abuse takes a heavier physical toll on women than on men. Alcohol dependence and related medical problems, such as brain, heart, and liver damage, progress more rapidly in women than in men.
REF:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service * National Institutes of Health
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 531
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 10:32 pm: | |
Alan! Interesting point about the arch and his home location. It has never crossed my mind. I do think it's strange however, if the police of the time wouldn't have checked this out. Curious nevertheless...
All good information, Shannon. Thank you for that. I for my part have never crossed the first stage, and now when I see what happens further down, I'm glad! Although sometimes I wonder...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 3:27 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
I have never realized every time I sink a six pack, that I become confused, I feel fine, [ there is no hope for me]
Seriously mild to moderate euphoria, after two drinks, mayby this explains Mr Barnetts, speech impediments, he liked a drink or two, or three?.
Richard. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 8:25 am: | |
Saddam--Your post is imaginative, I'll give you that much.
"1. While Schwartz did walk to the opposite side of Berner Street, clearly when he then ran he was not running from the Pipe man."
Please compare with Swanson's report:
"Swartz walked away [ie., from the attack on Stride] but finding that he was followed by the second man he ran as far as the railway arch but the man did not follow so far."} ---Swanson to the Home Office, 19 Oct. 1888.
Seems fairly clear-cut, old chap. Swanson is implying that Schwartz ran from the second-man. The thought is there; we know this with certainty, because Abberline, too, discusses the possibility, though admits there is doubt. Your interpretation is just that..an interpretation. You're welcome to it, but to say it's in the case evidence isn't strictly true. RP |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 6:25 pm: | |
1.The "Star" reporter wrote that Schwartz "fled incontinently" when he discovered the Pipe man following him. This implies he was "loading his laundry" as he ran.
2. London was the most populated city in the world in 1888. It was chock full of people, and Whitechapel was its most populous part. People lived on top of one another like bees in a hive, sometimes 10 to a room. Additionally, the city never slept. People worked round the clock, and were heading home or to work at all hours. There was no refrigeration, so one had to hit the streets to shop for every meal. Almost no one in Whitechapel used public transportation--pedestrians predominated. So surely there were indeed thousands of people around every corner of the crime scenes.
3. Fourth man at the Berner Street crime scene? Sure, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to offer you. So what if it is hard to explain the cachous in Liz' hand without a fourth man? What are we, dumbells? We can figure the problem out. Anyone who claims there was a fourth man, or who thinks the Pipe man ran back to kill Liz later, wants the bridge.
4. I agree with Mr. Nunweek on the alcohol. It may well have been that all the murders were like side dishes, with the main course being alcohol. I think he may have had one or two drinks beforehand, then after murdering and mutilating got himself ripping drunk.
Saddam |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:36 am: | |
Glen,I really do think you know what I mean.I have never said we should have an absolute belief in what Schwartz said,in fact in previous posts I have stated a disbelief of his being able to give such detailed descriptions of the two men he claims to have seen.
When two persons such as Scwhartz and Brown come forward,and there is only their individual words to rely on,and no physical evidence to back up those words,then what is left is a belief that they are at least telling some truths.
I believe that Schwartz followed a man he believed drunk along Berner Street.That this man placed a hand on Strides shoulder as he met her outside Duffields yard,and that she fell to the ground.
I believe that Schwartz saw a second man at the scene,and that Schwartz left at that time.
I also believe that Brown saw a man and a woman in close proximity in Fairclough street.
I cannot believe that a fourth man was present,because no one comes forward and says so.
Those are my beliefs.It is possible that SChwartz and Brown were lying,and that any number of men could have been in that vicinity,but if we are to accept unfounded possibilities,then the list is endless,and there would be no purpose in writing on these boards.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 534
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:24 am: | |
I see what you mean, Harry, but my point is that too many have had an uncritical approach to Schwartz' testimony, considering its vast importance regarding what happened to Elisabeth Stride and the mysterious and sometimes peculiar circumstances that it suggests.
You are very welcome to believe what Schwartz is saying, but I prefer to take him with a pinch of salt. He doesen't necessarily have to be a liar, he can be just as well be exaggerating or mistaken on enough points to throw the whole investigation around; on the other hand, we also know that there are persons who wants to indulge themselves in police investigations for different reasons - Matthew Packer is such an example - and this we must aways consider, when a statement can't be verified. Anyway, this we will never know, since his testimony cant be verified and we completely lack a witness statement describing what happened AFTER the "assaulting man" incident.
Regarding those critical minutes we are totally omitted to guess-making an unfounded speculations either way, so therefore I don't see any reason to automatically consider Scwartz' testimonies as facts to rely that deeply on, just becuase we don't have any alternatives.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 10:48 am: | |
Hi All,
Alan, in regards to your question about the railway arch, some years ago I did look at a fairly detailed period map, trying to locate a railway arch in the area. I was trying to get a sense of just how far Schwartz ran, how far Pipeman followed, etc.
It turns out, there was a railway arch some way further south along Berner Street, in the vicinity of Cable and Royal Mint streets. This is well past Ellen Street, but if Schwartz had continued to flee south along Berner Street, it had to be the one to which he referred - there was no other in the immediate area.
The scale of that map implied the total distance between the IWEC and the railway arch was on the order of only a few hundred yards. If Pipeman were an accomplice of Stride's attacker, as some have suggested, and he was chasing Schwartz because he knew Schwartz had witnessed the assault and could possibly identify them to the police, then he seems to have abandoned the chase after a fairly short distance.
As to Schwartz residing in Ellen Street, there was a report that his wife had gone out that morning in search of new lodgings. So, he may not have been aware that his new lodgings were in Ellen Street. Alternatively, if he was aware, he may not have wanted to lead his pursuer directly back to his place of residence. In any event, it seems clear that Schwartz fled *past* Ellen Street, not to it.
Hope this helps,
Jim |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
First of all, Saddam, I think you're giving the Star report a little too much credence. Given its wide divergence from the police report, I'm inclined to go with Abberline and not with a jouurnalist anxious to make the front page.
Secondly, you've confused the word "incontinently" with the condition "incontinence." According the American Heritage Dictionary (and you can check with the OED if you like, but the meaning won't have changed), the word "incontinently" has several meanings: 1) "Not restrained; uncontrolled: incontinent rage"; 2) "Lacking normal voluntary control of excretory functions"; 3) "Lacking sexual restraint; unchaste." So as you can see, I think it's pretty clear that the reporter meant Schwartz was running away in a wild, unrestrained manner, not that he had wet his pants. I think Abberline, not to mention Swanson, probably would have included such a detail in their reports. They had no problem describing genital mutiliations, so I don't a little pee would have made them squeamish (these are cops, remember?).
The population of London's East End in 1888 was about 900,000. By comparison, the population of the island of Manhattan was a little over a million in 1891. In fact, with regard to the "Number of Persons to a Dwelling," according to data compiled by Jacob Riis for his landmark work The Other Half Lives, London (in 1881, at least) is outpaced not only by Manhattan, but also by the relatively smaller borough of Brooklyn as well as the city of Boston.
This is all neither here nor there, of course, because as Martin Fido says in The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, "Miller's Court, with its harlots and visitants, behaved like a street that never sleeps, but actual passers-by only came through every half hour or so after midnight. And he [the Ripper] was never at any time penned in by potential observers, though Hanbury Street and Dutfield's Yard were very risky sites for a quick getaway and might have proved traps." Furthermore, we must also remember that even in Hanbury Street, perhaps the most densely populated of the Ripper's murder sites, only one person (Albert Cadoche) is known to have even heard anything. This fact also speaks volumes about the Ripper's approach toward his victims--clearly, he was able to attack with such swiftness and speed only one (and possibly two) had time enough to even cry out.
I don't know one way or another about a fourth man, but your blanket dismissal (not to mention the unnecessary and unwarranted sarcasm) seems a little short-sighted. Although I may have my own ideas about the case, I prefer to argue the merits of someone else's theory, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand.
Finally, as far as the alcohol goes, you might do well to read in detail the table Shannon so generously provided on the relative effects of different levels of alcohol consumption. A drink or two at the pub might have provided Jack with some liquid courage, but he clearly wasn't falling down drunk. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 152
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 12:49 pm: | |
Saddam, the term "fled incontinently" in Victorian English just means ran off scared to death. Bit of a flair for the dramatic in the creative writing by the author... Erin is correct, better to go with the police report and stick to the facts than follow someone who has a bit of artistic license and uses it to sell papers...
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 2:40 pm: | |
Saddam, here's an example from "The Judge's House" by Bram Stoker :
'"And perhaps, sir, as the room is big and draughty it might be well to have one of those big screens put round your bed at night - though, truth to tell, I would die myself if I were to be so shut in with all kinds of - of 'things,' that put their heads round the sides, or over the top, and look on me!" The image which she had called up was too much for her nerves, and she fled incontinently.'
Robert |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 4:23 pm: | |
The problem with all the above critiques, IMHO, is that they are made without reference to my case solution taken as a whole, which I haven't provided yet. You pick apart what I say, but a criticism should be based on those parts of a theory that are most important to it. Since nobody here knows what my theory is, they just go after whatever seems to be wrong with what I say. However, it doesn't really matter to my theory if Schwartz actually wet his pants or not, or if there were 1,000 or perhaps 800 or 200 people round the corners of the crime scenes. I can assure you that I do not need any material from the "Star" report in contradiction of Swanson.
As far as my "blanket dismissal of someone else's theory" (Brooklyn Bridge) goes, I am going to stand fast. Anybody anywhere who claims a fourth man waltzed up and murdered Stride just after Schwartz and the Pipe man left is talking totally through his hat. No eyewitness reports support this contention. Sure you can make this contention, but if you do you have to offer heavy architecture to make the point reasonably estimable. You have to go ahead and for example say that Fred Derf committed the murders and prove that, and then show us that Mr. Derf lived next door to the IWEC and was dressed up like Leon Goldstein to fool Mrs. Mortimer that night. See what I mean? You can't assert something nobody saw unless you give a totalist theory that solves the case. Merely postulating a fourth man is not a serious theory, and doesn't deserve serious consideration in itself.
Saddam
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 115
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 5:36 pm: | |
The point is that there are four possibilities here.
1. Schwartz was not telling the truth
2. The man Schwartz saw attacking Stride was not her killer
3. Either Schwartz or Diemschutz got their timing wrong
4. Diemschutz did not disturb the Ripper and he never intended to mutilate Stride.
The reason why one of these four statements has to be true is the time gap of fifteen minutes between what Schwartz saw and when Diemschutz said he entered the yard. It is not remotely reasonable to suppose that the Ripper was unable to mutilate Liz Stride given a fifteen minute time span when he was able to carry out extensive mutilations on Kate Eddowes less than an hour later in under ten. Therefore, as I say, either he was not disturbed, the time span was not fifteen minutes, or Schwartz's man was not the killer (or he never saw what he said he did). And the point here is that even though one of these contentions has absolutely got to be true, no eyewitness reports support any of them.
As I have said many before in reply to these posts, that's why we speculate! |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 148
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 6:12 pm: | |
Hi Sadam,
Let me get this straight. You feel the problem with people disagreeing with your argument is because they do not consider your entire theory as a whole. Well, that's fair enough.
But then you admit you've not made that "entire whole" available. So how are people supposed to consider this "unavailable whole" when they respond?
Are you suggesting that people should not critise your arguments until they understand your, as yet unpresented theory, as a whole? Doesn't that mean the real problem is the fact you've not presented your theory as a whole for people to use when considering your arguments?
Otherwise, your contention seems to suggest that everyone should just agree with everything you say, even if they see potential problems with your arguements. Wouldn't this just be telling everyone to simply not reply to your posts except with "yes Sadam, that's nice"?
- Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 6:57 pm: | |
Saddam, there are two problems concerning the cachous :
1. (Applies to any suspect) what kind of attack would leave her still clutching them?
2. (Applies only to your tipsy man) how come she was holding them in the first place?
Your ultra-triumphalist, swaggering boozy Jack idea might conceivably work - until we get to Kelly. For her murder, Jack either chose or was forced to go indoors. And he shut the door when he left. Not so daredevil there.
You may say that he just burst swaggering into her room, bold as brass. But that would mean assuming a second man came along after Hutchinson's man - something you refuse to do with Schwartz.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 545
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - 7:26 pm: | |
Saddam,
There is no "case reference" to what happened between Schwartz ran away and Liz was found murdered either, but that don't seem to be a problem to you. Since you claim that we solely should stick to available facts while speculating, why do you disregard from this?
----------------------------
Alan!
Very good points!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 2:12 am: | |
'Saddam' said:
"The problem with all the above critiques, IMHO, is that they are made without reference to my case solution taken as a whole, which I haven't provided yet. "
You've been proclaiming that you solved the case, and anyone smart could do it too, and yadda yadda yadda since, what, 1996 or so but refuse to do more than make silly hints.
It's not other people's fault that you haven't provided your own "solution" yet. In the meantime, all we can do is judge you by what you *have* said, and we can readily see how people judge that on this thread and others.
If you are so sure you are right about who the killer was, then say it already. If you won't, accept the fact that nobody will take you seriously. That's how people respond to someone who wants others to play a game of 'guess what i know' game for more than a few minutes, let alone years.
(But then several people already told you this ages ago so I don't expect any miracles.) |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
1. I understand and empathize with those who feel I'm not being fair. On the one hand I complain that you unskillfully criticize bits and pieces, but on the other I haven't made the whole thing available. This is the endemic problem I've had here. I'm not ready to release the whole theory, but still enjoy being on the boards. Please try to understand that I'm not intentionally being unfair--my participation here now is according to a scheme none of us can escape.
2. A cachous scenario I can offer is that the attack on Stride that resulted in her death occured at such speed that she didn't have time to think to throw the packet away to defend herself.
3. "Your ultra-triumphalist, swaggering boozy Jack idea might conceivably work - until we get to Kelly. For her murder, Jack either chose or was forced to go indoors. And he shut the door when he left. Not so daredevil there." >>I don't think Jack was boozy when he did the crimes. I believe he conceived most or all the murders as drinking experiences. First he'd have one or two drinks to get himself lubricated and primed-up for action, then he'd go do his murdering and mutilating. Thereupon he'd go back and have several more drinks, bringing himself into a climactic uproarious triumphant state. Perhaps he'd then lie in Itchy Park overnight with local bums. This follows the evidence: Schwartz said Broadshoulders was tipsy, not boozy-woozy. If Jack drank a little before a murder, don't you think he'd drink a lot later? I think he probably drank wine, because the Lusk kidney was preserved in that. After writing the GSG he probably poured off a little wine into a glass or jar to preserve the kidney, then simply chug-a-lugged the rest of his bottle in sheer ecstasy. >>Hutchinson has nothing to do with the solution of the case. I think the murderer knew what he was doing, and made arrangements with Mary for an indoor assignation in part to be able to mutilate more extensively. I think he and Mary might have had a drink together in a pub--perhaps the Britannia--before walking over to Miller's Court, and that he might have drank extensively after leaving there.
4. "There is no "case reference" to what happened between Schwartz ran away and Liz was found murdered either, but that don't seem to be a problem to you. Since you claim that we solely should stick to available facts while speculating, why do you disregard from this?" >>The available facts are that we don't know what happened to Liz after Schwartz left and before her body was discovered. So why do you want to add to them?
Saddam
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
The trouble with the 'holistic' approach is that it is an act of creation, disguised as a solution. The only 'whole' is the 'whole' created by the theorist. This is the trouble with history, though it's not really 'trouble' at all, it's the condition we're stuck with to some extent. Reality is fragmented, it is a creative mind that molds it into something appreciable. Or, as some would have it, 'satisfying.' And that is the key, for the holistic approach is really just the aesthetic method, akin to Stephen Knight's: the creator announces he has reached the solution when the fragments are taken and rearranged in the most brilliant and aesthetically pleasing order. This may be viewed as legitimate or not, depending on one's tastes. It's not my cup of tea, for the trouble is, what is being passed on and on as 'case evidence' are events that may or may not be connected to any 'whole.' The Lusk kidney, the message on the Wentworth Building, the Star's version of the event Schwartz witnessed in Berner Street, the quasi religious-political opinions of Robert Anderson, Lawende's description, etc.etc. ad infinitum, these may or may not concern the main plot.
Imagine being handed a dozen or so 'still frame' photographs from a movie you've never seen before. Any movie will do: Citizen Kane, Barry Lyndon, Annie Hall--it doesn't matter. Given these photos, you attempt to recreate the plot of the movie and to understand the theme, the motivation of the characters, the subtle personality of the protagonist , etc. etc. How close would anyone really get to understanding what the hell was going on?
But imagine something beyond this. Imagine someone throwing in a few 'stills' from another movie, just for a lark. Or imagine some of the stills being at very odd angles, or warped by the photographer's choice of lenses. What would be the grotesque results when the theorist attempted to give a synopsis of the plot? Is this what we are left with?
It's a rough situation. But there's a way out.
RP. By the way, for those who have seen 'Annie Hall', what you actually viewed was the sub-plot. The main plot was left on the editting room floor by Woody Allen, who originally filmed a murder-mystery.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 3:53 pm: | |
Hi Saddam
Yes, an attack executed with lightning speed might account for Stride's still clutching the cachous when dead, but why was she clutching them when alive? Schwarts's man had pushed her over. Did she still cling onto them while this happened? Or did she pick them up afterwards? Or did she only take them out afterwards? If so, why?
Re Kelly, if Jack had an assignation with Kelly, and planned to do the murder in her room, then why the apparent bungle? It looks (as far as I can see - I'm no forensic expert) as if she had time to cry out and to try and defend herself. It doesn't look as if she was strangled, either.
Robert |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 8:47 pm: | |
"...but why was she clutching them when alive?"
>>She wasn't. Cadaveric spasm only.
"...why the apparent bungle?"
>>The cry "Oh! Murder!" heard by a neighbor was not that of Kelly. Kelly did apparently defend herself briefly, sustaining some bruises. Perhaps when he began to reach up near her throat to begin strangulation she saw the plan, and put her hands up to resist.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 1:49 pm: | |
R.J.,
1. Satisfaction and logical determination are more than merely aesthetic pleasures. They are what western culture has been founded on, and we do have a culture. You can read Georg Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" to see this for yourself. I think it a reasonable methodology to make a beginning with respect to solving the Whitechapel murders. Not the Gospel in itself, but a sound beginning.
2. The holistic approach permits us to do more than simply make a whole. If we can link together many disparate objective case elements--Tabram, the GSG, the Lusk Letter, Miller's Court, and so on in a way that mutually explains everything, don't you think we've got more than just a closed circle? Haven't we finally got full closure with point-by-point agreement of subject to object as well? And wouldn't that be knowledge?
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
