|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 154
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:20 am: |       |
It really doesn't matter if you delete Packer from consideration or not, as his testimony is entirely worthless. Either you have to arbitrarily accept one of his many different accounts and descriptions as being the correct one, or else you have to take them all together and end up sounding suspiciously like Chief Clancy Wiggum on the Simpsons "Suspect is described as a..... man..... wearing.... a hat of some description." |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 636
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:56 am: | |
Exactly, Alan. Precisely my point.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
Wo hoo!! The simpsons. Now that's something we should be discussing!!
Why can't we just ignore anything said by this witness? He was obviously an attention seeker. There is no point accepting one thing he said then ignoring everything else. He is unreliable. Full stop.
Looking at all the different witness statements it makes me wonder if any of them actually saw JTR. Maybe he was never seen and we have no description of him from anyone. For all we know, he could even have been an alien who just wanted to know what the insides of the female of our species looked like. Hmmm, wonder if there have been any case throughout history of similar things happening to men. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 7:11 pm: | |
Saddam--A fair point---it's understood. How can I criticize what has yet to be revealed? I didn't mean to imply that you "accepted" the white vans and then moved outward towards a solution, but it does seem to me that you are insisting above that white vans need to be part of a theorists epistemolgical whole. Do you see what I mean? It seems to me that you're criticizing Evans for refusing to play with your toys.
I appreciate the fact that you have a 'holistic' approach to the case; if you can pull it off, I'll send you a bottle of your favorite Scotch. But I find such talk a bit worrisome. This isn't a parlour game where everyone has to make up a funny story using an elephant, a Bishop, a unicycle, and three dozen eggs. In other words, you can't criticize Theorist X for leaving out the Bishop. If theorist X can overwhelmingly prove a case against Suspect Y, he doesn't need to "include the Bishop." All specific theories and theorists aside, if Joe Blow can prove a red-haired dwarf killed Kate Eddowes, we have to have the mental capacity to dismiss Joseph Lawende's description and realize the murderer wasn't tall enough to write the Goulston Street message. That's all I really meant.
RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on November 06, 2003) |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 8:07 pm: | |
RJ,
Wow, another suspect! Can't wait for the "red-haired dwarf" thread to open. Did he just do Eddowes or the Pinchin Street torso job as well? Oops, you didn't specify a sex for the dwarf so I guess the JilltheR theorists are in the game as well. And he/she being "vertically challenged" probably created a certain amount of bitterness that could/could not lead to several psychotic behavorial indicators. I am, however, a little (sorry -- bad word choice) unsure how well red hair and slight stature correlate with standard profiling data. Of course, before we go too far, we need to determine if he/she has a decent alibi -- and if he/she does then that is simply more proof of guilt. Moreover, should this henna-haired munchkin actually been alive at the time and residing within 1,000 furlongs of Whitechapel -- even if lacking the surgical and anatomical skills to put a bandaid on a butt -- well, case closed.
Brilliant RJ, brilliant. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 8:35 pm: | |
Dear Mr. Souden---
I'm not plumping for the red-haired dwarf, the odds are fairly long. But if I find Annie Chapman's rings on his toes, and half a kidney with Bright's disease in his entrails, I won't care much what John Douglas, Sir Robert Anderson, and the unknown Graffito artist have to say about the matter. Get my drift? Maybe it will come to you, by and by. RP |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 640
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 8:37 pm: | |
Saddam,
We are not here to talk about Tumblety. I just wanted to point out that Stewart, who I count among those I respect the most, would certainly know his police work more than any of us, thanks to many years of experience. And I can assure you, also from my own contacts in the Swedish police force, that witness descriptions indeed are problematic, and if they are all one have to lean on - one really gets into trouble.
"If witness A says he heard "quack quack quack" and witness B says he found a feather, then they corroborate and we have a duck."
What in Earth do you mean, David? As I said earlier, I believe Lawende and Elisabeth Long is the most reliable witnesses, but their descriptions don't really corroborate with each other that much.
"Quack quack quack" indeed, Saddam. Holistic schmolistic.
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 231
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 9:58 pm: | |
Glen: ""If witness A says he heard "quack quack quack" and witness B says he found a feather, then they corroborate and we have a duck."
You still need an expert to tell you if the feather is from a duck before you can be certain of what the men saw and found...
As for a credible witness, everyone who was there saw something. Problem is, we dont all see the same thing, or recall in full detail what we did see. When all the witness statements are collected by the officer, he has to use his intuition to determine which part of the information is the most reliable. That only comes from experience.
Same applies here on the boards. Each of us uses our intiution to determine which of the many statements are reliable. Some will agree, some will disagree, some will see the same evidence and read it differently.
We are doing the same thing the PCs did in 1888, sifting through all the statements and trying to determine which are accurate, and which are made up. The advantage we have is 115 years of advances in forensics. That advantage is what allows us to exclude certain parts of the witness statements.
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 157
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 8:28 am: | |
This does seem to be one of the few areas where I would agree with Saddam, there does have to be a holistic approach to a degree. You cannot just dismiss evidence out of hand, in any given theory you have to study every item of evidence and if you choose to disregard it you have to have a good reason to do so which doesn't simply consist of "it doesn't fit the theory". If you do that then you follow where the likes of Cornball and Edwards have gone. If a valid item of evidence does not fit the theory, and you have no valid reason for disregarding it, then you have to accept that the theory is flawed.
I dismiss Packer simply because he made many statements which contradicted each other and therefore you cannot rely on any individual one of those statements. However I still find him important to the investigation as a whole, as he is an example of the way some people at the time were reacting to the crimes, and that is something that you have to take into account. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 644
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 9:26 am: | |
Alan and Shannon,
Nonono, you are misinterpreting me completely. Once again, I don't dismiss witness statements completely, I have pointed that out a million times. And when I say witness descriptions, - it is not the same thing as witness statements. But sometimes many here tends to rely too much upon them, and in my experience witness descriptions of an offender is very much based on personal preferences and therefore may result in a hundred different descriptions of the same man. This is a fact that - when studying my own cases - have made me tear my hair off in desperation a number of times, not to mention the police. People's ability to describe a person accurate is not that good and for the most part such statements are useless, if you don't have anything else to go on. (Note the last sentence!!!)
As far as statements are concerned, they are more important, but I dismiss a few of them, because they can't be verified or because they are made by an individual who is not trustworthy. Packer is one of them, for the very same reasons Alan pointed out. But I disagree that that in any way should make him important in other ways; in an ordinary police investigation there is no time to lay energy on that kind of persons, once they are evaluated and checked up on. And I think all that Packer does, is to destroy the investigation. He has nothing to contribute to it whatsoever, and I prefer to put Schwartz into that very same category as well as far as the Liz murder is concerned, where he has been given too much credit and people just seem to take his words for granted, considering its consequenses for the case.
But of course there are witness statements that are valuable to the investigation as a whole. But witness descriptions I prefer to take with a pinch of salt.
And Shannon, I believe that "Qack quack quack" line was a quote from Saddam, not me.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 07, 2003)
(Message edited by Glenna on November 07, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 10:35 am: | |
Alan--Hi. Where I disagree with you (and possibly Saddam) is on theoretical grounds. You're assuming in advance that all extant evidence must be as flimsy as the symbolism Patricia Cornwell sees in Walter Sickert's paintings. You then fall back on the "case evidence" thinking your footing is on solid turf.
I'm not saying anything radical here. This isnt rocket science; it's common sense. We are talking about an unsolved series of crimes. Have you heard about the Trailside Murders (in Northern Calif, USA)? The DC sniper case? One could name a hundred others. The solution wasn't in the early case evidence. ALL the early information was more or less bogus.
In other words, the 'case evidence' isn't Holy writ. It must be valued, but I hold none of it in particularly high esteem. The solution is likely to be five feet to the left or the right of what we are seeing.
An example. In the orthodox view of things, Jospeh Lawende is probably the best witness. Many here place burnt offerings at his shrine. But Lawende did not go to the police. He saw no crime being committed. In fact, he was found during a house to house search. It was discovered that he had been near Mitre Square (with two other men) shortly before the body of Kate Eddowes was found. Lawende then retraced his movements, the timing of his movements, and came up with a description of what he remembered seeing outside of Church Passage. The analogy here is the police rapping on your door Tuesday morning and saying "Mr. X, the records indicate that you withdrew some cash from the Royal Bank at 4:40 yesterday. At 4:45 the Bank was robbed, do you remember seeing anyone loitering on the sidewalk?" At 4:41 the previous day you had no idea a crime was going to be committed. How good of a witness are you, really? You have a vague recollection of a sailor loitering in the alley...or wait.. was that later on, up Duke Street? Meanwhile, there's two other alleys leading to the Royal bank.
I'm not plumping here for any particular theory, nor am I saying that any theorist over the past 115 has proven the case on the strength of the evidence. I'm merely saying that theoretically what many are calling the "case evidence" might well be noticeably lacking from the (dare I say it?) solution. This is not Cornwall. It is the voice of reason.
All the best, RP
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 645
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 07, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
I totally agree, RJ. Good points.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
"You still need an expert to tell you if the feather is from a duck before you can be certain of what the men saw and found..."
>>I see this as a rejection of logical determination in favor of science. When I say the QQQ plus the feather means a duck, what I'm doing is utilizing logical opposition. What we have is a logical form, the QQQ on one side and the feather on the other. The feather without the QQQ would have to be analyzed by an ornithologist or a DNA biologist to identify species. But I don't think we'd need this if we have the QQQ with the feather, because the duck is the only bird that goes QQQ and it has feathers. It would seem we've got both sides of an opposition that leads to a reasonable conclusion. I think we've got too much science in the case, that we rely on it and believe in it too much. There just isn't enough forensic material available any more, a century down the line, despite what Pat Cornwell wants us to believe. If science could solve the case, why hasn't it done so already? This is why, I think, we need logic.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:18 pm: | |
"It seems to me that you're criticizing Evans for refusing to play with your toys."
>>Well, if my fire engine solves the case, then Stewart ought to have played with it instead of his electric train, don't you think?
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 11:56 pm: | |
I picked up a quotation from the Voice of America website, which had a feature on the Voyager space probes. It expresses the nature of my thesis and method pretty well, I think, so I have set it down here. This is from a scientist discussing explanations of phenomena in deep space:
"I guess it's this old zen saying that what you observe is based on your experience, and what you experience is based on your observations. So, if you expect to see something sometimes, you can make data fit that picture."
This is my idea on the case, too. What you have to do is decide what you are looking for. Zen Bhuddism.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 12:07 am: | |
What RJ is saying above is that the case cannot be solved, period. If it is not possible to solve it on the evidence we have, if we have to go to the left or the right of the case evidence we have, then that means adding new case evidence. But the proposition that we are ever going to get any credible, significant new case evidence is based on--what? Finding Abberline's long lost diary? A written confession? Descendants of the two Jews in the Orange Market with a story to tell? Folks, let's grow up for once before we have to die. We aren't going to get it. There is no new case evidence forthcoming to bail us out. The cavalry isn't going to come over the hill. We have to do something with the evidence we have, that's all there is to it, or else we can't solve the case.
I propose that we cast the evidence into any number of new dimensions as gedanken experiments. When we get a dimension that solves the case, then the case is solved. We can start out picking any dimension we want, and we'll get better and better at chosing with experience. We simply discard any dimension that fails to reconcile all the case evidence under a determinate Ripper.
The Whitechapel murders should be studied as an example of--precisely what? What could be more straightforward?
Saddam |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:30 am: | |
I have one question which may seem stupid but I need to ask it anyway. If there are so many questions about whether or not Liz was killed by JTR, then why was she announced to be one of the canonical vitims? All the possible victims were sorted through and these five were picked out as the ones he certainly killed. I happen to believe that Liz was killed by JTR but so many people disagree. I just thought it was strange that she is listed as one of canonical five. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 665
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I find it most likely for her to be a Ripper victim as well, although I can't prove it. I really don't think it is unusal that there is some certainty regarding the number of canonical Ripper victims; there were discussions already back then concerning some, and more recent studies has then further questioned earlier assumptions. I believe it's only natural for that to happen, since we can now look at the events through a rear-view mirror.
Liz Stride has traditionally been considered as a Ripper victim; the theory, that already the contemporay police force and several media put forward and practically took for granted, is taht the murderer was interrupted and then, some 40--45 minutes later, in pure frustration had to find another victim and killed Kate Eddowes. Then this scenario became for many years almost an established "fact". I -- from my own point of view -- believe they were right, but I don't think it's strange that this has been questioned more fiercly in later years, especially as there are some circumstances regarding the Liz murder that differs her from the other victims. I don't agree with it, but it is quite understandable and justified, I think.
However, since she for a long time has been quite established as "canonical", it takes quite a lot of evidence or certain facts to put her of that list. And so far I don't think there really is no proof for one or the other.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 151
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hi Sarah, Glenn
I'm one one of those who believe Elizabeth Stride was killed by someone other than Jack, there are certain things about her murder that point that way to me, but considering the police at the time believed her to be a victim of Jack (and they had a lot more information to hand then we have now) I can't dismiss her completely.
All the best
Rob |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 239
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
Sarah, the only reason Liz was considered a victim of Jack, is that she had her throat cut, and died on the same night as Kate. Other than that, there is nothing to link her to the others, and (IMHO) had her murder happened at any other time it more than likely would not have been listed as a true Ripper victim...
Shannon |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:33 pm: | |
Waltz while you may, Thales. The dance will be over soon. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1218
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 4:31 am: | |
Hi Sarah
I think that's a good point. The police had all the evidence, and they ended up deciding that Liz was a JTR victim.
They would surely have checked out Kidney's alibi, and asked Schwartz to have a look at him.
I think Liz was a JTR victim, but on the other hand I wouldn't want to use anything derived from the Stride murder as a vital ingredient of a JTR theory. It's just too iffy.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 876
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
The biggest reason that police thought Liz was a victim of Jack, is the best one! There was no one else slicing the throat of prostitutes in such a small area of London!
His MO could easily have changed, if the circumstances were different. I think the odds of that happening, are greater than the odds of there being two monsters in the one neighbourhood!
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 166
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 8:45 am: | |
Leanne
Slightly off the Liz topic, but one of the things I find most ironic about this case is that there very obviously WAS another serial killer running around London at the time, chopping women up. The Westminster Torso, the Pinchin Street Torso, the body parts of a woman dumped in Richmond Canal the year earlier and there was at least one more later although I can't remember the details right now. Yet Jack seems to have eclipsed this other person to such an extent that history has ignored him almost completely! |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 6:25 am: | |
Actually Leanne, I hate to differ with you (why do I keep doing it!!), but there was a report of a man who had cut his wifes throat on the same night as Liz's murder. He went to the police and told them that he had killed his wife by cutting her throat. This doesn't mean he was a serial killer though but he did kill his wife by slicing her throat. Will try to find the report. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
