|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 95
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 2:13 pm: |       |
Alan, need we attribute these murders to another serial killer? From a purely practical standpoint, dismembering a body is an excellent way to prevent identification and thus apprehension, particularly in the crowded East End, where discovery could be delayed only for so long. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 168
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
Erin, sorry I suppose I should say "I believe" there was another serial killer rather than "there obviously was". I would find it too much of a coincidence that four female bodies turned up in a two year period, all dismembered in the same way, the bodies all disposed of in such a way that they would not be discovered for a certain amount of time. I'm sure other bodies have been disposed of in the same way, but four in the same city in a short time period says serial killer to me. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 241
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | |
Leanne, Either copy-cat or another murderer; there were approx 15 other women who were murdered by a knife in the same area during the same year. Surely they wernt all murdered by the same man, but were by the same type of weapon...
Shannon |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 3:13 pm: | |
"Waltz while you may, Thales. The dance will be over soon."
No it won't, Mr. P. The first philosopher is going to die and take it with him.
Thales |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 670
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:34 am: | |
Hi Rob C,
Fair enough. You could very well be right.
----------------------------------------
Shannon,
"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..."
That, I think, is absolutely true. If it wasn't for the murder on Kate Eddowes the same night she would most certainly be considered a cop-cat victim like Francis Coles and McKenzie. But then there are coincidences and ... coincidences. I'd still say these are too great with the short amount of time between the murders and only some minutes away in distance, with the murderer heading back into Whitechapel afterwards. To disregard that speaks against logic.
(I dare not to mention the fact about the prostitutes as a common factor, considering that I got my head ripped off last time when I dared to claim that Eddowes was killed during prostitution activities.)
However, I must admit that I am not the certain as I've been in the past, and I find it harder to close the door to other opportunities. Although I believe that the scale still tips to her being a Ripper victim, there are circumstances indeed that more and more puts me into doubt.
----------------------------------
Sarah,
That was a domestic murder -- the woman wasn't a prostitute -- and it didn't happen in the area we're discussing here.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 474
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 11:00 am: | |
...had her murder happened at any other time it more than likely would not have been listed as a true Ripper victim...
Isn't that a bit like saying: had a man been found in the West End with his throat cut, instead of a woman in the East End, it more than likely would not have been listed as a true Ripper victim?
If you change a basic element of a crime to make a point, it becomes another crime - one which didn't happen. Doesn't this render the point invalid as far as it ought to relate to the actual Stride event?
Love,
Caz
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 3:44 pm: | |
Caz,
Subtle, and effective.
Saddam
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 11:11 am: | |
Glenn,
Ok, did it? I thought it happened nearby. I know it was domestic but I just wanted to point out that people other than JTR slit women's throats at the time, even if this one was different. Liz's murder may have been by a different person, either trying to copy JTR but didn't have the guts to cut her open or just by someone who she argued with and had no intention of cutting her open. I still think she was a JTR vitim though and he was probably disturbed. I'm sure it was him that the horse shyed away from. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:57 am: | |
Having sorted through the witness descriptions, I believe I have found 3Q's and a feather. None of the descriptions match each other except Schwartz and Lawende. Of course there are minor discrepancies and the wording is different and I would be worried if that wasn't the case. It would suggest that the two of them collaborated. Jack wouldn't have had time to change his clothes between Stride and Eddowes. It also answers the Stride canonicity question for me because I believe Schwartz and Lawende saw the same man. They corroborate each other. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 676
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:18 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
Now, my geography knowledge of London isn't what it should be, but as far as I remember that murder occurred in Westminster; however, it was indeed close in time, I think one hour before the Stride murder and -- as far as we know -- the first murder to happen that night.
Anyhow, I agree with your assumptions regarding Stride; if we discount Kidney, those are our main options, I think, and still believe the scale tips towards her being a Ripper victim as well, although I am not so sure as I've been earlier.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Compliments to Ms Comer. An elegant logical position.
Saddam
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 1:22 pm: | |
If Anderson believed this, there would have been two witnesses. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 2:02 pm: | |
R.J.,
Does Diana say here the double-L, or rather the double-R? Question is the answer, that's how quick.
Thales
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
Mr Anderson,
What have the victims history got to do with solving this case?
I thought this series of murders were random killings.
They were weren’t they?
Are you trying to say that the killer knew the victims?
And all we can glean from the scene of crime at this extreme distance is that we have a mutilator of women at work, that and a slight hint (via the rifling of the pockets) that we have a possible thief to boot.
As for Packer, both he(12:30) and William Marshall(11:45) described the man they saw as being of a clerkly appearance, this would tie in with P.C. Smiths(12:30) description of his sighting of a man of respectable appearance. Packer also alluded to a man with a long overcoat as did James Brown(12:45)
Cludgy.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 690
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 12:32 pm: | |
Cludgy,
The victomology I believe is always important in every murder case. It is one of the more basic approaches that has to be done anyway. But it is true that I believe that the murders were random killings, but there are also those with the opposite view. Victimology is always important, regardless of which theory one is found of. We've had a discussion earlier here regarding if some of the women were prostitutes or not (there has been hesitations regarding at least one) -- this point could be of some importance to the motive of the murder, and in such a situation, victomology is indeed crucial.
I do believe, Cludgy, that the scene of the crimes tells us a lot more about how the murders were done than that. But of course they could have told us more if we had crime scene photographs and schethes from each murder site. And if one can establish how the murders were done, then it says a lot about the person who performed them.
Once again, Cludgy, you must see Packer in the context of his statements. If you are delivering two different descriptions, and speaks to the press and with a different story every time, you are not that trustworthy as a witness. Packer was a hoaxer, no question about it. And "clerky appearence" and "long overcoat" fits hundreds of people. What does that tell us? Nothing.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 19
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 6:11 am: | |
Even if the backgrounds of the victims are not important in solving the case, then I think they are interesting and help us remember that they were once living people with lives which can only be a good thing. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 380
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
Cludgy, Glenn,
I can only endorse what Glenn has said.
The victimology indicates who he feels comfortable with amongst many other things.
The crime scene and body is a valuable source of info. Infact its the only evidence which can be relied on. It can tell us the perpetrators hand preference for example or his height. I could go on but Glenn has already covered the importance of these things.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 700
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
Thank you, Monty.
Let me also say that Sarah raises an interesting point as well, at least to those of us who are interested in history. That part of the Ripper business that Sarah points out, is actually just as important to me as playing amateur detective.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 8:52 am: | |
Glen.
I agree that looking at the history of the victims gives us a feel for the series of events occuring in that eventfull autumn of 1888, and agree that it is an enjoyable pastime reading and learning of this particular point in our history.
But i was basing my thoughts on how effective victimolgy is in actually naming JTR.
I wasn't saying that victimolgy is futile in all cases, just the JTR series of murders.
As for Packer, you referred to him being a hoaxer. Are you saying that he saw and heard nothing that night? Let me remind you of what he said in one of his statements. In effect he said. "The couple crossed the road and looked up to the Club as if listening to the music, i then closed my shutters".This was at 12:30 a.m. at that time P.C. Smith saw the couple standing at that very spot, thus corroborating Packer. Now my question is, how did Packer know that the members of the International Club were playing music that night, at that time?
I believe his answer lies in the fact that he was there at 12:30 that night just as he said he was. I believe he did see someone that night with Stride, whether it was her murderer is another matter.
Now Packer loved the limelight, I'm not disputing that, and i believe he distorted the truth a bit, but i think his mouth ran away with him, I don't think he was a hoaxer, I believe there is a thread of truth in his statements. His description of the man he saw with Stride should be given some credence.
Monty you said the crime scene and body presents us with the killers hand preference. I agree it would have been of some little interest to the police at the time but what does it mean now? The killer has been dead for decades.
Also the height can be determined. As Glenn said to me "Clerkly appearence's and long coats fit hundreds of people".
If by the body's position JTR's height could be calculated as 5 feet seven, how many people would this criteria fit.
What i'm saying Monty is that hardly anything can be gleaned from the crime scene, or the victimology of THE JTR SERIES OF MURDERS, I'm not saying this is true of all series murders.
The witness statements(i got it right this time Glenn) of the description of the killer, furnish us much more than either of the above.
Cludgy.
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:01 pm: | |
Hello everybody
Read your entry's with interest. I was doing a little research today and spent some time with Elizebeth Stride as a blood red sky went down over Westham, fambulous sunset. Not that that is particularly relivant but I noted that they have now put a grave Stone marking Elizebeth Strides name over the grave, which was not the case until very recently. It is a wonderful place to contemplate.
Following your postings with interest.
Jeff |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 61
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
Victimology is helpful to see what the common factors were in their lives, if any. If they knew any of the same people or possibly knew. If we hadn't researched their lives then we wouldn't know how close to each other some of them lived for example.
The problem with Packer's statement was exactly what you have pointed out. You said "i believe he distorted the truth a bit, but i think his mouth ran away with him, I don't think he was a hoaxer, I believe there is a thread of truth in his statements." Now, I ask you, how could anyone know which parts were true and which were false. If you were a policeman and found out that some of his statement was a lie, or exaggeration if you will, then how could you take the rest of it seriously. You would have to disregard the whole thing. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 403
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
Cludgy,
Of course the Whitechapel murders crime scene evidence is still relevant....as is the Goulston st scene.
The hand reference was just an example. Other facts such as height can be determined, the effeciency of movement (where are you Scott) all help. Though it may not prove who the killer was it will and does prove who it wasnt.
Couple that with witness statements then we get somewhere.
Anything to level the playing field.
Monty
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 710
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 2:08 pm: | |
I agree with both Sarah and Monty, naturally.
Cludgy,
I can't really rule out that Packer DID see something or someone that night, but since "his mouth ran away with him" his statement becomes worthless. He may very well have seen something, but then he probably found out, that injecting himself in the media coverage of the Ripper business would be a great approach to get people to visit his shop...
As for the crime scene evidence, one problem with old cases is their lack of such and of proper investigation methods. Even if the police did a rather awkward job, I must say that I've investigated a lot of murders just as old as JtR, and the absence of a proper crime scene investigation (in Sweden such things as coroner inquests doesen't exist and victim photographs weren't common until 1910) had always been the crucial element of its difficulty. Compared to those, the Ripper crime scene "evidence" indeed gives us a lot of valid information.
Experiences from those other crime studies, has also confirmed my belief, that witness descriptions (and maybe even witness statements in general) are to be taken with a pinch of salt. While we, as Monty pointed out, can estimate a proper height on the offender through the crime scene information, we would get a number of different estimations if we only looked at the witness descriptions. Those who are accustomed to police work knows that such details as height, eye colour, hair colour and age are problematic and incredibly difficult, since we all have our own personal preferences. Such things as clothes and facial features can also show a remarkable variation in witness descriptions. But of course, one will find occasional corroborations.
In one case, the suspect had been described by different people to have full beard, shaven face, a moustache without a beard, had fair fair, dark hair etc -- and various completely different kind of hats. The only detail that most of these descriptions had in common was a certain kind of walk that was special for this person only.
I for my part can't exclude witness descriptions altogether, but do I prefer to take them lightly (especially as many of them aren't confirmed by other statements) and to concentrate on what the crime scenes tells us and the victimology.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 261
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 28, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
(from the Barnett thread) what newspaper was she identified in on Sept 30th?
When the inquest had started she had not been identified officially or otherwise. If she had been the inquest would have opened instead of being delayed until there was a proper identification.
Shannon |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 8:08 am: | |
Glen et al,
I'll go no further in this discussion, for it's no use flogging dead horses(wonder if Saddam has some profound thought on that statement).
But at least you Glen, conceded that Packer has gone from being a hoaxer, to someone who could have seen something that night.
It just shows,Individuals minds can be changed, and redirected via these message boards. And it takes a good man to concede to criticism.
That's why these boards are such a valuable vehicle in the quest to solve the mystery of the identity of JTR.
Cludgy. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
