|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:17 am: |       |
Jeff,
I agree with everything you say. The only thing that adds up in Schwartz' statement is that he saw Stride on that particular spot -- the rest is unverified. I for my part suspect that this wasn't the first time that Stride used that special locations. Prostitutes had in general certain streets ar areas the personally felt comfortable with (and where they were recognized ny regular clients) and rarely changed them -- unless changing PC beats or police activities in general made the spot ineffective to use.
------------------------------------
Alan,
You beat me to it regarding Mrs Mortimer. And you are quite right; one of them is a problem since they contradict each other.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:23 am: | |
David,
In contrast to you, I never beat around the bush when I say something. I think I am pretty clear, and if I am not, please remember that I am dealing with a second language here. Your problem is that you can't accept my way of thinking or my answers, and that is quite OK, but don't say that I don't try to answer your questions. I am doing the best I can.
1. "The idea that people are making automatic assumptions is an overstatement, not necessarily true."
Wrong. If you have followed this thread, you'll see that most people here -- discussing Stride -- seem to accept Schwartz' information as facts and that he is never questioned (therefore I find Alan's and Jeff's posts here quite refreshing). It is not an overstatement.
2. "Nothing Schwartz said contradicts the physical and other evidence from any source."
See Alan's post. No further comments necessary.
3. "Schwartz gave his information voluntarily and directly when contacted by the police."
That is correct, but it doesen't exclude him from getting the times wrong. It is indeed true that we can't suspect any personal gains in his case as we can regarding Packer -- and I don't necessarily question Schwartz' motives.
"If we don't have an independent witness on Berner Street testifying to what Schwartz may have seen, how can we truthfully say what Schwartz said was wrong?"
We can't say he was wrong. But we can treat him with caution. That is all I ask. Regardless if you're a police man or you are a scientist, when you do an investigation, you can't fully trust a statement that is not corroborated by another individual source. I agree that that becomes a problem in the Ripper case, since not many testimonies are being backed up by other sources, but this is a rule that I have learnt to apply and I will continue to do so.
Schwartz is important, because he is the only one who delivers an account that describes some course of events involving Stride and a violent man -- according to his information, just prior to the murder. To me that indicates that he should be treated with extra caution, since his statements leads to strong consequenses about how we should interpret the Stride scenario.
But there are several problems with his statement:
-- No one else in the street had heard or seen the rowdy incident with the drunken (?) man that he refer to.
-- His testimony contradicts that of Mrs Mortimer
-- Since I personally -- read: personally -- finds the assaulting man's behaviour rather strange for a throat cutting killer, I don't believe he is the man who murdered her. And that leaves very little time for the real murderer to enter the stage. Noone did see or notice Schwartz' man leave the street or Dutfield's yard, or anyone else for that matter. Either Schwartz had gotten the time schedule confused or else he is making things up, because even if Mrs Mortimer's statement should be wrong or less trustworthy, the rowdy incident wasn't noticed by anyone -- in spite of the fact that there was activity in the club, with people walking in and out. And neither did the nearby residents hear anyone call "lipski" or hear a rowl between a woman and a man.
That makes it a bit too hard to swallow for me. I am not asking you to dismiss Schwartz, just treat him with some suspicion. In addition, I refer to Jeff's post here about how one shall treat an uncorroborated witness.
"How are we going to "treat what Schwartz said with critical eyes" if we don't have an independent witness of the action?"
You don't seem to get it, David. That is exactly why we must look at him critically.
You seem to reason, that just because Schwartz was there, we have to accept him, since we don't have anyone else. That I can't buy.
We must remember that Schwartz' testimony doesen't say anything about what really happened AFTER the incident he refers to and about the murder itself -- it only leaves things open for speculations, and I believe his information leads in the wrong direction.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:24 am: | |
All good points, Martin.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
1. "Either way, Mrs Mortimer's story clearly contradicts Schwartz's story, therefore you have no choice but to dismiss one of them. Clearly you dismiss Mrs Mortimer."
>>Baloney, I don't dismiss either. Mrs. Mortimer's story does NOT contradict Schwartz. She stated that she was in and out of her house that evening. Suffering insomnia, for awhile she would stand at the door or on the walkway, then for awhile she'd go back in and lie down, listening to street sounds to some extent and dozing as she could. The Schwartz incident was sandwiched in during one of her brief dozes. This precisely explains why Schwartz doesn't mention Mortimer and Mortimer doesn't mention Schwartz. Schwartz and Mortimer mutually CONFIRM, they do not contradict. The idea that there are contradictions here is a distortion of the truth resorted to by weak minds to make the facts of the case serve their intellectual infirmities. Take a deep breath of fresh mountain air, exhale, feel the oxygen in your blood.
2. "I am not asking you to dismiss Schwartz, just treat him with some suspicion."
>>Non sequitor. You either use Schwartz for something and say why, or you don't and say why. The evidence is the evidence. "Some suspicion" is nothing. Stated another way, whatever curtains I may hang on my window doesn't change it from being a window. A window is a window. Stated a third way: "Some suspicion" is nonlogical criteria being passed off as logical. Essentially a feminine conceit.
Bullwinkle
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 7:08 pm: | |
David,
Firstly: Mrs Mortimer stood for the most part of the time in the door, not for "a while".
"The Schwartz incident was sandwiched in during one of her brief dozes. This precisely explains why Schwartz doesn't mention Mortimer and Mortimer doesn't mention Schwartz."
Pure speculation.
"Non sequitor. You either use Schwartz for something and say why, or you don't and say why. The evidence is the evidence. "Some suspicion" is nothing. Stated another way, whatever curtains I may hang on my window doesn't change it from being a window. A window is a window. Stated a third way: "Some suspicion" is nonlogical criteria being passed off as logical. Essentially a feminine conceit."
I am sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi,
With regard to , being so out of character, to attack a victim , whilst in the presence of witnesses, I would disagree.
My impression of 'Jack' is when he was out to kill, he had no regard for personal safety, he had one thing on his mind, that being to destroy the victim.
Tabram was viciously assaulted, on the first floor tennament building, when he could have been disturbed at any time , by people wandering in , or out .
Nichols, according to imformation , was proberly attacked quite violently, in Brady street, and possible manhandled into Bucks Row.
Chapman, was horribly mutalated , right under windows, when it was nearing light, and at a time when the streets were becoming active.
Stride was killed in Dutfields yard , just yards from a club occupied, by several people, anyone could have left at any time.
Eddowes was killed, in Mitre square, when police were frequently patrolling that area.
Kelly was killed in a court , where her neighbours were very close by.
All these extremely risky venues, point to me, that our jack, was out to kill , regardless of impending dangers, whilst his mind was active with a lust for blood.
Richard. |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
Hi Richard,
"With regard to , being so out of character, to attack a victim , whilst in the presence of witnesses, I would disagree."
You can argue this to be true once or twice, but if he was so insanely preoccupied with what he was doing, then why did he never get caught in the act? To get away with it a couple of times could be luck, but to get away with it five times, possibly more, takes at least a little cunning.
"My impression of 'Jack' is when he was out to kill, he had no regard for personal safety, he had one thing on his mind, that being to destroy the victim."
I can see what you are saying, but I can't really agree. Once again, he got away with it at least 5 times, so he cannot have been totally insane. If this was the case, the women would not have been taken in by him in the first place. He must have appeared at least slightly normal, and acted in such a way. There was that large part of him which was not rational at all, but the rest of him was totally functional and very convincing. This is why he carefully picked a secluded spot before being lost to a frenzy. But even the slightest noise would kick him out of this instantly, it is well documented by experts at the time that witnesses arrived minutes before the victim's death, thus scaring him away. It was a premeditated kill, and safety was always at the helm of his mind.
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 1:48 am: | |
I think it's safe to say that Mrs. Mortimer was Jack the Ripper. She places herself at the scene and provides contradictory evidence to a known witness. Case solved! Yea me!!  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Hi Martin,
What I am suggesting is , when the killer attacked these women , he was in a flipped out state, rather like a desire for some sexual act, that one knows might result in dire consequences, but the desire is so intense , that it cannot be controlled, despite knowing possible trouble involving from the act.
I consider our killer, to have been extremely lucky, but not because being cunning on his part, caused this.
He got away with these crimes , because of his audacity, to commit such murders , right under the noses of people.
We must remember , detection by the police in 1888,was not so successful, as our modern day methods.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 1:59 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I believe the Ripper was in a flipped out state when he committed the murders as well, but there is a difference between doing the act of murder under risky circumstances and the Schwartz incident, where you have a man who is loud, rowdy and who seem totally uninterested in the fact that the scene is witnessed by at least two or three people (according to Schwartz).
You don't have such elements in the Ripper murders -- the Ripper did risky operations but he worked quietly and the actual murders wasn't seen by anybody. The brute seen by Schwartz indicate to me an ordinary drunkard or assaulter, not a killer. They are not in the same league.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes Strides killer, appeared to have carried on to murder, despite being witnessed, but didnt he not also go on to murder Eddowes despite being seen , by Lawande, and company, and if he was the man seen by Mrs Long, outside number 29, did he not go on to murder Chapman.. and if the murderer of kelly was the man Hutchinson saw , did he not go on to murder kelly?
you know what I am getting at Glenn, the killer of these women, was simply unaware , or could not care less, of any possible sightings of him , whilst in his hidious state of mind.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:48 pm: | |
Hi again,
"Yes Strides killer, appeared to have carried on to murder, despite being witnessed ..."
Nonono, that is not what I meant. I have never believed that the assaulting man was Stride's killer -- that was my whole point.
And the point of my last post was, that the assaulting man was more than witnessed prior or after a murder -- he preceded it with a terrible hullabaloo and rowdy behaviour -- it is not the same as being witnessed talking to the victims or being seen in the vicinity.
I believe as well that "the killer of these women, was simply unaware, or could not care less, of any possible sightings of him , whilst in his hidious state of mind", but in the Schwartz incident we see an event that goes far beyond that. Schwartz' man is drawing too much attention to himself with his behaviour, he's not just being spotted -- he is standing in full view, attacking a woman and shouting something similar to "Lipski" (?) across the street -- hardly a conduct I would expect from a murderer, unless he is -- excuse my language -- completely pissed out of his mind or a raving madman (far beyond what Jack would have been).
It could of course be the case, that Stride just simply did fell victim to a drunk and rowdy character, but I can't see that scenario as credible, although I can't prove it. I believe (although with some minor doubt) that she was the victim of the Ripper, but NOT the man seen by Schwartz.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:35 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I know your opinion, is that Stride was not killed by the man seen to attack her.
It is possible of course, yet the word coincedence,rears its head again does it not?.
I maintain that it seems most likely, that a brutal attack on a victim, just prior to her recorded death, implies that the person seen to have administered that act, was her killer.
We have no way of knowing how this man would have reacted, in a similar situation, at any of the other murders, as he was not seen actually attacking the others.
I would consider, that 'Jack' was a habitual visitor of public houses, and was proberly rather drunk, when he butchered these women, this would give him the bravado, to committ these acts, also would give him the confidence to take enormous risks, which obviously paid off.
It could well be that he knew , that when he drank a certain amount, deamons would enter his head, and on the nights he picked to play his games, he drank to that level, to enter that state.
It could well be , that when he was absent from drink, he appeared normal, and respectable.
As the man seen to attack Stride was considered intoxicated, I believe, he was the man, who murdered these women.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:30 am: | |
Hi Richard
So you mean, that the man seen by Schwartz was Joseph Barnett?
Yes, I think it was a coincidence that Stride was assaulted by another man, prior to she was murdered. I believe such elements was something these women had to deal with several times during their "night shifts" -- this was East End, with all that goes with it. That is, if Schwartz' account is correct and truthful. Here we are once again taking for granted, that Schwartz represents the truth we have to build the scenario upon. I am very doubtful about that.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 497
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Richard,
I disagree with your comments about Jack having to be drunk. The way in which he killed these women doesn't suggest that he was drunk, in fact to me I believe he was of a very sober mind. I also believe that, for the most part, he didn't plan any of his murders. Just my opinion, although yours could still be an option.
Sarah |
Erin Sigler
Inspector
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 212
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:44 pm: | |
I can see him fortifying himself with a bit of the old liquid courage before going out to commit the murders, but I think drunk is a bit of an overstatement. Alcohol dulls the senses and slows your reflexes. A staggering drunk probably wouldn't even be able to hold the knife long enough to accomplish what Jack did. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Yes I am suggesting that Barnett, murdered Stride, whilst somewhat intoxicated, there are levels of intoxication, one does not have to be completely out of it to stagger.
Unfortunately none of us ever met Joseph Barnett, we simply do not know, him as a man, his inner feelings etc.
But a intresting observation , is Pamela Ball in her book Psychic Investigation, fingers Barnett as the Killer of Kelly , through mediumship, and describes him , as nursing a giant hangover.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Interesting, Richard.
I have used psychic mediums in one of my cases as well.
However, one must remember that they ar all not good or credible, and even if they are, the information they receive can be misleading, also for themselves. I haven't heard of Pamela Ball, the main English ones I am familiar with are Iris Hall and Graham Bishop, both of them are very good.
Yes, there are levels of intoxications, but I can't with all the will in the world see how the assaulting man seen by Schwartz could be the same man who quietly and unseen (during the murder act) mutilated a number of women. It doesen't add up.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
But as I said, Stride was the only time he was seen , during an attack.
What would have been this persons reaction, if he was disturbed , during the attack on Tabram. or Nichols, or Chapman, or Eddowes, or somebody had walked in whilst kelly was being slaughtered.
Would he simply have shouted abuse, or attacked the sighter.
Lets face it, the whole episode with Stride frightened the daylights out of Schwartz, and if the pipe man existed, he to appeared to have second thoughts, taking on such a deranged man.
He may have commited the murders quietly, but in the case of Stride, I would have imagined, it was a somewhat noisy affair. Yet still he managed to flee the scene.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
"But as I said, Stride was the only time he was seen , during an attack."
No, I don't think he was.
"What would have been this persons reaction, if he was disturbed , during the attack on Tabram. or Nichols, or Chapman, or Eddowes, or somebody had walked in whilst kelly was being slaughtered.
Would he simply have shouted abuse, or attacked the by-stander."
As I see it, he would most likely have ran away -- not shouting words of abuse across the street. And attacking the sighter would be too risky on an open street, especially since Stride was still alive at that time.
"Lets face it, the whole episode with Stride frightened the daylights out of Schwartz, and if the pipe man existed, he to appeared to have second thoughts, taking on such a deranged man."
So? And we should automatically take his words for what happened?
"He may have commited the murders quietly, but in the case of Stride, I would have imagined, it was a somewhat noisy affair."
Why would he -- if he was Jack the Ripper -- break his pattern of behaviour? And why would a killer put up such a scene unless he was drunk out of his mind or a complete lunatic? Once again, Richard, it is a very big difference between being spotted in rather subtle and quiet situations prior to a murder, and on the other hand start an unnecessary rowdy incident and draw unnecessary attention to himself in the middle of the street. It doesen't add up.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 161
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You wrote: "As the man seen to attack Stride was considered intoxicated, I believe, he was the man, who murdered these women."
In the official documents there's no mention of an intoxicated man assaulting Stride.
The newspaper 'The Star' told a slightly different story in which Schwartz, when he had turned from Commercial Road into Berner Street, noticed at some distance ahead of him a man who appeared to be intoxicated. This was the man who assaulted Stride. Also, in this article the pipe of the second man had turned into a knife and it was this man that yelled 'a warning'.
If the article from the Star is the only reason why Stride’s assaulter was considered to be intoxicated, I would think again. And, considering his displayed conduct with Stride doesn't fit the other (silent) killings, I agree with Glenn that there’s no reason to believe this man killed any other woman than Elizabeth Stride, if he killed her.
All the best,
Frank
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:25 am: | |
Richard.
I think your'e spot on with Jack visiting Public houses,prior to his murders, I posted a theory describing this in General Discussions link, "Compulsive Obssesive Disorder", thread, but the thread seems to have disappeared. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
Odd. Most of the points I wanted to add after reading certain messages above have already been made by Glenn.
I think it's more likely that Liz was killed by the angry man Schwartz mentioned and that he wasn't the Ripper, but then it could have been the other way too.
:shrugs: |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:40 am: | |
I also beleive that the man seen by Shwartz was her murderer.
I think the general consensus that these areas were no go areas after dark, is a little bit exagerated.
It's easy for anyone talking nowadays to tell us, "oh you wouldn't go down Whitechapel way after dark in those days". How do they know! Some of people extolling these sentiments are not even British.
I am British, and I would dare bet that It would be no different walking through Whitechapel in 1888, than me walking through my own area today, and I live in what could be called a tough neighbourhood.
Living in such areas makes one street wise, and believe me these women were certainly that |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:03 pm: | |
Glenn,
I really strongly disagree with your interpretations of all this, and am finding myself agreeing with David and Richard (excepting the Joe Barnett angle.) I honestly think that you have worked this thing up in your mind until you have a very stubborn idea of the situation, and anything tyhat does not fit into your "theory" is discarded out of hand.
You say regarding Schwart's man: "you have a man who is loud, rowdy and who seem totally uninterested in the fact that the scene is witnessed by at least two or three people (according to Schwartz)." Later you say "he preceded it with a terrible hullabaloo and rowdy behaviour"...
This is absurd. Have you read Shwartz's police statement lately? Where do you get loud and rowdy out of that. There was nothing loud at all. And who are the 3 people?
There is way too much speculation going on on these boards, with little to back up these statements. Like the whole "intoxicated" thing. How can we possibly speculate as to the level of intoxication of JTR... there is absolutely no evidence on this.
Another problem is that people are way too stubborn in their adherence to the idea that JTR always maintained the same exact MO... like if he had been seen killing Stride, this would go against his MO, because he was otherwise so careful. This is totally ridiculous.
Most of Ted Bundy's killings were done very skillfully, and out of sight. But he botched at least one attempted murder when a woman escaped from his car as he was trying to handcuff her. Say you were his defense lawyer... would you try to argue that Bundy was not the killer because this one situation was different from most of the others.
And as far as Mortimer... I think she was either not very observant, or as David says, was in ans out of her house. She says she observed no one either enter or exit the yard between 12:30 and 1..... what about Morris Eagle?
I just think your whole take on this is way off... you have just built this fantasy idea in your mind, and are trying to make the facts, MO etc. fit.
Rob House
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
