|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1055
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 10:31 pm: |       |
Oh no, Rob.
Fell free to accuse me of anything, even stupidity, but not the "fit facts into theory" approach. You are talking complete nonsense.
I have actually changed my views on a number of occasions along the way. To take an example, first I was convinced Stride was a Ripper victim -- now I am a bit more hesitant on that point. And of course, there is really nothing to be convinced about at all as far as the Ripper case is concerned.
"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?"
It is not absurd. The Schwartz character assaulted Stride in full view in an open street, where she shouted "No!" three times and he himself called out something to another man across the street. I'd say that is quite a rowdy and indiscreet behaviour for someone who is about to kill someone, and a behaviour that certainly can't be regarded as credible in connection with Jack the Ripper. I am sorry if you don't agree with that interpretation, Rob, but that is what the facts tell me. I could naturally be totally wrong, but all logic and common sense speaks against this man being Stride's killer, in my interpretation, regardless if she was a Ripper victim or not. You don't have to agree with me -- I am not holding a gun to your head.
The "two or three people" should really be two, naturally; Schwartz and the pipe man. And of course Stride, since she at this time still was alive; she could just as well have gotten away and therefore as a witness could have described the man or corroborated Schwartz' story. Now she unfortunately was killed some minutes later (how many minutes we really don't know).
"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."
No one has claimed there are any evidence of intoxication on JtR's part -- you read things into people's messages that aren't there. That is just a theory that some of us here have discussed out of the blue. There are no evidence of this, naturally, and neither can we find much proof of anything else in this case.
The reasons that there is a lot of speculations in the Ripper case, is because facts and documentation is inconclusive. I can agree that it sometimes gets out of hand, especially when people are trying to hunt down a suspect, but that is unfortunately a natural result in cases like this -- whether you like it or not.
"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."
As I have said earlier a number of times: every serial killer can make a mistake and adjust their MO according to the circumstances. However, there is a wide difference between being spotted and put up a show. If Schwartz' man was JtR, he would have been caught long before Stride was put to sleep. You are confusing apples with water-melons.
Yes, what about Morris Eagle? He didn't see anyone either as far as I recall. He certainly didn't see Schwartz.
There are a number of question marks regarding Schwartz' story; who was the "pipe man"? He was never identified. And why didn't anybody else, living in the street, notice the Schwartz man's rowl with Stride?
These could of course be unfortunate circumstances, but fact remains that Schwartz' testimony remains unverified. All I ask is that his statement should be treated with caution, nothing else. I prefer to be stubborn than to treat Schwartz' witness statement as the ultimate truth, just because he happens to be the only witness to the incident. Because that is indeed absurd and ridiculous.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:49 am: | |
There is no evidence that the Stride murder was a "botched job." It seems to me the murderer did exactly what he set out to do. No one stopped him. No one caught him. If he didn't mutilate her, perhaps he had no intention of doing so. Why is she curled up on her side and not on her back? Why is her throat cut only once and not twice? To say the job was "botched" or that the "killer was interupted" is speculation only. And very gratuitous speculation. A free pass to Inclusionville.
Mr. Andersson offers me something interesting. As far as I can tell, he isn't really talking about something as transient as M.O. Rather, it seems to me, he is fundamentally addressing something interesting about the murderer's mental state. It is a keen observation. If the Star interview is even remotely accurate, the killer immediately wheeled and reeled up to Stride and assaulted her in the street. This is a striking contrast to the supposed "approach" that Mr. Lawende witnessed 40 minutes later or what Mrs. Long witnessed in Hanbury Street. It doesn't melt away quite as easily as people here want. It needs explaining. RP |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Hi RJ,
"If the Star interview is even remotely accurate, the killer immediately wheeled and reeled up to Stride and assaulted her in the street. This is a striking contrast to the supposed "approach" that Mr. Lawende witnessed 40 minutes later or what Mrs. Long witnessed in Hanbury Street. It doesn't melt away quite as easily as people here want. It needs explaining."
RJ is right in a way. As for MO; as we all know, modus operandi is actually just referring to the method used to take the life of the victim. Here we, as Palmer correctly points out, have to deal with a person's behaviour prior to a murder.
However, Palmer tends to lean towards an exclusion of Stride as a Ripper victim. I am not so sure either way, although I'd still give her 60 to 40 in favour as a Ripper victim.
We can't say that the murderer didn't interact with Stride before she was murdered, because we simply don't know -- therefore I don't really see a great difference in the killer's behaviour between the Stride and Eddowes incident. There is nothing to suggest that the "fore-play" wasn't the same, in Eddowes' case it just happened to be spotted by a witness. We can't know if there is a "striking contrast" to consider in the murderer's approach, since we have no observation to rely on -- unless we accept Schwartz' assaulting man. Regardless if Stride was killed by Jack or not, or how the murder was done, we still have to face that no one was seen leaving the scene of the crime.
I don't agree with that the interruption theory is speculative; I would say it's the only logical solution. For those who can't see Stride as a Ripper victim, it is understandable that they have to dismiss it, though. But the fact that her throat was cut only once could point at an interruption as a reasonable explanation. As this debate has raged on here for quite some time with the same arguments, I hate to be repetitious, but it is not impossible for a murderer to adjust or change some details in his MO, due to circumstances on the site or the victim's personality -- we are not dealing with robots or machines here, but with living individuals who can act in an unpredictable fashion.
The crime scene connected with the Stride murder indicates that she was taken by surprise, and that don't easily fit in with the Schwartz man's approach -- regardless if she was killed by the Ripper or not. I find it hard to believe that Stride would be taken by surprise by the same man who assaulted her some minutes or seconds earlier -- she would most probably had been on her guard against this man. This indicates to me that she was killed by someone else.
In addition, we have (as been put forward a million of times) the striking coincidence of a woman found less than an hour later in a neighbouring area of the city, with her throat cut and more terribly mutilated than the previous victims, and with the murderer therefter heading back into Whitechapel. I find such a coincidence hard to swallow and illogical.
But as I said, I wouldn't stress Stride as a Ripper victim with complete certainty -- there are too many unanswered questions to consider.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Hi All,
We are all dealing in ifs here: if Schwartz saw Stride being assaulted and was able to remember and describe events accurately; if Stride’s assailant realised he was being observed when he started acting in an aggressive manner towards her; if the assailant went on to kill Stride, knowing that one, possibly two witnesses could be raising the alarm and reporting what they had seen and heard; if it would have been ‘out of character’, or out of the question, for the real ripper to make the mistake of losing his rag with any of the street women he encountered, or to risk being observed doing so; if it would have been equally out of the question for the real ripper to get his act together sharpish in a crisis - whether of his own making or not - and get the hell out of a possible jam, saving all thoughts of his trademark mutilations for another victim, another time, another place. The list of ‘ifs’ goes on.
We only know that the man we call the ripper felt comfortable enough to embark on his brand of murder and mutilation at least once that night, and to indulge in it once only - with Eddowes. If the same man had encountered Stride earlier in the evening, are we entitled to assume only two possible reactions - either to ignore her or mark her out as a suitable case for his special treatment?
Is Jack not allowed a middle ground in which he may not have considered ripping this one at all, but in which something said or done led to a knee-jerk reaction on his part, that in turn resulted in a perceived need to kill this obstruction in female form swiftly and move on?
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on January 26, 2004) |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
Glenn,
I apologise for my tone in the previous post. However, I do believe there is a tendency for too many people here to interpret and present the facts of the case in such a way as to buttress their own personal theories. However, I would rather try to understand your position than to dismiss it.
You have presented a scenario in which Schwartz's man is possibly drunk, and because of his manner which you describe as loud and rowdy, you see this as inconsistent with the other JTR murders. I assume you are giving some weight to the drunken angle which was only printed in the Star report, and was not mentioned at all in the police report. This is somewhat important, because if the man was drunk and if Schwartz followed him for some way and then saw him stop and start attacking Stride, this would mean Schwartz's man was almost certainly not the same man witnessed by PC Smith... ie not the same approach as you say. So you see this is important. But it is only in the Star report, which also mentions that pipe man had a knife etc etc. So are we to take this account of the man's drunkenness as being credible? I would assume that you do.
I simply do not see that Shwartz's man's behavior is inconsistent with any of the known facts about JTR's MO, or approach or whatever. There are any number of ways you could speculate and come up with a scenario that would fill in any gaps that may seem to be contradictory in a scenario in which Schwartz's man IS in fact JTR. I simply think that your tendency is to dismiss him completely, although you state otherwise. For example when you say "Either Schwartz had gotten the time schedule confused or else he is making things up".. this I think is going too far. You refuse to accept the possibility that Schwartz's time was correct because it does not fit your theory.
I will be blunt... I also have my own speculations or inclinations regarding the Stride murder, and we have gone over this before. To me the similarity between the descriptions given by Schwartz Lawende and Smith are very similar, and I give that one facet a good deal of weight. However, I will say that I do accept that Schwartz's time could have been off... it could have been 12:25, who knows? Also, Schwartz's man may have been her killer, or maybe not. It may have been as you say it was. I just think that in your postings you are too set in your own scenario for what happened, and you dismiss Schwartz too readily. That being said, I think I was frustrated with some degree of innacuracy in your statements. You said she shouted "No!" three times. No, she screamed three times, but not very loudly. She never said "No". And in the same vein, I think your portayal of the event as the loud and rowdy assault by a drunk person is pretty much in the same vein... a colored interpretation.
But please dont take any of this personally, because I value the insights in your postings.
Rob House |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:47 am: | |
Caz,
I agree with your post completely and you have a way with words that I am lacking.... I think I was trying to say the same thing essentially.
RH |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
Hi,
It is my opinion , that when the killer went out on a murderous evening, he was completely out of control, oblivious to any impending danger, the screams, and noisy activity in Brady street, was proberly the result in him acounting Nichols, but people just heard the attack , not witnesed it.
I believe he attacked Chapman in the yard, before she had a chance to realize impending danger.
Stride was attacked , and witnessed, by two people, who obviously did not want to know.
Eddowes I believe was not killed by the man who Lawande saw, but was assulted, and killed when in mitre square, by the same person, who killed Stride.
And Kelly, was killed in her room , by the man she trusted. Barnett, who was Jack.
Simple, but that is just my opinion.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
HI Rob,
No offense taken. I am used to get beaten on the head occasionally, since I am quite a "rowdy" person myself -- I am afraid that is an outcome that goes with the territory.
That being said, I am not going to excuse myself for having personal opinions on the matter. Yes, it's true I do have my own picture in my mind of certain incidents and events in connection of the Ripper case, just like any detective or police officer has "gut feeling" of something. Even if an incident raises question marks in both directions and the information is non-existent, it is only natural if there are one alternative that appeals to me the most. We are all human beings, and we all have our hunches, while we at the same time are trying to be objective. I am not going to defend that, simply because of the fact that I shouldn't have to.
I really don't care if Schwartz's assaulting fellow was drunk or not, that is one of many details that lay beyond our knowledge (he could just as well have been mentally demented or just extremely aggressive -- I have never stated with certainty that he was drunk, and I really don't see its relevancy). All we know is that Schwartz saw a man attack a woman who with most certainty was Stride and that the scene was over-looked by a pipe-smoking man.
I don't know, I actually remembered that the woman shouted "No!" -- I am absolutely convinced that I have read it somewhere, although I must admit I for the moment can't recall where. Anyway, it is by no means an invention of mine, nor is it a deliberate attempt to colorize the incident. It's been a while since I've read Schwartz's statement, but if this detail is wrong, then I stand corrected.
Anyhow, we can polish a large number of details connected to the incident as we like to, but facts remain that it was a rowdy incident and a rather clumsy behaviour if you consider that the man is supposed to have committed a murder on the same woman some minutes or seconds later. I don't buy it. Whether the woman screamed three times (but not loud) or shouted no three times is irrelevant for the whole picture.
My point in my last message was that there are certain facts that doesen't add up with Schwartz's man being the killer. Once again, the crimes scene indicates that she was taken by surprise when she was murdered. This leaves out the assaulting man in my view, since she already once had been attacked by him and therefore would have been quite on her guard -- until the next person came along. Therefore he is a piece of the puzzle that doesen't fit. It is not manipulation of facts, merely common sense.
If you accept Stride as a Ripper victim, and you believe that Schwartz's aggressive man was the killer, then I am afraid you and I have complete diverging views and interpretations of the Ripper's conduct. This kind of behaviour is not corroborated by any witness accounts in connection of the Ripper murders and the crime scene evidence really speaks against it. The Ripper may have been spotted in one or two occasions, but during quite and non-aggressive circumstances.
The Ripper was a man who probably changed totally in character in the same second he performed the murder and totally unexpectedly killed them by cutting their throats (or in some cases possibly strangled/smothered them first) -- not someone who started an argument and threw them to the ground without raising so much of a weapon at the same time, as in the Schwartz incident. Not only would he have been spotted on more occasions, but it is also probable that some of the women would have survived and managed to escape -- but more importantly, we should see more signs of a struggle. This is not speculating, it is fair assumptions. The Schwartz's man behaviour is completely inconsistent in my view with what the murders and crime scenes tell us.
That was assuming that he might have been Jack the Ripper. But the same goes if we consider him as an occasional killer and not Jack. Why would Stride be taken by surprised by someone who already had assaulted her? I don't get it and I never will, I can admit that, because it speaks against all logic.
I may have strong opinions on these matters, but I am not the one who holds on to a scenario, that goes against what the crime scene project. And unfortunately it is a scenario that not too many seem to question. I am not saying that Schwartz is a liar, but that his statement is unverified and that the man depicted in the story seems less credible as a candidate for being Stride's killer because of his behaviour. I prefer to use common sense than believe in a testimony just because the man who delivered was the only one to observe the scene. There are indeed too many "ifs" connected with this incident, and that is the best reason for why Schwartz's information must be looked at critically.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:00 pm: | |
Glenn,
I realize we have been over this all before, but I simply do not agree that Schwartz's man's behavior is inconsistent with the other murders. There is a stronger case for your argument in my opinion, in the crime scene. I will admit that this gives me some pause... primarily the cachous. But I still do not see that these minor incidental bits of evidence rule out Schwartz's man as her killer. And if you accept that possibility, I further do not agree that there is convincing evidence that this behavior, throwing her down in the street etc, is inconsistent with what little is known about JTR.
Do you not find anything compelling in the similarity in the descriptions given by Lawende, PC Smith and Schwartz?
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1060
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
"...but I simply do not agree that Schwartz's man's behavior is inconsistent with the other murders."
Yes, I've noticed 
That's fine with me, though. I have tried to explain why I feel there are great inconsistencies, and I am afraid I can't do much better than that. To me it is rather obvious that the man's behaviour (the Schwartz assailant) has a conduct that lies far beyond that I personally think is credible as far as JtR is concerned. As I said, the main point here are the indications on that the victims most certainly were attacked out of the blue by someone they didn't suspect. To me it's common sense to assume, that if the Ripper murders were done by such an aggressive character as the Schwartz man, the women would have been on their guard and therefore we also would have seen signs of struggle. I can't disregard from that fact. You may call it "minor incidential bits of evidence", but to me they are very important points from a behavioural point of view, and much more important than witness descriptions (which we rarely can trust anyway).
I still don't understand why Stride would let her guard down for a man who just recently assaulted her. That goes against all common sense for me, considering how she was murdered. As far as evidence is concerned, we have evidence of almost nothing in the Ripper case, Rob -- just signs and more or less plausible options. That is why we're dealing with interpretations here.
What we can tell from the crime scene evidence is that it goes against a perpetrator with a behaviour similar to the Schwartz man. The women had their throats cut while they had their backs turned to the killer or when they was on the ground -- without any sign of struggle. That is also evident in Stride's case, regardless if she was the Ripper or not. I am not that much convinced about anything regarding the Ripper murders, but that the Schwartz man would be her killer, doesen't ring true to me.
"Do you not find anything compelling in the similarity in the descriptions given by Lawende, PC Smith and Schwartz?"
Yes, actually I do, to some degree -- and this is also the only interesting point I can see in Schwartz's testimony. However, in my experience from solving old murder cases, I have learnt that witness descriptions are to be taken lightly, simply due to human error and our own personal preferences.
There are important details that separates them from each other. Smith's description is not that much in corroboration with Schwartz and Lawende, Smith talks about a deer stalker hat and a paper parcel, which the others don't and Lawende is the only one of the three speaking of a red neckerchief -- an item I believe would have been quite distinctive against the grey or dark clothes.
Witness descriptions really don't tell us that much, unless they are incredibly detailed and these details are corroborated and verified. Although quite corroborative, the general descriptions (regardless of the unfitting details) from Lawende, PC Smith and Schwartz could fit almost any male character during this time period, and the only interesting detail as far as Schwartz and Lawende is concerned (if we compare them) is the peaked cap, which on the other hand was quite common among the working class or sailors. I therefore find these descriptions lesser of value than the behavioural aspect and the crime scene evidence.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
At last there is someone who seems determined to solve the case, ala Glenn. One puny argument against your descriptions however, is the red neckerchief - this could simply have been removed unlike other items, thus rendering it irrelevant.
The argument against Schwarz is also questionable because no matter how unimportant you consider his statement, Abberline & co did warrant him with a certain degree of credibility, a professional regard. No matter how incompetent anyone considered the police force to be at that time, they were still in the thick of the action - this cannot possibly be compensated for today's supposition. I don't think it can because I like to think people were doing their job, especially at that time when being a policeman was a particularly responsible position.
Glenn you are as always providing me with deep analytical thought.
Regards,
Martin Anderson
Analyst |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:24 pm: | |
Wasn't Chapman found with bruises on her face and neck which suggested she was initially assaulted frontally? If so, then the MO would not have changed so much. Don't forget that Schwartz ran off almost as soon as the attack began. If JTR had her down on the ground when Schwartz ran, then the next thing would have been to drag her quickly into the yard and despatch her. I perceive what Schwartz saw as the very beginning of the murder. What he described could have happened very quickly. I tend to agree that JTR, at least on this occasion was inebriated. Hadn't the pubs just closed? |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 10:32 pm: | |
Hi Martin,
"Glenn you are as always providing me with deep analytical thought."
I am glad to be of service to you, Martin. Any time.
I don't believe the police at the time were idiots, considering their lack of methodology and technical means at the time. A glimpse at the internal police communication reveals quite large efforts on the police's part.
However, I can't take Abberline's interest in Schwartz as a garantuee for anything. And don't forget: even if Schwartz's statement is correct, it doesen't automatically mean that it was Stride's killer he saw. Schwartz didn't know anything about that, since he ran away, and neither did Abberline. And neither do we. I prefer to do my own thoughts than take his words for it.
Diana,
"Wasn't Chapman found with bruises on her face and neck which suggested she was initially assaulted frontally? If so, then the MO would not have changed so much."
There was still no sign of struggle.
And once again, Diana: why would Stride allow herself to be taken by surprise and killed by someone who just had assaulted her?
If she was dragged into the yard and then killed we would most certainly had seen evidence of this and -- again -- probably signs of struggle.
I am sorry, call me stubborn, but I am not buying the Schwartz fellow as Stride's killer -- and certainly not as Jack the Ripper.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:51 pm: | |
It amuses me a little that the speculation that Stride's attacker might have been a wee bit drunk is dismissed as if it is some wild & outrageous suggestion. Lordy. Its the East End. It's after midnight. Its Saturday night. The pubs are starting to break up. The man is heading down a road where there are at least two more pubs. The man gets into a confrontation with a hooker and "pulls her into the road" (Swanson) He shouts a racial slur at a passer-by. He is said by Schwartz to have staggered (which is not contradicted in Swanson's report, by the way). Hmm. Doesn't sound like a particular stretch of the imagination to me.
And lo. The woman killed just happens to have left her drunken lout of a boyfriend that week. Funny how things happen like that!
23 hours later (Monday night) a knife wrapped in a cloth is found thrown away on a set of steps. Who in this penniless community would throw out a knife? Someone living in a common lodging house that might be asked uncomfortable questions by police, maybe? Perhaps someone who would show up drunk and be questioned by police that very same Monday night?
But no, of course not. Much more sensible to think the Ripper was suddenly ticked-off and public in his attacks, and that he couldn't even get into the mood to roll his victim on her back and lift up her skirts (cf. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly)...
Ah well. RP |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
RJ,
With all due respect, I was not trying to suggest that Strides attacker was not drunk, just that there is not really any credible evidence about it either way. I would say in fact that there is a good chance that JTR was possible at least somewhat intoxicated during all the murders, but the only reason I say this is that it is common for serial killers to be drunk or drugged when they kill.
Here is a snippet from an interview with Bundy, where he is talking about how his urge to kill eventually became impossible to control:
"JCD: Do you remember what pushed you over that edge? Do you remember the decision to "go for it"? Do you remember where you decided to throw caution to the wind?
Ted: It's a very difficult thing to describe - the sensation of reaching that point where I knew I couldn't control it anymore. The barriers I had learned as a child were not enough to hold me back from seeking out and harming somebody.
JCD: Would it be accurate to call that a sexual frenzy?
Ted: That's one way to describe it - a compulsion, a building up of this destructive energy. Another fact I haven't mentioned is the use of alcohol. In conjunction with my exposure to pornography, alcohol reduced my inhibitions and pornography eroded them further."
RH |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 782
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
I enjoyed that so much, Mister Palmer, that I fear I owe you yet another fine Spanish brandy or two.
We'll end up with tiddly kidneys at this rate. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Glen you wrote
"To me it is rather obvious that the man's behaviour (the Schwartz assailant) has a conduct that lies far beyond that I personally think is credible as far as JtR is concerned."
What If, and I'm saying If, Shwartz's man was JTR, and upon asking Stride to accompany him into the Workers Club alley, Stride smelled a rat and refused? This could warrent his rough treatment of her, she could of beem manhandled into the yard and murdered.
None of the other victims proir to Stride as far as we know, refused to accompany JTR to their place of murder,It looks as though they were willing parties, so prior to the murder of Stride we just don't know how JTR would have reacted to resistance from one of his victims. Therefore the rough handling of Stride by Shwartz's man, doesn't rule him out of the reckoning as being JTR.
Are we seeing with Shwartz's man just how JTR might have reacted to a determined resistance from one of his victims, i.e. to manhandle her to her death?
Alternatively, how do you Glen, think JTR would have coped with stiff resistance from one of his victims?
Have a nice day |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 7:19 pm: | |
Hello, Cludgy. I have missed you lately on this thread.
"What If, and I'm saying If, Shwartz's man was JTR, and upon asking Stride to accompany him into the Workers Club alley, Stride smelled a rat and refused? This could warrent his rough treatment of her, she could of been manhandled into the yard and murdered."
Yes, it could. I can actually buy parts of that -- if it only had stopped with that. I don't think JtR was a man, however, that shouted across the street to one of the spectators. I am only guessing here from how I read his character (please note that I don't claim to know the truth), but my bet is that Jack would ran away the instance he noticed he was spotted by others, not drawing even more attention to himself and then managing to let the assault evolve into a murder. Highly questionable. I believe Stride was killed by a third person, who came forward after the Schwartz incident, but -- naturally -- I can't prove it.
"Are we seeing with Shwartz's man just how JTR might have reacted to a determined resistance from one of his victims, i.e. to manhandle her to her death?"
I think not, but that is just my personal opinion.
"Alternatively, how do you Glen, think JTR would have coped with stiff resistance from one of his victims?"
I really can't say, since that probably never happened, or at least we have no real signs saying that it did. But as I stated above, I think he would belong to those who would abort and flee the scene if he met too much resistance and the act attracted to much attention, rather than draw even further attention to him.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 6:00 am: | |
Why is so little interest taken in the Pipe Man? He seems to be passively watching an event that would call for some reaction. Perhaps rather like Hutchinson outside MJK's? Pipe man then worries Schwartz by following him for some way and then - turns back to find a woman who, having been assaulted, turns for him to assistance? Possibly indicating she knows who he is or can recognise him?
Why does he follow Schwartz? Why does he stop following Schwartz? Why does he not react to the incident - either hurrying away with Schwartz (not following him calmly) or by some intervention? What does he do next?
I would have thought these questions of great interest to anyone who does not believe the rowdy man assaulting Stride dragged her off and killed her.
Regards
Pete |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
Cludgy,
I have often considered the scenario you describe as being a distinct possibility. We often think of JTR as being outwardly charismatic in his "approach". This is why I keep making the comparison to Bundy. In Bundy's case, on one of the nights of the murders (ie. he was stalking), he danced with a young college girl at a club.. here is a snippet from Ann Rule's book:
" He was handsome enough, and there was no rational reason for her to feel so wary, no reason to refuse really; Sherrod's was a place where one often danced with strangers. But as she rose to join him on the dance floor, she whispered to a friend "I think I'm about to dance with an ex-con..." During the dance, he did or said nothing to substantiate her gut feeling about him, but she found herself trembling. She couldn't look at him, and when the music finally ended, she returned gratefully to her table."
In my opinion this is relevant, because it shows how a potential victim can get a read from even a charasmatic and sophisticated, deceptive killer. In the case of Stride, something like this may have occurred. By some readings of the evidence, it seems that Stride may have been with her eventual attacker for some time before the attack occurred. He may very well have become frustrated with her refusal to accompany him and thus finally snapped, etc etc.
This interpretation related primarily to Schwartz's assaulting man. Glenn, I realize you do not think this guy is JTR, and I actually agree with at least part of your reasoning on this. But as I see it, there is nothing in Schwartz's man's behavior that is inconsistent with JYT's behavior. The main thing that makes me question Schwartz's man is the crime scene evidence.... no signs of a struggle, cachous in hand etc.
Finally to Pete. I was just rethinking Pipe Man myself. I keep trying to reconcile the witness statements. Maybe I just noticed this myself, but it is interesting that Pipe Man's description is very similar to the descriptions given by both PC Smith and James Brown... ie. overcoat, hard felt hat etc. Am I way off in this? Anyone? Schwartz's description has Pipe Man taller, but otherwise they are rather similar.
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
"But as I see it, there is nothing in Schwartz's man's behavior that is inconsistent with JtR's behavior."
Then we read things differently, or completely differ in how we see JtR as a character. Well, that can't be helped.
And I for my part, have never seen him as a charismatic Bundy-like personality.
"The main thing that makes me question Schwartz's man is the crime scene evidence.... no signs of a struggle, cachous in hand etc."
And those points should be important enough.
I agree with Pete here, that the pipe-man is interesting -- in fact, as far as Schwartz's witness statement is concerned, I think that character is far more interesting than the assaulting man (the only thing that worries me a bit is the fact that he followed Schwartz when the latter ran away -- did he return to Berner Street?). Unfortunately we don't know anything about him, but that is a one character I would have loved to examine more closely -- if he ever existed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Glenn,
I don't necessarily think JTR was "charismatic" like Bundy, but clearly he was able to hide his violent nature in order to get the victims to go with him. With a predator like this, there is necessarily a facade that must be maintained during the "approach" stage. This is all I meant. And that sometimes a potential victim may be able to see through this facade.
Suppose this had happened with Stride.... she starts to get a suspicious intuitive sense about this person. How do you imagine a scenario like that would play out?
Re: Pipe Man. If we start to think about the possibility that pipe man is JTR, then we may remember that in the Star report, pipe man has a knife. Perhaps there is an element of truth in what is generally thought of as newspaper sensationalism. If pipeman is JTR, perhaps, like a tiger crouching in the weeds, he is stalking Stride, watching her near the corner. And takes out the knife to ensure that Schwartz doesnt hang around before he goes in for the kill.
As far as the crime scene evidence which as you say "should be enough"... well maybe it is enough, maybe it isnt. I dont think it is enough. There are too many unknown variables which could possibly explain any of this evidence. I am not saying that Schwartz's man is JTR, only that I consider it a possibility. Well, we agree to disagree ok?
RH |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
I am not sure the the Ripper showed up a facade during the encounter, at least not a deliberate one. But then again, I consider him more to be mentally insame than clever and intentional. But OK, I can't totally disregard your description. We are very much stumbling in the dark here anyway.
"Suppose this had happened with Stride.... she starts to get a suspicious intuitive sense about this person. How do you imagine a scenario like that would play out?"
I'll be frank with you -- I haven't the slightest idea, apart from what I described in my post addressed to Cludgy regarding the Ripper's possible behaviour if he was spotted or met resistance.
Well, regarding the crime scene evidence; when I said "should be enough", I meant that it should be taken in consideration, because even if you regarded those points as valid, you didn't seem to include them in your line of thinking. That's all. I expressed myself sloppy, though. Of course no evidence concerning the Ripper case could be considered as "enough", simple because what we have to deal with here in general is inconclusive anyway.
OK, we'll have to agree to disagree, then.
Just one thing, though: I think your description of the possible course of events regarding the involvement of the pipeman actually are quite compelling -- if the pipeman existed and Schwartz is correct in his statement, then that could very well be what happened. Sounds OK to me. As far as I am concerned, the mysterious pipeman is a real dark horse in this story.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 394
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 6:29 am: | |
Regarding the crime scene evidence being enough, even when taken in conjunction with Schwartz's statements the evidence tends to conclude against this man being the Ripper.
Schwartz stated that he was almost upon the entrance to the yard when the incident happened. He was on the same side of the road, approaching from the Commercial Road end. Therefore unless you believe that Schwartz had his nose virtually pressed up against Stride and her attacker, you have to conclude that the incident was taking place on the other side of the gate, the left hand side if you are facing into the yard.
However Stride's body was found on the right hand side of the yard. Also it was not in front of the gate which means it has to have been at least four and a half feet back, the gateway being nine feet wide. This was certainly not where the attack took place, as Schwartz said that the man threw stride to the pavement. Obviously we don't know the exact position of each (the attack and the location of the body), but basic geometry states that they must have been at least 10 feet apart.
This means that if Schwartz's man was the killer then one of the following three things has to have happened.
a. He killed her on the spot where he attacked her and then dragged the body back into the yard.
b. He rendered her unconcious on the spot where he attacked her, the dragged her into the yard and killed her.
c. He dragged her still fully conscious into the yard and then killed her.
We can dismiss a. If this was the case there would have been a trail of blood on the ground leading from the attack spot to the body location, and there was not.
This leaves b and c. Either scenario is possible, but in scenario b it leaves the Ripper standing in the full view of everyone asphyxiating his victim for probably around a minute by the time she lost consciousness, while scenario c would surely have incurred far more defensive injuries than were apparent, and also cannot be reconciled with the cachous which she would surely not have continued to clutch as she fought off her attacker.
These facts suggest to me that, while not impossible, it is far more likely that Schwartz's man was not the killer than that he was. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 708
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Alan,
The position of Liz's scarf on her neck would indicate to me that she was dragged by it.
An assault to render Liz senseless (not knocked out, just unaware of what the hell was going on) then pulled back by her scarf.
My view anyway.
Monty
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
