|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through July 21, 2005 | Robert Charles Linfo | 50 | 1 | 7-21-05 4:38 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1788
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 4:45 am: | 
|
Hi Stan,
show me one solid piece of productive evidence, information or material that has been applied to this case, which any researcher has gained from learning the psychology of the Boston Strangler, or any other serial murderer. There is no point in looking, it does not exist.
Why? Why is there no point in looking at other Serial Killers and their ways?
Surely thats a blinkered approach isnt it?
Cheers,
Monty
PS Gary, Best wishes to your Dad.
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3772
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Stan,
I must say I don't really understand your extreme position on this. I don't think looking at other serial or domestic killers have really led to any concrete 'evidence' in the Ripper case, but show me what real 'evidence' (in the real sense of the word) has been gained from anything, really, apart from the findings of occasional important documents.
In a case as old as this, what we can do is to get a better understanding of it, and I for my part -- and, I believe, for several others -- this includes looking at how other killers have operated. It doesn't mean that you don't study the case facts or evidence at hand. It is one approach among many and only one of many additional factors to consider.
Surely it can't hurt to study how other killers have operated if you want a better understanding of someone like the Ripper. It may not make you solve the case or provide any evidence as such, but what does? If we only concentrated on what should give us evidence, then we wouldn't get far.
I mean, just look at those prominent researchers that you mention. Personally, I hold their research in highest regards and I certainly agree with many of their conclusions -- their knowledge and experience of the case is far superior to any of us younger brats who've gotten involved in it in more recent years.
But most of them have actually related to other serial killers and the whole concept of serial killers as a whole in their own Ripper investigations. Fido clearly did it in his book, and in his case against Cohen profiling has had an important role. Stewart Evans, I believe, has also discussed other serial killers in the Ripper context, although he is opposed to profiling.
I really don't understand why you decide to drag other researchers into this, because looking at other murderers in the hunt for the Ripper is a rather common and accepted approach among most authors on this subject. William Beadle, Colin Wilson and Robin Odell are another examples of authors who have used this as a central approach.
I totally agree on that little concrete has happened since the discovery of Tumblety, but what do you expect in a 117 year old case, with limited information and documents been passed over by different people for a long period of years -- not to mention the blitz????
I have investigated loads of cases that are over 100 years old. How much 'evidence' do you actually think exists under such circumstances?
As for your line 'I, Martin Fido and Stewart Evans'... No offense, but surely researchers like Evans, Fido, Rumbelow and Begg are in a league of their own; and if I had written a book on this subject I sure as hell wouldn't mention my name on the same row as them. It would just be pathetic. If you have any respect for either of them, I think you should not speak on their behalf.
I can agree with you that too many sidesteps occur her on occasion and that some threads (some of them started by amateurs, others by some of us) can turn out quite irrelevant in their naivety, but show me one single discussion Board on a website where this doesn't happen.
One of the many functions of a discussion board is to make contacts, not just exchange information. A discussion Board consists of conversations and thanks to these Boards I have made a lot of valuable friends and contacts, also with some researchers of the case.
A lot of valid and relevant discussions are being held here and a lot of important stuff has being added her even on these past few months, but fact remains that I rarely see you participate in them and rarely do I see you discuss the facts of the case.
I agree with you that some threads on these Boards really don't belong here, but I don't think the solution is to go in and sabotage those threads with sarcastic comments, nor do I think it is up to you to take upon yourself and decide what is acceptable to discuss here. If you don't like a thread -- just don't go there! It's easy as pie and it always work.
Learn to respect other people's approaches, live as you preach and get off your own high horses, and these Boards certainly will improve.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 21, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3773
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Gary,
I don't know what's going on either (I understand it's something with your father), but my sincere best wishes too.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 238
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Monty,
Well that was the point of the original discussion before it got hijacked by Glenn and his ulterior motive to argue with me rather than discuss the issue I posed.
I'm not saying there is no point in looking at other serial killers and their ways. That is what a crime historian (a real one) does. What I am saying is that comparisons between other serial murderers and 'JTR' have never produced one valuable or productive piece of information that has helped this case. For those who are interested in criminal psychology, then it is obvious that the study of other serial murderers is important, but this thread implied that criminal profiling was to be applied and used in understanding this case, and it was not the first thread to do so.
Even Glenna finally admitted that criminal profiling has never worked when applied to the 'JTR' murders, which was my main concern when I dared to question AP, whose motives were so abundantly clear by the way he posted.
Blinkered? I'm American and I speak English. I have now idea what that word means. Sorry.
GLENNA,
So one again you return to argue for arguments sake. Your new position is: even though I am right, that criminial profiling has never produced no evidence of assisting or advancing the case, yet that becomes secondary to me producing evidence or defining what real evidence is.
Perhaps just saying - I agree with you Stan, and criminal profiling should not be applied to the 'JTR' case, because it does not yield results - is enough. But I think everyone knows that can not be enough for you.
Why you think my position is extremist I'll never know. In fact my position comes from a basic analysis of what has occurred throughout history. Every time criminal profiling has been applied to this case it has come up empty, therefore I am against it. How is that extreme? I see it as logical.
Well once again, there are those who feel that a sideways approach may work, and in 6 or 7 hundred years it might, but in 117 years not one advancement has been made on this case. Maybe its time to change approaches? Maybe, if as you claim, several others study it intently like you, which I don't deny, you guys focused on other aspects such as motive, analyzing slip ups, which is where most murderers get caught and looked a bit past merely accepting everything you read to find the hidden nuggets of truth, the case might move forward. A valuable researcher like AP, which we both agree upon, moving towards applying criminal profiling will just continue the stagnancy of this case.
But for someone like yourself, who is more interested in crime history and the insignificant aspects such as prostitute interaction with the police and slum conditions, stagnancy is what best helps your interest.
You are right - applying information from other serial killers is a commonality in this case, used by Fido, Wilson, Beadle, Odell and Evans. Here's a question for you, can you show me where that application has advanced their case?
That's my point. Put all five of those researchers in a room, two of which I have communicated with on many occasions, and you tell me which one is right. You tell me which one used profiling and advanced their case. See my point Glenna, it doesn't work. It is subjective. Subjective approaches all of a sudden are now being lauded by you, when in previous posts you rip them. There is that hypocrisy creeping up again. By the way, in that room, with those five mentioned, at the very minimum four of them are dead wrong. If you don't understand that basic fact then there really is no point discussing it further, because you will never get it.
So I reiterate, you are content with the stagnancy. I on the other hand, am not.
When I put myself in the category of Fido and Evans, it was not meant that I was as great of a researcher as them, yet of course you saw an opportunity to jump on for that, because you live to argue, rather than discuss. But i will put my knowledge of this case up against most, and that is what I meant. It is obvious from your threads that you can not read and comprehend simple posts so i will forgive you for that, but you will do it again. You are combatative, and this site has become to PC to call you what you really are.
have you ever been to Diary World? There is a gentleman who lives in Diary World whose main goal is to continue the craziness in Diary World. He could care less that 5 or more women were murdered. Perhaps if some of the people in Diary World focused their efforts on viable solutions rather than methodologies that have failed at every turn, which includes this pitiful diary discussion, something might actually get done. This person doesn't care. You tell me what kind of a person that makes him?
Glenna - if you read any of my posts with the ability to comprehend you;d realize that I have no high horse. I make no qualms about holding myself to the same standard I hold everyone else. that's not effettish or superior at all. It is merely that with an approach such as this more people will call you on your posts, which you can't back up with any solid answers, only sidestepped rhetoric that either bores or confuses most people. Your attempts to impress people have been made transparent.
And your contempt for me, when I am one of the few people here who is trying to make a difference, and consider myself no better than the average newbie, only perhaps more knowledgeable, shows with every post. It shows your personality clear through.
I apologize for the legth of this post, but when confronted with mounds of BS, one must return with solid information and explanation.
SJR |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3278
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
Guys -
You've officially killed what could have been an interesting thread. Can you please take this argument to pub talk or email please and let those who want to discuss the Seaham Murder control this thread.
Thanks
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 239
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Stephen,
Yep. I'm done.
SJR |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3776
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Yep, so am I, Stephen.
And believe me, I would like nothing more than this thread to go back to what AP usually intended with it.
No, Stan, I never travel to Diary World and there are quite obvious reasons for it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3777
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
AP,
Any more info on the murder case?
As I understand it from one of your later posts, the murderer was unrelated to the victim? If so, I believe he would have a prior criminal history, but then one wonders why he would drown himself. One would think that a suicide would be more relevant for someone connected to the victim, than someone who had an experience in criminal activities. But of course, maybe this was the first time he had committed such an act and suddenly felt there was no way back. The human mind is a mystery.
Any name yet on the man, AP?
As for Druitt, I have always felt his suicide to be a bit over-empahized in the Ripper context. Although the timing fits, he surely didn't need to have committed serial murder in order to take the desicion he did.
He had -- for reasons we don't really know for certain -- been sacked from his position and much points at his life was going in a downwards spiral. If he then started to realise that he was beginning to show signs of an inherited mental illness on top of that, well...
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4712
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
I haven't been able to find this murder in the "Times" using tea alone. Either AP is using a different source to obtain this info, or the same source but different liquid refreshment.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Yes, Robert, it’s the brandy. You drink a glass - or two - go to type in ‘Seaham Murder’ in the search engine, and forget the ‘Murder’, then all is revealed. It does mean you have to wade through about 300 reports, but hey, I don’t mind wasting my old time.
I found a total of six reports, which I must go back and read again.
Believe it or not, I actually made that first post so that at some time in the future when some profiler says that it is highly unlikely that so and so killed so and so and then committed suicide, because the profile of this killer does not allow for suicide, then someone who had read the original post could have put their hand up and said:
‘Excuse me, but what about the Seaham Murder?’
Simple and sweet as that.
I will attempt to find out more. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 240
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
AP,
Sorry for jumping into this thread. I was looking to have a real discussion about profiling, as that was what I believed you were interested in.
I undewrstand now that that is an impossibility. You have my e-mail address if you would like to discuss profiling with someone who may have a dissenting opinion. Who knows? You might change my mind.
SJR |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
The search engines are not responding.
However I do remember that the tramp arrested was from the island of Jersey - which is strange - and was named in one of the reports.
The man seen boarding a steamer - who fitted the description of the murderer - was bound for Inverness on the good ship ‘Jacinth’.
Interesting though is that a year later in 1900 a certain John Bowes, aged 50, actually beat his estranged wife to death on the very same Seaham beach, and this man had a long history of violence towards his wife and daughter, having once stripped his daughter naked and beaten her.
Bowes was sentenced to death for the crime. |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 602
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
The murder occurred in 1889. I managed to find 5 of the reports from 'The Times' 3 from 1889 and 2 from 1891.
Monday 5 August 1889
Tuesday 13 August 1889
Tuesday 20 August 1889
Tuesday 3 February 1891
Tuesday 10 February 1891
Rob |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3789
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Thanks Rob,
Interesting with all those guys coming forward 'confessing' to the murder. Not very much has changed, I suppose.
Still no name on the drowned man. Noteworthy that they theorise that he might have killed himself because he may have 'found it impossible to escape'.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 404
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
A. P.,
Thanks for that example of an English child murder case where the killer presumebly committed suicide after the event.
The other bit I found interesting was the travelling to Tynemouth of an unnamed Inspector of police along with the surviving young child, to see if the alleged confessor, Witherspoon, was the actual person seen by the child at Seaham.
This method echoes the "Seaside Home" scenario mentioned in the Swanson notations.
Presumeably, the suicide's corpse was discovered after the Tynemouth identification. And presumeably the little girl was used to identify the gruesome corpse. Thereby verifying the murderer had drowned himself.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4713
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
If this list is exhaustive, then the murderer dodged the rope one way or another.
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DUR/D_Executions.html#top
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
"It is of great intrinsic value, such as the understanding we now know that Melville MacNaghten was basically a boob, making such ridiculous errors on his personal suspect as his age and his actual first name."
This thinking, now repeated by Mr. Russo, but said by many others in other ways, has never sat well with me. It's easy to dismiss Macnaghten's errors as the 'ridiculous' words of a blustering boob, or --as other do-- of an old man with a 'garbled memory.' But is this the right answer?
It seems to me that very few have thought a bit futher, given Macnaghten a pinch of credit and asked why his biographical details about Druitt were wrong. And it's an important question because with the Druitt theory, one is faced with a seemingly irreconcilable contradiction: that, on one hand, Macnaghten is underinformed, and, on the other, that he is totally convinced. In his new book, Paul Begg, I think has come up with a very sensible answer.
He argues that Macnaghten's biographical details are wrong, not because his memory is garbled, but because he is working almost soley from the police report of Druitt's suicide. (I won't entirely step on Mr. Begg's toes...refer to his book for the full explanation). In other words, Macnaghten is not 'garbled'---he never really knew the details to begin with. Personally, I think Begg is very likely to be right about this.
Does this make Druitt an awful suspect? Not necessarily. We have to still explain why Macnaghten was so impressed. And the only reasonable answer is that there were some circumstances that convinced him. This is likely to have been something at the administrative level. So, for the sake of argument, it might have gone down something like this. The 'private' information from a Dorset MP reaches Macnaghten. A wild tale about a surgeon's son with blood on his clothes or whatever. Later, he turns up drowned. A second scrap of information includes that the man's brother was making inquiries, 'his own family suspected him.' Beyond that, Macnaghten doesn't know much. Using this, he rubbishes around and comes up with the Police Report on the drowning shortly after the Kelly murder which seemingly confirms the rumor he has been handed. It's persuasive. But then, there's something else, something that proves the clincher in his mind. We don't know what this is, but I think it is very likely to have existed. Scotland Yard had been compiling all sorts of lists. Insane medical students. Recently released lunatics. There must have been others. Sexual deviants, and so on. I think (and again, I can't prove it) but I think at the 'administrative level' Druitt's name turned up somewhere else. A man stopped for questioning in a darkened street, or a man who's name came up in a brothel raid, or so on. Somewhere, somehow, Druitt's name was already in the Ripper 'files', so when Macnaghten or his underling began poking around the 'rumor' seemingly was confirmed on two more levels--and that is why it proved so powerful a structure to so many, even though the individual bricks were weak. It was simply a circumstantial case, but that is all one is likely to get in a case like this that went unsolved. So it doesn't mean that Macnaghten was a boob, nor does it even necessarily mean that he was wrong. Signed,
~the last gasping of a faint hearted one-time Druittist. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 241
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
R.J.,
First, please call me Stan.
You are absolutely right, MacNaghten's errors regarding Druitt does not make him less of a suspect. In fact, MacNaghten's many errors on Druitt should not affect his suspect status whatsoever.
However, because of MacNaghten's memo, prior to the discoveries that it was riddled with errors, Druitt was launched into top status. Fair is fair. If Druitt became a top suspect because of a memo, then the errors in that memo should knock him down from that status.
Now in reality, I never put any stock in that whatsoever, because I analyzed the man, not the boob writing about him, simply because he got most of his information wrong. And yes MacNaghten is a boob to use one document, as you say Begg asserts, to base the his entire portion of his memo on Druitt from. How about some actual policework? None there, because MacNaghten, as both Warren and Monro knew, was a boob. Back to Druitt.
You have just stated a point I have been trying to make for years R.J. Simply because MacNaghten was erroneous about Druitt in his ideas that should not eliminate him from consideration. You are correct, but you must take that one step further. This must apply to all other suspects, most notably Walter Sickert, because he is the controversial suspect at the moment.
You must state, to be fair, that just because Patricia Cornwell was so far off in her book proposing Sickert, that her ridiculous theory should not eliminate him from consideration. Fair is fair. One of the major problems in this case is that people do not follow this principle, yet are more than happy to apply it to their own preferred suspect.
There are hundreds of reasons why MacNaghten could have chosen Druitt. Unfortunately he was a boob, and never told us the real truth. Specualtion is good, and I encourage it. I have my own ideas, but they have to work within a logical framework. They can't just grab ideas out of thin air that contradict with what is actually known.
Hope that explains the boob remark a little better R.J.
SJR |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 788
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Hi R.J.,
You wrote:
"...one is faced with a seemingly irreconcilable contradiction: that, on one hand, Macnaghten is underinformed, and, on the other, that he is totally convinced."
How is that a contradiction, let alone an irreconcilable one?
Moving to a general comparison instead of sticking with this specific instance (to avoid debating Macnaghten's competency for a moment), lots of people without very much knowledge about some topic or another have totally convinced themselves that they are right about their conclusions relating to it. It is, unfortunately, human nature to jump to conclusions without reasonable evidence.
So as not to stray too far from examples we are all familiar with, there are Patricia Cornwell, Tony Williams and a number of others everyone can probably think of on their own. I think it's safe to say that being underinformed leads to the belief that one's opinions are right more often than actually being well-informed does... and being misinformed makes it even worse.
And here's one of my favorite references related to the phenomena:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1999, Vol. 77, No. 6. 121-1134
Getting back to Macnaghten's example, it is also possible that other things may have gone on. For one thing, the memorandum was specifically written to serve as a document for politicians to use as a defense should a controversy flair up and they needed to defend themselves. It's quite common for people in those situations to overstate their certainty about conclusions. I mean, assuming they had no clue about who the Ripper was and knew that, he couldn't very well have written something for the Home Office stating that. And then it's also an unfortunate aspect of human psychology that people who have made a conclusion known to other people -- even ones they know they didn't have the facts to support or even when they themselves actually believed just the opposite of what they said -- are more likely to continue to support that conclusion in stronger and stronger ways as time goes on. People like to be seen as mentally consistent. This need is so strong that even something you don't really believe tends to become something that you do if you say it often enough.
Where Macnaghten really fell on the scales of competence, being well informed, and supporting the statements in the memorandum is debatable, but I thought I would just point out that claims of knowing an answer are not necessarily related to actually knowing the answer... I think some people who certainly show themselves capable of applying that the modern writers (everyone here can point to at least one Ripper author who claims to have the answer but who obviously doesn't) sometimes fail to take that into consideration when it comes to sources -- officials, media, witnesses, etc. -- contemporary to the case.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Thank you Rob C. for posting the reports.
Much appreciated.
I believe this to have been an interesting little experiment for our edification. For here we see - eleven years after the Whitechapel Murders - a police force struggling to come to grips with the evidence under their control in a high-profile murder case.
But even more than that I believe the Seaham Harbour Murder case offers us a unique insight into murder in the Late Victorian Period, and how that murder was consequently investigated by the police.
There are also useful parallels and comparisons that can be made between the investigation of this case and the Whitechapel Murders.
Firstly there is the matter of the drowned man found later on the same beach on the same day, just yards from where the awful murder had been committed. As can be seen there was an immediate assumption by the police that both events must be related and that the drowned man had in fact murdered the girl and then committed suicide.
One can hardly blame them under the circumstances.
But the fact of the matter is that this assumption may well have led the police to disregard other important evidence in the case.
The description of the drowned man causes alarm bells to ring. For he is wearing trousers, one sock and one shoe.
Now a man who intends to drown himself does not usually remove any clothing; and a man who accidentally drowns does not remove his jacket, shirt and one shoe and one sock.
This is crucial.
For if the chap had simply gone for a swim he would have removed the other shoe and sock.
If the chap committed suicide he would have done so fully clothed.
It strikes me as far more likely that this man may well have witnessed the crime and then been attacked by the murderer; and the murderer had then attempted to disguise the crime as a suicide by removing certain articles of clothing.
Alternately he may well have been thrown off a ship out to sea and floated in on the tide, some days before the murder of the girl took place… just happenstance.
Whatever, the drowned man absorbed the attention of the police; as did the tramp from Jersey for a while; as did the chap fleeing on a schooner for Scotland; as did the confessor who was cleared of the charge.
But in the final result no person was convicted of the brutal murder.
A cold case, just like Jack.
Then a year later in 1900 John Bowes beats his wife to death with a lump of wood while she is collecting coals from Seaham Harbour beach - in exactly the same place as the girl was murdered - and we learn that he had a long time history of abuse and drunkenness, where he has beaten and stripped his own daughter.
Remember the testimony of the other girl who was with Caroline Edith Winter when she was abducted? That the person who took her claimed to be related to her.
Well maybe he really was.
And just maybe the tramp from Jersey; the drowned man; the chap fleeing on the schooner, and the confessor to the crimes, diluted the efforts of the investigating police so much that they lost their man forever.
Shades of Jack and no mistake.
I’d be willing to bet my last bottle of Spanish brandy that John Bowes killed Caroline Edith Winter; and I’d be willing to bet my last ounce of Samson tobacco that he was a relation to her.
I think someone should get the Seaham Harbour police to reopen this case. |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 78
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Stan & Glenn
Why not start your own thread entitled
"The Boxing Authors"
your arguments are becoming stale and yes tiresome.Going over the same ground back and forth. Lets move on. Don't waste your talents,with these trivialities.
AP
Your post was very informative. All murderers and or murder comparsions gives us all another avenue to explore. I sure find your posts interesting, informative, whitty and most authorative when it comes to Jack
Regards
Restless Spirit
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 242
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
RS,
I couldn't agree more that petty squabbles are not for here. Unfortunately my Indian name is "argues with idiots", so as you can see i am doomed sometimes.
SJR |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3795
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Restless,
In case you hadn't noticed, that little squabble is already over and done with on this thread.
The focus is back on the case.
AP,
It is absolutely a possibility that the drowned man mustn't necessarily have been the murderer -- as far as I can see there is no clear evidence of that. Your suggestion -- that he might have been a witness -- is just as plausible, I guess.
And I absolutely agree with what you say in the introduction of your post.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Hi R.J. & Stan
R.J., don't make it your last gasp. Despite the errors in Macnaghten's preparation, I still believe Druitt to be the best Ripper suspect ever put forward. I won't go into my reasons for believing that here, but suffice to say I believe that a better circumstantial case can be made for him, from start to finish, than can be made for any other suspect.
Stan, I like the way you work, in applying the same principles to each and every suspect. I have done this for many years, before reaching my own particular conclusions.
Warmest regards to you both.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Ditto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 1:01 am: |
|
Hi All
If you pop the words Caroline, Winter, murder and Seaham into a search engine you will find a site called Wearsideonline.com.
On this site there is a brief account of said murder but alas it gives the date for the murder as August 1889!
If the date is correct, it does place this murder closer in time to the Whitechapel murders.
Whether or not it has any relevance to those murders is oviously up for debate!
Regards
Di |
Donovan Carman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
A.P,
The research I did shows the murder to have taken place on August 2, 1889. Ms. Winter was 7yrs 7 months old. The site of this atrocity was (and still is) called Black Rock.
Hope this helps. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 406
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:39 am: |
|
Hello All,
I am finding it intriguing how the various sub-threads and tangents are weaving in and out down the page.
I believe A. P Wolf intended to cite the Seaham Murder Case to illustrate the fact other murderers have committed suicide afterwards.
But, A.P., is your example as clear-cut now?
Presumeably, this Seaham "suicide" should be a parallel parable for another series of murders with which we are more familiar?
Interesting as the Seaham Murder is, I am sure there are other, more clear-cut examples of definitely established murderers topping themselves after killing?
As for R.J. Palmer's mini-Dissertation on Melville Macnaghten's confusion and ability,
is it possible for you to move that theme to a new thread R.J.? I for one, would love to express some opinion on the matter.I found your thoughts
provoking in a positive sense.
Worthy, in my opinion, of further discussion. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 407
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:44 am: |
|
Hello All,
I am finding it intriguing how the various sub-threads and tangents are weaving in and out down the page.
I believe A. P Wolf intended to cite the Seaham Murder Case to illustrate the fact other murderers have committed suicide afterwards.
But, A.P., is your example as clear-cut now?
Presumeably, this Seaham "suicide" should be a parallel parable for another series of murders with which we are more familiar?
Interesting as the Seaham Murder is, I am sure there are other, more clear-cut examples of definitely established murderers topping themselves after killing?
As for R.J. Palmer's mini-Dissertation on Melville Macnaghten's confusion and ability,
is it possible for you to move that theme to a new thread R.J.? I for one, would love to express some opinion on the matter.I found your thoughts
provoking in a positive sense.
Worthy, in my opinion, of further discussion. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 663
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Mr. Ruffel's--Consider it moved. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 23, 2005) |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Hi again RJ,
Feel free to move my comment with yours.
I am curious if the name of the sight of the Seaham atrocity is called "Black Rock" due to it's color or to what happened there in 1889.
As for the interesting situation regarding the 1900 murder of Mrs. John Bowes by her husband, at the same location, it reminds me of another famous murder mystery. In November 1900 Mrs. John Bennett was murdered at Yarmouth Beach, and her husband (despite an interesting and spirited defense by Sir Edward Marshall Hall) was convicted and hanged of the murder the following year. Mrs. Bennett was strangled in the murder. In 1912 another young woman was found strangled at the same spot that Mrs. Bennett had been found killed. For many who believe John Bennett was innocent of his wife's murder, they feel the real killer may have struck again.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Quite right, John, the original thrust of the thread - that the murderer committed suicide by drowning himself - is all to beggary now; but I do see that as a very positive development.
The fact that opinions - including mine - meld and change as more information is discovered shows that evolution is in process, rather than some kind of stagnation where nothing ever really happens.
The fact that the original purpose behind beginning this thread has been swallowed wholesale by a bigger fish is I think absolutely right and proper.
It is the very lifting of such subtle shadows which will eventually expose Jack in all his mundane glory.
Somewhere there is a small news cutting revealing a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ of some seemingly unrelated event to the Whitechapel Murders, but that seemingly unrelated event will lift the whore’s skirt.
Just as we have seen in the Seaham Harbour Murder where it is entirely possible that the two separate murders were committed by the same hand; and instead of two unrelated murders, we may well be looking at a series of three related murders.
All is never what it seems.
There is no doubt that mass murderers often commit suicide after the tragic events they have created reach final closure; but I think you would be hard pressed to find a serial killer who has done the same.
However I’d be happy if you did find such a serial killer. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 703
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Johannes Mashiane, dubbed ‘The beast of Atteridgeville’ (Pretoria, South Africa) and murderer of 12 boys and his girlfriend, died in October 1989 when he jumped under or in front of a bus while being chased by the police. I don’t have any particulars, so I can’t say for sure that it was suicide or just an accident, but I’m under the impression that it’s the former. But, if I’m correct, I don’t suppose this is what you meant, or is it?
Interesting (though disturbing) cases you keep putting forward, by the way.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 408
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Hello R.J.,
Thanks for moving over to an existing Druitt thread which will be easier to rediscover in ten years time.
By then, I would never think to look for your scintillating thoughts about Macnaghten and Druitt under the "Seaham Murder" thread!
No offence A.P.:your ideas are most valid but
deal with other matters.You will understand.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Hi AP,
Fred West and Harold Shipman committed suicide, but I doubt they would have done so if they hadn't been caught.
Interesting to see that a drunk Joseph Witherspoon's confession in 1891 convinced no one. Good to see that the honest 'nothing like' statement by the little witness was taken seriously.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
