|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 789
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:53 am: | 
|
Hi Melissa,
Klosowski's motive appears to have been getting rid of his then current wife/girlfriend so he could move on to the next one.
The Ripper's intentions were almost certainly just to rip up a body. There doesn't appear to have been any goal beyond that. Some people have tried to come up with other motives, but none of them really fit the nature of the wounds and organs taken very well.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 702
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Hi D.M.R./David,
"If you want to say that Chapman was the Ripper, then you have to show that Chapman was a psychopath."
That's a strange thing to say, considering it hasn't been established that the Ripper was a psychopath. The fact that the Ripper's murders were grossly irrational acts, incomprehensible to the average person doesn't particularly point in the direction of a psychopath.
I do, however, agree that Klosowski does seem to have possessed psychopath-like characteristics. He was a liar, a manipulator, a charmer, he cold-bloodedly killed without showing any signs of remorse, and he doesn't seem to have cared for anybody but himself.
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)
|
BenH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Hi all,
It is noteworthy, I think, that Klosowski was aged in his early 20s at the time of the murders, and that contemproaneous photographs of the man show him wearing a dark, bushy moutstache.
Might it be observed that his phyciscal apperance doesn't correlate at all with the vast majority of witness descriptions? |
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. "Klosowski's motive appears to have been getting rid of his then current wife/girlfriend so he could move on to the next one."
>>This is like saying my motive for walking down the corridor was to get to room 224, because that was the room into which I turned. But why did I want to get to room 224? Because this question is not posed, no question is answered. You have what looks like an answer, but isn't one.
2. "The Ripper's intentions were almost certainly just to rip up a body. There doesn't appear to have been any goal beyond that."
>>JtR DIDN'T rip up any bodies! His sobriquet is a misnomer! He cut them up, dissected them, examined them, played doctor with them. If his goal was simply to rip them up, why did he remove and take organs? Why certain organs in particular? Why a certain organ from a certain class of women (maternal-looking) in particular?
3. "Some people have tried to come up with other motives, but none of them really fit the nature of the wounds and organs taken very well."
>>Surely this is anti-intellectualism, chaos over order. JtR extracted (or attempted to extract) the uterus of every maternal-looking victim (beginning with Nichols) whenever he had the chance (except Stride, a special case, for whom his plans may have been different.) Surely this indicates a sentiment against maternal authority on his part. Let the evidence be the evidence. |
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Mr. Radka wrote: "If you want to say that Chapman was the Ripper, then you have to show that Chapman was a psychopath."
Mr. Oploo responded: "That's a strange thing to say, considering it hasn't been established that the Ripper was a psychopath. The fact that the Ripper's murders were grossly irrational acts, incomprehensible to the average person doesn't particularly point in the direction of a psychopath."
>>Oh yes it does, Mr. Oploo! Psychopaths are characterized by the irrationality of their acts, by acts directly contrary to their own interests, and often in reversal of the very most basic instincts and principles of life itself. This comes from the fundamental irrationality of their personality structure as conscience-free. By the evidence, the antisocial and irrational actions of the Whitechapel murderer strongly indicate psychopathy. You need to learn how to read psychiatry, Mr. Oploo, and stop spending so much of your time in the company of Evans, Sugden, etc.
|
Melissa Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 2:38 am: |
|
D. M. R: "But Chapman appears in other respects a bit too stable and conventionally understandable to be a psychopath."
Really? I mean, there is some sort of reasoning behind the poisonings, but psychopaths always tend to have a sort of twisted reasoning, do they not? And they are quite capable of interacting among others 'normally'- but rarely generate intimate relationships. Although he 'collected' wives, they were merely possessions and, as Klosowski said before his hanging, he had no friends. Mostly what convinced me (as best as I could be convinced from only paper) was Klosowski's creation of alternate reality's, seemingly without purpose, that he adhered to, similarly irrationally. This, I felt was truly indicative of a deranged mind.
What also struck me was his complete indifference to the suffering of others and the cavalier way he spoke about it: "Oh, I'd give her that and there would be no more Mrs. Chapman," and even joked about it, lying to a friend of his wife's: "Bessie is dead". What a sense of humor, this guy!
While I still have my doubts, Klosowski definately fits the bill for a psychopath to me.
QUESTION: What do you folk think of Donald Rumbelow's supposition that Dr. Pedachenko was another alias of Severin Klosowski? |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 795
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Hi David M Radka,
"You have what looks like an answer, but isn't one."
Only because you refuse to accept answers you don't like.
"JtR DIDN'T rip up any bodies!"
Only if you completely change the meaning of the word "rip."
"JtR extracted (or attempted to extract) the uterus of every maternal-looking victim (beginning with Nichols) whenever he had the chance (except Stride, a special case, for whom his plans may have been different.)"
We don't know that the Ripper tried to remove Nichols' uterus. In fact, it would seem unlikely that he was attempting to based upon the wounds he made, which were just, if you'll excuse me pointing out the obvious, rips. And then you pooh pooh Stride with assumptions of different plans, and then ignore the fact that MJK's uterus was not taken by specifically discussing "maternal-looking" victims. You've basically taken what happened during only two out of five murders and tried to claim it was his motivation for all of them - or at least the ones you want to deal with. That's a textbook case of intellectual dishonesty right there.
And regarding your nonsense about psychopaths that you posted above, the A?R thread had a huge number of posts thoroughly disproving most of your claims about what that mental diagnosis was all about. The idea that you are still pretending to know more than the American Psychiatric Association when it comes to how psychopaths act shows an disturbing inclination to set your own untrained layman's opinions above the professional experts on the topic.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
There were not a huge number of posts thoroughly disproving David's claims on the A?R thread. There were only Norder's deluded beliefs that he had disproved David's notions about psychopaths because he (Norder) was an expert on the topic. Norder never did respond to repeated requests to identify his "professional experts" who dismissed David's views. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3812
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Radka,
There you go again, old friend, with your very own brand of textbook psychology. There are not many true signs saying with certainty that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. One could suggest it, but taking it for granted the way you do is not intellectually sane; it's just ignorant. Judging from the actual crime scenes (and not psychological textbooks) I can think of other psychological suggestions.
As for Chapman -- we know enough about him to probably be able to label him as a full-fledged psychopath. Manipulative, cunning and rational when he needed to be, totally free of empathy and also a sadist. But if you study his case closely, you will also find that he acted quite irrational and careless at times, as psychopaths usually do when they get carried away and become too sure of themselves.
Your view of a psychopath is too limited and narrow -- not to mention generalised -- which is the greatest problems with the kind of academic armchair theorising you represent.
The theoretical basis for your deductions was wrong already on the A?R thread and it is still out of order.
I have to agree on, though, that looking at two of the most important canonical victims, the womb seems to have been target, simply because that is what they both had in common as far as missing organs are concerned (we can't know what he intended to take from Nichols anyway, if he had been more experienced at the time or hadn't been disturbed... whatever option one prefer).
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 796
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
Your statements above are false, and what's worse is that you know that they are false.
I never claimed to be an expert on the topic, just that I certainly had far better qualifications than David (having actually taken -- and recieved the highest possible grade in, since I know that you like to insinuate I didnt pass when I don't specify otherwise -- high-level college classes focusing on abnormal psychology and counseling, as compared to David and presumably yourself having no education on the topic whatsoever, except for some philosophy course he took somewhere that he tried to claim was relevant somehow and one of you having had an low level intro to psych class once, if I remember correctly).
I also provided a large number of direct quotes from professional sources proving David's statements as totally incorrect. These references included the professional manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which is the official method of diagnosing mental disorders in this country and elsewhere. All David did to try to support his side is make up his own list of what he considered psychopaths to be like, attacked the APA as a bunch of idiots, and included extremely bizarre misinterpretions of what a few older sources (several decades out of date) had claimed.
The A?R thread, as you well remember, was locked because you and David (and another poster who has since been banned) refused to try to support your claims and insisted instead upon making up outrageous personal insults and baseless accusations. It is quite regrettable that you and David now try to continue the same thing in other threads in order to both get them off the topic and to find some way to continue a dispute that Stephen forcibly stopped.
By the way, I thought you were complaining elsewhere that you had been banned from these message boards? It is a shame that you seemingly were given a second chance only to jump back in right away with more of the same.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 708
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Dear Mr Radka,
First of all, you should do a little better reading yourself, because my last name is Van Oploo.
Second of all, are you saying that people who suffer from mental diseases do not display irrational behaviour? If so, perhaps you should be the one to learn how to read psychiatry.
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)
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
My statements above are not false and what is worse, you know they aren't. When Diana asked you to tell her what your "experts" said, you just referred her back to the archives, saying that it was all in there - somewhere. Clearly, it is not. You and other posters, such as Jeff Hamm and Jason Mullins, claimed that you knew enough about psychopathy to affirmatively debunk David's views. But all you did was to read simple checklists of the condition and then arbitrarily decide that David, having made several years of study, was wrong. All Jeff Hamm did was review database subject headers of journal articles and based on that, he arbitrarily decided that David was wrong. All Mullins did was figure that he must know more than David because he has two antisocial family members. These are the real "experts folks.
You are just up to your old deceptive tricks of claiming the archives contain a vast treasure trove of support for your views when, in fact, they do not. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 798
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
And you are back to blatant distortions of truth because you refuse to admit that you were proven wrong.
The archives for that thread contain several direct quotes from experts, professional journal articles and the manual of the American Psychiatric Association, as well as direct quotes from the very sources David tried to claim he was using that all showed that he was completely wrong on multiple key points.
I'm sorry, but you can't be seriously claiming that an accountant with no background on the topic reading a couple of outdated books and trying to apply that info to a theory that *he had already made up his mind on* (check the Casebook CD for when he first announced he solved the case then several years later when he asked for help tracking down the same books he now claims gave him the info on psychopaths that supposedly forms the foundation for his entire theory) seriously counts as meaningful "several years study"... especially when you discount the fact that a number of people who pointed out David's errors had actual "several years of study" for which we had to take tests to prove our understanding of the material. David's only support for the claim that he is right is that he claims he is smarter than everyone else and that the APA (whose members are the foremost experts on the topic) doesn't know what it's talking about.
You are in denial, and everyone who read that thread while it was happening knows it. In fact, considering how you and David backtracked on earlier claims and tried to pretend you never said them once they were proven wrong (and then ignored the posts with direct quotes and links to the original messages proving you really did say those things), even you must know that you are in denial.
Come on Scott, get real. You aren't fooling anyone here, not even yourself.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 799
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
...but then the last thing I need to do is to let David and Scott here hijack someone else's thread because theirs was locked by management.
Click here to see the colossal waste of Casebook resources that was called "A?R"
(Note that that gives you the last page, click the links at the top for the actual discussion instead of just the point where the insults and repeating of already proven false statements got the thread locked.)
I'm confident that anyone who looks through it will see that my description of what happened there is completely accurate. After all, the overwhelming number of people who posted there when it was live all agreed.
And now, back to a topic that isn't locked and doesn't deserve to be taken over by people trying to squeeze juice from an already thoroughly dessicated horse: "Purchase of Poisons and JTR Connection"....
(Message edited by dannorder on July 26, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3815
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Ha! I loved that, Dan.
"Waste of resources" indeed... 
Yes you're right; back to the thread now.
Not even a slick wifebuser like Klosowski deserves to get hijacked by A?R...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 26, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 41
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Nelson,
I see that Norder still clings to the notion that he sustained his arguments on the old A?R thread.
In reality, Norder’s arguments confirmed the following:
1. He never took graduate level courses in psychology.
2. He is unfamiliar with standard APA methodology.
3. He is not qualified to offer anything more than a pedestrian opinion re: psychological issues.
4. He is unable to reason with complex arguments.
5. He is unable to argue a position without resorting to fabrication and distortion.
6. He thinks the Casebook readers have poor comprehension skills.
7. Statistics confuse him.
8. He is unwilling, or unable, to properly cite his sources.
I invite the Casebook readers to go back through the A?R thread and read Norder’s arguments, and draw their own conclusions about the accuracy of these eight points. If he continues to claim that he sustained his cockamamie assertions, then I will be happy to, once again, point out his mistakes.
Mephisto
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3816
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Mephisto,
In case you didn't notice it, Norder himself provided a link to that very thread.
Now, can we get back to the real subject of this thread? A?R has had its chance on these Boards already, and this is not the place for it.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 800
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
Not only is your post above entirely false in every single accusation, but the A?R thread already covered it in extensive detail... Not that your trying to distract people from A?R's numerous and extensive errors by focusing on me was ever a reasonable strategy in the first place.
Your insistence on making personal attacks and petty insinuations instead of focusing on the topic being discussed is what caused the A?R thread to get locked and you to get banned once or twice already. Do you have anything on topic to discuss, or are you just here to toss out more insults until you are banned yet again?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 406
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
Mephisto and Scott Nelson,
I don't know much about you guys, other than you're argumentative (Victorian euphamism for 'a couple of pricks) and you have issues with people who achieve, such as Dan Norder, who restructured Ripper Notes and made it the current favorite of Ripper journals. Does Mr. Norder make mistakes? Of course he does. He failed to recognize the genius behind my D'Onston article for Ripperologist. But, damn, Mephisto, at least he posts under his own name. And he provides a forum for serious study of the case. What do you do? Carry Radka's briefcase and Prozac for him....Radka...forget blind leading the blind, that's like Hellen Keller leading a chorus line. I think you two should find a woman - and I mean one to share, cuz finding two that would hang with you guys is a bit of a stretch - or if you're batting for the other team, just relocate to be near each other. Hell, even an egg gets laid once. You can set up camp on Radka's doorstep and shave your heads or something. I guess what I'm trying to say, in the most subtle, non-combative terms possible, is that you guys are a couple of trouble-making meanies who seem to be on here just to stir sh*t - and not in a fun way. I'm half tempted to buy you both a subscription to Ripperana - but even Radka doesn't deserve that, and you'd probably never get your issues anyway. So, I'll just ask you to stop being mean and just post on threads where you have something constructive to offer. You will be a lot happier, and so will all the posters you insult as a matter of course.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. And aren't you guys supposed to be, like, banned or something? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1797
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
Tom,
Though I see your point but...
..."What do you do? Carry Radka's briefcase and Prozac for him....Radka...forget blind leading the blind, that's like Hellen Keller leading a chorus line. I think you two should find a woman - and I mean one to share, cuz finding two that would hang with you guys is a bit of a stretch - or if you're batting for the other team, just relocate to be near each other. Hell, even an egg gets laid once. You can set up camp on Radka's doorstep and shave your heads or something..."..and so on.
Kinda deafeats what your trying to get across with "So, I'll just ask you to stop being mean and just post on threads where you have something constructive to offer." doesnt it?
Cheers,
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Hi,
its over 7 months since the a?r thread got closed you'd think people would get over it.
If people don't want to discuss the topic of this thread (for whatever reason) we should ignore what they say on it. And yes i see that means you should ignore this.
Now back to the topic in hand and let that be that.
which was Chapman wasn't it?
wheres Adam!
Jenni
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
I think Tom means it's ok to indulge in highly personal insults with sexual connotations, as long as it's done in a 'fun' way (whatever that means to the poster on the receiving end).
Sometimes I could swear some posters see an entirely different set of rules at the top of their preview posts to the rest of us.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 999
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
No Caz, everyone sees the same set of rules, but just like you choose which days you are going to follow them, everyone else does too.
Sometimes I swear you try to make out like you are always the victim and never the perpetrator. But that's just silly.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Caz,
Practice and preach....and I do neither.
Monty
Of course this land is dangerous!
All of the animals are capably murderous.
|
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Wescott,
To ensure that you take my meaning, I’ll assume the same attitude you used in your reply. OK?
You wrote: “I don't know much about you guys, other than you're argumentative (Victorian euphamism for 'a couple of pricks) and you have issues with people who achieve, such as Dan Norder”. Evidently, there are a lot of things you don’t know. Your post makes it clear that:
• You never read the A?R thread in its entirety.
• Like Norder, you have trouble reasoning with complex arguments.
• Like Norder, you choose to ignore reality.
When you’re finished French kissing Norder’s ass, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the central theme of my arguments at the A?R thread. If you are the objective journalist that you’d like everyone to believe you are, then I’m sure you’ll agree that it provides enough evidence to refute your baseless claim, i.e., I am a quarrelsome and aggressive euphemism for a Victorian prick. If I have a point of view, then I’ll argue my position. If my opponent is congenial, then I’m congenial. What is it about this concept that you don’t understand?
For your information, my Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 5:12 pm, response to Michael Raney’s Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 2:34 pm post; my Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 4:23 am response to Glenn Andersson's July 29, 10:48 pm post; my Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 10:46 pm response to Ally’s Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:12 am post, or my Friday, August 20, 2004, at 9:37 pm response to Kelly Robinson’s Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:51 am post, make it abundantly clear, to the unbiased reader, that I treat people the same way they treat me. I think Kelly Robinson’s, Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:19 am reply, demonstrates that she recognized and appreciated my “do unto others” approach to discussion.
I’m not surprised by your opinion that I “have issues with people who achieve”. Since I’ve known you, you’ve always been a toady, and apparently, age hasn’t modified your penchant for groveling at the feet of anyone who’s willing to publish your…work. To set the record straight, I have a few issues, with one individual, and if you were capable of comprehending the focus of my arguments, then you would have realized that Norder’s achievements, whatever they may be, were irrelevant to my discourse. If anyone here has issues with “people who achieve”, it’s Norder.
Radka, Nelson, and I have college degrees; Norder doesn’t. So, one could easily get the impression that he’s jealous of us, and is forever trying to prove himself our equal. Ally made the argument, and I agreed with her standpoint, that a college education is not essential to arguing the details of Ripperology. But you already knew this, because you read the archive. Right?
You asked: Does Mr. Norder make mistakes? You haven’t been paying attention, have you? My arguments dealt with pointing out the numerous mistakes, and exposing the deceptions in Norder’s posts. You see, when Norder realizes that his arguments aren’t working, he resorts to distorting his opponents positions; it’s in the A?R archive for all to read. Go there and read it for yourself.
During our debate, the bulk of my posts dealt exclusively with refuting his obfuscations and intellectual dishonesty. This was necessary, because your idol refused to honestly review Radka’s Summary. Others, most notably R.J. Palmer, were interested in determining whether or not Radka had broken any new ground. That Norder panned the summary was never the issue, the issue was, and always will be, the means and content of his critique. Norder made accusations that were, and still remain untrue, and unproven. On the other hand, my arguments proved conclusively that:
• Norder’s insights were neither superior, nor beyond reproach; he eventually admitted that he didn’t have a college degree.
• Norder didn’t know how to properly use his support criteria; he admitted that he didn’t know how to use the DSM-IV or the PCL-R; he didn’t have the research experience where one learns how to use them, because he didn’t have a Master’s Degree in Psychology.
• Norder’s arguments were circular and contrived, i.e., he claimed that his “superior qualifications” guaranteed that his arguments were irrefutable.
It follows that if his insights are no better informed than Radka’s, and he used his support criteria improperly, and his argument were circular, then his claims are spurious. Are you with me so far, or are you going out to the barn for a quickie?
The one thing I found amusing about your rant, is your willingness to publicly expose your sexual shortcomings. I’m positive the readers have already noticed that you framed your argument in terms of sexual prowess. Subconsciously, what you’re admitting here is that you’re having problems attracting a female that doesn’t bleat, moo, or bark.
You advise me that I should “stop being mean and just post on threads where [I] have something constructive to offer. [I] will be a lot happier, and so will all the posters [I] insult as a matter of course”. If you weren’t such a kiss ass, you’d realize that there aren’t any insults in my post of Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 6:37 pm, just facts, and as far as trouble-making is concerned, your maladroit defense of farmer Dan, is hypocritical and inflamatory.
A word of advice to you sonny…wise up. I have no desire to engage in a battle of wits, with an unarmed opponent.
Up yours, truly,
Mephisto
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3820
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
I have a feeling this thread (one of my favourites, I must admit) is really going to get lost if nothing seriously is done about it.
We had an A?R thread, and it didn't work. Let it rest.
Can't we get back on Klosowski? Or does Stephen need to butt in first? This is unnecessary.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3279
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Glenn is right - get back to Klosowksi and take the other nonsense elsewhere.
Two people have already been suspended indefinitely this week... take your personal grievances off the site unless you want to be next.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 644
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Okay, back to the simple life with a question someone might be able to answer: how tall was Severin?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Mephisto,
There are parts of your July 27, 2005 - 12:21 contribution I do not agree with, however it is (from an outside observer’s point of view) well written, angry, cutting edge, unique and a thing of beauty (the final elbow). I just hope Oral, Richard and Lindsey aren't listening.
Good bye Mephisto,
time to go
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 407
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Stephen, you're leaving me hanging here! How would YOU like to be called Dan Norder's toady and not get to respond. Geez!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Chapman didn't do it.
P.S.S. "up yours, truly" is a classic. I wish I'd thought of it. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 801
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
Actually, Stephen has been accused of being my toady... by Scott Nelson on another messageboard when he was banned here a while back. Stephen didn't get a chance to respond, but then I doubt he cares. What does one even have to say to nonsense like that?
But then I've been accused of being just about everyone's toady myself... even, of all people, Patricia Cornwell's. Some guy who lost a copyright lawsuit against her and fled the country while claiming that the publishing industry and the US court system conspired to engage in criminal libel against him came up with that amusing idea. Considering that I don't agree with Cornwell on just about anything ever (other than pointing out that it's nice that she made several large charitable donations... gee, go figure) you can only imagine how screwed up that guy is.
To some people, anyone who disagrees with them is part of some huge conspiracy trying to hold them back and prevent the world from seeing their True Genius™. If you took the time to respond to all of them every time they said something silly you'd never get any work done. And since they sure won't get any real work done themselves, someone has to.
Now, getting back again to Severin Klosowski aka George Chapman (paging Adam Went, come put the spotlight back on your horse in this race)... Who do you suppose his toady was? Or was he someone else's toady? (And how come nobody is anyone's natterjack or puddocky any more?)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 802
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Speaking of Severin Klosowski...
A point that keeps getting lost in the shuffle is that Wolf Vanderlinden's research (first published a year ago this month) showed that Klosowski wasn't in the United States when Carrie Brown was killed. The main reason he was ever named as a Ripper suspect was the idea that he left London when the killings stopped there, was in the US when similar killings happened there (though nobody can really find any murders other than Carrie Brown that have similarities), then went back again when those stopped, only to perform the murders he was convicted of. Now that we know that's not true, I would think that his candidacy has to be adversely effected.
On the other hand, considering that another suspect only got named because of some guy flipping through the Guinness Book of World Records based upon some psychic flash thing (Wayne's World wiggling hands sounds go here), and he didn't turn out too terribly bad of a suspect once the nonsense about him was stripped away, it's not like Klosowski missing the boat to do in Shakespeare (yes, Wolf's research also showed the "Old" part of "Old Shakespeare" wasn't really part of her nickname) is a critical blow against his Ripper candidacy.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3825
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Interesting, Dan.
I have heard about this. Where are these findings by Vanderlinden published?
Because you're right; that has generally been one of the arguments for his candidacy.
By the way... excuse a Sweden and soon-to-be Englishman... what does 'natterjack' and 'puddocky' mean?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 27, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 803
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Wolf's research into the Carrie Brown murder was spread over three (nonconsecutive) issues of Ripper Notes. The information I mentioned above came from the third installment, back in July 2004. Some of it is mentioned again in the July 2005 issue as part of a book review of the paperback release of R. Michael Gordon's The American Murders of Jack the Ripper.
A natterjack is apparently some sort of yellowish European toad. I've just always loved that word... it's right up there with jackanapes. Puddocky is the name given to a frog fairy-princess in a German tale similar to the now more well known story of the frog who turned into a prince when kissed, except Puddocky cleverly assisted her love interest in winning some contests and could be considered pretty toady by some standards. In the end she has some other females in a competition for most beautiful bride killed off. Got to love the original folktales over the whitewashed modern fairy tales. I believe the word (or some variation) is (or was) used to mean a frog in general and not just this character.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 646
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
I'll try once more -- is there a height given anywhere for Severin Klosowski? I'll gladly convert from meters, hands or angstrom units.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 805
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Norman Hastings, in his June 1930 article "Chapman Was Not Jack the Ripper!" for Thomson's Weekly News (as reprinted in the January 2005 issue of Ripper Notes -- well, it was right in front of me, so of course I'd look there) claims he was about 5'4".
There's probably a more authoritative answer somewhere else though.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Actually, Stephen has been accused of being my toady... by Scott Nelson on another messageboard when he was banned here a while back.
Really? I said that? I'm sure you are mistaken. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 806
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hi Scott,
Sorry, but quite a number of people can verify that.
By the way, do you have anything on topic to contribute? (Ever?)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
You better double-check yourself. I never said anything of the sort.
RE: Chapman, no I don't think he was the Ripper. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
i don't think anyone needs to double check anything, apart from the topic of this thread.
Where is Adam when you need him? He sure turns up when we are losing at cricket without any trouble! |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 647
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Where is Adam when you need him? He sure turns up when we are losing at cricket without any trouble!
Oops, maybe he took my suggestion he worry a bit more about his schoolwork to heart. Nah, he wouldn't listen to me.
Anyway, while I do not believe for a minute that Klosowski was JtR I find his height as reported by Hastings to be interesting.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Mr. Souden,
I was surprised to note your Profile indicates you may live in a place I frequent. I fish at Washinning, Washinnee, and Housatonic. Do you know these places?
David
|
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Ms Turcios wrote:
"Mostly what convinced me (as best as I could be convinced from only paper) was Klosowski's creation of alternate reality's, seemingly without purpose, that he adhered to, similarly irrationally. This, I felt was truly indicative of a deranged mind."
>>This is hard to follow. The creation of alternate realities is often done by psychopaths as a means to con people, to get what they want out of them. But psychopaths are NOT deranged people; delusions are absent from them. They are UNSTABLE people, not DERANGED people. A psychopath has the tendency to fly off on an extreme tangent at any moment, to impulsively take up any "pot valiant and fatuous rigadoon," totally and foolishly changing his life and those of others around him. Although Klowsowski has many characteristics similar to psychopaths, he seems to lack this particular one. JtR, whoever he was, certainly did NOT lack this one!
In short, many characteristics of Klowsowski point to the POSSIBILITY of psychopathy, but I can't say he was one for sure because we don't have empirical evidence that he had one of the prime characteristics. So that leaves me undecided.
Thanks for your reply!
David
|
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Mr. van Oploo wrote:
1. "Dear Mr Radka, First of all, you should do a little better reading yourself, because my last name is Van Oploo."
>>I would be much obliged if you would please excuse my typographical error. Thank you.
2. "Second of all, are you saying that people who suffer from mental diseases do not display irrational behaviour? If so, perhaps you should be the one to learn how to read psychiatry."
>>Whoever he was, the behavior of the Whitechapel murderer displays a certain kind of irrationality that typifies the psychopathic condition. It is intelligible to the sophisticated reader of the case evidence. Most people don't recognize this because they don't know anything about psychopaths. But if you read extensively in the case histories of psychopaths, you will learn that they repeatedly act as if to intentionally harm themselves in self-ruinous fashion, as if they completely misunderstood, or didn't think they needed to heed, fundamental aspects of self-sustaining life. The ongoing existence of a psychopath is a satire, and a brutally real, absurdly self-imposed, self-defeating satire at that, of human life itself. It is fundamentally a life of perversity, one of misreading every natural expression of life's most basic purposes in the human individual.
I see this particular characteristic exhibited in many places of the case evidence, and that is why I think JtR was one of these people. Basically the evidence indicates that while JtR was able to act in a calm and well-considered manner, he was operating out of a grossly irrational self-concept, or notion of what he could personally achieve. This is the classic sign of a psychopath. But if an insane person were to do generally what JtR did, we would expect to find indication of deluded or irrational thought patterns at the crime scenes, such as shouting, flinging internal organs about, jittery behavior either beforehand or while walking away, and so on.
Thank you for your comment.
|
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
TYPO CORRECTION:
In my point #1 above, I typed:
“…attempting to enter Nichols’s UTERUS ventrally?”
I meant to have typed:
“…attempting to enter Nichols’ PELVIS ventrally?”
Sorry for any confusion.
David
|
D. M. R.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. ”We don't know that the Ripper tried to remove Nichols' uterus. In fact, it would seem unlikely that he was attempting to based upon the wounds he made, which were just, if you'll excuse me pointing out the obvious, rips.”
>>The evidence is the evidence. He was trying to open up Nichols’ pelvis ventrally, which is what he also did to Chapman and Eddowes. Here we have a maternal looking woman with ventral pelvic wounds, the murderer having had to leave the scene prematurely when he heard footsteps approaching. Given that all the other maternal looking victims save Tabram and Stride had their uteri purloined through the pelvis ventrally, and the murderer was not disturbed at those crime scenes, and that Tabram was possibly his first murder where he hadn’t perfected his fetish or technique yet, and that we know from Schwartz that Stride was a special case, then it is reasonable to consider that Nichols’ uterus had been targeted. It does NOT “seem unlikely that he was attempting to” take Nichols uterus, as Mr. Norder says, based on the evidence. It would seem unlikely under these circumstances that he were targeting Nichols uterus if he left her had he not been disturbed without taking it, or if the wounds were on her back instead of on her ventral pelvis, etc. The wounds were where the wounds were. If he takes the uterus from Eddowes after a ventral entry, and he takes it from Chapman after the same, then what are we to think he was doing attempting to enter Nichols’s uterus ventrally? Shooting marbles maybe? Hmmm? What Hong Kong Fooey I have to put up with here.
2. “And then you pooh pooh Stride with assumptions of different plans…
>>Pooh pooh? Remember Israel Schwartz? From the evidence he gave from direct observation, it seems the murderer’s plans were indeed different.
3. “…and then ignore the fact that MJK's uterus was not taken by specifically discussing "maternal-looking" victims.”
>>That is precisely my stated, not ignored point, as Mr. Norder well knows. I suggest that MJK’s uterus was not taken because she was not maternal-looking. She was chosen for murder because she had a room, not because she looked maternal. What specifically is inherently wrong with taking this position?
4. “You've basically taken what happened during only two out of five murders and tried to claim it was his motivation for all of them - or at least the ones you want to deal with. That's a textbook case of intellectual dishonesty right there.”
>>I claim that taking uteri was a motivation he had, a motivation that pertained repeatedly to him, and I do so straight by the evidence. I do not claim that this motivation was apparent in the evidence of every one of his murders. Falsely claiming this of me is intellectual dishonesty on Mr. Norder’s part.
5. ”And regarding your nonsense about psychopaths that you posted above, the A?R thread had a huge number of posts thoroughly disproving most of your claims about what that mental diagnosis was all about. The idea that you are still pretending to know more than the American Psychiatric Association when it comes to how psychopaths act shows an disturbing inclination to set your own untrained layman's opinions above the professional experts on the topic.”
>>What “nonsense posted above?” General comment, non sequitor. This paragraph says nothing. It is entirely general in nature. If you want to say that I don’t know what a psychopath is, then you’ve got to show specifically how my conception deviates from the scientific literature, point for point. This Mr. Norder has never attempted to do anywhere. If he thinks he has, let him copy and paste his grand refutation of me here now.
>>I do the same thing the psychiatrists do, folks. I study the books of the field. Any intelligent person can do the same, formulating their own views. What’s inherently wrong with that?
>>Once again, as he has a great many times over the past two years, Mr. Norder hurls into his readers’ path a brace of indiscriminate, empty invectives about me. By strictly confining himself to generalities, he extravagantly affords himself an opportunity to make apparently bold statements against my work, but at the same time tight-fistedly denies me an opportunity to defend it. This superficiality on his part, however, indicates that he lacks qualifications to appraise my work, and is reduced to falling back to a loser’s game of petty public exploitation.
|
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Hello All.
I can see most of your points here, and maybe Caz has not entirely practiced what she preaches, as Monty puts it.
But the comments made by Tom Westcott were disgusting, and personal in the extreme. That post deserved a ban if ever I saw one.
I'm no great fan of D.Radka or Mephisto, but would Westcott have the guts to repeat those disgusting comments to their faces??
I think not.
The rules here have got to be tightened, or one day more serious consequences may be the result.
Regards to all
Rod |
Melissa Turcios
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 5:41 am: |
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa there garcons! ::offers cookies all around:: Ai ya yay!
<<quote>> "Might it be observed that his phyciscal apperance doesn't correlate at all with the vast majority of witness descriptions?"
Emily Walter and Elizabeth Long, on describing the companion of Annie Chapman, both described a foreigner of 5’ 5-7” between the years of 37 to roughly 40, wearing clothes described as “shabby genteel”. Walter recalls a mustache and beard and a black felt hat while Long describes a brown, deerstalker hat. The murder of Elizabeth Stride, while disputably a Ripper murder, does have the most reliable eyewitnesses: Policeman William Smith and Israel Schwartz. Both place the age at 28-30, the height from 5’5” to 5’ 7”, and describe a hard, dark felt deerstalker hat or a peaked, black cap with Israel’s addition of brown mustache. At the murder of Catherine Eddowes, Joseph Lawende describes Jack as aged 30, 5’ 7”, brown mustached, and wearing a gray peaked cloth cap. During the Mary Kelly murder investigation, George Hutchinson describes a man 34-36, 5’ 6”, of pale complexion with heavy eyebrows, dark hair, and a heavy mustache curled at both ends, while many hours later, Sarah Lewis described a man of 5’ 7” with a pale complexion, black mustache, and an unusually round hat. According to Ameer Ben Ali as he protested his innocence for the murder of Carrie Brown, “They say that the man who was with the women had large and lovely mustaches” (of course, I know this is second-hand knowledge, but Miniter’s description is pliant enough to fit Klosowski, too). All of the eyewitnesses describe Jack the Ripper from well dressed to almost flamboyantly opulent, although disagreed as to whether or not he was a foreigner. Every detail above (except age) can be applied to Klosowski, even those that are seemingly incongruous. A newspaper wrote, “Although born and bred near Warsaw, Klosowski is not in appearance of a typical Russian Pole. […I]n repose his face does not suggest a foreigner”. Because Klosowski was twenty-three during the murders and even the youngest description of twenty-eight fails to match this age, some may think that this seriously weakens Klosowski candidacy. However, it is easy to reconcile this single dissimilarity; not only do the environment and Klosowski’s mustache allow for misidentification of age, three witnesses in the Klosowski trial asserted that Klosowski’s appearance changed remarkably little during fourteen years as he successfully seduced younger and younger women.
Nine witnesses in total described Jack the Ripper as wearing a hat, while three described a specific sailor-like, round, peaked cap known as a ‘P. and O.’ cap, which photographs taken in 1898-1900 show Klosowski wearing. These dates are ten years after the murders; nonetheless, in 1890 he wore the black coat, patent boots, and high hat that have come to be the outfit of the Jack the Ripper stereotype. The nature of his dress further developed during his time in England to what could be described as flamboyant given the conservative Victorian style. Levisohn credited Chapman with a penchant for flashy dressing which suggested that the barber’s assistant was not the impoverished immigrant that many of his compatriots were. The John Douglas’ psychological profile of the Ripper suggests that this was precisely the intent behind Jack’s fashion, “He [Jack the Ripper] wants to project to unsuspecting females (prostitutes) that he has money; consequently this relieves him from initiating contact”.
<<quote>> "Okay, back to the simple life with a question someone might be able to answer: how tall was Severin?"
I believe he was described as medium height.
<<quote>> "A point that keeps getting lost in the shuffle is that Wolf Vanderlinden's research (first published a year ago this month) showed that Klosowski wasn't in the United States when Carrie Brown was killed."
Really? Hey, Dan- could direct me to his research?
<<quote>>"The main reason he was ever named as a Ripper suspect was the idea that he left London when the killings stopped there, was in the US when similar killings happened there (though nobody can really find any murders other than Carrie Brown that have similarities), then went back again when those stopped, only to perform the murders he was convicted of. Now that we know that's not true, I would think that his candidacy has to be adversely effected."
…Not all of that isn’t true. He entered England in March 1887 and left (according to Sugden- I haven’t read what Wolff has got to say about it yet) as early as the beginning of April 1891. This means he was in England until the latest possible Jack the Ripper murder, that of Frances Coles on February 13, 1891. Assuming it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that he could not have killed Carrie Brown, he spends his time only shooting rats in his basement and threatening his wife with a knife. Lovely. He then returns to England in 1903 to continue his murders, for which he was later convicted.
QUESTIONS:
- I know this is impossible to answer, but what do you think Klosowski was doing during his walks to three and four o’ clock in the morning?
- And a question that got lost in the bickering: what do you folk think of Donald Rumbelow's supposition that Dr. Pedachenko was another alias of Severin Klosowski’s?
- And, if you think that Klosowski is such a bad suspect, can anyone give a good reason for why Jack the Ripper would stop on his killing spree at what looks like his violent climax?
Sorry for the long post! Oh, and thank goodness for you, Glenn. I thought I was the only one who didn’t understand what the heck people where talking about with that whole ‘natterjack’ business.
- Melissa |
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 1:57 am: |
|
Funny how the the AR thing is so like the 'diary' threads. And it brings in some delightful folk too! |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3840
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hi Melissa,
There are several question marks regarding Stride's murder. Firstly, it is a matter of dispute if she was a Ripper victim at all. Secondly, it is not certain that the man who attacked her was her killer. I believe he was, but I do not think he was Jack the Ripper.
In my opinion Schwartz's description of the man must be considered of less relevant importance.
And for what it's worth, Schwartz didn't think his character had any foreign appearence, and the moustache was rather small, although dark.
There are therefore two persons that most certainly can be said to have seen the killer: Elizabeth Long and/or Joseph Lawende.
Remember one thing: Mrs Long did NOT see the man's face -- she admitted she only saw him from behind, so how she could assume that he had 'foreign appearence' and how she could estimate his age, is beyond me and probably everyone else.
Although the police placed high importance in Schwartz, Lawende is actually the only one that gave a facial description of what most likely could be the murderer, or at least a man seen with the victim just prior to a true accepted canonical Ripper crime -- and that man does not that well resemble Klosowski, if we disregard the cap. He didn't appear to have any foreign appearence and he had a thin fair or brown moustache -- like thousands of other men in East London in those days. The man seen by Lawende had a red neckerchief, the man seen by Schwartz hadn't. It was probably not the same man.
Let's all remember that practically every man in the late 19th and early 20th century had a moustache, as Don Souden very correctly has pointed in his article in latest Ripper Notes. And let's also remember that such features like age are extremely difficult for a witness to estimate and is all influenced by our personal preferences.
Witness descriptions are not very reliable, if they don't give us more concrete information than the very general features described in the Ripper case.
No one can say why Jack the Ripper stopped after Eddowes or Kelly (whomever one prefer as the last victim - I don't think Kelly was a Ripper victim), but there could be hundreds of reasons for it. he could have become ill, he could have died, he could have moved, he could have been imprisoned for another crime of more petty nature, without the police realising he was the notorious killer (which is pretty common when it comes to serial killers), he could have been put into an asylum etc.
But I do NOT think he suddenly stopped to turn up again some years later as a poisoner.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on August 03, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
