|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:00 pm: | 
|
G'day,
STEVE: Who is trying to 'PROVE' who the killer was? Not me and I don't think anyone over a century later can! But that doesn't mean we can't have an opinion, and share the opinion with others! There is no hard evidence against anyone, so should we conclude that the murders were suicides?
You say that a serial killer 'VERY RARELY' has a connection to his victims. Well, Jack the Ripper was VERY RARE and we are exploring this VERY RARE possibility.
'the death of the victim is NOT what drove this man...the mutilations were.'
I agree! The man who I believe deserved a much closer examination after Mary Kelly's murder didn't want his woman dead, but was driven by an uncontrollable anger, frustration and jealousy! If he didn't feel any of these things then I think there was definately something wrong with him.
'Joe Barnett was no more Jack the Ripper than I am,'
That's your opinion and unfortunately was the opinion of the detectives at the time but did they search into this man's traumatic upbringing as a parentless son of Irish refugees in the harsh East End?
' she was without doubt asleep when attacked.' Is that why she had defence wounds on her arms? 'Without doubt',...'without doubt',....were you there?
LEANNE
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 76
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 9:11 pm: |
|
Steve,
The mutilations were probably an inevitable product of his behaviour. Not necessarily a goal, but more a "corpus operandi". His whole countenance was a display of abject evil.
"Joe Barnett was no more Jack the Ripper than I am". I totally agree.
kind regards
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:20 pm: |
|
Phil,
Your posts as always are somewhat condescending and also filled with contradiction. You say you challenge "UNSUPPORTED statements, "beliefs", odd "theories" that do not relate to anything that can be discussed bar the view of the poster", and yet your theory of Kidney killing Stride is exactly that. When someone challenges you to support this idea you tell them to go read AP's book or that "these things have been discussed before". Yes, I agree they have been discussed before... by myself for example, arguing with Glenn. As I said before, the data pool is too small for you to infer a) what the killer's hunting ground is, and b) a clear idea of his MO, how he would react in certain circumstances, or what locales he would kill in, or what types of victims he would kill in. Also, where is the evidence to support that Stride was not soliciting that night and was instead, on a date or something to that effect, that you have said. Where is the evidence to support any of this? And please speak for yourself, don't just send me off to AP. You are doing exactly what you criticize others for doing... trying to fit the facts into a pet theory that you WANT to be true. This is made obvious when you say for example that if we could exclude Stride it would "erode the deadly mystique that surrounds the case". Yeah, and if we were to exclude Stride it also bolsters the Tumblety theory... so what? This does not make it any more true. I will be happy to debate with you in an actual argument, but all you are doing lately is preaching to everyone about how your logical way of looking at the case is so much better than everyone else's. It's total bull, and it is condescending when you say things like: "All clear now, oh puzzled one?" You are not a professor leading a class discussion among adolescents. I will be happy to go over the specifics of the Stride murder (again) but I dont see we are getting anywhere with your preachy sermons on logic or the definition of evidence.
Rob H |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 799
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 1:15 am: |
|
Robert, you are welcome to your views - we must each post as we think. I am not responsible for whether you agree,, like my approach or want to follow. I can only speak as I find.
I refer people, in regard to Kidney - to AP's book because:
a) the theory is hers, though it has won me over, and the credit should rest where it belongs; and
b) because I have limited time on the PC to go over old ground for people who are capable of, and should, read the original work.
I have twice, in current posts, set out my approach to "evidence" on this site. It relates to citing references, arguing logically and building foundations for an assertion. All that I try to do, though whether you agree with what i say is - of course - up to you.
My (and if I may associate the name with mine, AP's) arguments and reasoning reate to using the available material (evidence) such as inquest testimony; press statements etc to support a thread of reasoning. There are clear indications Sride may have been with a man, possibly a new lover, that evening - wanting to look her best; the piece of velvet; the sightings of her and a man together - even the cachous and the grapes.
Do I believe that this PROVES anything - no. But the assertion is not unfounded. Do I reject debate of this - never. I welcome other interpretations.
I have no one view of the Ripper case because only a fool could have so narrow a view. I explore various aspects of the case, and seek insights. Does that mean I am inconsistent - almost certainly in regard to the case. But NOT in my approach to standards - I don't think I have changed in that since I joined Casebook.
But the reasoning behind the royal conspiracy theory is shot. It has been discredited - much of what Knight and Fairclough used was flawed or false. So let's say so. That's all I have been doing. using my natural discernment in the face of people saying things like "all views are valid" - something I disagree with totally.
And let gets something straight (oh you who cannot paragraph) I have NEVER argued that my "logical" way of looking at the case is better!!! I have simply inveighed against posts that relate to totally discredited theories; and posts that make assertions or state beliefs without backing/argument. Is it wrong to want to raise the standard of debate?
As for the "oh puzzled one" comment (or the similar remark in this post addressed to you) - ever heard of irony?
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
G'day,
'I refer people, in regard to Kidney - to AP's book because:
a) the theory is hers, though it has won me over, and the credit should rest where it belongs; and..'
Oh why, why, why don't people understand that it is only a breach of copyright if you state the theory was your own idea! You have already stated who thought of the theory, and by discussing it with others and saying why you think it's a good theory you are supporting A.P.s views which may cause other people to read it!......COME ON!
LEANNE
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 805
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
I have not the time, and don't feel the need, to repeat AP's arguments. As I recall the book can be read in e-form here on Casebook.
Nuff said,
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I can see now that you really want to see Stride and Kelly excluded because you see them as 'mythical' ripper victims. You think this would be real progress.
But all you can do is argue for their exclusion, isn't it? Without any new evidence you'll still be arguing in 2030 - so not much progress there.
And if you are simply wrong about what are myths and what are facts, you will be going backwards!
At least if I go forward arm-in-arm with Stride and Kelly, I can let them go if new evidence emerges that allows me to. You've already dropped them at the station and waved them off.
There are clear indications Sride may have been with a man, possibly a new lover, that evening - wanting to look her best; the piece of velvet; the sightings of her and a man together - even the cachous and the grapes.
You may be right here, but of course it has no bearing whatsoever on whether Jack attacked her that night before going on to Eddowes.
Serial killers usually pick victims at random when they are in the mood and an opportunity presents itself. If Jack picked on Stride, it was most likely because he assumed she was a prostitute - and he was right, even if she wasn't offering her services on that particular night. She was after all hanging around by the entrance to a men's club after midnight and on her own, apart from the man seen pulling her about. The clues are there.
And why do you assume AP is a she, and not a he?
If you are wrong about that, what else might you be wrong about?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on September 03, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 807
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
You still don't get it, do you, Caz?
I don't know whether Stride or MJK should be discarded or not. I am about 60/40 in favour of Kidney as the more probable killed of Liz: 40/60 in regard to Barnett the reverse, 40/60 that he was responsible.
I have NO theory to peddle, no axe to grind. I am interested in questioning and simply tried to indicate how those two questions might help the general understanding of the case. If they throw no new light on things, nothing is lost.
But questioning is quite different from regurgitating statement, or so-called facts - which have long been shown to be untrue. We should weed out such things, just as we dust a house now and then.
Liz might have been killed by Jack, but then again as a place to chose it goes against his usual caution; it is out of his usual killing ground; and we have to assume she was attacked twice in short succession by two men, don't we?
As for AP's identity - I do not know anything more than I was told when I joined this site. What I was told seems to accord with the way others refer to her. If I am wrong, I will of course apologise - but AP herself has never corrected me.
You have been here longer than I, Caz. So I would have thought you well knew the whether AP was a man or a woman.
And why does my being wrong matter? I am often wrong - and have admitted to it several times on Casebook? But I am not talking about such absolutes - I am talking about open minds and standards. So what has that final (rather peevish) comment of yours got to do with anything?
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
And AP himself has never corrected me either. 
How would the length of time on these boards help, if AP ain't telling? I've never met him in person.
It's asking the right people that matters.
Look, you wrote in an earlier post:
Anything that dispels the "myth" of JtR is, to my mind to be welcomed, and constitutes a form of "progress".
I just wanted to point out that arguing 'til the cows come home will not by itself dispel your idea of "myth", whether you are right or not. How would anyone know? And if the myths you try to dispel are not myths in the first place, that's not progress by my definition.
Love,
Caz
X |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 904
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Dear Phil:
You said..."Liz might have been killed by Jack,but then again as a place to chose it goes against his usual caution; it is out of his usual killing ground; and we have to assume she was attacked twice in short succession by two men, don't we? "
Usual killing grounds? How could we know? Correct me if I am wrong,but are you of the school of thought that the murders necessarily had to be above Whitechapel High Street/ Road to constitute a Ripper murder ? If so, what is the importance of this delineation? Up until the Stride murder,there had only been two Ripper murders [ excluding the Tabram argument for a second...] from which any "pattern" would be hard to identify,much less a "usual killing grounds". Wouldn't you agree?
Its not entirely out of kilter for someone to be victimized twice in one night...even violently.
Not as an example of a twice-assaulted woman involving murder,but of a twice-assaulted woman and rape,back in 2000,in nearby Norristown Pa.,a woman was assaulted getting into her car and raped in an alley by several men. She managed to run three blocks to a house on a busy street...knocked on the door...in disarray from her rape...asked for assistance...and was raped again and again and again until she was released. The perps in the second rape were imprisoned after she went to the Police [ no rape a third time, thankfully...] for their crime. The first group of rapist knuckledragging savages wasn't.
Like Long Liz, this example may be sad proof of a woman being in the wrong place at the wrong time...and the worst possible people being in the worst possible place from both women's p.o.v....
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Such references to my gender and identity I think are superfluous to argument, debate or discussion.
Caz may well think that she has a firm lever on such things, but I would urge her to not bite on the bait that has been adangled to her on this issue.
I pulled the Indian rope trick on that god, just to see how far he would attempt to climb that rope, and if he got to the top I would see him at the bottom. He is still climbing and I’m still staring at the bottom of the rope… awaiting gravity. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 810
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Howard - I haven't said that i am definite that Liz was killed by any individual. I said it seems to me 60:40 likely she was killed by Kidney.
She MAY have been assaulted twice in one night - clearly it can happen. But I don't THINK it did in Stride's case for reasons I have given.
But I retain scenbarios in my head for a "double event" (though I now think it less likely) and for two murderers.
So what's your point?
Even accounting for earlier and later murders (such as Tabram and Coles) the Stride killing is in an odd location. The sole "suspect" it might fit is Donovan - the deputy lodging keeper - but his culpability depends on Kelly being another man's victim.
Why are you pursuing this so vehemently, may I ask?
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 812
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
AP - I'm sorry you got dragged into all this, on a persoanl level.
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
No worries, Phil.
I'm just an old Ripposaur who needs to fart now and then. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 909
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
"Why are you pursuing this so vehemently, may I ask?"-Phil
Asking a question or offering up an alternative to an idea represents vehemence?
There's no ulterior motive other than finding out why you personally hold the opinion that Kidney had a 60/40 chance at killing Stride. Thanks for answering that.
Only in retrospect can we use Coles' murder in determining a pattern. Thats what you have done here...as well as using MJK.
You can always ask me anything Phil..I enjoy learning about things and people as I go along...
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
"Liz might have been killed by Jack, but then again as a place to chose it goes against his usual caution; it is out of his usual killing ground; and we have to assume she was attacked twice in short succession by two men, don't we? "
Phil,
Each of the 3 ideas expressed in this one paragraph is essentially incorrect as each is based on unfounded speculation. First, there is really not much reason to think that the location of the murder goes against JTR's supposed caution. He was not that cautious in my opinion anyways, more just lucky. I assume you are referring not so much to the place, as to the fact that there were more people around and it was earlier in the night when the murder occurred. I think you will find that there were, in fact, not so many people around as you think. As far as being outside of his killing ground... there is no basis in fact for this statement. Based on geographic profiling's circle theory, if we draw the smallest circle that contains all the sites, Berner Street is actually close to the center of this circle. And as far as your third statement, that we must accept that she was attacked by 2 men... again, wrong. We have to assume this only if, like Glenn and yourself, we assume that Mr. BS could not have been Liz's killer. I do not make this assumption, as I do not see that this guy's behavior is in any way contradictory with what little we know about JTR' personality and behavior. You are basing your conclusions on unfounded assumptions that are in my opinion, incorrect.
RH |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
We only have three definite ripper murders to go on. So how you can see a pattern, geographically, that allows you to guess where Jack would never have ventured, had he been in a position to kill again and again, beats me.
How is this just playing with ideas? If anyone's putting you in a straight-'Jack'et, it's you, for wanting to put Jack in one.
Hi AP,
I apologise - it seems I have been ill-informed. From now on I will happily refer to you as 'she' or 'her' when appropriate, and I agree that it shouldn't be an issue (although it wouldn't have been had you called yourself April Poppy or Alfred Phil).
But I still can't see you in a tartan mini skirt, lifting that brandy bottle to your lips and farting. Sorry. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 823
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
If the patterns I perceive are of no use to you, then forget them. I am certainly not forcing my ideas on you.
As for the rest of your post addressed to me - I don't understand it.
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
No worries Caz
nice to do business with you. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 5:44 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
The bit about the straight-jacket?
Well you told me on another thread that your views were not fixed and I should not therefore put you in a straight-jacket regarding them.
All I'm saying here is that you seem to have convinced yourself a) where Jack's 'usual killing ground' was, and b) that he would not have gone beyond your definition of the 'usual' - thereby limiting Jack as well as yourself.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
A straight-jacket??
As you seem to have appointed yourself guardian of everyone else's spelling, grammar and punctuation on the Casebook, you may want to check your own spelling here.
The words "pot" and "kettle" spring immediately to mind!
You should find it in the OED ...
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 05, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 832
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Chris - it's used for insane gays. |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 77
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
No Phil,
That would be a strait-jacket. I'm sure Chris has heard of one and is pointing out the right spelling.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 836
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Oh, Martin, he wasn't was he?
And I think my spelling was right for my play on words (at least in UK parlance).
Cheers,
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
I only hope Caroline Morris realises I wouldn't normally go to the trouble of correcting someone's spelling.
But she's gone to so much trouble herself to correct other people's little slips that I think it's only fair.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 878
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Sorry to break it to people, but the more preferred spelling is "straight jacket" and up until today I didn't realize anyone actually thought it should be spelled differently. (I'll have to put that on my "words that my British contributors may use that look like spelling errors to me but actually aren't where they are so leave them alone" list.)
But maybe the whole point is you want to take Caz's Brit credentials away or something because she used the more popular version instead of the Queen-certified one, I don't know.
Either way I think it signals the approaching heat death of this particular thread.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Dan
You need to check a dictionary.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
Hi All,
Phil wrote elsewhere:
Don't try to straigh-jacket me.
I just used his term back at him, minus the typo. No fuss required - like poor put-upon Joe, I'm NOT the first copycat.
Chris Phillips was just looking for something to attack me with (perhaps he's miffed that I didn't regard him as a dialect expert).
If it gave him a warm glow, I'm happy. At least he left everyone else alone.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Chris Phillips was just looking for something to attack me with
Poor poor Caz!
Who would believe this is the same person who goes around picking people up on their misplaced apostrophes, and telling them their poor spelling and grammar show a lack of "respect" ...?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 06, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3988
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
Caz,
It is quite singular, isn't it, how you continue to press people on the point that their opinions are absolute, no matter how many times or in how many ways they try to state that this is not the case. While you are usually the one here with firm views, and often speaking in absolutes.
You are still sticking to ideas that are fifteen years old, and as soon as anybody else tries to take the case further and break away from the traditional Canonical Five concept - WHAM! - you are there, accusing them of saying things without displaying 'evidence' and stating them how fixed they are in their views (in spite of the fact that they are only looking at alternative ideas and quite clearly declares this), when in fact YOU are the one who totally REFUSES straight off to consider ANY alternative ideas that does not fit the traditional values you believe to be the ultimate truth.
The correct thing to do (unless anybody possesses evidence beyond our knowledge) would be to say 'Stride's killer' etc. while you constantly call him 'Jack' like it was a sure thing. I am sorry, Caz, but it is NOT declared beyond doubt that it was 'Jack' - fact is, that you are the one who has DECIDED in your head that it was.
Listening to your arguments, is like nothing has happened in Ripperology during the last fifteen to twenty years. And from your point of view, it probably hasn't (apart from the discovery of the Maybrick diary).
Now, that is absolutely OK by me - you are allowed to your views - but don't go overboard when other people for exploring new ideas, just because you are afraid to do so yourself and your own are fixed.
I totally concur with Phil's views here, although I have to give Caz right on one point; the concept of 'killing ground' is a difficult one to use as an argument, and I agree on that it is quite hard to rely on any geographical patterns considering the fact that the Ripper's output was quite small, from what we know so far. In order to establish patterns or the outlines of 'Ripper country', we simply need more data. Especially if we are to support the idea (which I personally do) that the only victims we with reasonable certainty can attribute to the Ripper were Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Of course it is a limited area we are talking about, but it is not enough to establish any 'killing ground', as I see it.
That point aside, I support Phil's valid and reasonable deductions here.
But again, just my own personal opinions.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
Put a sock in it - you're impressing no one.
Hi Glenn,
Please give me examples, if you think I 'constantly' call Stride's killer Jack. When I'm putting forward arguments for Jack killing Stride, of course I will be presuming he did in order to make my case. But even then I usually emphasise the 'if Jack did it' part, in the hope that no one thinks I'm being dogmatic about it.
On this thread my main beef has been Phil's amateur geographical profiling, the limitations of which you seem to be in agreement with me about.
By all means put forward good arguments against Jack killing Stride (or for someone else killing her) for consideration. And I've said I have nothing whatsoever against exploring new ideas.
But remember who is putting limits on Jack's scope, Jack's playground, Jack's activities, Jack's capabilities and Jack's thinking - it's not me.
I have no idea what he may or may not have been capable of, besides what he did to Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, and whether or not he was in a position to kill more.
But I'll need a much stronger argument than I've heard so far to convince me 100% that he only killed three.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Put a sock in it - you're impressing no one.
Are you starting to get an inkling now, why it may not be wise to be too harsh on other people's apostrophes?
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 841
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
If we take only the 5 "canonical" victims, 4 were north of the Whitechapel Rd - only one south.
If we expand that to include earlier victims (and assume they were all Jack's work for a moment) and then later ones (same temporary assumption), the balance is still that Berner st looks odd.
OK, you don't agree, but if you don't look and question, you don't make progress.
I am not seeking to build very much on this "killing ground" idea (and I'm happy to drop that term if it offends) but I'd be dishonest if I said it wasn't a factor - for me - in making me question whether Liz died by Jack's hand.
Looking back, I think I was always uncertain about the "double event". Subliminally, I didn't feel that the rush from the Club to Mitre Square fitted with my idea of the killer.Again, it's just a feeling - no more - that the events surrounding Eddowes' death work better without the precursor in Berner St.
But I'm not pushing the point, just expressing a feeling.
I also find a north of Whitechapel Rd area of operations works quite well for a suspect like Kosminski - though Berner St (in distance terms) is not far from The kosminski home.
But as I recall, even today, the Whitechapel Road could be perceptually/psychologically, quite a barrier. It is wide and busy. And such streets in London can prove a terminus to movement.
Examples?
- Oxford St for anyone coming from the south
- Charing Cross Rd or Kingsway (not there in 1888, of course), for anyone coming from the West.
- the River for many Londoners (leaving the West End aside, many south Londoners, born and bred, have never been to north London, and vice versa - they see the "other side" as not a place they'd like.)
But just my view,
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Phil
If we take only the 5 "canonical" victims, 4 were north of the Whitechapel Rd - only one south.
If we expand that to include earlier victims (and assume they were all Jack's work for a moment) and then later ones (same temporary assumption), the balance is still that Berner st looks odd.
And of course Whitechapel Road was also the southern boundary of the area covered by the police house-to-house enquiries, so their thinking was the same.
(As you say, though we don't know for sure where Kozminski lived at the time of the murders, the known homes of his relatives lie outside this area.)
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 845
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
I'd not thought of that Chris. Thank you.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 879
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
"You need to check a dictionary."
You mean like Webster's?
If you'd bother to check you'd see that your claim that "straight jacket" is an incorrect spelling is in error.
But I can see why you'd be hesitant to do so, as your entire point would crumble to pieces and you'd look more than a little foolish.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Dan
Please can you be clear?
Are you claiming that Webster's Dictionary shows "straight jacket", rather than "straitjacket", is the preferred spelling?
Are you claiming that Webster's lists "straight jacket" as a recognised spelling at all?
Can you find any dictionary whatsoever that does so?
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 919
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Not in an attempt to exacerbate the issue, but in the Websters Collegiate [ Ninth New ]Edition, under "strait-jacket", it says..."strait-jacket OR straight-jacket"....page 1164 |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 756
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi everybody,
Just a quick one in between.
But remember who is putting limits on Jack's scope, Jack's playground, Jack's activities, Jack's capabilities and Jack's thinking - it's not me.
This is exactly what is causing ‘the problems’ every now and then. While Caz’s sheet of paper is empty and her drawing of Jack might still go in every direction, others have put some cautious lines across their sheets or they’ve made one or even two full sketches already.
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)
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Leanne - hello
If you read the reports on Mary Kelly (and you more than likely have) she was on the right side of the bed when she was killed.In my humble opinion that would point to two things....
A- someone was beside her (her killer?)
B- she was sleeping and had moved to the right side.
Another point....who says she put up a fight?
'the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds '
Vague to say the least,and in no other victim were defence wounds mentioned either, the reason being of course that when the carotid artery is severed you are dead - quickly.
With Mary this killer had something that he had with no other victim.....time, and whoever did that to Mary Kelly had never even viewed her as a person let alone a loved one.
Much attention has been placed on the fact that Mary was killed indoors but I would suggest that it was pure chance......who chose where the murder took place, was it the killer? or,as I think is more likely, the victim.} |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 8:39 pm: |
|
Hi Dan.
BRAVO.
This is yet another thread that has degenerated into childish insults and petty sarcasm. I've got a ten- year old son who is more mature and grown up than some of these so-called adults.
A select few who believe that they're God's gift to Ripperology, are discouraging other equally knowledgeable people from posting, me for one. I'm glad for everyone's sake that you've taken a hand in helping to stop this behaviour.
Regards
Rod |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
I keep trying to find a thread on these boards that you have not wrecked Phil, but to no avail so I'll post here.
How do we know that this killer was indeed a lone stalker? The fact of the matter is...if we assume for a second that this killer did not work alone, it does actually account for quite a few things.
The descriptions of men seen with the victims.
The two men seen assaulting Stride.
The differing opinion of the Doctors as to the killer being left or right handed.
The man seen by a witness stood watching Mary Kellys room (Hutchinson?)
If the killer did indeed have a lookout it goes a long way to explaining his 'daring'.
TWO killers would have been largely invisible - nobody was looking for TWO men.
The point here Phil, is that you keep dismissing people out of hand, while you yourself engage in the same guessing game as everyone else.
Nobody has any evidence Phil....nobody.One more question before I go. Over & over again it is common practise among us to fall back on the word of Police Officers of the time, but why then, do we not believe these SAME officers when they have stated, on more than one occasion, that they actually had their man but could not bring about a conviction through lack of evidence?
|
FBE
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
A typo is a typographical error, i.e. a mistake in typesetting (such as using the wrong font or setting the incorrect page depth).
A literal is a mistake in typesetting such as a wrongly inserted or omitted character.
Therefore an omitted letter in a word is a literal and not a 'typo'. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
I've read quite a lot of your posts now Phil but your comments on this one intrigued me....ish.
You mentioned the killers 'mo'...enlighten us please..what WAS the killers M.O Phil?
The police believed (so far as surviving records show) the whitechapel murders began with Emma Smith & ended with Frances Coles.Throughout this casebook you repeatedly call for common sense and here you've made up your mind that the killer did actually only kill the 'accepted' victims and that he also had an m.o......do I really need to point towards Peter Kurten, Henry Lee Lucus or Peter Sutcliffe Phil?
Serial Killers quite often have no m.o at all, or they DO change it.
Mary Kelly...a 'domestic! Be serious here for just a second Phil....nobody who had ANY feelings for the victim could have de-personalised her to such a degree that would result in the carnage of Millers Court & according to witnesses Joe Barnett cared a great deal about Mary Kelly.
Liz Stride....The victim was still warm & blood was still flowing from her wound when her body was discovered and, more importantly, she was still lying on her side....a good indication that this could well have been a Ripper killing that was disturbed.
Phil.....you keep going on
about 'evidence'...there is NO evidence Phil or the Police of the time would have used it and all this would be irrelevant anyway. |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Hello Rob & all.
Why do we have to assume any likliehood that Liz would've had to have been attacked TWICE, in order for this to have been a Ripper killing ??
Isn't this being taken for granted that Schwartz saw Stride ?? The man was so scared by Mr.B.S. and the other man, that I doubt, in poor light, whether he got a decent look at the woman at all.
This could've been a drunken altercation between a man and his wife or girlfriend. That would account for the man turning on Schwartz and the other man, as if to say "mind your own business".
Meanwhile, Stride may have been with the man that P.C.Smith saw, who was carrying a very obvious parcel, some eighteen inches long. If Schwartz had mentioned such a parcel, then we could say with more confidence that it was Stride that he saw.
I would certainly give more credence to PC Smith's evidence than Schwartz's.
Regards
Rod
|
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Phil.
Isn't it time you realised a few things, and changed your attitude ? Those sarcastic, and totally uncalled-for remarks to Rob House, such as, "Oh you who cannot paragraph", suggest that you need lessons in good manners.
You are also NOT the superior authority that you clearly think you are.
AP Wolf wrote a book, just like Bruce Paley, with the idea of pushing forward her own pet suspect, and is hardly comparable to giants like Sugden & Begg. Do you also accept Thomas Cutbush as the Ripper, as easily as you accept the views on Stride, which suited your own particular theory ?
Show other posters some respect Phil, and you might get some in return.
Rod
|
Ski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"If he didny feel anything than there was definately something wrong with him."
This was in relation to the point about him being abject evil.
For the brief period I have been looking at the case, I agree Barnett has the most going for him as a suspect. However, this is the whole point about his viability.The serial killer known as JtR was on a roller coaster ride to hell and was ABJECT EVIL. If Barnett was the killer, than he was on this spiral to hell.Whether Kelly decided to prostitute herself or not, or she loved him or not, wouldnt of changed this equation.
That is to say, hypothetically, if Kelly decided after the double event to stop prostituting and declared her eternal love for Barnett, would that have made him normal . Would Barnet have swept his misdoings under the carpet and got on with things.I think that the killer was already in hell at this point and not much would have changed that.The motivation of love for Kelly is disproportionate to his actions.
* HE ENJOYED THE MUTILATIONS
* HE EJOYED TAKING BODY PARTS
* HE ENJOYED TUANTING THE POLICE AND MR LUSK
* HE ENJOYED THE WORLWIDE COMMOTION HE HAD CREATED.
Whoever he was, he had got off the boat and gone all the way. There was no turning back for him - he was on a one way jouney to hell with no hope of return. He did not give one iota about his own life.
If Barnett was JtR, there must be more to it than his apparent reasons.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4000
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Steve Swift,
Tell me again why we should believe two people were involved in the killings when similar murders have been performed by other lone killers. Not to mention that very little in the facts actually supports a duo theory.
The only indication that COULD point at two men working together is in Stride's case, but since it is uncertain if she was a Ripper victim at all, that is pretty much a dangerous basis of argument.
The people who might have been in best position to see the actual killer were Elizabeth Long, Lawende and Levy.
They all only saw one man. Stick to the facts.
"Mary Kelly...a 'domestic! Be serious here for just a second Phil....nobody who had ANY feelings for the victim could have de-personalised her to such a degree that would result in the carnage of Millers Court & according to witnesses Joe Barnett cared a great deal about Mary Kelly."
Steve, stop being so naive about human nature. I thought we - after months of debating about this incorrect misconception - should have gotten past this by now. But still people keeps popping up, claiming 'oh no, anyone who loves someone can't do that sort of thing'. Bullocks!
We have several of domestic cases of similar nature, showing that this silly notion is completely wrong. If you think only serial killers are capable of this, read up a bit on criminal cases, Steve, and you shall learn that people and particularly spouses without a prior crime record are capable of much more than we want to believe.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 79
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
Glenn,
Well you won me round before when you made your point about love - hate relationships but this is deeper than that. I still don't feel Barnett went on a killing spree - and a copycat killing??? That just doesn't fit, although I am aware of your views on this particular point. ;)
Rodney: I feel Phil is entitled to pull Rob House up for not using paragraphs as I noticed it too. But it's probably not worth pulling someone up for pulling someone up - but then myself is also pulling you up for pulling Phil up for pulling...oh damn it! It's not worth it but manners go far I agree.
Ski - ABJECT EVIL - that's my phrase! © However you can use it too and I do agree with your views.
regards
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Rodney Peters
I would certainly give more credence to PC Smith's evidence than Schwartz's.
It's certainly an interesting idea, but could you explain how it works in a bit more detail?
PC Smith saw a couple at about 12.30, and Schwartz saw a woman being attacked at about 12.45. And Stride's body was discovered at about 1.00.
So do you see Smith's couple going off for a walk round the block or something, and coming back after the fight witnessed by Schwartz?
Chris Phillips
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
