|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4961
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 3:10 pm: | 
|
Simon, not much collar but a lot of cuff, definitely!
Jane, just a thought :
Nichols : drunk
Chapman : ill
Eddowes : still drunk or at least hungover
Victims a bit frail for one reason or another.
Maybe after BS, Pipeman and Schwarz cleared off JTR saw a pathetic figure getting up from the pavement and thought.....
I agree, murderer unlikely to be BS.
Robert |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 571
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
Um.......no not really......sorry.
There were bruises on the front of her shoulders consistent with her being pushed to the ground, and yes her scarf was pulled very tightly up to the left of her throat and it is very probable indeed that this led to asphyxiation, but we are still left with her being dragged across mud with the cachous still in her hand to the place of death, which I can't accept.
I think that you are overestimating the gravity of the assault by Mr BS at this point. Liz was a prostitute, she would have been very, very used to dealing with rough clients and being manhandled. Prostitutes then and now expect to be assaulted on a regular basis and get bashed, an unfortunate fact of life.
To Liz , who was hardly a lily, this would have been a shrug off and get back on with things assault. She would have almost certainly just thought rather nasty words about her assailant and gone to straighten herself out,
I don't really see any evidence of her not being able to speak at that point.......she probably just didn't think it was worth the effort. She was pushed on her bum that's all and the only thing that was hurt at that point would seem to be her dignity.
As for getting help......again.....sorry.......she would not have expected help to come from any quarter, believe me. Her most likely reaction would be to sock him one of the jaw and tell him to go away ......or words to that effect.
I didn't want to tread on Glenn's toes by answering your post to him, but if he doesn't get back I can have a go. (He has a bit of trouble getting on the internet at the moment.)
Love Jane
xxxxx
I bet I can keep this going longer than you can hee hee
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4011
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Simon,
Point 1: not impossible, but it just doesn't feel right to me as far as the Ripper is concerned. But I guess that is just as speculative as your suggestion, so it's all a matter of personal interpretation.
Point 2: OK, that is a point to consider, I agree, and it is quite possible that she wasn't that night, although we know Liz had a record of prostitution in Gothenburg, Sweden, and that she feel back on that profession again when her marriage failed in London. Still, it's true, we can't know what she actually did that night.
"they did share some grapes and listen to the music together ( on a rainy night as well )."
Erh... you're basing this on packer's dubious statements, aren't you? Still, it might be true, but I don't think we should really take for granted that is what happened. Packer changed his story so many times and delivered two different suspect descriptions, so I don't think we should take his information uncritically at face value. That doesn't mean that all of his story was bogus, just something to ponder. Besides, what would be a better way to get people to visit his shop, that Jack the Ripper had been there with one of his latest victims...?
Still, most of what he said might be true, but don't put your morgage at stake on his testimony as a piece of fact of what actually happened.
"I've been away from the Casebook for a while , but I'm wondering where this idea that Stride was not a Ripper victim came from - from some esoteric new theory perhaps ? "
Then you must have been away for quite a while, because it's a rather old theory - and some of the facts clearly suggests that it is worth-while to keep an open mind to it, and don't take what some authors (generally those who also invented the canonical five concept) in the late 1980s wrote, as law.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4012
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
No sweat, Janie. 
Your answer covered other areas than mine. And I totally agree with your thoughts.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Jane
Liz was not killed directly after the initial attack by BS, there was a gap of several (variable) minutes between her estimated time of death and that attack. I haven't got the heart to go and drag out figures now, but there was a gap of some (albeit short) minutes and the events that followed confirm that as well.
I don't think this is the case, based on the estimated time of death.
Schwartz timed the attack at about 12.45.
According to Sugden, Dr Blackwell estimated the time of death as "after 12.46, and possibly after 12.56".
Even if both figures are absolutely accurate (and I suppose that what Blackwell actually said was "within the last half hour, and possibly within the last 20 minutes"), there is no need for a gap between the attack witnessed by Schwartz and Stride's death.
I'm sure prostitution wasn't the safest profession, but two violent attacks on Stride within 5 or 10 minutes - and that in the more "respectable" area south of the Whitechapel Road, not one frequented by prostitutes - seems a tremendous coincidence.
Chris Phillips
|
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi,
According to the Schwartz dissertation in the casebook, the Ripper A-Z says that the second man stepped out from a public house, and that he had a knife.
A few questions/comments on that if anyone might be able to answer them.
1. Does anyone familiar with the area know which public house it was? The position of the people in the little play-it-yourself movie indicates that it wasn't the Workingmen's International (or whatever it was named).
2. If the A-Z description is accurate there are only two viable possibilities. A. Man no. 2 was responding to the excitement outside, or B. Man no. 2 was somehow involved with man no. 1, possibly even killing the woman at his bidding (hey, he had the knife).
If one concludes that Man no. 1 did the dirty deed, then scenario B would suggest that it wasn't a ripper murder, and scenario A would point to some doubts that it was a ripper murder, as Man 1 would have at least one good witness against him (man 2).
If A-Z is incorrect about the testimony, we have nothing.
Mike
|
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Cont...
Another possibility was that Man 1 was the Ripper and Man 2 was his Lenny.
"Hey Lenny, kill the woman."
"Gee, George do I get to tend the rabbits, huh, huh?"
"Sure Lenny, but we've got to get rid of these prostitutes who are keeping us from getting that farm."
"Uh, okay George. Y'want me to take out some bits again?"
"No Lenny. There isn't enough time right now, but maybe later. In 45 minutes, say."
Mike |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 572
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Well I'm glad that you did that and not me, because I couldn't face it!
Really though although the times certainly allow that there may not have been a gap of any description.......looking at certain other indicators there must have been at least a few minutes gap, although of course not necessarily a long one.
We are left with the fact that Liz was walking back from some point at the rear of Dutfield's yard when she was killed....for her to travel from the entrance to that point and then back again must have taken a short time. If you add to that a reason for her actually going further back in the yard, it must add a little more time.
I have already covered why it would be next to impossible for her to have been dragged from the entrance, backwards to her point of death and the other reasons why I think that her death was not immediately following the initial assault, but of course I am only giving the reasons why I feel it is less likely that her killer was JtR or more accurately that Mr BS was not Jack.
I do agree that two attacks in such a short time would be unlikely, especially as Berner Street was not that bad an area..... which is why I steer a little away from thinking that Jack came along after the event and stepped in where Mr BS left off.
One wonders if poor Liz could have got that unlucky. I do think that it is slightly more likely that Mr BS did kill Liz as a continuation and climax of the first attack, but it was not premeditated.
I was really only explaining to Simon why I felt it was unwise to totally eliminate the possibility that Liz could have been killed by someone other that JtR.
As I pointed out, the method of the attack is actually very consistent indeed for the most part with the methods used on the other victims with some obvious variations, which is why I still think there is a fair possibility that it was Jack but exceptional circumstances came into play which caused the rather perplexing incongruities,
So one thing I am certain of, is that I am certain on nothing!
Jane
xxxx
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4013
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Hi Baron,
That version of Schwartz's story where the man comes out from a Public House and picks up a knife, doesn't derive from Schwartz's initial statement to the police, but from the Star interview, which on many points tends to differ from the police statement and seems somewhat over-dramatic.
In the statement to the police the man stood outside the building lighting a pipe - the pipe doesn't exist in the Star interview but seems to have been transformed into a knife.
And you're right, the pub wasn't linked to the International Working Man's Club, it was a public house that stood at the corner of Berner Street--Fairclough Street - unfortunately its name has slipped my mind at the moment and I don't have my books at hand.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 09, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Thanks. maybe it's a case of Schwartz remembering it differently the next day, or translation problems. The pipe/knife thing sounds reasonable, and it does sound more dramatic than the initial statement, yet both accounts suggest a connection between the two men. It was interesting that the Star article reckons them to be of the same ilk.
Not enough meat in this particular meal, eh?
Cheers,
Mike
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 329
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Although it's by no means impossible, suggesting that two throat slashing prostitute killers were on the streets almost simultaneously only a few blocks apart seems to be stretching the odds. Until late 1888, this sort of crime was rather rare, for certain nowhere near even a monthly occurrance in this small area. The presumption sounds a lot like looking for zebras when you find hoof prints in Central Park.
I've already expressed my doubts about any of the royal connected theories.
Goodies,
Stan |
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 9
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Stan,
Agreed. For my part, I'm just trying to eliminate stuff that makes no sense. Glenn's comments on the Star interview were helpful in this. Two throat slashers 45 minutes apart are unlikely. By the way, can you describe those hoofprints? If they were unshod, they may have been zebras.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
I tend to agree with Simon's interpretation here generally. When it comes right down to it, the main reason I think Mr. BS was Stride's killer is based on the idea of coming up with the most simple explanation or interpretation of an event based on the evidence. This man was witnessed attacking Stride at the approximate time of death, and thus it is likely he is her killer. Simple as that. All the bits of circumstantial evidence that are discussed in trying to prove otherwise are much less relevant than this one simple fact... the cachous, the 9 feet, etc. There is an explanation for all these mysteries, but we will never learn it.
AP.
In your book, you suggest that the man PC Smith witnessed was the same os the man lighting a pipe (i.e. man #2) in the Schwartz incident. You say that the "hard felt hat clinches it". I would point out the following: Smith described the man wearing "a hard felt deerstalker hat of dark color". Schwartz described Mr. BS as wearing a "black cap with peak" and man #2 as wearing an "old black hard felt hat wide brim". In the Star report, Mr. BS's hat is described as being felt. In my opinion, the hats of Smith's man and Mr. BS sound more similar, as a deerstalker is also a hat with a peak. The respectably dressed man witnessed by J Best and John Gardner at the Bricklayer's Arms Public House is described as wearing a Billycock hat, which is nothing like that hat described by PC Smith. So, in my opinion at least it is likely that Stride had ditched this guy sometime after 11PM, and before about 11:45. In other words, this man was probably a client. Then also, I think it is likely that the man PC Smith saw was Mr. BS.
Although, now that I have described this scenario, it does seem vaguely possible that man #2 is the same as the guy with the billycock hat, and PC Smith's guy who was talking to Stride may have been Kidney, if you buy the scenario that Kidney found Stride and then got mad enough to kill her. I personally do not buy this scenario myself.
My interpretation is simpler: Billycock hat man was a client, Stride ditched him before 11:45 and found another client on Berner street who was the ripper (Mr. BS). Man #2 was not involved at all and just happened to be there at the time. Then jtr (Mr. BS) realized he had botched the whole thing, as he was seen attacking Stride by 2 witnesses. If he let her go (and was the ripper) then Stride may have told the police that he attacked her, and he would have then been under suspicion for being the ripper. It is important to remember that this is quite possible what the ripper would have thought, regardless of what Stride would have actually done. It is also possible that by the time of the attack, Stride had already become suspicious of the behavior of JTR... possible even suspecting that he was in fact the ripper. If this is the case, the ripper, in all likelihood, would have been aware of this suspicion on her part, and thus would have felt he had to kill her, regardless of the danger of being caught. This "intuition" of a potential victim has been documented by a girl who danced with Ted Bundy at a club on a night when he later killed some college girls... the thought he was weird and told her friends, something to the effect of "I think I just danced with a convicted felon". In other words, she got a bad vibe. I would guess the same may have happened with Stride, and she may have wanted to use the Dutfield's Yard location for the sex, as she felt it was safer, closer to people... the same reasons the ripper would not have wanted to use this location to kill her.
Just some random thoughts.
Rob H |
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Rob,
Your version is much like the orginal version, I think. JTR was interrupted and had to kill Stride, but wasn't sated by his act, maybe even angry, hence the Lipski comment. Schwartz said the man had apparently been drinking. Some would say this doesn't fit in with their idea of a calm, cool Ripper. Throughout history soldiers have had to steel themselves against the fear and the slaughter by being intoxicated, or otherwise impaired. This certainly did nothing to stem the violence, and in many cases enhanced the ability to do the butchery needed. Why should JTR be any different.
Of course it's all speculation, and the intuition thing doesn't sit well with me.
Still, your arguments are valid and good.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Rob
Isn't the problem with this that Schwartz (in both versions) describes witnessing the initial meeting of the man with Stride, whereas Smith saw a man talking to Stride 10-15 minutes earlier?
Chris Phillips
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 331
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Yes Mike, unshod could be zebras but unless there's been a breech at the zoo the chances are less than 1% (but a chance none-the-less). Maybe I should have said Yellowstone Park where some mustangs might have trotted in.
Stan |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Rob H,
with the best will in the world I honestly do not remember what I wrote way back then; and I've probably grown up since then anyway.
Or assumed another identity. |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Glenn
I basically agree with your post with respect to evidence etc., There have been many very good theories put forth, several good circumstancial cases and in a couple of cases good motives, but no real hard evidence. I am sure we all have changed our minds over the years, mainly due to the many authors who have graced our library shelves, but alas no hard proof.
I do not agree that the Met. Police were stupid, however I certainly don't believe that they were on the ball either. Whether it be due to case overload, shortage of officers or lack of training, their numbers compared to the areas they covered were sure less than what it should have been. Keeping in mind also that they walked with lanterns, with poor lighting to say the least, in very dangerous areas of London(be it Whitechapel or otherwise)
The backgrounds of several of those in charge eg: McNaughton, Anderson etc., did not include police work, not to mention those who were remotely involved (Anderson) or involved after the fact (mcNaughton)and if I am not mistaken Swanson as well.
How can we rely on the word of those who were involved after the fact? I feel that it is no different than what we are doing now, after the fact, reading the suspect files etc., and trying to come up with our suspects,it's like we are all investigators, weighing the facts, circumstancial or otherwise, to fit with our chosen suspect/suspects, discarding the rediculous and inserting the possible or plausible and the probable if the circumstances are there to back up same.
Your opinion would be most welcome
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Simon
I have one small problem with your theory that Jack had to pull or take Elizabeth to a dark place in order to kill her because he had to get away quickly - the problem with that scenerio is that Jack did not kill or attack in front of wittnesses, nor would he call out to the witness the name of "Lipski".
The male did not just approach her, he attacked her according to Schwartz, and once he realized that Schwartz was watching, he called him Lipski.
This was too risky for Jack's MO. I am not saying that Jack didn't kill her, however, I doubt very much that he would have done so knowing there were witnesses, both Schwartz and Mr Pipeman. It just seems too careless for someone who alluded police then and all of us now.
There are pros and cons for Elizabeth being a ripper victim or not being one. I guess it depends on which side the evidence (conjecture or otherwise) weighs heavier.
regards
Julie
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
How about this: Man no. 2 was soliciting a prostitute from man no.1. Stride didn't like the look of the man. Something frightened her about him. Perhaps she recognized him as a man who she had seen with Annie Chapman or in Nichols' company some time. Man no. 1 started roughing her up as he was drunk and who was she to say, "no" anyway? Schwartz happened upon the scene and the angry man no.1 basically told him to piss off by yelling "Lipski".
Man no. 2 followed Schwartz in order to run him off. Schwartz obliged. Man no. 2 went over to the struggling couple and cut Stride's throat. The drunken man no. 1 wasn't exactly sure what happened because it happened so fast, but knew that he had to get the hell out of there because she was as dead as a doornail, and he was not the one to blamed for nothing. Man no.2, content that Stride was dead and certain that man no. 1 wasn't about to bear witness, left the scene and went in search of another woman who would be more... cooperative.
I know you're asking, "But what about the zebra's footprints?" Give me time on that.
Mike the Mauler
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Mike
But the problem is (as I pointed out yesterday) Schwartz claims to have witnessed the meeting of Stride and her assailant, moments before the assault took place. And as I understand his story, although he saw the first man stop and speak to the woman, he didn't even notice the second until after the assault had taken place (and in the Star version the second man was actually inside the pub at the time).
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 181
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
There are two versions of the initial meeting of Stride and the drunk.A police version and a report in a paper.One has a vicious assault taking place,the other a push being given.
Jane has said there were only two marks on the front of the body,consistent with Stride being forced to the ground at the time of death,within the confines of the yard.Where then are injuries consistent with an assault out side the yard?
Scwhartz reported he heard raised voices as he hurried away after the initial contact between Stride and drunk.If Stride's voice was one,she must have survived the initial contact.If it was voices of the two men Schwartz said were present,and they were partners,why raise their voices and possibly draw attention? They were ,after all,only a few yards apart. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4014
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 5:15 am: |
|
Hi Julie,
"I do not agree that the Met Police were stupid, however I certainly don't believe that they were on the ball either. Whether it be due to case overload, shortage of officers or lack of training, their numbers compared to the areas they covered were sure less than what it should have been. Keeping in mind also that they walked with lanterns, with poor lighting to say the least, in very dangerous areas of London(be it Whitechapel or otherwise)
The backgrounds of several of those in charge eg: McNaughton, Anderson etc., did not include police work, not to mention those who were remotely involved (Anderson) or involved after the fact (mcNaughton)and if I am not mistaken Swanson as well."
I didn't say that the Met police were idiots, in fact it made it quite clear that it shouldn't be interpreted as such. What I did mean, was that they most likely did a number of mistakes and didn't follow procedures in a way that a modern police force would have done at all times - and exactly for the very same reasons you point out (I totally agree with all that). Many of the reports, for example, would never have been accepted by modern police authorities. Their work was also heavily weighed down by pressure from the news media and being ridiculed in the press, which of course interfers with the work of an inexperienced police in a negative way.
They were no different than any other European police force of the day, they had the same inexperience in serial killer cases as any other, criminal investigation methods and interrogation methods were still in their infancy etc. The Met police were no different in that respect.
But for those reason I can't feel compelled to trust their judgement just because 'they were there'.
However, it appears that the City of London police were more professional in their appraoch and very much up to date with modern police methods and a bit ahead of their time.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 15
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Chris,
Discounting the Star story, If man no.2 was using man no.1 to help him get a prostitute, it would make sense that he would be waiting across the street until he got the yea or nay from the guy. Try this on: "'ere Lizzie, that bloke's looking fer some company. E's got a fair bit of money wif 'im."
Liz looks to where the man is waiting. Their eyes meet. "Not wif 'im." she whispers. " 'E don't look right. I saw 'im..." she pauses to recollect, but the haze from the gin is too hard to clear.
"Look Lizzie, the man's made my acquaintance, and you know 'ow I'm on 'ard times. Do us this favor, that's a girl. 'E promised me a bit of coin."
Lizzie says, "No." loud enough for the man to hear. She begins to walk away and the drunk grabs her as Schwartz is walking by. The two go down in a heap.
Mike the Mauler
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Mike
Sorry, I still don't really see how it works - or why man no 2 couldn't just ask her himself?
It seems an awfully, and unnecessarily, elaborate arrangement, for men nos 1 and 2 to make their way separately to Berner St, and for man no 1 to accost Liz on behalf of man no 2. Do you see them as having taken a preliminary walk round the block, so that man no 2 could take a look at her? Basically I just don't understand the suggestion at all.
Chris Phillips
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 574
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
I love your cockney accent........don't give up the day job!
Seriously though.........none of the above scenario explains any of the anomalies to Liz's killing......in fact it adds a whole lot more.
If you want to go with the procurer option you have put together, you are going to have to be very creative with the facts.... there are so many loose ends I could knit a cardigan with them.
To make a hypothesis work it has to fit in with what is already known and at least to my mind that idea doesn't.
But I can easily see you working on the script for the next Ripper film.......beats From Hell hands down!
Hugs
Jane
x
xxx |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 16
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Chris and Jane,
If you think I buy my scenario, you're crazy. I'm just throwing stuff out there. I could easily make it more elaborate and try to explain every detail, but then it would be the same as all the other theories. It would be an attempt to develop a theory and then apply it to the facts rather than the other way around. But to wind the merchant a bit: Man 1 and Man 2 meet each other in the pub. Man 2 asks him about any willing ladies he might know. Man 1 says yes, but without a little greasing of the palm, it will be hard for him to recollect where the lady might be. A few coins are given over and man 1 says, "Wait 'ere while I pop outside to 'ave a look. He walks a bit up Berner street looking for Liz and then crosses over the street. Man 2 thinks to himself, "Self, he's been gone too long, and with my money, so he steps outside the pub in time to see Man 1 crossing over the street. He lights his pipe as Man 1 accosts the slovenly, godless whore (Jack's thoughts, not mine), and then Schwartz is walking down the street and the feces hits the fan, so to speak. See, theories are easy to develop. Hard to disprove too. For my part, I think H.G. Wells did it. I mean he invented the time machine didn't he.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Mike
I'm just throwing stuff out there.
Fair enough, provided it's fair enough for the rest of us to throw our comments back.
If you're suggesting that Liz was murdered by her pimp (I'm not sure whether you are, or whether you're thinking of a more informal situation), realistically that would put Kidney back in the frame again, wouldn't it?
Chris Phillips
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 576
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
Well here we are talking about eliminating the impossible and we have all realised that is not as easy as it might sound. Even if there is still the tiniest margin of possibility then it does have to be at least tentatively left in the equation.
With the two man theory......a fair amount could be put forward to suggest it is not that impossible a theory and in fact could be quite plausible within certain circumstances......
But certain elements within the theory you posted above can be eliminated at least.
For instance, the chances of Jack approaching a stranger in a pub to procure a woman for him is something that could not have happened. I realise you are only tossing theories out here to see where they land, but in that instance it definitely landed butter side down.
Is there any possibility at all that Jack would ask a stranger to procure a prostitute for him - knowing that he intended to murder her? What is this other chap going to do when the woman he introduced turned up dead the next day? Two choices.....blackmail Jack or go to the cops.
If on the other hand you say that Jack developed a relationship with a man he met in a pub over a fair period of time and they both realised that they had a penchant for a bit of nip and tuck on hapless females.......and they decided to form a partnership.......then we could possibly have something to work on.
What I am saying basically Mike is that it is fine coming up with speculative scenarios for what might have happened, but if any element in them is that dubious then there is not much point in trying to see if the facts fit it.
I think the time machine theory on the other hand is definitely worth considering. I am looking into that one........
Jane
xxxx
Having read Chris' post, I am wondering if I have got the wrong end of the stick....I was presuming that Man 1 was Jack.........if not where does Man 1 fit in and what has happened to Jack.......is he still in the pub having a pint? I think I might have got a bit lost on your theory Mike!
(Message edited by jcoram on September 10, 2005) |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 18
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Jane,
I disagree that someone with the intent of murder would definitely not ask another man where any willing girls might be found. It could have been a case of man 1 asking man 2 if he was looking for company. Man 2 was having no luck this evening and he just had to kill tonight. Man 1 was drunk enough that man 2 figured he couldn't tell up from down. Why not take a chance. He was invincible was he not?
You see, I'm not serious about this, but it's the way a theorist can make sense out of anything. That's why I have no theories. I just get a kick out of this stuff.
You can say that in your opinion Jack wouldn't use an intermediary and I could say that we don't know enough about the mind of the killer to say he wouldn't. It goes 'round and 'round.
My only theory is that someone(s)killed some women, and 1 or more deaths may or not be connected.
I know I'm out on a limb there, but I'm standing by it.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Glenn
Points well taken! I also agree that they were not exactly on the ball for whatever reason.
regards
Julie
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:44 pm: |
|
OK, three quick points:
1. I would not at all be surprised if Jack drank on the nights when he was out killing. Bundy also spoke of how alcohol essentially broke down his inhibitions somewhat and fuelled his desire to commit murders.
2. As far as Chris's point about Schwartz's statement that he "witnessed the meeting of Stride and her assailant". It would seem that this is the case, but is this actually certain. I would say no. First, it is mainly the Star report that gives the description of Schwartz following the tipsy man for a while before stopping to talk to Stride, who stood in the entrance to the alleyway. Swanson's report merely says Schwartz saw a man stop and speak to a woman... etc. It is hard to figure out which of these is more accurate, as the Star report, although it is more detailed than Swanson's report, has the feel of a "story"... I have always thought it may have been embellished a bit. How drunk was the man for example? How far did Scwartz follow this man? I have always wondered if this guy had started to leave initially... perhaps Stride told him to leave - "not tonight, some other night" - that she was not interested in him as a client. Then perhaps he started to walk away, but then changed his mind and decided to go back to her again. Remember, it is interesting to me that the statements of PC Smith, Marshall, and Schwartz are all rather similar... about 5'6", wearing black, dressed clerkish, peaked cap. My interpretation is that the ripper spoke with Stride for some time, then she told him to leave or was not compliant to his wishes somehow, or maybe she got a bad feeling about him.
3. In my opinion, the main reason that people cling to this notion that Mr. BS's behavior does not fit JTR's, is that they are clinging to a mythical vision of JTR and his methods. The basic idea is that JTR was clever, careful, stealthy... none of these are actually supported by any real evidence. The main reason why he got away with his crimes in my opinion is luck. And as I have said many times, we have no evidence as to how jtr "would have reacted" if he was witnessed by someone in the act of committing a murder.
Just for argument's sake, consider this conjectural example: say during the midst of the Eddowes killing, a rather timid and bookish looking guy happened to walk through Mitre square... and at this point Jack has not yet killed her, but is in the act of strangling her, say... or just generally manhandling her. Now how would our Jack react in this scenario? The fact is that this is an unknown, and that he may well have acted just as Mr. BS did, yelling something at the guy, trying to scare him off.
In general, I think there is too much of a tendency to try to interpret Mr. BS's behavior in a rational way, saying well "clearly he would have done this because it is only logical", etc. What we are discussing is an animalistic and passionate event, and I, for one, tend to allow for a more broad and complex human behavior, than is possible if we are playing Monday morning quarterback in out comfortable armchairs at home, interpreting a passionate and sub-rational event as if it were enacted by a guy who was in a rational state of mind. Let's not forget we are talking about a killer. And many of the serial killers I have read about, get into a passionate rage while caught up in the act, that is the furthest from rational behavior you could get.
RH |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Hi. Thank you for your response. I know that you are one of the more knowledgeable people on these boards and I respect your opinion. So now I don't know what the hell to think about Kidney. You yourself have stated that in a murder investigation, the police tend to immediately focus on anyone closely connected to the victim such as a spouse, lover or family members. This is basic police procedure and even I, who have had no training in such things, know this. Also, this was by no means the first murder case that the police had ever investigated. Did they not have set procedures and policies in place?
In light of the double event, they certainly might have been quick to assume it was a Ripper murder. But can we turn that argument around? If they assumed that Liz was killed by the Ripper and there was a connection between Liz and Kidney, would they have entertained the idea that Kidney could have been the Ripper?
Would you agree that all the inconsistencies here could be explained away (at least to an extent) if Kidney had an air tight alibi that was thouroughly checked by the police?
Finally, nice work on your use of the word "bloke." You really seem to be catching on to the lingo over there.
All the best to you sir as well.
c.d.
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Jane,
You made some very good points and you certainly did a good job detailing the risks involved in Liz's killing. But somebody was willing to take those risks be it Jack, Kidney or someone unknown.
Much has been made of the fact that Liz was apparently killed with a knife that was different from the knife that was used on the other victims. I am wondering if so many of the inconsistencies that you pointed out could be explained by Liz pulling a knife on Jack which might have frightened him and made him panic or even infuriated him to the point where he no longer cared about the danger he was in. Of all the victims, Liz seems one tough customer and I can see her carrying a knife. And if we keep in mind her rough treatment at the hands of Mr. Broad Shoulders earlier, she might have been quite ready to pull a knife at the slightest suspicion that something wasn't right.
Her knife and the cachous could be related as well. Sensing something is not quite right she says "Just let me freshen my breath a bit first." "Now let's see, where are those cachous?" she says as she reaches into her pockets with both hands grabbing her knife and the cachous as she angles her back to hide her actions. If Jack is suspicious of her actions as well, he strikes immediately grabbing her knife and using it to kill her. The cachous remain in the hand not holding her knife. Just some thoughts.
c.d. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
All,
Of the many reasons to doubt the Royal Conspiracy theory in my view is that the English state and its public or secret servants never had many qualms in "snuffing out" potential dangers by any means, fair or foul.
If there was a suspicion that a handful of common people knew something damaging to the Crown, then picking them off one by one, gruesomely over a period of months, was a dangerous and ridiculous strategy if the aim was to stop people's mouths. It would have had quite the opposite effect in my view and we'd have heard about it long before the age of the paperback allowed such sensationalism to be spread among the eager masses.
If the State wanted to silence a handful of potential traitors, it would have done so more quickly to prevent further gossip getting out. They would certainly not have resorted to macabre and theatrical murder. Once, perhaps - but four or five times and in a manner which clearly seemed to link each and every one of the victims? Not bloody likely!
Has it occurred to nobody that Nichols, Chapman et seq might have been more useful alive than dead - at least until the authorities had "caught their last rabbit"?
On that basis, I think I'd find it easier to accept a Royal Conspiracy in terms of the "Thames Torso Murders". I'm not seriously suggesting this, but at least such a theory would have in its favour a direct connection to the House of Hanover. Good Queen Vic had Thames-side properties aplenty, and it would be easy to propose a scenario whereby the victims were tortured in the Tower before being beheaded, dismembered and kicked off the ramparts into the river.
All done by a club-footed servant afflicted by heavy breathing and a hump, with a penchant for using the phrase "Yes master" in an indeterminate Slavic accent, of course ;o)
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 20
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Gareth,
Agreed. There's really nothing convincing in any royal conspiracy argument. People love plots don't they?
I'm waiting for George MacDonald Fraser to write his 'Flashman and the Ripper' book. That will get to the bottom of things.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 577
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
Sorry me again.......brace yourself.
Just to come back to the point about Jack asking where any 'willing' girls might be found in Whitechapel. You would actually be hard pressed to find one that wasn't willing.
Per capita there were more prostitutes in the area at that time than any thing else......the poor women there, even the ones who had some pathetic job or other would usually go with someone for some extra cash.
If anything Jack would have been hard pressed to walk down Dorset Street without being propositioned dozens of times.
St Botolphs just a stones throw from where Kate was killed was circled by prostitutes more or less continuously.
In other words, Jack would never have needed to ask anyone where he could get a woman for the night because he would have been tripping over them in every pub and on every corner of Dorset Street.
I do agree though with Robert Houses point though that Jack would certainly have been a frequenter of the pubs, there seems no real doubt of that as that was where his prey mainly fed and watered. I suspect though that he was either a solitary drinker, or the chap in the pub that is sort of there but doesn't become intimate with anyone.....that's just a guess of course.
Really though Mike, I would have to discount totally Jack having to go up to anyone in a pub and asking where he could find a victim. It would be rather like a cat in Trafalgar Square asking directions to the nearest pigeon.
Keep going though, you are coming up with some intriguing scenarios......
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Jane,
Jack's in a pub. He sees 3 ladies leave with customers. Perhaps there are a couple left, but they don't look enough like his mother, or they aren't plump enough like aunt Gertie. Man 1 is drunk, but 'e ain't got a farthing left and the publican isn't giving anything free away. He sidles up to Jack. "'Ello Guv. You look like a man 'oo could use the company of a lady (pronounced 'lie dee'."
Jack shrugs, but he's aroused by the prospect.
"What do you have in mind." he answers in a low voice.
"Well, I know just the woman for you. A real goer, she is. It may take a few minutes to find 'er." He holds out his hand and Jack gives him a few coins, not really caring what he handed over. He's on the scent now, and his hands are shaking a bit with the adrenaline surge.
"Yer won't mind me fortifying m'self 'fore I goes outside, Guv?" He doesn't wait for an answer and plops down one of the coins, and is surprised that it's a guinea. "Blimey." he says to himself as he collects the change. "I've got a real benefactor 'ere." he thinks to himself. He drains the gin in a couple gulps and staggers out into the street to find ol' Lizzie.
Jack is shaking with anticipation. After a minute, he can't wait any longer and goes outside to see what's going on with the filthy whore. He lights his pipe. the tobacco calms him a bit.
He sees the drunk from the pub sort of urging a whore along. They pause and the drunk points across the street. Lizzie recognizes the man, but isn't sure from where she knows or has seen him. She doesn't like the look of him, however and starts to tell that to her procurer.
Schwartz is coming down the road as the drunk accosts Lizzie. Lizzie screams and the drunk looks around and sees Schwartz. He hisses, "Lipski!" which means: This ain't yer business, Jew!
Jack follows at a distance for several yards. Schwartz runs off. Jack hurries back to the struggling couple. Lizzie's holding her own because her accoster is so drunk. She sees Jack coming and now recognizes him. He was the man she saw with Nichols the night she was killed. Jack recognizes her too. As the couple struggles, Jack cuts her throat as easy as you please. The drunk feels her go limp. He isn't sure what happened, he may not even have known that Jack was back, but now he's got this corpse here and he was struggling with her. In panic, he flees the scene.
Jack is already gone, a thief in the night, but he's not sated...
If nothing else, it makes a nice bedtime story.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
If we accept, for a moment, both the accuracy of Schwarz's physical description of the two men, and the notion that Stride's killer was JTR, one can naturally infer - from previous JTR "sightings" - that Man 1 (Broad shoulders) is a better candidate for the ripper than Man 2.
Most sightings are consistent in the belief that the Whitechapel assailant was 5 ft 6ins with a small moustache, whereas a description of a man 5ft 11ins in height only ever crops up at the Stride incident. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Jane
In other words, Jack would never have needed to ask anyone where he could get a woman for the night because he would have been tripping over them in every pub and on every corner of Dorset Street.
But not in Berner Street, apparently. Not that I subscribe to Mike's scenario, but doesn't it seem a strange place for the Ripper to go looking for victims?
Chris Phillips
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 578
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Well Mike me dear,
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.......I have just taken a couple of pain killers, so I feel fortified to dive into the fray.........
Any serious Ripper researcher would have nightmares if they read that bedtime story........
(pronounced 'lie dee'." Honestly Mike, what are you like?......if you went into the East End and spoke like that you would have your ears pulled off.........
Seriously though.........there is never anything wrong in speculation, even if it is only based on circumstantial evidence.....but where do we draw the line between what is possible and so ludicrous that you have to dismiss it?
Truthfully there are bits of all of the scenarios you have put forward that could work or are even plausible......Jack drinking in that pub is plausible and watching to see which ladies go in and out too.........but why was Jack in that pub in Berner Street? If he was looking for a victim he was in the wrong place........Berner Street was a tolerably respectable street as far as they go. If Jack was trawling for fish, he would have been elsewhere. Obviously there would be exceptions to this, he could have been in that pub for another reason, or not looking for a victim at that particular time......but if we start going along avenues that are so unlikely we are going to be wasting time that should be spent on looking at viable options.
If I went through I could almost certainly find a dozen holes in that theory which would make that scenario impossible..........not least the fact that you still have Liz at the entrance of the gate when she is killed, that there were no signs of a serious struggle shown in the mud at the entrance, that she still had cachous in her hand when she was killed in a spot nine feet away..........
So basically Mike, looking at possibilites is a fine and good route to go in my opinion......but they need to help us progress in the case, not lead us up that proverbial garden path, even if they are done with tongue very firmly in cheek.
I must say though, you really should be writing novels........I loved the bit about Jack replying in a low voice.......could just picture him hunched over his beer and peering up from under his eyebrows...........now who would you put in the part?
Janie
xxxxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 579
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I think you have just made my point for me, but in rather less words!
If Jack did kill Liz that night, I would love to know what he was doing in Berner Street......... but then again I would love to know what Liz was doing there too.
The headache gets even worse for me when one considers that Kate was killed in Mitre Square, but of course the explanation for that could be that he knew about St Botolph's and headed straight for it.
I personally think that the night of the double event is the set of circumstances that gives me the most brainache because nothing seems to add up at all, whichever way you look at it. We are talking about eliminating the impossible here, but even though we know it happened that whole night seems nigh on impossible to me!
Janie
xxxx
 |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 456
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Cheer up, Jane, the night isn't impossible if we eliminate Stride as a victim.
Oops, can't eliminate her. Oh, well.
If Stride had been killed the night before would she still be one of the C5?
Mags
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 23
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Jane,
My point exactly. Theorizing doesn't do any good really without hard facts. That's why we have the Maybricks, the conspirators, the Tumbletys, etc...
It's why I have no theory except the time machine, and HG Wells.Nothing else really works for me.
But... couldn't Jack (HG Wells) have just been drinking at Berner street when the sight of a few whores there in his favorite, non-Ripperesque pub, made the beast rise again? Have those bloody whores invaded Berner street now? What next? Jews? Dagoes? Blacks? How fortuitous that this little drunk next to him is giving him an opportunity to strike one of them down. "But all I have is my pocket knife." He thinks, realizing that this was just to be a night of a good bitter and his pipe.
Still, a little knife will do the trick if there's time. Cover the mouth, slit the throat, and they've no chance to scream. That's a lad, Jacky.
Maybe there is a book in this after all... as soon as I can figure in the time machine.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 24
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Oh and Jane and Chris,
If you go into Suspects/General Discussion, I started a thread called Carroll's Jabberwocky holds the truth. In there I translated 'the Jabberwocky' making a connection between Carroll and Thompson or some other poet. Someone actually took it seriously, but it was all tongue in cheek which is pretty much my M.O.
Take care
Mike the Mauler
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4017
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
Thanks for the nice words, although I am hardly one of the more knowledgeable on these Boards - on the contrary. I am quite an amateur sleuth compared to many others, although I do have some knowledge of police work in general and friends working in the police force.
"But can we turn that argument around? If they assumed that Liz was killed by the Ripper and there was a connection between Liz and Kidney, would they have entertained the idea that Kidney could have been the Ripper?"
It's a reasonable and valid question, but to tell you the truth, I have no idea. We know they interrogated other persons in personal relations to the victims. But as far as Kidney is concerned, they don't seem to have done this.
To do so is of course standard [police procedure but we must take into consideration the context and the circumstances they worked in at the time. The police made an extensive house to house search and brought in hundreds of suspects, so they were not by any means out of work. I personally think they dismissed Kidney because of Eddowes' body popping up the same night and from panic from the Double Event, , but we have very little information about what they thought or how they reasoned. All we can say, is that we can't find any documented evidence of any focus upon Kidney as a suspect. Why is something only they knew the answer to.
I don't think his alibi was checked out and I don't think they payed any attention to him. Such things happens, although it shouldn't. The Met police were clearly caught up in a situation where they had very little experience and where their usual routines somehow came to suffer, maybe because of external pressure.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Hi Maria,
If Stride had been killed the night before would she still be one of the C5?
I think so - because then it could be argued that Jack went home unsatisfied and brooded all night about it, the result being Eddowes the following night. it's the same argument, just a few more hours in between.
Now if Stride had been killed after Eddowes, and then weeks went by before the next mutilation murder, there would be more doubts IMHO.
But I just can't forget the extraordinary timing, and the fact that it fits so perfectly with an unsatisfied mutilating serial killer searching for, and finding, another victim to work on just fifteen minutes' walk away from Berner st.
Hi Glenn,
Looking forward to Brighton? Are you coming to the Whitechapel Society meeting on October 1st too?
I understand why you feel the police mindset was such that they had Jack the Ripper down for Stride's murder and no one else. The Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jacky postcard would have contributed to that mindset, among those who took those communications seriously.
But wouldn't that mindset have been even stronger immediately after C5, when the mutilations increased well beyond C4, which had in turn increased beyond C2?
And yet there was at least one report that MJK's murder was being considered as possibly the work of someone other than Jack, and we know that Joe Barnett, who was not known to be violent, endured a lengthy police interview before he was eliminated from their enquiries.
That happened despite the mindset. So even if it hadn't immediately occurred to them that Kidney could have been involved in Stride's assault and/or murder, I should have thought it would have done at some point after Barnett's questioning - unless Kidney had already been cleared for good reason.
Your argument is that the Met police were caught up in a situation where they had very little experience, and that showed after the double event because there is no evidence that they so much as thought twice about Kidney. But that argument doesn't really hold up come November, does it?
And of course, even if the police totally failed to consider Kidney a possible suspect for the murder of his wayward girlfriend, that doesn't make it any more likely that he actually did it. If anything, slightly less likely, IMHO, because domestic murder, like no other, will usually out in time - once the air has cleared and the police can look back calmly at the facts of the murder and reassess their initial thoughts.
Love,
Caz
X |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Yeah, Caz, maybe in your dreams.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 905
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:09 am: |
|
Why, oh why, Caz are you so determined to have a closed mind about even the possibility of a different hand striking down Stride?
I have been strongly persuaded by the questionning of the traditional "double event" but always state that I have at least 40% of a mind open to other options (including what you refer to as the C5).
Your refusal even to consider - and to argue against - alternatives, seems odd. Not least because the whole C5 tradition is being questioned from other angles - it was not even universal in the 1880s/early 90s.
Is your resistance to having an open mind because the Diary/watch pre-eminently stand or fall on the C5; or do you just prefer not to question?
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4028
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:52 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I do look forward to Brighton. Indeed. I might pop in on the October 1 meeting as well, if I only get rid of this blooming chest infection that's haunting me at the moment.
"But wouldn't that mindset have been even stronger immediately after C5, when the mutilations increased well beyond C4, which had in turn increased beyond C2?
And yet there was at least one report that MJK's murder was being considered as possibly the work of someone other than Jack, and we know that Joe Barnett, who was not known to be violent, endured a lengthy police interview before he was eliminated from their enquiries.
That happened despite the mindset. So even if it hadn't immediately occurred to them that Kidney could have been involved in Stride's assault and/or murder, I should have thought it would have done at some point after Barnett's questioning - unless Kidney had already been cleared for good reason."
Those are all valid question, and I do actually think the police had become incredibly desperate in November when the Kelly murder occurred.
You see, I think it was the Eddowes murder occurring the same night as Stride's (with just some minutes apart) that convinced them of that Stride's murder was a Ripper work, and therefore they lost sight. Although they had investigated loads of domestic murders before the Ripper murders, they had never looked at domestic murders in a serial context, and certainly not with the press hammering them in the media. Let's not forget that the press linked the murders together in a series even before the police did, and they also counted Emma Smith.
As for Kelly and the situation in October, we must not forget, that it was a press statement vaguely pointing at the possibility that Kelly's murder may not have been the Ripper's work, but this was apparently not the view of the police.
Let's be frank here; after the calm situation in October - and after the terrible so called Double Event - this awful murder, with even more spectacular mutilations - they were pretty desperate to catch the Ripper, and I guess they felt they had to put all their eggs in the same basket.
And I believe that's what happened with Hutchinson as well. They simply could not take the risk (although his story does not hang together) to dismiss him and not take him seriously, when he delivered them a clear description of a suspect. They would have been slaughtered in the papers, and maybe even by public opinion. It is quite possible that the police might have thought in other directions than the Ripper regarding Kelly for a few seconds at the initial stage, but no documentation actually supports that. Just like in Stride's case, we see very little domestic considerations on the part of the police. There are actually no indications on that the police were less mindset after the Kelly murder than the one on Stride. And I believe, that if they were desperate after the Double Event, they paniced after the Kelly murder, and in a way I can't really blame them. As for Barnett, I think it is quite possible, that although they saw him as a suspect in the beginning (although that is not confirmed either in black and white), that in itself doesn't say that they saw it as a domestic; they could still have regarded it as a Ripper murder and judging form the documentation I think it is apparent that they did. In that case, all Barnett had to do, was to provide a solid alibi for the other Ripper murders (or at least one of them), in order to get off the hook.
So, in short. I don't think the police ever viewed the Kelly murder as a domestic, although some paper account speculated in such a direction.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
