| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 821
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 9:35 pm: |       |
G'day Shannon,
Annie Chapman lived at Crossingham's Lodging House at 35 Dorset Street, and before that at 30 Dorset Street.
Elizabeth Stride lived on and off with Michael Kidney at 33 Dorset Street.
Catharine Eddowes regularly slept in the empty shed at 26 Dorset Street.
Mary Ann Nichols has no clear link to Dorset Street, then again the first victim of a serial killer is usually the least 'linkable'.
Don't these count as links?
LEANNE
|
Philip A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 6:33 pm: | |
Leanne,
If they all supposedly know each other, how come Mary never said anything? How come she never came to the police and told them a few clues. I'm sure she would be a bit suspicious when her friends or people she knew were getting killed one by one and her boyfriend coming home at 4 in the morning when in an hour, he was probably set to go to work. Wouldn’t she at least tell her friends who talked to the police? Where would he hide his knife or knives in that extremely small room?
Didn't you say before that Lawende was a top witness? How come he didn't say anything about Barnett when Barnett was questioned by Abberline? I'm sure his heart would have gone racing once he saw Barnett and linked him to the man he saw with Eddowes.
George Chapman lived right where Martha Tabram was killed. Then he moved out. This is a much stronger piece of evidence than Barnett's.
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 9:34 am: | |
Philip,
I don't think Leanne is suggesting that the victims knew each other but that maybe they knew each other by sight. If the shed story is true then Kate is the most likely one that Joe and Mary would have known.
Your point about Martha Tabram is, well, pointless. I don't technically count Martha Tabram as a JTR vitim and if she was then I don't think he would have started too close to home, would u? The more he got away with, the more confident he got. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 891
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 1:08 am: | |
G'day Phil,
I'm no implying that they knew each other intimately, I'm mearly suggesting that they probably knew each other by sight. They were all heavy drinkers and may have drank at the same pubs occasionally.
If Barnett had have murdered only close acquaintences of Mary's, that would be as suicidal as a confession, as all a detective had to do was find all 'common dinominators' in each case, (which I'm sure they would have tried).
Mary Nichols had no known connection with Dorset street. That isn't surprising, because the first victim in a series is known to be the least linkable to a serial killer.
Annie Chapman lived across the road at Crossinghams, like many many unfortunate women.
Kate Eddowes probably lived next door.
Elizabeth Stride breaks the pattern. That's why I believe her murder wasn't part of any plan and she had to die. Her boyfriend lived on Dorset Street and maybe she saw something suspicious, confronted him about it. The busy location of Dutfields Yard wouldn't have been part of a well planned out murder.
Who said he hid his equipment inside that tiny room? Joes job took him all over the East End of London.
Joseph Lawende got no more than a passing look at the man with Catharine Eddowes. Where does it say Lawende was present at Barnett's "Ffffor-hour" interrigation? I missed that bit!
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 247
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 4:56 am: | |
Leanne: "Elizabeth Stride breaks the pattern... ...Her boyfriend lived on Dorset Street and maybe she saw something suspicious, confronted him about it..."
At any time before Liz's death, there had only been two (possibly three murders if you count Martha), and honestly at that time no one knew it was a serial killer. Not likely anyone saw a connection as Polly and Annie appear to have nothing in common except for the way in which they died. One in Hanbury street, the other in Buck's Row (neither anywhere close to Dorset Street)
What could Liz possibly have seen that would have made her murder a necessity?
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:14 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Could you clarify something for me? Are you saying that both Liz and Kate were killed because they had to be silenced?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:31 am: | |
G'day Robert,
What do you think about that possibility, is it worth considering?
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
I think that maybe Liz was killed accidently. Maybe the killer realised that he had killed the wrong person and so he didn't want to waste time on mutilating her. Another reason could be that the killer was trying to follow Kate but lost her, he wonders about aimlessly trying to find her getting more and more desperate and stumbles across Liz who tries to offer her services to him (just what he needs!!) so he gets annoyed and kills her but doesn't mutilate her for some reason. Perhaps he doesn't want to waste too much time or he does get interrupted. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:57 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Well, leaving aside the question of what they could possibly have known, and also whether or not the killer was Joe : this would seem to imply that Jack shadowed Liz in Berner St, hoping for a chance to get her on her own and kill her before keeping an appointment with Kate and killing her too.
Look at all the things that could go wrong.
Sarah, I suppose one plus for Leanne's idea would be that it might explain why Liz wasn't mutilated - he was in a hurry to meet up with Kate. Still.....
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 8:28 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I am trying to find the newspaper report saying that a drunk Michael Kidney went to a police station after Stride's murder, saying that he thought he knew something and could catch the murderer if he had the powers of a detective. Let's consider that! I wonder if was he just so drunk, and didn't know what he was saying.
Liz was killed with a different knife. Her killer may not have been ready to kill, so didn't have his knife on him, and had to use the first knife he came across.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 9:09 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Kidney made these claims at the inquest, which you can find the "Times" 4th Oct version of in the Sourcebook.
Robert |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 25
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 9:30 am: | |
Leanne,
"Liz was killed with a different knife"
Could you expand on this? Where was this mentioned?
Sarah
P.S: Blimey Leanne, the spell checker doesn't like your name!! |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 378
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:18 am: | |
LEANNE, Sarah,
Ive had this query regarding the 'Liz was killed with a different knife' statement.
What does this prove? Liz wasnt killed by the same man that took Nichols and Chapman before (or Tabram ect for that matter).
No.
It proves (if indeed it can be proven) that Liz was killed with a different knife....not by a different man.
Has anyone considered that Jack may have had a secordary knife, possibly a third? Wouldnt this have been a prudent move?
Theres a theory that the different wounds on Tabram were caused by the same weapon, a knife. It is just that the knife broke and her killer simply carried on plunging away at her. Maybe he had learned a lesson from this. I would.
I just cant see our boy being so ill prepared at this stage in the series.
Monty
 |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
G'day Monty,
Look at the time that Stride was murdered. She was found dead at 1:00a.m.
At 1:00a.m. Nichols was on her way to 18 Thrawl Street and was very much alive. She was found dead at 3:40 a.m.
At 1:35a.m. Chapman had returned to Crossinghams and wasn't found dead until 6:00a.m. by John Davis.
1:00a.m. was too early for the the Ripper to kill, but let's say he was just not prepared to kill at 1:00a.m. I believe he just hadn't picked up his weapon yet.
SARAH: Dr. Phillips reported great dissimilarity between Stride's wounds and Chapman's. He found that a long knife inflicted the wounds on Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, while a short round knife was used on Stride. Many prostitutes at that time carried their own knives for protection.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 37
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 6:57 am: | |
Leanne,
If 1.00 am was too early then surely you are saying that 1.45 am was too early and yet that is when Kate was found. Not too sure about the difference in the wounds. As Monty said though, he could have been using another knife, especially if he wasn't planning on killing Liz. He may have used her knife if she had brought it out to defend herself. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 7:01 am: | |
G'day Robert,
The Coroner asked Kidney: "Do you know of anyone that was likely to have run foul of her?"
Kidney answered: "On Monday night I went to Leman Street Police Station...."
The Coroner: "It's not too late."
Kidney: "I have heard something said that leads me to believe..."
I wonder did Liz tell him of a suspicion she had? He admitted that he was intoxicated when he went to the police station, but surely he was sober at the inquest! Maybe he didn't say what he had heard, because he feared for his own life, so passed it off as a rumour.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 7:45 am: | |
G'day Sarah,
Think of the mood he would have been in, if he couldn't complete the mutilation at 1:00a.m., because he was almost caught. He also could have had the strange idea that if it was known the Ripper killed in Mitre Square at 1:45a.m., he couldn't have been responsible for the botched job in Berner Street. I haven't thought about that suggestion much, so I'll sleep on it! Good night, I catch ya in the morning!
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:14 am: | |
That's a good idea Leanne, but I'm confused yet again (it happens all the time). I thought you were suggesting that JTR didn't kill Liz and now it looks like you're saying he did her. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 392
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
LEANNE,
Time duly noted...and?
Please dont get me wrong. Kate may not be one of his. Its just that we cannot assume this on the basis that it was the wrong knife or the wrong time or the wrong area.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Hm. If Liz really thought she was on to something, she'd have been silly to tell Kidney and risk him bagging the reward.
Re Kidney, it's just my gut feeling, but I tend to put him down as a bragging blusterer on this matter.
It's a bit much to swallow, the idea that there were two women who had to be silenced.
Funnily enough, I feel that if you must have Joe as the Ripper, then the best bet for someone who had to be silenced or maybe had been blackmailing him, is Kelly herself. After all, he returned to give her money. Blackmail would be one explanation (among others). And if Joe was the Ripper, Kelly was ideally placed to discover it.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 5:11 pm: | |
G'day Sarah,
Check the messages again because I have never thought that Elizabeth Stride was killed by another hand. Don't confuse me with Shannon Christopher, who also supports Barnett's guilt!
ROBERT: I'm not suggesting that two women HAD to be silenced. That suggests that he planned to kill two women that night. That's about as much of a MO change as using a different knife! Plus Kate was not known prostitute, so there's another MO change!
It's not that I MUST have Barnett as the Ripper at all. I just can't understand why people don't see him as such a strong suspect as I do. It's as though people don't want to believe!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 5:28 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I don't want this to go off topic, but I just want to say that I don't see why the knife used on Liz has to be different.
I think Joe is a perfectly respectable suspect, but if he did do the murders I don't see any need for silencing/blackmail scenarios. Also the business about killing women to keep Kelly off the streets is wacky.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
Yeah sociopaths are wacky people aren't they? Do you believe the Ripper must have had an understandable motive? I have to go Christmas shopping now....I do do other things occasionally! 
See ya, LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 4:22 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Good luck with your christmas shopping. Your Joe wouldn't have had any problems there. He'd have disembowelled someone to create a distraction, thus leaving himself a clear run to grab the best bargains!
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 928
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:59 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Well, I did consider that he would have reaped the benefits of selling oranges to the curious crowds!
LEANNE |
