|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 6:56 am: |       |
Yeah, that's right, Paul.
It's that Sherlock Holmes type of hat (which he only used in one or two of the mysteries, by the way).
Funny, a deer stalker hat was really supposed to belong to the country outfit, not something you usually wore in town.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 9:16 pm: | |
Hi Busy Beaver,
To agree with you on your point. One would have probably turned on the other, if it was just to get the reward money. A pardon was to be given to any accomplices that came forward. To answer you question...there were a few that left, and a few that died, and a few that got put in the looney bin.
Tumblety left the country very soon after MJK died.
WH Bury was hung soon after. Kosminsky went to the nut house, but not until 1891. Deeming went to South Africa(whether he was in Whitechapel in 1888 is questionable). Thats about all I can think of off the top of my head. Hope that helped.
Paul |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
One Ripper or two? This really isn't such a hard question to decide on. Think of it this way: JtR may have been so unstable a man as to have a different modus operandi or purpose behind each murder. He would only look to us basically the same in some crimes, he wouldn't be the same. The optical illusion would be in our eyes, not in him. Since this is a possibility, we are left only with solving the crimes based on the available evidence, just as I've been telling you all for years.
Although this is a brilliant, monumental revelation, no one recognizes it as such, nor pursues it. No human being has looked into the errors of the Ripperlogical mind and seen and overcome as much there as I. Don't try to make a box out of the case evidence, try to make a circle. After all, you don't know who JtR was, do you?
A free gift concerning the case will be made to you soon. If the past is any harbinger of future events, it will be roundly ingnored in favor of high-priced tomes that do nothing about solving the case.
Bullwinkle |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
It seems to me that if Jack the Ripper were to prance stark naked down Berner Street waving his bloody knife, most of the august Ripperologists participating here wouldn't be able to identify him. I've never seen such a sight as this! Thousands of mosquitoes buzzing around a light bulb, but none able to touch the source of the light.
For once and for all, please forget about the Pipe man. He's nothing but a distraction--he was just passing through at the time, and when he saw what was going on, he ran away. The reason he didn't show up at the police station is fear he'd be falsely implicated in the murder. If Stride hadn't been killed, he'd probably have been happy to appear, eager to get a slice of public attention for himself.
Nothing about Schwartz' statement indicates a second murderer present. If Mr. Andersson just can't rationalize why JtR would kill Stride the way he did, then maybe Mr. Anderson shouldn't collect his pay for being a Ripperologist.
Bullwinkle |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
And the prophet Radka speaks again...
Good point about the pipe-man, though. I think that could be a reasonable explanation.
"Nothing about Schwartz' statement indicates a second murderer present."
I haven't put forward that opinion here these last two months. You're way behind me.
And if there were a second murderer present (which I don't really hold as entirely probable at the moment), it couldn't have been indicated in Schwartz's statement anyway, since he was not around when Stride was murdered - he had already left.
"If Mr. Andersson just can't rationalize why JtR would kill Stride the way he did, then maybe Mr. Anderson shouldn't collect his pay for being a Ripperologist."
Since you usually speak about relying on the evidence, there is very little evidence suggesting that Stride was a Ripper victim.
And by the way, Mr Andersson is not a Ripperologist. So far Mr Andersson haven't written a book on the subject, or indulged in serious research - therefore there would be no reason for Mr Andersson to apply for such a status.
The time is now 4:55 a.m., Swedish time.
Mr Andersson says good night.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 212
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:47 am: | |
"Welcome back Mr. Andersson, We've missed you" (+3 cool points if you can name that reference).
I had nothing to add, but I couldn't pass up that opportunity :P
crix0r |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 213
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Hello Again All -
The possibility of 2 killers does solve some problems, but it creates a quite a few more as well. I'm not partial one way or another since I'm unable to prove anything, but I do find the idea interesting. It just doesn't fit sometimes, but other times it fits well. This leads me to think that it's mere coincidence and that in all probibility it really doesn't fit at all.
Unless of course we are dealing with some sort of gang or secret society, which I do not think we are. Odds are it was one guy who was probably very pissed at his mom or a mother figure.
David -
You know, just when I think you aren't being "Radka" and perhaps you decided to stop behaving in that manor, you turn up and type something like this:
No human being has looked into the errors of the Ripperlogical mind and seen and overcome as much there as I.
Dude.. didn't I tell you to take the blue pill?
Look, it's one thing to say "I believe I'm right" with a bit of arrogance, but it's something else entirely to belittle all who came before you, whom without their hard work incidentally, you would be lost. When you are speaking like the rest of us mortals, you are quite coherent, concise and very astute.
It's when you get up on that high horse and speak from waaaaaaaaaay uuuuuuuuuuuuup theeeeeeeeeeeeere that you tend to piss most of us off. $10 bucks says that if you had drop'd your "I'm soooooooooo much smarter than anyone who ever lived.. ever. No, really, I am" attitude long ago, you and your theory might be much more accepted and anticipated than it currently is.
crix0r
(Message edited by crix0r on April 23, 2004) |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 277
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Mr. Mullins, "The Matrix" would be the reference.
 |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 214
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Indeed Mr. van Oploo, indeed.. +3 Cool points to you.
And while I'm not very fond of the movies at all, their mythology seems to fit quite nicely.
crix0r
P.S. I'm diggin' the sunglass sportin' smiley.
(Message edited by crix0r on April 23, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Hey Jason,
Seems like Frank beat me to it!
Maybe there's a chance for me to earn those +3 points on a later occasion. 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
"The reason he didn't show up at the police station is fear he'd be falsely implicated in the murder." Why the pipe-smoker never came forward is entirely a matter of speculation. Mr. Radka gives his, based, evidently, on a 'holistic' approach. But people did come forward to clear themselves. In fact, Leon Goldstein, who was also in Berner Street that night-- and perhaps in a more precarious position that the smoker-- came forward to clear himself.
"The supposed accomplice" Sir Bob once wrote of the pipe-smoker. What, pray tell, did he mean?
The electron is flickering. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 8:00 pm: | |
Yea, I agree with Jason and Everyone else....youre out there man, like Pluto!
Paul |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 5:18 am: | |
Why did the man who accosted Stride not come forward if he was innocent?.Well he certainly could not deny accosting her.There was a witness Scwhartz,there was Swanson accepting an assault had been committed,and the police with their assertion that Stride was a ripper victim.Also there was the third man who might yet come forward and speak of him assaulting Stride.
Strong circumstantial evidence,and he only had to be found guilty of Stride's murder to be labelled the ripper.He was in a no win situation.
Why didn't the pipeman come forward?.Maybe he was the ripper.To come forward would surely add weight to the first man being guilty,but it would identify him.The result would be that he would have to stop killing,for if another ripper type murder took place after the first man was convicted,then the police would have to consider they had made a mistake,that they had the wrong man for Strides murder.Not far for them to look in that case.So he was in a no win situation.
This is my opinion only.It depends on which of the two men one thinks guilty.It depends also on whether the first man was guilty of assault,or an innocent drunk who happened to place an arm on the shoulder of a woman found dead a short time later.
H.Mann. |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:08 pm: | |
"The reason he didn't show up at the police station is fear he'd be falsely implicated in the murder." Why the pipe-smoker never came forward is entirely a matter of speculation. Mr. Radka gives his, based, evidently, on a 'holistic' approach. But people did come forward to clear themselves. In fact, Leon Goldstein, who was also in Berner Street that night-- and perhaps in a more precarious position that the smoker-- came forward to clear himself.
>>This is a classic example of a poverty of reason. Little bits of things are being fallaciously extrapolated into a much bigger thing, which is deemed in turn true because the little things are true. Petitio principii, or "the little cause," is the name of this elementary fallacy. It was used repeatedly ad nauseam by Sophists in Athens to screw people out of their inheritances, get elected to public office, etc.
Leon Goldstein, God bless his heart, may have had an entirely different purpose in mind than did the Pipe man, I'll grant. But that doesn't also grant along with it--as Mr. Palmer would have us believe--that his situation among the millions tenanted in London compares reasonably to that of the Pipe man, one way or the other. It is a bogus comparison, made to convince on insufficient grounds.
Bullwinkle |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 8:59 pm: | |
Hi all,
I have often wonderd about the possibility of two killers. I suppose some suspects are more likely to have an accomplise then others. Tumblety the frenchies and I believe John Anderson claimed he had an accomplise. The different descriptions given of the killer and the fact they did offer a pardon might suggest that some thought that there may have been two men involved
I dont know if they would have turned on eachother or not. It all depends on how involved they were and there own fear level.
I lean twards one killer but the possibility of two has always been there,
All the best,CB |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Mr. Radka--Now, now. Aren't you doing the old 'turn the tables' trick? I never said why the Pipeman didn't come forward. You did. Or did you forget that? All I pointed out is that you were speculating. If I'm to believe your scenerio, Schwartz was in the exact same position, and he immediately went to the Police Station and even brought along an interpreter. Best came forward. Gardner came forward. Goldstein came forward. But lo, Pipe-Man is a no-show. Yes, of course, what you say is possible. It might even be probable. But it's also speculation and ought not be stated as fact. You tweak the evidence, but it's entirely demonstratable from 1)the Star report 2)Swanson's report to the Home Office on Oct 19th; and 3)the implication of Anderson's reference to "the supposed accomplice" that Schwartz initially believed he was chased by the Pipe-Smoker. Abberline demurs, but only in so far as he states that, when questioned, Schwartz couldn't say for certain one way or the other --which in itself ought to be proof enough that the thought crossed his mind. He voted with his feet. RP
PS. There's no historical evidence that the "Sophists" had a common school of thought. They were merely travelling teachers. |
Rocket J. Squirrel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | |
Schwartz did not "immediately go to the police station." At first, when the murder broke, he said and did nothing. Later when the police went about knocking on doors they came to his. His wife answered, and SHE told the police her husband might know something. Schwartz may not have volunteered any information if his wife had not volunteered HIM. (Explanation from my best memory--not checked to references at this time.)
(PS Now that the Summary is published, I'm changing my posting handle, as promised, for the final time.)
Rocky
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
Just a quick question, David (yes, I'd recognize you anywhere - nice new alias):
Couldn't one reasonable explanation be (besides fear), language problems, and he therefore hesitated to come forward on his own at that instant? He apparently could hardly speak any English at all, and both the police and the Star may have had interpreters in order to communicate with the fellow.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Glenn,
Thank you...I have tried to make the same point regarding Schwartz in several posts on the Berner Street incident. As well as him not understanding English and "Lipsky" was the only word that he could understand. Be cool.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
Sorry, Paul.
Didn't mean to steal your wind here, I must have missed that. It was just something that crossed my mind at that instant.
However, it's a valid point - I agree.
Peace, brother. Or as they say in Pulp Fiction: "I'm on the Motherf*****" ...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 25, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 215
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hmm
I don't think I'm alone in saying "ITS ABOUT DAMN TIME"
Congrats, I'll read it later on tonight.
crix0r
(Message edited by crix0r on April 25, 2004) |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:16 am: | |
Rocky,
Schwartz gave his testimony to the police the morning of the murder of Stride.
The newspaper reporter interviewed him the afternoon of the day Stride was killed.
Both interviews were conducted with the aid of an interpreter.
Bit lax on your part not knowing this,as Schwartz is an important part in the planning of your murderer.
It is true that persons came willingly forward with information.Others did not.The person seen by Brown did not.The man seen with Kelly at midnight did not,nor the man reputedly seen by Hutchinson.
And of course the most important witness,pipe man,who was no more than about forty feet from your killer.You haven't explained this.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
Dear Mr Mann,
Since Mr Radka's 'scenario' is, in essence, a Sophist Tale, it is neccessary that he must deny certain crucial elements that constitute the case evidence, in this instance, the possibility of there being an accomplice to the murder of Stride.
To acknowledge such would be to undermine his carefully constructed scenario of the singular psychopath at war with himself and 'his people'.
Textbookology tends to avoid confronting connumdrums such as the psychopathic milieu of TWO killers.
The case evidence does present us with the possibility of two killers, in this instance, rather than one killer. And by inference, TWO killers were present at both murder sites that same night...someone had to hold the lamp!
Rosey :-) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1675
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
I don't think the Ripper had an accomplice, and I certainly don't think the evidence even suggests it.
And no lamp was used - unless the killer himself wanted desperately to be easily spotted and get caught.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 7:14 pm: | |
Dear Mr Andersson,
Well, its equally true to say that there is no case evidence to exlude the possibility of an accomplice...some at the time thought there was such an accomplice. Keep an open mind on this matter, Mr Andersson.
It is an extraordinary difficult task to lift an eyelid off the eyeball and neatly slit it without injury to the eyeball...especially with the tip of a 61/2 to 71/2 inch knife, in the dark, while your fingers are covered with gore, and the beat policeman on his rounds.
This was once put to Mr Radka some years back by the 'Babylonian Startrooper' but to little effect.
Experiment. Experiment. Experiment. Or ask an occulist.
Rosey :-)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
