|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
A coincidence ??
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
A coincidence ??
Author: richard nunweek
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 02:52 pm |        | Hello to everyone. Thank you for your previous comments on MJK, its good to agree to disagree.
TWO POINTS OF INTEREST
Ada Wilson 'Aged 39' stabbed in throat not fatally
Martha Tabram 'Aged 39' stabbed '39' times
Next four murders - 31st August, 8th Sept, 30th Sept, 9th Nov. Each pair add to '39'.
MJK murdered '26' Dorset Street, room '13'. Total add to '39'.
In Black Magic circles '3 + 13' are numbers of protection and lucky respectively '3 x 13 = 39'.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT ABOVE
Onto my second subject - Events at Mitre Square
Identification at the Seaside home has been well documented, it seems likely that it was a police converlesence home. Could Catherine Eddowes have been seen and followed after leaving the cells?
It was after all police proceedure to observe women at that hour. Was the City P.C the person who James Blenkisop (nightwatchman) was approached by and asked had he seen a man and woman pass?
Maybe, he did his job too professionally and misjudged the distance that he followed. He would of had plenty of time to identify the suspect and he could have lost sight of them in the Mitre Square maze.
Press were kept in the dark more so at that murder. Also why was James Blenkisop not called at the inquest?
Hope these points are valid.
richard |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 July 2000 - 03:39 pm | | Ah, someone else playing the numbers game :-)
Others have asked similar questions (39) but no-one ever makes a valid suggestion as to why it matters? What is the connection to Jack?
If you think Jack knew how old Tabram was, you must follow up your thesis with a connection to Jack. Like, how would he know?.
Were Tabram & Wilson both 39? I dont recall Wilson's age being mentioned, except described as 'a young seamstress'.
I'm not sure all people knew their ages, in those days.
The events at the Seaside home are hardly well documented. But Eddowes could have been followed from the cells, but I think Major Smith was under the impression that she was not followed, he made some remark about "If the City Police had followed my instructions....". Which was a reference to him making it a rule to follow a prostitute out at night.
I think your description of Mitre Square being a maze is a little dramatic, its only a square with 3 entrances.
If you choose to play the numbers game, you should really present, at least two supporting details:
- How did Jack know the ages of the victims.
- What was the significance of the numbers, to the motive.
Oh, and Blenkinsop was approached by 'a respectably dressed man'.....are you suggesting that he was a policeman in disguise?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 03:51 am | | Sorry, slightly confused here. When you say the seaside home are you referring to the copy of Anderson's memoirs which was supposedly anotated by Swanson and indicated that a man (assumed Kominski by Swanson's notes) was idenitified at the Seaside Home? If so, I am in the right thread.
Sugden suggested that the man who identified Kominski was Lawende. This diminshes the case for Kominski as Lawende initially stated that he didn't think he could identify the man again. However are you now suggesting that the witness was in fact someone who got a better look (perhaps a policeman) but is presently not known to us as a witness? If so, good idea. |
Author: richard nunweek
Monday, 10 July 2000 - 05:14 pm | | Jon,
Thanks for your points.
Although Ada Wilson was described as a 'young seamstress' it has been established that she was 39 years old.
I am not suggesting that Tabram's killer knew her age but the '39' stab wounds is my part of these thoughts.
To clarify the way i running with this thought, is it possible as Ada Wilson and MJK were both attacked indoors, that Wilson's killer knew via some kind of public records her age?.
Also, a possible client, or someone following Kelly would of known that she resided in room 13, 26 Dorset Street.
The murders on the 31st August, 8th Sept, 30th Sept & 9th Nov, could of just been random killings for the date purpose, and not the victim.
Again, another number sequence theory. However, as stated above, in Black Magic circles the numbers 13 & 3 are favoured numbers and multipled by each other equal 39.
This is a recorded fact in some magic circles.
opinions welcome
richard |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 03:46 am | | Hi Richard,
You still have not 'established' that JtR knew Ada's age.
ALso if you could find prove that this sum is relevant, this does not prove that Black Magic circles were involved. The most you can say, will that JtR 'maybe' would have interest in Black Magic, and used the number for whatever reason that came into his head.
Jill |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 02:36 pm | | Dr Ind, in the Medical/Doctor's Only message board on 15 Oct 00, posted an interesting question on Eddowes' release from the BishopGate's jail within an hour of her death. She gave her name on release as Mary Ann Kelly and her address as Fashion Street which happens to be diagonally across the street and around the corner from 13 Miller's Court (JTR:A-Z). This brings up two interesting suppositions or coincidences:
1) Did Kate Eddowes and MJK know each other fairly well?
2) Is there evidence or suggestions that JTR may have been stalking either of them prior to 30 Sept and 9 Nov?
Regards,
JDK |
Author: Jeffrey
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 06:05 pm | | Hi Jack !
Your questions are interesting and I wonder whether you feel there is some kind of connection between the last 2 known victims? Mary Kelly was a common enough name and this would be argued by 99% of all ripper aficionados along with her man's name being also Kelly. Personally, I think Kate Eddies and Mary Kelly just had to be familiar with each other and I wonder how many coincidences there has to be before people might start believing.
Admittedly, much of the so-called evidence is circumstantial at best or gossip and semi-fictional newspaper reports at worst. :-) However, Kate Eddowes just might have lived in the shed that was a make-do shelter, next to 13 Millers Court. She professed to know the name of the killer and had come back for the reward. She 'did' use the name Mary (Ann) Kelly of Fashion Street, was the only victim to that point who had facial mutilations and it appears a very familiar figure around Ripper central.
I don't know about the stalking though Jack, what gives you the impression of a stalker?
Hello all ! I think its going to take me a long time to get up to speed. There's been some amazing stuff on these boards. The progress toward getting to the truth about the characters, and the events is truly remarkable. The sketches and the background material really help to bring these poor women back to life. And the cooperation and contributions, made possible by the world-wide-web is making advances in the investigation not seen since the crimes themselves. Who needs a diary?
Jeff D |
Author: Diana
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 06:59 pm | | | If both women were alcoholics, might they not have met each other in the Brittania or other pubs? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 08:52 pm | | Hello Jeff,
I've been a believer for some time now that there are quite a few "perhaps" and "maybe's" that should be taken more notice of. Where there is no proof, or any hope at all of getting any, you have to use initiative, reason, surmise, or use your experience of life, call it what you will. I think the Ripper lived right among the victims, they knew him, he knew them, and he knew their every move. I also believe the victims knew each other, living in that tight area of streets. It was like living in a small village--everybody knows everybody. With Kate sleeping now and again in the "shed" side of No13, it would be impossible for Mary and Kate not to know each other. Perhaps the Ripper was killing two birds with one stone when he killed Kate!
Regards, Rick |
Author: alex chisholm
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 11:16 pm | | Evening All
While accepting the apparent existence of some seemingly extraordinary coincidences, others, I feel, may be more invention than intriguing.
Eddowes sometime living in the ‘Dorset-street shed,’ for example, was conveyed to the Press – Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct., to be precise - by two women who did not know Eddowes’ name. Did not know of any nickname she may have had, and were “ignorant of her family connections or her antecedents, and did not know whether she had lived with any man.”
With their admitted ignorance of detail, these women may never have known Eddowes at all. Surely this is not the most reliable testimony from which to start speculating on coincidences.
In addition, given the sheer bulk of humanity transiently occupying rooms in the ‘small village’ in question, even if the shed story had some foundation, it is clearly far from “impossible for Mary and Kate not to know each other.”
Kelly and Eddowes may have been best of friends. They may have been passing acquaintances. They may never have set eyes on each other. We simply do not know. But, given the fact that the press went to great lengths to magnify even the slightest apparent link between Whitechapel murders, I think the absence of any reported acquaintance may well be significant.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 11:26 pm | | Alex,
Please post more, won't you?
David |
Author: Jeffrey
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hello Alex and all !
I have long felt your skepticism about a great deal of the evidence and you are absolutely correct about how dangerous it is to build a factual theory upon nothing but unsubstantiated reports, gossip and sketchy newspaper articles.
However, I was trying to solicit ideas for the Jack the Stalker theory, because I do think the evidence actually supports that the Ripper did stalk his victims. I shall post more when I have managed to catch up with all of the discussions. I'm enjoying reading the latest posts and feel just a little out-of-step at the moment.
The area of Flower and Dean Street, Fashion Street and Thrawl Street is most certainly Ripper central. Although there were thousands of transients, and many unfortunates, I believe these victims were pre-selected by the Ripper and I think there is enough real & circumstantial evidence to support this idea.
These poor unfortunates, just as today, would have had their preferred patch to work. People also have their own superstitions and rituals, its human nature. It may be coincidence but Annie Chapman preferred bed no. 29 at the lodging house. Residents of No. 29 Hanbury Street appear well aware that the back-yard had regularly been used for immoral purposes, with people coming and going all the time. It would not be too far a stretch of the imagination to assume Annie had used this location before, just as Mary Kelly had her patch to pick up clients near the 10 Bells Pub and the killer had seen these women at these locations previously.
These murders all happened in a very small area of the city, and study of modern day serial killers has helped us to understand that these types do pay special attention to their surroundings. They know the highways and biways, the streets and alleyways and pay special attention to the local people and their routines. And they would definitely have knowledge of the local police on their beats.
I believe that PC Harvey was familiar to the killer and because he had seen him before, let him walk right past him out of Mitre Square. I will most certainly never be able to prove this, but the reference to "the only person to ever have a good view of the killer, the city PC on patrol in Mitre Square" could possibly not be a misunderstanding of the city PC witness Lawende. The identification taking place at the Policeman's convalescent home would make sense if a policeman was actually involved in the identification. Why else would the suspect have to be taken (with difficulty) to the Policeman's seaside home if a policeman was not involved? There have been some excellent writings on the seaside home identification and we have discussed this endlessly on these boards before so I do know that I'm not going to get anywhere discussing this aspect. I just wished to raise the possibility of a PC being a possible witness. The name Harvey could have Jewish connotations and to me the vague reports of his actions that night are extremely suspect.
Well, that's about all for me blowing off a little steam. I know someone would be able to present a reasoned argument to shoot these ideas down, but I think these theories are as valid as any, so take your best shot :-)
Best regards to all !
Jeff D |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 08:47 am | | Although I too find no reason to suppose that any of the victims new each other, I also feel we cannot truely trust witness statements to the press/police.
One thing we have come to learn in these low-class high-crime areas is that locals tend to cling together. when one is asked "did you know her?", the automatic response is to deny any knowledge. Of course, there are always those who will blab everything to grab the limelight, but also many will close ranks so as not to be identified with the victims class or to be seen to associate with her in any way. This only adds to our frustration.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 09:04 am | | Jeff
I also have had a leaning in that direction as you describe the "P.C. in Mitre Sq", not that it had to be a beat policeman, we may be able to find out if any of the named P.C.'s were convalescing at the required time (didnt Paul Begg look into this?), I think they were not.
But after transcribing some recent material I realized that Mitre Sq. was patrolled by plainclothes Police, similar to as related in the Sergeant White story, I had always known of the story of course, but suddenly there in a press article was confirmation that the City had plain clothes details watching the area.
If only the City records had not been destroyed in the War we might have some very interesting information to study. We have always questioned why the description of the suspect was limited, the Coroner was reluctant to make his description available, this would make sense if a particular person was under serveilance, if so, was it by the plain clothes department?
Food for thought.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 09:30 am | | Jon - the area 'near Mitre Square' under plainclothes observation was a recessed terrace near the Bishopsgate end of the west side of Middlesex Street. (Established by Paul Begg's research). I regret that I haven't got a large enough map to hand to confirm its name. It's about 4 minutes walk from Mitre Square, and I don't think the watchers are likely to be the Pc referred to by Macnaghten.
Although there's a certain amount of (I feel tendentious) dispute about it, I'm sure Sgt White's story (if it really was his!) relates to Alice McKenzie. Castle Alley uniquely fits the description of the site 'off Whitechapel Road,' and the argument that there was a little lane leading into it at the north-east, and foot traffic could go straight through doesn't alter the fact that posts sealed it off and made it a cul-de-sac for wheeled traffic.
All the best
Martin F |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 12:36 pm | | I really don't understand why some of us seem to think that most of what the police/authority has to say about the Ripper murders makes good sense and is gospel truth. The police and authority had as much or more reason to cover up or twist the evidence as the newspapers had to enlarge and add to it. If it had not been for the papers we wouldn't know much about it today would we?. The newspapers were intent on selling papers, the authorities were ashamed of their failure to apprehend the killer, and the whole affair was high lighting their shameful policy in the Eastend to the world. We are led to believe that we in England had a Civil War in the 17th century,-- it was nothing of the sort!, it was a war between aristocracy and royalty-- and ordinary people--the common public fought it for them!--and ordinary people gained nothing. It was the same with the Western Indian Wars in America in the 19th century,--the Indians were everything bad,while they were fighting for fair play,-- the whites were Noble and everything good,-- while they were breaking treaties and stealing Indian land, and I'm talking about 19th century American authority here, not todays. So I don't see why we should believe a lot of what officialdom has to say about something they are ashamed of!.
Maybe there was a "shed" partitioned off from No13, maybe not, anyway I would have thought it was the streetside room of a terraced house,--not a shed at all. If there was a room next to No13, and If it was used occasionaly by Kate, and If Mary was as goodhearted as Barnett said she was, and If the partition was so thin that light could be seen through chinks, then I can't help but feel they were conscious of each others presence, and perhaps spoke to each other. If you are going to question whether the victims knew each other, when they were living together in such close proximity you might as well say, did they know anybody at all!
Rick |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 02:52 pm | | Yes Rick I think the front room was used for storage by McCarthy(?)
I can't place that "Eddowes & the shed" statement just this minute but assuming its correct, did she live there or just stay there once or twice. I think that needs to be established before anyone can presume she could 'know' her neighbour. Also I think it should be established that these sleepovers took place during the short time Kelly & Barnett lived there.
Failing to establish either of these points makes the suggestion that they knew each other rather flimsy.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Martin
Thankyou for the location.
The news article I spoke of mentioned Mitre Sq. specifically, I think. I've been trying to dig it up, I shant mention it any more unless I manage to find the thing. I'd like to be sure of what it say's first.
Regards, Jon |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 01:13 pm | | You’ve certainly got my number, Jeff. I am an incurable sceptic. An affliction which, in response to David’s generous request, leads me to refrain from posting too often. I recognise that interminably critical nay-saying can be construed as an attempt to put a dampener on debate, and, as this has never been my intention, I now tend to keep my nose out more often than not.
While I’m not sure stalking of victims can be discerned, I do think it entirely reasonable to conclude that any potential Whitechapel murderer would have been comfortably familiar with his haunts, and perhaps well versed in the comings and goings there.
I also take Jon’s point about the understandable reluctance of some ‘Whitechapellers’ to associate themselves in any way with the murders. – Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that. – Still, there would have been a difference between talking to a friendly reporter, with the possibility of some small payment, and passing information to the agents of authority. In addition, the amount of second, even third-hand rumour circulated in the press at the time affords ample evidence that corroboration for such ‘news’ was not always of paramount concern. I can almost see some anonymous hint that ‘victim 3 might have chatted to victim 1, who may have occasionally drank with victim 5,’ spawning pages of banner headlines and days of speculative theory.
Therefore, given the unceasing efforts to emphasise even the most superficial link between murders, and the quest to impart some meaning to apparent madness, I remain all but certain that had any half-whispered rumour existed of a possible association between any of the victims it would have been eagerly grasped and literally done to death in the pages of the press at the time. That this did not happen is, for me at least, telling evidence against the likely acquaintance of victims.
For the benefit of Rick, Jon and anyone else who’s interested, I’ve included some extracts relating to the ‘shed’
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. in relation to Millers Court
“On the right-hand side of the passage there are two doors. The first of these leads to the upper floors of the house in which Kelly was living. It has seven rooms, the first-floor front, facing Dorset-street, being over a shed or warehouse used for the storage of costers’ barrows. A second door opens inwards, direct from the passage into Kelly’s apartment, which is about 15ft. square, and is placed at the rear corner of the building.
…Dorset-street is made up principally of common lodging-houses, which provide not less than 600 registered beds. In one of these establishments Annie Chapman, the Hanbury-street victim, lived. Curiously enough, the warehouse at No. 26, now closed by large doors, was until a few weeks ago the nightly resort of poor homeless creatures, who went there for shelter. One of these women was Catherine Eddowes, the woman who was murdered in Mitre-square.”
Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct. in relation to Eddowes.
“The former had endured every variety of privation, humiliation, and pollution, moral and physical; the latter had times without number been in so abject a state of destitution as to be compelled to share the nightly refuge - a shed in Dorset-street - of a score or so of houseless waifs, penniless prostitutes like herself, without a friend, a name, or even a nickname. …
...It appears that Detective-Sergeant Outram, of the City Police, came to the mortuary in Golden-lane, with a party of six women and a man. Some of the former had, it is said, described the clothing of the deceased so accurately that they were allowed to confirm their belief by viewing it at the Bishopsgate-street Police-station. Subsequently they were taken to the chief office in Old Jewry, and thence conducted to the mortuary. Here two of the women positively identified the deceased as an associate, but they did not know her by name. She does not seem to have borne a nickname. They were ignorant of her family connections or her antecedents, and did not know whether she had lived with any man. The dead woman had, in fact, belonged to the lowest class, and frequently was without the money to obtain admission to the common lodging-houses. Whenever she was in this impecunious state she had, in the company of the women who now identified her body, slept in a shed off Dorset-street, which is the nightly refuge of some ten to twenty houseless creatures who are without the means of paying for their beds.”
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 08:04 pm | | Alex,
you seem to me to be a very fairminded and reasonable bloke, we are all sceptics in our own way aren't we?. My posts are never aimed at offending anyone,--shock or provoke, sometimes, I certainly wouldn't like to think I could be part of a reason for you keeping your nose out,--as you put it. I didn't mean to offend in any way.
I would like to thank you for the newspaper report on "the shed", and especially the Kate Eddowes report, I've never seen that written description before. I'm not ashamed to admit that my eyes watered more than a bit while reading about Kate. I have more feeling for Kate than the others somehow, she accepted her lot with such cheerfulness,--if reports are true,-she deserved better. As you know, there was/is some doubt as to whether she was a "prostitute". After reading that report, I would like to think she suffered her miserable life and would not resort to prostitution. Can you, or anyone tell me, what became of John Kelly her common law husband, another poor soul.
Regards, Rick |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 09:38 pm | | Hi Rick
Rest assured you have never caused any offence whatsoever, and are certainly not the reason I keep my nose out. The only one keeping me off the boards is myself, because, being a kindly considerate old softy beneath this cynical facade, I’m inclined to spare the assembled multitudes from my consistent carping.
Glad you found the extracts of interest. Despite the renowned unreliability, I do find the press coverage very useful in shedding some light onto the wretched conditions endured by victims and their associates, as well as illuminating some broader aspects of the social and cultural background of the murders.
I’m afraid I can’t help with what became of John Kelly. Sorry, but no doubt someone else will oblige.
All the Best
alex |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 06:09 am | | Hi Guys !
Its always great to hear from you Alex and the factual information that you provide is always pertinent and intereseting. I have continually tried to remain true to the facts that we have and it's only when things get distorted out of all recognition that I too draw the line. Any investigator or detective, (which I am not), however must make deductions based upon the evidence available to him and from time-to-time, make assumptions. I'm happy to have the opportunity to make a post based upon my own interpretation of the details and have alternative views posted back in rebuttle. In saying this, I've been brought down to earth with a bump on many occassions:-)
Hopefully we can have a little fun, while staying respectful to the victims, and true to the facts. I do have some catch up to do, but I'd like to think I have one or two ideas that could stimulate reasoned discussion. I've had to make some assumptions based upon what I have read and while most of what we have is circumstantial at best, believe that we can get very close to the type of man who was the Ripper. Actually, I was watching another SK-type movie the Bone Collector the other day and it reminded me of many other SK movies I have seen. It always seems that you are intrigued and kept on the edge of your seat right through the film, yet when the dastardly character is finally unmasked, its always an anti-climax.
John Kelly was very clearly upset at the news of Kate, and I believe the sketch of him at the inquest shows a wistful, mellencholy character. It would seem he cared for Kate very deeply, she was a bright cheerful character, even with the many tradgedies that dogged her life. Of all the victims, she is most certainly the one I empathise with most and I do find it difficlt to class her as a poor unfortunate prostitute. One must eat however, and at time when life became too unbearable, she just may very well have resorted to the oldest profession to put food on the table or even gin down her neck. I too wonder what happened to many of the players after their 15 minutes of being in the lime-light had expired.
Keep posting Alex ! (& everyone)... the truth is out there (Maulder)
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 03:20 pm | | In reference to Mary Jane's and Kate's domiciles, and at the risk of introducing more circumstancial evidence (which unfortunately does not necessarily improve the ability to derive sound conclusions),it is interesting to note Annie Chapman's address in 1886 was listed as 30 Dorsett Street (Sudgen; Complete History). Not knowing the date when she "moved" out of this address and invariably into a roving doss house standard of living, it may not be possible to discern how close to August 1888 (or how intermittently) poor, unfortunate Annie stayed at Dorsett Street.
Thus, there are three victims staying in the area Jeff D. has referred to as "Ripper Central". Keeping in mind Alex's well-placed cautious advice to be wary of 'invention', I concur with Jeff D. that the victims were pre-selected by the JTR. Also, I believe the hapless victims were creatures of habit, and had there regular itenerary routes in early morning hours of their typical day. And likewise, JTR was a demented creature of habit in his nocturnal and early morning prowlings and may have watched or followed some of the victims prior to the dates of their deaths waiting for the moments and locations of his strikes.
Alex, is the Oct 3 Daily Telegraph article citing two women the only 'evidence' placing Kate's domicile on Dorsett Street?
Also, what is the source reference to Kate Eddowes stating she knew the murderer and came to collect reward on the info?
Cheers,
JDK |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 06:56 pm | | John Kelly entered the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary on 29 November 1888, with laryngitis. All through the ordeal surrounding the death of Catherine Eddowes he had been suffering from a kidney ailment and a bad cough which finally landed him in the infirmary. It is unknown, as far as I am aware, what his final fate was but it is quite possible that he died soon after Catherine.
There is no other corroborating evidence that Catherine Eddowes ever lived in ‘the shed' at number 26 Dorset Street other than the newspaper reports. It is apparent that Eddowes and John Kelly had lived together at 55 Flower and Dean Street for most of, if not the entire time, since they had met in 1881. This was confirmed at the inquest by Frederick Williamson, the Deputy lodging house keeper.
Catherine Eddowes told the superintendent of the casual ward in Shoe Lane that she had come back from picking hops in Kent in order to claim the reward for the capture of the Whitechapel murderer. She said "I think I know him". If this statement is true then it is apparent that she had not confided this intelligence to John Kelly who, "did not know of anyone with whom the deceased was at variance, or who would be likely to do her an injury". Had she known or at least had a suspicion of who the killer was, I find it hard to believe that she would not have told Kelly and that he would not have told the police.
Wolf. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 07:54 pm | | Thank you Wolf, kind of you to take the trouble.
Regards Rick |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 01:47 pm | | Hear-Hear; thank you Wolf for your efforts.
So be it, Kate's residence around the time of her unpleasant end was more probably 55 Flower & Dean. This was another street down from Miller's Court & Dorsett Street....perhaps 75 meters or so (approx. 250 feet).
I would say this is very close to where Annie Chapman and Mary Jane Kelly were last seen alive. As it were, I did discover that Annie, on her last day alive, had indeed been at 35 Dorsett from approx. 2pm to 3pm asking Timothy Donovan, Deputy of the Lodging, if she could sit in the kitchen. She returned again shortly after midnight. She was seen with others in the kitchen between 1:30am to 1:45am, at which time, she was turned away by John Evans who was sent by Donovan to either collect her lodging money or get her to leave. She left saying to Evans, keep her bed for her(#29)that she would be back. (Sudgen, pg. 81). Of course, approximately 4 hours later and 300 meters away she met her demise.
In response to your query, Jeff D, perhaps "stalking" is not the appropriate word; but another word akin to it is. As you succinctly describe in your posting on 3 Feb, and Rick put it in his posting on 2 Feb; "I think the Ripper lived right among the victims, they knew him, he knew them, and he knew their every move. I also believe the victims knew each other, living in that tight area of streets. It was like living in a small village--everybody knows everybody."
Thus, I suspect our Sick Jacky cohabited amongst our hapless victims, followed them around, and preselected the spots (with unwitting help from the victims)where he carried out his inhuman deeds.
Now, how to prove this with facts and logic; that is the thing.
Cheers,
JDK |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 07:09 pm | | All,
Here is what I have gleaned, thus far, as coincidental closeness of the residences of the canonical five victims.
Mary Ann Nichols: was residing her last few days at the Lodging house on 56 Flower & Dean. It seems she left that premise early afternoon the last day of her life. At 1:40 am, she was turned away from the Lodging house at 18 Thrawl Street for no doss money, just one block south of Flower & Dean. A few hours later her body is found.
Annie Chapman: was residing across the street & around the corner at 35 Dorsett Street for her last few weeks. She actually turned up at 35 Dorsett the last day of her life and was turned away from the house for no doss money a few hours before her body was found.
Elizabeth Stride: was residing at 32 Flower & Dean the last few days of her life. Her boyfriend, Michael Kidney, with whom she was partially estranged from the last week of her life, took up residence at 33 Dorsett Street. She too was turned away from the the Lodging house for no doss money a few hours before her body was found.
Kate Eddowes: was residing at 55 Flower & Dean since 1881, and possibly infrequently at the makeshift shed at 30 Dorsett Street. She too was turned away from the house for no doss money a few hours before her body was found.
Mary Jane Kelly: was residing at 26 Dorsett Street. As we all know, her last horrid moments were spent in her room at 13 Miller's Court.
Thus, we have all five victims, living, and being seen the last day of their lives, at residences within approximately 100 yards of each other. The double eventees, Liz & Kate, were literally neighbors (32 & 55 Flower & Dean). And Mary Ann Nichols & Kate definitely were (55 & 56 Flower & Dean) unless those units were on opposite sides of the building or opposite sides of the street.
In any case, all Jack's victims were all from a select few doss houses.
Does anyone know how many different houses does this involve? Are 26, 30, 33, and 35 Dorsett all one building?
Is 32, 55, and 56 Flower & Dean all one building?
Regards,
JDK |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 07:32 am | | Like you Jack I'm inclined to catagorize the Rippers victims. Polly, Annie, and Kate were iretrievably lost to society, heavy drinkers,(though you can't blame them for that), no possessions, they lived by the hour,never mind by the day!- their lives were a misery. The three of them had known better times,-not much better, but better none the less). In all three cases their families had abandoned them. It makes me wonder if the Ripper had a message, a reason, for picking this type of poor women. I don't want anybody to jump down my throat, but don't you all think it's possible he thought he was doing them a favour?. If these women had been stray pathetic, homeless dogs,--with no chance of ever getting a home,-- wouldn't you say, "that poor dog would be better off dead?. I can't help but think,if I had been in those womens shoes, I would have wished myself dead. Maybe the Ripper thought what he did was a favour--in his twisted way. There must have been younger, more attractive women he could have chosen,- if he was killing for the love and the lust of killing. I don't think of Liz being a Ripper victim, that killing was different,--to me. Mary's murder was in my view done for a different reason,-- no one could mistake hate being absent from that murder, but I think it was linked with the first three murders. Having said all that, it still leaves Martha's killing to be explained, I don't think anyone who could kill like that, wouldn't probably do it again,- BUT, there never was another frenzied stabbing murder, was there?
Regards, Rick |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 09:34 am | | Hi Jack,
I don't know about Eddowes turned away from the house for doss money. Instead she had been released from jail, because of sobering up from her drunkeness.
Hi Warwick,
I could agree with you supposing Jack thinking that he did them a favour, IF he only had killed them. But he did more than that, didn't he? He mutilated MJK the severest yes. Does that make that Jack showed less hate in the knife scratching with Polly, the uterus removal with Annie and the removals of organs with Kate and disfiguring Kate's face with a clown's mask?
No you are right, there weren't many frenzied stabbing murders after Martha. but there were many frenzied ripping murders. And the stabs were as mutilating as the ripping with Polly.
Greets,
Jill |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 11:23 pm | | G'day Rick,
In 1969, The 'Yorkshire Ripper' had a humiliating experience with a prostitute that he hired. This was enough to caused him to start mutilating them.
He was in no way interested in the reasons why they resorted to selling themselves....This feature story will appear in the sixth issue of 'Ripperoo'!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 11:32 pm | | G'day Rick,
What I was trying to say with the above post is that I don't Jack thought he was doing anyone a favour. He may have been seeking revenge - if not on prostitutes specifically, on women!
LEANNE! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 04:16 am | |
Quote:In 1969, The 'Yorkshire Ripper' had a humiliating experience with a prostitute that he hired. This was enough to caused him to start
mutilating them.
...but he didn't start killing until six years later, and then his victims were not necessarily prostitutes (indeed, the two attempted murders leading up to the killing of Wilma McCann did not involve prostitutes). Therefore, it is perhaps questionable that the humiliation was the direct trigger for the murders. Furthermore, Sutcliffe's self-alleged "religious experience" in Bingley Cemetery pre-dated the 1969 attack. So although he supposedly had already been given a divine "mission" to rid the world of prostitutes, it was only after one failed to provide him with the service he was seeking that he decided to exact revenge!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 07:09 am | | G'day Guy,
From the text that I researched the case of Peter Sutcliffe from:
* he met Sonia in 1967,
* his brother caught her cheating on him in 1969.
* He hired a prostitute to get revenge. She did something to anger him (I don't wont to give too much of the story away).
* then a few weeks later, the 'Stone-in-sock' attack took place (on the prostitute mentioned above).
Leanne! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 09:00 am | | Hi Leanne!
To take you points in order:
1. I've seen both 1967 and '66 given as the date.
2. Correct.
3. Correct.
4. I originally thought this too, but closer inspection suggests that the attack was not on the same woman. You are right in thinking that it took place quite soon after the humiliation, though.
So I'm not disputing your facts, merely questioning whether or not such a direct link can be made between the 1969 events and the commencement of the murders in 1975. This hiatus is interesting, though not conclusive. Sutcliffe has admitted three attacks in 1974/5 prior to the murder of McCann - those on Tracey Browne, Anna Rogulsky, and Olive Smelt, none of whom were prostitutes. In the case of Browne, attacked in a lane in Silsden, there cannot have been any reason to mistake her for a prostitute, and the margin for error in the other two cases is also minimal. We can only speculate as to any other attacks which may have been the work of Sutcliffe in the time between 1969 and 1974. For a study of other possible attacks, see:
OTHER YORKSHIRE RIPPER VICTIMS?
where Keith Brannen examines and evaluates all the attacks attributed at one time or other to the Yorkshire Ripper.
My own feeling is that Sutcliffe did not have a specific antipathy towards prostitutes, but rather a broader one towards women in general. Discussions I have had with other researchers suggest that the trial judge may have been wrong to dismiss the psychiatrists' diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, but that the "mission from God" may have been an after-the-fact attempt to absolve himself of some responsibility for his actions. There is plenty of evidence (which came out at the trial) to suggest that the attacks were sexual in nature, hence contradicting the "mission" claim.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 05:29 pm | | G'day Guy,
You're reading from the same Website that I used to study this case. Plus I read a few books (not cover to cover though).
I just re-read the 'Stone-in-sock' page again, and your right about it not being the same woman, but she was a known prostitute. (I added this fact to my story, which I thought was complete but is not
I know there was 5 or 6 years between 'Stone-in-sock' and the murder of Wilma McCann, but Sutcliffe married Sonia in between. Do you think that he may have had a severe desire for revenge, but tried to control himself for her sake?
I don't believe the 'mission-from-God' thing for a minute! His working at a cemetery may have caused his 'casual' attitude to death, but the mentioning of the word "God", implies a person seeking divine sympathy!
LEANNE! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 06:01 am | | Hi Leanne!
Good to hear that you'd found Keith's site independently. It is far and away the most comprehensive and responsibly presented resource currently available online. For anybody else who's interested, it can be found at:
THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER WEBSITE
Which books did you read, out of curiosity? In my opinion, the most useful are Roger Cross' The Yorkshire Ripper and Gordon Burn's Somebody's Husband, Somebody's Son. I know Keith sets some store by David Yallop's Deliver Us From Evil, on the grounds that Yallop appears to have had some access to internal police documents, his reading of the five-pound-note clue, and his accurate identification of some of the "extra" attacks. Against this, I find some of his embroidering of the story in the parts of the book written prior to Sutcliffe's identification irritating and potentially misleading. The Kinsley & Smyth and Nicholson books are interesting in that they give a good feel for the way the then on-going investigation was viewed, but as Keith points out, are also prone to inevitable errors and misinterpretations - in particular, they accept view at the time that the Sunderland letters and tape were genuine. Barbara Jones' Voices From an Evil God gives an interesting insight into the post-arrest Sutcliffe and his illness, but still does not convince me of the "mission".
As to whether Sutcliffe was trying to control himself for Sonia's sake - I really don't know. It is perhaps a possibility, though the opinion of a qualified psychologist would be of more value than mine in determining this. It's worth remembering, though, that he married Sonia in 1974 - nearer in time to the commencement of the murders than to the stone-in-the-sock incident. Keith's suggestion that his attention in the period prior to his marriage may have been diverted by other factors - caring for Sonia during her own mental illness (and regularly visiting her in London for a period), working night shifts, etc. seems to me to have some merit. A lot depends on how many of those possible attacks between 1969 and 1975 were actually Sutcliffe's work, hence the importance I attack to Keith's evaluations. The 1972 Wakefield attack is particularly intriguing, as the photofit is one of the most striking matches of the lot (and there were over 70 by 1980). It is frustrating that so little information regarding this attack is available beyond the cursory mention in the "Manhunt" television programme. (Incidentally, I made a full transcript of this programme, with screen grabs, which I have as a PDF file if you're interested for research purposes. It is the source of Keith's information too.)
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 06:46 am | | G'day Guy,
Before finding Keith's site, I read about the Yorkshire Ripper in Volume 1 of the Marsall Cavendish publication: 'Murder Casebook, Investigations into the Ultimate Crime'.
Also in Volume 5 of 'Real-Life Crimes and How they were solved'.
Keith's site 'put the icing on the cake'!
This case has been so thought-provoking that it deserves a follow-up story, but I'm not sure at this stage which angle to look at.
LEANNE! |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 06:57 am | | Glad to see Guy recommending Roger Cross. Like Howard Souness on the Wests, this working journalist gives an account from following the case as it developed which is in many ways better than the work of writers like me who come at it all with later hindsight, the benefit of perp's relatives' comments 'now they know', and a misleading assumption of 60/60 vision therefrom.
Later this year Flame TV will be presenting a series on Serial Killers (on Channel 4, I think), which is distinguished by re-interviewing witnesse and investigating officers whose points of view have not been heard before in a number of major cases going back to 1948. I had access to their material to write the tie-in book, and was impressed in the Sutcliffe case to find that officers who had consistently thought the tape and letters were a hoax nevertheless agreed that Yorkshire Police had absolutely no alternative but to follow them up vigorously - (well, think of the almighty scandal if the CID had declared from deduction that this was a hoax and not a clue, and was subsequently proved to be wrong and guilty of ignoring potential evidence from the guilty horse's mouth!) - ; also that George Oldfield's obsessive pursuit of the case was not a result of being 'challenged' personally on the tape and letters, but because he had lost a daughter to illness himself, and wanted desperately to spare other parents the pain of bereavement. I found in Flame TV's interviews the strongest confirmation of something I long ago extrapolated from Cross, but no other writer on the Yorkshire Ripper: this case is not the classic instance of a bad policing cock-up. It is a case of some very imaginative and creative detective work, vitiated by the mass of evidence which was impossible to access and compare before computers, and by awkward multi-headed management (now usually averted thanks to a trainng programme at Bramshill).
Martin Fido |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:55 am | | Hi Martin -
You're absolutely correct to point out that the West Yorkshire police had no alternative but to take the letters and tape seriously, in the same way that the Met in 1888 had to circulate the "Dear Boss" letter and postcard. To have done otherwise would have been grossly negligent. I also agree that the sheer volume of information and documentation that had to be processed manually made it virtually inevitable that some connections and leads would be missed. In that sense it is, as you say, not a classic bad policing cock-up (I'd be interested to hear which cases you think are!). It remains the case, though, that some decisions were made which could be viewed as "cock-ups". In particular, David Zachrisson makes the point in the "Manhunt" documentary that the lack of the so-called "Geordie" (actually Wearside) accent should never have been a point of elimination - that was taking the "evidence" of the tape way too far. Essentially, it allowed Sutcliffe to be eliminated despite his previous interviews relating to such vital issues as the five-pound-note and the sightings of his vehicles in the red-light areas (though he had an "explanation" for this). It possibly meant that Andrew Laptew's report was "filed" too readily. Laptew still appears (from the evidence of his interview in "Manhunt") to strongly resent the failure to act on the report, and some considerable antipathy towards Dick Holland seems to be just below the surface, if I have understood his description of his own disbelief at having participated in Holland's "triumphal return" correctly. It also seems incredible to me that the objections of Stanley Ellis and Jack Windsor Lewis were not taken more seriously.
But enough of that for now! We have already dragged this discussion way off topic. Perhaps we should start a separate "Yorkshire Ripper" thread?
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 03:02 pm | | Just to close the loop.....
I posted on Feb 9th that I would not mention the patrolling of Mitre Square by plain clothes police until/unless I found the article in question....
THE TIMES, MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1888.
"The beat is in the charge of a man who is regarded by his superiors as thoroughly trustworthy, who has discharged his duties efficiently for several years, and who reports that when he went through the square at about half-past 1 he noticed nothing unusual and no one about. Plain-clothes constables also occationally patrol the square, which is a place of irregular form, about 77ft. by 80ft. On two sides of the square are the warehouses of Messrs. Kearney and Tonge, and adjoining them are two old houses, which exactly face the scene of the murder - the wide pavement opposite, where, it is stated, there was some deficiency of light from the gas-lamp."
Thats all it was, nothing earth shattering, but I new I came across it somewhere.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
