|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
"No way it was a Lone Serial Killer"
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
"No way it was a Lone Serial Killer"
Author: Thomas Bayer
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 10:13 pm |        | Monty
You will read this after a hopefully relaxing weekend. You seem to have strong opinions which is great. I am sorry that I couldn't alter them on at least some details, but that's life. I guess you agree that endless comparing of unwavering opinions does not, uh, advance us.
Just happens that you are not my pillar of mutual support neither am I yours.
I seriously hope, however to make you ponder on some things until I have finished this here. So I hope you will stay with us. But remember that facts are nothing without interpretation and guesswork. You cannot stick to criminological methods only in a case of history. Jack is not a "cold case", he's truly history and demands therefore a different approach.
§I'll be back soon with the next part if not some freak car crash maschinated by fiendish agents ends my pitiful existence and sends me up to the sublime CArpenter. I just hope I don't discover HE's a CObbler. All my philanthropic bread crumbs I've shared would have been for naught then.§
All of you got it, yes? The §? Irony?
Thomas |
Author: TS Simmons
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 10:29 pm | | | Forget the freemasons. They are interesting as a "society" but had NOTHING to do with the Ripper Murders. The sooner that they cease to be tied to these murders, and cloud the facts of the case,the closer the case will be to being solved. Read Sugden's book. Keep Knight's as entertaining fiction. |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 10:41 pm | | THOMAS
Just about to log out but
then he slowly inhales and
counts
1...2...3... Well TS Simmons. I completely
AGREE with you on Knight. But as was the case
with your first post I completely fail to
see is the significance of your
statement for this thread. May I very
kindly suggest to quickly have a refreshing
roll in the archives for a better
understanding of what is actually discussed here?
It would be so nice of you.
He walks away, glad for the weekend, but still shaking his head, MUSIC SWELLS. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:21 am | | Hi Chris,
You wrote:
'I myself am completely against Secret Societies. Not because I think they are out for World Domination, but because I don't believe that ANYTHING should be kept secret from our fellow man.(Ok, maybe what we're getting our significant other for Valentine's Day can be kept secret, but that's a trifle thing. *Waits to be smacked by Caz or Rosey for saying Valentine's Day and Trifle in the same sentence. :-P*) But if someone wish to join a Secret Society, then I say go ahead. Believe what you want to believe, I'm not gonna try and stop you.'
I agree with you. Except that you don't have to worry about being smacked by me for anything, let alone saying Valentine's Day and Trifle in the same sentence. I'm just a wee bit disappointed that I've ever given you reason to think I would smack you for it. 
I'm still dying to hear more from Thomas about why the killer, or killers, might have chosen to use Masonic elements in their work. And whether, if he believes this to be the case, these elements were kept to the minimum needed to let certain people think something Masonic was going on (ie either that the murderer himself was a Mason and didn't care who knew it, or that he was a non-Mason only pretending to be one, in order to upset people and/or put them off the scent).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:40 am | | Hey !
I wonder if someone who believes there is a Masonic connection to the Ripper murders explain to me in simple terms whether they feel that;
a) It was a lone killer who simply was a Mason. He forgot his loyal handshake and began throttling whores about the throat instead + instigating various other Masonic symbols in the MO or signature of the murders?
b) It was a single or multiple killer (Mason), however Masons as a group aided and abbetted and/or conspired in some way on behalf of the killer/s, for a greater purpose?
I have a lot of respect for the Stephen Knight theory whether it be fiction or non, of which I cannot same the same for the recent regurgitation of the Sickert theory that reekes through the recently released "From Hell" film. The only connection to hell is that it really is "Hell" to have to sit through it for 2-hours. Oh Hey... save your tears for poor Mary Kelly too !
Aynihooo ! Good Luck Masons !!!!
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Monty
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:41 am | | Thomas,
The other half has nipped out for some shopping so I have sneaked on to her PC...dont tell her, ok?
Can I just say one more thing before my inane ramblings cease.
I have no doubt that you will set me a-pondering as I watch this thread unfold. I know that we have different views but it doesn't mean I am not interested by yours. I guess I can come over pretty strong and seem to have a "concrete" set mind over this subject but thats not true.
Lets just say I have a "jelly" set mind (I have opened myself up now haven't I?).
I need more to make it a bit firmer but I just don't see anything that does that yet.
Never the less, what you put down does interest me, so please keep up the work.
No matter how different our poles are I do appreciate the effort you put in.
Monty
|
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:49 am | | Hiya Caz,
Sorry about the smacking comments. I just know how women usually tend to take Valentine's Day much closer to heart than us guys do. So I was just making a joke about how some women would get upset about us guys poking fun at the holiday. ;-)
Hi Thomas,
The Christians were forced to make similar oaths of allegiance, due to the fears by the Romans of Open Revolution from them. They were also forced to pray in temples to Roman deities. The penalty of violating either of these acts was considered treasonous, and the typical penalty for this was torture and death. Many complied with the oath, as they secretly kept their faith close to their heart.
Those that broke the oath, and refused to pray in the Roman temples are where a PREDOMINATE amount of Christian Martyrs have come from.
Also the Christians didn't help ALL the slaves escape their Roman Masters. They predominately helped only their fellow Christians to escape to spread the great word. Just the same way the Masons helped their own brethren flee the Prison Camps.
The Christians were considered Martyrs for what they did. The Masons are considered Betrayors for the same action. Which one is right?
I'm not saying that what the Masons did was either wrong or right. I'm just saying that your comparing the actions of only a few, while a Massive Jack the Ripper Cover-up would take the workings of at the minimum a few Dozen. Not that the idea is ENTIRELY inplausible. Just the fact that the more people you add to the equation the harder it becomes to believe. As much for the fact that all of these people don't believe they are contradicting their Oath(or if you prefer, are contradicting it just for the sake of their own.), as well as the more people who are involved makes it easier for the Cover-up to be spotted by the ever-prying eyes of the public.(Not our own, but of their contemparies. Such as the City Police, the people of Whitechapel, the press, not to mention the Queen herself.)
Hope you enjoy your weekend.
Take Care,
Chris H.
'The Mind of the Individual is much harder to reason than the Mind of the Masses.' |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 08:30 am | | | The Masonic secrets were much more secret then than today.When Morgan revealed them in the 1840's he came up murdered.Many of us don't know much about believing in anything that seriously.To us all things are relative except differences of opinion on JTR.Whether they were involved in JRE murders or not the initiates took their vows serioulsy. Also if they were so secret how come we know so much about them?Masonic symbolism was a part of Occultism especially Rosicrucianism. |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 04:31 pm | | I've put up material concerning oaths, Hiram Abiff, Juwes and the like on a site. It is pretty "official" stuff and should clarify some of the existing confusion.
http://www.shadystuff.esmartweb.com/
Alas, it took up some time, so I had to postpone my planned Warren-bashing.
Michael & Chris
The Apples and Oranges discussion involves too much moral judgement for my taste - shall we rest the case stating that it has been proven that Masons on occasion break the law and solemn pledges in order to fulfil the oath? Chris, you should read about the edicts of Decius and Diocletian, I guess you'll find them quite intriguing.
Jeff D.
(Sigh) If it was that simple... Bear with us, perhaps we can bring some light into the darkness. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 18 February 2002 - 06:51 pm | | Hi Thomas,
As I've repeatedly said, I'm no authority on these things, but what you say makes good sense to me.
Regards,
Mike |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 02:57 pm | | Hi Thomas,
Yeah I'll agree that the Masons will break a law or two in order to fullfill an oath. However, so will just about anyone else. Some of us would do it for an even less nobler cause. 
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 09:56 pm | | SOME INPUT NEEDED
- Is there a reliable and detailed biography of Sir Charles Warren available?
- The Times reports on 10/19/1888 that the "bloodhounds of Sir Charles Warren" were lost. Any information on that incident available anywhere?
- How sure are you (and why) that Mary Jane Kelly was dead before the mutilating began? I know it's an apalling question but I'd be grateful for your response.
Another interesting item. In the original statement in response to Thomas Stowell's claims, the palace archivars were able to give alibis for Eddy only on two of the four days in question. Not that I want to contrive something here, but how comes that we take alibis on all days for granted? Royal archives a mess?
No, I really don't want to... well, you know.
Thomas |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 07:58 am | | Hi Thomas,
I'll try and answer some of your questions as best I can.
The First one I can't answer, cause I haven't really looked for a Biograpy for Sir Charles, but there probably is one out there.
The Second question's answer lies on Casebook's news reports. It is in the Times of 11/13/88. To summarize, an interview with Mr. Taunton, the gentleman taking care of the Bloodhounds while they were in London for Edwin Brough who was the owner and trainer of the animals, after Mary Kelly's death, stated that the story of their being lost was a fallacy. What really happened was that one of the dogs were with their owner at a Dog show elsewhere in England. And Taunton himself had been away from the city with the other animal, when Scottland Yard came calling to inquire about the use of the animals to help catch a criminal.(Not the Ripper, but rather a thief.) Since Taunton and the dogs were nowhere to be found the Press reported that the Dogs went missing and that Taunton and Brough were out looking for them. Later when Taunton was back with both of the animals, the Police asked Taunton to bring the dogs to the scene of a burglarly. Taunton was dismayed that more than a dozen people had been all over the crime scene so there was NO WAY the animals could find a decent scent. Later Brough heard about this, and asked Taunton to return the animals, because he feared they may be poisoned if people knew that the Police were using Bloodhounds for just about any crime out there. Also since the animals were not insured by the Police, Brough would have no way of being compensated so he took custody of his animals.
As to your Third question. I'm pretty sure Mary Kelly was still very much ALIVE when the Ripper slit her throat. Evidence of this can be find by the massive amount of bloodspray against the wall. Also the Doctors on the scene couldn't figure out how, or where, the marks on her right hand came from, but I'm pretty convinced I know the answer. There is a small incision on her right thumb, and some abrasions on the back of her hand. The medical evidence cleary states that Mary Kelly was on the opposite side of the bed(nearest to the wall) when the incision to the throat was made. Also there is a small cut in the corner of the sheet. I think the Ripper came up to her with his knife while she was asleep(or possibly just unconscious from some other means, however I don't think she was strangled). The sheet was partially covering her body, and she may have been turned onto her right side away from the killer, her hand lying close to her throat. He then bent over to slice her throat. The cut in the sheet, and her thumb is from this incision. Her body then spasmed, perhaps she became conscious at the same time of the cut, and the abrasions on the back of her hand is from it bumping up against the wall from the violence of her convulsions from the wound in her throat. I think the medical evidence supports this theory.(Then again, we always say something supports our theory, and then we see that same theory torn apart from a thousand other things.)
I agree with your questioning why is it all the alibis were taken a little too easily by the Police of the day. After all there are quite a few reasons why people will lie to protect a friend, family member, compatriot, boss, etc. Not that I agree with any Royal Involvement(Just as I'm sure you don't either), but if Jack was ever interviewed by the Police(which he may not have been), then somebody had to give him an Alibi, right?
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 07:25 pm | | Thanks, Chris, for pointing me to the Casebook Press Archive. Quite a treasure island, actually.
To rephrase a part of the question:
How sure are you that MJK's throat was slit and she therefore dead before the mutilations were afflicted? |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 08:20 pm | | Hi Thomas,
GOOD question on Mary Jane Kelly. I don't have an answer, but it is certainly something to think about.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 21 February 2002 - 07:24 pm | | Kelly was dead when the mutliations took place. The vagus nerve sits next to carotid artery. The vagus controls stimulation to the heart. Once it is severed the heart stops.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 26 February 2002 - 03:12 pm | | Hi all-
Before this thread withers away (and to stir things up for tonights's chat) I would just like to put forward 2 more eyewitnesses whose testimony, taken together, serves as evidence that more than one person was involved in these crimes. They are Albert Cadosch and Elizabeth Long.
To illustrate, I will construct a timeline of that morning's events from the perspective of these two witnesses. All times are taken from police reports and inquest testimony.
5:15 AM- Cadosch gets up and goes into the yard (presumably to relieve himself). There are a couple of reasons to believe that Cadosch's estimate of the time was accurate. First of all we know (thanks to John Davis) that the Spitalfields church clock tolled on the quarter-hour. Secondly, he was going to work- when I'm getting ready for work in the morning I know what time it is, especially when I have to leave soon (as Cadosch did). Finally, he had perspective; 15-20 minutes later he noted the time at the church clock itself.
5:25 AM- Cadosch returns across the yard to his back door. On his way he catches a fragment of conversation from the back yard of #29- all he can catch is the word "No". Note that at no time does he state that it was a woman's voice, and a marginal note in Chief Inspector Swanson's report of the incident implies that it was in fact a man's voice.
5:28 AM- Cadosch goes back into the yard, and this time "something seemed suddenly to touch the fence." However none of this arouses his curiosity and he immediately leaves for work. As he leaves the house, Hanbury Street is deserted. No woman, no foreign-looking man, no Mrs. Long. Nobody.
5:30 AM- The clock of the Black Eagle Brewery strikes the half-hour as Mrs. Long trundles her way down Brick Lane toward the corner of Hanbury Street.
5:32 AM- Mrs. Long passes down Hanbury and sees Annie Chapman and a man standing and talking near #29. At this point Cadosch is already 2 1/2 blocks away, looking up at the clock of Spitalfields church.
Therefore, if the testimony of these two eyewitnesses is correct, two conclusions can be reached-
A) Annie Chapman and the man in the deerstalker hat entered Hanbury Street sometime between when Cadosch left his house and when Mrs. Long rounded the corner into the street. And
B) Most importantly, that someone was talking and moving about in the back yard of #29 several minutes before Annie was brought there.
Some "person or persons unknown".
Just food for thought...
AAA88 |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 07:24 am | | Hi Jesse,
Actually there can be a third conclusion.
Possibly Annie was in the Yard with a client, or maybe someone attacking or robbing her(remember there are still a few gangs including Nichols and the High Rip gang, that were known to 'blackmail' prostitutes).
If it be the latter it could explain why Annie's rings were missing. Maybe one of these guys assaulted her in the yard, hence the word 'No' Cardosche heard and the thump against the fence. Then afterwards she came out and bumped into the man that Long/Darrel saw Annie with, who was most probably Jack.
More food for thought...
Chris H. |
Author: James
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 07:49 am | | Jesse
Interesting chronology but I'm not convinced by the exact times you have listed. The inquest evidence is lost as far as I can tell and we rely on the newspaper reports.
Cadosch
"he got up at about 5.15"
"when he passed spitalfields church it was about 32 minutes past 5"
Long
"passing down Hanbury street..about 5.30"
The use of the word"about"means that they were not exactly sure despite the striking of clocks.
Certainly the evidence is not exact enough to say, for example that Cadosch heard a noise at exactly 5.25,and therefore he may have heard the murder.ie no accomplice.
also , 17 people lived at the house, it might simply have been one of them!.
rgds
James |
Author: Goryboy
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 08:34 am | | Dear Jesse,
I cannot dispute your conclusion based on the above facts. Have just checked The Complete Casebook, A-Z, Mammoth Book, and The Ulimate Companion to verify. From the times given, it would certainly seem that Cadosh heard "No" and something strike the fence before Annie and friend entered the yard.
However, I cannot think of any reason for anyone to say "No" and then strike the fence unless it were Annie being murdered. Why would an accomplice or lookout do such a thing?
My gut instinct is that Cadosh is off by 15 minutes, having heard the 5:00 chime, not the 5:15. Why would a man going to work at 5:30 not get up until 5:15? Doesn't make sense. I mean, do you only give yourself 15 minutes total to get up and get ready for a day's work? Neither do I.
Or, if we accept Cadosh's times, then it could be that Long (or Durrell) is off by at least 10-12 minutes. Perhaps she heard the clock chime the quarter hour (and not the half-hour) as she turned onto Hanbury, thus spying Annie & friend outside 29 Hanbury at about 5:18, instead of 5:30-32. This would line up nicely with Cadosh's hearing "No" and something hitting the fence around 5:20, AND with his not seeing Annie & friend out front as he left 27 Hanbury around 5:30.
Why would Long/Durrell be off by 10-12 minutes -- esp. if the brewery clock is the one she said she heard (and not the Spitalfields Church clock)?
Ellifynoe. But if Richardson were on that back step trimming his boot at 5:50 or so, then the killer must have done the dirty deed earlier than usually suspected -- say from 5:20 to 5:35, rather than 5:35 to 5:45 or :50, thus allowing time for him to get away before Richardson arrives.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if there were indeed two conspirators waiting in the backyard of 29 Hanbury before Annie & Friend arrive, then what about the Stride killing? At most, we have maybe one accomplice (Pipe Man), not two.
And the Mitre Sq. killing is such a near thing, I can't imagine three men clustering round the area. HOWEVER, we cannot lightly discount the two men seen walking down Goulston St. by one of the constables (was it Hulse?), or the two mysterious witnesses at the end of St. James Passage, who claimed to have seen Catharine with her killer shortly after Lawende & Co. saw her. In both instances, we have two men. Accomplices? Lookouts? I dunno.
It would seem more likely that, if JtR had two lookouts, they would have been posted in different alleys, not in the same one. Mitre had three entrances (from Mitre St., Church Passage and St. James Passage), so I should think any accomplices would have been manning at least two of those approaches.
Still, it's very hard to imagine two people voluntarily taking part in this series of murders, along with the killer. Acolytes, sorcerer's apprentices and black magicians included.
Wot think ye?
Goryboy |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 27 February 2002 - 10:59 pm | | Hello again-
Interesting points, all. I'll try and address them as best I can.
Chris
When I read Cadosch's statement, it seems to me that he is saying that he heard a hushed conversation, the only word of which he could make out was "No". (Remember, he was only a few feet away). If this was Annie being assaulted or murdered, wouldn't she have screamed "NO!" at the top of her lungs? Aside from this is the fact that the word "No" and the "sort of fall" against the fence (which Cadosch then modified to "something seemed to suddenly touch the fence") were separated by a space of several minutes. If this was Annie being murdered, shouldn't one have followed almost immediately upon the other? Anyway, I seem to have wandered off the point, but hopefully you see what I mean.
James-
The times given are not my times. Please note that I have not bent, rationalized or interpreted the evidence in any way. I have simply given it straight, exactly as it was given at the time by the people who were there.
Mrs. Long is completely unambiguous about the fact that the brewery clock struck the half-hour (5:30) while she was still in Brick Lane, not yet at the corner of Hanbury St. This puts her sighting of Annie at some time after 5:30- how long after matters not at all, because Cadosch has already left the house unless his reading of the church clock as "about 5:32" is wildly inaccurate.
The police took statements from everyone living in the house, and the only one who mentioned going into the yard that morning was John Richardson.
GB-
Believe me, I hate the idea of two accomplices as much as you do. Actually I do have a theory about this but it is speculation, which I would rather avoid at this point. For the moment I'm just trying to lay out the facts and try to come to some logical conclusion. For example I am tempted to jump on your notion that Cadosch mistook the 5:00 bell for the 5:15; that would give the killer plenty of time to talk to his accomplice in the backyard of #29, go and pick up Annie and have her back at the house in time for Mrs. Long to spot them. But I won't .
Just to clear up one small point...Richardson visited the yard at about 4:45- not 5:45.
And BTW, back in the day my dad could roll out of bed and be ready for work in 15 minutes flat. But you're right...I could never do that.
Of course, I prefaced all of this by saying "if the testimony of these witnesses is correct..." But I have yet to see any reason to suppose that they were wrong. ("Because Jack worked alone" is not a reason- it's a conclusion.)
There's a saying that sticks in my mind- can't remember who said it but it runs something like this...
"When we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how fantastic, must be the truth."
AAA88 |
Author: Madeleine Murphy
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 12:53 am | | It was Sherlock Holmes. "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Logically unhelpful, but ringing! (it assumes only one possibility remains...)
madeleine |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 03:39 am | | Thank you Madeleine. I actually didn't butcher the quote as badly as I thought I had!
Perhaps Holmes should have said, "...the truth must lie somewhere in the remaining possibilities."
Not quite as ringing though, is it?
AAA88 |
Author: James
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 04:46 am | | Your arguments are well put Jesse. I note the comment about the people in the house.
I would say this,You are not actually quoting exactly what what they said as;
1.it is a newspaper report of what they said, not coronial transcript of their actual words
2.the use of the word "about" means he did not "say" he heard a noise at 5,25. he effectively said that he heard it "about" 5.25. Quite a different proposition.
3.people are notoriously bad at recalling these things.( I should know, I have just finished an an inquest on wednesday where there were 120 witnesses and believe me their recall was shocking. I was instructing solicitor to counsel appearing)
I actually dug up the Coroners summing up on the issue of Cadosch
"There was some conflict in the evidence about the time the deceased was dispatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but that variation was not very great or very important....Cadosch..said it was about 5.20, but if he was out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour the discrepency in the evidence vanished;and he might be mistaken...."
What this tells me is the Coroner found Cadosch less credible than Long and that it was likely he got the time wrong. The Coroner was after all the man on the spot who heard the actual testimony(and makes the call re their reliability).
on the balance of probabilities it is more likely he got the time wrong than there was an accomplice.
well at least I think so!
rgds
James |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 02:26 pm | | Actually, I have the quote framed and hanging above my desk. It is my guiding philosophy, because it holds true.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 04:25 pm | | So Holmes and Watson are camping out in the country one night when the good doctor is shaken from his comfortable sleep.
"Watson, quick, wake up, tell me what do you see?"
"It's a little late for this sort of thing, Holmes."
"No, my good man, you must tell me what you see."
Thinking it is another test he obliges the detective. "I see countless stars in an infinite number of galaxies and the possibility of life somewhere out there. I see the constellation Orion and..."
"No, Watson, someone has stolen our tent!"
I have read nothing that even remotely shows an accomplice, or a second person, at any of the murder sites with the exception of Stride. And even in that instance, the second man with the pipe is located in the worst possible spot for a lookout that it makes his connection to the assault on Stride tenuous.
James rightly points out the fallibility of eye-witness testimony. Read any of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus' books to see the criminal and investigative results of relying on the individual's memory regarding times and physical descriptions.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 28 February 2002 - 05:17 pm | | James-
Thanks for your comments. Your point about secondary sources is well taken; they do indeed often contain uncorroborated or contradictory information. However, when at least five different newspapers report a witness's testimony in precisely the same way, is it not fair to say that the report is probably accurate? (See the Casebook: the Times, Daily Telegraph, Manchester Guardian, Eastern Post and Woodford Times versions of Cadosch's inquest statement)
Even if all of Cadosch's other estimates are off, there still remains the troubling matter of his reading of the Christ Church clock. While I cannot speak intelligently about the educational achievements of Mr. Cadosch, I think it is a safe bet that he could at least tell time. Aside from this is the fact that he had to be at work, giving him yet another point of reference (besides the ones already mentioned) by which to gauge the time. If I may quote the authors of the Jack the Ripper A-Z, "it was Mr. Baxter who was confusing the witnesses' times."
And even if, despite clocks, ringing church bells and the fact that he had to get to work, Cadosch is still wrong about the time, he can only be wrong in one direction- forward. If it is earlier than Cadosch thinks it is, then it makes no difference- it still means he hears voices from the backyard of #29 before Annie gets there. To resolve the issue it must be later than he thinks it is. This, however, poses yet another problem- the street is empty when he leaves his house. If he is off by only a few minutes, he should at least see Mrs. Long, who passed by his house at about that time. He must be way off- but not too way off or he should have seen other people in the street, such as the foreman of Bayley's, two doors away, who arrived to open the gates at 5:50. With the Spitalfields Market and (I think) the Black Swan public house opening at 5:30 and Bayley's opening at six, an empty street would seem to indicate an earlier time rather than a later one.
Witnesses can be unreliable- that is undoubtedly true. But I am moved to wonder at what point the logical peregrinations necessary to maintain the "lone nut" scenario (not only with these witnesses but with Israel Schwartz as well) begin to constitute the equivalent of the "magic bullet" in the Kennedy case.
Back...and to the left. Back...and to the left.
AAA88 |
Author: James
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 12:45 am | | Hi Jesse
Cadosch may not have to be so way off as you hink.
Imagine you and I are standing out side #29 on the morning in question.
The clock has just struck 5.30.Mrs Long trundles by at about 5.32. There is a woman and a foreign looking gentleman at the doorway. They go inside.
the murder is committed quickly and quietly while we wait.In his backyard, Cadosch who thought he heard the clock strike 5.15 hears a quiet "no" as Jack throttles Annie.Jack bumps the fence while lifting her skirt as Cadosch passes back by the scene. Its 5.35 and the mutilations are already taking place.
we see Cadosch emerge from the house a few seconds later and hurry away towards work, still thinking its about 5.30. At 5.40 Jack, having done his work emerges from #29, looks around(missing you and I )then heads home, elated and satisfied. Both Mrs Long and Cadosch are long gone and the street is empty.
Cadosch is a mere 10 minutes out.
re the "magic bullet",the conspiracy buffs are now so desperate they are alleging that the Zapruder film, so long their main evidence, has been tampered with to explain away their problems.
witness evidence at this distance without the opportunity to cross examine is always going to be a problematic.But the truth still holds that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. Jack took Annie down that passageway because it was empty and quiet.
Rgds
James |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 01 March 2002 - 07:50 am | | Hi Jesse,
Actually Annie wouldn't necessarily cry out 'No!' loudly, if for one, if it is Jack there with her, he's strangling her and she's only got enough air to release a stifled cry. Two, if she is being assaulted by another gentleman, possibly as a robbery, the man would have a weapon of some type(knives typically the weapon of choice, but blunt objects are not unheard of), and probably holding a hand over her mouth or something similar in the case, so that she would again only be able to give out a Muffled, 'No'. Or there is the third possibilty that it wasn't Annie saying 'No', but rather someone else saying it to her.(The robber telling her 'No' to keep her from screaming as he pulls the knife on her? Or about a billion other possibilities.)
Now the tap against the fence can also be explained in many different ways. One, if Annie is being robbed, she may bump her hand against the fence searching for the items that were taken out of her pocket and dropped to the ground. Maybe her arm bumping against the fence as the robber pushes her away as he leaves.(Again she probably wouldn't shout, for if it is an armed Robber, and he does appear to be leaving her be, if she does scream she may just end up like Emma Smith.) Next is if Jack is actually back there strangling her at the time, as he is lying her down(Jack doesn't drop the unconscious or dead bodies, cause there is no evidence of scratches to the back of their heads) so her limp arm may bump against the fence.(The time inbetween the word 'No' being heard, could be the length of time that Jack feels he has sufficiently strangled her. Or in the case of the robber, long enough for him to investigate her pockets and steal her rings.) Another possibility is as James says, Jack bumps the fence as he is prepares the body for the mutilations.
The only problem with it being Jack in the yard, is the fact that Elizabeth Darrel/Long places Annie outside the front of Hanbury 10 to 15 minutes later. Now it is a possibility that Darrel/Long is wrong and she didn't see Annie, or maybe even the fact that it wasn't even Annie she saw. But it's also a possibility that Cardosche is off on his time estimates. So either we gotta agree with both, or disregard both and come up with our own theories.
I'd rather believe both. Hence why it is more probable that Annie was in the backyard with someone else prior to Jack's arrival. Now that person could be as much a client as well as robber. However, since she had no money on her, as well as the rings are missing, it seems more like a robbery. I can't see Jack stopping after he strangles the woman, to empty her pocket and steal her money, then take the rings, before slitting her throat and mutilating the remains. Jack's a killer, not a petty thief.
Adios,
Chris H.
P.S. For a while I suspected maybe Richardson(or even one of the others that found the body later) did see the body and himself stole the rings and anything else he may have found in her pocket. However, there would be the risk of him(or them) being seen, or getting blood on themselves as they search the body. So eventhough it is a possibility, it is a little hard to believe someone would take the risk. But then again, you never know. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 02:23 am | | Hello Chris and James-
You both present intriguing scenarios, and I suppose anything is possible. I guess the only problem I have is that there is not one shred of evidence, nor a single fact or circumstance to support either one. No matter how many times it is asserted that Cadosch must have been wrong about the time, unless I'm missing something there remains a complete lack of evidence to substantiate that he was wrong. To the contrary, I think there are a number of reasons (already stated) to believe that his estimate was fairly accurate. However I understand, James, that you are trying to find some way to reconcile the statements of Cadosch and Long with the conventional wisdom regarding the murders.
Chris's scenario in which Annie is robbed in the backyard of 29 Hanbury at least has the advantage of not having to twist the evidence around. If it did happen that way I'd have to nominate Annie Chapman as the all-time Murphy's Law victim. You can only pity the luck of someone who, deathly ill and dirt poor, gets robbed one minute and meets Jack the Ripper the next.
AAA88 |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 10:29 am | | Hi Jesse,
Actually my scenario on how Jack is choosing his victims, is because they ARE victims. I think Jack sees himself as some Knight in Shining Armor, come to save the Damsel in Distress. This gives his fantasy power, hence helping him over any inadequacies that all serial killer's typically have in their lives. There is some evidence that can support the claims in at least the first three victims.(That is if you count Elizabeth Stride as a Ripper victim.)
In Polly's case there is the testimony of Sarah Colwell, who lived on Brady street at the time of Polly's murder. She stated that she heard a woman scream on Brady Street, followed by the sound of footsteps. One of the bruises on Polly's face could have been by a fist, so it is possible she may have been assaulted before Jack came to the scene.
In Annie's case is the missing rings. No one knows what happened to them. And why is it Jack would rob one victim and not any of the others seems odd. Also with Cardosche's testimony puts the sound of bump against the fence and the muffled 'No', BEFORE Long supposedly saw Annie in the street. So this could also point in the direction of an assualt in the yard prior to Jack's arrival.
In Liz Stride's case we have Schwartz's testimony. He sees Liz tossed to the ground by one man, who shouts at him. And then there is a second man spotted on the scene. The idea that Liz was tossed to the ground is supported by the medical evidence. She had bruises on her chest which may have been thumb prints, as well as abrasions to her forearms which could have come from a fall.
Now Catherine and Mary are rather hard to prove and require much more speculation.
Catherine did have several cuts to her clothing. Now this may have been caused by Jack during his mutilations, or could have been caused by someone assaulting Catherine before hand. Since the evidence of her clothing doesn't state whether or not there was any blood surrounding the cuts, which would have happened had Jack already cut Catherine's throat or was in the process of the mutilations, one has to speculate whether there was or there wasn't. There's also the matter of the bruise to Catherine's hand inbetween the thumb and forefinger. This may have occurred earlier in the day, or that night. Maybe a few minutes before her death or at the time of her death. So like I said this takes MUCH more speculation.
Mary Kelly also requires A LOT of conjecture. Mainly my point is about George Hutchinson. Why would the guy wait till after the inquest was over to give testimony about seeing someone with Mary Kelly the night of her murder? She was supposed to be a friend of his so why would he not give evidence before then? Many people have theorized that it's because he was spotted at the scene by Sarah Lewis and her testimony about it was given at the inquest. I happen to agree with this theory. However, if it is true, then why was he there? I think our friend Mr. Hutchinson was up to NO GOOD. Why else would he lie about Jack? I'm thinking Hutchinson and maybe an accomplice or two were up to a robbery. I know there isn't any evidence to support this save for a few speculations. The door to Kelly's room being locked for one. If Jack wasn't in the room with Kelly before hand, then how would he get in afterwards? Only way he could was if he knew about stickin his hand through the window and pulling back the spring lock. So unless he knew the make up of Mary Kelly's room he wouldn't be able to get in. But Hutchinson himself knew Mary Kelly, some have even surmized he may have used her services before. So maybe Hutchinson saw Mary with at least one or two men during the night? Waited till the last one left, waiting a little while for her to fall asleep, then snuck into Mary's room, hoping to do a quiet burglarly? After all if Mary had been with a couple of men, she would have had some money somewhere, yet NONE was found at the scene. I think maybe Mary woke up to Hutchinson in the room, crying out 'Oh Murder!'(since she had been afraid of the tales of jack the Ripper.) Hutchinson then knocked her unconscious, and fleed the scene, leaving the door wide open. Jack, walking down Dorset Street, hears her cry sees Hutchinson running from Miller's Court. Stares down the court to see if anyone comes to aid the screams. When no one does, he enters the court, sees the door to the room open then enters it. After which he proceeds to slit her throat, and mutilate the body.
Now as I said, Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes requires LOTS of speculation and conjecture, since there is little or NO supporting evidence in the claim. Even the murders of the other three Canonical victims requires some speculation, yet there is at least some mild evidence to support the theory.
This doesn't explain WHY Jack killed these unfortunates. But it does give a possibilty as to HOW he chose them out of the THOUSANDS of other prostitutes in the area. What's his motive? I have another theory on that, but again it requires speculation and conjecture.(Of course what theory about Jack doesn't? ) But that's ANOTHER story.
Regards,
Chris H. |
|
|
|
|
