|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 01 February 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
"No way it was a Lone Serial Killer":
Archive through 01 February 2002
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:13 pm |        | Ottis Toole, not Otis O'Dell! Ottis Toole! Ottis Toole!
This man has my vote for the most perverse human being of all time. Partially retarded; made a sex slave by his overbearing older sister Drucilla; endlessing masturbating, including publicly; willingly performing oral sex on his buddy Henry while heading down the interstate after just having senselessly murdered and maimed; worshipping Satan; procuring his own underaged niece for a known murderer; "snatchin'" little children for Mexican sex torturers for pay; one of the most prolific serial murderers of all time; living on nothing but candy bars for seven years, nor bathing; and, above all, killing people for the purpose of eating them, Ottis stands high on the all-time list of infamous sex thrills. There is even nothing on the internet to compare with him, nothing.
David |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 08:47 pm | | In recent research into Victorian burial rituals, I discovered that the poor and lower classes could not afford the prices to properly dispose of their loved ones. In many cases the dead stayed in the home until funds could be raised for burial. I have found many documented cases where the bodies of the dead stayed in the homes wll into advanced stages of putrefacation. Familes would often take their meals and sleep in the same room where the body of their recently deceased loved one was laid slowly decomposing.
I have also run across documents and writings that describe the appalling and horrid conditions of the grave yards at St. Marys and other cemeteries in and around Whitechapel. The following is an excerpt of from my upcomong book The Forensic Evidence of Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders
In many cases the mass graves would be filled to their maximum capacity. The upper most bodies would hardly be covered at all. The grave yard of St. Giles-in-the-fields was littered with smashed coffins, and human remains protruding from the ground. The sight of half rotting human heads complete with hair attached and flesh covered, maggot infested limbs could be seen sticking out of the ground like some macabre garden. To add to the chilling scene children could often times be found playing in the cemeteries. St. Mary’s in White Chapel, St. James Clerkenwell and the minority grave yards for Jews, Quakers and Mormons were all severely overcrowded.
Dr. G. A. Walker, a physician with a practice in Drury Lane, gave a chilling account of the conditions of the situation in a social commentary he wrote. “ St. Mary’s Church yard in White Chapel is a mass of bones and putrefied flesh. Bones and rotten coffin wood litter the church yard at St. Anne Soho which is over looked by house thickly inhabited.” He goes on to describe witnessing grave diggers hacking away at coffins of the recently interred and using the bodies, in particular those of women and children, for immoral purposes.
Now I guess I have spoiled it for everyone, including myself, as now you don't have to buy the book. 
I've got to stop doing this.
Peace
Scott |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 07:39 am | | Hi Again,
Sorry David. I wasn't too sure of Otis' last name, so I was partially guessing. Other than the fact that I knew he was a totally SICK screwball, and that he and Henry Lee were Serial Murders, I wasn't too sure about his past. Just was using him and Henry as an instance of pack hunting.
Now Scott. I know quite well that the people of Whitechapel couldn't afford to bury their dead all the time.(Even in some cases for weeks at a time.) Jack London made this abundantly clear in his book 'People of the Abyss'(A great book if any of you might wanna find out how bad things were in Whitechapel.) However, the post mortems done on the 'Torso' murders all revealed that the bodies were rather well nourished, and in good shape. In the Doctors' opinions the women didn't appear to be from Whitechapel, but possibly from one of the better quarters of town.(However the Doc's have been wrong on a great deal of other things, so you never know.) I just thought it might be interesting if we looked at the 'Torso' Murders from a different angle.
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 12:11 pm | | Dear Chris,
Though I feel the torso murders have nothing to do with the case. I was only adding to your information that necrophilia would have been common and not that far fetched.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 12:36 am | | Hello all,
There's no real evidence of Lucas and Toole ever having been 'pack hunters'. In fact, Lucas didn't commit most of the murders he claimed, or that were attributed to him, including the one for which he was almost executed before Bush gave him a reprieve. As for the 'pack hunter' theory, I'm waiting to read witness evidence of TWO men standing next to a victim before she was killed. Schwartz's evidence is questionable at best. I'm also awaiting the overwhelming medical evidence of two killers at work on the victims. Why do we assume it was one serial killer? For two reasons...1. It almost always is, which provides a rule of thumb 2. There's no real evidence to suggest it was more than one.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 01:51 am | |
Quote:Schwartz's evidence is questionable at best.
Really? How so?
Just curious
AAA88 |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:07 am | |
Quote:Eventhough I don't agree with Thomas' theory about 'Jack' being more than one person, even if we are stickin to only Eddowes, Chapman, and Nichols, I thought I might add a little something to help out his Theory.
Wow. Is there a price for the most helpful and civilised board on the web? You folks should join the contest.
Scott:
When will your book be available?
Tom:
I fail to see why "Schwartz is questionable at best" and I kindly ask you to elaborate on this point.
With regard to missing evidence. None of the many theories provides "evidence" that could convince a jury.
Name any author -- Harris, Fido, Stevens etc. -- and at closer look their works boil down to educated guesses. They suggest a suspect based on memoirs of police officials or other circumstancial evidence. The facts are then given in a way to bolster up the hypothesis, and most of the rest is left on the cutting room floor.
It is a valid scholarly approach and perfectly fine with me.
Others, like Knight, even bend the facts to make them "fit". This, I guess we agree, is not to be considered proper methodology.
In a case like ours, we cannot ask for the murder being caught red-handed after more than a hundred years. You write: "I'm waiting to read witness evidence of TWO men standing next to a victim before she was killed". If this is required to convince you I fear you are not overly open-minded, begging your pardon, sair.
The reason why I feel VERY uneasy about any of the theories existing: They allow for too many coincidences to "prove" their respective points. Far too many coincidences to agree with logic, knowlegde and my personal life experience.
Moreover, the documents that sparked those theories in the beginning (Macnaghten for example) have to be considered dubious.
Any trained historian tells you never to base a theory on the memories of someone involved since you cannot properly ascertain his/her motives. Though authentic, documents of that kind may be highly misleading.
Has ever been established WHY Macnaghten felt obliged to write the memoranda in reply to "The Sun"? |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:30 am | | Thomas,
The book will be ready for the publisher sometime late summer or early fall.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 12:45 pm | | It is believed that in all likelihood the Macnaghten memoranda was written by Macnaghten for the benefit of the Home Secretary in case questions were raised in the House regarding the articles written in the Sun claiming that Thomas Cutbush was Jack the Ripper.
Wolf. |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 03:14 pm | | Wolf:
Thank you for the info. This also shows how treacherous the grounds are. "It is believed" doesn't have a very determined ringt to it. Not your fault at all, of course.
Why in all cases of speculation running wild in the papers did he feel an itch to reply to the Sun-claim? Or, if this really was his motivation - why did the Home Secretary show a special interest in Cutbush?
Since we cannot establish Macnaghten's true motivation for writing this, and the reasons given "officially" are slightly doubtful, the Memoranda must be considered unreliable. Authentic and valuable? Yes, but not reliable. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 10:22 pm | | Scott,
I, for one, am very much looking forward to your book. It will be a welcome approach.
Jesse and Thomas,
Why is Schwartz's evidence questionable? When I wrote that, I meant primarily as regards a 'two-man' theory, since nothing of his testimony suggests the two men he saw were working together. Certainly the Pipe-smoking man was not a look-out. But as regards the reliability of Schwartz's testimony itself, we have a very frightened man getting quick glimpses in the dark before turning around and running. On top of that we have two different versions of his story. To compound matters he couldn't speak English so we actually have two versions of his story as filtered through at least one and probably two translators, whose credentials remain a secret. Considering how unreliable witness testimony is in such cases, Schwartz's is a land-mine. I'm not saying he was lying (but I'm not saying he wasn't, either) but there's no way he could be sure of the time, or if that was Liz Stride. Also, and please forgive me not being able to name the exact source right now, as I don't have my notes with me, but the press even reported that the police weren't taking his testimony too seriously, for whatever reason. And one last thing...If you look at ALL the police memoirs, they either say that only one man saw the Ripper or that no one saw the Ripper. The one man in question is Lawende. So, where does that leave Schwartz in their minds?
Thomas,
Please understand I'm not ruling out the possibility that two men worked together as the Ripper, I was simply questioning the idea that there's 'no way' that one man could have done it. And you should question that line of thinking as well. Whoever wrote that is the one without the open mind, not myself.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. As for Macnaughten's motives, Wolf's answer is the best you're going to get, except to add that he was probably trying to save the a$$ of Superintendant Charles Cutbush...Thomas' uncle...and, in turn, saving the a$$ of Scotland Yard. Imagine the field day the press would have if it turned out that the man Scotland Yard couldn't catch was the nephew of one of their own! All suspicion had to be removed. Charles Cutbush committed suicide in 1896. |
Author: Thomas Bayer
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 11:42 pm | | Tom:
Quote:I was simply questioning the idea that there's 'no way' that one man could have done it. And you should question that line of thinking as well. Whoever wrote that is the one without the open mind, not myself.
Agreed. But then, I was only quoting, though I am defending the more-than-one-man-theory.
You scored definetely and I am tired (it's late... err... early here) so it will have to wait. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 01:34 am | | Tom-
The Star of October 1 did indeed offer the comment that Schwartz's story was not "wholly accepted" by the police; however there is nothing whatever in the official record to support this assertion- quite the opposite in fact. Swanson and Abberline, arguably the two most knowledgable officers on the case, both believed his story- Swanson even preferring his sighting to that of a police officer. No officer, either at the time or afterwards, ever questioned the veracity of Schwartz's testimony.
The presumption that Schwartz's lack of English subtracts from the credibility of his evidence simply does not hold water, since Swanson's report and the Star interview tell basically the same story. The transformation of the second man's pipe into a knife in the newspaper article is most likely an attempt by the Star's reporter to give the story some pizzazz, not an interpretation problem. And the confusion over which man shouted "Lipski" could easily occur between two English-speakers (e.g., "he called out to him"). The police version is probably correct; they would have been more vitally concerned with getting this detail right.
As for Lawende being a better witness than Schwartz, it should be remembered that Lawende could not identify Catherine Eddowes as the woman he saw; Schwartz positively identified Stride at the mortuary.
Who else is there?
Mrs. Long? She never even saw the man's face.
George Hutchinson? If his tale is to be believed we must credit him with powers of observation that make Sherlock Holmes look like a piker. Pretty impressive for an out-of-work groom. And why did he wait so long to come forward? This has never been adequately explained.
In short, if you're going to throw out Schwartz as a witness, you might as well throw them all out.
It is probable that Schwartz and Lawende are the two most reliable witnesses in this case. It is also probable that they both saw the same man. Compare the descriptions they gave police-both saw a man...
About 30 years old
Of medium height
Of stout build
Of fair complexion
With a brown mustache
Wearing a cap with a peak
Rather too many similarities to be mere coincidence.
And while it is true that, in the safety of the police station and under questioning from Abberline, Schwartz hedged on his original position that the two men were working together, his initial impression was that they were; that was why he ran. Furthermore he restated his belief that they were working together in his interview with the Star the next day.
While Abberline's opinion that the shouted "Lipski" was directed at Schwartz reflected a good knowledge of the East End, it did not place the event in the context of the Ripper's persistent efforts that night to throw blame on the Jews or Jewish socialists. Considering that Stride was murdered next to the IWEC; that Eddowes was murdered just yards away from the Great Synagogue, another focal point of East End Jewish radicalism; and in light of the GSG it becomes probable that "Lipski" was a false name shouted to the confederate across the road, yet another attempt by the murderer (his fourth that night) to implicate the Jews in the murders. Philip Sugden also seems to favor this version of events (Complete History of Jack the Ripper, pp. 217-218).
Now, for some extrapolation. Still, however, based on the facts.
I think what turns many people off to Schwartz's testimony is a belief that he witnessed an attack taking place in the street, which does not fit the Ripper's modus operandi. However, I don't think this is at all what Schwartz witnessed.
Swanson's report says that Schwartz saw the man "turn her (Stride) round and throw her down." In the Star Schwartz is said to have seen him " push her back into the passage". I would postulate that a synthesis of these two descriptions tells what actually happened.
Schwartz sees the man proposition Stride. Dutfield's Yard was not frequented by prostitutes; several witnesses testified to this, including a policeman. The club had too many people coming and going at all hours. Most likely Stride tried to lead him toward a more secluded location. But it was vital to the murderer's plan that she be found next to the IWEC (again, taken in context with all the other events of that night).
So he grabs her arm and pushes (or pulls) her toward the gateway ("No, come on, let's do it right here"). At which point Stride, who had been drinking in at least two different pubs that night, trips and falls flat on her face. This would account for the "abrasion of the skin about 1 1/2 inches in diameter, apparently stained with blood, under her right brow" that Dr. Phillips reported finding on her and which I have never seen explained anywhere else. This would also account for why she screamed, "but not very loudly". She is hurt, but does not feel herself to be in mortal danger; otherwise it is safe to assume that she would have screamed at the top of her lungs.
Hearing her yell, Schwartz "turned back to learn what was the matter" and the murderer realizes that he is being observed. He calls out to his lookout, who ushers Mr. Schwartz on his merry way.
As for the issue of time, Schwartz does not say specifically how he knew what time it was, but at no point does he indicate that he is unsure of the time and none of the detectives questioned his statement in that regard. We are not talking about a bad TV show or an Earle Stanley Gardner novel; this is real life. In short, if a witness ever testifies to seeing you struggling with someone 15 minutes before they were found with their throat cut, I would suggest that you cancel all milk deliveries and magazine subscriptions, because you're off to prison. Why? Because you're almost certainly a murderer.
AAA88 |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:22 am | | Jesse,
We do not know what was in an official police record concerning Schwartz, as one has not been found to survive.
I agree with Tom that a frightened person who ran at the first opportunity does not make a good witness,and even less so in that he seems to outdo even Hutchinson by describing two persons in quite some detail.
Your last part I go along with in that the initial encounter between Stride and drunk was not an assault,that her falling was caused by a desire to fend off an unwelcome approach,and that she twisted and fell in doing so.
As for the two men working together,it seems that one had walked down the street and one was stood in a doorway at the end.
Its probable one of them killed her,and I'll back the man in the doorway,but on his own after seeing off the other two.
H.Mann. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:22 am | | Tom: 'Certainly the Pipe-smoking man was not a look-out.'
Jesse: 'He calls out to his lookout, who ushers Mr. Schwartz on his merry way.'
The first is a statement of fact - based on what?
The second is an opinion - based on the facts.
Should we take a vote?
That's why I love this case. Nothing can be agreed upon.
But for my money, if a lookout was used, he would not have been seen by any witness 'standing next to a victim' (and the killer) before she was killed.
He might have helped out at a crime scene immediately afterwards (but not necessarily), but no witness ever claimed to see an actual murder or the getaway. So how would we know?
It would at least provide a more rational explanation than the lucky and/or clever lunatic, escaping every time leaving only the clues he meant to leave.
Love,
Caz
PS Fortunate about the two basically similar testimonies that have survived though. If we'd had just the one, by now someone would have claimed Schwartz was saying "My hovercraft is full of eels" in Hungarian. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 10:21 am | | | Ivor Edwards take on this scene is interesting. He has Kosminsky attacking Stride and was run off by the appearance of the man with the pipe(who was no less than Jack the Ripper himself) who made a dash at Schwartz to run him off and returned to murder Stride. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 11:38 am | | Hello all,
The reason I believe the Pipe-smoking man was not a lookout is simple...A look-out looks out. This man was standing out of sight in a doorway. When he did step out Schwartz saw him. Did the lookout scream a warning? No. He lit his pipe. The 'attacker' was the one looking around and screaming warnings. If the PS Man WAS a lookout, then in the words of Ricky Ricardo, he had some 'splaining to do'. However, since we are taking Schwartz's evidence at face value here, there's nothing to suggest the two men had anything to do with one another. IF what Schwartz said is true, then most likely the PS Man had been Stride's last client, and she gave him a 'two-penny knee trembler', which would explain why she had her cachous out. At that point her attacker came up on her. But, if this man attacked her in the road, why was she so silent in the yard?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 03:26 pm | | Harry-
I'm puzzled by your continued insistence that no official record of Schwartz's testimony survives. Home Office and Scotland Yard files contain numerous letters, reports etc. referring to it. As for Schwartz's description being more detailed than Hutchinson's, I suggest you compare them. Not only does Hutchinson recall the color of the jacket the man wore under his overcoat, he describes the man's shoes, down to the color of the buttons on them! Who remembers that kind of detail, three days later?
Tom-
Your point that the lookout was not doing his job would be well-taken- if the murderer had been in the process of attacking Stride. He was not, however; he was only making his initial approach. It was not the lookout's job to ward off passersby at this point; this would only have drawn attention to both of them. Other people probably saw the murderer with the victim before the killings, but no one ever paid any special attention to him. But the unlucky accident of Stride falling down and crying out in pain caused Schwartz to turn and stare at him; the only time this ever happened. The second man makes his appearance for the only time, because it's the only time he's ever needed.
Caz-
You're right- some of the Ripper's escapes seem more than lucky; they seem downright supernatural unless he had someone standing watch to warn him of approaching danger. Not only is there no evidence to disprove this, there is evidence (which I have tried to adduce at some length) to support it. But as I said near the beginning of this thread, it is an idea that flies in the face of one of Ripperology's most cherished myths, and myths never die easily.
You may, however, be interested to know that I have heard unconfirmed reports that as Schwartz fled from Berner Street he was heard to scream, "My nipples explode with delight!"
AAA88 |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 03:42 pm | | | Tom, She was attacked twice. Once by the man seen to attack her ( who may have been Kosminski) by Schwartz. The latter did a runner.The man in the doorway went for the attacker then scared him off.Stride thought this man had saved her and she dropped her guard.He got her in the passage and attacked her from behind and surprised her so quick that she never had a chance to scream.He could have gone to her aid and may have said, " Lets get you into the club to calm you down." They then walked into the passage and he killed her.He could not commit mutilations because Schwartz could be back at any second with help.HE WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE HORSE AND CART.The man in the doorway had views in all four directions and was keeping his eyes peeled.We have two stories one that he had a pipe and one that he had a knife. He could well have been standing lighting a pipe and when it all hit off he then pulled out a knife.So both stories could be correct.That doorway was a good vantage point.Check the photo of it out.The above situation is very simple and does explain the events.I must have spent 6 months or more trying to unravel what happened at Dutfields Yard.When the horse and cart turned up the killer had already gone. For a start he would have heard the horse and cart coming down the road banging on the cobbles.He certainly is not going to wait for it to pull up into the yard before he decides to leave.It took him no more than a few seconds to cut her throat and leave. |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 08:33 pm | | Ivor,
Why the huge change in MO? Why does, for one time only, he go from leading the woman to a preselected place to kill her to opportunistically plundering another man's attack? Are you trying to tell us that D'Onston happened to walk out of a beer tavern, noticed a man attacking a woman, spontaneously realized that here was an opportunity to kill just the right kind of person in exactly the right pre-measured place to fulfil his magickal ritual, then pulled out a knife and did the job? All just like that? The odds against that happening are BILLIONS to one, Ivor.
Who you tryin' to kid?
David |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 09:28 pm | | Hi All,
Ok, I have to throw my two cents in on this one.(By the way, please excuse me for not looking at my notes and naming every single person as well as their EXACT testimony. It's been a LONG DAY!)
I for one agree with Ivor, about the second man, Schwartz saw being the killer(if either of them was). Let's think about this a moment. Schwartz see's a man speaking with a lady and she is thrown to the ground.(Or possibly trips. However, Liz Stride had bruises on her shoulders, as well as her handkerchief was a little snug on her neck. Either could have occurred by the attacker.) Our second man, possibly Jack (or whoever Liz's killer was, that is if we don't like Liz as being a Jack victim), he is lighting his pipe in front of a pub which has been closed since 9 or 9:30(according to press reports the pub closed at these times, however the press of the day wasn't the MOST reliable source of info.) Now if Jack was the first, he would have been EXTREMELY hesitant in killing a woman who he had been seen accosting.(After all he was never seen with any of his previous victims, not to mention seen attacking them.) However, the second man, was not harming the woman in anyway, and recognized Schwartz as seeing the attacker. This could have set into his mind that if anyone believed that one of these men was a killer, it would have been the one attacking Long Liz.(After all that's the most agreed upon theory, isn't it?)
Also according to Schwartz the second man only followed him a few doors down Berner to the following street. The Second Man could have been just another passerby trying to avoid a scene. Turning away from the attack and cutting down the next street to get away. Schwartz mistaking this man as following him since they were both heading in a similar direction.
Since Liz had cachous in her hand,which is a fact that NO ONE is going to refute, it is logical to suppose that if she was being attacked and fell to the ground, the cachous would have fallen away from her hands in the tumble. However, if she was being strangled, her hands would instinctively clench, which is why one of the packets was found lodged between her thumb and forefinger. Now since Schwartz did not see an actual attempt at strangulation, then wouldn't it be more reasonable that she did not have cachous in her hand during this attack? And rather she had these sweets in her hands later, when she was feeling more safe?
Next, we come to the idea of whether or not Schwartz was correct in the time. The possible answer to this might be found in Demschutz's testimony. Demschutz timed his entering of the yard with a clock outside a Tobaccoists at the corner of Berner and Commercial Road. Schwartz came from a similar direction, so it is quite possible that he looked at the same clock noticing the time.
Now I go onto another debatable topic. Lawende's sighting of Catherine Eddowes and Jack. Let's look at his testimony. The tavern he and his two friends were coming out of was 15 to 16 feet from were Catherine and Jack were supposedly standing. Lawende and the other gentlemen stated that they weren't walking in the direction the 2 people were standing but away from them. Meaning the closest they were to them was 15 to 16 feet. Now we know that there was a Lamp on the OTHER side of Church passage in Mitre Square. Meaning there would have been light on the backs of whoever was standing in the passageway.(Meaning Catherine and Jack.) It was stated in the inquest by either Lawende, or his fellow man, that Duke's Street was poorly lit at the time, so one could assume that there wasn't another light closer to the two, except for possibly a lamp outside the pub Lawende and his fellow men came from. Now let's add Lawende and the two other gentlemen were coming out of a pub. Now this pub would not have been brightly lit, but it would have been much better lit than the street. So you have to take into account the 3 gentlemen's eyes adjusting to the gloom of the street. Now, Lawende, stated that Catherine's back was towards him, which is why he couldn't identify her, but only her clothes.(However, her clothes being dark, as was the woman standing in the passageway, so the woman may not have been Catherine.) Lawende stated that the man was only a couple of inches taller than the woman. Now let's look at this. The man Lawende saw is talking to Catherine, looking her in the face(after all she does have her hand on his chest.) Now since Catherine's back is towards Lawende, and he can not see her face, and since the gentleman he see's is only a couple of inches taller than her, speaking to her, Lawende cannot properly see the man's face. Now take into account the gloom of the street, and that the best light source is coming from BEHIND the man, basically casting more shadow on his face than light, then how is it that Lawende could even see the man's face, much less state his complexion and facial hair?
If you think that this is a little far fetched then try this experiment. Take two people with only a 2 to 4 inch difference in height between them and have them stand 15 to 16 feet away from you one dimly lit night.(It was raining on and off and many of the witnesses stated that the night was rather dark.) Place a dim light(preferable a lantern) about 15 feet behind them, as well as a similar light right above your own head. Now you want to do this after having been in a decently lit area.(Possibly from inside your car with the interior lighting on for at least 5 minutes.) You get out and just glance towards the two people, one who's back is towards you, the other talking to the first, and see if you can make out either one of their faces, within ONLY a few seconds before turning and walking in an opposite direction from where they are standing. I'll tell you now, unless your concentrating REAL hard, your not gonna make out any features, facial hair OR complexion.
Lawende wouldn't be concentrating hard on them, let's remember he's leaving a Pub. Relaxing, if not a little intoxicated. He's with a couple of friends, having a good time. So he would barely have glanced at the two people. Probably only even looking due to the fact that one of his comrades stating how he doesn't like walking about with people of 'that kind' around.
So essentially Lawende's sighting of Jack is unreliable at best. Schwartz's maybe as well, since his story supposedly has changed.(However let's look at how many OTHER testimonies have been different in the papers.) The only other person who may possibly have seen Jack was Elizabeth Long, however her timeline doesn't suit well with the Neighbor who overheard someone say, 'No!' in the back yard of Number 29 Hanbury. So we can't be assured that she saw Annie and Jack.
So as usual, EVERYTHING is Debatable.
Adios,
Chris H.
P.S. One thing I was always curious about is if the first man seen attacking Liz might have been Michael Kidney. I have yet to read a discription of what he looked like, not to mention to see if he was even questioned as a suspect. Also, Liz had filed charges of assault against him before. And she was supposedly seen earlier saying to her companion, 'Not tonight, maybe some other night.' Possibly in answer to Kidney asking whether she'd come back to him?
Also another theory I have about Liz, comes about the blood on the inside and outside of her right hand. The various Doctors couldn't figure out how this happened. Perhaps it was Demschutz as the culprit. Prodding at the body with his whip. Pushing her arm up a few times so it tapped against the wound in her throat?
P.P.S. Nails his two cents up on the wall. Well one and a half. Hey I'm a poor ole' White Boy!
P.P.P.S. This last one is for Cas. 'If I told you you had a Beautiful Body...Would You Hold it against me? I am NOOOO Longer Infected!' LOL!!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 09:45 pm | | | Hi Harry, I would have to agree with you all the way on your comments about what happened in Berner Street.Stride was heard to say to a man wearing a very long coat who appeared to be stopping her from leaving, " No not tonight perhaps some other night".Was this man the same man who was seen in the pub doorway wearing a very long overcoat. Only two sightings were made of men wearing a long overcoat.Dr Bond stated that he believed the killer wore an overcoat. The only people seen wearing long overcoats were the man in the doorway and the man Stride turned down.These two sightings could well be of the same man. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:19 am | | The only undisputable fact about Schwartz deposition is that it tends to prove that the danger for Elizabeth Stride was coming from the street.
All rest is speculation.
Speculation scarcely supported by facts.
Bye. The obnoxious Graziano. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 03:29 am | | Jesse,
I did not say there was never an official document of the Scwhartz testimony.What I have said is that it does not seem to have survived.You yourself say reports and letters only refer to it,but if it is available please let on where it can be found.Quite a few people would like to see it.
The second point is that Schwartz describes two people in detail,while Hutchinson describes one.
Ivor,
It does seem the best possibility.Surely there could not have been more present at that location
than has been stated,what would have been the attraction.
H.Mann. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 04:44 am | | Harry,
Quote:We do not know what was in an official police record concerning Schwartz, as one has not been found to survive.
Hopefully you can see how the above statement could be misleading, as there is an official police record of what was in the statement: Swanson's summary report of October 19. However if you mean the transcript of Schwartz's original statement, then you are correct; it does not survive. Please accept my apology for misinterpreting you.
I feel compelled to point out, though, that it is not true that "we do not know what was in" the statement, unless you have some substantial reason to believe that Swanson's account was inaccurate.
Ivor-
The testimony of the witness you mention, James Brown, should be used with some caution, as there is a strong possibility that he did not see Elizabeth Stride at all. He was not certain about his identification and the woman he saw was not wearing the spray of flowers that was the signal feature of Stride's attire that night and which every other witness remembered. Moreover there are two accounts- one that of Mrs. Mortimer, the other appearing in the Daily News of October 1- that a young woman and her sweetheart were standing in the spot where Brown saw his couple. According to Mrs. Mortimer they were still standing there after the murder had occured.
AAA88 |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 05:43 am | | Jesse,
I do not understand why the testimony of James Brown should be used with caution.
For the exact reason that you suggest it is very clear that his testimony is very accurate and reliable and very precious indeed.
He saw the same couple seen by Mrs Mortimer.
Certainly not Elizabeth Stride.
As for the report of Swanson of the 19th of October, even if I completely agree with you that this is an official document by all means and the problems Harry has with considering it such are very enigmatic, we should not forget than it likely reflects much more the impression that Swanson had of the statement made by Schwartz than what really Schwartz meant.
As for the fact about the trustfullness (is that english ?) of the testimony of Schwartz we also should not forget that there is not the least detail on it that can be corroborated by other witnesses.
Quite the opposite.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 07:57 am | | Hi All,
Ok to help clear up some of the Liz Stride timeline I'm gonna quote from Eddleston's 'Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia'. (YES, I know it's $75, and EXTREMELY thin for the price. However I found the GREATEST maps in this book. His details on the facts aren't the greatest either. But the Maps and Myths section(which I feel should have been LONGER) are completely indispensable. And if you can't afford it, then you do what I did. Ask a well to do family member to get it for your B-day!)
Ok this first timeline is drawn up according to the testimonies made and the witnesses' own calculations.
29 September
11:30 P.m. - William Marshall goes to stand at his front door, 64 Berner.
11:45 P.m.-Morris Eagle leaves the club with his young lady.
William Marshall sees a man and woman not far from his house. They later walk off towards the club.
Matthew Packer sells grapes to a man and woman.
12 P.M.(sic) - Marshall goes back inside
30 September
12:30 A.M. - Packer closes his shop.
Constable Smith walks down Berner, sees a man and woman.
William West leaves the club by the side entrance to put some literature in the printing office.
Fanny Mortimer stands at her door, 36 Berner Street.
West and two companions leave the club by the street door.
Joseph Lave goes into Berner from the club to get some fresh air. He soon goes into Dutfield's Yard.
12:35 A.m.-Eagle returns to the club by the side entrance.
12:40 a.m.-Lave goes back into the club by the side entrance.
12:44 a.m. - Earliest possible time of the attack upon Liz.(According to Doctor's time of death.)
12:45 a.m. - Israel Schwartz encounters the man who calls him Lipski.
James Brown sees a man and woman near the school.(Across from the yard.)
12:54 a.m. - Latest possible time of the attack upon Liz.(Also according to Doctor's report.)
1 a.m. - Mortimer goes indoors.
Constable smith passes the end of Berner in Commerical Road.
Louis Diemschutz finds the body.
Constable Lamb in Commercial road hears of the murder.
Constable Smith arrives at the scene.
1:13 a.m. - Edward Johnston arrives in Dutfield's Yard.
Constable Smith goes to get the police ambulance.
1:16 a.m. - Dr. Blackwell arrives.
The author goes on to explain how this timeline is a little flimsy cause it places Smith in two different places at the same time, as well as having 3 witnesses in the same place not seeing each other, as well as what they DID see of the man and woman was different. Also he states that the only two actual people who noticed the actual time at certain places was Diemschutz(by the Tobbacoist's clock in Commerical Road) and Blackwell(by his own watch).
Next is the author's supposition on the accurate timetable from 12:20 to 1:20 a.m.
12:30 A.M. - Matthew Packer closes his shop.
William West leaves the club by the side entrance to put some literature in the printing office.
Joseph Lave leaves the club and goes into Berner.
12:32 a.m. - West and two companions leave the club by the street door.
12:34 A.m. - Morris Eagle returns to the club by the side entrance.
12:35 a.m. - Lave returns to the club.
Constable smith walks down Berner and sees a man and a woman.
12:36 A.m. - Fanny Mortimer stands at her front door.
12:42 a.m. -Mortimer boes back inside.
12:43 a.m. - James Brown sees a man and woman near the school.
12:44 a.m. - Earliest possible time of attack on Liz. (again by Doctor's reports.)
12:47 a.m. - Israel Schwartz encounters the man who calls him Lipski.
12:54 a.m. - Latest possible time of the attack on Liz. (Again Doctor's report)
12:56 a.m. - Constable Smith passes the end of Berner street.
1 a.m. - Louis Diemschutz finds the body.
1:03 a.m.- Edward Spooner arrives at Dutfield's Yard.
1:05 a.m. - Constable Lamb in Commerical Road hears of the murder.
1:08 a.m - Constable Smith arrives at the scene.
1:13 a.m. - Edward Johnston arrives in Dutfield's Yard.
Smith goes to get the Police Ambulance.
1:16 a.m. - Dr. Blackwell arrives.
Now these times are all approximate, and of the author's opinion. However, I would tend to agree with most if not all of them.
Laters,
Chris H. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:22 pm | | Chris Hintzen :
Tick ! Tick ! Tick !
I really must get around to writing my piece on Stride , only about two months late now !
Simon |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 02:57 pm | | Hokay Ivor, let's try it again. This time please give a reasonable reply, so the Moderator won't delete you a second time.
Once again, please give a reason for why D'Onston radically changed his MO in the case of Stride only. Before and after Stride, he picked up a prostitute, walked with her to what you not implausibly have said was a preselected place, and murdered her there. In the case of Stride only, you seem to say he happens to walk out of a beer tavern and quite by chance observes a woman being attacked by another man in the street. He then spontaneously decides "This is my big chance! She's located in just the right place!" and proceeds to run both this man and a nearby witness off the scene. Then he returns to the woman, who has conveniently not left the scene despite having been attacked there, makes nice with her, and gets her to accompany him into the dark alley. He then murders her, but does not mutilate her, another major change in MO, especially since you say that Diemschutz was not the reason he did not mutilate her.
Whew! It seems to me you are asking us to believe a whole lot here. In order to believe in all these one-time-only changes to the MO, I need some one-time-only convincing evidence. So, I'm still waiting for a civilized response, please.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 04:55 pm | | | Hi David, Read my book it explains it all and then get back to me. Also dont assume things that I have never stated such as, "The man walked out of the beer tavern and quite by chance observed a woman being attacked by a man".Get your facts right first.I do not like wasting my time putting people right who cant be bothered to note my exact words and whom also incorrectly assume too much.THE MAN DID NOT WALK FROM THE PUB. You are the one stating that he did.The pub was closed at that hour anyway you should have known that.I have gone over this ground before and if you would care to check my previous posts then you will find my answers in them. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 05:47 pm | | Hi all,
It's me your friendly neighborhood Sasquatch again.
Ok this time I'm asking a few questions.(Hopefully I've ranted here enough.)
Ivor,
You have a book? I did not know this. Where might I find it? I read just about anything on the case or even similarly pertaining to any individual perceived to be involved and would be greatly interested in looking it over.
David,
Let me ask you, how many victims do you claim that the Ripper is responsible for? Are you sticking with the Canonical Five? (Minus Liz Stride?) Adding Martha Tabram into the mix? Or maybe another possible victim? I'm just curious who you believe the ripper killed.
Simon,
Are you writing a book as well?(Hehe, am I the only one NOT doing one?) If so, let us know when you get it out there.
Alegria,
Do you love me as much as I love you? Hehe, just kidding.
Take Care All,
Chris H.
P.S. Anyone tired of my incessant questioning and rantings?
P.P.S. Anyone tired of all the P.S.'s I do. HEHE! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:52 pm | | Dear Mr Edwards,
Remember PRECISION, MEASURE AND TIMING...your watchwords.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 06:53 pm | | Graziano-
I must disagree with the notion that Swanson's report did not accurately reflect Schwartz's actual statement. Fortunately there is no need to speculate. Swanson's reports summarize the evidence of most of the major witnesses and can be compared with their own words at the various inquests. Is there a single specific instance where Swanson differs significantly from the witness's statement?
As to your assertion that Schwartz's testimony is uncorroborated, this is pure sophistry. Who is there to corroborate Hutchinson's sighting? Or Mrs. Long's? Or PC Smith? Or Mary Ann Cox? Please. You can do better than this.
Regarding your statement about James Brown- it's a neat trick. Very elliptical; very Sphinx-like. You manage to project an aura of great sagacity. Is it too much to hope that you will explain exactly what it's supposed to mean?
It's a shame. I thought this was one discussion where we would be on the same side. Ah, well.
AAA88 |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 08:05 pm | | Ha I'm not writing a book ! I don't even have an original theory for the case , I'm going with Joseph Sickert's theory.
It would be better I think if people investigated the older suspects a little deeper , rather than bringing out another book suggesting a brand new suspect with only a flimsy tie to the case - to be honest , it could have been half of London's male population ' whodunnit '. We could keep on pulling suspects out of a hat for ages yet ! |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 08:49 pm | | From Chris Hintzen,
Q: "How many victims did the Ripper have?"
A: I go with the solid six: Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 09:03 pm | | WARNING.
I am finding time and time again that people will argue a point and refer to the A to Z to back them up.
One example is that many people will state that the victims picked up Jack the Ripper. They then refer to the A to Z to enforce this point.Some will refer to page 217, 3rd para,GEORGE HUTCHINSON, it states."Hutchinson watched her proceed toward Aldgate and pick up a client near Thrawl Street".Kelly did not pick up this client he picked her up. He approached her and tapped her on the shoulder. People should proceed with caution when using the A-Z as a reference work because it contains many mistakes which the authors are aware of.
Hi Rosey,Thanks for reminding me. When I went to Bucks Row the old wooden pier was still attached to the(West) brick pier. So I mearsured the depth of the wooden pier. The stable doors came to the inside edge of this wooded pier.The depth of the stable alcove( from the front of the wooden pier to the inside edge ) was wide enough for a couple to stand in the corner of the alcove without being seen from the cottages or either end of Bucks Row.In fact I carried out tests to see if a couple standing in the alcove would be seen from various directions. Nichols was found with her left side in line with the stable door and her left arm was in line with her body againest the stable door. Her feet were nearly touching the West wooden pier this being the West corner of the stables. She was not found on the pavement in the street as such but rather on the pavement in the stable alcove.Her right arm was pointing in the direction of the guttter.The position of the body indicates that she was standing in the corner of the alcove facing it when attacked from behind and simply laid down. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 09:33 pm | | Hi Chris, Ihad 1000 books published which sold very well.Then I had an offer from a large publishing company and I have signed a contract with them. One condition of the contract was that I do not sell books published under the name of Penny Publishing.This is the name of my publishing company. Penny is the name of my cat!!! The revised edition of my book is to be sold world wide and is due out in the summer.
So the rest of my books have gone into storage and will be collectors items when they appear again in a few years time. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 08:02 am | | Hi David,
Hate to cause another arguement, however I noticed how you were making the point to Ivor about Jack changing his M.O. for one and only one victim.
However, you include Tabram in the mix as one of Jack's victims as well as Mary Kelly.(Now I myself count Mary Kelly as one, and I'm still on the fence on the Tabram debate.) However Jack's M.O. was quite different with Tabram. Two different weapons. There was a possible throttling, however no one is entirely sure if this took place. After all the wounds on Tabram suggested that she may possibly have been standing up during the assault. Also, both Tabram and Mary Kelly were both indoors, yet another change in M.O. (Yes I know Tabram wasn't actually in a room, but they were within a building on a stairwell.) Then you also have the Facial Injuries that Jack did to Eddowes and Mary Kelly, when he didn't do any to Nichols(who he may have been disturbed in his attack), Chapman(who he had much more time with, due to the exactness of his removing of her organs), and Stride (who he was definitely disturbed by something.) And then of course you had the SEVERE mutilations that he was responsible for with Kelly.(Which many say is the reason he wasn't responsible for Kelly cause it was SO much different than the others. However, the majority of us, myself included believe it was only because he had that much more time with her.) So his M.O. had been flunctuating throughout the case.
Let's all remember, Jack only killed a few women with the same M.O.(He may have killed others in different ways. Hence why Abberline thought George Chapman may have been Jack.) Some profilers would call this a 'Fledgling Killer.' Trying to decide what was the best way to appease his fantasies.
I myself don't have any opinion on who Jack actually was. I can't even come up with a good motive.(Anyone got one to spare? hehe) I have a theory on how he chose the women he had(Compared to the THOUSANDS of Prostitutes in the area. Although according to police there were only 1200 KNOWN prostitutes at the time, I do feel the number was MUCH higher.) However since I'm new at this and it seems a little half-baked, I'm gonna save it till I do more research.
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 09:02 am | | Jesse, Jesse, Jesse,
try to think like a criminal.
Leave the established experts rely on facts.
Many of these could have been fabricated anyway.
When a witness is dangerous you kill his testimony.
This is a truth much more precious than many facts.
And it is not subject to any interpretation.
Hutchinson had time and light (whatever Bob Hinton and Harry Mann may say).
Schwartz had only his two balls (as Bob Hinton and Harry Mann do say).
Bye. Graziano who will come back.
P.S.: Hutchinson was corroborated a priori by Sarah Lewis. Not because she said a man was there, but because she described his physical characteristics and Abberline could check them. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 09:53 am | | Just a little guidance for the thread, too many people are starting to confuse M.O. with signature. Also remember, a killer's fantasies are always perfect, his actual living out the fantasies may not be.
Peace,
Scott |
|
|
|
|
