Archive through 05 February 2002

** 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 05 February 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : "No way it was a Lone Serial Killer": Archive through 05 February 2002

Author: graziano Friday, 01 February 2002 - 10:41 am
Scott E., No Taliban is going ever to hand you over Mullah Omar, even for 50.000.000 USD. So try to guide yourself out of your reality and fantasies. Bye. Graziano.
Author: David Radka Friday, 01 February 2002 - 08:04 pm
Chris, There are changes to MO and then there are changes to MO. Tabram to Nichols is probably a developing MO. Facial mutilations to Eddowes are probably no change in MO, all things considered, because it doesn't involve how he kills. Indoors with Kelly? Well, maybe, but it is just a little change in MO. Maybe he was planning to do more murders inside as a development of his MO, but had to stop for other reasons. But Stride is a HUGE change, and not a development, it is a one-time-only abnormality. Here he attacks a woman in the presence of witnesses, on the street (not in a hidden place), he does not go for the throat but throws her down, he continues aggressive behavior in the presence of male witnesses, he makes no attempt to mutilate, he does not strangle, he uses a different kind of knife, he apparently attacks Stride twice, he then further goes on to kill a second time that night, on and on. When I talk about change in MO, I am talking about what it is worthy to talk about, a REAL change. The other changes are more or less variations on the theme, or developments. Think of it this way: If you want to really understand the case, what change in MO do you most have to explain? Would the change from Tabram to Nichols tell you much? I don't think so. Would the one-shot deal of Stride? I think so. David
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 01 February 2002 - 08:45 pm
Dear David, Under great pressure...desperation...throwing the hunters off the scent...confusing the issue...or just plain crazy? Rosey :-)
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:18 pm
Rosey--Here's what I think David is suggesting. We know 'R' is entirely capable of luring prostitutes into alleys and committing his brutality unseen. Yet, in the case of Stride, we have a bungling public display. Using Ockham's razor, what is the answer for this change in method? Clearly, it is 'R' creating an eye-witness [Schwartz] who will report to all ears the cry of 'Lipski'. The necessary sound-bite to go along with the visual display[ie., the Goulston Street Graffito]. Thus, the scene is now set for Robert Anderson's triumphant return from Switzerland. [I figured this out while shaving]. See you another day, RP
Author: David Radka Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:46 pm
Yes! Can't you see this is what I've been trying to tell you all along? The only part missing is the entrance of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Archbishop Ripper (A.R.) You've all been BLIND I tell you. David
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 10:11 am
Dear RJ, D.R's "J.R." is "A.R." returning to "R.A." Or, "R.A." and "J.R." as Judo-partners! "R.O." Or "O.R." :-)
Author: Simon Owen Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 10:21 am
RJ , surely the bungling public display is exactly what it seems - a bungling display unwittingly revealed to the public !!!. I think you may have unwittingly bought into the myth of Jack as 'superman' , the killer who was never caught because he never made a mistake , remember we must be careful not to ascribe superhuman qualities to our killer. The Ripper creating an eyewitness ? No guarantee he will tell , and surely he could identify those involved also. Why go on to then commit a gruesome and horrible murder in Mitre Square afterwards ? David , your theory is unravelling so you should reveal it to us before we cease caring !
Author: David Radka Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 10:25 am
My underwear is unravelling, that's what. David
Author: Scott E. Medine Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 10:33 am
Dear Graz, I would offer the Taliban dudes a cup of coffee or a couple of quarters for a coke for their information. Since that's about what Mullah and Binny are worth. Peace, Scott
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 01:36 pm
David, Sorry to put you more on the defensive but your change in M.O. theory is a little far fetched. You've already stated that it was a slight change in M.O. with Mary Kelly for Jack to kill her indoors. However Martha was also killed indoors. Yes not within the privacy of a room, but out of the street where all could see him. Like he had with all the other women. Secondly we're all assuming that the first man seen to be attacking Liz Stride is the killer. We already know there was a second man at the scene, who may possibly be Jack. And we also know that where Liz was killed was only a few dozen feet from yet another street, where even a third person could have come up, after seeing two people run away from the street(In this case Schwartz and the Second Man.) Yes this is of course adding a Third Person who wasn't even seen in the area by anyone, however you claim that Jack was sly enough not to be seen. And let's remember this, if the killer was disturbed by the sound of Louis Diemschutz's cart coming down the street, that would mean that if the killer is Jack he must have only killed Stride a minute or two before Diemschutz's pony could be heard clip clopping in the street. So you are looking about 8 to 10 minutes between the time that Stride was seen by Schwartz till the time that she quite possibly may have been killed. That's plenty of time for a 'GOOD SAMARTIN' to come up, help her off the ground, and brush some of the dirt off of her. Making her feel nice and safe, she wanting her breath to smell sweet for this nice gentleman, placing some sweets in her mouth, beckoning him back into the darkness of the yard, till he suddenly catches her by the neck and strangles her before slitting her throat. Also, the Doctors in the case never fully refuted that the knife used to kill Stride was not the same one used to kill the other women. He did state however it could not have been the blunt-ended knife that was found in Commerical Road.(This I have found to be OFTEN confused as the knife that Jack used.) You also say that Jack wouldn't be spotted by one witness, as he was attacking a victim. However, I ask you, why the same man would be spotted by three other men, as he was talking with another victim? I mean if he's smart enough not to be seen attacking one woman, don't you think he'd be smart enough not to be seen with another that he was about to kill? Now let's move on to Mary Kelly. You say M.O. is only how he killed the victim. Correct? Well by the evidence given by Dr. Bond, it appears that Mary Kelly wasn't even strangled before her throat was cut. Want proof of this? There was a small cut in the corner of the sheet, as if the sheet had been over her head. Also there is a small cut on her right thumb, and the abrasions on the back of her hand.(The abrasions probably caused by her hand instinctively jerking from the cut and smashing against the wall that she was lying close to.) Also there is the arterial blood spray along the wall, meaning her heart was still pumping. Yes it is possible that the Ripper was strangling her at the same instant that he sliced her throat. However, I find this unlikely, since the sheet would have been in the way,(For if he was strangling her with that, there would have been a MUCH LARGER cut along it as well as the blood spray would have been contained within the sheet, and not against the wall.) and Jack would have risked cutting himself, not to mention the fact that Mary may even get lucky enough to wriggle free of his grasp and get away from him(She was a bit of a scrapper according to Barnett and her friends), or even give out a scream that would have had others running down to see what the commotion was.(Yes some say they did hear the cry of 'Murder', and that a cry of Murder was commonly heard in the area, however do you think Jack, the man who wouldn't risk being seen attacking Stride, would risk the possibilty of someone catching him attacking yet another? After all people had been coming in and out of the court all night.) So either Jack shifted his M.O. several times, the different victims were all killed by different hands, or maybe even Jack didn't strangle them to kill them, but rather just to make them unable to cry out?(Mary may have been sleeping, remember she had been seen with at least one man, and according to some testimonies with several, as well as the fact that she was rather drunk the last time she was seen alive.) There is also one matter that I seek clearing up when it comes to Schwartz's testimony though. Most people claim that the Second Man was lighting his pipe in the doorstep of the Pub 'The Nelson'.(This is according to the Press Report of Schwartz's testimony.) However, The Nelson was on the same side as Dutfield's Yard. And Schwartz claimed that he wasn't sure whether or not the, 'Lipski' comment was made to him,(As he was standing on the opposite side of the street away from the attack on Stride.) or to the Second Man.(Of course in the Press Report the Second Man had a knife not a pipe, and he was the one who shouted it as a warning to the First Man.) However, the only building across from the yard is a School House, which goes all the way down from across the club to the corner of Fairclough Street.(God, how I LOVE a good Map! The one I'm refering to is in Eddelston's Jack the Ripper Encyclopedia.<<<Shameless Plug...LOL) Now according to Schwartz's Police testimony the shout was made by the First Man, and appeared to be shouted to a Second Man on the opposite side of the street. So where exactly was the Second Man? If Schwartz wasn't sure if 'Lipski' was shouted at him or the Second Man, then logically this would mean that the Second Man was on the same side of the Street as Schwartz(Next to the School.) However, most books you read on the subject always have the Second Man standing in front of The Nelson.(This being the Press Report version, yet diluted, for the fact that they still say the First Man shouted Lipski, and the Second Man was only holding his pipe in his hands.) Sincerely, Chris H. P.S. Just for Rosey this Quote from Good Morning Vietnam, 'Well we better get some M.P.'S to protect the V.P. at the L.Z. otherwise the V.C. may make him M.I.A. and we'll all be on K.P.!'
Author: Jack Traisson Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 06:25 pm
Hi Chris, I would like to clear up a few comments about Schwartz. In Swanson's summary, Schwartz witnesses the assault, then: "On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a man standing lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man standing on the opposite side of the road, 'Lipski'." This statement has caused some confusion because we know the pub was on the same side of the street as the I.W.E.C. It seems to suggest that the man with the pipe was on the opposide side of the road to the attacker. I believe what Swanson meant was that the man with the pipe was on the opposite side of the road from Schwartz. Later H.O. files refer erroneously to the man with the pipe being on the opposite side of the street. Quoting The Star in regards to Schwartz's story: "but just as he stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of the public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the intruder." The Nelson was located about three dwellings up Berner Street from Dutfields Yard, making it a terrible lookout for an accomplice. An accomplice would be best situated at the corner of Fairclough St. and Berner St. Thus, the shout of 'Lipski' is doubtful as a warning. And used as a racial slur, it could have only been directed at Schwartz, for he was the only man of semetic appearance in the street. Abberline said he had "a strong Jewish appearance." Stride's assailant and the man with the pipe did not. Cheers, John
Author: Simon Owen Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 06:44 pm
Chris H , another interesting point about MO. So Mary Kelly was NOT strangled or half strangled or choked , apparently. Or if she was , it was only to prevent her screaming , to daze her and shut her up. Thus when her throat was cut , the blood pumped out all over the wall. Now , this is Modus Operandi. This is NOT Signature. Quite frankly the killer wasn't bothered about blood spraying everywhere , he still walked away from Kelly's body the same way he walked away from Nichols , Chapman et al. So , why would he be bothered about blood spraying everywhere in the case of Annie Chapman ? No blood at the scene apart from a few spots though... Simon PS : any chance of reproducing that Berner street map here ? Does it have positions of streetlights and wall-lamps ?
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 07:48 pm
Hiya Jack, I went back through some of my books and see that you are right. Swanson does make it rather confusing about what side of the street that Schwartz's 'Second Man' was standing. As I flipped further into my notes, I looked over Inspector Abberline's report of his questioning of Schwartz. He states, 'There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting his pipe.' Again this can be confusing just like Swanson's report, but only due to the fact that Schwartz wasn't sure whether the 'Lipski' comment was being made to him or to other person. I of course got confused because I didn't even think that Schwartz may have been looking towards the Second Man when the shout was made. So thanks for clearing that up for me. (It's often the simplest solutions that we overlook.) Simon, There is quite the possibilty that Jack had choked Polly, Annie, Liz, and Catherine to near death.(If not until they were completely dead.) If it were the former then their hearts would be pumping much more slowly so that there was only a much smaller splash of blood from the wound in the throat. In the case of Annie, she was rather close to the fence and the blood splatter from the wound was only a little over a foot from the ground.(This of course doesn't take into account that her throat itself would have been at least a couple of inches off the ground. Now I mean throat not neck. Since I do believe Annie's throat was slashed as she lay on the ground.) Now Liz, who was even closer to the wall had even less aterial splash, however in her case the severed arterie was closer to the ground, so even if there was a large splash it would have been directed more towards the ground rather than the wall. Now in Polly's case there is less evidence about the blood in the area, asides from the fact that there was blood underneath the body.(Some believe this is because she was murdered elsewhere and then her body was dumped by a coach. Masonic Theory anyone?) However, I believe it was because at first the case wasn't as important. After all there is MUCH less information on Polly's demise as compared to some of the others, and the fact that no one, asides from the press that is, was believing in the idea that a Serial Murderer was on the loose killing prostitutes in Whitechapel. Lastly there's Catherine, many of the diagrams of her body appear to show a light blood splatter around her throat, however the blood pooled closer to her lower body. This may be because Jack didn't wait for the majority of the blood to seep from her throat, possibly in fear of being 'interrupted' like he did with Liz, or maybe just due to the fact that there was a small slope in the pavement there and the blood just flowed down the incline. As to your question about my reproducing the map, I'd love to do it for you(as well as posting the other maps), problem is I don't know how to put a .jpg onto the board. Anybody know how it might be done? Also, to your second question, the map doesn't detail lamps unfortunately, this particular one stretches out further from the crime scene to show the distance to the railway arches that Schwartz ran off to. However it is rather cleverly labeled as to certain businesses and buildings in the area, which is one of the reasons why I enjoy the maps so thoroughly. Now in the cases of Kate and Mary they are a bit more detailed with lamps and other such things such as water taps labeled in, yet ANOTHER plus for them. And lastly another question I have for everyone. Has anyone thought about what Jack is carting off the organs in? I myself am against the theory that Jack is walking around with a Doctor's bag or any satchel at all, since this would not only draw attention to himself but it would also be scaring off victims. So if he is carrying the organs on his body, what is he putting them in to keep himself from being drenched in blood?(Possibly Catherine's Apron, which he dumped in Goulston Street? Maybe some other article in the case of Annie and Mary? After all no one knows for sure everything the victims had on their person or within close proximity of their murder.) Adios, Chris H. P.S. One other question that keeps perplexing me...What is Jack doing with the organs? If they are trophies he will probably be preserving them. However, where is he keeping them? I mean if he lives with others, has visitors, or even if he just lives within the area of Whitechapel there is the GREAT possibility that his little treasures would be discovered, which would give him a STRONG urge to keep them elsewhere.(Unless the fact of having a heart in a jar can be easily explained away. Jack the Doctor? Jack the Proffesor/Student?) So if he his putting them somewhere other than his residence, then where is he keeping them? Or maybe he revealed it to us through Mishter Lusk when he stated that he fried and ate tother part of the Kidne and it was very nise?(Hehe, sorry I don't believe in the Lusk Kidney but just wanted to show how, 'Huked On Fonix Reely Wurkz Fur Me!')
Author: John Patrick Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 08:48 pm
WHAT'S this...no Royal Arch or Black Brotherhood conspiracy?...for Christ's sake lads...surely you must be codding! And what of lower degree Masons, James Kent and James Green? These Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nuthin' I tell ya boyo!!! Round up all of Hanbury I say! I can hear Albert "Cadoche" still laughing...From hell. Grand work indeed. John P.S. Hanbury Street presents a tincy wincy problem for the Lone Killer Theorist
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 07:56 am
Hmmm...have you been drinking something there John ? You 'll need a scanner to put a picture on the Boards Chris ! My point is this : when Jack killed Mary , he wasn't worried about the bloodsplatter up the wall : therefore , my contention is that Jack wasn't worried about bloodsplatter in the other cases either. If he strangled the women , it was to subdue them in preparation for cutting their throats and the lack of bloodspray was a mere side effect of this. Thus Jack did NOT strangle the women to reduce the amount of blood spraying around , this was something he simply wasn't worried about. He strangled the women to subdue them. John , the Chapman case presents problems for everyone's theory !!!
Author: Chris Hintzen Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 09:38 am
Hi All, Ok, I was gonna wait till I finished reading a few more books before I gave out my little theory, but since people say that Chapman causes a problem for everyone elses, and it helps me with mine, I thought I might reveal it. However, let me state that this is a newbie theory, it doesn't exactly have motive, or point to any suspect. It's mainly just how he chooses his victims.(Also it being a newbie theory, it hasn't had the chance of being backed up or debunked by major research that every good theory deserves.) Ok, we all know that Serial Killers are dreamers. The acts they are responsible for are products of their sick and morbid fantasies. These fantasies are typically brought about by some feelings of inadequacy.(Whether they be from childhood or recent stress.) I think Jack is choosing his victims because he is finding them in need of a savior. Bear with me on this. In the case of Polly Nichols, no one knows what exactly happened to her within the hour that she was reportedly last seen alive till the time that she was found murdered. There are bruises on her face, which correlate with either fingers, and on the opposite side of her face, one possibly from a fist. Now we all know Jack is strangling his victims.(I myself believe he is doing this with his bare hands, cause it makes him feel MORE powerful.) However there is a problem when it comes to Polly. The bruises are both on her jawline. One is said to be either the imprint of a thumb(or fist) while on the other side it appears to be fingers. Now as a simple experiment try strangling yourself.(I know this is silly but again bear with me.) One hand placed over the other. The pressure of the upper hand could cause bruises along the jawline, however if you notice squeezing your jawline doesn't cause you to choke, as well as it hinders your ability to place more pressure on your other hand, which is firmly pressed against your throat. I think that one set of the bruises on her face is from Jack's fingers, but the other bruise is from a fist.(Of course this is SERIOUSLY debatable, as is most other things in the case. And even if it is, it might possibly be Jack's fist.) However, I think Polly may have gotten into a fight, possibly with a client or fellow prostitute. She lost this fight, and Jack happened to witness it. So he sees himself as the 'White Knight' coming up to save and protect her.(Yet another reason why the women trust him.) Now why does he kill her afterwards? I don't know. Next we go to Annie Chapman. Cadoche, one of the neighbor's to 29 Hanbury, was going into the backyard of his dwelling a little after 5 A.M. on the 8th of September. He stated that he heard someone say, 'No!' and then a few minutes later heard something hit up against the fence inbetween Number 29 and Number 27 Hanbury. Most people believe that if Cadoche, looked over the fence he would have seen Jack at work, but I don't believe it was Jack he would have seen, but however someone else robbing and assaulting her. Here are my reasons. One the rings are missing, no one is sure what happened to them, however, most people feel Jack took them. Second her pocket is torn, and the items within it is on the ground. Jack never did this with any of the other victims, he was typically rather carefull not to tear their clothes. And thirdly, let's look at the area. It's extremely poor, it's near a market where people go to do their weekly shopping. And lastly, in dim light Annie's rings could have been mistaken for gold, so someone walking on the street that early morning may have thought they were. I believe that either Jack noticed Annie go off with the gentleman into the back of Hanbury Street and maybe even followed them into the passageway and watched the robbery take place, or watched as the man snuck away from 29 Hanbury pocketing the rings.(This of course is VERY Flakey I know, but like I said this is a NEWBIE theory.) Now things could have gone 2 ways after this attack on Annie. Either Jack went into the Yard, again swooping down like a Knight in Shining Armor, or he could have been the man seen talking with Annie in front of 29 Hanbury by Elizabeth Darrel(Long), possibly consoling her with his charm and then taking her back into the yard and killing her. Next we go to Liz Stride. This victim helps prove the theory much easier due to Schwartz's testimony.(Eventhough I know MANY people in the field discount Liz as a victim.) I feel that the First Person that attacked Liz was not the murderer. This could have been some simple drunk accosting a prostitute, or in one idea I have it may even be Michael Kidney.(I haven't found any testimony or questioning by the Police to find out where Kidney was at the time, however, I'm SURE he was a suspect after Liz's death.) But anyways, Jack could have been the Second Man, merely following Schwartz a dozen or so feet, angered that the Man wouldn't help the lady(maybe even following him to see if he went for a cop.), or maybe Jack wasn't the Second Man, but rather some other man who came onto the scene. And as I explained in my earlier post, he seemed to be the 'Good Samaritan' consoling Liz, causing her to drop her guard. Next is Catherine Eddowes. Now the police testimony stated that it would only take her about 8 minutes to get Mitre Square. So what had she been doing for the next half hour? I think the cuts in her dress may help give some idea. There are several cuts to her dress, which of course may have been caused by Jack in his haste with her. He being worried that he may be disturbed as he had with Liz. However it could have also been caused by someone else assaulting her.(This of course is PURELY conjecture since there is NO actual evidence to prove the cuts to her clothing wasn't caused by Jack's knife.) However I also think that she may have been struck in the face as well(maybe not by a knife but by a fist), the damage Jack did to her with his knife would cover up these wounds. His cuts may have been caused by his frustration that he was interrupted in his assault on Liz, maybe Catherine reminded him of something of his past, or maybe because her face was damaged making his fantasy incomplete?(Again this is ALL conjecture since there is no way of proving any of this. Also I know that there were bruises on both Annie's and Polly's faces, however maybe the damage to Catherines was more severe?) However, Lawende, if he truly did see Catherine with the killer that night, stated he didn't see her face. That he only saw her from behind, asides from noticing her hand on the other man's chest. Again this can be Jack consoling her. Also, there is the bruise on Catherine's hand. This I think may have been caused by Jack during his strangling of her. He, being the 'Good Samaritan', hearing how she had been assaulted, her money possibly robbed from her, or maybe even her telling him how she had no money to get a decent bed, was about to place a coin in her hand. He then grasped her hand tightly the coin inbetween his and hers, causing the bruise to her hand, as he squeezed her throat.(He possibly held her hand to keep her from being able to raise it in defense. She being somewhat groggy from her bout with drink would have made it easier for him to strangle her with only one hand.) Lastly we come to Mary Kelly. We already know George Hutchinson was standing outside Miller's Court that night. Not only does his testimony say this but also, that of Sarah Lewis places him there at 2:30 a.m. Now George didn't come forward earlier after the death of Mary, who he stated had been a friend of his. Why? Also, most people don't believe this description he had given of the man he saw Mary with, this includes myself. So why didn't George come forward sooner? I think our friend George was up to no good. He being aware that Kelly and Barnett had split, as well as the fact that the prostitute that Kelly had staying with her had procured other lodgings, this made her a good mark for a robbery. Now according to Barnett's testimony the key to the room went missing around the time that he and Mary had the fight that ended his residency there. Now Barnett claims that it was because of the prostitutes staying there. My theory is that he was upset because that not only were prostitutes staying with Mary causing her to go back to her ways(which she probably had been doing ever since Barnett lost his job anyways.), but because the key went missing at the same time, worried that possibly one of these unfortunate ladies she was taking in would eventually rob them blind, or the fact that since the key was gone, they couldn't properly lock the door, giving access to anyone who wanted in. Mary being drunk at the time, tossing something at Barnett, or maybe even just walking over to the window, smashed two panes in the window, in her defiance, showing Barnett that all Barnett nad her would have to do is reach inside and Lock and Unlock the door.(I know this isn't very logical cause this also allows anyone else access, but we're dealing with Drunken Logic here.) Now the fury of this argument could have made some nice little gossip, and maybe George overheard that the room would have easy access, or maybe even one of the prostitutes had taken the key and was together with George in the crime. Either way, I think George was staring into Miller's Court, waiting to see who would enter and leave.(Possibly waiting for a man he saw Kelly with to leave, so that she would be alone.) He waited a while, waiting for her to fall asleep. Snuck in, start to silently route about the room. Kelly starts to wake up, notices a man in the room with her, cries out 'Oh, Murder' in which case George knocks her out and high tails it out of the room, leaving the door wide open.(After all, if the lock is a spring lock it would have to close for the lock to engage, and no ones testimony stated that the door would automatically close of it's own accord.) Now I feel Jack was on Dorset Street at the time of Mary's scream. He noticed George rushing out of the court. Then noticed the door lying open. Looked about to see if anyone was going to give aid. And when no one did, he being the 'GOOD GUY', walked into the room to see if everything was all right. Mary lying there unconcsious making her an easy victim. So he closes the door behind him, slashes her throat, and then proceeds to do his dirty work. Later George has to come forward due to the fact that he was spotted, but not wanting to be a suspect in a murder he wasn't responisble for, he comes up with the WELL-DRESSED man to give up to the Police.(Now of course this entire slaying is probably more fantasy than reality, but like I said, I don't have enough evidence or proof to back it. And since I haven't had the years of research background behind me as all of you have I wouldn't have the evidence even if it did exist.) So this is my theory. I don't believe Jack goes out to intentionally kill. He probably only carries the knife on his person as protection from the hard streets of Whitechapel. He finds these women that need to be helped, so he comes, 'Riding up to them like a Knight in Shining Armor'. There to protect the defenseless, to help the helpless. This is how he gains their trust. This is how his fantasy comes alive. This is how he combats his feelings of inadequacy. Now why does Jack kill them, after he attempts to be the GOOD GUY? I don't know.(Maybe cause he can't always protect them, unless they are dead, and no longer need to be protected? Maybe it's because of someone from his past he couldn't help? The ideas are endless.) Why does he take the organs? Perhaps they are part of the same fantasy, or a way to remember his power? However, yet again I don't know. But as I said, this is a NEWBIE theory. And like all other theories I'm sure it will be ripped to shreds. But hey, it's criticism that helps us find our mistakes and gets us to improve. So whatever you guys want to say to debunk my theory go right ahead, you may even get me to completely change my Newbie little mind on the idea. I just haven't seen too many theories on why Jack is choosing the women he is.(Asides from the silly Masonic Theory, or just the fact that they were drunken prositutes.(However, in this latter theory those that support it don't seem to recognize that there were at least another 1000 drunken prostitutes out and about the time Jack chose his pretty little five.) Sincerely, Chris H. P.S. Thus endeth another Long Rant by the Sasquatch from New Orleans. LOL
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 05:00 pm
RADKA VS EDWARDS. Our dear collegue Ivor Edwards posited the theory of Jack's Unicyclical Diasporae Operandii (JUDO), that, Jack's progression vis-a vis, the canonical five murders was predicated from a central point: Precision: Measurement & Timing. Furthermore, the suspect was named and the conclusion was that Jack was neither more than nor less than ONE. Mr Radka pointed out that, if this was the case, how would he explain the involvement of more than one person AT THE VERY PLACE where a canonical murder took place on the exact perimeter of Edwards's established LOCI ? Answers please! Rosey :-)
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 05:42 pm
READERS OF 3000AD. If you access this archive after the global war of 2001. We warn you that there is an axis of evil at large in the world. We have no power over it! REPEAT. NO POWER OVER IT. Rosey :-))
Author: david rhea Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 10:34 pm
If Ivor is correct' there was more to this that just prostitute murder. Why not see if there is anything to it without pot shots from the rear.There may be nothing to it, but it is just as valid as all this other verbage. Actulaal how much do you know about Victorian Black Magic?What was Crowley tring to achieve? He was in the same path as D'Onston. Not much is now known about him, but he warrents an investigation.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 04 February 2002 - 09:05 am
Did I hear someone think..."a remarkable coincidence"? Yet, according to Mr Edwards, all such remarkable coincidences lead him to a definite conclusion...there are no such coincidences without forethought. Did Jack make his getaway on a Penny Farthing? Rosey :-)
Author: david rhea Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:05 am
Maybe he just got back on the main crowded street and got lost in the crowd.No matter what you think of Ivor and his interpretation something might come of it if it got a small bit of the attention that James Maybrick is getting.I think you are right-'there are no coincidences without forethought'.What was the forethought?
Author: graziano Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:38 am
I must admit with David Rhea that all the attention that Maybrick is getting on these boards is someway puzzling and questioning. My only wonder is what the question could be ? I must also admit with him that Ivor Edwards theory contain important elements that bring a new perspective in all the case. My only question is why so much silence around it ? Or is it only an impression ? Bye. Graziano.
Author: david rhea Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:59 am
Graziano; THANKS-To categorize a person's scholarship because of temperament is utterly ridiculous.There are some subtle assassians on these boards who operate with snideness.What the person puts forth is what the discussion is all about. Personality should fade into the background.Is Ivor's research true or is it reasonable.If so then you have to deal with it seriously.I'll bet when Cornwell's opus comes out the dicussion will be serious. I really appreciate your comments
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 04 February 2002 - 02:20 pm
David, Dont take any notice of those that just spout rubbish for the sake of it.Such people never contribute anything of value.Most of the time people dont know what such folk are rambling on about anyway, I know I dont.They are the resident cuckoos who are best ignored.Only fools talk in riddles David and only fools listen to them.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 04 February 2002 - 02:38 pm
Graz,You have hit the nail on the head my friend, Why such silence around it? Yes indeed. I posted a message to this effect yesterday did you read it? I am glad that you and david and many others are aware of the snideness and sniping etc which is in evidence. In many instances of research certain evidence appears which threatens to upset the apple cart and the general beliefs held. So what do people do? They go silent hoping the new evidence will go away.Well it is not going to go away and neither am I. The general public will be my judge along with those who know what they are about. The fools will be seen for what they truly are.
Author: Jesse Flowers Monday, 04 February 2002 - 03:56 pm
David- There's something going on here all right, but it has nothing to do with character assassination or whatever you're trying to imply. It is an attempt by a small number of individuals (together with their sniveling sycophants) to dominate discussion and stifle debate through sheer volume of posts (yourself and one other individual account for 47% of the last day's posts, not counting the Maybrick board) and by becoming hysterical and insulting whenever someone has the temerity to question their harebrained theories. Now...that's not too subtle for you, is it? AAA88
Author: david rhea Monday, 04 February 2002 - 04:47 pm
I get your point-In what category would you put' their hairbrained theories' sir.I am glad you read my posts, I will try to give less of them in the future. Let me hear from you then-What position do you put forward?We're not talking about hairbrained theories but the amount of time that is given to James Maybrick.Do the hairbrained theories have any possibility of truth in them if not why don't you point out all the mistakes that you feel have no basis in fact.At least that would be the beginning of a fruitful discussion-you being the leader.I look forward to your lead in the discussion.
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 04 February 2002 - 05:39 pm
David,I see the big girls blouse is at it again.Ha Ha Like I said David just ignore the idiots. You have as much right to post here as anyone. At least your posts make far more sense than those posted by such morons.You will note David that some of these types dont practise what they preach about name calling.Two faced to say the least.As for flowers dont let the gutless little coward bully you into writing less posts.If he does not like what you or others write then he can clear off.
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 04 February 2002 - 06:38 pm
Dear Rosemary, Re your above post regarding coincidences. We must never lose sight of the fact that sometimes coincidences are just that. Here's three that defy all logic. In the late sixties I was in Australia and met a chap at a private dinner party who had met my sister in Windsor three weeks previously! In 1974 I bought a car from my brother in Swansea. The number was DTX 83G. I was living in Hampshire at the time. A year later I moved to Nottingham and the chap living next door to me owned the same make and model car reg no DTX 84G. Four years ago my brother found the garage next to his in Swansea had been broken in to. Repairing the damage he sought out the lady who owned it. Over a cup of tea he discovered that his grandfather and brother had married this ladies mother and aunt in 1904 in Barnstaple. What are the odds of these occuring? Billions to one against yet they all did. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: John Patrick Monday, 04 February 2002 - 07:50 pm
Hi, Simon Not even a wee dram of 1994 Cabernet! (not anyway yet):-) Nevertheless, we need to plunge into the Masonic Abyss that was Hanbury Street. What are we to make of this motley "crew" of Gypsies, with their implausible stories and their Masonic names and symbolisms? Along with "Juwes" (lower degree Masons) Green, Cadoche and Kent, we have of course, John (Jack)Tyler. Using the Masonic, Knights Templar symbolism for "tyler" and the French translation of "tailleur", we arrive at: Jack, "one who cuts". So, not only do we have James Kents' very bizarre testimony describing how he believed Annie Chapman fought for her life and how she looked as though "she had been sprinkled with water or something", possibly a reference to holy water; we also have a man whose name practically translates to "Jack the Ripper". Now if only Amelia Richardson was a "fisherman's widow"... Hmm...lets see...Knights Templar...Inner Temple...Druitt..."suicide" by stone "masonry" in the watery Abyss...if only he was last seen on "Blackfriars" Bridge. John
Author: John Savage Monday, 04 February 2002 - 08:41 pm
The whole saga of JTR is full of coincidences, that's what makes it so interesting. So here is another one that you may not have heard. According to Jean Overton Fuller, Florence Pash father was a shoe maker in the East End of London (Hackney or Leyton I think). Catherine Eddowes bought a pair of boots on return from hop picking in Kent. She bought them from a boot maker in Maidstone called Pash! Now as far as I am concerned this is just pure coincidence, but if anyone wants to build a conspiracy theory or whatever around this please do.Johnsavage
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 04 February 2002 - 09:32 pm
Bob,Let us also remember that in many criminal cases situations which have appeared to be coincidences were found to be otherewise. So it works the other way as well.By the way you never finished explaining to me why Abberline would tell a lie to his superior about stating he believed Hutchinsons statement when according to you he did not believe it.Also what evidence have you got to show ( apart from an idea) that Abberline stated he believed Hutchinson's story when in fact he did not?
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:06 pm
Dear Ivor, Please! No more jokes concerning Wandsworth Prison 'Hospital'. Read what Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons had to report about this "sink of iniquity"...six years ago, was it? At the cutting edge of Forensic Medicine...hardly. And you still have not answered the question: were the two men seen to be collusive just minutes prior to the Stride murder...a coincidence? Make my day! Rosey...a wee fibber:-)
Author: David Radka Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:17 pm
There are no coincidences in the Whitechapel murders. All occurances are typical AR. David
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 01:40 am
David- No thank you- I have no desire whatever to be the "leader" of anything, save myself. Hopefully you're not confusing a refusal to be intimidated or shouted down with a desire to "take over". Much as I would enjoy it, I would rather not do what you ask, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I'm already bored of the whole thing (everybody else is too, probably). Secondly, it would only play into this individual's apparently insatiable need to constantly be at the center of attention (mommy and daddy are to blame for this, I suppose). And finally, I think it would be a trifle unfair, since I will not respond to (or even read, for that matter) anything that is posted by the individual in question. However if you, David, insist upon it, I may post a small sampling of the fly-by-night assumptions and demonstrably wrong statements made by this self-styled expert. And at that point I will have no compunctions about fairness, because you will have asked for it. And since I will not respond to him, he is already guaranteed the last word, which he obviously craves so desperately. AAA88
Author: brad mcginnis Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 02:54 am
Ivor, congrats on having your work picked up by a major publisher. I wish you sucess! David...many of us are not ignoring Ivors theory, its just that we dont have access to the book and wont have until summer or fall of this year. Unlike the Maybrick monstrosity that has been around for 10 years or so this is a new work. I feel it would be stupid and ill advised to make any comment about something I havent read. This isnt a case of being closedminded, rather one of being fair. Also bear in mind the Maybrick folk have their own joust going on that the rest of us arnt a part of. (sorry for the dangling particible) Brad
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 04:35 am
Simon--Hi. I wasn't really buyin' nor sellin' but was only facilitatin'. J So, no, I'm not saying JtR was a superman. But let's say I accept David's statement that the 'MO' for Stride is radically different than the 'MO' for Chapman, Nichols, etc. Wouldn't the first and most obvious impulse be to suggest that she was murdered by someone else? Liz Stride is the Rubicon, the Mason-Dixon line of the Whitechapel crimes; cross it if you dare. But I'd say this. Before I make any generalities about the Whitechapel crimes from the Stride murder scene, I'd need a very solid reason for accepting that she is part of the 'canon'. What's it going to be? The 'Dear Boss' letter's reference to a 'double event'? Robert Anderson's insistance that there were six murders [the canonical five + Tabram?] Or is it merely a matter of 'time & place', ie., within 45 minutes and a shortish walk from Eddowes? To Chris Hintzen, who makes some valid points, I'd ask one question. Is it very likely that Stride would be attacked twice in 20 minutes or so, and the two attacks not be related? All other evidence being absent, don't we have to settle for her being murdered by the brute that threw her to the ground? Stride yelled out, but not very loudly. Now, there's no doubt whatsoever that Stride knew the horrible fates of Emma Smith and Annie Chapman in every gory detail. If it was me, I'd be screaming and clawing like Crazy Jane. Since she wasn't, what might this suggest? Cheers, RP
Author: Bob Hinton Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 05:41 am
Dear Ivor, Many heartfelt congratulations on your good fortune with your book. I made the offer to explain myself about Abberline but didn't get a response or what is very likely - I missed it. I would be more than happy to set out my ideas and thoughts on the matter. What board do you suggest I put them on? all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 08:03 am
Hi R.J., Thanks for some of the ideas your bringing up. It helps me when I do more research in my little newbie theory. As to your questions: Yes, Stride would have called out bloody murder, unless, one or two things had happened with the first assault. One, the attacker was someone she knew, and possibly knew had a bit of a violent streak when drunk.(Hence, another reason why I think the First Man may have been Michael Kidney. As well as the comment overheard earlier by her saying to the gentleman she was with, 'Not Tonight, but some other time.' Possibly her answer to Kidney asking when she might come back to him? Or maybe even an answer to a question by a regular customer of hers?) The other reason she may not have screamed out, is if her falling down was partially an accident. As others have said, she may have just tripped over her own feet as the gentleman clutched at her. And since she screamed, and he saw Schwartz run off, he may have thought people may have heard her scream out, meaning the cops or even a LYNCH Mob would soon be on his heels, hence he ran off.(We see many occurances of people in the street molesting some innocent man for doing nothing but lookin suspicious. Just think what they would have done had they heard a woman cry out in the night, and found a man standing over her?) Now your question about how Liz was attacked twice in the same 20 minutes and there not being related. Well they sort of are. As I stated in my reasons why Jack chooses his victims, He wants to appear to be a savior. The 'GOOD SAMARITAN' helping those in need. Let's not forget how bad the streets of Whitechapel are. There is evidence given in many testimonies about fights in the streets, assaults at coffee stalls, and people's cries of murder unheeded. Now I'm not saying Whitechapel was a DEN OF EVIL. Quite the contrary. It was of great Strife and Hardship, but those that survived it should be APPLAUDED, RESPECTED, and ADMIRED. I've seen the inner city streets here in New Orleans. The Inner City Project Buildings. The Ghetto's. The Hardship those who aren't as fortunate as so many of us go through on a daily bases. I've worked in them. Worked with these people who many say are nothing but lazy no for good rejects. But I tell you this, I have never met a more HARDWORKING group in my life. Never met a people with MORE HOPE AND FAITH in all of my years. Yes drugs and alcoholism is rampant. Yes there are shoot-outs.(One in which I witnessed first hand.) Yes there is robbery, rape, and prostitution. Yet these people who have been the downtrodden by the masses still live. They still laugh, and find merriment. With all the Chaos around them, they find their own form of order. Now this area I speak of is VERY MUCH like the Whitechapel of the 19th Century. Even more so than I had once thought.(Especially after I read Jack London's 'People of the Abyss'. A FANTASTIC book in case you ever wanna know what Whitechapel was really like.) There may not be Doss Houses, but there is Government Housing, where families of a dozen are cramped together in small rooms. There are still homeless living off the scraps thrown away into the streets. There are still areas of the town where the Police dare not enter. And there are even 'Vigilance' Committees out to protect the people. So I do feel that I do understand Jack's 'Hunting Ground' partially well. If ever you want to truly understand Whitechapel. Go to a major city. Find out where the poorest of the poor live. Work there for a few years.(Or even live there for a couple of months, if that is at all a resource you are capable of making.) Talk with the people on an equal level. Let them see that you are just one of them. Trying to get by. And most importantly, be OBSERVANT of everything around you. Then maybe you'll understand what Whitechapel truly was. Maybe a Den of Evil, but only because of a Society that would force ANYONE to have to live like that. But mostly you will find a people that deserve more admiration and respect than this world can ever give them. Perhaps in the next life, they will? We can only hope. Sincerely, Chris H. P.S. Anybody remember the film Seven, 'A woman being raped is taught to not scream out Rape, but rather FIRE. People hear Rape, and they can care less. But you cry out Fire, they come a running.' You think that's just a fictious story made to jazz up a film? Go into the Inner City, and you'll see it's not!
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 04:17 pm
Hi Brad, Thanks for the kind words. In fact I e-mailed someone last night explaining that only a few people on the boards have read my book.When I signed the contract with the publisher I had to withdraw my book under my publishing name owing to a clause in the contract. As you so correctly stated others will have to wait now until it is published again.Thank you very much for explaining to David.Best Wishes.