Archive through 05 December 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 December 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : The Policeman...A Real Suspect at Last..: Archive through 05 December 2002

Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 05:32 pm
For the record, the only suspect who not only fits all of the requirements for mobility and anonymity within the East End AND who would explain why the police pulled their extra forces out of said area after Mary Kelly's murder within a shorter period of time than had elapsed after previous murders is a member of London's Own. I suggest that if someone were ambitious enough to find a patrolman who worked in the Whitechapel area and was either murdered, committed, or who committed suicide after this murder, he or she would have found our man at long last.
Author: Philip C. Dowe Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 02:18 am
Hi Jeffrey, Well said! And you were faster than me. At this moment in time I am making a list of all the policeman mentioned in files and in all books that are in my possession. When this list is complete I will go through the 1881 and 1901 census data and try and find out where they were. It would not only explain the mobility and anonymity, but also knowlegde of Whitechapel and the possibilty of being at the crime scenes when the victim was found. A lot of serial killers enjoy going back the crime scenes and a policeman could easily explain being there. Yours, Philip
Author: Stan Russo Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 12:06 pm
Jeffrey, The police did not pull their extra forces after the murder in Miller's Court. James Monro steadily increased patrols until about February or March of 1889 when they were phased down. The murder of Alice McKenzie saw the increase of patrols. The murderer could have been a policeman, so keep up the research. STAN
Author: spaceyram Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 12:27 pm
Jeffrey, There are two names that I have read in JtR books as policemen suspects, One is Thick the other is Spratling. I have nothing to back this up other than what I read in these books. I did myself consider Spratling after reading a book by Mark Daniel, suppposedly based on a conversation with Godley, who was involved quite tightly with Abberline. There were 4 outcomes presented, leaving it up to the reader to decide which one he or she thought was the actual Jack. Whether or not this book is a total fabrication I do not know. You may or may not have already read this book and discarded it as rubbish, if not, then you may be interested in looking it up. regards spaceyram,
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 12:36 pm
Jeffrey--In regards to your hypothesis that the "police pulled their extra forces out of said area after Mary Kelly's murder", I would contend that the exact opposite is true; it was the morning of the Lord Mayor's show, and all extra forces were in the west-end. Quite possibly, the murder of Kelly took place at the exact moment when police presence in the area was at a six-week low. Regards, RJP
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 03:24 pm
Spaceyram - Mark Daniels' Jack the Ripper is total fiction. It was designed to be the novelisation of the David Wickes' television film starring Michael Caine as Inspector Abberline, so that while the underpinning of events is correct (five women were butchered in the East End in 1888), the details and conversations are imaginary. Spratling has never been a credible suspect, though the idea of a policeman as killer is worth a look. I am not, off the top of my head, familiar with Sgt Thicke being proposed as the Ripper, and unless one of my more knowledgeable counterparts can enlighten me post-haste, I shall have to paw through my books over the weekend to track down that particular theory. Cheers, CMD
Author: Jack Traisson Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 03:52 pm
Hi CMD, Let me save you some time. Check out Chapter 31 of the 'The Ultimate Sourcebook', An Allegation Against Sergeant Thick. A crank named Haslewood accused Thick of being the Ripper. Cheers
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 05:18 pm
Certainly a police officer could be a valid suspect, but I don't get at all why anyone could jump to the conclusion that only a policeman could have done it. That's a huge assumption unsupported by evidence. Lots of serial killers get away with murder even with the police on a manhunt, and since not all of those (nor even a sizable minority) have been police officers, it's only logical that Jack wouldn't have had to be a policeman either. Assuming that Jack would have had to have died or been locked up is also another incredible leap of logic unsupported by other serial murder cases. It's a shame that so many people fall for that extremely old error. You can't catch a serial killer by chasing after false assumptions, without the pure blind luck of stumbling onto the murderer by accident. Dan
Author: alex chisholm Thursday, 28 November 2002 - 09:43 pm
Hi Jeffrey While I share Dan�s reservations, if you�re looking for a constable Jack, the Star, 20 Nov. 1888, page 4 throws up a possible candidate. A CONSTABLE ALLOWED TO RESIGN. The death of Richard Brown, aged 36 years, until recently a constable in the Metropolitan Police, stationed in the E division at Hunter-street, who shot himself in Hyde-park on 16 Nov., was the subject of an inquest at Westminster last night. Mr. L. S. Torre, of 3, Percy-square, King�s-cross, said he had known the deceased about 10 years, and last saw him alive on Tuesday, 13 Nov. He said he had resigned his situation in the police force, and added that he was going either to Mexico or to Africa. He was a sober, steady man, and said he had saved about £130. With the exception of witness, who was his second uncle, he had no relations. Witness complained that because one of his cards was found upon the deceased, someone at the hospital informed the news agency that witness himself had committed suicide. Inspector Austin Askew, of Hunter-street Police-station, stated that the deceased was guilty of not going on parade for night duty at a quarter to ten, and he was allowed to resign. Temporary insanity was the verdict. Wrong division I know, but right profession and timely demise. Possible Jacks have been suspected on less. Best wishes alex
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord Friday, 29 November 2002 - 07:41 am
Cool. At least as likely as Druitt!
Author: Robert Maloney Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 05:05 pm
Hi, All: I'm not suggesting any connection to the graffito, but what is the probability that Walter Dew pronounced his name Walter Jew? As an American, Dew would always be pronounced like "do". But I have a "feeling" that the British might pronounce Dew as Jew. Is there any chance of this? Thank you. Rob
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 08:32 pm
Rob, as you know, you would pronounce EW as OO, the British pronounce EW as EEOO. Rick
Author: Robert Maloney Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 09:08 pm
O.k thanks, Rick. Rob
Author: Timsta Monday, 02 December 2002 - 01:03 pm
Rick, Rob: Not generally in the East End or other 'estuarial' dialects. As in: "Here is the NOOS, for Cockneys!" If you have cable, there's a popular English soap called "EastEnders", which airs on the BBC America channel. That should give you some idea of the accent. Regards Timsta (ex-Hackney resident)
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter Monday, 02 December 2002 - 07:39 pm
I appreciate all of your input and I must ask Mr. Norder the question: Doesn't the notice from The Star that Mr. Chisholm posted (which I had never seen prior to this moment) coincide very nicely with my hypothesis? After all, are we all out to solve a mystery or rather to chase our tails endlessly? It seems to me, as it must to all of you, that we can build a case around almost anyone of course. But, as for 'it having to be a policeman'--doesn't it just feel right in regards to all of the small bits of luck and strangeness associated with this case? I mean, are we really to believe that the authorities had absolutely no idea who this man was?
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter Monday, 02 December 2002 - 07:44 pm
Mr. Norder, I must also say, and please do not take me as being of a combative nature, but serial murders DO NOT STOP. They may cease for a brief period, but two things are ALWAYS certain: 1) the person WILL kill again, and 2) the killings will INCREASE in intensity in order to keep the same level of thrill, power, and control. History as well as any given 'expert' in the field will support me on these items, I believe. Thanks again, Jeffrey Kerstetter
Author: Howard Brown Monday, 02 December 2002 - 08:25 pm
Dear Jeff...."but serial killers DO NOT STOP"....Angelo Buono,one of the Hillside Strangler duo did....Maybe this is an anomaly,I dunno.....
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 02 December 2002 - 09:55 pm
Hi Howard, You are indeed correct some serial killers have been known to stop. One case in particular that I recall is of a serial killer giving himself up to the police simply because he was not gaining the notoriety he expected. Also I find it strange that some people doubt that the police did not know who the ripper truly was.In our own time many serial killers have murdered dozens of victims yet the police have no idea who they are. This is in spite of all the scientific advances etc which were not available to the police in 1888.Jack is (in general) attributed with killing 5 victims in Whitechapel if most prolific serial killers stopped at 5 victims then the majority of them would never be caught.
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 12:07 am
Jeffrey, Ivor is correct. Some serial killers do stop. And some also relocate, change their methods, or otherwise take steps that make the extremely difficult to track. I don't know who mislead you into believing otherwise. I also think it's pretty ridiculous to assume the police had to know who the killer was. Some serial killers today go uncaptured even with all the advances we've had in forensics and criminal psychology since the Autumn of Terror. You are assuming that a normal citizen couldn't have gotten away with the killings and that the ripper must have had special connections of some sort. The history of serial murderers proves that notion wrong. You may accuse me of "chasing my tail" because I don't want to jump to any irrational conclusions. I think keeping an open mind and using what we do know about serial killers (instead of popular misbeliefs) to make conclusions is vastly superior to chasing what's most likely the wrong tail just for the sake of having a tail to chase. And, please, dispense with the "Mr." stuff, that's an outdated tradition that these days usually seems more like it's showing disrespect instead of showing courtesy. Dan
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 09:38 am
Serial killers are addicts. The drug addict is addicted to narcotics. The alcoholic is addicted to alcohol. The gambler is addicted to games of chance. The sex addict is addicted to sex. The serial killer is addicted to killing. Like most addicts, the serial killer canâ��t stop. He may want to stop at times and, in fact, may try to stop, but like the majority of addicts the serial killer will simply give in to his/her addiction once again. Some addicts do stop, so do some serial killers. I believe that it was Ed Kemper that telephoned police from a pay phone to surrender himself. The harsh reality is that most addicts that have stopped will give in once again to their poison. When this happens, they usually go over board. Rehab for addicts is rare, in the case of drug addicts, they usually become homicide or correctional department statistics. In the case of gamblers and sex addicts, they usually leave behind a broken marriage and family and find themselves in huge financial debts. Iâ��ve never like the term serial killers. It leaves to many killers out of the fold. I do not believe that all serial killers are sexually motivated - - although I believe the Whitechapel Killer was - - as some people are just plain evil and enjoy the thrill of the kill. In my opinion, John Wesley Hardin was the most dangerous man in the American West, he is officially credited with the shooting deaths of no less than 40 men, including one who was snoring too loudly and another because Hardin said, â�� He knew he ought not to be messin with me cause I was drunk.â�� It is unknown how many men Hardin actually killed. His killings took place during Reconstruction and most of his victims were Federal Marshals, Union Soldiers, Free Blacks and Mexicans, all of whom were despised by the average Texan. So in essence, his own account of 40 men is pretty conservative. Some historians say you can almost double that number. Hardinâ��s father was a fire and brimstone Methodist Preacher who made no attempt to spare the rod on young John. His mother was extremely devoted to his father and viewed John as an angel who never did anything wrong. Yet, John Wesley Hardin is not considered a serial killer. Peace, Scott
Author: Brian Schoeneman Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 11:46 am
Scott, Ed Kemper was the guy who called police from the pay phone. He had killed a number of young coeds, then killed his mother, cut out her tongue and shoved it into the garbage disposal. Lovely. He was a big fan of the police, had tried to join on a number of occasions, and all of the cops knew him. Which leads me to another question - I wonder if the Ripper had similiar notions? Were there any records kept of the people who applied to the Met or the City Police and got rejected? What about the vigilance committees? Did they keep records of their members? I could completely picture Jack being a member of George Lusk's vigilance committee - and it would answer the question I've always had as to why he (assuming he did) sent the kidney to Lusk and not to Matthews, Warren, Swanson or Abberline. That would be an interesting avenue to walk down. B
Author: David O'Flaherty Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 11:55 am
Hi, Brian Regarding possible reasons Lusk got a kidney in the mail--just prior to this, Lusk had been receiving some publicity in the papers for trying to get the government to issue a reward. There was also a story about a character stalking him a week or so before the kidney was sent. Lusk might have received special attention because his name just happened to be bandied about around the time someone got an urge to mail a kidney. Cheers, Dave
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 01:24 pm
Brian, Joseph Barnett was supposedly a member of Lusk's Vigilantes,--- supposedly!! Rick
Author: Brian Schoeneman Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 02:34 pm
Dave, God...I know way too much about the whole reward business - it's part of my paper...I'm arguing that the HO should've offered the reward just to shut up people like Lusk. There were a lot of people who's names were in the news, and I would think that the killer would've gotten more press had he sent it to a higher ranking official, or police officer...that's why I think sending it to Lusk is odd. Unless the press accounts did influence him, or unless he knew Lusk and was gleefully rubbing the head of the Vigilance Committee's nose in the killings. As for the stalker, I didn't know that...have to read the press accounts closer next time. Warwick, I wonder if whoever proposed Barnett was a member has a list? Or if perhaps those records remain extant? B
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 02:43 pm
I think I have asked this question a number of times on these boards, but no one chooses to answer, maybe you can Scott. There are way too many among us who are ready, willing, and able to kill,-- kill children, old people, women, --and able bodied men,-- if they can catch them unawares!!. They kill singly, or in multiples. I look at the problem the same as the law did--50,60 years ago, if a man kills once, he can do it again, it doesn't matter whether he will or not, capital punishment will stop him from doing it again, it takes away the risk. In my opinion thats the way it should be,--if the case can be proven,-100% In films and some historical books, some killers are looked on as some sort of hero, in the Gangster Era, there were what was known as Hit-men, they would kill time and again--if the price was right, they must have liked what they did, so, they killed for pleasure too!!! even those who employed them were not above a little murder here and there ,-- if it was safe, were they Serial Murderers?. In that romantic period of the Wild West, there were the Gunfighters, gunslingers, these men made the best sheriffs,-- they lasted longer. Men, some may think of as completely respectable, the Earps, Wild Bill Hickok, Sheriff Tom Horn, all sheriffs and marshalls, but all gunfighters, (and serial murderers? Rick
Author: David O'Flaherty Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 03:07 pm
Hi, Rick You wrote: "if the case can be proven,-100%" That's the rub though, isn't it? A couple of states over here have suspended carrying out executions (temporarily) because it's turned out quite a few of Death Row prisoners were actually innocent. And the are lots of other mitigating factors to consider as well (at least here in the US, where wealth dictates what kind of defense you receive). Here's an article from the New York Times that might interest you: Texas Death Row Appeal Lawyers Criticized I'm all for executing some of these really evil bastards walking around (like Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped and murdered Polly Klass), but I think people often forget the appeals process is here to protect the average citizen (so they won't be falsely accused and executed). Okay, Rick--sorry to interrupt as I know your post was aimed at Scott. I just though I'd give you one point of view (of course there are others) from a country where they're currently executing people (even retarded ones). Cheers, Dave PS It's occurred to me that many notable killers use three names: Richard Allen Davis, John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, etc. All we have to do in the JTR case is find someone using their full name. New evidence against Montague John Druitt? (I'm just kidding here).
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 03:26 pm
Ivor, In regards to the Hillside stranglings, yes you are right--one of the men, the 'follower' of the two--did indeed stop. This is ONE example out of how many? And in regards to 'popular myths'about those who commit these types of acts and without getting into who does what for a living, I wish to assure you that I am a man whom you would consider to be more than 'well-read' on the subject of human predators. All of this aside, why attack these 'popular myths' without addressing the suspect I have put forth? Who makes more sense bearing all of the facts of the case in mind than someone on the 'inside' so to speak. I also wish to make clear that I do not believe for one minute that the police knew the identity of the Ripper during the time of most of the murders--but tell me honestly please, do you really think that they would have told the public if and when they discovered that the man they had been searching for turned out to be one of their own? How secure could any Londoner feel after such a revelation? This scenario would explain an awful lot don't you think? I mean, is it really so easy to believe that anyone but a police officer could have escaped the notice of the denizens of the East End over and over again? Even today, prostitutes in major American cities have been of great use to police investigators on several investigations--these women know their regulars and they know the freaks. Sometimes I really believe that no one actually wants to get to the bottom of this thing. And again, what about the Constable mentioned in the Star? Isn't that just a little too coincidental? I also hardly think that a 'serial killer' who turns himself in actually bolsters my contention that these people DO NOT STOP. That is why Edmund Kempler (who, by the way, is really considered a 'spree killer') turned himself in--he knew that he would not stop--again with the adiction angle. Are we really to believe that a man who committed these atrocities actually woke up one day with a newfound respect for women and life in general? Just wondering... Jeff Kerstetter
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 03:30 pm
To all: I most sincerely hope that my chosing to use the title 'Mr.' as a form of respect to persons whom I have not met face to face did not have the opposite effect. I don't pretend to understand the logic, but I will do my best to comply. Jeff Kerstetter
Author: Howard Brown Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 04:22 pm
Dear Jeff.Don't sweat it...some people are overly tightassed and don't mind embarassing others. I use that "Mr." reference too,out of cyberspace respect.You were just being nice........ Regarding your claim that the "follower" ceased killing in the Hillside Stranglings,who told you that Bianchi was the "leader"? You got it backwards,buddy.....Buono was senior to Bianchi and his role model...What made him stop is anyone's guess..maybe Scott Medine could tell us.
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 04:48 pm
Rick, To be honest, i do not know, however; I read an interesting article not long ago. I think it may have been in Esquire Magazine. The article basically stated that scientists have been able to isolate a gene that was found in a group of career criminals, a so called Demon Seed. This could explain a lot in regards to the way a criminal thinks and acts. As I stated before, some people are just plain evil and there is no way around it. I am sure you have seen these people. No, matter what is told to them, no, matter what they say, they will continue to make life miserable for all those with whom they come in contact. These people are predators. Some people prefer to call them career criminals, habitual violators or repeat offenders. What do we do with them? I do not know. I do not even profess to know. I do not believe in Capital Punishment, but that argument is not for here and I will not discuss my stance on this any further. We are faced with serial offenders of all types, rapist, arsonist and burglars. Where do we draw the line at serial and habitual? Crime for some people is an addiction, be that person a serial killer, serial rapist, habitual drunk driver or repeat drug offender. Deciding who is and who is not a serial killer seems to have fallen on the FBI. Many of you know how I feel about the studies conducted by the BSU. I think they are extremely flawed and too many killers have fallen through the gaping cracks. Why is Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dalhmer and Wayne Williams considered serial killers when L.A. gang member Monster Cody Scott is just a thug. Scottâ��s body count is far higher than Bundyâ��s. Scott even amputated a rivalâ��s arm and hung it on the wall like a trophy before mailing it to the rivalâ��s family. Scott, a member of Los Angelesâ�� notorious 8 Trey Gangster Crips, was quoted as saying, â�� I kill Bloods when I see Bloodsâ�� and â��Busting a cap on a Blood is just as satisfying as blowing a load in bitch.â�� One can argue that the average person would have nothing to fear from Scott or his gang banging homies unless they found themselves in the wrong area of town or they were gang members themselves. But the same could be argued for any serial killer. The average person would have nothing to fear from Bundy unless they were a young female. The average East Ender would have nothing to fear from the Whitechapel Killer unless they were a prostitute. So, if serial killers are sexually motivated then one could argue that Monster Cody Scott is sexually motivated, why isnâ��t he a serial killer? If one argues that serial killers are mentally disturbed individuals then it can be countered that John Wesley Hardin heard voices and was delusional and extremely paranoid, why isnâ��t he considered a serial killer? Peace, Scott PS If this conversation contiues along this line maybe a new thread should be started.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 06:18 pm
Jeff, It was Howard who mentioned the Hillside Stranglers I just agreed that serial killers are on record as ceasing to murder. The point is that it really does not matter how many serial killers stopped killing. The fact of the matter is that some are on record as doing so for various reasons. Therefore it would be a mistake to simply assume that JTR did not fall within that catogory just because they lack in great numbers.A policeman with inside information could have committed these crimes but then so could any other number of professions.The killer may have been someone in a position to get information from the police. There has never been any evidence as such to show that the killer may have been a policeman it has only been assumed that he was. Newspaper reports are not evidence and I could show you various newspaper reports that put foward 4 names as finding Stride.From my personal viewpoint I do not believe that a policeman fits the full bill for these murders and without any evidence as such to show to the contary there is nothing. Look at Druitt for one example he is a suspect simply because he killed himself and a high ranking policeman stated that the suspects family thought he was the killer. The policeman avenue along with many other paths which have been trod over the last 110 years or so have produced nothing of any consequence and it is time to move on.The same old ground is covered time and time again hence one reason why a new approach is required.
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter Tuesday, 03 December 2002 - 11:55 pm
Valid points all. 'Overly tight-assed'..hahaha. At any rate, an interesting idea worthy of pursuit, this policeman thing. As for another train of thought, what do you guys make of the FM on the wall behind Mary Kelly in the photo of the murder scene? I mean, if the 'Ripper Diary' is a hoax, why are these letters there? And yes, i've already heard the Freemason thing. I also understand that they could have been there prior to the murder and as such we may well be expected to know nothing of them, but why would they have been there already? Oh, and for the record, I will never believe that someone who does these sorts of things will ever be able to walk among civilized men indefinitely without doing so again. At any rate, I am curious about the letters on the wall thing and am enjoying greatly having this level of input on the matter. Take it easy, Jeff Kerstetter
Author: Dan Norder Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 12:11 am
Jeff, There is no FM on the wall. The darkness that some people see as letters is on recent copies of the photo, not the originals. I think it's the result of someone writing on a folder or envelope and accidentally leaving an impression on the photo copy. And even if you assume that a serial killer would have to keep murdering people, you still have to account for the possibility that he changed his methods or moved. Dan
Author: Brenda L. Conklin Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 02:01 pm
This is a very interesting thread! Scott - as someone who survived the hell of a prescription drug addiction, I was alarmed to find out I am on my way to becoming a homicide or correctional department statistic!!! Just kidding. I understood what you were saying, and I know relapse rates for all addictions is high. I am always a little suspicious of the fellow addict who brags that they've never relapsed once, something doesn't seem quite right, but I can't explain it. Because relapse IS common. But with all the addictions, even the "killing addiction" (though I have to admit I've never heard of murderous tendancies referred to as an "addiction"), there is certainly help and salvation for the motivated individual. I imagine a serial killer could probably "hit bottom" same as an addict. I believe serial killers can stop killing...its been proven already that several have. It is my understanding that a big motivating factor for cessation is if the killer fears police are suspicious of him. Even though police can't follow everyone 24/7 forever, there are probably some paranoids are there who wouldn't be able to overcome the conviction they were being followed. I also believe it possible that a serial killer, in his own demented way, can have a sort of "spiritual awakening"...especially among the higher I.Q. killers. The more introspective ones realize how abnormal they are and I do believe they could be motivated to change. However, I believe these that stop killing are the exception rather than the norm. To continue killing until incarceration, death, or suicide should be considered one of the defining factors of a serial killer. I first became interested in the JTR case just this year, and I have done a LOT of reading these past few months, and not just JTR. One thing I have learned is that these killers are very complex personalities, and not one seems to entirely "fit the mold" we've created for serial killers. "They are unable to form meaningful relationships with other women." - I watched a documentary last night where the killer of at least 4 women was in a steady relationship with a girlfriend. Now just how HEALTHY this relationship was, I can't say, but the point is that he was maintaining a steady relationship with relatively few problems. There are a lot of examples of serial killers with girlfriends, wives, kids.... "They cannot hold down jobs" - Ditto on this one too. They CAN hold down jobs, although they do seem more prone to quitting/getting fired often. "Jack the Ripper's mind 'collapsed' after the murder of MJK" - why do people think this?? The man enjoyed what he was doing, why would this cause him a nervous breakdown? Well, suddenly I have to go so I got to cut this off, but I am enjoying the thread a lot and would be interested in hearing your replies. It's SNOWING here, its so pretty! :-)
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 07:24 pm
Hello Dave and Scott, I hope you don't mind me answering you both together. I would hate to have an innocent man put to death for a murder that he did not commit. When a man comes through a trial for murder and the verdict, "guilty" is a bit iffy, he should be sentenced to a lengthy prison term,- for the sake of society as well as the prisoner. Further investigation can go on while he is serving his sentence, and he can be paid compensation if he is eventually to be found innocent. But there are those in gaols here and in the U.S. who are known to be the most obscene killers, in my opinion they should have faced the chair or the rope. Dave you mention the appeals process, put there to protect the average citizen, but what about when they are allowed to appeal over and over again, and after serving 10 to 12yrs they are executed anyway, is that fair treatment? I don't want cold killers or hot sadistic killers executed for revenge, I want them gone for the good of society. I don't think we should be so cautious with the death sentence for convicted killers,it's not so barbarous, not after the World Trade Towers, The Russian Theatre, and Bali night club, maybe the death sentence is what these murderers are looking for, it's all murder, but it is getting grander, instead of five, one at a time in the dead of night, now, JACK takes two or three thousand on a bright sunny morning,---and gets two or three HIT-MEN to do it for him All the Best, Rick
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 08:39 pm
Hi Jeffrey, I understand the position you have taken and I don't want this to seem that everyone is ganging up on you. That the killer may have been a policeman is possible. Yet I would have to agree with most of the posters. That the killer got away with these attacks really isn't very mysterious - especially considering the level of scientific expertise available to law enforcement at the time. Several murders of women apparently unrelated to the "Ripper" crimes during the same period went unsolved. Even to this day, so-called experts in the case cannot even agree as to the number of victims. The methodology of gathering and analyzing evidence made crime solving nearly impossible. As so many researchers and authors have said, in order for this killer to have been captured he would have needed to have been literally caught in the act. Regards, Rich
Author: Scott E. Medine Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 09:25 pm
Brenda, In my opinion, you are in the one percent that have made it. For every one of you there are a hundred who don't make it. I have seen the effects of addiction and it is not pretty. You are to be commended. You are one of the few with a drug addiction that has overcome your obstacle. Peace, Scott
Author: Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 10:40 pm
Dan, Are you sure about those letters? I just want to get a good source on this, only because they do appear as long ago as 1988 and their location seems oddly perfect with the letters seeming to end right at the body's edge. Also, for a random scribble of two letters to creat a dark pattern on a photograph seems a bit out of the ordinary as well. I don't doubt you, i'm just curious as to wether anyone in here has ever seen the actual pics and also as to why no one ever commented on them before the whole 'Diary' thing. But I do admit that one would think the police would have noticed them at the time. Again, just curious. Also, Druitt has been a favorite suspect of mine for years,(prior to my police fixation, of course) what's the group consensus on him in here? Jeffrey Kerstetter
Author: Dan Norder Wednesday, 04 December 2002 - 11:08 pm
Jeffrey, The whole FM fiasco has been well covered in many threads on these boards. Some people see the word "Hart" on the wall (supposedly to indicate what organ was taken), while others think the "Hart" is a distorted "Mary." Some other people see "Kelly" ahead of it, which is where some of us got the idea that someone wrote "Kelly, Mary" on an envelope that had a copy of the photo in. As far as random blotches looking like letters, there's the thread where a bunch of people talked themselves into thinking that Jack cut the word "FIVE" into Mary's face. This really isn't the right thread to discuss Druitt, but I will say he seemed a lot more plausible of a suspect until he was placed at a cricket tournament that was almost certainly too far away for him to get to Whitechapel for one of the canonical killings. Dan
Author: Chris Phillips Thursday, 05 December 2002 - 04:46 am
Dan Norder Apologies for continuing the off-topic remarks about Druitt, but I've seen that cricket suggestion several times and can't understand it. The cricket matches in which Druitt is usually said to have played are: 21 July at Blackheath, 3-4 and 10-11 August both at Bournemouth, 1 September at Canford, Dorset, 8 September at Blackheath. I've seen it suggested that (1) The August matches indicate he was probably in Bournemouth for the week between the matches, making him unavailable for the Martha Tabram murder in the early hours of Tuesday 7th. (2) The murder of Mary Anne Nichols, about 3am on 31 August is too close to the match at Canford the following day. (3) The murder of Annie Chapman, 5-6am on 8 September, is too close to the match at Blackheath later that morning, said to have started at 11.30. Granted that Blackheath is within easy commuting distance of the City, I can't see any impossibility there, and still less in the other two.