|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
How Many Victims?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
How Many Victims?
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 12:00 am |        | Hi Dan,
I have stated that the numerous differences between the Kelly killing and others lead me to the conclusion that she may have been slain by someone other than person who murdered Chapman, Nichols, and Eddowes.
I have claimed no statistical analysis that leads me to that conclusion - only the fact that the differences to me seem significant. I fully acknowledge that Kelly may have been killed by the murderer known as Jack the Ripper. I simply believe there is room for doubt.
You have insisted that statistics on serial killers leads you to the opposite conclusion. I have asked you to provide any study or finding that supports your conclusion. You have provided none. Please share with me the research on serial killers you say I am ignoring - what are these scientific studies you are referring to?
Your final paragraph I disagree with on three counts:
1. Your insistence on statistics about mutilations to the womb, breasts, and face applies to only two of the alleged five victims.
2. Similiar style killings ascribed to one person and later found to be victims of different killers is not uncommon.
3. What data do you have to suggest that such killings are rare? Upon what research do you come to the conclusion that two different women mutilated in similiar but different styles are necessary the work of the same killer by "astronomical" likelihood. Where is your evidence?
4. Your definition of "same time" is debatable. Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes were all killed within a period of 30 days. Kelly was murdered 40 days after the last victim in the sequence.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 01:42 am | | 1. Alleged four victims. And the closest link is between the last two killings, pointing to the escalation again.
2. It depends upon what you mean by similar. The Eddowes and Kelly deaths are extremely similar. Showing that somewhat similar deaths have sometimes been shown to be by separate killers doesn't do much to point toward this one being another example.
3. You can't be serious. Each set of 40 days in the poor area of every major metropolitan area that went by without a similar killing just makes your notion more and more unlikely. Unless I'm missing a fairly large set of murders that fit those specifics in London's East End alone, "astronomically unlikely" is a statement proven quite well.
4. The time between the nights of each accepted ripper killing also escalated. Eight days, 22 days (14 more than previous gap), 40 days (18 more than previous gap)... as would only be natural with the increased police presence in an area that overcrowded. Even without the escalating ime difference, saying that 40 days is a significant enough of a time difference to help chalk the killing up to a different killer is another position unsupportable by the facts.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 01:58 am | | Hi Rich.
America has, I believe, an overall population of about 260 million persons. According to published FBI projections, an estimated thirty-five episodic murderers are active at any one time. Of this thirty-five, only two, possibly three at most are mutilation murderers.
Based on the assumption that adult males account for one-fifth of the overall US population, we are left with an adult male population of roughly fifty million. As such, we may infer that the incidence of the Ripper-type serialist is approximately one in seventeen million adult males. This, I hasten to add, is a very conservative extrapolation.
Naturally, these figures do not include the one-off mutilation murderers. Yet these offences, I would suggest, are equally rare.
Given your background in statistics, Rich, it should be apparent that the odds against two evisceration murderers operating independently and simultaneously in a relatively localized geographical area are nothing short of astronomical. This is not to say that such a scenario is impossible, merely that it is so unlikely that it can be all but discounted.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 02:58 am | | Hi Dan,
I simply don't believe any of your points refutes mine - you have simply given an alternative interpretation of the facts. That is fine. We merely disagree. As to point three, I am serious. And it all depends your notion of similiar killing.
Hi Garry,
You make valid arguments that I agree point to Kelly being a victim of the Whitechapel murderer. And I agree that it is unlikely that a pair of serial murderers were working the same vicinity.
If Kelly were killed by someone other than the so-called Jack the Ripper, and I am not saying she was, I believe it is likely to be someone who knew her and was either driven into a homicidal rage or tried to make the crime look like a Ripper crime in order to cast off suspicion.
As to your view on the rarity of such mutilation murders I have no statistics. However, I could recount several cases (Lizzie Borden, Elizabeth Short, etc) where at the time similiar crimes occured which were linked to those crimes based on similiar vicious mutilations. To this day, there are plenty of opinions on those cases but no consensus.
Rich |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 07:53 am | | Dear Everyone,
What an interesting subject. For my two cents you get seven victims : five fatal, two woundings, however I do discount Stride but include Tabram.
A point about the injuries on MJK being totally over the top and therefore not consistent with previous murders.Mutilating serial killers tend to increase the degree of mutilation to take account of the time and safety available to them.
There was one killer whose name escapes me now who murdered a little girl and kept her body under his bed for three days. Every day he would take the body out and perform more atrocities on it. The result was nothing like he had done before or subsequently, but they were all done by the same hand.
I do have some photos of murder/mutilation victims showing what can be done in a short space of time. There is one which shows a remarkable similarity to MJK. The vicitim has been dissected , the limbs disarticulated and the liver completely removed. The body is strangely posed with the left arm placed over the wounds in her abdomen, in a very similar fashion to MJK. Now bearing in mind the killer probably had at least an hour with the body of MJK the amount of destruction is hardly surprising.
I will publish the photographs if required but hesitate to do so because their rather gruesome nature.
Bob Hinton |
Author: spaceyram
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 11:39 am | | Hi Richard Dewar,
I agree 100% that it is very possible that Kelly's
murder was different in several details than the
others, assuming we know how many and exactly who
they were. I fully believe that Joe Barnett was
not only capable of killing her but very possibly
did. I am not however suggesting that he was the
ripper.
I stated before that Kelly's murder, in my opinion
had more of a feeling of personal vendetta than
the others. There was more fury, more damage and
the removal of the heart, I feel, is significant.
Just because Barnett did not display tendencies
that would make one think that he was a lunatic
or capable of murder, does not mean he wasn't.
Who would have ever thought that Ted Bundy would
have been a killer, not me, he was the
good-looking guy next store, well educated etc,etc,that most mothers would have chosen for
their daughters. How about Dr. Crippen? Quiet
laid back, well liked, perfect host, treated like
a doormat by his wife until he killed her, for
another woman, and dismembered her. Who would have thought? There are so many cases that go
against the NORM.
I think Joe was following her that night, waited
until the john had left, let himself in through
the door un-noticed and in a total fit of rage
tore her to pieces. Not to mimic JtR, no need
to, since there has still not been a meeting of
minds, then or now,as to how many victims were jack's.
And it appears that Kelly was somewhat drunk that
night and was awakened from her sleep by the stabs
or choking or whatever the hell happened.
In most, if not all, of the cases, persons were
living close by, and could actually see the
murder site in some cases, but saw nothing, heard
nothing of any consequence. Therefore in my
opinion Joe & Kelly could have argued, fought
without interference, after all even the cry of
murder, assumably from Kelly's room was ignored,
according to a witness in the above apartment,
because this was so common to hear in that area,
it was totally ignored.
I don't think anyone can, authoratively or otherwise,suggest that the studies on serial
killers, have all the solutions.
I doubt our Jack could have been part of that
study since we have numerous suspects, all of
which are different in their own way, We are
still debating the number of victims, and we
are no further ahead today with respect to solving this case, short of maybe new evidence
discovered, new therories suggested, but now
more suspects than ever, but no JACK.
No doubt there will be many disagreements with
this posting, but hey, this is my opinion and I
value it as such, it's my perogative to voice it
as it is yours to debate it, but debate my opinion
not my person.
many regards
spaceyram |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 11:52 am | | Garry--Your point about statistics is entirely off the mark. The above theorists are NOT saying that two serial murderers are operating in the same location at the same time. Why do you and Mr. Norder keep insisting this? They are suggesting the possibility that the killer of Kelly disguised the murder to make it appear one of the series---an enirely different situation altogether.
Dan--I wish I shared your confidence in modern psychology and profiling; unfortunately, I don't. The psychologists and profilers have named everyone from Kosminski to J.K. Stephen to the Maybrick diarist to Hutchinson. Psychology won't solve the case.
Cheers, RP |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 12:17 pm | | | Dear R.J. .........with all due respect,does anyone really believe that another killer imitated or rather,copycatted the other Whitechapel slayings ? I try to imagine MjK's butcher contemplating this and its just hard to do so. I understand your response to Mr.Norder that it was not necessarily another SK,but perhaps rather a one-time kill by a one-time killer. THAT is not so far fetched and in fact,a very likely scenario. The so-called heightened escalation of injuries to the poor women may simply be nothing more than a perception that WE all have,due to examination only done in retrospection. They COULD simply represent the inflictions JtR was afforded due to POSSIBLE time and locale restraints. However,for anyone to consider that JtR,if in fact he was the MjK killer,would attempt to throw suspicion off himself and on to the killer of the other women,is a bit of a stretch,don't you think? The savagery of this killing,which although no clues to his identity were found,indicates at least to MY mind,the utter indifference to details such as being caught by clues.He simply didn't SEEM to care one way or the other by his machinations. Therefore,to me and what little I know,it would follow that diversionary tactics,such as copy catting on PURPOSE seems a stretch. Your opinion,R.J. ? Thank you........Howard |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 12:22 pm | | RJ-
Actually both Garry and I have already talked about non-serial mutilations and the idea of a copycat killer trying to pin the death on Jack. Caz (I believe it was her, but it was a few days back now) also posted arguments against the concept as it applies to the MJK case. You must have missed all those.
You are free to lack confidence in anything you want, but then I think it's a bad idea to simply refusing to acknowledge all that data because you don't believe in the conclusions of some psychologists and profilers. I mean, I think the doctors researching the ripper deaths at the time were in way over their heads, arrogant, and completely off the mark on many points, but I don't toss out all of their medical reports as a result, just some of their conclusions.
I think one of the problems with most of the profilers in the ripper case so far is that they were brought in to verify a suspect someone else already pointed a finger at. Whenever anyone has an answer already they are bound to make up whatever they like to try to support it, especially when there's a paycheck involved (an echo of Cornwell hiring DNA technicians to find a link between Sickert and the ripper letters). And any honest profiler will tell you that the profile is only as good as the information fed into it. Most of the profilers have been fed pretty biased information. When you start fresh you get fresh results.
Dan |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 12:30 pm | | Bob,
Why do you discount Stride and include Tabram?
When I look at the two murders, it appears to me that Stride is more likely a victim than Tabram. Here is my reasoning.
First, the Tabram wounds are quite different from any of the other victims. She was stabbed 39 times, apparently from two seperate knives. (Warning: reverting to criminal profiling knowledge here) This level of overkill is usually indicative of murders between individuals who know each other, and is typical of a highly emotionally charged killing. There were no attempts at mutilation, and her throat wasn't cut. This appears to me to be a completely different signature than the later Nichols and Chapman killings, where the mutiliation seemed much less part of the act of murdering, but more along the lines of fulfilling sexualy fantasy.
The Stride killing - by itself - also doesn't appear to fit the style of the killer. BUT, you need to take it in perspective with the Eddowes killing. Of all the murder scenes, Berner street was the most frequently travelled, most well lit, and therefore, the most dangerous crime scene. The Ripper wouldn't have known this when Stride brought him there, but it would've been apparent quickly. I personally think that the Ripper began his work, heard Diemschutz's horse, and realized he didn't have any time, and fled. He had killed her in the same was as all of the others - strangulation followed by a cut throat - but he didn't have the time to complete his mutilations. He was frustrated because he had killed, but had not had the chance to live out his fantasy, and thus, stalked another victim - far outside his "safe zone" terrority in the City. As a result, we see that the mutilations on Eddowes being the most gruesome to date - not merely because he enjoyed it, but also possibly a result of the frustration of having to leave his previous kill behind.
His frustration at Diemschutz and Schwartz for messing up his plans with Stride could have been his motivation for the Goulston street message - The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing. He was blaming them for interrupting his work.
Just a couple of ideas thrown out there. I'd love for someone to poke holes in it.
B |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 12:37 pm | | Dan,
Just a question.
Do you think that fear of being caught and killed for being the Ripper could have been a motivation against any one copycatting the crimes?
The view of the Home Office at the time was that they didn't need to put up a reward, because the level of feeling in the district assured that anyone who had information would come forward without the added incentive.
Is it possible that fear of being accused of being the Ripper could have been a similar disincentive?
It seems to me that if Barnett or Hutchinson had killed MJK, they would have been taking an awful risk...not only of getting caught, but of being implicated in the rest of the Ripper killings. The prospect of hanging is much different than the prospect of being torn limb from limb by the mob.
Maybe this isn't as large of a deterrent as it seems to me, but I just sincerely doubt that a copycat would have killed MJK in that manner, in the atmosphere of the East End at that time.
Granted, there were other "ripper induced" murders in the area, but those were primarily domestics, not full blown mutilation murders.
B |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 12:58 pm | | Howard [and Dan]---Who said copy-cat? Again, I am not saying anything whatsoever about a 'copy cat'.
The psychology is entirely different. A copy-cat, to my mind, is inspired by the other murders. [Er....by the way, I think you might be under-estimating the huge public interest, horror, and even 'mania' that the Whitechapel crimes created. I think the events of 1888/1889 almost certainly inspired unbalanced minds---such as Bury's].
But to the point. In the Kelly's murder, the suggestion is that it was an act of domestic violence. Barnett had been estranged from Kelly only a few days earlier. He killed her in a rage. After the fact, he disguised the crime scene; their history of domestic violence was well known, and he had been seen in her company the previous night. This is only a theory, a suggestion.
Do you remember the 'Fatal Vision' case? If my memory serves me right, I think it was in 1970 that Dr. MacDonald murdered his family in a brutal manner. The crime scene was awful. He told a story about a group of hippies attacking his wife; they were allegedly chanting things like "acid is groovy" and "death to pigs". At the time of the attack, the Manson murders in Califorinia were still being widely reported in the papers. I don't think the case had went to trial yet. Many in the police department [as well as the victims' family] didn't believe MacDonald's story, and he was eventually convicted.
Cheers, RJP
PS. Howard--My opinion? Tabram--Nichols--Chapman--Eddowes are a certainty.
Stride is a probably not; Kelly is a probably. But I don't like the Kelly crime scene. It bothers me. There's something wrong---what Jim Leen calls an uncharacteristic "intimacy"; I don't like the 'mise-en-scene.' |
Author: spaceyram
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 02:14 pm | | Hi All,
I am surprised that I did not get a negative
response or attack, with respect to my recent post. Maybe I am being ignored because I may
be on several s*** lists, I don't know, or it
may be possible that some people agree with me.
I must again point out the Joe Barnett as Kelly's
killer approach, but exclude him as JtR. His
could have been a crime of passion, no question.
He could have flipped (so to speak) so the
thought of punishment to him did not enter his
mind at the time, due to his rage he felt against
her. He had to punish her! You know the saying
you always hurt the ones you love.
He had to have known that she used him, and who
knows what she may have said to him in a possible
intoxicated state, that may have eaten at him
until he exploded. How must he have felt when he
had to go in order to accomodate another prostitute, who vacated the apartment not long
after he did? Unless he was totally stupid, which
has not been documented, he realized that she
just wanted to get rid of him, but had no quams
taking money from him.
He did so much to get her of off the streets only
to watch her picking up men and bringing them
home to the bed that they shared not so long ago.
I feel it is very conceivable that his love could
have turned to hate, if only for the time it took
for him to do his dastardly deed. He removed and
or destroyed that which made her attractive to
other men, and destroyed what made her ugly to
him, HER HEART.
Many crimes, that have been cateorized as crimes
of passion, have been commited by persons who
do not fit the profile that one would put together
as a typical killer.
regards |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 02:38 pm | | Hi all,
Actually, the two killings the most similiar, in fact virtually identical, are Stride and Coles - yet for whatever reason few people today consider Coles a victim of the Whitechapel murderer.
Deciding who is and who is not a victim of the same killer is necessarily difficult. Applying some statistical formulation, in my opinion, in answering this question is faulty.
The fact is the Kelly killing and the Eddowes killing were different. It can be argued their similiarities are more compelling then their differences. The only thing I dispute is that they are dispositive that Kelly was slain by the same murderer.
History is replete with one time murderers who mutilated their lone victim. In most cases, this is done to hide or dispose of the remains. In Kelly's case it may have been to seek to move blame to the man known as Jack the Ripper. I concede this is pure conjecture.
What should not be in dispute is that from 1887-90 there was more than one person who murdered women and mutilated them - unless you are arguing that the Whitechapel murderer was responsible for 9 deaths.
For various reasons, many researchers have decided that Martha Tabram, the Pinchin St killing/Whitehall murder, Clay Pipe Alice and others were slain by someone other than Jack the Ripper.
Trying to categorize mutilations stylistically is not scientific - it involves interpretation.
In my view, Kelly was one of three possibilities:
1. a victim of the Whitechapel murderer
2. a revenge/anger/lust murder
3. a cold premeditated crime victim in which the murderer tried to move blame from himself to the Whitechapel murderer.
As I noted in a previous post, such crimes in the past have been very difficult to categorize. To this day, researchers are uncertain whether Elizabeth Short was a lone victim, the victim of a serial killer, or based on MO and signature the victim of the notorious Cleveland Torso killer who had not been heard from in more than a decade. To this day there is no consensus. On of the detectives in the case linked a suspect who knew another woman killed in similiar fashion. However, many investigators dismissed that suspect because they felt the similiarities were overshadowed by the differences. This is not an exact science.
Take a look at the Lizzie Borden case. She was tried for murdering her mother and father with hatchet blows to the head - a relatively rare sort of mutilation in Fall River in those days. (I say mutilation because the blows were far beyond what was required to inflict death, each victim suffering more than a dozen chops to the skull).
To this day, most researchers and scholars of the case believe Lizzie committed the crime. However, while Lizzie was in jail, an almost identical crime took place in Fall River. Someone had killed a woman by hacking her to death with an axe - again with numerous blows far beyond what was required to murder someone. Many felt, at the time, that the signature was so similiar in this case that it proved Lizzie's innocence.
However, a young man was found, tried and convicted of the case. It was shown he could not have murdered Lizzie's parents because he was not in town at the time of the case.
The same logic applied to Kelly was also applied in the Borden case - people saying the crimes were very similiar, extremely rare in the same proximity (especially Fall River which is much smaller than London), so therefore they had to be the work of one madman. The odds, they said, statistically, were so slight it was astronomically impossible.
Yet it turned out that there were two different killers - whether Lizzie did the crime or not.
This is why I am so reluctant to apply some statistical formula in determining whether Kelly was a victim of the Whitechapel murderer. Is it possible or even likely? Yes. Is it definite? Obviously no.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 02:44 pm | | Spaceyram,
It's likely that you hadn't gotten any response because the post was nothing but sheer speculation with no way to debate the concept one way or another other than what has already been stated on this thread several times already.
Brian,
It's possible that worrying you'd get blamed for the ripper killings would be a disincentive for a first time killer to try to fake a scene trying to link it to the others. I'm rather more of the opinion that a first time killer wouldn't be thinkig too logically and would have a great amount of difficulty making realistic matching mutilations, sitting in a pile of dead lover parts without a total freak out, and not doing something else to get caught.
On the one hand, some people are saying, no, MJK's killer was not a second serial killer or a copycat, but just some normal guy trying to pretend to be Jack to throw the police off. I'm sorry, but there is no way some guy could go from normal to this gory spectacle in one day and pull it off successfully. This was calculating and controlled to an extreme. He wasn't new to this. No matter how you slice it, MJK's killer was a coldblooded psychopath. Hmm, do we know anyone else who meets that description who frequented the area at the time? Oh yeah, some guy named Jack, fancy that. What are the odds? :-)
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 02:46 pm | | Hi RJ.
Not for the first on this thread, I'm a little bewildered. In an earlier post, you stated, 'Your point about statistics is entirely off the mark. The above theorists are NOT saying that two serial murderers are operating in the same location at the same time. Why do you and Mr. Norder keep insisting this?' With all due respect, neither Dan nor I have insisted this. All I did was to point out the statistical unlikelihood that two evisceration murderers killed women in the same localized area and in the same timeframe. Given that Kelly was disembowelled, her assailant was, by definition, an evisceration murderer. So if, as has been argued, her assailant was someone other than Jack the Ripper, it naturally follows that two evisceration murderers were at large.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: spaceyram
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 03:18 pm | | Hi Dan
I realize that my suggestion is speculation, but
haven't many of the Jack suspects been the same?
Why isn't there any way to debate this theory?
He was common-law husband for a period of time,
he financed her to a great degree over a period
of time. He had seen her that night or the night
before, there was an argument. He was DEAD set
against her soliciting on the streets. Even
though they had only been seperated a short while
he still come back to see her, and gave her
money. As soon as he was unable to continue with
the finances, back on the street she went.
I have not seen any evidence that convinces me
beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joe couldn't
possibly have killed Kelly, any more than I can
prove conclusively that he did.
Isn't the board open for all opinions? I am not
a veteran of the casebook but I am of JtR. I'm
not an expert but I certainly do appreciate those
who are, and those who have a great deal of
knowledge concerning same.
However Dan, whatever way you view anyone's
suggestion, viewpoint, speculation or random
thoughts, until Joe can be disproven as Kelly's
killer, by evidence that clearly excludes him,
it's a debatable subject to me.
regards |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 03:26 pm | | Actually, I still entertain the possibility that Joe may have killed Mary... Though, as you probably gather from the circles everyone's been going around in, I think that if he offed her that he also offed at least three others before her.
Dan |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 03:52 pm | | Garry--I think the statistical argument is circular. If the second murderer was consciously diguising the crime-scene to confuse the police then he wasn't a 'evisceration murderer', at least not in my book. His actions weren't due to a rare pychological condition--there were due to a conscious act of someone well aware of the previous murders. But I gather you are judging human actions by behavior and not intentionality and perhaps don't accept the distinction?
I'm not saying Kelly wasn't part of the series; but the statistical argument seems faulty to me.
By the same standards, why are you so lightly dismissing Martha Tabram? There can be no doubt whatsoever that she was murdered on the landing. She was struck over the head and almost certainly strangled. Messrs Douglas and Ressler will tell you that the MO will vary, but the 'extra bit' remains constant. He stabbed and slit her after she was dead or unconscious; yes, differences indeed, but clearly not so different as those between Nichols and Kelly. Escalation, you say--so of course Tabram must be dismissed. Yet, in the end, aren't you then admitting that a second rare lust murderer and mutilator is loose in the same "time" and "place"? Seems like a contradiction....
But, of course, contradictions are fine. Doubt is good. Certainty is highly dubious.
Best wishes, RJ Palmer.
|
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 04:27 pm | | RJ,
Hold on a sec. The inquest information makes no mention of Tabram being struck over the head, or any signs of strangulation.
The "effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone" does not necessarily mean she was struck in the head. Her head could have hit the ground as she was being attacked.
In fact, Dr. Killeen stated that the 39 stab wounds were inflicted "during life". So she wasn't already dead when they were inflicted. And there are many reasons why she didn't cry out that don't necessarily indicate strangulation - especially since there are no mentions of anything related to strangulation in any of the inquest reports in the papers.
This "blitz" style attack on Tabram is significantly different from the later strangulation and throat cutting that was viewed in all of the other murders, save MJKs, when the strangulation aspect can't be proven because of the mutilation.
Douglas, Ressler and Burgess do explain that MO can vary, but we're talking about two completely different "types" of murder here...a mutilation serial murder (MJK) and an apparent "passion" killing, without the sexual overtones (Tabram).
When viewed in the context of the other murders, I don't think Tabram fits as well as MJK does.
B |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 04:34 pm | | Hey, Spacey, for what it's worth, I'm inclined to think the same as you,  I agree with you about Barnett,-- to the letter, seems the thing to do is sit quiet and be educated,---- now try hard and you might get a gold star in your exercise book
RICK |
Author: spaceyram
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 05:33 pm | | Warick (Rick)
I am unsure whether or not your posting was meant
to be a serious response , based on your honest
speculation with respect to Joe Barnett or if
you were being a smart a**.
Your reference to working hard and possibly
receiving a gold star for my exersize book,sounded
somewhat sarcastic. If that was your intention then I will direct another posting your way,
if not, please excuse me for assuming it as such.
regards |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 06:54 pm | | | I think Jack had a serious turn of MO after the Eddowes killing...why? After much thought, I believe Jack was extremely worried about the bloodhounds. I noticed in "Letters from Hell" that the letter writers themselves harped on the subject quite a bit, I'm sure the thought of getting sniffed out had planted itself in Jack's head. I also believe this could explain Jack as the Torso killer also...body parts dumped in the river to throw off a scent, perhaps? I think he was scared as hell of the bloodhounds and did some major rethinking and revamping of his MO once he knew the bloodhounds were a reality. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 07:27 pm | | Hello Spacey, thank you for your response , no I wasn't trying to be smart, but yes I was being sarcastic, NOT with you though. I had the impression you were beginning to feel frustrated by no responses to your post.
I would welcome any post from you Spacey, I think we both have views about Barnett that others don't seem to want to accept. I'll look forward to hearing from you.
Best Regards, Rick |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 07:50 pm | | Hi all,
With regard to the Kelly killing, Barnett and Hutchinson have been proposed as suspects. I do not believe either of them could be excluded.
Barnett certainly had motive and means. History is replete with intimate relationships gone sour that turned into homicidal rages.
Hutchinson appears to have made misleading statements regarding what happened that night. He might have come forward out of fear that someone had seen his encounter with Kelly earlier that evening.
Either man had means to carry out such a killing. There is no evidence, though, to suggest they did.
There are those who suggest that either Barnett or Hutchinson were Jack the Ripper. For various reasons, I consider this extremely unlikely. Most importantly, the police at the time considered both potential suspects no doubt and would have checked their whereabouts at the time of the other killings. Had neither been able to establish an alibi, they would likely have been held in custody until their innocence could be proved - as was the case with Ischensmid and Puckridge.
Kelly very well could have been a victim of the Whitechapel murderer. But the differences in her death from the others in the series leaves just enough doubt to wonder if her death was unrelated to the Jack the Ripper murders.
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 08:19 pm | | Brian--I certainly don't believe that Martha Tabram stood there alive & well, facing her attacker, and allowed him to stab her 39 times in the front. Killeen said that there was no sign of a struggle. Remember--this murder took place on the first-floor landing of a tenament building and attracted no notice. Clearly, Tabram was subdued before she was stabbed repeatedly, otherwise their would have been wounds to her hands, shoulder blades, back, forearms, etc. She was lying there, in a pool of blood, with her legs spread, and her clothes thrown up to her waist. There is more indication that she was strangled than we get in the Kelly scene, IMHO.
But really, I take 'MO', signature, 'escalation', etc. with a grain of salt. There is a murderer on the loose in Baton Rouge. Three crimes. One is a stabbing, one a strangulation, and one an abduction. How do they know they are related? DNA at the scene.
Anyway, my belief in Tabram as a Ripper victim is largely based on something else--something that happened in a different time and a different place.
Best wishes, RJP
Brenda--Bloodhounds. I like it. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 08:44 pm | | R.J,
Kileen said there was no sign of a struggle, but PC Bartlett and the witness John Reeves both indicated that her clothes were dissheveled, and Reeves said that her hands were clenched by her sides. Bartlett felt that laying there, with her hands by her sides, and her legs open, that "recent intimacy had taken place".
So, imagine you are Tabram. You need your doss money, so you find a guy, you find a dark landing to turn your trick. You lay down, you lift your skirts to get it over with quickly, and the guy starts stabbing you. You're head flies back and hits the pavement, your hands clench, but because of the damage done so quickly you don't have time to cry out or raise your arms up to defend yourself.
That scenario, while pure conjecture on my part, covers all of the available forensic data. And there doesn't need to be strangulation.
If she had been stranguled, there would have been significant proof that any competent coroner would have noticed. The presence of abrasions, bruises or fingernail marks; petechial hemorrhaging of the conjunctivae of the eyes; trauma to the tongue; internal damage to the throat, larynx, etc. None of these were found in Tabram. And there was no severe mutilation to hide it.
With the Baton Rouge murderer, and I honestly don't know that much about them, I would presume that the DNA at the scene was probably seminal fluids, which would be the connecting M.O. - a sexual lust murder. And signature can also include victimology, location of the killings, etc, not just the way he killed his victim.
I'd like to hear about the event that happened in a different time and a different place that cemented your belief that Tabram was a ripper victim, if you'd care to indulge me.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 09:01 pm | | >Had neither been able to establish an
>alibi, they would likely have been held
>in custody until their innocence could
>be proved
We already know how Hutchinson accounted for his time: "I was standing right outside the window at the time and even peeked in."
I'm sorry, but we know for a fact he doesn't have a solid alibi because even by his own admission he was alone at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder sneaking around.
>- as was the case with Ischensmid and Puckridge.
Ah, but the police were looking for someone with obvious mental problems, which is why these two were locked up. We now know that sociopaths can and often do appear very charming and normal. You assume the the police had a good reason to let Hutchinson walk the streets when it's more likely that they were too busy chasing the maniacs, Jews and foreigners to spend too much time on this nice guy who really helped them out by giving such a terrific description of the foreign looking guy who killed Mary Kelly.
Assuming that the police were perfect and would have caught the ripper if he fell into their lap flies in the face of all the examples where more experienced officials let serial killers leave because they seemed too normal. Trying to base your choice of suspects on what the very same police who didn't solve the crime thought about it is a sure fire way to repeat all the same mistakes that let Jack get away the first time.
Dan |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 16 November 2002 - 09:29 pm | | Hi Dan,
When I was discussing alibis, I would assume the police would have demanded that Barnett and Hutchinson also provide alibis for the other killings in the series and that these would have been investigated.
I have no evidence of this - but it would seem to be common sense. Perhaps, as you suggest, the police were incompetent and made no efforts to do so.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 09:35 am | | Dear Everyone,
Someone asked why I dismissed Stride. Very simple. If you read Schwartz's statement he says that the person who attacked Stride was walking in front of him, happened upon her as she waited in the gateway and immediately attacked her.
Given the available time I think it highly unlikely that the person who attacked her was not her killer. There are two types of people who attack on the instant of meeting, one a mentally deranged person launching a 'blitz' attack and the other is someone who is well known to the
victim, ie a boyfriend or husband.
The attacker in this instance was not concerned that he was being observed, he made no attempt to hide his attack and didn't try and drag his victim off into the depths of the alleyway.
Now consider the actions of Stride. The whole East end was in an uproar over the killings, everyone was on edge especially prostitutes. Stride a prostitute is attacked by a complete stranger who might be JTR. What does she do, bearing in mind help and assistance is only a few feet away. Does she scream the place down and fight desperately for her life? No she calls out 'but not loudly' Nonsense.
Stride knew who was attacking her. She also knew that if she put up any proper resistance or called for help she would get beaten badly later on. So she went through the same old routine she had suffered many times before. Took a thumping. Police officers on these boards can no doubt tell of many instances when battered wives have done exactly the same thing.
I believe Michael Kidney killed Stride. You must also not overlook the fact that a different weapon was used to murder Stride. For her to have been killed by JTR we have to accept that he acted in a totally different manner, allowed himself to be seen by witnesses, committed the crime with a weapon he had not used before and being blunt was not very proficient, and then in a matter of minutes, reverts entirely to his old MO, quiet place, no witnesses etc and manages to re-equip himself with his old faithfull blade.
Ask yourself this, if Stride was killed in isolation who would we be looking at? I'm not saying Kidney 'hid' his crime in a series, just that he was very lucky to have people think it was part of a series.
The person who killed MJK had absolutely no reason to try and hide his crime in a series. You are making the mistake in believing that he would think he was doing something wrong. The only reason to hide something is because we think we are doing something wrong. To her killer the butchery of MJK was perfectly normal - just as normal as pulling on your pants every morning.
Killers don't avoid capture because they don't want to admit they are doing wrong - they avoid capture because they like what they are doing and want to carry on doing it. They have their own justification.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 11:46 am | | Hi Bob,
Your theory is plausible. Stride must always remain something of a mystery.
The popular notion is that the Whitechapel murderer killed Stride but was interrupted before he could carry out his signature mutilations. This, again is plausible, but based wholly on supposition.
My hunch is that Kosminski/Cohen was suspected of the Stride killing by the authorities at a later date.
Regards,
Rich
Rich |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 05:39 pm | | Dear RJ,
Are you writing a book on JtR? If so, I am looking forward to it...and I never read books!
As for DR's thesis, I quote Keynes to remind us ..."in the long term we are ALL dead".
Rosey :-) |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 17 November 2002 - 08:43 pm | | Hiya Spacey,
on the evening of the 8th Nov 88 Barnett visited Kelly and asked her if it would be okay to move back in with her. Seeing she was living alone again it was reasonable to ask, and he fully expected her to welcome him back, but she had been secretly glad to get rid of him, she was tired of him and he now had no job or money. She told him "NO",-- she told him she was glad to be rid of him, she told him things that he never dreamed were in her mind. I believe Barnett took all this in in silence,--in a daze, I believe he walked out without a word, back to his lodging where possibly he commenced some serious drinking, his mind must have been like a can of worms. Any way I believe by 03:30 or so he could stand it no longer, he went back, let himself in and murdered her, all done in silence except for a cry of "OH, murder" which Kelly managed to utter before he got his hand over her mouth.My theory differs little from yours Spacey, I don't allow for raised voices at all. Rick |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 03:34 am | | Bob,
There is also the likelyhood that Stride was not assaulted by the person that was seen to lay a hand on her shoulder.
Why should she cry for help if all that happened at that particular time was for her to fall without hurting herself.She was heard arguing with someone,after Schwartz had departed,so this does not seem to imply that the first contact resulted in prolonged attack.
She would certainly have seen Schwartz who must have been only feet away,also the pipeman ,so she might reasonably feel help was at hand if she really needed it.
My opinion is the killing was not the result of a frenzied drunken urge,but a careful and calculated act that circumstances permitted.
I have no trouble in accepting it as a Ripper killing.
H.Mann. |
Author: spaceyram
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 12:39 pm | | Hi Rick (Bud)
You know what they say " Great Minds Almost Think
Alike"
The argument I was referring to was the one that
I thought was explained by the temporary room-mate. Joe was there and an argument ensued.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Otherwise I agree whole-heartedly
julie |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 04:11 pm | | Hello Spacey,
I've looked at the AtoZ and studied Paley's version of events on the evening of the 8th, but I can't find any reference to an argument between Barnett and Kelly. Harvey's statement is not to be trusted! She told the press that she and Kelly were drinking together at her (Harvey's) new address until about 7:30 when Kelly left.
But she told the inquest she and Kelly were drinking in Millers Court, and that she left Kelly at around 7:00 when Barnett stopped by.
Then again, Lizzie Aldbrook said she and Kelly were together in Kelly's room at 8:00 when Barnett came by and Lizzie left. Barnett himself said he was at Kelly's room between 7:30 and 8:00
so, take your pick!!!. If you have something different perhaps you could tell me please?.
My own thoughts are that Barnett was so shocked by Kelly's outburst when he put it to her that he would be coming back, that he took it in silence, there was no raised voices, there was no argument, then, nor at 04:00 the next morning. He had made up his mind what he was going to do, and as soon as he had made his entrance to Mary's room, he killed her, the time for arguing was over
That's the way I see it Spacey, what do you think?
I can't say I'm correcting you though
Best wishes, Rick |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 05:11 pm | | | Hi Rick, I think the argument reference is when Kelly and Barnett argued and the window was broken. This happened about a week or so before the murders (?)....right around the time Barnett stopped dwelling at Miller's Court. |
Author: spaceyram
Monday, 18 November 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Hi Rick,
Obviously you are correct. I know there was an
argument that was brought up, but it looks like I
mixed up the timing. I stand corrected, no,actually I'm sitting.
I agree with Chris George that the mutilations on
Catherine Eddows were certainly gross, and it was
particularily appaling to me to look at the picture of her propped up against a wall. That
was in extremely poor taste.
One thing that continues to bother me is the lack
of co-operation between Scotland Yard and the
Metropolitan Police. It seemed as if they didn't
get together at all to discuss each other's
suspects.
Of course that still goes on today, doesn't it?
I believe we now refer to this type of non-co-op
as political bull s***. They spend so much time
arguing over whose case it is, whose juristiction
it covers, that the case could have been solved
if only these very capable investigators and
officers could have gotten together.
julie |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 10:32 am | | Yes Brenda, there was that argument Kelly and Barnett had ten day's before Kelly's murder, when a beer bottle was aimed at Barnett and broke the window. I would imagine there was a bit of shouting going on then. I don't think Kelly was necessarily the dominant half of the partnership because of that though.
Rick |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 05:26 pm | | | Rick, you know what makes me think Kelly was a dominant personality? Simply because I never met a placid personality that went through men like candy. And Mary Jane was getting around, not only her clients but she was exchanging "steady beaus" like bad stock. The fact that both Barnett and Fleming were still hanging about makes me think that she called the shots in both of those relationships. I knew a girl in school like this, she was a very attractive girl and she took full advantage of the situation, without regard for the man's feelings. You would seriously need a chart if you were to list her lovers. The problem is that there is a certain type of male personality that is not as submissive and laid back as it seems. She insulted one of her former lovers and he went OFF in a big way...he was beating her up and stuff, and it just so happened some people came along the little alleyway where they were and yelled at the guy and he ran. She told me later she feared for her life, she had no doubt he would have kept beating her till she was dead. Everyone who knew them both were incredulous that he snapped like that...he is such a laid back personality. When his self esteem was threatened though....BOY! I've always imagined JTR as being like this, a well-known East Ender that everyone liked, unless he was ridiculed. I'm not sure about the other victims, but I do feel that Barnett murdered Mary Jane. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 10:03 am | | Brenda, I think you have really hit the nail on the head there. I think there is a very good chance that Barnett was not the man most people think, or like to think that he was.
For all we know if Kelly had temper tantrams, it may have "amused" Barnett, she was dominant because he allowed her to think she was, yes?
All the Best, Rick |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 10:36 pm | | Rosey---I think you smell blood! Is it another sacrificial donkey you're wanting for the critics?
Snorting and braying aside, the "Identity" and the "Mystery" had very little in common. Two parallel courses that never met. All our favorite props--Lusk, Lipski, Lawende-- conspicuous by their absense.
Cheers, RJP |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 11:25 am | | Dear RJ,
"Hecatombs of asses". These days we are more sparing in our offerings...hence, Pat. But I have a feeling that things are looking up! Next year will produce a deluge of Jack the Ripper: "My Part in his Downfall" books, films, ephemerae, so I will be following your tracts.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 07:09 am | | Rick, exactly! I do believe there is a dominant male personality who is willing to "submit" as long as life is at status quo. Let anything threaten however, and a new man emerges. I don't think Barnette was very worried about the seperation from Mary Jane, maybe he thought she would cool down and also give her some time to get those "lady friends/hangers on" out of the room, then he'd woo his way back in. Whatever happened between the two the night before the murder is what set him off. He realized she meant to keep him away for good.
Everyone always asks me, when I reveal my Barnettian leanings, "what about Abberline? He thoroughly interviewed Barnette and didn't think he was the Ripper."
Pure and simple, I think Abberline may have screwed up. Those serial killers are a crafty and cunning bunch...I think Barnette had Abberline duped.
Regarding the Elizabeth Stride conversation, I have always wanted to have a clearer picture in my mind as to the layout of Dutfield's Yard, where the OTHER couple who was supposedly around were standing, where the witness at the door was standing, where Mr. Pipe was standing..etc. I have often wished someone would draw a diagram of Dutfield's Yard and plot in where everyone was. I think it would provide a clearer picture as to where everyone was and what was going on. Is any of the art talent here up to the task? (A Dutfield's Yard diagram would be an excellent addition to Ripperologist or Ripper Notes, by the way) |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 07:41 am | | Hi Brenda,
Do you have a copy of Fido? He does this in his book with the Stride murder, showing where everyone was. Eddleston also has an excellent map in his book. And you can find simpler maps in Sugden, Tully etc.
As I posted on a previous thread, because geographical questions come up frequently on the boards, I urge posters to invest in a few period maps. You will find it costs less than most Ripper books.
http://www.alangodfreymaps.co.uk/
Cheers |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 07:15 pm | | | Well, I'm dumbfounded, sitting here with Sudgden but I can't find a layout of Dutfield's Yard. I do see a map with the site noted. Which Fido book? (A sign of an author's success...when you don't know which book is being talked about!) |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 09:22 pm | | Hi Brenda,
'The Crimes, Death and Detection of Jack the Ripper' by Martin Fido.
I don't have a copy at hand but it does show a map of the Berner Street area and where everyone was, Mrs. Mortimer, Mathew Packer etc. This will give you an idea of where everyone was in relation to Dutfield's Yard. Remember, except for the actaul murder of Stride all the interesting events that night took place outside the Yard. I used to have a detailed drawing of 40 Berner Street but can't find it at present. It may be in my files and not on my computer. If it is just Dutfield's Yard you want, and not the surrounding area, you can find a crude drawing in Wilding's 'Jack the Ripper Revealed'. Off the top of my head I can't think of any others that just have a drawing of Dutfield's Yard rather than the area itself.
Viper wrote an excellent piece about Berner Street for Ripper Notes. And Eduardo Zinna wrote a terrific piece about the International Workingman's Educational Club for Ripperologist. I don't have the issue #'s at hand, but both were recent, so you may have already read them.
Cheers |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 03:12 am | | There used to be a working diagram of the various players' movements around Dutfields' Yard at the Casebook Productions website. It showed Liz Stride, her assailant, Pipeman and Schwartz. With the demise of Casebook Productions the site has been taken down. Pity because there was a raft of good research stuff on it.
Regards, V. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 01:38 pm | | Anyway the old casebook productions site information could be put on here? I'd love to see the stuff they put together.
Maybe Chris George or Judith still has all of the info?
B |
|
|
|
|
