|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 March 22, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols:
Archive through March 22, 2000
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:17 am |        | I spent 20 minutes writing a point-by-point answer to Ivor last night that is not here this morning! I went through all the steps as usual, but it disappeared! Did Mr. Ryder remove it? If not, something is wrong with the server. I will repost this later today when i get some time.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:45 am | | | I'm sorry Jeff , I don't think the killer lived in the area although I think you are right in that he had a good local knowledge ; the reason why is the immense amount of police activity in the Whitechapel area over the period of the crimes with many house to house searches , extra men on the beat , investigations into the most likely suspects and so on. If the killer had been a local man then the police would have had some suspicion of him , the old ' police instinct ' and such like. The P.C.s pounded the beat night and day in that area , they would have known who was a bad guy , who might have been a bit strange , who had gone missing and so on. Even Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Neilson were caught eventually. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 10:26 am | |
Quote:"I personally don't believe that we have yet met the killer in our multitude of interviews. When we do I am positive we will realise and nail him"
DCS Jack Ridgeway, Manchester CID, February 1978, after his men had interviewed Peter Sutcliffe twice. They later returned to interview him again, but still didn't "realise".
Sometimes, the "old police instinct" just lets you down! |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 11:03 am | | Not for the first time it's too late to apply an edit correction to my last poste, (Stephen, can we please have that edit time extended?). Schwartz did not appear at the Stride inquest - I refer of course to Swanson's report.
Regards, V. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 11:11 am | | Editing time has been extended to 24 hours.
-- SPR |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 12:11 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I'm glad to see Mr. Radka serialising his theory upon the identity and motives of the unknown Whitechapel murderer. However, party pooper that I am, I'm afraid I disagree with the fundamental opening statement..."It seems reasonable to argue that (1) the Ripper and not primarily the victim was choosing the murder sites... "
This is because prostitutes generally work a patch which is close to a convenient and secluded area where they can complete their business. And let's face it, once the hue and cry erupted at the peak of the murder scare I very much doubt that these women would be willing to accompany a prospective client to some unknown location.
Also, it must be stressed, if the Ripper did lead them to another site surely this would lead to a greater possibility of his discovery because there would be a chance that more witnesses would see the victim promenading in the company of another. Surely he would wish to engage then leave his victim in the shortest possible time.
Finally, with regard to the bottleneck, would this not also leave the killer more liable to be trapped?
Thanking you for your consideration
Jim Leen |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 01:14 pm | | Hi Jim,
You make some very good points.
Furthermore, if JtR took his victims away from their usual patch, he risked finding himself in another prostitute's patch on a Saturday night, when he could have been disturbed at any moment by the arrival of another couple about to do business. Letting the victim remain (as he probably assumed) on her own patch meant there was less chance of being disturbed by another 'courting' couple.
I also agree with others who have pointed out that bottlenecks, alleyways, dark corners etc, would be the natural place for prostitutes, and no doubt murderers as well, to do what they do best. No surprises there.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 01:14 pm | | There were comings and goings at both Dutfield's Yard, and Miller's Court all night, as a general rule, (as long as the gates to Dutfield's Yard were open and they were not closed until late at night when the tenants had retired). Miller's Court was heavily tenanted (including prostitutes who would be in and out at night). So that both locations could be regarded as relatively busy.
Likewise Mitre Square was a thoroughfare (the same as a street) and was and still is used as a short cut as well as having a patrolling police officer pass through every 15 minutes. Hardly a bottleneck.
On the night of the murders there were 2 or 3 tenants awake in Dutfield's Yard, Philip Krantz was reading in the printing office in the Yard, at 12.30 a.m. William West went into the Yard, at 12.35 a.m. Morris Eagle entered the Yard, and at 1.00 a.m. (approx.) Diemschutz entered the Yard. Sounds quite busy to me for the time of night, with the club in session also.
At Miller's Court a similar story may be told. At 11.45 p.m. Mary Ann Cox entered Miller's Court and saw Kelly and a man. At midnight Cox left Miller's Court. At 1.00 a.m. Cox returned to Miller's Court, then left again about a minute later. At about 1.00 a.m. Elizabeth Prater also returned to Miller's Court and stood at the corner. At 1.20 a.m. Elizabeth Prater entered Miller's Court. At 2.30 a.m. Sarah Lewis entered Miller's Court. At 3.00 a.m. Mary Ann Cox again entered Miller's Court and at about 6.15 a.m. a man left Miller's Court.
How can Harry Mann say what he does?
I do not assume sex as a reason for "entering the murder sites" I merely stated "It was more likely to have been a request for sex," which indeed it was and with which Mr Mann agreed?
The wooden fence at the rear of 29 Hanbury Street was only "about five feet high" (not 5' 6"), and "might support the weight of a man." Certainly a killer fleeing on hearing someone coming through the house would soon get over it and would not worry about making a noise as he fled.
How can Jeff D say, "The killer did select the sites for the killings. That is self evident."? It is not self evident at all, in fact the police at the time felt that the women led their assailant(s) to the scene of their deaths themselves. Does Jeff D know that a prostitute usually selects a spot for intercourse where she "wouldn't be suddenly and unexpectedly approached from behind and be caught..." (except by her client :-) )?
Surely anywhere can be made a bottleneck if it is blocked off?
Jeff D reveals himself as a bit of a profiler (into 'comfort zones' and all that nonsense), so I expect that he does think he knows more than the 1888 police.
With just about every out of the way spot in the East End used at some time or another for a 'fourpenny knee trembler' any murder site could be so interpreted. Examples are George Yard Buildings, Clarke's Yard, Poplar, Castle Alley, Pinchin Street, and Swallow Gardens, all of which, although committed by other killers, are of a similar description and could be used to uphold the same nonsensical theories. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 08:56 pm | | Second attempt to answer Ivor,
We're not talking about how a normal person perceives, we're talking about how a disturbed person perceives. The bottleneck structures are a fact, Ivor, look at the pictures of the murder sites. Walking with his intended victim, it wouldn't be out of character for him to suggest a walk through a narrowness to an apparently shielded, quieter area to conduct business, in my view, based on what we don't dispute he did do at the murder scenes, and the order in which these events happened. He'd simply be thinking in terms of avoiding his Buck's Row vexation. He could make it sound quite spontaneous to her, not alarming her fears if he hadn't acted strangely with her otherwise. He'd pick the first such area they'd come to, and wouldn't necessarily consider low fences or other entryways on the other side. If he'd think of these fences and other entryways, Ivor, why did he go ahead and commit the murders in these places anyway? The facts are he DID commit the murders in these places, and that ALL these places DID exhibit the bottleneck structure. And the fact is there WASN'T ANYBODY ELSE in these places when he committed the murders, and that's why he got away, and that's why I'm writing this response to you now.
Ivor, you show a disturbing tendancy to put your own eyes right out rather than behold what you don't want to see. IMHO, you have a theory on the case you desperately want to protect and see me as a threat to it, or, perhaps, you have a hero who has published such a theory and sensed he needed you when I posted. You can't do that and be a Ripperologist.
David |
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 12:50 am | | With this sort of reasoning how can any sort of normal debate be had with Mr Radka? For he will see things as he wishes to see them to fit his own odd ideas. Let's call it convoluted philosophising. The fact that it is a nonsense is easily seen when you look at the other sites at George Yard Buildings, Clarke's Yard Poplar, Castle Alley, Pinchin Street and Swallow Gardens - all of which fit this definition of 'bottleneck structure.'
Just about every court, alley, passage, yard, gate, door etc. can fit such a wide and flexible definition of 'bottleneck structure' so that it would be difficult in the East End to find somewhere that could not be so described. Does Mr Radka know this? Has Mr Radka ever been to the East End?
The facts may be that he DID commit the murders in these places but it is also a fact that someone else DID commit the other murders, of course in similar places. It is also a fact that there WASN'T ANYBODY ELSE in those places when they committed the murders, and that's why they got away, and that's why I'm writing this response to you now Mr Radka. (I do, of course, realise that in the Pinchin Street case the murder was committed elsewhere, maybe in a 'bottleneck structure' and I am regarding the act of dumping the remains as a parallel with the act of murder).
Mr Radka's response is exceedingly short for one that he earlier described as "I spent 20 minutes writing a point-by-point answer to Ivor last night that is not here this morning!...I will repost this later today when I get some time." He must be either exceedingly slow at the keyboard or short on ideas.
Mr Radka, you show a disturbing tendency to 'put your own eyes right out rather than behold things you don't want to see.' So much so that all common sense flies out the window and everything becomes 'Radka-ised.'
I have no theory to protect, I have no hero, but I merely make a plea for a no-nonsense, logical approach to the facts. Just about everyone disagrees with you Mr Radka. I am sure that whenever, if ever, you reveal your madcap theory you will be the only person in the world who believes it to be the answer.
You may be a Ripperologist Mr Radka, I am not. 'Ripperologist' is defined by the authors of the A-Z as "Term[s] coined by Colin Wilson for expertise and experts on Jack the Ripper. Not favoured by the authors, as it has increasingly become associated with cranks and charlatans." I guess you are a 'Ripperologist' then. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 03:55 am | | | I am a Ripperologist and I'm proud of it ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 04:02 am | | | The only way that the killer could concieve of Mitre Square/Church passage as a bottleneck would be if he didn't know the terrain he was operating on in this case , as soon as he got into the Square itself it would be obvious it was not a bottleneck. But surely the killer would not choose an area he was not familiar with for the murder ? And as soon as he got into the Square , if he was so concerned with bottlenecks why didn't he abort the attack and flee when he found himself in a throughfare ? Sorry David , it doesn't make sense ! |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 05:03 am | | Ivor,
It is easy to say what I say,because the facts support it.Only two persons West and Eagles entered or left Dutfields yard between midnight and the murder.
Three people entered or left Millers court between
midnight and 3a.m.,although Cox did so twice.From
1145pm till 1.ooA.M.no one left or entered,and from about 2A.M.till 2.45A.M.only one person entered.Cox returned at 3A.M. then there is no reported movement untill 6.15A.M.,Hardly a constant movement of people in and out all night.
Of course one must not forget Kelly and the stranger,that is if you believe Hutchinson.
As to the killer choosing the murder sites I say
of course he did.When he and Chapman Stood outside
29 Hanbury St,only thoughts of murder occupied his mind.He had a victim,he now required a place to kill,and he had to choose one quickly as daylight
had begun or was beginning.I tend to believe he more so than Chapman was familiar with that house and yard,and that he was totally familiar with the neighbourhood.Besides the kill he had to think of escape.That he did both successfully required a lot more than blind luck. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 07:52 am | | Harry -
I have to disagree. Bear in mind the chosen victim. The murderer was negotiating with a prostitute, and could almost certainly rely on her to lead him to a secluded place, although, of course, she could not possibly have forseen his intentions. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 08:11 am | | | I agree Guy. And here again David's theory falls down as it depends on the women having all been led to the murder sites by the killer. There is some correspondance between some of the sites , but this doth not a theory make. Even if it were true that the killer chose the locations , what does that prove about his identity anyway ? |
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 08:21 am | | Mr Mann obviously misses the point entirely, I suggest he re-reads what I said. I explained (I thought) that in view of the nature of both locations they could be expected to be frequented at any time, and indeed were, throughout the night, on any given night. On the particular nights in question we can only account for those who volunteered as witnesses. Also, it doesn't have to be different people, the same person at different times amounts to the same thing. In the case of Miller's Court, with other prostitutes living there, many would not volunteer information on their nocturnal comings and goings. Of course, as Mr Mann himself reminds us, Hutchinson's presence, looking up Miller's Court, amounts to yet another person on site.
It is very unlikely that the killer chose the murder sites. It is far more likely that, as is normal with prostitutes, they led their client (the killer in this case) to their usual secluded spots for sex, and met their fate. Of course, the location and many other factors argue against Stride being a Ripper victim at all. Thousands of random killers have committed their acts in public places and got away with it. What's so special in this case? As we know, we could argue about all this forever and not all agree. But, please, let's have some common sense! |
Author: Jeffrey
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 10:07 am | | Hello All !
Hey Ivor ! I hope you scrutinise your facts a little more accurately that you appear to scrutinize other people, and I would kindly ask where it was I said "The killer did select the sites for the killings. That is self evident."? as you so quoted.
You go on to say that I believe I know more than the police of 1888 ?? I honestly don't care to know where you are coming from with such nonsensical remarks. I do not profess to know more than the police, I do however, place credence in SK-profiling as a single tool available to me. Many contemporary police statements indicate they were themselves involved in rudimentory profiling. Looking for a man with certain characteristics based upon scene of crime evidence.
I do have on my side, over 100 years of hindsight and the acquired knowledge of many intelligent men including those who either are or were members of the police force themselves. I have always endeavoured to remain factual, unbiased and non-controversial where I am voicing my own humble opinions on these boards. I don't see any startling new claims or revelations made here that require such an antagonistic response. I have no axe to grind in this forum, I'm simply a non-professional who is interested in this study and enjoy using the boards to air certain ideas. From time-to-time I will post my own thoughts. I have been corrected on many occassions, and have always been grateful because my understanding of the facts has always been enhanced through the shared experiences of others. For this I am very grateful. I wish to use this forum for open, honest amicable debate, nothing more. I don't have to be right, and unlike the backyard of Hanbury Street, I never wish to cause offence.
I am extremely confident that the victims all worked their own patch, and led the killer to their preferred spot. Annie Chapman always tried to keep Bed No.29 and I have always believed their to be a tenuous link between this and 29 Hanbury Street, for example. In respect to my profiling, I do see a distinct pattern in days and dates, and I believe the killer knew the geography of the area extremely well. It is even possible that the killer worked certain patches because of his knowledge of the women, the police and the public presence in the area. He could have even targetted his victim specifically. He certainly appears to have targetted a particular type of victim, and he did target a very specific area of London.
I don't wish to enter into any further controversy, however I have found your comments blunt, bordering on rude and although you seem to attribute an extensive knowledge of the case to yourself, I have gained no better understanding or knowledge from your responses. I'm only glad that I didn't post a recent thought I had, regarding evidence found at the murder site of Alice McKenzie, drawing some similarities to the murder scene at Hanbury Street. As it was, I asked, gave my opinion, was corrected and learned something through the genuine kindness and selflessness of a gentleman who I'm sure would have a better understanding of the facts than either you or I, Ripperologist or not.
I shall refrain from posting for a while until I do determine the true climate of these boards. Hopefuly Ivor, I will learn something from your own posts, though I shan't be holding my breath. I might even recomend that you join the fellowship Ivor. It may help you with that log on your shoulder.
Jeff D |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 10:17 am | | David -
I am glad to see part of your "copyrighted" theory at last, and have enjoyed the debate it has sparked. You see now why we have been telling you it needs to be vetted by a lot of people before you put it forth.
For the sake of argument, even Buck's Row might fit the definition of a "bottleneck," as, if you were coming from the direction of Baker's Row, the road is wide until it meets the Board School and then splits apart into the two relatively narrow byways of Buck's Row and Winthrop Street.
As far as Dutfield's Yard is concerned, I think we can only posit that the killer feared no disturbance if he was certain the meeting of the IWMEC was not going to break up any time soon; of course, as they were all singing, Stride's killer might have believed himself safe in thinking no-one would abandon the merriment to go out into the rainy September night. But this is also predicated on assuming Stride was a Ripper victim, and I do not.
Miller's Court poses a different problem for me in that I have always wondered how the Ripper knew he would not be disturbed. How could he know that someone else did not live with Kelly and would walk in at any time? How could he know no-one would knock on the door? How could he be sure that the fire he kindled would not attract the attention of a passerby who would push aside the coat covering the broken window? Unless he was assured by Kelly that they had all the time in the world (a highly debatable prospect), I would - in this one instance - lean towards a belief that the killer either knew Kelly or knew her situation well enough to assure himself of safety.
I like the idea, David, though I don't know that it really holds water or can bring us any closer to identifying the Ripper. Interesting, though.
And with regards to "Ripperologist" - Stewart Evans doesn't like the term either, but unless someone can come up with a mutually acceptable term that encompasses the serious Ripper student, I am afraid we are stuck with it. I do think, however, that it should not be applied to oneself. It's rather like the word "expert" - someone else may call you that, but it's rather presumptuous to call yourself an expert. I feel the same about the term "Ripperologist," especially when it includes me in the company of those far, far better qualified than I to comment and theorise on the case.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 10:56 am | | You are quite right Jeff D, I owe you an apology regarding the statement that "the killer did select the sites for the killings. That is self evident." It was made by our old friend Mr Mann, and the error is entirely mine, made when I edited my message. However, what you say amounts to the same thing, that the killer chose the murder sites himself "while he allowed the victim to think they were leading him to a secluded place."
Don't sound so hurt, you obviously believe in something that many others don't. But if you make bold claims for such ideas, don't be surprised that someone disagrees with you. If you are upset by such a mild rebuff you shouldn't be involved in debate. Sorry if you are upset.
There is nothing unusual in the killer's target - prostitutes. Many others have picked the sam targets, and the East End was the easiest place to do so and get away with it. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 07:03 pm | | The person currently posting anonymously as Ivor Q.U. Estion is in my view the same who for a long time posted under "anon," "Alan," and many other pseudonynms. He is a sycophant of Melvin Harris, and attacks reflexively literally anything he considers, even in the most extremely remote sense, threatening to Harris' theory of D'Onston as the Ripper. He doesn't say he's doing it, but this is what he's doing. I believe he may also be the individual who posts Mr. Harris' comments for him, Mr. Harris not having internet access. Sometimes he puts on a facade of standing up for "reasonableness" and "common sense" in case studies as a dodge for what he's really up to. He is almost single-handedly responsible for Paul Begg not visiting this web site anymore--his strident anti-Begg, anti-Kosminski rhetoric made the environment so toxic for Paul that he merely reads posts, and does not contribute anymore. He is IMHO the same individual who scathingly criticized Mr. Gordon's material, without ever having read one single word of it, several months back. Other authors have followed these gentlemen in leaving. I believe almost every trouble these boards have had over the past two years are free-speech issues, and emanate directly from the politically-tinged remarks of this one anonymous poster who wrecks the environment for everyone out of his compulsive, overweening attachment to Harris. When he gets tired of being Ivor Q. U. Estion, this crank will reappear as someone else.
He is an enemy of free speech on these boards.
When will people who post here finally learn about anonymous posters? With very few exceptions (such as Viper and Jeff D.), anonymous posters are cowards. If Ivor had anything of conscientious value to contribute, he'd sign his real name.
David |
|
|
|
|
