Archive through June 17, 2001

** 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 June 17, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Catherine Eddowes: Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion): Archive through June 17, 2001

Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 11:51 am
Diana, I have been through all London archive material which relates to the Murders. I have gone through the evidence which relates to medical experience the killer may or may not have possessed. Many police oficers including High rankers believed Jack had the experience of a medical man. Some Doctors involved on the case also thought the same. Dr Bond thought that somone with experience in cutting up animals could have achieved the mutilations.The evidence that he was a medical men far outweighs the evidence to show that he was not. I do cover this topic in my book.Furthermore a gutman working in a slaughter gang would know far more about gutting than than the DR you mentioned.We worked on piece work and we worked as fast as it is possible to work. I have gutted a cow in 4 and a half minutes ( Some of the vital organs and suet had already been removed ) Not only did I have to gut the animal I had to process what was taken out.The mutilations on Eddowes took no more than 2 minutes and I name a professor (who is a medical man)in my book who agrees with me. I did this work as a living all day and every day for nine months so I know what can be achieved and the time it can be achieved in.
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 12:04 pm
Simon,Good points you have made. When I was investigating these crimes I came to the same conclusion you have drawn. But I ruled out the soldier seen with Tabram. I do not class her as a Ripper victim.I list 5 victims only. Starting with Nichols and finishing with Kelly.However I maintain that the killer was experienced in military surgery.I give the many reasons why in my work.
Author: Jon Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 12:52 pm
Simon...now your cooking. Ivor, I also reasearched the soldier theory as far as I could take it, with reference to Tabram. My conclusion was, "yes, she was murdered by a soldier, but not by Jack". However, I have also held a close conviction that our quarry had medical experience from a military background. I've said before, he was determined, organized, in total control and worked with purpose. I suggest the disipline and skill that a military medical practitioner would display is not beyond reason. The question, as always, is WHY?. I need to read your book on this matter, see how close we both are in interpreting the evidence. Regards, Jon ------------- In my case this is a 'working hypothesis', not a theory. Also, any such person retired out of the service due to a medical condition will still retain his skill and still might live in poverty but maintain a modicum of disipline, a place for everything, and everything in its place. He may not have been a young man. Alternately, assuming he was young and simply out on leave, he was possibly posted overseas in mid November and may have died abroad. All speculation, but seeds that may mature given the required research.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 01:04 pm
Dear Ivor, Even better, a military gynaecologist...can't be many of them? Rosey:-)
Author: David Cohen Radka Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 01:19 pm
The only thing I can think of on a hot Saturday afternoon to add to this excellent discussion, is to disagree with Jon's point that the WM was not a sexual serial murderer. To me, the evidence says he just had to have been. He committed 5 or 6 murders very much the same way, taking souvenirs. They were of women engaged in a sexual business. He mutilated sexual parts of the body. To say he was not a SSM, you'd have to say that he was himself engaged on some sort of business that nonetheless took on all the appearances of SSM although it was not, now how really could this argument work on the level of discussion? If you had to sit down with an intelligent person and have a dialogue trying to demonstrate this, what could you say to foster your contention? I just can't imagine having a reasonable discussion on this topic--if I'm wrong, please correct me. You might want to say that the WM had two (or maybe more) nuances to him, SSM and something else, which is possible I think. But to say no, he was not a SSM is going too far. Thank you. David
Author: Jon Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 02:01 pm
Glad your enjoying it David (gotta be careful here) In this instance I dont recall (above) saying "no" to Jack being a SSK (or SSM), though I have raised doubts about this on other boards at least twice in the past. And I certainly do not intend to take up the cudgels again on this board. Both previous (months ago) exchanges were excellent and informative but the subject for me remains inconclusive. Regardless of the fact Jack removed two sex organs he also removed two none-sex related organs. I still maintain that in this case you cannot label the WM in any category beyond 'serial killer' until we determine his purpose for the organ removal. Without knowing that, any 'label' as SSK (SSM) is pure speculation. Consider this, there is much we still need to learn about Tumblety, correct? Tumblety is NOT known to have had any surgical experience, correct? Tumblety DID have a collection of organs, correct? Among those organs were uterii, correct? Has anyone suggested this collection has 'sexual' connotations?.....in a word, NO. If it did then every Victorian practicing surgeon would be a sexual pervert, to our generation, because organs stored in spirits on display were normal practice in Victorian medical society. It indicates to a patient he is in the presence of a 'Professional'. Personally, I think he bought the organs as a 'prop' to support his pseudo 'Doctor' image. The taking of organs is NO indication of the mind of the 'taker', (he could have been paid to do it). The collection of organs is NO indication of the mind of the 'collector', (he may be a bonafide Doctor). It is only the USE of those organs that can help determine the mind of the 'user'. To confidently label Jack as a SSK you MUST prove the reason for the removal of those particular organs, and the only way that can be done is to identify Jack. Regards, Jon
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 02:34 pm
Rosey, I dont know if they was such a thing as a military gynaecologist prior to 1888. Rick, I agree with you that there was indeed shock and fear tactics used. In doing what Jack was doing and the manner in which he was doing it he was killing two birds with one stone.He was creating terror tactics while at the same time achieving his desired objective. David, No evidence exists to show that Jack took the parts as souvenirs it has only been assumed so. The reason he was termed a sexual serial killer was because he killed prostitutes and attacked the private parts.No evidence exists that he ever had sex with a victim on site. In fact the medical evidence points to the fact that he did not have sex with the victims on site. I believe that some of the sites were far too precarious for him to hang about on to have sex with his victims.In my book I give the name of a Professor at a London Hospital who agrees with me that there is no conclusive proof which shows that the murders were sexually motivated.In my work I mention a murder where the private parts were cut from the client of a prostitute, by the prostitute, yet the murder was not sexually motivated. I defy any person to show me conclusive proof that these murders were committed by a sexual serial killer. I would like to see the evidence rather than unfounded assumptions. Murders are not solved by such ill conceived assumptions or opinions which have little or no validity.What evidence there was has been misinterprated, twisted, or ignored.It comes as no surprise to me that these murders were never solved.
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 02:52 pm
Jon,I have always admired and respected your comments in relation to these crimes.In fact I made mention to someone that your understanding and interpretation of the known facts places you on the same level as the best of them. It is a pity that you do not write a book on the subject.It really is refreshing for me to get into a debate with those that know what they are about.May I reply to your last post by e-mail if I may.
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 02:59 pm
Ps, Jon, You ask the most important question of all Why? It is this question which made me research the murders. It is going to be the answer to this question that will solve these murders once and for all.
Author: David Cohen Radka Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 03:04 pm
Well, gentlemen, consider this please, before we head out for our annual Father's Day dinner at Angelico's (prime ribs): If you see me heading into Food Mart, don't you think that what I've got in mind to do is get my groceries? That's what people go to Food Mart for, isn't it? So, if you see me going in and you want to say I'm going there for some other purpose, don't you also have to show conclusively what that purpose is? 99% of the people going into Food Mart are there to shop. A small number are there to work, or to represent suppliers, to repair the freezers, etc., but this number is small. I understand a logical possibility for the WM being something beyond a SSM, but the accepted evidence of the case doesn't show that. If you are going to introduce other evidence, evidence which differs from SSM, you are going to have to have cast iron credentials for it, just because it's different. Knight tried to introduce what Joseph Gorman Sickert told him in this sense, Feldman the Diary, both introductions collapsed under scrutiny. I still don't see how what is said here passes the acid test. In my view, the Ripperologist is best served sticking to the mainstream evidence of the case, and trying to explain that, rather than adding something new to it. Have fun, David
Author: Steve Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 03:53 pm
Hi All, David Thanks for the comments, to paraphrase a certain detective "Theories! We were almost lost in theories." Alas theories are all we have today. Stays not cut through . I'm not surprised, KE wasn't wearing any. "No Drawers or Stays"(Official Cloths/Possessions List). PS AR Austin Richard (Dick)? Jon As you have said on the issue of the Millers Court window, who do you believe. The press reports describe the apron as torn but Smith and Collard say that it was cut. I'm not sure about Halse's statement do Jones & Lloyd give any reference as to its origin. The statement it is phrased so like that of Major Smith's It makes me wonder if Smith didn't get this from Halse or visa versa. Tom I think it's safe to say the apron was worn given Insp Collard's inquest statement I produce a portion of apron which the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress This confirms that the murderer must have sorted through the clothing to bring the apron to the surface as seems to have been the case with Annie Chapman and possibly Polly Nichols. Why would the murderer spend time rearranging the clothing in this way after the mutilations ? Perhaps the murderer was a frustrated apron salesman Steve
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 04:21 pm
Dear Ivor, Neither do I. But there were butchers, mortuary assistants, abortionists, corpse-steelers, hunters and gatherers, and, of course, the odd vampyre or two...indeed, even Rosey Quicklime could perform such a touchy-feely extraction with a good teacher looking over her shoulder! Every doctor would have been a suspect to the general populous...including those attending the SOC. Rosey Scissorhand :-)
Author: Jon Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 04:40 pm
David With all due respect, I think you missed the point. Let me tell you what the biggest obstacle is to the SSK label, (apart from 'no known motive'), its that American Doctor in 1887 who attempted to legitimately buy uterii from two major medical establishments. - His presence in England proves that the 'no market for that organ' objection is invalid, he is/was living breathing proof of 1 market. What we dont know was what were his whereabouts in 1888?. - So long as any legitimate foreign medical practitioner was unable to find a legitimate source of uterii, regardless of the reason, we have the potential for him hiring, by fair means or foul, a 3rd party to secure a source for him. And that remote possibility, however unlikely is still enough to prove that the potential exists for a hired person to have committed the crimes for another person, totally blowing apart any SSK label for our killer. Modern police, under similar circumstances would turn every stone to hunt that Doctor down to find his whereabout at the time of the murders, and any potential connections he may have made. That is a fact and a fact all too often overlooked. I do not propose this Doctor was Tumblety, I do not propose anything as regards a suspect. What I do propose is below: Jack cut their throat and slit their abdomen to remove an organ. - You cannot label that murder as sexually motivated until you know the reason for the organ removal. - You cannot use the crime scene/medical evidence of several (5-7?) murders (Kraft-Ebbing) to establish the mental state of the killer until you know how many of those victims were his !!! (by the same hand). - You cannot claim 'there was no market for that organ' when there is legitimate proof of the existance of at least one individual (in 1887) who tried to buy the very organ in question. Regards, Jon ---------------- P.S. Let me explain 'hired hand'. I do not suggest a bonafide Doctor would prowl the streets at night looking for victims, I think that is ludicrous, unless he's unbalanced. I would suggest a foreign Doctor might approach one of those mortuary establishments and offer some individual who was employed there a few pence or shillings to secure an organ or two every so often. I don't think it is unreasonable to suppose such inmates would do something of this nature for money. Read some contemporary reports of what people will do for money who live in the East End. All it would take is for this 'hired hand' to be discovered one day and then he would be removed from the mortuary detail, preventing him from earning a few pence or shillings. Here's a guy who's handy with a knife who will lose this lucritive (to him) source of income, what do you think he may do next...... All the above is simply adequate speculation, a possible scenario, with the only purpose being to blow a hole in the SSK proposal, it does not form any theory of mine.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 05:04 pm
Dear Ivor, There are those who scoff at such a notion ... men who drink the blood of humans...But their cunning is legendary and their acts of invisibility are but the missing links of history. Consider: To disguise their revolting method of syphoning the much-badly needed blood from their victims via the carotid...they would have to mutilate the victim's neck to hide those tell-tale signs of fang-like dentistry that are the hallmarks of such creatures of the night. And, o what cunning! to slash, to mutilate and remove the odd viscera of the now empty corpse...and hide it. Cast it away... in a dustbin, down a privy, into the sewers...and they shall seek in vain! You fools! Do you not see...we must gather to storm the citadel of night...to wrench apart the veil and reveal the unspeakable!!!!! Rosery... (gulp)... Amen.
Author: Jon Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 06:01 pm
You missed your calling, Rosie
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 09:12 pm
Jesus Rosie your starting to scare me! I shall lock my bedroom door tonight. Body parts could be purchased in a legal manner in 1888. A body could be bought for just over four pounds. And even if this was not so, anyone wanting body parts would have no problem breaking into a mortuary to obtain them from a fresh corpse.Look at the type of such dumps which were used in Whitechapel for example. They were no more than shacks which were a disgrace. Anyone could gain access to the corpse if they so desired. So why did not Jack obtain his organs in such a manner? One reason could be that the organs he needed had to be obtained from murdered prostitutes. The only situation that I have found where body parts have to be obtained from murdered prostitutes is in relation to occult ritual murder. The London Hospital held one of the most comprehensive collections of various body parts in the country.Any criminal worth his salt could have gained access to them or could quite as easily have greased the palm of any orderly to obtain them.To state that the killer could not have obtained the organs he required from any other source is far from the truth.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 09:17 pm
Dear Jon, Since you have been leading us round in circles for some time now...I am beginning to suspect the truth, no matter how utterly outlandish this may seem, I believe YOU are one of THEM! When did you last look in the mirror, Jon? How horrible...a living death awaits you...ORTHADOXIA. Repent! Rosey Buffet :-)
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 09:42 pm
Is there anyone on this casebook who can show me conclusive proof that these murders were the work of a sexual serial killer? I am asking for conclusive evidence rather than opinions or assumptions.The fact that the victims were prostitutes and their private parts were mutilated does not constitute that the murders were the work of a SSK. If no such evidence is forthcoming then I take it that the true motive remains unknown.
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 10:18 pm
In discussing JtR's sexual orientation, we are obviously not dealing with any ordinary concept of sexuality. To say that he was not a sexual serial killer/murderer, or did not -- as David astutely suggests, IMHO -- have a sexual component to his motivation for murder, is rather like saying JtR was motivated by robbery alone...whether of money or body parts to sell to a hypothetical market. It's not just the mutilations and removal of organs that distinguishes the sexual motivation -- after all, JtR took organs common to men and women. JtR killed women, not men. Sexual deviants, including murderers, are not required to produce semen or evidence of coitus to find sexual 'pleasure' in their acts. Besides, we have no way of knowing if JtR did or did not soil himself with semen during his murders, or after, when he returned to his den. JtR, like most serial killers, was probably a white male; his victims were white females engaged in a sexually-oriented occupation. The arrangements that led the victims to their deaths are far more probably ones that involved the women's trade, not any skill with needle and thread, or advice on the proper eveningwear for a man-about-town. He arranged the women's bodies so that their genitalia was exposed, and from the drawing of Eddowes in Mitre Square and the picture of Kelly, he also arranged the legs to be spread open in a sexually suggestively manner. The women were meant to be found in sexually degrading positions. He did not cover the women's faces, suggesting he felt no shame for what he was doing. What he was doing was butchering females; the method chosen for the cause of death (massive blood loss); the weapon chosen for the murders -- the intimate knife rather than the distance created with a club or blunt object; down to the virtual removal of any human characteristics in the last two victims by the extensive mutilations of their faces as well as their bodies... JtR hated the women he killed (at the very least) but he also needed to "possess" them, conquer them, eliminate the psycotic-sexual disturbance they caused in him. No verbal abuse, no other manner of assault, no other form of social rejection appealed to JtR. He killed them...for their gender and for his own pleasure -- for his own private psychological, social, economic, and sexual pleasure/release/gratification. The "pleasure" of JtR's sexual act was not consensual as in "normal" sexual activity. But he "shared" his activity with living, breathing, independent, sexually active human females -- but enacting his murderous rage upon these living female bodies. Their are more definitions or examples of human sexuality -- normal and abnormal -- than their are posters and readers of the Casebook. Although JtR could have killed men and still be a sexual serial killer, he chose women. Although JtR could have killed children and still be a sexual serial killer, he chose women. Poor women, from a poor district of, at that time, the world's greatest city. Whether they died of disease, accident, or malnutrition, there were no shortages of dead human bodies or the organs they contain. Read about the Anatomy Act and the fate after their deaths of the world's greatest city's most poor and vulnerable citizens. They owed the State for their burial and they paid for their "funerals" by the enforced policy of using destitute people's corpses for dissection and "organ harvesting." The poor feared the fate of their bodies after dying poor in the world's richest, most powerful city. And JtR left his own version -- imitation -- of the medical autopsy/dissection that the poor so dreadfully feared right out on the public streets and yards. Those five women, and the probably the victims of the Torso Killings, were the bloody canvases of the East End residents' perpetual nightmare of their own possible "mutilation," performed by recognized, respected doctors and scientists, with the sanction and cooperation of Church and State. Perhaps the poorest, most vulnerable of all London's destitute were women -- of whom the five canonical JtR victims, regardless of their profession, were economically and socially typical. In my opinion, and it's just my opinion, those are the major reasons JtR did what he did in the Autumn of 1888. Yaz
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 10:21 pm
Dear Everyone, Ivor, I find your last posting rather strange. You ask for 'conclusive proof' rather than opinions or assumptions. What exactly do you mean by 'conclusive proof'. If you mean proof as required in criminal cases ie beyond a reasonable doubt, then opinions and assumptions will suffice. A recognised expert giving his opinion, such as firearms, ballistic, forensic or fingerprint, will have this opinion accepted as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is nothing more than a series of assumptions made on the basis of circumstances prevailing, and yet these assumptions are often accepted as beyond a reasonable doubt. If you mean proof beyond all doubt then quite simply it does not exist. Your 'work' is only an amalgam of your opinions and assumptions just as my book was of mine. How valid or accurate these opinions and assumptions are remains to be seen. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Jon Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 10:24 pm
Well Rosie, there are leaders and there are followers.... Don't try to analyze to deep, I have no theory, no suspect and I dont support the 'organ removal' proposal (above), that was just an elaborate way of explaining a possible scenario that would invalidate the SSK label. Some people just dont see the weakness of the case for sexual intent. There was no evidence for sexual intent, this is all in the minds of psychologists, much along the lines of FBI profiling, and we all know how dubious that is. The SSK labelling of JtR originated along the same lines that FBI profiling did, both flawed. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 10:49 pm
Yaz - What evidence is there that JtR actually hated his victims? - The act of removing anything from the lower abdomen of a victim can leave the victims legs wide apart, what reason is there to suggest it was intentional? - No-one is arguing about sexual interpretations...even mere strangulation can be an erotic stimulation for a killer, but such a killer does not get labelled as a SSK for mere strangulation, so why the double standard?. Truth is, almost any agressive contact between the opposite sexes can be broadly interpreted to have sexual connotations, but that is not what we are talking about. - No body knows whether Jack killed men, typically researchers look for other women victims around the world and find none. If he killed males at all it may have been for another reason,...do you discount Jack being a soldier?..there are no women on a battlefield. Your poste, if you chose to analyze it sentence by sentence, has much assumption that you are useing as if it were fact. Now you are trying to tell us that Jack hated prostitutes, as if you know it to be a fact, when we all know prostitutes, especially drunken ones were simply the most vulnerable. This is the kind of blind assumption that permeates the case. Regards, Jon
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 12:45 am
Jon: -The victims' murders. -He could have closed the legs and lowered the skirts when he was "finished." -There is more than a double standard; there are multiple standards that constitute a label for sexual serial killers, as there are an almost infinite number of words, acts, thoughts that constitute a person's sexuality. For instance, I have no idea what you mean by "sexual intent" in the words you employ, "Some people just dont see the weakness of the case for sexual intent." Perhaps sex and intent are in the eye of the beholder? Our task, like the criminal agencies (FBI, Scotland Yard, etc.) who deal with these types of crimes on a constant basis, is to look through the eyes of the killers themselves. Post-arrest/conviction interviews with serial killers almost always reveal some sexual component to the killings, no matter how twisted the sexuality of the killer. A better way of saying this is that a sexual component to the killing, or what occurs before or after the killing, is rarely absent. -No one is even positive JtR killed all five canonical victims; if a man or a child had been killed in this period, and then eviscerated, would researcher really have to look that hard to find contemporary accounts of these crimes? Doesn't the absence of this "evidence" indicate the higher probability that JtR killed only women? And yes, I discount JtR being, or ever having been, a soldier. I closed my post stating that this was all my opinion; I make no assumption that my opinions are "facts." I said JtR hated women, proof being the acts of murder and mutilation committed against five individual women (and, yes, for the purposes of inquiry I accept all five as JtR's victims). And I would not try to "tell" (meaning: dictate to) anybody about anything. Yaz
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 01:33 am
Hello all, I believe Yazoo's post is all the conclusive proof you need that Jack was a sexual serial killer. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. As to Tumblety, my main problem with him being a suspect is that he was gay. The Ripper crimes do not point towards a gay killer. Steve, Thank you for responding to my post. I'm amazed at how thoroughly it was ignored. In response, you will notice they say she was 'apparently' wearing it because they do not know this for a fact. It is assume simply because the remaining portion was still on her body. Many of the women of the East End, if not virtually all, wore torn and tattered clothing and would save up cloth pieces for use on other garments or for selling. To my mind, it makes more sense that the Ripper simply took what was available to him as opposed to calmly and rationally slicing off a piece of her apron to wipe his knife or hands. In the time it would have taken him to cut it off, he could have already wiped his hands and blade clean on it! I think he grabbed it in flight. Anyway, there's another cent to add to the two I threw down yesterday. Ha ha. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 06:10 am
The utter of the nutter is the mutter of the udder
Author: Jon Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 09:34 am
Yaz - He could have closed the legs and lowered the skirts when he was "finished." LOL, Highwaymen were gentlemen (some say), the age of chivalry is long past. (I will assume your joking) unless your suggesting a 'Christian' JtR would have saved her embarrasment. -There is more than a double standard; there are multiple standards that constitute a label for sexual serial killers, This is exactly my point, almost any agressive act of a man against a woman CAN have sexual connotations and therefore a suggestion of sexual intent. The very term 'sexual' has been so watered down as to become relatively meaningless. On the opposite side strangulation murderers are rarely if ever termed SSK's, and yet it is well known that some killers had sexual gratification through strangling their victims. The guidelines are too vague, ask any lawyer. -No one is even positive JtR killed all five canonical victims; AGREED Then why support a psychological report that uses ALL FIVE victims in order to suggest that the killer was a SSK....flawed assumptions, flawed conclusions...as you yourself have just pointed out. - JtR hated the women he killed (at the very least) I took that as a definitive statement based on your reading of the evidence. The fact that you 'stepped back' from this stand was, I think, a second thought of yours. You should realize that the act of murder against someone you know can be construed as a 'hate' crime, but no-one knows if Jack knew his victims. The suggestion that Jack 'hated' Women in general or prostitutes in particular is a known fallacy brought about by the same psychologists & certain authors who wish to propose Jack as a crazy maniac of the Kosminsky class. Nothing in the way of evidence in these crimes suggests a crazy wild lunatic at large. Regards, Jon
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 10:24 am
Hi Bob, Tom, and Yaz. Tom,As Yaz stated he is giving his opinions nothing more yet you wrote that his opinions are conclusive proof that Jack was a sexual serial killer!! Since when have opinions become conclusive proof.The answer is that they have not.Also the evidence given in the Eddowes case states that the apron piece was made by a clean cut of Jacks knife and the two halves were later placed side by side and they matched. There is no dispute on this. Yaz, Jon has left me with little to add in relation to your posts. You state that Jack could have closed the legs and lowered the skirts when he was finished.Two reasons I can think of why he never. The first is the time element, Why bother wasting precious seconds when every second counted.Covering the victim would not have had the desired shock effect which I believe was intended.Also I am positive that Jack only killed five victims in the series.This comment is more than an assumption.I base it on the factual evidence I have acquired.I do understand the logic of your opinions. Bob, By 'conclusive proof' I mean factual evidence rather than mere opinions based on circumstantial evidence which (as you rightly state ) is nothing more than a series of assumptions made on the basis of circumstances prevailing. Time and time again I have seen the same set of circumstances viewed and manipulated by defence and prosecution in a court of law.So we end up with several contexts in which it can be viewed.It can confuse the issue. Many times have I seen innocent people convicted on circumstancial evidence which has been taken out of all true context only to be twisted to appear what it is not.Then a jury believes the twisted version rather than the true one.Criminal Investigations can be just as bad. Look at the ammount of assumptions and opinions which were made in the case of the Yorkshire ripper. They were wrong and they cost lives. If I assume something I like to back it up with evidence rather than forming an opinion based solely on a set of circumstances which can be interpreted in various ways and which can also be twisted to mean something it is not.Let me give you one example of an assumption based on fact. I state that the murders were preplanned on a map.That comment is my opinion based on fact.What are the facts for such an assumption? I took measurements and found that: Nichols was found 930yds from Chapman.Eddowes was found 930yds from Chapman.Kelly and Eddowes were both found 950yds from Stride. Kelly, Eddowes, and Stride were found exactly on a 500yd radius line.I concider these findings as fact. So I have made an opinion based on good factual evidence. Do you see the point I am getting at Bob? One reason why this case has ended up as a complete mess is simply because too many people have placed too many interpretations on the circumstances of the case without anything to back it up.And what evidence there is has been either misinterpretated, twisted, or ignored. Professer J. Coid, Forensic Psychiatrist, stated:"There's nothing in terms of the evidence available at that time which shows without doubt that these crimes were committed by sombody in a state of sexual arousal.There werent actually objects inserted into the body;there was no evidence of semen at the scene of the crime.In the case of Chapman Coroner Wynne Baxter stated that the desire to possess the missing organs had been the object of the attack.Two things that I have learnt from criminal cases is dont take anything for granted and question everything.
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 12:00 pm
On closing the legs or covering the genitalia: It takes little time to perform; performing such an act (or not!) has meaning, at least so that the self-resoecting murderer would not be thought of as a pervert. Check the literature on serial murder. And try not to laugh as you find your opinions in disagreement with law enforcement officials with far more experience in these types of murders. On the double standard: You miss the point entirely. The murderer is an aberation; his motives are an aberation; the multiplicity of sexual meaning does not indicate a "watering down" into meaningless of this observation, it simply recognizes the wide range of sexuality. If your idea of a sexual component to these crimes requires an act of vaginal penetration or traces of semen left in or on the bodies, you are severely limited in your concept of sexuality or sexual crime. And who told you strangulation isn't another form of sexual practice -- one not always practiced by murderers and obviously not to the point of death? On the canonical five: Which is the flawed assumption, that all five were JtR victims or one or more were not? If the latter, which victims should be excluded and for what reasons and based upon what proof? None of the murders were solved. They took place in a series of very similar murders, I think the assumption -- until evidence, not the interpretation of evidence, is established -- it is safer to investigate all of them, leaving the ability to exclude certain victims open until proof is established. The only proof would have been the capture and conviction of one or more murderers who were proven or confessed to killing one or all of the victims. On JtR hating women: The "fact...'I stepped back'"? "Known fallacy"? Where are you acquiring this wealth of facts and wisdom? You are interpreting what you have studied, the same as the rest of us. What process elevates the level of your opinions into the realm of known facts and fallacies? And then you take off on a tangent about "crazy wild lunatics"! I never said, nor do I think, JtR was crazy/insane etc. I said he hated women because he killed them and mutilated them and left them in vulnerable, sexually degrading positions to be found in public places/by the police. I want to address a quote from Ivor: "Let me give you one example of an assumption based on fact. I state that the murders were preplanned on a map.That comment is my opinion based on fact." If you cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion/assumption (interpretation), you are lost. Assumption becomes fact because, well, "it's based on fact." But what is the factual basis for the assumption? Illogically, the fact is the very assumption! (1) Assertion ("I state..." says Ivor) is made that the murders were preplanned on a map. Note, that assertion is not the same as assumption ("I believe," or "I suggest"). (2) There is a fact. But what is the fact? The murdered bodies were found with measurable distances from one another. That is a fact. Also, all the victims were women. What help does the fact about their gender provide us in identifying their murderer? Oh yeah, the victims all had ears. That's significant, isn't it? And fingernails; they had them too. Can't ignore these significant commonalities, now can we? Since real objects in real space all have distances between one another, what makes these sets of measured distances meaningful, let alone evidence of pre-planning on a map? To further complicate matters, if no one is certain that all of the victims were killed by the same man, and they disagree on who to include or exclude in a meaningful set of victims, is that not another obstacle to any meaning in these measurements? (3) Therefore, the act of measuring the physical distant between any or all of the victims becomes "good factual evidence" that the murders were "preplanned on a map." We are also offered this sage advice: "One reason why this case has ended up as a complete mess is simply because too many people have placed too many interpretations on the circumstances of the case without anything to back it up.And what evidence there is has been either misinterpretated [sic], twisted, or ignored." I certainly feel reassured that this case in now in competent hands at last! Not. But by all means, carry on, boys. I'm just sorry to see, as I was towards the end of my last visit, that the longer some people remain on the Casebook, or even the closer they come to the inner workings of the Casebook, the more authoritarian their opinions become. Yaz
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 12:17 pm
Dear Ivor, I believe you are in danger of falling into the same area of confusion as others have done. You state that the bodies were placed at precise measured distances apart and you say this is a fact. It isn't. It is your assumption based on measurements you have made using various methods. But whatever method you chose it will have a built in error factor, assuming you can pinpoint precisely (to within one yard) where the bodies were located, which you can't. You cannot for example pinpoint the Hanbury Street site, or the Millers Court site or even the Berner Street site. You have a rough idea where Eddowes and Nichols were found, but certainly not to the yard. If your theory depends on the placing the bodies at exact spots I would say you're in trouble. To do this the killer would have to survey the sites with incredible accuracy using every tool available to him, maps, chains theodolites etc, and then somehow entice his victims to present themselves on the precise spot ready to be murdered. I think someone would have noticed. I'm quite sure that if you establish agreed positions for the bodies you could manage to find some relation distance wise that has absolutely nothing to do with your theory. They were all killed the same number of yards as the date from a public house or church or school or public urinal or something of that nature. Or the corpses were equally spaced in the centre of a triangle formed by two pubs and a church spire, the permutations are endless. anyway all the best. Will you be at the conference? Bob Hinton (This is so cool)
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 12:23 pm
Ivor, I'm sorry I inferred that Yaz's opinions are facts. They are not. But he DID bring forth facts of the case which I believe is pretty ironclad proof that JTR was a SSK. In fact, I'm surprised this point is even open for discussion. You mention yourself that to JTR time was of the essence and he wouldn't waste precious seconds prettying up his murder sites. With this I agree. However, then you must also agree that he wouldn't waste time cutting through a piece of Eddowes' apron when pre-cut pieces of cloth were lying out right next to him! I'm afraid I also have to agree with Yaz and sex and sexuality are springboards for many actions, and perhaps in one way or another, ALL actions. If these women were killed as a part of a ritual for their organs, then why were Kelly and Eddowes sliced so badly? The killer had to have a personal reason for that, as there was nothing else to gain from it. Alas, I know how hard it is to clearly state your case on a message board while answering responses, so I anxiously await your book. Yaz, Relax, buddy. Ivor's not attacking you, just debating with you. Don't take that other stuff so personal. I'm not. Ivor's not. And don't bail on the Casebook just because some people don't agree with you. Your viewpoint is valuable. But, you're a grown man and will do what you want to do. I'm sure you'll be back someday. This board has a boomerang effect like that, you know. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Jon Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 12:58 pm
Well said Tom. Maybe we need to sprinkle these verbal tennis matches with more smiley faces Everyone's viewpoint is valid, and most of our views are 75% assumption. Lets be honest, there's precious little by the way of factual evidence in this case. Just because we get embroiled in semantics from time to time there's no need for anyone to "take their ball home" and quit the game. (time out?) Regards, Jon
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 01:06 pm
On the matter of the genitals being revealed , I think that if the victim's skirts had been pulled down , it might have indicated a level of respect or remorse on the part of the Ripper : the fact that they weren't indicates the killer had neither , IMHO. This suggests ( this is a BIG assumption ) a person from a different part of town and a different social class IMHO. Why ? I keep thinking of the film ' Taxi Driver ' and of Travis Bickle , wanting to wash the filth of the city into the gutter : Bickle was ( in general )protected by the walls of his cab from having to interact with these people in the flesh. He could remain aloof to pronounce judgement on them. On a similar line , a white racist will usually not live in a black dominated area of the city : therefore could a man who hated prostitutes really live in the same area of the city as them , use the same pubs and shops as them ,see them every day on the street corners ? How could he stand it ? Yaz is right that the crimes are sexual ones though , just because no intercourse took place doesn't mean that there is no sexual element to the murders. It is believed by psychologists that the knife becomes a substitute penis penetrating the female's body , but without the fear and anxiety of maintaining an erection , penetration or conception. There is a sexual element behind the crimes.
Author: Jon Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 01:41 pm
Simon Your using the broad brush again. The kind of association we can read about, knife = penis, is something like grade 6 symbolism. Tells more about the mind of the psychologist than the mind of a killer. This symbolism does not hold up in the case of random slashings, Stride, Coles, McKenzie, etc. Slashing across the throat is a different category and yet the knife is the same weapon. There is a sexual element behind all physical crimes of a man against a woman. - Isnt there also a belief that the domineering aspect of a man beating a woman is a display of sexual power - of course. - Isnt it true that a strangler can get a raise out of the act of strangulation - of course. - Wouldnt you agree that the act of sliting a womans torso and slicing the body can be interpreted as sexual intent - of course. Very few on these types of crimes get labelled as 'sexual', and yet they all fall into the same broad category. Only when the above criminals get caught can the authorities satisfy themselves that their man was a sexual serial killer. This is after he has been interviewed and his reasoning has been determined. In many modern cases there is enough evidence at the crime scene to lead you to that conclusion ahead of time, with the JtR murders, there was not. Regards, Jon
Author: Yazoo Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 02:01 pm
Ummm, I wasn't making any grand exit from the Casebook; merely from a topic of discussion that is no longer productive for me. See ya around, Yaz
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 02:13 pm
Yaz, I am confused as to whether all or part of your last post was addressed to me. Because I made no mention of Jack being a woman hater.Are you drunk or on Drugs?I quoted Professor Coid about vaginal penetration and traces of semem.And you then make comments assuming what I think!! So am I to take it from your remarks that Coid does not know what he is talking about? I would rather listen to him than to you. Who mentioned anything about strangulation I certainly did not.I dont believe the victims were strangled.When I mentioned distances I made no mention about the victims being women yet you go on to make a stupid remark about the victims having ears. If this is best I can expect I dont know why I bother.It is obvious from your post that your last comments no doubt refer to yourself.Another armchair expert.
Author: Jon Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 02:39 pm
I noticed that too Ivor, Yaz blended his reply to both our postes as if we were one. (planting the seeds for another rumour?) I got the impression that Yaz thinks Ivor & myself agree on several aspects of this case, we do not. We both respect each others points and each others reading of the evidence, but apart from the SSK issue I do not know of anywhere else we are in agreement, I do not know enough about Ivor's theory to say one way or the other, not until I buy Ivor's book. Regards, Jon
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 02:50 pm
What does he think he is playing at?What is shows Jon is that some people dont pay attention to the written word. They then waffle on and go off like a loose cannon.I can see why many people stay off these boards.It really is pathetic.
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 04:25 pm
Hi Bob, You are not correct in your comments about my measurements. The 5 sites were pinpointed on a large Ordnance Survey map Scale 1/2500 circa 1880. This map shows the yard at 29 Hanbury Street,Bucks Row, Kelly's address,the passage at Dutfields Yard, the corner in Mitre Square. Take it from me Bob that I have pinpointed these sites with a great deal of care.I have shown my results to many people including Melvin Harris. Suffice to say that not one person I have asked to check my findings has found any fault with them.All measurements are accurate to within two metres and I will put money on that. The killer picked his sites on a map to start with.He then visited each site for suitability.He had no need to survey them in such great detail as I did. As it happens some police officers from Surrey Police HQ, at Mount Browne, in Guildford, got to know of my research due to a story printed in the Surrey Advertizer.They phoned me asking if I would show them my work.I agreed to their request. When they were shown my work in detail they congragulated me on my efforts and concluded that my work did indeed show that the murders must have been planned in advance on a map.I will indeed be at the conference with the large map and other such maps so people can see for themselves.Will you be attending the conference Bob?
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 05:34 pm
Ivor , is it possible to reproduce the Buck's Row part of your large map on the Casebook boards ?
Author: Ivor Edwards Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 06:46 pm
Simon, I have no way of reproducing material on the Boards which is more the pity. Sorry about that. Tom, I do not know if the other pieces of material found with Eddowes were large enough for the killer's required needs.It would appear that he needed quite a large section of the apron.