|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 12 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
How Many Victims?:
Archive through 12 November 2002
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 09:56 pm |        | Hi all,
The MO with Kelly was different in many respects than the other victims. Stewart and Alex have listed them. I do note, once again, that those certain that Kelly was a Ripper victim NEVER address those differences. To do so, would require theorizing and once that is done the certainty of their position has been undermined.
Are there elements of the MO/signature the same in the Kelly murder as the others? Certainly. However, there are many MO/signature points in the Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes killings that are different than the Kelly killing. The open question is how significant they are and whether they point to a different killer.
I don't believe anyone in this thread has suggested that it is certain that Barnett killed Kelly - only that it is plausible. I find it hard to qualify this speculation as unfair. Indeed, the investigators at the time apparently suspected Barnett in the murder.
I do not know if Barnett or the Whitechapel murderer or someone else killed Kelly. However, it is obviously open to question.
How can one find truth if they are closed minded toward any differing interpretation that has credible facts to support it?
Rich |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 11:00 pm | | I would never enter into argument regarding Kelly's inclusion/exclusion as Ripper victim; it's obvious that some have read books x, y, and z and have reached one conclusion, while others have read the same books and reached quite another. Fair enough... that's why we have Hatchard's! Each and every one of us is entitled to his/her opinion, and since there is no way to conclusively prove the truth of our beliefs (barring the appearance of the infamous Polaroid photo of the Ripper standing over Kelly with knife and heart in hand), all the posts in the world will not change anyone's mind on this one. Either one believes that Kelly is the Ripper's, or not.
I DO, however, have a question, Stewart: regarding your mention of Dr Ruxton and his initial forays into anatomy studies, the general opinion is that a killer, of the serial sort, usually escalates in savagery and extent of mutilations. Does Christie not prove the exception to that rule? Did he not, at the end of his career, simply stash his kills in the nook in the kitchen, and move on to the next one? Oh, no, never mind; he buried his first victimes, and the femur holding the back gate open had just worked its' way to the surface..true? He just strikes me as a bit of an oddity in the roll of serial killers; he killed them, indulged in his nasty habits, and then disposed of them as quickly and easily as possible. Even considering the death of Mrs Evans and the baby, he never seems to have done any more than that with his victims. He does not seem to have escalated in the attack or post mortem indignities.....he just seems to have picked up steam in the numbers. Maybe THAT alone makes him fit the mold. Never mind...forget I said anything; it's late Sunday, and I'm pooped!
Cheers, and a good week to all,
J |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 04:13 am | | Judith,
I think you make as much sense as everyone else.
I rather like the old term of multiple murder.
It left room for alternative thinking for those engaged in the pursuit of the criminal.When they coined the term serial,I feel it encouraged certain individuals to look too closely for identical circumstances in crimes.
In 1888 the term multiple was more commonly used,and those,or most of those actively engaged in the hunt for the ripper,accepted Kelly as a victim.
H.Mann. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 06:28 am | | Hi All,
If someone other than Jack the serial killer was responsible for the death of Mary Kelly, it's quite ironic if some of the most prominent contemporary suspects came to be assessed by the various authorities as 'likely rippers', not on account of any strong evidence, but because they either ended up in an asylum or committed suicide sometime after November 9, 1888 - the reasoning being that this killer would have lost either his mind or the will to live following what he did in room 13.
If the scene in Miller's Court was down to an unpremeditated domestic, or otherwise personal attack by a non-Jack with an equally sharp and shiny knife, it turns this contemporary reasoning inside out, making the suspects in the murders of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes the men who couldn't possibly have coped with the enormity of the crimes, while the first-timer who killed Mary Jane in a rit of fealous jage walked calmly away and never looked back.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 08:44 am | | My oh my has this particular board exploded with posts.
To go through Mr. Evan's seven supposed major differences showing a different hand:
1. Age would be an insignificant factor for making a comparison of killers, at least compared to the overall progression of mutilations and consistent MO and signature. Jack sought out vulnerable women who could be isolated, dispatched and mutilated. Trying to get more specific than that on minor details with such a limited number of victims is counterproductive. And, quite honestly, just going through the lists of victims of other serial killers, there is frequently a variance in the ages.
2. "Her correct identity has never been positively established." I don't get how you think that not knowing if the person known as Mary Jane Kelly was really named Mary Jane Kelly makes an ounce of difference in trying to figure out whether she belongs to a string of similar killings or not. This is not only insignificant, it's a red herring, as it implies some sort of potential conspiracy.
3. Indoors or outdoors is another insignificant factor. A serial killer does not say, I am going to kill indoors or I am going to kill outdoors. A killer looks for the opportunity to kill and, in this case, to make some mutilations. If a killer who normally does so outside has the opportunity to kill inside, they aren't going to pass on it just because someone elsewhere thinks that it breaks an MO. And Chapman wasn't killed out on a street either. That crime scene is about as inside and private as you can get in that area without having a roof over your head. With all the overcrowding in Whitechapel and people stacked twelve to a room, a killer who wanted to kill inside likely would only rarely get the chance and would be forced by circumstance to do it outside. Now if you had more victims, and the killer consistently chose to kill outside in an area where people could find privacy inside more easily, then it may be significant. As it stands it's not.
4. There is evidence of strangulation, actually, but you choose to say, no, the bruising was really caused by the knife. If you admit that the evidence for strangulation could have been covered up by the mutilations you should at least remain neutral on the topic, not try to present it as a case against it. This demonstrates bias. Beyond that, there was spraying at other crime scenes, so you even trying to bring that up as a difference is ridiculous.
5. Your "obvious" defense wounds can be argued to be mutilations. Beyond that, defense wounds wouldn't be all that significant by itself, especially compared to everything else.
6. Increased mutilations are by no means a logical argument against her being a part of a string, in fact they point to it being a string. There is a logical progression of intensifying mutilations. Saying that another intensified mutilation is a negative indicator is sheer folly. Beyond that, Eddowes mutilations were quite extensive, which is especially strange considering they were outside. If you were going to knock people off the list because of different levels of mutilations, then Nichols would go before Kelly did. Most importantly, the *kinds* of mutilations (showing intent) are far more important than the extent (which can be influenced by outside factors like being pressed for time or fear of discovery). The Eddowes and MJK mutilations match to huge extent in location and style. In fact, they are the two that match most closely.
7. Pointing at the missing heart as a difference again is trying to twist a clear positive indicator of logical progression (in this case, removing organs that are deeper into the body cavity) into a negative indicator. If this is a strike against Kelly it's a strike at all of the victims, because the organs that were missing constantly changed. Nichols missed none. Chapman had intestines out and uterus missing. Eddowes had intestines out, uterus and kidney missing. Kelly had lots of parts out and heart missing. Saying that Jack always took the uterus and a crime in which the uterus isn't missing is an indicator against Jack would be trying to create a string out of only two killings and would ignore the overall picture of the progression of missing organs.
Hey, I'm all open to debate, and I'm not saying I have all the answers and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. But come on, people, use some common sense. The same things people are trying to use to take Kelly off the list are not only the points that should be strengthening the link but, if applied fairly to the other victims as well, would point to every victim being killed by different people.
So, yes, I think it's fair to say that people should not be taken seriously when they look at a clear progression and say one doesn't belong because it fits too well in some ways and not so well in some rather minor ways. Those people make as much sense as someone saying that E couldn't possible come after D because it's farther along in the alphabet and is a vowel.
Dan |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 09:35 am | | My, this board has exploded with messages, hasn't it? A great deal of food for thought. However -
Apologies, V, for the lateness of this post. Annie Millwood was indeed, the name I was trying to think of when coming up with that original list so long, long ago (it seems).
CMD |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 09:52 am | | Hi Dan,
Let us review point-by-point your reply to Stewart's post regarding differences from the Kelly killing:
1. The differences in age. You say this is insignificant and then go on to theorize as to the motivations of the killer. How do you know this? The other victims were all in the same age range (almost 20 years older than Kelly). How can you be so certain that the killer did not harbor a resentment against women of that age range?
2. As to the point of Kelly's identity not being established, I don't really think that is significant either. However, your ad hominem reply seems overly defensive.
3. You state that indoors or outdoors does not matter. Again, how do you know this? Might not the killer have prefer settings in which escape would seem easier if detected in the midst of his crimes? Your comment that inside/outside does not matter unless he murders more victims is quite odd.
4. Stewart says there is no evidence of strangulation. You say that there was and then cryptically suggest it was concealed by the mutilations. You cannot have it both ways. Stewart never said that Kelly was not strangled - only that there is no evidence to prove it.
5. Stewart writes that there were defensive wounds on Kelly, while none on the other victims. Here, you shift in mid argument. First, that the defensive wounds might be mutilations and then that even if there are defensive wounds it does not matter. Well, the autopsy report suggested defensive wounds. Stewart did not invent this interpretation of the wounds.
6. I think most would disagree with your point that the MJK and Eddowes mutilations were the most similiar in the series. Their ferocity is indeed similiar but not their nature. If you claim that escalation is good evidence of the same killer, then you must say that those who say Pinchin St was not a Ripper crime are ignoring the facts too. If escalation is the main argument, she was a Ripper victim.
7. The fact is in every murder in which the killer took away organs, except for Kelly, the murderer took away the uteris. In this case he did not. He may have taken away the heart. Your view that the killer was "moving upward" on his victims could be true - but again it is all surmize.
If you read your post again, you will see constant references to the killers thoughts, motivations, and intent. You claim to know precisely the killer's desires and therefore the murders all make sense to you.
Alex, Stewart and I have seen far too many instances when such assumptions prove to be wrong. Stewart has mentioned them. Again, none of us have stated that Kelly was not a Ripper victim - only that she may not have been.
I think the tale of our differences is made in your first point. Stewart cited the differences in age from Kelly to the other victims. Your reply was your interpretation of the mind of this killer, what he was seeking, what his desires were, and what his motivation was.
I make no such assumptions. I have no idea what this killer had going on in his mind and I think that anyone who believes he does is making a great mistake. For all we know, the killer had a hatred of women similiar to his mother and that is why he choose victims in their 40s. I could engage in my own speculation on that point and insist that anyone who does not see it my way is ignoring the evidence.
It is apparent that you will not be dissuaded from your position and that no evidence brought forward would ever cause you doubt - especially since you express to a moral certainty what kind of man the killer was, indeed you seem to know his thoughts, plots, and motivations.
With that skill to be inside the mind of a killer of over 110 years ago, perhaps you should be a homicide investigator - no crime would go unsolved.
Rich |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 01:51 pm | | Hi All,
The danger, it appears to me, is exactly the same, whether one makes statements about Jack that naturally exclude Kelly as a victim, or naturally include her.
Of course, in any theory that has Jack singling out older women; only being interested in take-away uteri; only prepared to kill outdoors; possibly unavailable on November 9th and so on and so forth, Kelly has to be someone else's victim, and almost certainly someone in her immediate circle of friends or ex-friends, whatever the evidence for or against any of the known individuals who fit into this category.
Equally, any theorist (past or present) who suggests Jack was longing for the day when he finally came across a physically far more satisfying specimen to experiment on, or - joy of joys - a Jill with her own room; a Jack who, from the outset, planned to make Mary Kelly the heart of his funny little games; a Jack who lost it so totally after Miller's Court that he was either caged in an asylum or took his own life - or at least was believed to have done so - can't afford to have MJK slung out with the bathwater.
The trouble with such a small sample is that we inevitably hear statements such as yours, Rich:
'The fact is in every murder in which the killer took away organs, except for Kelly, the murderer took away the uteris.' (My emphasis)
I suppose you could even have put it:
'The fact is the uterus was taken away in twice as many cases as was the heart.'
But the boring fact is that in the cases where organs were removed/went missing, the uterus was removed in all three but only went missing in two, while the heart was removed and went missing in just one.
I worked out that spiders could have their ears in their legs because when I asked one with no legs to go away it just stayed still, indicating that losing his legs had made him deaf. 
What does it boil down to? A mess of offal, or not enough data to conclude anything apart from the fact that three women of the lowest class had certain bits cut out of them, within a relatively small space and time - and that a spider with no legs didn't move.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 02:26 pm | | Stewart Evans has brought up a real good point. Any seasoned homicide detective will be the first to tell you that a homicide investigation is worked from the inside out. In other words you start with the people closest to the victim and work the circle outwards.
I remember the first case I worked as a lead investigator. It involved a young lady who was nine months pregnant. She was found strangled, raped and her child was cut out and shoved in a garbage can after having its head bashed against the wall. The live-in boyfriend was questioned and he stated he was at work at the time. Even though DNA tied him to the sexual assault, at that point, we could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sex act was non-consensual. But through skillful questioning and the help from the forensic lab we were able to tie him to the murder and feticide. What got him was the blood ( and DNA extracted from it ) we found in the shower drain that matched his girlfriend. He then admitted to having sex with his girlfriend's near dead body and ripping the baby out to make it look like a white man had committed the crime. He reasoning behind this was that he had read about sado-sexual / serial killers and knew that the profile hardly ever included black men. Likewise, a friend of mine who is a narcotics officer told me that in order to avoid profiling, drug dealers are hiring squeaky clean, clean cut, white college kids to run serve as couriers for their drugs.
I recall a particular case I worked as the lead investigator where a woman was gunned down in the parking lot of a gas station. She was sitting in the car talking on the cell telephone while her car was filling up. The killer walked up and shot her point blank in the face with a shotgun. Her purse was stolen and a gold necklace around her neck was taken. It later turned out that her husband hired a man, who worked for him, to kill his wife and make it look like a robbery.
I also remember working a homicide that involved a police officer killing her partner, who was working extra duty as a security guard at a local restaurant, and the restaurant owner. She stole the money and then had the audacity to be the first officer on scene. Her M.O. closely resembled that of another pair of burglars we looking for in a similar string of crimes. She later admitted to using the same M.O. to shift the blame.
In short, one must extremely careful and open minded when looking at M.O. and signature.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 03:25 pm | | I think the several posters who have responded to Messrs. Norder and Wroe have summed things up very well. I repeat, I do not intend to become embroiled in protracted argument with intransigent opponents, there's no point.
As most people here realise I am not trying to persuade anyone that Kelly was not a Ripper victim, I am merely pointing out the importance of being aware of the alternatives when the true circumstances are far from established fact. And if the killer of Kelly was not the Ripper, then theories such as Garry's founder.
Garry has convinced himself on an 'evidential basis' that he is right. That's fine but don't expect everyone else to fall in line and agree. He also states:-
"I also have a problem with those who, without a single shred of evidence, cast the most appalling allegations at Joe Barnett. Perhaps I'm misguided, but in all my years of researching the Ripper case I found nothing to indicate that Barnett was anything other than a decent hard-working man. On top of this, Barnett was clearly decimated [sic, devastated?] by the loss of Kelly..."
Unfortunately for Barnett he was quite rightly initially suspected by the police and was the most obvious suspect for Kelly's murder. For many he remains a plausible suspect. So, historically, it is not wrong to consider him a suspect.
However, for his part Garry makes the most appalling allegations against George Hutchinson. This without any hard evidence whatsoever, merely his own opinions and interpretation of the surviving record (which we know is incomplete). In the case of Hutchinson we have Inspector Abberline stating:-
"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true." [emphasis mine]
Garry is happy to dismiss Abberline's opinion and substitute it with his own. He qualifies it with, "Once evaluated in context of all the known factors, however, it becomes apparent that neither account could have been accurate."
Oh that things could be so certain. I am aware of the arguments Garry proposes in support of Hutchinson's candidacy, and there are much the same as those of the 'Hutchinsonites' who have preceded him, Brian Marriner, Bob Hinton and Stephen Wright being the most notable, and who are in print with the theory.
What Garry and others fail to take into account are the inconsistencies that are often to be found in witness statements, the mistakes that are nearly always found in lengthy press reports and the missing records. The missing records include Abberline's notebooks and the station occurrence books.
Hutchinson made his statement to Sergeant Badham and was interrogated about what he saw by Inspector Abberline. Now, Abberline, a very experienced and well regarded detective with an excellent record questioned Hutchinson at length. There can be no doubt that anything that struck Abberline as inconsistent or untrue would have been addressed during this questioning. But, armed only with the basic information that has survived, the Hutchison theorists are willing to dismiss Abberline and accuse Hutchinson of being Jack the Ripper. It's OK for Garry to do that to Hutchinson, but it is not OK, in his eyes, for others to do it to Barnett. Sounds like double standards to me. In fact it's even worse, for in the Hutchinson version Abberline is also denigrated. But, of course, Abberline's comments are very damaging to the Hutchinson theorists.
With regard to Garry's final paragraph I will merely repeat that Sutcliffe is not the ideal sort of murderer to compare the Ripper with.
David, everyone here has an ego, it is the term egotism that I was disagreeing with. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 03:29 pm | | Let me add that one must look beyond what appears to be M.O. and signature in order to find the M.O. What this means is that the investigator has to take into account what the crime scene is presenting him or her. The investigator has to take into account the following three observations,
1. what is there that should be there
2. what is there that should not be there
3. what is not there that should be there.
Let us take for example a fire in an apartment where a new born baby dies in his crib because of smoke inhalation. (An actual Case)
The origin of fire is in the closet of the baby’s room. There is a hole in the ceiling where the fire burned through. There is a large circular burn spot in the shag carpet that burned through the wooden floor to the ground below. (The house sits off of the ground on a series of cinder block pillars.) The hole in the ceiling goes to the attic and there is a burn pattern on the rafters that indicates an up ward burn. There is an electrical box that is burned and the wires are still joined by wire nuts and the beam it sits on shows a downward burn pattern. The wooden folding door to the closet was closed as was the door to the baby’s room and the windows to the room. Even thought the baby died because of smoke inhalation, the baby was burned beyond recognition and the crib he was lying in was reduced to ashes.
The single mother is on fixed income and the baby brings the family total to five. ( The mother and four children.) She has made comments that she cannot afford the baby and wanted to give the child up for adoption but backed out at the last minute. At one point she even entertained giving the baby up to a relative. The mother was not home when the fire started but arrived back just in time to save the other three children. She stated all the children were asleep and she went to the grocery store for more formula for the baby. Should the mother be arrested for murder and arson? The Texas Fire Marshalls Office thought so.
As children, we learned that heat travels upwards. This normally explains the upward burn patterns seen in fires. Usually a key clue to an accelerant being used to start a fire is the downward burn pattern. The fire burns intensely hot at the point of acceleration. As the point gives way the fire and debris travel downward. A dead give-a-way for arson is the burn pattern that goes through the floor. In this case we have two downward burn patterns, one in the attic and one in the floor. Usually, if this pattern is seen, the fire investigator will take a sample of the area to test for the use of an accelerant. For old timers, the taking of a sample from a site like this is a waste of time. Considering the way Texas likes to execute its citizens it seems logical that an investigator and the prosecutors would ensure this sample is taken before sentencing someone to death.
There are problems with this theory besides not taking samples. First, shag carpet burns at a higher temperature than regular pile carpet. This is the same principle as trying to light one log in a fire place as opposed to several. The source of heat, the flame, is quickly dissipated by heat radiation when a match is held next to a log. In other words, the heat source has a lot more area to try and ignite. When another log is rolled against the first and the flame is held between the two then the surface is less and the heat taken by the logs is then shared. Shag carpet is the same way. Just picture the individual strands being the logs.
Second, fire moves from point to point by fuel. If the fire runs out of fuel then the fire dies. For the fire to get to the top of ceiling it needs a fuel source between the floor and the ceiling. This is supplied by the clothing in the closet. This all makes good sense for the floor being the point of origin. But there were no clothes in the closet and when the wire insulation was examined the insulation told a different story. There was a spot in the wires that indicated a burn pattern from the heat being conducted by the wiring. The wiring was aluminum and this type of wire has long been a fire problem as it gets to hot. The burn pattern was seen between two wires where they touched in an uncovered junction box. Just below the box was pink insulation. The insulation was only burned on the side next to the box. not underneath as would have been done if the fire had traveled upward from the floor. This indicates that the fire started in the junction box and once the insulation was ignited the ceiling gave way and fell to the floor.
What was not there also told a story. In the use of an accelerant, the fire burns so hot and fast that the oxygen gets sucked up at a fast rate. Most arsonist fail because they do not keep a steady supply of oxygen coming into the fire. The windows were closed. In the case of accelerant fires that would have caused this much damage the windows would have imploded due to the fire sucking the oxygen out of the room. This did not happen. The doors to the closet were closed and were made of wood this would not have retarded the rate of burn by keeping oxygen out but rather would have shown a different sign of an accelerant being used. This sign is the white ash seen on wood. When white ash is seen on wood, it is a sign that the fire was running out of oxygen and had begun sucking the oxygen out of the wood. Neither the closet doors or the wood in the house had shown any white ash.
Finally, interviews with the fire personnel indicated the flames were red, yellow and salmon in color. This is an indication of a low temperature fire source. If an accelerant was used the flames would have been orange, white and blue. A sample was later taken of the carpet and the area around the junction box and it was determined no accelerant was used. An electrical engineer then examined the wiring and found the wiring to be substandard. In short, by following preconceived ideas and not looking at the totality of the scene a woman was almost sentenced to death.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 03:33 pm | | Mr. Norder has indicated that I lack common sense and that I should not be taken seriously. In view of that there is little point in responding to his comments.
Having already spent more time than I intended on this thread, and having a book commission to work on, I am quitting these boards. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 04:04 pm | | In describing Kelly's killing as being "different"
a difference not mentioned on these boards was, Kelly's murder warranted the offer of a pardon,---to an accomplice!!. In the case of Kelly there are certain circumstances which were wanting in earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons, who, at any rate AFTER the crime, had assisted the murderer.
It isn't known what circumstances persuaded Matthews that the Kelly murder, unlike it's predecessors, invited the offer of a pardon, nor what evidence for any accomplice existed, beyond the possibility that unusually bloodstained clothing would have to be disposed after the Miller's Court atrocity. With being a close relative, and the hard times they had been through together, Joseph Barnett had a potential accomplice he could put his life into the hands of,-- his brother Daniel.
Does that cause some tails to rise?, or are we going to get some legs cocked
Best Regards, Rick |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 04:05 pm | | Stewart,
On behalf of the many hundreds of honorable posters here, I'd like to respectfully ask you to reconsider quitting the boards. We much appreciate your perspectives, and encyclopaedic knowledge of the case. In any event, good luck in all you do.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 04:16 pm | | Stewart,
I don't know if I can speak for the rest of the folks on this board, but I know that I'll miss seeing your common sense posts.
But, if its any consolation, I just bought Letters from Hell and the Ultimate Companion, so there's a little contribution to the retirement fund.
On a totally different note, I wish that we could all keep in mind that 1.) There is really no right answer to any of what we are discussing here, 2.) That all ideas and opinions help further the state of the research and 3.) We really should all get a long, because there really aren't that many people with a passion for this subject. Imagine if we all just quit posting? I'd have no way to procrastinate! So my advice, unwelcome as it may be to some of you, is to chill out a bit and enjoy a friendly debate.
B |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 04:27 pm | | Stewart,
I'm sorry you are leaving the boards, I've taken a lot of notice of you, being ex-police force, and the way you found your way round the murder sites, (same as me).
You will be missed, good luck.
Rick |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 06:49 pm | | There's no doubt that there really are some great people contributing to these boards. It's good that we all don't agree and that different ideas are subjected to scrutiny and we see some very interesting perspectives.
And I do not fail to notice the kind words given above, by people who have a very real interest in the Whitechapel murders case. Their interest is not transient, it goes on and helps to build the camaraderie that undoubtedly exists on this great site. I truly appreciate the friendship and support that I have found here.
Feelings do run high sometimes but that's to be expected in any subject of a contentious nature. There is much we will never know for sure and we all continue to learn. My new research is non-Ripper and, for me, will be a refreshing change although I shall not be ignoring matters Ripper. There are many I have not met, and others I have. But it would be great to meet some of you one day and perhaps we will at some venue or other.
I will be sure to dip into the boards from time to time and perhaps contribute the odd comment here and there - hopefully without inciting a huge debate.
Take care all of you and, again, thank you.
Best Wishes,
Stewart
P.S. Brian - many thanks for buying the books, I hope they prove useful and interesting.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 06:53 pm | | Stewart-wait!
Is your new project Borley-related?
Many thanks for your contributions to the boards here. I have learned, and will hope to learn, more from you in the future.
Best,
Dave |
Author: Esther Wilson
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 07:06 pm | | Stewart, as a new member I haven't had the chance to really get to know you and chat but given the amount of time that I've been here, yours is a name that I always read posts from first. I also have your books...Letters From Hell and the Ultimate Companion and will be adding any new books from you to my library when they become available here in Canada.
Good luck in all your future projects.
Esther |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 08:16 pm | | It would be a shame if Stewart vacates the boards. Stewart's main point, unless I've completely misunderstood him, is that there are differences which may, or may not, be important when we compare Kelly's murder with "the others". And, I suspect he would agree with the extention of that statement to "There are differences between any two of the murders, and these differences may or may not be of importance."
We just have to be careful when we weigh the evidence. If we weight the fact that Kelly was murdered inside as apposed to outside as low, we draw one conclusion. If we weigh it as a significant difference, we can draw another. Meaning, the conclusions are not based on the evidence alone, but include our weighting of it, which is by definition subjective. And because it's our weighting of the evidence which is critical when evaluating the different conclusions, and not the evidence alone, then we must accept the fact that our conclusion could be wrong because we can't be sure we haven't placed an incorrect value to our weightings. If we wish to be truly objective in our approach, we must be willing to consider alternate explanations that can be considered just as probable if the only thing that changes is the "importance value" placed upon the data. One can suggest reasons why a particular weighting might be more or less suitable, of course, but Stewart is simply suggesting that we don't know enough in this case to justify one weighting or the other for any of these bits of evidence. There are individual cases which support both views, and therefore both views are perfectly valid and should be considered as equally viable alternatives. Any theory which requires one or the other interpretation is therefore making an assumption. And, all statements afterwards are therefore qualified by that assumption. The theory could still be "correct". Equally, however, it could be wrong if it's shown that the required assumption was incorrect.
And that's it, that's all he's saying. He's been very definate in pointing out he's not saying Kelly is or is not a "Ripper" victim, only that the evidence, when considered from both points of view, can be accounted for with equally plausible explanations. Any investigator/researcher should acknowledge this fact when presenting their interpretation. If one includes Kelly with Eddowes, Chapman, etc, and Kelly is "critical" to the overall theory, then the theory should simply recognise that if the "Kelly inclusion is in error, some/many/all of the subsequent conclusions would be invalid".
- Jeff |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 09:16 pm | | Back to the same seven points, this time as posted by Richard Dewar:
1. It is not at all common that serial killers focus on an exact age range. If you narrow the accepted group of victims to three then you are trying to make a determination on whether a fourth fits because of a detail found in just three cases. Anyone ever take statistics? I'm not theorizing in what I think Jack was thinking (unlike you), I am using what we already know about other serial killers and looking to see how statistically important something is based upon three cases to rate whether age should be thought of as a significant factor above other factors... and it shouldn't be in this case without a good solid reason. We don't have a solid reason to accept that age range as something Jack was targeting. When investigating an MO it's best to make it start broad and not to narrow it without good clear evidence. You say he might have specifically chosen 40 year olds. I say he probably was just targeting vulnerable women (and older women are typically more vulnerable, especially ones on the street late at night) but if we had more cases we might be able to tell for sure. Which of us is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion here? Anything that unnecessarily and unjustifiably narrows the information is likely to lead to the killer getting away.
2. It was not an ad hominem attack as much as outright confusion as to what on earth supposedly not knowing the true identity of a victim has to do with who killed her. He still hasn't explained any logic or possible significance behind this statement so I think it's right to chalk that up to someone desperately trying to find any excuse to believe something they already decided on, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
3. It's not "quite odd" to figure out that indoors or outdoors is insignificant. It's a matter of looking at the just three killings he's accepting as genuine and realizing two were on streets and one involved entering through a building into a backyard. Three cases are not enough to make a trend to rule any other case out based upon such a detail, and one of those three takes the killing off the streets already. Ruling out a death because it was indoors without a very good reason (especially in a locale where indoor mutilations would be next to impossible without a lot of luck or preplanning because of vast overcrowding) is quite odd.
4. You missed the boat completely on this one. I say there is evidence of strangulation. Evans is the one claiming there isn't, because he says he thinks the clearly noted neck bruising was really caused by knife wounds. So he passively admits there is evidence that supports strangulation but dismisses it out of hand simply because he chooses not to believe it. That's not logical thinking, that's bias. And further he says it couldn't be strangulation because there was blood spurts from the neck, showing that he not only doesn't understand that strangulation would be to make the victim unconscious, not to kill her (as that'd happen soon enough from the neck slash) but that he clearly missed the blood spurt evidence at the other crime scenes. This is one of the points that shows Evans is clearly picking and choosing evidence and ignoring the same evidence elsewhere in trying to make conclusions.
5. The autopsy report suggests defesive wounds, but as I already said a) they could be mutilations instead (those examiners made a whole lot of unsupported statements and conslusions that any modern medical forensics experts would not have, like the determination that the killer had medical experience), and b) defensive wounds would not be all that significant when determining the killer, compared to the other evidence. You'd expect defensive wounds if the killer tried to move onto using the knife before the strangulation knocked her unconscious, for example. In fact, a younger, healthier victim automatically improves the chances for defensive wounds. This doesn't mean or imply that the killer was somebody else.
6. Oh, so "most" people would disagree with me that the Eddowes and Kelly killings are the most similar? That facts are, the exact same style of mutilations were present, not just an escalation. Bringing up the torso murders is a ridiculous comparison. Just as a start, Eddowes and Kelly both had facial mutilations and deep burrowings into the cavity to retrieve inner organs. These atypical murder details were not true for any of the earlier killings. Perhaps the reason so many people think that the murders are so different has more to do with so-called experts focusing on ridiculous details and ignoring the overall MO and signature. If you take the details of the mutilations of all the victims and lay them out chronologically, researchers looking at the facts would match Eddowes and Kelly first, simply because the signature is so clear and so hard to fake. Then they'd link Nichols to Chapman to Eddowes to Kelly as a clear progression. Trying to deny this is just amazing and very telling of the weird things ripperologists have come to believe.
7. Every murder except Kelly in which the killer took an organ he took the uterus, eh? You mean all *two* of them? LOL. So are you discounting Nichols or Kelly with this amazing statistical comparison? If this were a serious argument, Jack only killed two people and all the rest have to be thrown out. Yet, for some unknown reason, people toss out Kelly but not Nichols. On the other hand, if you plot out all four, the mutilations and the distance into the body cavity increase while keeping the same signature style of wounds. So you fault me for making a conclusion based upon looking at the full mutilation patterns of four cases while you feel perfectly justified in making a conclusion based upon one detail in two cases...? Give me a break.
This picking and choosing of what to concentrate on instead of looking at the big picture is what trips up most investigations. Following the same leaps of logic that could separate Kelly from the rest of the ripper victims would have pretty much made it impossible to catch any serial killer except for the ones who just up and turned themselves in. Heck, even then the officers probably wouldn't believe the killer because he'd claim more than three victims and the officers broke thm all off into likely different killers based upon age and inside or outide instead of looking at the MO and signature.
All I'm asking for is that people use some common sense. Beyond that, David Radka says I don't know what I'm talking about, so that should be taken as a pretty good indicator that I'm making sense. :-)
Dan |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 09:50 pm | | Dan,
My reading of Stewart's posts hasn't been that he's claiming "no evidence of strangulation" or "very significant that it's indoors", but rather "the evidence for strangulation is not as strong as in other cases and could be explained otherwise" ... could be, not "has to be". Same thing with the indoors/outdoors thing. The murder being indoors might not be important, or it might be. Different age of victim, may be important, may not be. etc. All he's pointing out are the specific details that differ. The value one makes of those differences is a subjective thing.
To me, the indoors/outdoors has never been that important because I've always seen the crime scenes as locations where the victim lead the Ripper. Since Kelly used her room, that's where she took him. In other words, in that scenerio there is absolutely no difference in crime scene location (it's where the Ripper was taken). But I recognize that by doing so I've added my own assumption about what happened (this whole leading bit). This detail isn't contained in any of the bits of physical evidence, it's simply an explanation that can "smooth away the differences"; which is what a pattern does, explains commonality on a general sense, while removing "crime-specific" details that are unique to that crime alone. By smoothing them away, however, I may very well be missing a critical detail, and Stewart is just advising to keep the possibilities open.
Many of the patterns you see, I see as well. I think the inferences and conclusions you are making are viable, and reasonable, and I suspect Stewart would agree with that. That yes, this is one viable and reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the data. He's just saying it's not the "only" viable and reasonable conclusion, and that we should all remember that. I just want to close by making it clear, my statements above about what Stewart would or would not agree with are not based on any input from Stewart and no-one should think I'm speaking for him in any sense of the phrase. I'm just giving my opinion of what I think he's saying, and if I'm right about that, then what I predict he would agree with; sort of theorising about a theorist!
- Jeff |
Author: alex chisholm
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 10:39 pm | | Absolutely, Jeff
As I understand it, that’s all Stewart, Rich and I have been trying to get across.
When it comes to Ripperology, or any history for that matter, the recognition that we simply do not know should remain foremost in the mind of anyone looking to objectively evaluate available evidence.
All the Best
alex |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 11:21 pm | | Jeff,
I think your idea is excellent: it solves a lot of problems for the murderer.
He doesn't need to find dark, untraveled and secluded places to kill his victims: they find it for him. They were all experienced prostitutes and they'd know a hundred different dark, untraveled and secluded places to do their business.
So the MO isn't "he picks quiet, secluded places". The MO is "he kills them where they work".
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but it seems fairly signficant to me.
B |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 11:46 pm | | "Fact" as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is "information presented as objectively real." Sadly, what some posters are repeating as fact, is not the case at all. What is known as absolute fact regarding the Ripper crimes of 1888, is so tiny as to be contained in a thimble. No one can claim as FACT that the Ripper killed a certain number of victims; no one can claim as FACT that the Ripper either committed suicide or was incarcerated, hospitalised or died; no one can claim as FACT that the Ripper wrote none, one, eighty-nine or ALL the letters to the police and/or news services. No one can claim as FACT that the Ripper wrote the graffiti; no one can claim as FACT much of anything about these crimes, except the following: a number of women died in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area of London in 1888, several of the bodies were mutilated horribly, the identity of the killer/s has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. What did I miss? Anyway, the point is, that everything being argued on these boards is, for the most part, speculation, guesswork, totally subjective reasoning, deduction (reasonable or not), wishful thinking, fantasy or just plain stupidity! (SORRY about that!) Stewart NEVER said Kelly was definitely in the Ripper's column, NOR did he ever say she was NOT. And why the hell should it matter? She was murdered; my best GUESS is that the reason she had no strangulation marks on her neck was that her throat was cut. That would explain the arterial spray all over the walls, and the spatter and spray as she was taken apart. My best guess leans toward Kelly being a Ripper victim, and the reason for the change in MO was that he had both the privacy and the time to indulge himself. That is ONLY a guess.....that a a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
For all those who are standing in concrete on this, or any other, point regarding the Ripper killings, may I suggest that you stand back and take a good hard look at what you are CALLING facts, and just exactly what is TOTALLY PROVABLE. That means, you had better back up and find the proof to back yourself up.
We all can have very strong feelings about Kelly and whether or not she is the Ripper's; the FACT is, we cannot PROVE it...either way. Cut each other some slack, please..Stewart has never agreed with my theory that it was either Howdy Doody in a Sooty suit, or even Victoria in lifts and a false mustache, but it is a FACT we are still friends.
Cheers,
J |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 01:51 am | | "When it comes to Ripperology, or any history for that matter, the recognition that we simply do not know should remain foremost in the mind of anyone looking to objectively evaluate available evidence."
This seems to impose undue limitations on the human subject engaging in historical analysis. As an individual, I can determine various ways by which to hold history up to the light. I can make comparisons, formulate oppositions, consider logical relationships in phenomenological terms, and so on. The key is I am thinking, I can do something, I can test my thinking out to see if I really know what I think I know. Thinking that "we simply do not know" is too radical an objectivity, I think--we make things too easy on ourselves.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 02:34 am | | The persistent Mr. Norder just goess on and on...and on...
In view of the spurious allegations that he continues to level at me I am making this final post regarding the listed points.
1. The grouping of victims being considered here are Nichols, Chapman, Sride, Eddowes and Kelly. An examination of the four will confirm that the first four fall into a distinct group, especially circumstance and age-wise. Kelly was very much younger and living under different circumstances.
2. It is true that the identity of Kelly is surrounded in mystery whereas in the case of the other four it is not. However, I listed that difference without really thinking and I agree that it bears no obvious significance in relation to the possibility of her not being a Ripper victim. This has nothing to do with being a 'red-herring', nor is it 'desperation' on my part (I'm not really desperate about anything). I am not a conspiracy theorist (in fact quite the opposite), and, do I have to say it again, I haven't decided anything on this point, I keep an open mind. Kelly may be a Ripper victim or she may not. It is not etched in stone. The same may be said of Stride.
3. To say that the location and circumstances of Kelly's murder are not significantly different to the rest is to ignore the obvious. Kelly was murdered indoors, in her room and undressed and in her bed.
4. There is no clear evidence of strangulation. And significantly, as already pointed out, no doctor suggested it. The bleeding under the skin, at the front of the neck wound, was attendant to what was probably the killing stroke of the knife. There is no evidence of the sort of bruising that accompanies strangulation. Significantly I don't recall anyone ever suggesting prior strangulation in the case of Kelly, and the fact that she probably cried out 'Murder' when she was attacked also militates against it. And I'm not picking and choosing evidence, I'm pointing out that you can't simply make the bald statement that there is clear evidence of prior strangulation to induce unconsciousness.
5. On this point Mr. Norder's words "could be", indicate that he is doing no more than anyone else - speculating. Yes, they could be post mortem cuts to the arms, but common-sense dictates they are more likely to be defensive wounds which is what most people have interpreted them as. (Again indicating that she wasn't unconscious when killed).
6. On the contrary, I think that the cases of Chapman and Eddowes are the most similar:-
a. Age and situation of victim.
b. Outdoor location.
c. Wounds inflicted and the womb as the obvious target (It was taken away in both cases).
In the case of Nichols the evidence suggests the killer may have been interrupted by the approach of Cross and was unable to follow up the initial opening up of the abdomen.
7. If the killer was trophy hunting in two of the earlier cases the womb was clearly the target (and may have been in the case of Nichols) whereas in the case of Kelly the heart was apparently taken.
Sorry to repeat all this but I do not like Mr. Norder's insinuations nor his attitude. I am happy to accept the probability that Kelly was the last Ripper victim - indeed I always have. But by the same token I am open to the ideas that the significant differences in the Kelly case allow an alternative explanation of what happened, such as that suggested by Alex Chisholm as a possibility. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 05:38 am | | Hi All,
If a non-Jack, such as Joe Barnett, killed MJK with his ripper-like knife in the heat of an argument, and then thought he'd better set about making the crime look like Jack's, using his recollections of the various newspaper reports as his guide, where would he have got the idea, and why would he have spent precious time and effort, obtaining the heart and removing all trace of it from the room, when we know he removed other more accessible organs which he could have taken away instead; cutting off the breasts and placing one with the uterus and kidneys under Mary's head, the other breast by her right foot, liver between her feet etc etc; and did he know, or just guess, that the kind of mutilations and ritual placing he suddenly found inspiration for, would be entirely consistent with a killer, who had previously made do with outdoor victims who were fully clothed, in very poor light and extremely limited time, and suddenly found himself enjoying the ultimate luxury of a younger victim whose place of work happened to be indoors, who would offer herself to him nearly naked, and give him more time, more heat and more light in which to perform.
If the Jack who had just killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes could have had one wish granted for his next encounter, Kelly would surely have made his Christmas come early that year.
I also have to wonder how much contemporary suspicions against certain individuals were based on, or affected by, the thinking that Kelly was indeed a ripper victim, and the last. If the sheer depravity in Miller's Court had never happened, and Eddowes thought to be the final victim, would we now have a different list of 'legitimate' contemporary suspects to debate?
Druitt - private information, 'sexually insane', committed suicide after 'awful glut' in Miller's Court, more likely than Cutbush.
Polish Jew - identified by witness as man seen with a victim before body discovered, 'helplessly insane', confined in some asylum after 'awful glut' in Miller's Court, more likely than Cutbush.
Tumblety - 'very likely' suspect, those given to 'contrary sexual instinct' are given to cruelty, murderer unquestionably a sexual sadist, 'it was believed he [Dr T] committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.
Even the authorities in those days each had their own pet suspects, and if their reasoning was based more on the sort of person they judged would be responsible for the scene in Miller's Court, than on any hard evidence, and if it is accepted that there's an even chance that Jack was never even in Miller's Court, perhaps people should be forgiven if they want to start from scratch and accord no greater weight to the 'legitimate' police suspects than to any other Joe who was in the area at the time of the murders.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 05:42 am | | What Garry Wroe and Dan Norder has done,is no different from what other theorists have done,that is take known information,and to it add certain beliefs and suspicions.They have done this in a very competant way,and it is clear both have approached the subject in an inteligent and knowledgeable manner.
Of course some of their remarks are open to challenge,and that has been done in an equally intelligent way,but in my opinion,none of their suspicions have been shown to be invalid.
There is very little evidence,I would go as far as to say there is none,that directly connects any person to the Whitechapel murders,so belief and suspicion are the only things left.I am of the opinion that they have advanced their beliefs and suspicions in this matter in a more compelling manner than any other poster.
H.Mann. |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:24 am | | Mr. Evans-
We can go around an around on these points, but we aren't going to get anywhere. You find major significance in things like age and whether they were indoors or not, while I think that it's more instructive to look at the total picture of the MO and signature, especially the mutilations, which are the most distinctive features of the case.
It's true that I don't think you should be taken seriously when you say that Kelly is less likely to be a ripper victim than Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. That's not to say you shouldn't be taken seriously as a whole, just that your arguments on this topic are less than convincing.
You are willing to explain away differences in the Nichols murder (which I would agree with but for different reasons), for example, but choose to focus on perceived differences in the Kelly murder. You also dismiss the possible evidence for MJK's strangulation (clenched fingers and ecchymosis/bruising of the neck) out of hand and try to paint the supposed lack of strangulation as significant when the other victims had varying levels of evidence for it as well. I'm sorry that I don't accept these strategies as proof of how open minded or wise you claim to be.
I'm also sorry that you felt the need to paint Garry Wroe as biased when you clearly are yourself (as we all are to some extent) and then got digs in against him by focusing on his "unpublished" book and so forth. I'm also very sorry you choose to see my disagreement with you on this one topic as an attack. If you do decide to leave the boards don't let it be on my account.
As I've said from the beginning, I want the theories to live and die based upon their logical merit. Contrary to what some people have believed, I am not saying the MJK absolutely was killed by the same person who killed the previous ripper victims, but I do feel that any criteria that would separate her out for special consideration would necessitate admitting the possibility that any one (or all) of them could theoretically have been killed by different killer(s) under similar criteria.
Dan |
Author: Paula Wolff
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 07:59 am | | Oh, brava, Judith, for cutting to the chase. You are right about facts. Precious few on the ground. We can, and some of us rightly do, take what is known and make a reasonable stab at making an "educated guess". People like Stewart Evans have taken it farther and found many things to show us as what the Yard and police of the time took as "facts". He has my respect as a researcher, and I, as new as I am to the boards, can't believe the arrogance and block-headedness and silliness of a couple of people who won't or can't give the man his due. Now we're probably losing him and his insights. I might add he's only made these insights a thousand times and they won't see. None so blind as they who will not see. Facts, yes.
Rip it up!
Paula |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 08:20 am | | Harry,
I appreciate the kind words, though I fear some people might get the impression that Garry Wroe and I are a team. I just tend to agree with most of his arguments about how what we now know about serial killers and witness statements can be applied to the Autumn of Terror investigation.
If you saw a theory that he and I were discussing and liked it, he deserves all the credit for it.
The only theories I could come up with on my own would fall squarely into the realm of fiction (and labeled as such, thank you, unlike Cornwell's book). I just don't have access to the kind of information that could add previously unknown facts to the body of knowledge concerning the case.
Dan |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 09:15 am | | Many thanks, Paula; I was really just spouting off. I HATE to see ANY of us, who were brought together by this mystery, become antagonists over it. If you REALLY want to see someone who has set her feet in concrete, look at the ads Cornwell's publisher is running on US TV....she says (looking oh! so serious and scholarly) "In my opinion, this case is now closed." THEN, the big splash of the cover, with appurtenant art and banners......yuck!!! Now there is a mind in which all doors closed long ago!
Cheers to all of you,
J |
Author: Billy Markland
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 09:59 am | | Judith, my thanks for your reminder that precious few facts for these cases are existent. The theories, speculations, and often wishful thinking built about these facts lead to the creation of the hypotheses which many wish to prove at whatever cost. Unfortunately, the "whatever cost" mentality loses sight of the fact that various interpretations can be put on all the facts, creating the "search and destroy" threads we all know and love  .
OH!! This is too rich not to share! While looking in the dictionary to confirm the spelling of the plural of Hypothesis, I glanced at the next column and read the definition of Hysteria! It is from the Greek, meaning, "...uterus, because the disorder was formerly attributed to disturbances of the uterus..."
That's it!! Case Closed (errr, is that copyrighted?). Regardless, we need to immediately check off all suspects who were not versed in ancient Greek .
Of course, that is an interpretation of a fact, open to discourse.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: spaceyram
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 10:08 am | | Dan
You have mistakenly accused Stewart Evans of
making the comment concerning "unpublished" books,
he didn't, I DID.
You and G.Wroe seem to think that you are both
and individually the world's foremost experts,
well neither of you can boast that distinction.
We all have our opinions, good or bad, but don't
preach common sense to us, we are not idiots,nor
are we ignorant to this topic of JtR.
If every detail that you've both posted were so
simple and make such common sense, then why
wasn't this crime solved long ago by some of
the finest detectives and police officers in
England when files were intact, suspects were
interrogated, evidence was studied and the victims
bodies were examined first hand not through
pictures?
Please don't suggest that these fine, famous
detectives were not capable, they were, but
they were off different opinions then as we are
now, all for a variety of reasons as we have
now.
You have your opinions, not documented, undeniable
proof, just like the rest of us. We are mostly
intelligent but tactful persons, regardless of
age, race, sex etc., so why not treat us with
the respect that we deserve, and maybe you will
be treated with the same respect and quite
possible praised for your comments & efforts.
But please don't expect this treatment unless
you treat us with the same regard & respect for
our opinions. Instead of trying to impress us
all with your terminology and out & out insults
as you directed to Stewart, why not accept our
posting and reply in a cordial manner,point out
why we may be wrong, debate the issue, but don't
assume we are too stupid to deal with you, we
aren't.
spaceyram |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 11:40 am | | "Spaceyram"-
Whoa. Slow down. If you feel you were not respected in some way, I am sorry you feel that way.
So, yes it appears you were the one rudely saying that Garry's opinion matters less because it wasn't published. (Mr. Evans made a comment about other writer's ideas being in print, which is how I believed he had said your similar words.) Funny now that you are complaining about other people's supposed rudeness, assuming that Garry and I think we are the foremost experts, accusing me of insulting Stewart Evans, and so forth. This is your argument in favor of treating people nicely?
While I may have been testy in a few of my posts, I can't find anything in Garry's messages that could possibly justify the kind of spitefulness directed at him by some of the posters, especially the newbies. It seems that some people are so defensive of their beliefs that they will attack someone for simply calmly and politely stating a contrary opinion. It also seems particularly backhanded that these posters make a call for people to treat others fairly at the same time they call others arrogant blockheads and the like.
For those of you who are new here: expect all ripperologists to disagree with each other on just about everything. If you are going to jump any person who disagrees with the opinions of someone whose book you read because it's supposedly disrespectful of all the research they did, I'm afraid you're going to be busier than a Mexican jumping bean on these messageboards. Disagreements in themselves are not disrespectful. Not taking them gracefully and hurling insults back, however, is.
Regarding the detectives of the day not having solved the case, remember that they didn't have anywhere near the knowledge of serial killers that we do now, nor any of the modern criminology techniques we take for granted. They also had their personal biases to get in the way, such as the common belief that no Englishman could have commited such crimes, which led to a lot of fingerpointing at the Jews and foreigners, the typical targets whenever scapegoats needed to be found. So why are you assuming that I think the detectives weren't capable?
I can't defend myself against all the things you and some others are trying to read into my words, so I will not even try. I can only hope at some point that the people claiming to want to debate the issues instead of fighting actually will follow through on the sentiment.
Dan |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 12:10 pm | | | No one can claim as FACT that the Ripper dropped the piece of Eddowes' apron in the stairway landing of the Wentworth Model Dwellings; it could have been brought there by a stray dog. No one can claim ANYTHING about ANYONE or any EVENT...... |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 12:13 pm | | Billy,
Following your aside,
Yeah, hysteria was thought by Hippocrates be caused by a wandering uterus. Sex was supposed to cure that.
Of course by the late 1800s the early psychoanalysts were blaming sex for it. That period had a lot of hysterical blindness, hysterical paralysis and other strange physical symptoms with no physical cause. They started out thinking the women were just faking it, then that it was related to hypnotic states, then incest, then that they were just faking it again.
It was one of those trendy diagnoses for a while, a fad of a mental disorder that exploded from nowhere, then was blamed on parents for alleged deviant behavior against their children (the memories of which were supposedly repressed), and then mostly disappeared. A modern equivalent might be the whole recovered memory movement, especially as it relates to the Satanic panic that swept through in the 1980s and '90s.
I'm sure a fun book relating hysteria to the ripper murders could be made, even though Whitechapel is a little far north for the early psychoanalysts to be wandering about in 1888, from what I remember. Freud's major publication on it wasn't even until 1895 or thereabouts, and it didn't sell very well.
Dan |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 12:30 pm | | Dan,
What makes it difficult to discuss this rationally with you is that you continue to misrepresent the opinions of those who believe the status of Kelly as a Ripper victim is in question.
Rather than characterizing your opponent's position, why not simply debate your own? To say that someone who disagrees with you should not be taken seriously makes me wonder why you waste your time discussing the matter with us in the first place.
Stewart never dismissed the strangulation of Kelly out of hand - as you characterized. He said that the evidence of strangulation present in the other murders does not exist in her case. That does not mean Stewart is saying she wasn't strangled - only that whether strangulation occurred is open to question. This is a quite reasonable and proper interpretation of the known facts of the case. Yet you are so insistent that Kelly must be a Ripper victim that apparently you feel the need to distort Stewart's position by suggesting he is insisting she was not strangled.
You dismiss the differences in the Kelly case compared to the other three. You may be entirely correct, as Alex, Stewart and I have suggested. In your opinion the differences are unimportant and insignificant.
However, because some of us see those differences as more significant does not necessarily mean we are biased or should not be taken seriously.
I do not know if it was your intent - but your mischaracterization of Stewart's position serves to suggest that he is insisting that Kelly was not a Ripper victim. That is a position, to my knowledge, he has never taken.
As you have noted, we can go round and round on this issue. There are many, including it seems you, that believe the differences in the Kelly killing are minor, insignificant, and can be easily explained. There are others, including Alex, Stewart, and myself who find the differences interesting and suggest the possibility she was not a Ripper victim.
It serves no purpose to resort to name calling: either suggesting you and your compatriots are trying to up the score of Ripper victims or suggesting people like Alex, Stewart and myself are biased and should not be taken seriously.
That kind of thinking is notorious in Ripper circles - people wedded to their own positions who believe anyone who disagrees with them clearly is wrong.
The one fact of the case is that the information we have is continuing to evolve. Many "truths" of the past, supposedly based on hard evidence, have proven to be false. We are discussing a murderer from more than a century ago, with sketchy details and information, with evidence that can no longer be tested.
When facts are open to more than one supportable interpretation ridiculing a competing position as being biased or unserious does not advance discourse or an understanding of the case.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 01:47 pm | | Rich,
Great. Yet another post that pretends to be trying to stop insults by continuing insults toward someone else.
Saying that I am misrepresenting you or Stewart's position while misrepresenting my position is, well, silly.
First up, Stewart *did* dismiss the evidence for strangulation out of hand (which is what I've been talking about, not that he dismisses strangulation completely). He falsely said there is no evidence for it. None at all! That's a clear dismissal. Worse than that, both of you claim that the evidence that existed for strangulation of the other victims is missing for MJK, when actually (as has already been pointed out) the evidence for it on some other victims is actually less than it is for MJK.
Focusing on MJK's differences and using them to say that she might have been killed by someone else while not focusing on, say, Nichols' differences and saying the same thing for her is, in fact, a bias. I'm sorry that you can't admit this.
There are differences in the Nichols killling, as there are in all the killings, yet you are conspicuously not also saying that any of them might have been killed by someone different. Whether this bias is unconscious or intentional is another thing entirely. You seem to be assuming that I'm painting it as an intentional strategy towards supporting a certain theory you are hiding. Why are you so defensive?
So, anyway, I disagree with you, which I am entitled to do. I'm not mischaracterizing you, regardless of your accusation. I've been trying to focus on facts yet people still bring up these perceived personal attacks.
Can we just move on? Let it go, geez.
Dan |
|
|
|
|
