|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 15 November 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
How Many Victims?:
Archive through 15 November 2002
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 01:49 pm |        | As one of the "newbies", I am more willing to lend credence to the theories and ideas of an individual who 1.) I know their knowledge and background from having read/purchased their books, 2.) Seem to be discussing things wth an open, and non-judgemental attitude.
For those of us who haven't been around for a while, the tone of posts, and the way people write what they write are the only ways I have of judging credibility - until I meet you all in person.
So when you are in the middle of an argument, consider your audience. If I have to decide who is more credible, I'm going to pick the former police officer/well known author on the subject over someone who's background I don't know, and who is mean and crass in his style anyday - despite the fact that I totally agree with that person's view.
That's why Bill Clinton was a good president - I hated his politics, but the man gave a good speech.
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 02:19 pm | | Dan,
My intention is not to misrepresent your position - I don't know what you are referring to when you make the accusation that I have.
Is the Nichols case different from Chapman and Eddowes? No doubt. Indeed, I believe Chapman and Eddowes are the most similiar in the series - both had intestines draped over their shoulders, both had their uteris taken away by the killer. Those are the only two in the series alike in that respect. The only difference with these two is the severity of the attack.
What I notice with the killings, starting with Nichols and ending with Eddowes (excluding Stride) is a definite pattern of escalation. That is, the killer did the same thing to the next victim than he did with the previous victim - then took the mutilation further.
With Kelly, the pattern of escalation was broken. As an example: with Nichols the killer removed no organs, with Chapman the killer removed the uteris, with Eddowes the killer took the uteris and a kidney. If the pattern persisted, one would expect with the next victim the killer to take the uteris, the kidney, and some other organ. This did not happen. The killer broke the pattern and the killer and took only the heart. I hope this answers your charge, at least for me, of bias.
I am not biased - it is merely my interpretation of the signatures. A bias would mean that I am ignoring evidence that contradicts my point of view. What I have done is weighed and evaluated the evidence and come to an opinion. That is quite different.
Does this mean the killer of Kelly was not the same person who murdered the other victims? Of course not. And no one here has argued that. We are simply mentioning one of the many differences in the Kelly killing to the others of the series.
Again, you have rational and plausible theories for those differences. Again, though, they are just theories.
Where I think some bad feelings have developed is because you approach our analysis with a very contemptuous and dismissive tone. We have accepted that your theory that the differences do not necessarily mean a different killer is reasonable and plausible. We have not characterized your dismissal of such evidence as unserious. Indeed, I am sure it is well considered.
I don't know why you are so resistent to extend the same courtesy to those who think there is a possibility that an objective review of the evidence could lead to a different conclusion.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 02:24 pm | | Dan,
With regard to your accusation that Stewart dismisses all evidence of strangulation, please read his remarks again.
What he said is that there is no clear evidence of strangulation and outlines the reasons why. Significantly, he points to the fact that there was no suggestion she was strangled made by the medical people at the time. This in no way suggests that she could not have been strangled.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 02:58 pm | | Hi Brian,
There is a lot of merit to many of the arguments that Dan puts forward. I don't dismiss his opinions out of hand.
Leaving aside Dan, I have found some of the more combative and impolite characters on the boards to often be completely correct in their assertions. No doubt, they do alienate their audience.
I have long enjoyed Stewart's work and have always found him to be polite, fair, and open-minded. He has never been reluctant to assist neophytes such as myself. If you read many credible works on the subject, you will find Stewart prominently mentioned in the acknowledgements. He is a wonderful resource on these boards.
The fear I have with Stewart, and people like him, is that he will stop coming to the boards and sharing his information and knowledge. Those of us on this website for a long time have seen many wonderful authors and researchers drift away because they are routinely attacked by cranks with little knowledge of the case. The arguments will go on endlessly where it is obvious that the protagonist is not trying to learn anything but is simply wishing to be provocative.
One problem, as you mentioned, on a website is its often difficult to determine quickly whether someone is serious or just an opinionated jerk. After awhile, you get the feel for who is or who isn't.
I hope no one on this thread takes these remarks personally - I am making them to apply in a more general way.
Rich |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 03:04 pm | | ::Ally wonders whether she falls into the "just an opinionated jerk" or the opinionated jerk who is usually right category::
Hmmmmm...
And no, I don't want to know your vote. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 03:11 pm | | Ally,
I suppose I mentioned a false choice - someone who is serious or just an opinionated jerk. There is a third alternative - a serious opinionated jerk.
: )
Rich |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 03:19 pm | | You're calling me serious?!!! Oh now that just hurts...
 |
Author: Timsta
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 03:31 pm | | Hi all.
Anyone considered the possibility that the killer's real objective was the heart, but that, lacking anatomical knowledge, he made a couple of erroneous extractions before getting what he was after (and maybe reading up on Grey's Anatomy in between)?
Not a really serious suggestion, but might explain the uterus/uterus-and-kidney/heart sequence, and the accompanying deeper explorations into the body cavity.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 04:01 pm | | I really do have to get out of here soon.
Rich, thank you for your kind words and support, and those others who have supported me.
Dan,
Specious argument aside, I have to correct you on a point you keep raising about strangulation. I have dealt with a great many sudden deaths and attended many autopsies. Many of the deaths have been violent from murders through suicides to accidents. So I am not talking without practical experience.
Clenched fingers are not a specific pointer to strangulation. They are frequently to be found in cases of sudden and violent death. The specific pointers to strangulation are:-
Rounded fingertip bruises, or curved or scratching nail impressions. These are always present when a hand or hands have grasped the neck with violence. Such marks usually lie on each side of the neck around voice-box level, often with curved impression or the drawn scratches of fingernails.
There is often blueish asphyxial discolouration of the face and neck above, often shot with tiny petechial haemorrhages - especially in the whites of the eyes and in the eyelids.
A right hand set across the front of the neck may leave a single thumb mark on the right side of victim's neck and a line of marks from fingers on the left side of the neck.
If sufficiently violent there is often injury to the larynx and fracture of the hyoid and thyroid cornua and alae and trauma to the tongue.
The foregoing are the clear evidence of strangulation not the common clenching of the fingers often to be found in cases of violent death of many sorts, nor the very minor under-skin bleeding accompanying the cuts at the front of Kelly's neck, described by Bond as - "The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis." If Bond had suspected strangulation in any shape or form he would surely have said so. His statement that, "In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack." is hardly indicative of prior strangulation. And if he had believed there was prior strangulation, as I have said, he would have said so.
So can we please stop making these patently false claims that there was clear evidence of strangulation in the case of Kelly.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 04:16 pm | | Hello All.
Although I had no intention of contributing further to this thread, some of the invective levelled at Dan and myself is, unfortunately, deserving of a response.
First, I see that Stewart has yet again asserted that I have accused George Hutchinson of being the Ripper. For the second time, this is a spurious accusation, and one that is becoming increasingly wearisome.
It has also been contended that my book on the case is unpublished. Well, it isn't. It has been published in e-form and is available on this site courtesy of Stephen.
So where did all of this nonsense begin? Someone propounded the possibility that Mary Kelly was not a Ripper victim, but was instead killed by Joe Barnett in a fit of anger. But then a couple of us had the sheer temerity to suggest that there was no evidence whatever to support such a contention - evidence being the operative word.
My viewpoint is very straightforward. Given the manner of Mary Kelly's death, the overwhelming probability is that she was a Ripper victim. If anyone would like to put Joe Barnett in the frame, fine. But first of all, adduce some proof that he was not at Buller's as police inquiries determined him to have been. Demonstrate that Barnett had a history of antisocial behaviour or violent outbursts. Provide some kind of indication that Barnett not only had the opportunity to have killed Kelly, but the necessary psychopathology that would have been required to inflict the type of injuries sustained by Mary Jane.
It has been argued that many men have committed one-off, gruesome mutilation murders. I would not disagree. But I would assert that all of these offenders have exhibited varying degrees of instability and violent tendencies. Some lived by aggressive acts; for others their violence surfaced only periodically. Yet they were violent men all the same. Clinical and forensic psychology is littered with the case histories of such criminals.
So, can anyone demonstrate that Joe Barnett had any such psychological predisposition? Did he have the aggressive tendencies that would have been a pre-requisite for the total destruction of Mary Jane's body? If not, and there emerges no other evidence to the contrary, Jack the Ripper must be considered the person most likely to have killed Mary Kelly.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 04:53 pm | | Hi Garry,
Who on this thread says that Barnett definitely murdered Kelly?
Who on this thread definitely has said Kelly was not murdered by the Whitechapel killer?
The answer is none. Setting up a strawman by suggesting that those who think it possible that Kelly was murdered by someone else are indicting Barnett is unfair.
What has been stated is that there is evidence to suggest that Kelly was murdered by someone other than "Jack the Ripper." We do not even say that she definitely was killed by someone else - only that the evidence makes it possible. To my knowledge, none of us have even suggested it is probable she was killed by someone else.
It has been suggested that if Kelly was not murdered by the Whitechapel killer, Barnett could be a viable suspect. This is mere conjecture and has never been propounded as more than that.
You raise compelling reasons against considering Barnett as a suspect in Kelly's death.
However, for you to suggest that he cannot be considered a suspect unless the writer can demonstrate that he had some anti-social behavior and violent outbursts or a necessary psychopathology is wrong on two counts.
You assume that the murderer of Kelly had to have exihibited some tendencies prior to the act - that is by no means certain. Secondly, because 114 years later we do not know whether a person exhibited such tendencies does not mean that they did not exist.
By no means do I, or I believe Stewart or Alex, accuse Barnett of murdering Mary Kelly. We only suggest that he may have. Any competent investigator will tell you that when a person is murdered in their home usually the assailant is someone who has had a relationship with the victim - and Barnett among others is just such a suspect.
I wish that the position that Alex, Stewart and I have espoused would stop being misrepresented. This debate has been over the following misrepresentations suggested by those who oppose our position:
1. That we insist Kelly was not a Ripper victim
2. That the crime scene evidence proves Kelly was not a Ripper victim
3. That Joseph Barnett killed Mary Kelly
None of those claims have been made by any of this on this thread. What we have said, consistently, despite misrepresentations, is the following:
1. Kelly may or may not have been a Ripper victim
2. The crime scene evidence has some inconsistencies with the prior attacks and therefore the murderer may have been someone other than Jack the Ripper or that Jack the Ripper may have changed his signature slighty and he did kill Kelly
3. That if Kelly was not murdered by JTR, she may have been attacked by Barnett or someone like him.
These are very modest and reasonable views.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 05:01 pm | | Garry,
One correction, if it matters, if you scroll back on this thread where the debate started was when Dan initially suggested that there were definitely four victims of JTR and that there was some question about Stride.
I replied that there are some people who have studied the case closely and who also believe Kelly's candidacy is in question.
Dan wrote that no one who holds such a view should be taken seriously.
Rich |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:00 pm | | Garry,
It is interesting to see you use the word 'invective'. You are obviously taking any criticism very personally and going on the defensive. If you re-read the foregoing posts it is I, if anyone, who should be making such a comment. I have merely responded to what has been said to me. And I would hardly call it abusive, insulting or highly critical.
Oh, so you have not accused George Hutchinson of being Jack the Ripper? That may be true in that you don't come right out and say that he was. But you leave no one in any doubt that he is your preferred 'suspect'. However, in your e-form book you go to great lengths over many pages to show that he may well have been the Ripper, using such phrases as:-
"Certainly the commonly held perception of him as an honest and reliable witness appears misplaced."
"...consideration must first be given to a premise that, initially at least, may seem too outrageous for words - that George Hutchinson and Jack the Ripper were one and the same."
"Although assailed by an insistent urge to kill Kelly there and then, he remained conscious of the fact that Maria Harvey had recently taken to sleeping in the room..."
"...Hutchinson could contain himself no longer. He approached the bed and knelt upon the vacant space to Kelly's left. He could, of course, have killed her as she slept...She awoke surprised, disorientated and frightened, managing to evince [sic] only a solitary cry for help before Hutchinson's grip tightened and throttled her into unconsciousness."
"It is possible that, after defiling Mary Jane's corpse in a mutilation frenzy, Hutchinson cooked her heart, placing it inside a kettle that he positioned on the fire."
And so on, and so on...
It is rather ingenuous of you to then keep repeating that you have not "accused George Hutchinson of being the Ripper." Maybe you haven't, directly, but you have certainly suggested that may well be the case.
By the same token no one here has done any more in stating the possibility that Barnett may have been guilty of the murder. But you saw fit to criticise this and say that you had 'a problem' with those who "cast the most appalling allegations at Joe Barnett." Well, I'll say it again, that smacks of double standards to me.
To suggest that the story of Barnett being at his lodgings at the time of the murder, as told in the newspapers, does not admit of the possibility that he left his bed when all were asleep, then returned unnoticed after the murder. Without knowing the details of the sleeping arrangements, or the possibility that a friend may have furnished him with a false alibi, we simply cannot establish the true situation.
I do not, nor have I ever, thought that Barnett was Jack the Ripper, nor have I done any more than suggest the he, or someone like the other 'Joe' (Flemming), may have murdered just her.
All the arguments adduced to support the theory of Hutchinson as the Ripper can be countered. In the past it has been suggested that he may have intended to 'mug' Kelly's rich-looking client, hence he took particular notice of what the man was wearing. However, after waiting for a long time in inclement conditions the man failed to come out again so, thwarted in his intentions he left. This would also account for his initial reluctance to approach the police added to the fact that he knew that by admitting he was waiting there he would become a suspect. It's the reason that Abberline interrogated him after he made his witness statement.
I think it very presumptuous that you think that you know the 'psychopathology' of an unknown killer in an unestablished number of murders.
There are instances of one-off killers committing gruesome mutilation murders, and who have no previous history of such a nature. Desperation breeds desperate acts. I would say to you, 'can you demonstrate that George Hutchinson had any such psychological predisposition? Did he have the aggressive tendencies that would have been a pre-requisite [arguable in my opinion, desperation and self-preservation being an alternative pre-requisite] for the total destruction [incorrect - she was not dismembered at all] of Mary Jane's body?'
Of course you can't, and it is for this very reason that cases built against any suspect must ultimately remain mere conjecture and supposition.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:32 pm | | Hello all,
Obviously we have two different schools of thought here.Those who are willing entertain the possibility that Kelly may have been killed by someone other than the Ripper,and those who are not.
Those who fall into the former category tend to base their arguments around what they see as significant differences in MO in the case of the Kelly murder.
Examples being:
Kelly,unlike any of the other victims was murdered indoors,she suffered different injuries,was a lot younger than the others and her heart rather than her womb was taken away.
But for me,all these differences lose all significance when we bare in mind one simple fact-
The murderer found himself in a situation where he had the oportunity to kill indoors with little risk of being interrupted.
He therefore jumped at the chance and took full advantage of the situation.
For those arguing that Kelly's murder,was not the work of the Ripper,but came about as the result of a domestic dispute,consider the following:
If a different killer was trying so desparately to frame the Ripper by mimicking his MO,why did he go so far over the top?
Surely if he were emulating the Ripper he would have copied the last,ie.Eddowes'murder.Sliced the abdomen open,pulled out the viscerea and cut the face a little.
Why stay around to arrange Kellys organs in pretty patterns around the bed?
Would a desparate copycat killer realy have the presence of mind to emulate such charachteristics as the esculation in evisceration and the querkiness of the organ arranging?
I think not.
Regards
Mick |
Author: Garry Wroe
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:44 pm | | Hello Rich.
I do, of course, take on board your previous points. But, with the greatest of respect, if you think that there has been misrepresentation on your side, I would suggest that you look again at my previous posts. I'm all for discussion, but I regard personal slurs, innuendo and false imputations as wholly unacceptable.
I'm sorry, Rich, but the issue regarding aggression is unequivocal. A man does not become capable of extreme violence overnight. Aggression is a part of human nature that is either there or it isn't. Read some of the psychology studies undertaken by the American army and you'll learn of the inherent difficulties in training essentially benign men to behave aggressively. This is not to say that a benign man cannot, when perhaps he or his family are under threat, respond with aggression himself. But the level of aggression is not excessive. Conversely, those who commit Kelly-type mutilation murders are known to be both impulsive and highly aggressive. Their personalities are such that they are prone to violent outbursts against people, animals or objects, often with little or no obvious provokation. This explains the tendency of mutilation murderers to have a prior police record.
This is the reality that has emerged through thousands of studies from all over the world. And it is why I maintain that Kelly's mutilations must have been inflicted by a man with an extremely rare psychopathology. He must have been a man of much higher than baseline testosterone levels, a risk-taker, a man prone to aggressive outbursts.
It is, of course, perfectly possible that Joe Barnett was just such a man. If so, there is a distinct possibility that the crime of passion scenario has some validity. But nothing I have read about him suggests that he was anything other than benign. Indeed, reading between the lines, it would appear that Kelly was the more dominant of the two in their relationship. She was the one who broke the window, who invited her friends to share their room against Barnett's wishes, who effectively forced Barnett out of his own home. Again, this would seem to suggest that Barnett was an essentially passive individual.
It has been suggested that there is nothing wrong in deeming Barnett a murder suspect despite a lack of any tangible evidence to support such a proposition. Well, if this is acceptable for Joe Barnett, I fail to understand why Patricia Cornwell has been subjected to ridicule over the last couple of weeks.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:45 pm | | Hi Garry,
Following on Stewart's point, you seem to be suggesting that those who state that Joseph Barrett may have killed Kelly should not have done so without evidence to support it.
Let us accept your position that you have never accused Hutchinson. Stewart's quotations of your words, if accurate, certainly reflect that you have put in writing the theory that Hutchinson may have killed Kelly.
Yet, you launched into quite a diatribe about how unfair it was to suggest the Barnett was possibly the murderer without first proving he had violent anti-social tendencies and a psychopathology.
I have not read your book and perhaps I will if you can answer one question: do you meet the same standard that you set for others? That is, if you state that Hutchinson might have murdered Kelly, do you lay out his violent anti-social tendencies and provide evidence for his psychopathology?
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:48 pm | | Hi Garry,
I, for one, do not ridicule Cornwell's theory that Walter Sickert may have been Jack the Ripper. She may have gotten her facts wrong on several issues (specifically the letters). I doubt Sickert murdered anyone in Whitechapel but I would not be so bold as to say he could not be the Whitechapel murderer.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 - 06:52 pm | | Hi Arfa,
Your interpretation is quite reasonable and, perhaps even probably correct. I would not dispute anything you have written.
I merely suggest that the differences could indicate a different killer. Your explanation for those differences is sound and thoughtful and quite possibly correct.
Nonetheless, I believe that while Kelly is likely to be a victim of JTR, there is some room for doubt.
Rich |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 12:24 am | | There is a lot of difference between suggesting that Barnett could have killed Kelly and that the noted post-impressionist artist Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
For a start Sickert never was a suspect and his name did not become linked with the murders in that context until the Royal conspiracy nonsense of the 1970's. And as Sickert biographers Matthew Sturgis and Richard Shone have shown there is strong evidence to suggest that Sickert was almost certainly in France from mid-August to early October 1888. Sickert truly is a name plucked out of thin air and proposed as the Ripper. He was not even part of the Ripper case.
In the case of both Barnett and Hutchinson they were very much part of the circumstances surrounding Kelly and both would have been initially viewed as suspects by the police. They both knew Kelly. Sickert is totally unconnected and the 'evidence' used by Cornwell to connect him is subjective and pure imagination. Patricia Cornwell has been subjected to the things that have been said about her because of the totally unsupported and ridiculous suggestion that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.
This debate is becoming rather pointless and I would like to see examples of the 'personal slurs, innuendo and false imputations' that Garry feels he has been subjected to. I pointed out the statements that I felt were wrongly made against me and I addressed them. What I have seen, though, on this thread seems pretty mild to some of the past exchanges that have appeared on these boards. I think that Garry has to realise that if he proposes a certain theory, then others will discuss it and critically analyse what he has to say.
May I finish by saying that I do not even know Garry and I certainly have nothing personally against him. In fact it was he who entered this debate and made comment about what I was saying.
I really do not want to continue this any longer, I think the points have been made and others reading this thread must now be finding it all rather tedious. |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 05:06 am | | If the sheet was between the killers hand and the victims throat,would there be any marked differences of strangulation than that of bare hand on throat?.Might not a victim,fearing an attack,pull the sheet over the face,hoping to blot out or even forestall such a happening,forcing the assailant to perhaps change a prepared mode of attack.
On the question of whether Kelly was a Ripper victim,I ask myself, would the police at the time if charging any one with the killings,and faced with silence by the accused,have included Kelly in the list of victims.I believe they would.
There comes a time when one has to be assertive about their beliefs,which is all Garry and Dan are doing.If law enforcement officers were guided by negative possibilities,then hardly a case would get to court.
We could go on challenging legitimate belief or suspicion by being derisive and obstructive,it will not advance the case very far. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 06:51 am | | Hello Harry, hope you are well,--- on this topic of Kelly being attacked in bed!, I've suggested this a couple of times, in fact it is my theory of the whole business. I believe Kelly woke up realizing someone was in the room with her, she would call out "who is it", and she would either get an answer, " it's Jack" or she would get no answer at all. At that she called out "Oh, murder" and went under the bedclothes.
In the dark the Ripper couldn't untangle her from the sheets, so as she fought him from under the sheet,he hacked and cut at her hands and arms through the sheet, he eventually got to her throat(through the sheet), I don't believe he cut her face through the sheet,-- He made too good a job of not damaging her eyes!
Rick |
Author: Billy Markland
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 10:42 am | | A few questions that may be slightly off topic but there seems to be a fair amount of knowledgeable resources watching this thread (plus it will serve as a "breather").
Defensive wounds
Mary Jane Kelly had "jagged" cuts on her arms that have been theorized to have been caused by her placing her arms between her throat and the killer's weapon. What I do not understand is that when reading the other victim's post-mordem reports is the refrain of "no struggle". These women were, at the most generous, experienced street people. Why no signs of struggle? If the killer did perform a blitz attack from the front, the least I would expect would be either flesh under their fingernails or broken fingernails from the struggle. I haven't looked at the height of the victims, but is there a "normal" ratio of arm length to body height? That may give us an idea of the killer's height, my thoughts being that the victim would attempt to scratch the assailant's eyes out but was unable to reach his face (or he had a beard).
Of course, since we conjecture that the meetings previous to MJK were planned assignations, he would have been close. So an alternate scenario is that he was close, grabbed the victim's throat, and during the initial second or so of shock performed the cut. However, that leaves us with blood all around the immediate surroundings, including killer. The police report no evidence of that.
I am forced to conclude, based upon what little I know, that the attack took place from behind. I realize this is well travelled ground, but I have not seen these questions answered specifically. I understand one distinguished researcher (Mr. Sugden?) disproved the behind attack, but since I don't have the book yet (saving up for "The Ultimate JtR" and the PRO packet) I will "have to depend upon the kindness of strangers"  .
On the research side:
Mr. Evans, are the papers from the British Embassy in Nicaragua available from the PRO for January 1889?
I found yesterday that the microfilmed Notes from the British Embassy in the U.S. to the U.S. State Department during the period of the East End murders did not request any information regarding American citizens. The rolls into 1889 did request extradition for two British subjects wanted for murder but no information regarding the specific crime and date are in the rolls so far scanned.
The Nicaraguan Legation's Notes to the U.S. State Department also did not request any information from the U.S. during the January, 1889 period. However, I did run into an anomaly on that. The first entry of 1/1/1889 was a New Year's greeting from the President but there was no further communication on the microfilm until April of that year. Curious?
My apologies for the rambling,
Billy |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 03:25 am | | Rick,
I am quite well,as I hope you and family are.
You are correct as stated about hiding under the bedclothes.It was a familiar sight in the shelters during the second world war,when guns were firing or bombs dropping to see people crouch and cover their faces,as if that very act could provide protection.
I am sure your explanation for the eyes being undamaged is the correct one.Random stabs to the face under the conditions you describe,are unlikely to have missed both eyes.
Regards,
Harry. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 06:29 am | | Garry,-- can anyone demonstrate any personal trait that any suspect may have had?, even for the "experts" it's all guess work, from top to bottom!!. You know what they say about experts don't you?. What the most respected expert can say is no more than you or I can say,-- they are guessing!! We should not poop on each others theories and suspects. You end your post by saying, "The Ripper must have killed Kelly", -- but,--Who was the Ripper?, Barnett, Hutch, Kosminski, Druit, Tumblety,----A Toff, a Local?, you don't know, I don't know, nobody knows, so, where do the experts come from? and I'm sure you agree with me Dan, it's pointless trying to make out we know more than the next person and insulting them, and putting them down, ---it ain't friendly!
All the Best, Rick |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 07:27 am | | Regarding the implausibility of Joe Barnett as a suspect....well theres a police saying that goes "before you investigate outlaws, you need to first eliminate the in-laws!" In other words (although Mary and Barnett weren't actually married), this crime was most likely to have been committed by someone on the home-front. As far as Barnett being passive....ummm, maybe, his inquest testimony to me had an air of boasting. "She never drank with me! She never took to the streets when I could provide!" He does a pretty good job of making Mary look like a slut...as soon as he lost his job she was back on the streets being a prostitute...plus she throws him out of house and home while trying to help out other friends! To me it just had an air of "she had everything with me, and without me she went downhill quick!" He didn't try to protect Mary's reputation at all and doesn't come across to me as someone grieving the loss of true love. These are just my views, please note.
I had to defend my fave suspect!!!
Yeah, Joe Barnett was good, he was damned good, and I think he managed to throw Abberline off his trail somehow. I've always had a feeling Barnett and Hutchinson knew each other and that's why Hutchinson came forward like he did.
All of this, of course, is pure speculation and conjecture by the "daughter of a cop" who follows her heart and senses, believes in the gut instinct and a woman's intuition, who couldn't prove a case or get a conviction if my life depended on it. But I have the right to believe what I want and I am wide open to being persuaded in another direction. Bottom line, none of us is "right"...that's the beauty (and the fun) of this case. We can be a scholar of Stewart's caliber or a daydreamer like me, but none of us are right! None of us can prove it! |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 02:35 pm | | Hello Stewart.
With respect, you are very much mistaken in your belief that I am being defensive. As for the personal slurs, simply review this thread. If you cannot discern them for yourself, others have certainly made mention of them.
It is also interesting that you should have gone to the time and trouble to obtain and cite Hutchinson references without mentioning anything about their context. But then, that would have rendered the exercise entirely pointless.
The distinction between Hutchinson and Barnett is very straightforward. Not only was Hutchinson outside Kelly's room at a time critical to her death, he also issued contradictory and, in certain instances, demonstrably untrue claims with regard to his Kelly-related behaviour. Barnett, on the other hand, was questioned as a matter of standard police procedure. He was never a serious 'suspect' and would almost certainly not have come under investigative scrutiny had it not been for his prior association with Kelly.
You have also stated that, by virtue of the scenario outlined in Person or Persons, I have in some way maligned Abberline's competence. For the record, I happen to think that Abberline was a fine officer in a less than perfect police force. But are you seriously contending that Abberline and his colleagues were infallible?
If, as has been inferred, Abberline and co were incapable of making mistakes, the case against Joe Barnett falls. After all, searching enquiries regarding Barnett's movements relative to Kelly's death led to the conclusion that he could not have been her killer. And this is where it becomes confusing. For whilst arguing that Abberline could not have been in error regarding Hutchinson, you simultaneously contend that he could have been duped by Barnett. Can you understand my confusion?
Equally, you have stated that 'Patricia Cornwell has been subjected to the things that have been said about her because of the totally unsupported and ridiculous suggestion that Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper.' Couldn't agree more, Stewart. From the very first, my objection concerning your Barnett argument has been that it lacks any semblance of evidential support. So I ask again: what is the difference between Barnett and Sickert?
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Hi Garry,
You stated in your previous post that you are certain of the psychopathology of this killer, his tendency would be toward violence, and he would have some history of aggression. You dismissed the suggestion that Barnett may have attacked Kelly because there is no history of this kind of conduct recorded.
I do not know the state of mind of this killer and do not necessarily accept your formulation. But let us accept your proposition. You have previously suggested that Hutchinson may have murdered Kelly. Do you have evidence of Hutchinson's psychopathology and tendency toward violence?
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 03:07 pm | | Hi Garry,
A slight disagreement - I dont think we can say for certain that Hutchinson was outside Kelly's room at the the time of her death. It is quite possible, perhaps probable, he left prior to the time she was killed. At least, if his story is to be believed.
Rich |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 03:22 pm | | Rich--I agree.
1) We only have Hutchinson's "word for it" that he was there. This is problematic because he didn't come foward until after it was publically known that someone had been spotted in the shadows across from Miller's Court.
2) Even if Hutchinson was there, Wolf, Scott M., and others have competently argued that Kelly's time of death was much later in the a.m.---long after the time Hutchinson claims to have left the court.
3) Witnesses come foward days, weeks, even years after the fact. Yes, Hutchinson came fowards after the inquest, but this doesn't help us determine whether he was a legitimate witness, a publicity hound, or a suspicious character loitering around Miller's Court.
Hutchinson's claims to have known Kelly seem a little dubious to me; on the otherhand, Barnett had every chance to publically denounce Hutchinson as a liar---he never did that we know of.
Hutchinson was a young man. After this horrendous ten-week spree, why did he suddenly stop? Unless he can be linked to later crimes, I say he should be exonerated. There was no suspicion against him. Cheers, RP |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 06:01 pm | | Hello All.
Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to respond to all of the points made in the detail that they deserve. So my apologies to all concerned.
I have never stated that Hutchinson murdered Kelly or anyone else. My view regarding him is that, until such time as someone can provide evidence to the contrary, he must be regarded as a prime suspect in the Ripper case.
I might also add that definitive data on the life of the George Hutchinson has yet to be established. Indeed, no-one has even proved that George Hutchinson was this man's real name. Hence neither I nor anyone else has any real inkling as to his antecedents. But the fact remains that, whoever he was, Jack the Ripper had an extremely rare psychopathology. Were it not so rare, mutilated bodies would be heaped on every street corner in every city in every country throughout the world.
Finally, I have never stated that Hutchinson was outside Kelly's room at the time she was killed. I have, however, stated it as near-certain that he was directly outside Kelly's room at a time critical to her death. For those who are still confused, I can only suggest that you read Person or Persons where the issue of Hutchinson's Kelly-related behaviour is examined in some detail.
Sorry once again for the brevity of this reply.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 10:54 pm | | After studying the posts of Mr. Wroe and Mr. Norder for awhile without comment, I began to see a similarity between them. Each is a highly skeptical person. By coincidence, we have two skeptics posting at the same time, and finding ways to agree with one another methodologically. The logical methodology of skepticism, as I understand it and I'm not a man of skeptical bend myself, is not to concentrate on the senses in which case elements might fit together, but to hold case elements apart. Thus we see both of them broadly and almost mechanically disagreeing with everyone. The goal of skepticism, it seems, is to find happiness in a world where nothing fits together, where cause is kept somehow entirely hidden or sequestered from effect. At bottom, it likely is simply a kind of backwards reasoning process.
More power to them, if they wind up with a solution to the case in the end. But we all should realize what this difference is among us, and take steps to see that it doesn't result in unnecessary splits and irritations on the boards.
David |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 11:44 pm | | Hi David,
It depends upon your perception of a skeptic. If being skeptical means questioning the prevailing view, on this board, they are actually defending it - that Kelly was a victim of the same man who killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
Actually, I would say, on this topic, Stewart, Alex and I are the skeptics. We are questioning the popular notion.
Neither Stewart, Alex or I have ever said that we think it proven or even likely Kelly was murdered by someone other than the Whitechapel murderer. We have merely suggested, based on our interpretation of the evidence, that it is possible. Their position is that it is extremely unlikely if not impossible.
So, which side should be defined as the skeptics?
It is all a matter of degree. In my opinion, Dan and Garry are wedded to the position that Kelly was a victim of Jack the Ripper. There are certainly those who think I am simply too dense to see how obvious it is and how the points I have raised amount to nothing.
Rich |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 03:41 am | | If it wasn't Kelly that was murdered in Millers court,who was the victim.In the absence of irrefutable evidence,it might be best to fall back on common sense.All indications are that it was Kelly,and it was accepted in 1888 by those closest to the investigation as such.There has not been one shred of information since that she survived that night.
A question might be is why was the face mutilated in such a fashion.One can understand the opening of the body to obtain inner parts,but what would be gained by destroying the face.Nothing of it seems to have been taken.
If it was to cause confusion as to the identity of the body being that of Kelly,it fails.THe only positive proof that it would have been someone else,would have been to leave the face recogniseable.
I have no shadow of doubt the body was that of Kelly,but of course I am not an expert.I would though expect an expert to at some times be a bit more positive and opt for a decision.Not waffle along declaring it could be this or alternately it could be that.Maybe this ,maybe that.
At least Rick,Garry,Ivor and one or two others are willing to stick their necks out and declare positively. |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 04:14 am | | Geez, some people just don't know when to stop patting themselves on the back.
Skepticism certainly isn't something that separates cause and effect, like suggested above. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And I also don't know anyone who would define it as questioning popular notions. By that criteria, Cornwell, who is willing to believe any weird illogical thing as long as she came up with it and it might help sell her book, would be a skeptic -- and that's definitely not the case. In fact, some of the most frequent targets of skepticism are whacky fringe beliefs, like that of Sickert being the killer.
Skepticism is the questioning of all ideas to see which are supported by logic and which are not. After that you have to weight the evidence to see how strong of a conclusion you can make on any of the pieces.
Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of information in the ripper case that's rock solid. For example, from what I know about witness testimony in general and the timelines we can put together, I'm not sure that any of the supposed eye witness sightings of Jack were really of the killer. Some may be, but it's difficult to say. Thus any theory that depends upon these descriptions to try to fit a suspect is standing on unstable foundations.
Regarding the MJK killing, severe mutilations are an uncommon element in murders. Severe mutilations that fit a specific signature of constantly escalating violence on specific body parts are even more rare. When you consider the time frame, location and victim's lifestyle, the concept that MJK's killer was someone other than Eddowes' killer is unlikely in the extreme.
My coming to that conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that's the prevailing notion or not, it has to do with looking at the evidence and using what we know about serial killers and statistics to come to a reasoned conclusion.
If people choose to believe otherwise, hey, all the more power to them. Some people like to chase the longshots, and that's fine for the people who want to.
On the other hand, some people (and I don't know who, if any, of the posters above are doing this) are specifically using the idea that MJK wasn't a ripper victim to try to support extremely unrealistic theories. This is like Cornwell saying that mitochondrial DNA that doesn't rule Sickert out as a ripper letter writer somehow supports the idea that he was the ripper. Just because something isn't flat out impossible doesn't mean it proves anything.
Dan |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 11:33 am | | Dan--I'm puzzled. What example can you give of someone "using the idea that MJK wasn't a Ripper victim" in order to "support an extremely unrealistic theory"? This is clearly your perception, but I haven't seen anyone doing it. In fact, I really can't think of an example of any known Ripper suspect that would benefit from such an arguement. The closest possibility might be Tumblety, but since it has been shown that he wasn't in police custody on the night in question, it wouldn't really hurt his case either. On the otherhand, the opposite is true: there are several "candidates" which would immediately wilt if MJ Kelly was shown not to be a Ripper victim: D'Onston, Maybrick, Eddy & the conspirators, James Kelly, Druitt [to some degree] and last, and not least, Hutchinson. Who's got something to lose?
Best wishes, RJ Palmer
PS. It seems to me that "escalation" and "signature" are somewhat contradictory. These supposed scientific terms are really nothing more than theory. "Escalation", is, in the end, really nothing more than the old "slippery slope" myth. For every alleged example in case history, there are others that contradict it. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:19 pm | | Hi all,
Why can't we all agree on one simple description of the differing opinions rather than attacking motives?
Isn't it fair to say the following:
Alex, Stewart and I believe the differences in MO and signature suggest that Kelly may have been killed by someone other than the Whitechapel murderer.
Dan and Garry believe that the differences are minor and that the evidence suggests it is unlikely anyone but the Whitechapel murderer killed Kelly.
I find both arguments interesting, compelling, and obviously debatable. I think it is unfair for anyone on either side of the equation to suggest that those who differ from their opinion are biased or should not be taken seriously.
Both positions have merit.
Rich |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 12:41 pm | | Hi RJ,
I would agree with that sentiment. I am not aware of anyone pushing an untenable theory that requires Kelly not be a victim. Indeed, as you correctly point out, most of the theories depend upon Kelly being a Whitechapel victim.
I am also wary of using statistics that relate to serial killers - there is such little data that unless any statistic is not 100%, it means very little.
As far as I know, there has never been a scientific statistical study on the nature of escalating mutilations.
I think most law enforcement understands that applying generalized notions to a specific case is apt to lead to great mistakes.
Profilers were very correct when it came to the Unabomber. However, the same people have turned out to be very wrong about the Washington DC sniper. Interestingly, many of those "experts," claiming they were applying their scientific knowledge to the facts, came to conclusions that were almost 100% wrong.
That makes me very wary of someone who feels they can proclaim with certainty anything about this case. Assessing probabilities is even difficult. If the experts, with all their knowledge and statistics, are wrong about a contemporary crime, how can they be expected to get a crime with spotty information over 100 years old to get it right?
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 08:08 pm | | RJ,
There are actually many whacky theories that fall apart if MJK is accepted as a ripper victim.
First up, there have been several people (in other threads) saying that the ripper killings happened because someone was specifically out to collect uterus samples (ignoring vastly more realistic and less dangerous ways to do so) and claim that every other part of the killings were just attempts to throw police off the scent.
If you assume the prime motivation is uterus gathering, leaving the uterus there when there was plenty of oportunity to take it is a major blow.(In fact, one of these people here even completely invented new details about what he thought happened at the Nichols killing to claim against all known evidence that her uterus was taken also.)
Any organ collection theory (except the ones that claim Jack was after different specific organs from different victims for occult purposes) is weakened by the evidence in MJK's case. With all those bits there separated from the body, anyone who thought to collect or profit from the sale of women bits certainly would have taken more.
And, of course, all the various copycat killer theories are killed instantly if there was no murder with similar features that wasn't part of the string.
Looking at the facts in the case and recognizing that the severity of the mutilations undeniably increased (which most people have admitted, even the ones who like to think that MJK could have been killed by someone else) has absolutely nothing to do with advancing a "slippery slope" argument. I suggest you go look up what the term means before you try to use it in an argument.
The "only a theory" strategy is just as silly. Just about every scientific principle we have is techniically "just a theory." Saying something s a theory by itself doesn't give any sort of idea how likely or unlikely it is.
Rich,
Very little data about serial killers? If we were in 1888 you might have a point, but it's negligent to try to make that claim these days.
It's very telling that the people demanding that we use only one detail (uterus being taken) that happened in only two deaths (Chapman and Eddowes) as some sort of statistical indication to separate MJK from the string of ripper killings (yet oddly not Nichols for the same reason) are the same people so willing to throw out all the data collected about serial killers in the next 125 years.
Dan |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 09:35 pm | | Dan,
Let me try to recap briefly our positions in as neutral a fashion as I can. You believe the mutilation of MJK is consistent with the other murders taking into account a pattern of escalated killings. I believe that the differences in the wounds to Kelly versus the other victims indicates it is possible she was murdered by someone else.
You said that your conclusion indicating Kelly was a victim of the Whitechapel murderer was based on statistics. I countered that there is not enough data to come to that conclusion.
Your reply to that was not to provide the data, but to simply say there is much data and that my opinion is "negligent."
My profession involves statistical analysis and my stated opinion is considered. Since you are so certain that my view is negligent, I would ask you to back up your claim.
Please tell me what study you are applying to your conclusion that Kelly was murdered by Jack the Ripper. What is the sample of such a study? Specifically, what statistic are you aware of that relates to the escalation patterns of serial killers?
Finally, in your reply to me, you wrote:
"It's very telling that the people demanding that we use only one detail (uterus being taken) that happened in only two deaths (Chapman and Eddowes) as some sort of statistical indication to separate MJK from the string of ripper killings"
Who is such a person and why are you addressing this to me? First of all, I never suggested it was a statistical finding - but imperical. And, I have mentioned several other differences too.
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 15 November 2002 - 10:51 pm | | Rich,
You wrote: "First of all, I never suggested it was a statistical finding - but imperical."
You aren't making sense. If you mean it was an empirical finding instead of a statistical finding, how would you go about proving this conclusion experimentally? I think you need to learn what the word means.
It is negligent to ignore all the research on serial killers just because it makes your position look ridiculous. You can't just throw out the scientific studies we have on a subject in favor of wild speculation. If someone were to make a theory in physics and ignore all modern knowledge about the topic, that would be equally negligent. If you want to make a new theory, you have to explain it and take the current data into account.
I don't need statistics to support the escalation of mutilations, as it is is undeniable in this case. They did increase from Nichols to Chapman to Eddowes. Saying that another escalation in MJK's death means that she was less likely to be a ripper victim flies in the face of all logic. The same argument would point to all the victims being killed by different people.
What we do have is the statistics of there being another mutilation killer that targets the womb, breasts and face along with deep neck slashes. If we go track down how common that particular signature is, it's absolutely astronomically unlikely that some killer other than Jack would do the same thing to another victim in the same small section of London at the same time.
Dan |
|
|
|
|
