|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 22, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Cases That Haunt Us, The (Douglas and Olshaker, 2000) :
Archive through November 22, 2000
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 03:16 am |        | First chapter on the Ripper: other chapters on Lizzie Borden, the Lindbergh kidnapping, Zodiac, JonBenet Ramsey, and a chapter summarizing the Black Dahlia, Run Bambi Run, and the Boston Strangler.
All marked by the broad sweeping overview, sound common sense, detailed research, and almost unparallelled expertise of former head of the FBI's Psychological Behavioural Unit John Douglas and his co-author and researcher Mark Olshaker.
In view of the gracious acknowledgement given me, I hasten to point out that the authors wrote their Ripper chapter before they approached and met me and I contributed nothing whatsoever to their arguments relating to my work except to urge the excision (which they made) of a couple of sentences strenggthening the case for Kaminsky's consideration which happened to be completely untrue. Otherwise, the only change they have made in passages about me or my work is an unfortunate editorial 'tidying up' which makes their final draft suggest (as the draft I saw didn't) that I unprofessionally went looking for somebody else after finding Kosminsky and seeing that he wouldn't work.
My real pleasure in the Ripper chapter rests on John Douglas's revelation that when the Peter Ustinov-chaired Ripper programme was made, he (and presumably all the other panelists except Bill Eckert, who helped set it up) knew nothing and was told nothing about David Cohen. Having now read my arguments, and compared them with later ideas like Tumblety and Maybrick, he now switches from saying the Ripper was 'Kosminski, or some one very like him', to saying, 'David Cohen, or some one very like him'. Bill Ekert, too, preferred Cohen to Kosminsky, and both to any other candidate.
The importance of this American endorsement is that it comes from people with proven expertise in the field of criminology who are completely unbiased, unprejudiced and disinterested. Neither Douglas nor Eckert nor Olshaker had any earlier position to defend, nor any intention of writing a book to 'solve' the Ripper case or establish themselves as Ripper experts. They represent a completely dispassionate outside survey of the field, measured in the light of their own particular expertise. Their endorsement of the Cohen theory places it firmly in the first rank to be considered, finally replacing Kosminsky who has never, as far as I know, been wholeheartedly endorsed by anyone exept television producers who read a little too much into Paul Begg's advice that they might better not seriously consider Cohen until Kosminsky had been disproven.
John Douglas's broad-brush approach doesn't overlook detail (and Ripper experts will note one or two slips that I missed in reading the chapter for John and Mark), but it doesn't base a whole case on persnickerty quibbles or tangled webs of deduction. Anybody familiar with the Lizzie Borden case will be delighted with the proper commendation given to the deductive argumentative part of Arnold Brown's study, as well as the dismissal of a final case offered without supporting documentation or evidence. But here, as in all the other cases, one detail is never allowed to determine the whole of the thinking. Jonathan Goodman would be pleased to see the refusal to let niggling over a detail here or a detail there purport to determine conclusions; the recognition that a card house of speculations piled on deductions isn't worth anything. The book comes as a breath of fresh air on all the cases it touches: John Douglas's hitherto unexplained support for the Ramseys against their accusers is now made clear, helped, of course, by his courteous minimising of the inevitable criticism of their atrociously vulgar taste for participating in the excruciating moppets' pageants.
Those who dismiss all 'psychological profilers' as some sort of charlatan should note the extent to which Douglas is a traditional criminal investigator whose 'psychology' is largely a matter of schematically noting data heard and checked from his many interviews with serial killers and rapists and slotting it into an appropriate position in the general picture. And they should keep in mind that, like his colleague Roy Hazelwood, Douglas has always been quick to say that profiling is usually most helpful in eliminating the innocent (as a witness description of a white man eliminates all black women). Even in the Unabomber case, where he is justifiably proud of his profiling and recommendations, he doesn't hesitate to say that without Tadczinsky's brother recognising Theodore's style when his manifesto was published in the Washington Post he might never have been captured.
So, a book I recommend, with admitted pride in its recommendation of my work.
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 03:42 am | | | Whilst delighted that Cohen is finally receiving an endorsement from such knowledgeable and influential authorities, which I hope will encourage others to pursue the necessary research that Martin and I have been unable to undertake ourselves, I should possibly observe that no theory has been wholeheartedly endorsed by anyone, not even television producers who have had the misfortune of speaking to me instead of Martin. A television producer did once endorse Kosminski, but that was after reading both Martin's book and mine and before speaking to either of us. I do, I suppose, agree with myself that Kosminski has to take research priority over Cohen, if for no other reason than that Kosminsky is the name we have been given by contemporary sources. This said, the demands of earning a living from the pen does prohibit the kind of research Martin has long wanted to undertake into David Cohen and I hope this recognition of his theory will inspire someone to do it. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 10:18 am | | Martin's theory certainly does need more research. I have reviewed Martin's book (The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper) several times and rather than, as Martin humorously put it, call his work waffle (or piffle?), I can tell you all it is a very good Ripper book. Although, I thought I had itemized the salient points (elsewhere on this board) and asked how can this be a tangible suspect.
We are dealing with a mystery person with no known name ('Cohen', Kaminsky or other?), no known address and no known character. This is what I have objected to. There must have been dozens if not hundreds of individuals of a similar disposition in and around Whitechapel. So, while I agree that Jack may have been a person of similar standing, I see little reason to put an unnamed person (Cohen was not his real name) above all the other unnamed person's that may or may not have been our well known miscreant.
As I said above,.....Martins theory needs deeper research or it only ranks as an outside consideration. Was Nathan Kaminsky really Aaron Cohen?, was either of them Jack?.
The bottom line with 'Cohen' as Jack, from my perspective is this, "An unknown nutcase of no fixed abode may have been Jack".
Well, yes, I agree in a general statement like that, but what sets this unknown nutcase apart from all the other unknown nutcases in East London?
The Cohen/Kaminsky theory is worthy of consideration, but needs more meat & potato's.
Incidently, Martin's book is an excellent case summary, for those who have not had the privilege of reading it. The book of 230+ pages only devotes about 4 pages to the Cohen/Kaminsky suggestion.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 12:15 pm | | If one allowes that there was a Jewish suspect, but that the suspect was not Aaron Kosminski, and if one allowes that the suspect was committed to an asylum, then Martin's research in the asylum records indicates that the only viable candidate is 'David' Cohen - he was of the right age and social group, he was arrested by the police, he was violent in the asylum, he was committed at the right time to account for the sudden cessation of the crimes, and if one wishes to fit him to a detail provided by Swanson, he died soon after committal. These are probably good enough reasons for distinguishing him from other locals and good enough for suspecting him. But should we identify him with Anderson's suspect.
The trouble for me is and always has been that Cohen makes the sort of plausible candidate that, say, Joseph Barnett is. What really distinguishes him is identification of him with Anderson's suspect. It is the identification of him with Anderson's unnamed 'Polish Jew' that sets Cohen in the front league of suspects. But are we entitled to make that identification? That's where Martin and I differ.
But I agree with you, Jon, that Martin's book deserves greater recognition as one of the best accounts available, especially his ground-breaking re-evaluation of the police in the investigation. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 18 November 2000 - 11:35 pm | | Paul
Let me quote from Martin's book.....
....at the begining of Dec. 1888.....the police found a young Polish Jew. lost and rambling on the streets of Whitechapel. He spoke little but Yiddish. They took him to Leman St. police station, were unable to extract an address or the name of any relative, and decided that he was unable to care for himself. He had committed no crime. He had done nothing suspicious, but he was obviously demented.
At some point, as they decided to take him to the Workhouse Infirmary, he became violent. He was brought under restraint. The Infirmary did not recognise him and registered him as David Cohen, Polish Jew of no known address and no next of kin
If this is to be all that is required to include a person as a suspect in these crimes then why did the police not pursue him in this regard?
Who was 'David Cohen'? Martin could find no records of an individual of that name, but Martin does suggest that he may have been Nathan Kaminsky, mainly because he could find few (actually, one) record(s) of Nathan Kaminsky either, therefore, in Martin's opinion, they both may be the same individual.
With a population in Whitechapel & St George's-in-the-East together of around 110,000 what is the likelyhood of these two people being the same person?. We do know that Asylum records are sadly incomplete just as other contemporary records have suffered at the hands of time, also.
But the bottom line appears to be that this "unknown nutcase may have been Jack" because:
- he was mad
- he turned violent (while being detained)
- he was incarcerated (Dec 12).
Now, Nathan Kaminsky only appears as the name of a person admitted to Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary, in March 1888, with syphilis. The implication being that this is all that is needed to put him on the suspect list. But syphilis has three degenerative stages which take several years to run their course. And yet it is supposed to have turned him insane enough to murder & mutilate in 5 months, Kaminsky was only 23 yrs old.
I do not deny it is an interesting hypothesis, (that Kaminsky=Cohen=Jack) but how strong is it really?
Question #1:
Has there been any more research done on this Nathan Kaminsky, and his background, since Martin's book?.
Question #2:
Cohen is said to have died of "exhaustion of mania & pulmonary phthisis" (hyperactive/tuberculosis/consumption)....are these typical of someone who has suffered from syphilis?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 19 November 2000 - 02:22 am | | It’s rather curious to find myself in the position of defending a theory I don’t actually agree with, so Martin will probably be your best bet for answering your questions and commenting on your observations, particularly as they apply to Cohen’s violence after detention. My only point was that if one was casting around for a Jew committed to an asylum, on the basis of Martin’s research in the asylum records ‘David Cohen’ (his real name seems to have been Aaron Davis Cohen) is apparently the best bet.
However, I think the only reason one would be looking for a Jewish asylum inmate is because that’s who Anderson tells us the Ripper was. But, we have a name for Anderson’s suspect (‘Kosminski’), a probable identity for that person (Aaron Kosminski), and Aaron Kosminski fits all but a few details in the descriptions of the suspect given by Anderson and Swanson. I don't really think there's any reason to reject Aaron Kosminski as Anderson’s suspect and I think one either accepts or rejects him as the Ripper according to one’s assessment of the ‘evidence’. In my opinion, Kosminski may or may not have been the Ripper, but pending evidence to the contrary, he was Anderson’s suspect and Cohen therefore doesn't get into the frame.
Now, Martin thinks that there is evidence or reason for rejecting Kosminski as Anderson's suspect> Further, he thinks there is evidence that two suspects were confused, a City Police suspect named Aaron Kosminski and a Metropolitan Police suspect called ‘David Cohen’. This ‘confusion hypothesis’ essentially argues that ‘Kosminski’ was not Anderson's suspect and that Kosminski was never in the frame (as anything other than the man kept under surveillance by the City Police).
I apologise for being long-winded about this and on reflection I'm not sure it is even relevant, but it seems to me that Cohen figures as a suspect either (a) on his own merits - we forget about Anderson, Swanson and the Jewish suspect altogether; or (b)one the basis of a 'confusion hypothesis' that seeks to explain how he was confused with ‘Kosminski’.
I'm not happy with either choice, hence why I don't agree with Martin about 'Cohen', and I'll be interested to read which of these avenues John Douglas and Mark Oleshaker have gone down, assuming they've gone down either, and to see the arguments they advance. Frankly, Fido, Douglas and Oleshaker combine to present a formidable array of knowledge and experience.
(One point I must make clear is that the above scenario makes it appear that Martin first rejected Aaron Kosminski, then searched for someone else. This was not the case. Martin did his research before the discovery of the Swanson marginalia that named ‘Kosminski’ as Anderson’s suspect and before Martin had discovered Aaron Kosminski in the asylum records.
We knew that Anderson identified the Ripper as a Polish Jew and we knew that the Polish Jew Kosminski was among Macnaghten's suspects and we suspected that the suspects were one and the same. Pursuing 'Kosminski', Martin did not extend his searches throught the asylum records as far as 1891 and so initially he didn't find anyone of that name. Believing that Anderson would not have lied about a Polish Jew suspect, Martin assumed that Anderson's suspect must be in the asylum records, but under another name. He was therefore looking for someone who had characteristics that recommended him as Anderson's suspect and found Nathan Kaminsky and David Cohen. Having evolved a theory involving these men, Martin was tying up some loose ends in his research and very close to deadline with his publisher when he discovered Aaron Kosminski. But it was clear to Martin that Aaron Kosminski was simply too unlike a Ripper even to have ever been suspected by Anderson and he rejected him. After publication of his book the Swanson marginalia was discovered. And, as Martin points out, some of the details given by Swanson did fit 'Cohen'... the rest is history.
Sorry for such a long post.
) |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 19 November 2000 - 06:49 am | | Gentlemen - how very gratifying to enjoy praise from and be the subject of discussion by two such well-informed and rational critics. I won't ask you to spare my blushes: I'm very tolerant of criticism if it takes the form of compliments.
And to hand you your basic case immediately, let me say that I think the Douglas/Olshaker conclusion 'Jack the Ripper was either David Cohen or some one very like him' is much more accurate than my book's conclusion, 'Jack the Ripper has been found' (even though that was my personal belief at the time). I would say without a moment's hesitation that Cohen, far more than Kosminsky, fits the target I promised when starting detailed research: 'a more plausible candidate than any other that has been proposed', and I maintain without hesitation that this remains true. The 'broad sweep' approach Douglas brings to all cases might be ilustrated best via Lizzie Borden (since I don't think any of us have a vested interest there). So her uncle got home with a suspiciously detailed account of his mnovements, and hung around in the garden eating pears and apparently not noticing the crowd? Suspicious behaviour, no contest. But however it may have been prepared, his alibi was perfect and vouched for, so while he may have had some guilty foreknowledge, he couldn't have done the murder. So Lizzie was never shown to have any blood staining and didn't behave like a savage murdererss? No contest. But she and the maid were the only two who were on the premises at the time; Lizzie's stories (unlike Bridget's) constantly changed, indicating some lying; any other murderer had to come in through a locked door and relock it, find Mrs Borden upstairs and kill her, hide in the locked house for an hour and a half keeping out of Lizzie and Bridget's way; kill Mr Borden, and go out locking the door again. That story is so complicated and has to be supported by so many tiny details and speculations if it's attached to any other named person that it takes the edge right off Occam's razor.
Similarly, if for reasons Paul and I almost agree on, you think Anderson the 'best witness' - not necessarily a nice man or mentally flexible, but in a position to know what he was talking about, intelligent enough not to be talking twaddle, honest enough not to be making things up, and telling a plausible story, and in all these respects comparing favourably with everyone else, then your best testimony is the plausible broad picture of a Polish Jew from Whitechapel going into an asylum. (Paul gives equal or higher weight to Swanson's evidence, and so has a more complicated and harder narrative to match which I feel includes a degree of implausibility and some internal self-contradiction.) Now, Jon, you say the asylum records were incomplete and inaccurate. In some respects, yes. They got names and personal data wrong. Their diagnoses were, shall we say, primitive. But they were rock solid on the actual bodies in front of them and the rough general description of what they could see (gender, height, foreign speaking, etc). And depending on who brought the bodies in, they were likely to be accurate about where they came from. (Thus Cohen and Kosminsky are confirmed as Whitechapel by the police and the Kosminsky family respectively). This isn't just randomly picking nutters out of a hat. Remember that I checked ALL Jewish and many other inmates from all the asylums around London, only stopping at 1890 in Colney Hatch because that was where the casebook supplied me finished, and it seemed far enough after the murder not to make any chase on to 1894 essential. And because of mis-spellings, like at least one other person I missed Kosminsky's trail through the workhouse infirmary books to 1894 which I HAD covered. Keith only found him there on a recheck after his presence in the asylum had been published.
And to clarify briefly my own order of research, I was looking for:
(i) A Polish Jew from Whitechapel (Anderson)
(ii) Called Kosminsky, or something very like it (Macnaghten)
(iii) Who was probably a cobbler. shoemaker or leather worker (deduced from Macnaghten and Leather Apron evidence, before I knew that the Knightley reported version of Macnaghten's notes confirmed that he identified the Polish Jewish suspect as Leather Apron).
I found -
(i) Nathan Kaminsky, a cobbler living in exactly the right place to be the Ripper, with an illness of a kind that often precipitated physical attacks on prostitutes suffered at exactly the right time. (At this point I wa pretty sure I'd found the Ripper)
(ii) No further trace of Kaminsky on any records.
(iii) 'David Cohen', exactly the same age as Kaminsky, going into the asylum at exactly the right time for the ending of the murders (and explaining Kaminsky's disappearance if he actually was Kaminsky), and exhibiting symptoms more compatible with an addictive murderer (who had declined into mania) than any other in the asylums.
(iv) (Some months later after I had completed my arguments) Aaron Kosminsky, exactly the same age again as Cohen/(and?)/Kaminsky.
The Swanson marginalia had not emerged, so I had no idea that he confirmed early death in the asylum like Cohen's. I was at that point quite ready to withdraw Cohen/Kaminsky in favour of Kosminsky if he fitted the broad picture. But he didn't, and I feel still, doesn't. (I had to pay my publishers for rewriting to include him in any case). Paul long ago asked the very fair question, what would I have done if I'd found Kosminsky immediately? Would I have tried to persuade myself that he could have been the Ripper? And the answer is, I just don't know. The Anderson-Macnaghten trail pointing to him was and is enormously strong, as Paul maintains. The only thing I wouldn't ever have done was go looking for an alternative to replace him. I should, I hope, have concluded that Anderson and Swanson pointed down a mistaken dead end, and Don Rumbelow's conclusion of an undiscoverable Ripper must stand.
I can see that writing for the reader's ease I left the impression of grabbing a nutter at random in my book, though I tried to give some account (especially in the 2nd edition after the Swanson marginalia had emerged) of the way I'd found him. It was certainly always following the trail of historical evidence to find the candidate: never doing what Douglas so roundly condemns, trying to force the evidence to fit the candidate, except insofar as I provided a hypothetical explanation for Cohen's given occupation of tailor.
None of which is intended to persuade either of you gentlemen to change your opinions: just clarification (I hope!)
With thanks again for your kind words,
Martin Fido |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 November 2000 - 06:17 pm | | Paul wrote:
It’s rather curious to find myself in the position of defending a theory I don’t actually agree with
LOL
Paul, I like to concentrate on contemporary suspects and contemporary theories. If modern examples (suspects, right under the nose of police) are anything to go by then the police were likely nearer to solving the case than they actually thought.
But after I mentioned the American Doctor theory I found myself in a similar predicament.
(defending the theory of another person)
I know there have been a few legitimate proposals as far as suspects & theories go. But one we never hear much about is that 'burking' theory of Wynne Baxter's. So, to stimulate a discussion I bring up what I think is not an unacceptable hypothesis, and get jumped on for my troubles, and it is automatically assumed that this is 'my theory' :-( not at all.
Seeing some plausible aspect in a theory and trying to promote an exchange was misinterpreted by a couple of readers, no matter. I saw the funny side of it, and I still maintain that all it takes is one 'Doctor' to want some organs, to create a 'market' for that organ, it only takes one. And as the American Doctor was definitly interested (in 1887), then there was the market.
However, I appreciate your input and attempt to clarify details in the above discussion. And I understand your position :-)
Thankyou Martin, for responding. Like I said, I agree that some possible low-life, local deviate was the infamous 'Jack' (as opposed to a 'pillar of society'), I still hope to find a local suspect that stands out from the crowd in some small way.
When you consider the typical requirements that are thrown into the ring, eg; "must have medical knowledge", "must hate prostitutes", "must have sexual problems" etc..etc...and Cohen cannot be said to have any of these, it makes you wonder, "does this suspect really stand out?".
I have to admit, the above so-called requirements are only what are expected by the masses. And are not legitimate requirements in a serious search. But then, that might depend on your own personal view of 'Who was Jack?'.
Consider a recent set of exchanges about 'sexual serial killers'. One poster told me in no uncertain terms that Jack was a sexual serial killer, to the exclusion of all else.
Which is another way of saying that any suspect proposed to be Jack 'must' be a sexual deviate, or he simply IS NOT JACK. And therefore, unless an author can suggest a hint of sexual deviation then he is wasting his time proposing a suspect. This is a pre-requisit that is typical of the blinkered view of some researchers. In this we would have to state categorically that Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski, Cohen, Barnett and all the legitimate suspects were, by defacto, sexually demented, which I think, is a tough sell.
(being homosexual does NOT qualify)
Thankyou, Gentlemen.
Regards, Jon
P.S. can anyone answer that second question I posed?.....about the death symptoms of David Cohen being consistent with syphilis? |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 19 November 2000 - 07:33 pm | | Jon - your PS is no problem. There's no connection at all. It is not suggested that Kaminsky's syphilis led to insanity, only that rage at being infected might have led him to attack prostitutes. As far as I recall the infirmary is charged him as cured after six weeks of presumaby mercury.
As for the sex mania, aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Whoever committed the Ripper crimes was an addictive lust murderer: the nature of the murders make this a matter of self-definition. But such types are not identifiable before they're caught. I was in hospital with a young neighbour of Fred West's, who was absolutely flabbergasted to learn West's nature, and this proves the case over and over again where such types are found. Sutcliffe;s family thught him the least likely of the brothers to be a Ripper, etc etc.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 November 2000 - 10:33 pm | | Martin
Sorry, I am not clear on your 'sex mania' point.
I have consistantly argued against such a classification, and against such a pre-requisit.
Whereas, others look for this trait in a potential suspect.
However, and this is an amateur speaking, I suggest you cannot with any certainty classify the Ripper murders as 'sexually motivated' until you have the killer in custody, only then after subsequent interrogation will it be apparent what his motivation was and how to classify his crimes.
For instance, in your opinion, is it remotely feasible that a person could carve up MJK out of pure hatred for her very existance?.
If so, where is the sexual motivation?
Also, following the suggestion by Baxter & Philips that someone with medical experience may have been the culprit. Is it remotely possible that the killer mutilated Eddowes around the face to suggest a lunatic was at work?
What sane medical person, though slightly demented, would go to such horrific extremes as to mutilate the face of the victim, this killer must be a raving lunatic !!! ..etc....etc...
I am pointing out that until the killer is caught we cannot be certain as to what evidence is of motive & what is red herring.
That a murderer will ransack a house to make it look like a burglary gone wrong, so as to hide the fact of the real motive.
Also, our inadequate (controversial?) coverage of the medical evidence makes it obligatory that we reserve judgement as to motive, we speculate, but that is all we can do due to the poor state of affairs.
As for addictive?....how addictive?...how many victims did he have? 3? 5? 7?
What number justifies addiction?
We can make comparrisons with Sutcliffe, Shawcross, Chikatilo.....but they had lots of victims. They can be said to be addicted due to the extreme numbers of victims, but how can we apply this to Jack with only 3, or 4?
There is not a sufficient number to enable us to form a reasonable opinion, surely.
Thankyou, Jon
(sorry for getting onto this subject again) |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 20 November 2000 - 03:07 am | | Hi Jon
Trying to stimulate interesting discussion is a perilous exercise at the best of times and it will certainly saddle you with beliefs you don't have, opinions your don't hold, and theories you don't agree with. And the Devil will take you if you so much as dare to play his advocate!
The alternative, of course, is staying quite and as all who know me will attest, away from these Boards I tend to sit in the corner, keep my own counsel, uphold the tenets of temperance and eat nought but healthy salads. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 20 November 2000 - 09:03 am | | Hello Jon,
I,ve just read your post,-- 19th Nov 10:33pm. How could we two have ever disagreed when I first came on to these boards?. I think exactly the same as you, and regarding this post of your's, I agree with you 100%. There are so many blind alleys, impossible situations, unlikely conclusions,--"if it works out here, it doesn't work out there". Even though the mutilations were concentrated in the stomach and between the legs area, I can't think of them as sex killings, more "hate" or some other reason,-- if thats possible, and assuming that the killer's mind was unbalanced in some way--well anything is possible!. You can't analyse a madmans mind until you have him in custody. You can only guess and surmise, you can't reason, thats a contradiction,--isn't it?. If you will pardon me bringing him up again, I think--possibly-- Barnett could have been unbalanced in mind enough to be able to kill, but not so unbalanced that he couldn't stop when the need was no longer there,---but I will confess that I do have trouble in thinking that a man who has loved a woman could do what was done to Mary,-- but I'm sane, how can I say what a man with a disturbed mind will do!.
Best Regards Rick |
Author: Jon
Monday, 20 November 2000 - 01:23 pm | | Ok, whose posing as Paul Begg?
:-)
Rick
I honestly feel that there is an inherent need in researchers to label Jack. They cannot identify him, cannot name him, so they go for the next best step. That is to classify him.
And this classification started almost a hundred years ago, but was originally based on a wide rage of victims.
Because one of the organs was the uterus, this being a sex organ and the abdominal mutilations together with a frenzied stabbing and carving up of the vagina. All together they cannot fail but to jump to the assumption that these were sex crimes.
However, its only when you look in depth at the assumption you find flaws.
- To start with, you cannot classify the acts of a killer until you can agree on the number of victims he had.
- next, the sexual frienzy is associated with Tabram, who is not an automatic choice for a Ripper victim.
- The Barnett & Tumblety theories would benefit somewhat by removing Kelly from the list of Ripper victims. This is proposed by serious researchers so should not be ignored.
- the other victims have an abdominal gash from the lower abdomen up to the breastbone, or in the case of Nichols somewhat less.
So, when you couple the above observations with the witness testimony that Jack had only minutes with his victims, we are left wondering what is the basis for a classification of 'sexually motivated'.
We are only left with 3 reasonably certain victims and consequently the evidence for these being sexually motivated is sorely lacking.
Not impossible, but also NOT conclusive.
Regards, Jon |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 20 November 2000 - 05:38 pm | | Martin,
I recently discovered to my shock that I did not have your book among my Ripper library. Could I get an autographed copy? ;-)
I respect you greatly and have quoted you directly from interviews on numerous occasions in the past, so please bear this in mind when reading my comments below.
All,
I don't consider Anderson's suspect (named by Macnaghten and Swanson as Kosminski) to be a very likely suspect for several reasons. The most obvious is the timing of the whole series of events. Anderson said the murders ceased immediately after the suspect was committed to asylum and he further states that the last in the series of murders was MJK (from his book The Lighter Side of My Official Life) whereas the records of Colney Hatch indicate that Kosminski was admitted on February 7th of 1891. How could Anderson's suspect be Kosminski if he was not locked up until over 2 years after MJK's death. This in my mind has cleared the lunatic named Kosminski; however, since Anderson never named his suspect, I can understand the need to look for another lunatic at large in the Whitechapel area.
On to Cohen, regarding the identification issue, so who was the Jewish witness Anderson mentioned? It had to be either Lawende or Schwartz. If it was Lawende, why was he still being asked to identify suspects in 1895 (William Grainger) if the identity of JtR was known as Kosminski or Cohen? Since we do not know who the witness was in Grainger's case, but since he is said to have witnessed the murderer of the woman who had been dissected the night of the double-event (Eddowes, see The JTR, A to Z under Grainger), it must have been Lawende as Schwartz only might have witnessed Stride's killer (or killers). Besides, Lawende had already said that he could not be sure he could identify the man he saw again; therefore, the witness who allegedly identified the suspect when he was confronted with him was probably not Lawende.
Schwartz appears to describe gentiles accosting Stride and not Jews according to most interpretations of his statements; this is a problem if we believe Anderson's comment that the suspect was Jewish. If the witness was Schwartz and he refused to testify when he learned Anderson's suspect was Jewish, he might have simply been refusing in order to avoid bearing false witness as he undoubtedly knew the police were hunting the Ripper. The man he saw might not have been the Ripper, but simply Stride's murderer the night of the double-event or even a previous John as the timing suggests there could have been another.
I understand that there might have been confusion on the police part (Macnaghten and Swanson) with a suspect who changed his name to avoid any connection to Leather Apron, but in general, the arguments for the "low class Polish Jew" appear fairly tenuous IMHO.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that some of the people of that day weren't as ignorant as we've come to believe. Here's part of an article from THE TIMES, Sept. 14th 1888 issue. "The Lancet says 'The theory that the succession of murders which have lately been committed in Whitechapel are the work of a lunatic appears to us to be by no means at present well established. We can quite understand the necessity for any murderer endeavouring to obliterate by the death of his victim his future identification as a burglar. Moreover, as far as we are aware, homicidal mania is generally characterized by the one single and fatal act, although we grant this may have been led up to by a deep-rooted series of delusions. It is most unusual for a lunatic to plan any complicated crime of this kind. Neither, as a rule, does a lunatic take precautions to escape from the consequences of his act ; which data are most conspicuous in the now too celebrated cases.'"
I seem to be going nowhere at this point, so let me just say in closing that I agree with Don Rumbelow's (whose book I do have autographed and whom I spent a chilly night traversing Whitechapel while literally tripping over each other) that the Ripper remains undiscoverable in the sense of lacking any real evidence. This leaves us only to debate how likely a given suspect was JtR.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 20 November 2000 - 08:56 pm | | Hello Jack,
A "quid" is a term I've used all my life,-- I've never thought about it, I don't/didn't know where the term came from, so I looked it up. The best I can find is from the Latin,--Quid=a sovereign-or gold coin worth £1.
Quid pro quo= thing given as compensation. Something for something. Now you are as wise as me!. NOW, where does the term buck and bit come from?J
all the best Rick |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 12:10 am | | Hi L.A. (I now feel foolish saying Hi Jack)
If memory at what is for me not yet dawn is serving my correctly, it was Swanson, not Anderson, who said that no other murder of the kind took place after the identification of the suspect. Anderson does not indicate a time for the committal of the Polish Jew to an asylum and so could easily have been referring to Cohen, who was committed shortly after the murder of MJK and whose committal could, as Martin has always said, explain the sudden cessation of the crimes.
Swanson, meanwhile, could have been referring to the Whitechapel murders overall, the last case in the files being that of Francis Coles in 1891, after which the files seem to have been closed. Admittedly some would point out that the Coles murder happened days after Aaron Kosminski’s incarceration, from which it might be deduced that he doesn’t fit the detail either, but I think the two events were so close in time that while we should note the dates, Swanson can be allowed his statement.
Otherwise, the problem with the Anderson/Swanson story is that it is either a complete fiction, in which case it presents a different set of problems for the historian, or they are telling the truth and describing a sequence of events which if only in their basic outline are true (I say ‘only in their basic outline’ because they may have been describing events in which they did not participate and of which they had no direct personal knowledge, the details of which might therefore be in error but the core of the story be correct). If the latter, then as I seem to say a lot, there was as suspect, there was a witness, there was and identification, and Anderson and Swanson did come to believe that the suspect was Jack the Ripper.
Whether they were right in that belief or not is for us to decide according to our assessment of the available ‘evidence’ (my opinion is that we don’t have any idea of the evidence against the suspect and shouldn’t, indeed can’t, draw any realistic conclusions until we do), but the event did happen and we can attempt to determine who the people were from the evidence we have.
Personally, if the witness was either Shwartz or Lawende then I do follow an unpopular route in thinking that it wasn’t Lawende. If there is any truth in Swanson’s statement that the witness testimony would have hung the suspect – and I think Anderson’s emphasis on the witness’s refusal to give evidence indicates that his testimony was regarded as crucial – then I don’t think Lawende’s evidence was nearly strong enough. I think any competent lawyer would have pointed out that Lawende only glanced at the man with Eddowes (if, indeed, it was Eddowes) and stated that he would not be able to identify the man again (alone enough to throw serious doubt on any subsequent identification). Moreover, even if the man seen was indeed the suspect, it couldn’t be shown that he was the murderer. He could have walked away shortly after Lawende passed and Jack could have emerged from the shadows of Mitre Court…
Shwartz, if his story is true, saw a woman whom he identified as Stride assaulted at the very spot where she was shortly found murdered. Whether or not Stride was killed by Jack the Ripper, the improbability of Stride being assaulted by different men in the same place within minutes makes it likely that the man who assaulted her did kill her. If Schwartz’s eye-witness testimony was therefore accepted, he would in all probability have identified a murderer. I think it entirely possibly that Schwartz’s testimony, added to other incriminating evidence, certainly could have sent someone to the gallows. Hence I favour Schwartz as the witness.
Did he see Jack the Ripper? I don’t know. And much depends on whether Stride was a Ripper victim. If she wasn’t then Anderson and Swanson could have been both right and wrong – right that the suspect was the murderer, wrong that he was the Ripper.
I shall now go and sulk in a corner because I haven't be asked to sign a copy of my book. Martin gets all the fun, works with celebrated profilers, receives acknowledgement from them, gets asked for his autograph... And he has more hair! |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 03:17 am | | Jon--You're question about syphilis is a good one, and I have wondered much the same. Sometime back on the Druitt board, someone came up with the theory that Druitt's insane mother had syphilis (contracted through her husband, the surgeon, who, in turn, got it innocently enough in the surgery). The theory then continued that the suicide phrase "ever since Friday I felt that I would be like mother" (or something along those lines) referred to MJD going to the doctor on the Friday, finding out he had syphilis, which caused him to throw himself into the Thames! The trouble with this theory (I thought) was that syphilis goes through various stages. The brain deterioration might well be years away.
There was an infamous scandal here in the USA where black males from a place called Tuskegee were left untreated for syphilis for many years (over 40 years in some cases) by doctors who wanted to study the long term effects. The immorality of this study aside, I believe only a small percentage of the men went 'raving' mad, though they all suffered great health problems. But it would be interesting to get an expert medical opinion on this. I think it is fair to say that one can't have it both ways; either a syphilitic JtR was still sane and sought revenge on prostitutes, or, he was driven insane by advanced syphilis, which made him psychotic and thus murderous. If you get the distinction.
If my memory serves me right, Frederick Deeming used the 'syphilis' defense at trial. They topped him anyway. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 04:46 am | | Hi, Rick:
The following might help. It seems no one knows where "quid" came from....
Funny money.
Dear Word Detective: I was born and raised in England all my life, until my recent move to the States, and as far back as I can remember, people would refer to a English pound as a "quid." I have asked many friends and colleagues, but nobody could give me an answer as to where this word originates or its meaning. It is still used very frequently in everyday conversations. Do you have the answer? -- Dave, in Connecticut.
Perhaps. Of course, in cases like this, we experts are reluctant to express an opinion without actually examining the object in question, so if you would simply forward a few of these "pound" things to me (20 or 30 will do as a sample), I'll study them thoroughly and get back to you.
Just kidding (unless you really want to send me a few). The "pound," of course, is the standard unit of currency in the United Kingdom, and used to be known as the "pound sterling" because it was legally exchangeable for one pound of real sterling silver.
Now the word "quid," as I'm sure we all remember from our first-year Latin class, means "what" or "something." Most of us in the U.S. only know the word in the phrase "quid pro quo," meaning "something for something" ("quo" being the ablative case of "quid"), or, to put it in politician-speak, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
"Quid" has been used as slang for "pound" since the late 17th century, but no one really knows why. It may be that "quid" was adopted as a bit of clever slang based on its Latin meaning of "what," perhaps as a shortened form of an oblique slang phrase such as "what one needs" (i.e., money). Or it may be that it comes from a misunderstanding (or humorous spin on) the phrase "quid pro quo" (as in "Here's your quo, where's my quid?"). Personally, I lean toward the second theory, but we may never know for sure.
From the Word Detective, http://www.word-detective.com/122099.html
Chris George |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 09:04 am | | Thanks Chris,
It was Jack's inquiry, not mine, but I'm interested now. In one phrase, you wrote, "here's your quo where's my quid?, I saw in "quo" the word quota, so I looked that up too.It said, "share to be contributed to or received from a total by one of the parties concerned". Also, "number of yearly immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. from any one country". It put me in mind of a time about 30yrs ago, we had just got married and wanted to live in the U.S. We really wanted to become American citizens. We tried about 3 times, but each time we weren't included in the "QUOTA". We had to give up in the end,--it was costing us too many "QUIDS". I think we would have made good "YANKS", we are very pro, but thats the way the cookie crumbles as they say over there!.
Best regards Rick. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 01:08 pm | | Is it really quid? I always thought the Brits were saying "squid." With all that haggis, kidney, and other guts and brains they eat, I figured squid might be their medium of exchange, as well.
I'm offal, aren't I?
David |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 03:52 pm | | Thanks Rick and Chris,
Here are a few currency tidbits...
;-)
What is the origin of buck?
Lots of speculation, no firm conclusions. Next time we start a language we have to keep better notes. The leading theory at the moment is that buck comes from an old practice in poker. Evidently in the 19th century frontier card players were so thick they couldn't remember whose turn it was to deal from one hand to the next. So they placed a counter or token in front of the dealer du jour. This token was called a buck, since it was commonly a buck knife, whose handle was made of buck horn. When the time came for the dealer to surrender the job to someone new, he (you saw this coming) "passed the buck" to the new guy.
Uh-huh.
A more plausible theory is that buck is short for buckskin, a common medium of exchange in trading with the Indians. As early as 1748 we have people writing, "Every cask of Whiskey shall be sold to you [Indians] for 5 Bucks." The transition to dollars seems only natural.
Curiously, "sawbuck," a ten-dollar bill, appears to be only indirectly related to buck. It got its name because some old ten-spots were denominated with Roman numeral Xs. The Xs looked like the X-shaped arms of the benches sawyers used to hold up logs for cutting.
(Pictogrammic depiction: X-X.) The benches, which were vaguely similar to today's sawhorses, were called sawbucks.--CECIL ADAMS
What is the origin of a quarter being equal to "Two Bits"?
Listening to America by Stuart Berg Flexner (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1982) has some detailed about bits: Being worth one-eighth of a Spanish peso or Spanish dollar, the original Spanish ‘real’ or ‘bit’ was worth 12 ½ cents. Not only was this bit itself a coin, but the peso could be cut into halves, quarters or pie-shaped wedges of eights, so a bit was both a coin and a cut-off section of a peso worth the same amount. This ‘bit,’ being 12 ½ cents, gave us our term ‘two bits’ (1730, originally as two separate bits or the sum of 25 cents, then as our own 25-cent coin in 1792) -- Tim Finnegan
As well, this is where the phrase "piece of eight" comes from. A peso is a piece of eight, because one peso can be cut into eight reals, or "bits". -- Scott Marsden
Regards,
Jack |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 04:11 pm | | Paul,
Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid it doesn't help my recollections about who said what occurred when and in fact I'm more confused than ever, but I'm sure I can go back through my books and sort it all out. That's part of the problem with relying on autobiographers' memoirs I suppose; they can remember what happened, but they don't always put it in the proper time frame. I guess we agree that the witness was probably Schwartz. Sigh. Who knows?
"I shall now go and sulk in a corner because I haven't been asked to sign a copy of my book."
Paul, I would love to have you sign my copy of your book! If I come to next year's Ripper Conference I'll bring it along. If not, maybe I'll be seeing you here in 2002? While your sitting in the corner, instead of donning a dunce hat, I have a nice black cap with a peak a mutual friend of ours lent me.
;-D
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 05:06 pm | | "Consider a recent set of exchanges about 'sexual serial killers'. One poster told me in no uncertain terms that Jack was a sexual serial killer, to the exclusion of all else." That poster was me.
Jon, the Ripper murders can categorically be classified as ‘sexually motivated' because in fact they were sex crimes, your lack of knowledge of the nature of sex crimes doesn't change that. We don't need to sit down a suspect and interrogate him as to his motivation when the crimes have all the hallmarks of the sexual serial killer. Basically, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....
Ah!, but what if it was someone trying to disguise their real intent? What real intent, ‘burking'?
Something else? Do you have any real evidence that this was the case or is this simply another example of ‘what if' history? If that is the case then, yes, anything is possible no matter how outrageous or improbable and every little detail is open to a wide range of possibilities. Fortunately, criminology is not based on ‘what if' but on facts and observation. I am sure that you can see the absolute mess that would ensue if we all embraced ‘what if ‘ history.
On your observation that, "this classification started almost a hundred years ago, but was originally based on a wide rage of victims." Yes, in some cases this is true, (Von Krafft-Ebing mentions ten murders for example), but the Ripper murders were first understood to be sex crimes in 1888. Dr. Bond defined them as such after studying the canonical five. The medical journals of the day carry several similar pronouncements after only four or five of the murders (if we assume that they were counting Emma Smith as the first victim and that can't be stated with any real certainty), and how to explain all modern experts, including John Douglas, who do not base their opinions on ‘a wide range of victims'? Are they all wrong?
As you have stated, you are offering an amateur's opinion but then you state, "Because one of the organs was the uterus, this being a sex organ and the abdominal mutilations together with a frenzied stabbing and carving up of the vagina. All together they cannot fail but to jump to the assumption that these were sex crimes." Yes, but Jon, opinions given on the sexual aspects of the Ripper murders are based on much more complex and, perhaps, subtle distinctions than your view of what constitutes a sex crime. As you stated, you are offering only an amateurs opinion.
To quote, "However, its only when you look in depth at the assumption you find flaws." I couldn't have put it any better myself.
"- To start with, you cannot classify the acts of a killer until you can agree on the number of victims he had." I don't know where you got this from but, actually, yes you can.
"- next, the sexual frienzy (sic) is associated with Tabram, who is not an automatic choice for a Ripper victim." Sexual frenzy is an indicator of sexual intent but not the only one. It is perhaps the easiest one to understand but as I said, this is more complex than you seem to understand.
"- The Barnett & Tumblety theories would benefit somewhat by removing Kelly from the list of Ripper victims. This is proposed by serious researchers so should not be ignored." I'm not sure why this would constitute evidence against the murders being sex crimes but I wonder at what ‘serious researchers' you are talking about. I can not think of any including Stewart Evans, if that's who you mean, who would seriously argue this as being the case. I'm not going to speak for Stewart but I would be very surprised if he told me that he had now thrown out Kelly as a genuine Ripper victim. Mulling over possibilities is one thing, rock solid belief is quite another.
"- the other victims have an abdominal gash from the lower abdomen up to the breastbone, or in the case of Nichols somewhat less." You apparently feel, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that since the mutilations were not restricted to the lower abdomen, then they do not constitute sexual intent, or at least, sexual intent is made less likely. In actual fact, the length or nature of the opening incision is of little importance when it is understood that the focus of the mutilations were the lower abdomen and the sexual organs.
You don't have to believe this, you're free not to, but here's some food for thought.
Martha Tabram: Multiple stab wounds in which the "breast, belly and private parts were the principle targets."
Polly Nichols: All wounds, except those to the neck, to the lower abdomen. A deep wound to the left side of the lower abdomen; several incisions running across the lower abdomen; three or four similar incisions running downwards on the right side of the lower abdomen, "all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently downwards." No organs removed from the body.
Annie Chapman: "...whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found."
Also,"It is there desirable to state that the parts removed were a certain portion of the abdominal wall, including the navel; two thirds of the bladder (posterior and upper portions); the upper third of the vagina and its connection with the uterus; and the whole of the uterus." If the flap of abdominal wall was taken away, what possible market was there for this and only two-thirds of a bladder?
Catherine Eddowes: Several small "stabs" to the body and organs. "There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin.", "...there was a cut of three inches going through all tissue making a wound to the peritoneum..." The labium on both sides cut free to form flaps. Cuts to the liver, pancreas, spleen. A "tongue like cut through the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta." Removed from the body were the left kidney and only part of the womb. What possible market was there for these?
Mary Kelly: A complete dissection of the body with only the heart missing.
Wolf. |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 05:59 pm | | Hello to everyone. I trust you'll forgive the intrusion of this amateur newcomer into the debate.
Having had my lifelong interest (usually referred to by those who know me as 'obsession') diminish somewhat a year or two back, mostly due to the preoccupation many had with the diary (someone please burn the bloody thing), my connection to this new fangled web thingy and the discovery of casebook have revived things once more. Rather startled to see suggestions still being put about that Jack wasn't sexually motivated. I don't think there is any doubt at all that he was. Could anyone seriously argue that what he did to Mary Kelly could have been the result of normal emotions, even one as strong as hate? The utter destruction of her body gives a clear indication of what Jack would have done to his other victims given the time and space to do so. This type of major evisceration was what he always wanted and intended to do from the off IMHO. Also a little surprised to see that the Polish Jew theory has been revived, although as it's Martin Fido who has dragged him into the light of day then he deserves further investigation, although I consider it improbable, based on extensive research carried out in the past, that he could really be described as a serious suspect, even in the light of the new information. But then what I know LOL I'm almost certain that the real Jack seemed in most ways to be a perfectly normal bloke. I don't think he had a down on whores. He was most likely quiet, possibly introverted, probably a virgin and/or impotent, but not raving mad. How many recent serial killers are known to have exhibited signs of screaming insanity? Sutcliffe and Chikatilo certainly didn't, any more than Christie or Nielsen did. Insignificant men who people barely noticed, and yet with frenzied desires to possess and destroy burning inside them. Buchan interests me greatly but I'm having a hell of job finding out much about him, no doubt because there is (as ever) so little of real substance. If the claim that his sister was called Maria Ann is indeed true, I would say that, along with the other things known about him (I won't go so far as using the word 'facts' without some more digging and probing) would warrant his serious investigation.
But I have yet to be convinced by any argument (even some of the very persuasive ones!) that Jack is someone already known to Ripperologists. I'm hoping a thorough sift through the various postings and such at this site will alter that opinion. But I doubt it. Then again...
Best regs to all,
Graham |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 21 November 2000 - 10:26 pm | | Wolf
the Ripper murders can categorically be classified as ‘sexually motivated' because in fact they were sex crimes
Let me explain something to you.
The reasons for the wounds to a body are "subjective" based on the observers opinion.
They are in no way classed as a fact.
What IS a fact is that the victims were cut open and that certain organs were removed, these are what constitute facts.
Now, as my profession is in no way related to criminal investigation I am not reluctant to use the word amateur. As far as I know this also applies to almost everyone who contributes to these boards, interested amateurs.
including YOU
But unlike you, several are quite content to look at certain aspects of this case from a different perspective. And in some cases that means challenging the current thinking on any given subject.
Because, the last time I read up on scientific matters, professionals were not beyond making mistakes, jumping to wrong conclusions.
A Phd does not grant you immunity from screw-ups. In fact the biggest mistakes ever made were made by professionals.
How many scientific subject are there that have professionals on one side only?
No matter what issue you raise on any scientific matter you will find 'professionals' on both sides. So, dont imply they cannot be wrong.
Now, specifically, as the reason for the wounds on a body are purely a 'subjective' matter, then unless the perpetrator indicates his reasoning, then the classification is speculative.
Since the early days when what we now term as sex crimes became apparent, the subject has been slowly evolving. As more techniques are analyzed, as interviews with 'sex killers' are studied and as society becomes more aware of violent acts against women, we are slowly diluting the various violent acts against women under one canopy of 'sex crimes'. We are fast reaching a point where any violent act against a female can & will be found to have a degree of 'sex crime' about it.
This belittles the original meaning and confuses issues to the point where modern investigators are finding the need to create sub-categories of sex criminals in order to differentiate between different types.
We use to think that a sex crime was committed by someone who was over-sexed, was not getting enough, so to speak. Then it was realized that many of the really vicious types were actually impotent, and couldnt perform if they wanted to. Now we are also realizing that sex may not actually be the reason for the crime. That in fact the overriding issue is one of control, which just manifests itself in an act of sexual aggression, this puts a whole new complexion on matters.
But then I'm an amateur....what do I know.
Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 09:37 am | | Leather Apron - I'll be happy to sign a book for you, and will soon be trying to find out whether there is some way of tracking profiles to see if I can communicate with you to do so while reserving the privacy of my abode, reasonable unovercrowdedness of my e-mails, and occasional silence of mine and my mother-in-law's telephone bells.
And I certainly do not take umbrage over your disagreeing with me. You are entitled to your opinion, and still more entitled not to have me look down on it as 'humble'. I happen to agree with you entirely about Kosminsky and the witnesses Lawende or Schwartz. Your point about Lawende's being summoned for the ID of Grainger, if Anderson thought the valid ID had been done years earlier, is a very good one which goes in with a lot of other points leading to conclusions diametrically opposed to mine. (Note also the continuation of beefed up patrols in Whitechapel into early 1889; Littlechild's express view that Anderson was over-confident - and the fact that inflexible confidence in his own opinions, some of which were pretty off the wall, was indeed a mark of Anderson's character). I feel confident that these don't outweigh the strong historical case, and that no other case proposed is nearly so plausible and in congruence with the facts. And I am delighted to see John Douglas insisting from the position of more practical experience that these sorts of little details and glitches remain in even the best proven cases. If I didn't think my opinion was right, I shouldn't purvey it. But it doesn't mean I am in any way offended by people coming rationally to other opinions. I'm only offended if they're rude to me or try to adopt poncey superior attitudes and patronise me.
Paul - Come out of your corner at once! You're taller than me and better looking. And you're younger. What more can you ask for?
Rick, David et al, to confuse an already confused issue, one of my prep school textbooks purported to explain the use of 'quid' meaning a chaw of tobacco. It alleged that one 18th century sailor pointed to another's chomping jaws and asked, "Quid est hoc?" (What is that), whereupon the chewer took out the lump of tobacco and said, "Hoc est quid." (That is what.) Even at the age of nine I was dubious about this casual conversation in Latin happening in the foc'sle.
Grahame, Thank you for the kind words suggesting that my observations make a subject worthy of re-examination. There isn't any new historical information to examine: just the weighty opinions of John Douglas and Mark Olshaker to add to Bill Eckert. You refer to 'extensive research carried out in the past' which makes the Polish Jew theory improbable. To what do you refer? I'm unaware of anyone who has done direct research in this area who thought it improbable, or believed they'd found anything indicating that to be the case, and I've always assumed I was pretty familiar with all published and a good deal of unpublished work on Kosminskis and their relations, Jewish burials, the census records for Black Lion Yard and Leman Street and the like, not to mention the characters, personalities and opinions of the leading police officers who expressed views on the Ripper. I am aware of people who have scraped around for opinions expressed by or about Anderson which they hope will discredit him, but as this has never been accompanied by any serious detailed study of his personality and character, and, when published, has invariably been the work of writers who absolutely must get the Polish Jew theory out of the way if they are to proceed into print with their own alternative candidate, or claim that they have something new, important and central to say, I do rather discount this 'work' as tendentious and a bad example of letting the conclusion drive the argument and findings. But I'd be more than interested to hear if I've missed something, as I am perfectly prepared to say, 'I was wrong,' and drop David Cohen the minute any strong evidence to push him aside appears. I have to say, after ten years in which some quite gifted people have done their damnedest, I don't think there's any hope of the Polish Jew theory in general quitting the field, at least as far as the preponderance of serious and scholarly historical readers are concerned. But if something really solid comes up I shall acknowledge that, too. Sub specie aeternitatis I can't really see "Did you find Jack the Ripper?" as one of the most important things one would want to have asked about one.
General good news, I've finished my book on serial Killers, and can play with the boards for a bit. (Well, that may be bad news if you find my stuff rebarbative!)
Martin Fido |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 10:18 am | | Martin,
My apologies if my words made it appear as though I'd spent years studying the Polish Jew theory intensively and specifically, from which I drew the conclusion that it was improbable he was the Ripper. It was, rather, investigating other areas and facets of the case which drew me away from this suggestion. My own feeling is that if anyone in authority had had real and firm suspicions about a single suspect then they'd have been at pains to publicise the fact. The Ripper killings prompted everyone from royalty downwards to question the efforts of the police, and I rather think that if there had been anything approaching evidence that Cohen really was the murderer, the newspapers would have been the first to know. This, of course, is just my own opinion. Also, I think the person who murdered at least four, probably five (including Tabram), women in 1888 spoke good English, by which I mean I think he was British. Cohen may well have killed Long Liz, but I don't think he was the calculating fiend who eviscerated the other victims. It was studying the profiles of more recent killers, those who have been captured and thus studied, which leads me to believe this, bearing in mind that the investigators of the time knew just about nothing of what makes a sex murderer tick, or even what a sex murderer was. This fact most likely allowed judgements, such as those of Sir Melville McNaghten and Anderson, to be coloured. I believe that if they'd known the type of person likely to have committed the atrocities, they'd never have named the suspects they did. I think if Jack had ever been captured (assuming he wasn't), he would have been a very quiet, polite and unassuming chap, much like Peter Sutcliffe, and not obviously 'mad' at all. As I mentioned in the above post, I don't think he hated whores specifically. It's also quite possible that he wasn't even a sadist. The Polish Jew theory has never sat comfortably with what is known about the crimes, again IMHO. That said, there is always someone (be it yourself, Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Phil Sudgen or several others) whose diligent research manages to turn up new pieces of lost information, snippets which may well eventually lead to us being able to name the Ripper conclusively (or as near to it as dammit). I don't, and have never had, a specific suspect in mind. I just enjoy working away at case in my own humble way, and drawing conclusions from what I find. Which are most likely way off the mark! Good fun, though.
But as I say, I'm not up to date with the very latest discussions, and the fact that you are putting Cohen forward means you must believe strongly that he's very possibly the real Jack, so I'll delve deeper and drive myself just a little madder as I once again grapple with the mystery!
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Jeffrey
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 10:33 am | | Hello All !
I am a little reluctant to classify the Ripper murders simply as sex crimes. The Ripper wanted his work displayed to the world and to this end he acheived his aims.
Rapists and other vermin who prey upon women to emphasize the power they hold over an individual make every attempt to perform their deeds where they will have sufficient time to satisfy their lusts without fear of being caught. This was not a factor for Jack the Ripper. On the occasion of each murder (Except MJK ?), he was out in the open and time was of the utmost essence. Surely someone with sexual motivations endeavours to maintain the utmost secrecy surrounding his sordid perversions.
I understand that the primary motivation for even rapists is more about holding power over a person, rather than the sexual act itself. Being an amateur, this point even confuses the hell out of me as sex = power, power = sex. (money completes the triangle:-) The killer left an appaling display that he must have known would be discovered within minutes and cause maximum publicity. The dresses hiked up over the waist, legs spread, etc., then the horrific mutilations were displayed to cause the utmost shock to who would discover the awful scene. The only power the Ripper seams to have exerted is with the strangulation.
It would have been possible for any number of this class of woman to virtually disappear without a trace if the killer had intended it to be so. This way he could have continued to prey on an unsuspecting public for as long as he wished. Surely there would have been ways of murdering, mutilating and disposing of the bodies (even in pieces in the river) without raising such an alarm that would eventually echo around the world for over a century.
Even after the first of the Ripper attacks, the prostitutes in the area were aware of the possibility that they were being preyed upon, causing them to be wary of strangers and increasing police presence.
Surely these are not the simply the actions of a man obsessed with sex. The Ripper appears to have been impulsive, yet extremely cunning. Something which we will probably never fully understand motivated him to prey upon a specific class of woman, in a very specific area of east London. I can't believe that these crimes were simply sexually motivated, whatever the killers sexual orientation. (IMHO)
Jeff D |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Hi Jeff,
'It would have been possible for any number of this class of woman to virtually disappear without a trace if the killer had intended it to be so. This way he could have continued to prey on an unsuspecting public for as long as he wished.'
That's a brilliant point IMHO!
I have wondered if the display reflects a particular need for our killer to show everyone his power over women: "Look at my work on these, then tell me just how impotent I am!" kind of thing, which seems to me to be just another sign of one type of sexual serial killer. If he can't let anyone know, at least anonymously, how he sexually mutilates his victims, he remains forever poor old 'can't-get-it-up Mr Nobody.'
But your words now make me wonder if the killer simply didn't have private, permanent lodgings. Sutcliffe couldn't take victims home because of his wife, even if he wanted to. West's wife was in on it, and Nilsen lived alone. Just a thought.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 01:19 pm | | Graham - sorry I misunderstood you. I thought, in fact, you were saying that there had been a lot of research done by other people which convincingly put the Polish Jew theory into the back corner.
I note your suggestion that the native English whores would have preferred English speaking clients: a new idea to me, and and interesting one I shall have to ponder.
As far as the police releasing the name of a definite suspect goes, Anderson's explanation for not doing so in his memoirs (that it would go against 'the traditions of my old department') earned three exclamation marks in the margin of Swanson's copy, suggesting that Swanson thought his old chief had gone much too far already! And there are Home Office files showing clearly that the bureaucrats thought Anderson was much too inclined to give out information that should have been confidential, including his first comments on the Ripper as they later appeared in 'On Criminals and Crime.' (I'm only now finding the time to start studying Evans & Skinner, so I don't know whether they include these files).
Finally, the Douglas and Olshaker book under discussion, and their previous book 'The Anatomy of Motive' give what is to my mind the best account of the nature of sexual serial killers, based on Douglas's extremely wide experience of interviewing them and testing their statements aganst known facts. I certainly agree with you that if Cohen was the Ripper he would have been quiet and unobtrusive until raving mania overtook him. And at that point he would be incarcerated very quickly indeed. The unmistakable condition of the old-fassioned lunatic (as carved by Caius Cibber for the gates of Bedlam, and now exhibited in the Museum of London) is virtually never seen nowadays, because tranquillizers mask it before it can really take hold. It seems possible that Jeffrey Dahmer started raving as he was arrested. I don't know of any evidence that Anderson, Swanson or Macnaghten had any preconceived ideas of what the Ripper was like, except their conclusion that he was a 'sex maniac', or as Bond described it a 'satyriast'. Your point that their ideas about such people were probably pretty hazy is sound - I only wish we did have more idea of what they thought, and why Forbes Winslow thought he could spot a lunatic at fifty paces and a policeman couldn't. I don't know of anything other than Lombroso to guide us, and I don't know how much his ideas had filtered out to the likes of Anderson and Macnaghten.
All the best
Martin F |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 01:47 pm | | Martin,
I take your point re modern day killers being sedated and tranquilised, thus no outbursts of raving insanity. This is something, I must confess, which I hadn't considered. Having said that, Dahmer apparently raved only when he knew the game was up, whereas (and I'm working from memory now so may be incorrect) Cohen seems to have been wandering the streets in a pretty bad way already, before he was incarcerated. As ever, I find your arguments very persuasive, although perhaps Swanson's exclamations marks meant something else entirely from what you suggest! My reason for thinking this is that I feel certain everyone would have been delighted if they could have named someone as the killer. The police had been humiliated in their vain attempts to catch him. There doesn't appear to be any reason for keeping quiet about Cohen (assuming he wasn't a secret love child of Queen Victoria or someone similar!). If others in power expressed the opinion that Anderson was inclined to say rather too much on the subject, I wonder when exactly they said it - because if it was around the time the murders were still happening, or even up to three years afterwards, it could simply be that they were worried his comments might alert the killer to the fact that they were on to him (if we accept that they thought he was still at large, and the interest taken in later, non-canonical victims suggests they may have done).
Or perhaps they knew Cohen was the real killer, and the fact that he was a mere disturbed lunatic rather than a criminal mastermind would have caused them great embarrassment if his identity was revealed, because the public would surely have asked why they hadn't managed to catch such a person.
As ever, the debate continues. It's great to be here and taking part.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 02:51 pm | | Hi Jeff,
I think you're on to something there, but instead of Jack possessing a rapist's mentality, i.e. the need to have power over these women, he used them to express his power over British society. As you have suggested, he knew that the bodies would be discovered straight away,
The dresses hiked up over the waist, legs spread, etc., then the horrific mutilations were displayed to cause the utmost shock to who would discover the awful scene.(Jeffrey, Wednesday, November 22, 2000-10:33 am)
The display was his statement; he would continue to murder if it pleased him, and there was nothing, short of physical restraint, the authorities could do to prevent him from exerting his will. The Dear Boss letter expresses this sentiment, when its author declares that he won't stop killing until he is buckled. In the killer's mind, British society had failed to provide him with the intellectual tools necessary to determine right from wrong, and promote the practice of moral restraint. He intended his murderous enterprise as proof of this failure.
I think your argument, questioning the murderers motivation, makes a valid point; if the killer hated prostitutes, and simply wanted to kill them, he could have made them "virtually disappear without a trace". (ibid) This, however, doesn't seem to be the case.
It could also be argued that the murderer needed to lift the skirts and spread the legs in order to inflict the mutilations, and being pressed for time, left the bodies that way as he hurried off. Good point, but way mutilate in the first place? If the murders were strictly sexually motivated, the mutilations would, more then likely, be confined to the breasts and pelvic area, but, Kate Eddowes' face was included in the frenzy; Polly Nichols mutilations included "two small stab wounds to private parts", (JtR, First American etc, Evans and Gainey, pp 30); they were almost an after thought. The greater balance of Annie Chapman's mutilations were the displacement of her intestines from the abdominal cavity, and although her mutilations included extensive damage to the "private parts", and their internal organs, " the womb, the upper part of the vagina", (Evans and Gainey, pp 46); the case could be made that the killer used the opportunity to indulge his sexual curiosity, while the focus of his intent was the shock value of his savage butchery.
I believe the sexual mutilations were incidental to the killer's purpose, which was to brutally destroy life at will, and expose the authorities as powerless to stop him. I agree with you; these murders were a statement of power, "the horrific mutilations were displayed to cause the utmost shock to who would discover the awful scene", (Jeff D. Wednesday, November 22, 2000 - 10:33 am). We also share the disbelief that these crimes were sexually oriented in purpose.
Do you have an opinion of the killers true motivation?
Best regards
Joseph |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 04:16 pm | | Hi Graham,
Cohen wandering the streets? Are you confusing him with Kosminski (picking up bread off the streets, including Carter Lane parallel to Ludgate Hill)? Or interpreting very largely the phrase 'wandering lunatic' which only meant some one in obvious need of care and protection at large without a keeper? All we know about Cohen prior to his appearance before the magistrates is that the police brought him to court to be ordered for medical examination and certification, and that his case appears on the same docket number as a procuress and a prostitute picked up in a raid on a brothel, from which the inference may be drawn that he was arrested during the same incident. (It's only an inference, of course. He might have been picked up in the street and come into the dock with the other two by happenstance or incompetence. But he doesn't seem to have been given in charge by anyone at any time, so something the police or a policeman did somewhere probably triggered his appearing identifiably mad.) He might have been as mild as Dahmer up to his arrest for all we know. But once he was throwing himself on the floor, tearing down pipes, ripping off his clothes, attacking and spitting at people and doing all the other things he was recorded as doing from the moment of his coming under observation in Whitechapel Infirmary, he would have been given in charge in less than an hour.
Now, Swanson's exclamation marks. I'm not sure what the 'entirely different' thing you have in mind is, but it's unlikely to be a strong belief that the Ripper was really somebody different, since it's in the very same volume that Swanson glosses Anderson's brief account of the Polish Jew, giving the name as Kosminsky and the puzzling details about ID in 'the Seaside Home' and suspect's subsequent release into his brother's care, which conflict with Anderson's previous (Blackwood's Magazine) version which specifically places the ID after the suspect had been safely 'caged in a lunatic asylum'. I agree that Swanson isn't nearly as sure as Anderson that this suspect was definitely the Ripper. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest he had an alternative to propose, and no reason why, if he had, he shouldn't have done so in the privacy of his own bookshelves (or, actually, his garden shed, where his grandson told me he used to go in his retirement to tie flies and 'work', which actually meant making notes in the margins of his books).
Swanson's exclamation marks can't have been written before 1910 when the book appeared. The Home Office complaints about Anderson commenting on the Ripper followed a paper he gave and printed at a conference in 1901, so I don't think they were worried about giving the murderer aid and comfort at that point. Anderson's reason for silence is obviously the impropriety of naming a villain whom it has been impossible to bring to court - even if he's dead. Given that the police are satisfied they know who committed many more crimes than they can bring to court with the high probability of stisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt, there would be an awful lot of 'named and shamed' people if this tradition weren't followed. The same respect for the reputation of a deceased murderer is still shown in the case of 'Jack the Stripper', the 'nudes in the Thames' murderer of the 1960s, whom the police believe to have been a security van driver who committed suicide when he realized they had almost got him. There's a good case for the details to be released, as the rumour goes round that Freddie Mills the very popular boxer was the murderer and his family and friends very much want his name cleared. But the police have never given ore than the vague description I sumarised above.
None of which need stop you from thinking other candidates for Whitechapel Ripperhood more satisfactory than Cohen.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 04:21 pm | | Hello Everybody,
For me the strength of the Polish Jew theory seems to lie in the personalities of the men who promulgated it. But then again, just about every officer in the Yard at that time had, much like ourselves, a pet suspect. MacNaghten, hedging his bets for posterity?, even named three candidates.
Perhaps, obviously, the notion of one Jew refusing to turn a fellow Jew over to Gentile justice is where I have problems with the argument. Quite apart from the fact that I doubt Scotland Yard would countenance such behaviour, a record of the details would shurely be kept. That is, for a definitely ascertained eye-witness identity to be confirmed, the police would have had to have a definitely ascertained bona fide suspect under lock and key somewhere. In much the same way, for instance, that the LAPD consider the murders of Simpson and Brown closed.
Now it's interesting to speculate as to whom Anderson refers. I also doubt it is Lawende. So could it be Schwartz? Well considering that Scwartz' statement was considered so important he didn't even testify at the inquest, I doubt that also. Unless Anderson's scenario was enacted prior to the inquest. In which case, shurely, Cohen etc would not fit.
At the moment, Anderson's Jews can only be considered as hearsay. There is simply no documentary or other supporting evidence (Swanson excepted?) to verify the claim. And will my face be red if someone brings something to my attention!
My position, I must make clear, is not that a Jew would be incapable of being the killer. Regard Lipski, for example. It is just that I feel, poor penniless amateur that I am, Anderson's claim is unsubstantiated possibly bordering upon exaggerated.
With regard to the other matter, were the killings sexually motivated, I would assume so. If they were based upon anger, as mentioned, I would consider that we would be looking for Jack the Stabber.
Martin, as to your Latin speaking Jolly Jack Tars, one ventures to suggest that if they served on the Balliol College it may well be possible. (Smiley face!) But I must admit that I can venture no explanation for the term quid.
Finally, could someone explain to me what the abbreviation LOL signifies?
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 04:23 pm | | Hello Everybody,
For me the strength of the Polish Jew theory seems to lie in the personalities of the men who promulgated it. But then again, just about every officer in the Yard at that time had, much like ourselves, a pet suspect. MacNaghten, hedging his bets for posterity?, even named three candidates.
Perhaps, obviously, the notion of one Jew refusing to turn a fellow Jew over to Gentile justice is where I have problems with the argument. Quite apart from the fact that I doubt Scotland Yard would countenance such behaviour, a record of the details would shurely be kept. That is, for a definitely ascertained eye-witness identity to be confirmed, the police would have had to have a definitely ascertained bona fide suspect under lock and key somewhere. In much the same way, for instance, that the LAPD consider the murders of Simpson and Brown closed.
Now it's interesting to speculate as to whom Anderson refers. I also doubt it is Lawende. So could it be Schwartz? Well considering that Scwartz' statement was considered so important he didn't even testify at the inquest, I doubt that also. Unless Anderson's scenario was enacted prior to the inquest. In which case, shurely, Cohen etc would not fit.
At the moment, Anderson's Jews can only be considered as hearsay. There is simply no documentary or other supporting evidence (Swanson excepted?) to verify the claim. And will my face be red if someone brings something to my attention!
My position, I must make clear, is not that a Jew would be incapable of being the killer. Regard Lipski, for example. It is just that I feel, poor penniless amateur that I am, Anderson's claim is unsubstantiated possibly bordering upon exaggerated.
With regard to the other matter, were the killings sexually motivated, I would assume so. If they were based upon anger, as mentioned, I would consider that we would be looking for Jack the Stabber.
Martin, as to your Latin speaking Jolly Jack Tars, one ventures to suggest that if they served on the Balliol College it may well be possible. (Smiley face!) But I must admit that I can venture no explanation for the term quid.
Finally, could someone explain to me what the abbreviation LOL signifies?
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 04:27 pm | | Whoops.
That message was so good I had to post it twice!
I'm definitely getting the hang of this new technology. In fact, I can even work a pedal on my own now.
Sorry everyone.
Jim Leen |
Author: Graham Sheehan
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 04:45 pm | | Martin, you rogue!
Now you've got me halfway convinced Jack was indeed Cohen. You're absolutely right, I was blurring Kosminski and Cohen together. I'm still a little puzzled as to how Cohen ended up in the state he did at the time of his confinement. It's only my pet profile, but I've always imagined Jack to be in full command of himself, even during the times he was actually ripping his victims. That, of course, isn't to say, even if true, that he wasn't suffering from some kind of illness, mental or otherwise, which brought him to a state of confusion and later raving mania.
My own theory regarding the exclamation marks is simply that Swanson was being ironic, knowing that Anderson was rather less than totally discreet regarding confidential police matters.
So, the comments regarding Anderson's loose tongue were made well after the killings had ceased - bugger, there's another piece of my argument out the window!
I have to say that Cohen does seem to be increasingly plausible the more I learn of him. That said, I struggle not to pinpoint one suspect when I read of various events because I know how one can allow such to sway judgement. Almost impossible to avoid doing so, though.
BTW, I asked this question on one of the other boards but no one seemed to have an answer at hand. Has it ever been satisfactorily explained why Barnett stated that he and Kelly were in the habit of opening and refastening the door of their room at Miller's Court by putting an arm through the broken window - even though the window wasn't broken until the day (30 Oct?) of their 'violent argument', after which Barnett left, never to return? How did they get in and out of the room when the glass was still intact, bearing in mind the key had apparently been missing for some time? That puzzle has niggled at me for ages and I've yet to see any reference to it, so far as I can recall.
Best regs,
Graham |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 05:21 pm | | Hi Mr. Leen,
LOL means laugh out loud. ROFL means rolling on the floor laughing, and HT means, to all who celebrate it, Happy Thanksgiving.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 05:50 pm | | Wolf,
Don't you think your post to Jon was a little condescending? Several of us are open to the possibility that the murders weren't strictly sexual in nature and Jon is well known by many of us as one who does not speculate wildly. Maybe you were having a bad day? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
All,
Here's a piece from The Times November 24th 1888. "Surely it might well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were first inflicted and the abdominal afterwards. That was a matter of some importance when they came to consider what possible motive there could be for all this ferocity. Robbery was out of the question, and there was nothing to suggest jealousy. There could not have been any quarrel, or it would have been heard. The taking of some of the abdominal viscera from the body of Chapman suggested that that may have been the object of her death. Was it not possible that this may also have been the motive in the case they had under consideration? He suggested to the jury as a possibility that these two women might have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nichols the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and, having failed in the open street, he tried again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place. If this was correct, the audacity and daring was equal to its maniacal fanaticism and abhorrent wickedness. But that surmise might or might not be correct; the suggested motive might be the wrong one; but one thing was very clear - that the injuries were of such a nature that they could not have been self-inflicted, that no imaginable facts could reduce that to evidence of manslaughter, and that a murder of a most atrocious character had been committed."
Martin,
Thanks for the gracious offer on the book. I know how you feel about privacy - my fans won't leave me in peace!
J
My e-mail is LethrApron@aol.com if you don't have it.
I have a suggestion... do you think John Douglas, Mark Olshaker, or even Roy Hazelwood would like to play the boards?
All,
Great discussions! Please keep them going and if you can, join the chatroom around 2100 EST nightly.
Quadruple event this time Had not time to drink beers with police
Yours Truly,
Jack |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 22 November 2000 - 08:06 pm | | Hi Jack,
Can you give me the chatroom address?
Best regards
Joseph |
|
|
|
|
