|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 158
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:44 am: |       |
On a lunch break. I wouldn't usually stop by to be bored but my boyfriend and I were interested to see exactly how much hot air Alan, Glenn, (in particular) Adam, Mags, Phil and Ally were going to let off today. We're getting married next year and it has occured to us that there may be no need after all to install the central heating; we'll just quantify the amount going on here and send the sum to British Gas. Their bills state that they will seek to outdo any other supplier so you'll be saving us all our expenses. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 773
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:52 am: | |
How sad that we are Kitty and her boyfriend's chief form of entertainment and heat generation. I can offer some suggestions to spice up your time together if you like, Kitty dear.
|
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 159
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 8:08 am: | |
Just keep up the hot air supply, it's very economical. We've turned the oven off already for this evening, you've all baked a pot roast with this morning's arguements. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2691
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 8:22 am: | |
Kitty,
"I wouldn't usually stop by to be bored but my boyfriend and I were interested to see exactly how much hot air Alan, Glenn, (in particular) Adam, Mags, Phil and Ally were going to let off today"
That is nor fair. I have actually been rather quiet TODAY, Kitty. Except from this post, I have no intention of wasting more energy on something that is doomed to failure anyway. Where have I been delivering "hot air" regarding you today? Or are you just assuming?
Anyway, congratulations to you both.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 160
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 8:47 am: | |
Thankyou Glenn.
Let it not be said I don't recognise an omission. I think that today, the hot air has at 50% come from Frank Van and Alan Sharp on the other, 'Watch' board, who have been violently debating hyperbole in respect of the price of East End potatoes that Annie Chapman may or may not have eaten at 2.00, as the case may be, or some such subject. Any case, British Gas are bound to be revising their 'match us if you dare' policy today.
If people don't mind I must go back to work. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1584
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:47 am: | |
ha to you all
I will have the last word
Now back to the point in question!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:07 am: | |
On the page "Modern Photos of Whitechapel", johnno suggests that Woods Building alley was a likely getaway route after the Buck's Row murder. Is there any support for this? Evidence or theory?
Also, can you guys stop baiting Kitty. There is a huge amount of space being wasted in pointless bickering. Just ignore her.
Rob |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 253
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:10 am: | |
Back to Hutch. I don't believe he saw MJK with anyone or necessarily that he saw her at all, mostly form the description which is just too much the stereotype that people would have been imagining the Ripper to be. H had to come up with a reason for loitering so he developed this fantasy.
What was he really doing. standing in the cold rain for all that time? Something nefarious,no doubt.
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2692
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:29 am: | |
I totally agree, Mags.
We don't even know if he even knew Mary Kelly that personally; Barnett -- who, since he lived with Kelly for 18 months and therefore would have some insight in her personal connections -- never mentions him (although he on the other hand mentions Joe Flemming).
Hutch could at least have known her by sight, though, since she was young and obviously prettier than her other collegues. I find it very reasonable that he might have been a client of hers.
If his whereabouts outside the court really were connected to Mary Jane Kelly, I can only see three possible explanations for him loitering there (not presented in any specific order of preference):
a) that he had seen her bring home a customer (or seen a man enter the court, presuming it was a client) and stood waiting for this man to come out again because he himself intended to enjoy her services when she was finished with him;
b) that he like in alternative a) had seen Mary bring home a customer/a customer enter the court, and waited outside in order to mug the man afterwards in the court or its entrance to the street;
c) that he waited until a customer had left and then himself for unknown reasons murdered Mary Kelly.
Regardless of which alternative, my belief is that he came forward because he had heard from the inquest that someone had spotted a man loitering outside the court the night of the murder, and he knew himself he had done so but had no idea how much the police really knew about this man or if they had identified him.
he therefore felt it would be better for himself to come forward, and just for safety threw in his story about his "suspect", which in many ways seem to be complete garbage.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 420
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:10 pm: | |
You were already wise 20 years back, AP. One might indeed wonder if such an obviously wealthy man would visit such rough and poor neighbourhoods in the first place.
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:03 am: | |
There is another possibility about gates, Alan.
The women themselves may have chosen then. If the speculation is right that the "act" was consummated stading up, with the man behind the woman and her skirts pulled up, then the women MAY have preferred to rest their hands against a wooden surface rather than brick.
Despite the risk of splinters, wood might be warmer and less abrasive than brick.
The gates might also have had more "give" (movemment on the hinges) than a solid and ungiving wall.
Just a thought, not a theory,
Phil |
Hauptmannn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:28 am: | |
Alright ladies and gentlemen, Please take note that due to Kitty's attention seeking hobby, you should ignore her and do the thing that attention seekers hate most.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:46 pm: | |
From the horse's mouth, then Frank. Thanks for that - there can be no doubting his meaning there then.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:07 pm: | |
I'm not going to engage with Phil and students of his level.
You mean with your intellectual superiors?
[Sorry couldn't resist that!! Tongue firmly in cheek I assure you.  |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:02 pm: | |
Kitty, dear, you might want to check the date of the first post on this thread and then check the first time you used the phrase "key questions" on the conspiracy thread. Then you may want to apologise to Phil for "plagiarizing" him.
Thanks Ally, but there's no need to rub Kitty's nose in it. You know me by now, "point scoring" is anathaema to me!!
|
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 8:37 pm: | |
Hi Phil, et al,
Like Phil, I too have submitted my form for registration (30th Dec), and look forward to joining you all 'live' shortly.
In the meantime, continuing this thread, I would like to say Phil that your questions open up a channel for serious debate, and I would like to add my pennies worth:
1. Were the suspected early victims (i.e. before 31 Aug 88) attacked by JtR or someone else? Were there two murders operating the in East End, or just one?
There seems to be a lot of differing opinions about who was and who was not a victim of JTR prior to the murder of Nichols. Personally, I believe that Martha Tabram and Ada Wilson were more than likely victims of Jack. Of the others that have been suggested as possible victims, I would say they were each victims of individual murderers or one of the gangs operating around the EAST END.
The TORSO murders would seem to indicate that there was another potential serial killer about.
2. Given that Cross found Nichols' body only minutes after she was killed, by what route did JtR leave Buck's Row?
I concur with most that the obvious escape route was via Woods Buildings to Whitechapel High Street, but not because this was the only way open to him, but because it was probably the most sensible, ie, the alleyway would have allowed him time and privacy to check for bloodstains about his person.
3. Had "Jack" been into the yard of 29 Hanbury Street before? It seems a dangerous dead end to enter sight-unseen!
It is probaby irrelevant as to whether he had been there before, due to the fact that it is more than likely that the victims picked their own 'killing grounds'. This method would make the victim less suspicious of the client, giving them the false sense of being in control of the situation. No doubt this is how Chapman felt as she led him down the passageway, having used this yard before.
4. Why only a short gap between Nichols and Chapman; then a longer one to the "double event"; and an even longer one to Kelly?
Just a personal feeling: Control.
To answer this we have to go back to the killing of Tabram. Having killed Tabram Jack waits on the 'sidelines' to see how the public responds to this murder. Dis-satisfied with the outcome of the public response he now as to devise a method of killing/murder that will totally shock the public. This probably takes up some of the time between the murders of Tabram and Nichols, coupled with the physcology of convincing himself that is truly capable of performing his new murder method.
Now the murder of Nichols, he has done it and again waits to see, hear the public's response. Satisfied to a certain degree that he as achieved his intended aim, he now wants more and therefore kills again within a short period of time, but with an upgrade in the murder method, just to keep the furore he has created alive.
Elated at the public outcry to his latest crime he again waits until the sensation wanes, and the police and public presence within Whitechapel as droped below what he personally regards as a safe level then murders again.
Again, with this murder, an upgrade, but also something he could never expected, another knife murder on the streets that same night.
TOTAL, UNABOUNDED Elation, two murders and they were blaming both upon him. Something he could never have imagined.
Time between Eddowes and Kelly. To me non-existant. Kelly was not one of his victims.
"5. How accurate is Schwartz' testimony? Did Kidney kill Stride?"
As accurate as it ever will be given his nationality and the problems the police had while interviewing him.
Did Kidney kill Stride? All I will say is that she wasn't killed by JACK
6. Are the GSG and the apron scrap directly connected (i.e. did JtR write the graffito)? Is the recorded wording accurate? Did the police miss it until later?
GSG and Apron connected - NO
Recorded wording - There are two versions:
THE JUWES ARE THE MEN THAT WILL NOT BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING.
and;
THE JUWES ARE NOT THE MEN THAT WILL BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING.
Take your pick.
Did the police miss it until later? Miss What? The connection?
7. Is the Lusk Kidney, Eddowes'? Do we thus have ONE confirmed communication from the murderer?
Again, opinions differ, but personally I do no believe it is Eddowes kidney, and therefore do not regard the letter as being from the murderer.
8. Is there any connection between the Rumbelow amputation knife, the Phoenix Park murders/Fenianism/and JtR?
I have read the theory in the Mammoth Book of JTR, but have not really looked into this idea, so I am unable to comment on any connection scenario.
"9. Was the body in the bed MJK's? How reliable is the testimony of those who said they saw MJK after she is assumed dead?"
Body Kelly's - probably, who knows?
Reliability of testimony - I believe that most of it is reliable, but unfortunately, due to the hastely conducted Inquest into MJK's death, we can only base our judgements on what small amount of evidence/testimony is available.
"10. Can George Hutchinson be believed?"
Doubtful. To me, his statment is too neat, too 'pat'. Basically unbelievable.
11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?
Take your pick. Anderson was too frugile with his information for us to make a positive connection to any of the suggestions offered.
Why? Possibly became he did not really have any evidence, and was just bolstering his ego.
12. Why did MJD commit suicide? What was Melville Macnaghten's private information?
MJD's suicide - One possible reason is that he WAS GOING TO BE LIKE MOTHER, and this coupled with his dismissal from Blackheath, for the same reason,(insanity), is what finally toppled him.
I don't believe Macnaghten DID have any private information other than MJD was going, or was in the first stages of being insane at the time of his suicide. This was probably confirmed by his brother to MacNaghten PRIVATELY.
Well, there's my answers.
Now for my own.
1) Why at this period in time did a serial killer decide to commit murders of this profound nature? Where are his mentors?
2) Why did the murders only last over a ten to twelve week period, then no more?
I will not except the basic replies here: Dead, caught, incarcerated without proof.
3) What possible motive could have driven him to commit these brutalized murders?
Cheers,
Michael (Downunder) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:27 pm: | |
Rob,
Seeing as Cross came from Brady st and was the first to find Nicols only recently deceased, then Id spectulate that Jack may have heard Cross and fled in the opposite direction. Cross seems quite on the ball in his recollections and does not mention seeing anyone coming towards him. That obviously doesnt mean someone didnt do just that. However I always take the view of the average Joe Blow. Would you, upon realising that you discovered a murder, report everything you saw and hold nothing back ? I would, especially when you considered that to start with you are suspect number one...which would naturally be the case.
Anyway this leads me to think the killer fled either towards Bakers Row, doubled back along Winthrop st or took Woods Buildings alley.
Personally? Woods Buildings Alley. Back onto a street where Id be able to mingle in and not stand out.
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer |
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:47 pm: | |
1. Of the early ones, Tabram has a slight possibility of being one of JTR's, but I'm not 100% sure that she was. There were two killers: Jack and the guy who did the torsos. The early ones were victims of gangs or random killers, as were most of the post-Kelly ones.
2. Same way he came. I'm fixated on the statement I've read some places that a slaughterhouse or butchershop was located up Buck's Row. Maybe this was where Jack was employed. From what direction did Cross arrive? He may have even passed Jack.
3. I really have no ideas on that. Probably not.
4. Unknown.
5. I'm willing to say Kidney did kill her, simply because I'm not 100% sold that Stride was a Ripper victim.
6. I don't think Jack wrote it. Seems to me that if you were fleeing a murder site, presumably bloodied up, you wouldn't pause to write anti-Semitic graffiti.
7. I certainly believe it was. Hoaxers wouldn't know to use a kidney with Bright's Disease, I don't think.
8. Not sure about the Rumbelow knife (not familiar with it at all), but I do think there may have been some sort of Fenian/Ripper connection. I can't get the transfer of Sir Robert Anderson to London and the "coincidental" beginning of Jack almost immediately thereafter out of my head.
9. I believe the body was Kelly's. It's kind of romantic and a good story to say she got away, but I really don't think she did.
10. I don't know.
11. Lawende was the one who saw the man with Eddowes, correct? If so, I'm going with him.
12. He was just mentally unbalanced. I don't think we'll ever know exactly what it was Macnaghten knew. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2695
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:38 pm: | |
Interesting, Michael,
Looking forward to see you registred on the Boards. Apart from Tabram's candidacy, I agree with practically everything you say. Nice to see someone else who hasn't completely bought certain points that many takes for certain. Good work.
Regarding your three questions, I find the first two impossible to answer, or even speculate about. Sorry.
Regarding 3) I'd say the question in itself, is rather difficult, since those types of murders very seldom has a motive, of we with motive refer to deliberate schemes or reasons for planning. Mutilating serial murders are usually referred to as "motiveless", but they can of course be triggered off by hallucinations, an underlying need to control women, anger and hatred, twisted sexual conceptions and fantasies etc. etc. he could also have been triggered off into putting his fantasies in reality by those early brutal crimes on females such as Emma Smith and Annie Millwood etc.
And bizarre mutilation murders had been done before the Ripper -- and enjoyed media attention as well -- although not in form of a series.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 421
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:29 pm: | |
Kitty,
I have no clue why you're here and absolutely no desire at all to find that out, but if you don't have anything intelligent to say, woman (or whoever or whatever you are), then don't say anything at all.
And if you can't restrain yourself, then please at least try to use that one brain cell you have to refer to me with the name I was given.
You may close the door behind you when you leave.
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2698
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:36 pm: | |
Correction to my post above:
"Regarding 3) I'd say the question in itself, is rather difficult, since those types of murders very seldom has a motive, of we with motive refer to deliberate schemes or reasons for planning."
shall naturally say:
"...since those types of murders very seldom has a motive, or what we refer to as motive in terms of deliberate schemes or reasons for planning."
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 161
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:37 pm: | |
Well, we are all enjoying the pot roast here tonight, beautifully roasted by all your hot air.
Phil, we might take it the note on 'point scoring is an aneathema to me' is firmly toungue in cheek aswell. I have never met such a point scorer; meeting you on the web under a pseudonym is like becoming invisible, and standing in front of a dart board -(one you splice yourself). But a sense of humour suits you better. Frank, my job as a researcher is to open doors, not close them. I do it well. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 774
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:50 pm: | |
You know it is really sad when someone has to keep referring to "we" --as if plurality would make one's position more valid or important. You should learn to be comfortable with "I" and "me", Kitty. Maybe then that inferiority complex wouldn't assert itself quite so vigorously.
Cheers.
P.S. After 3 mentions a snide remark just becomes tired. So far you've beaten "boring" and "hot air" quite to rank unconsciousness. New material please.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1388
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:10 pm: | |
re Phils rather unsettling images of splinters and buttocks ---most of these women would have been past caring.All they wanted from these johns was the money for alcohol &/or a bed for the night.Very much doubt home comfort thinking
extended beyond this.
Natalie |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 163
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:19 pm: | |
Sorry ally...we've (here at the house) got far more interesting things to do tonight...!
No inferiority complex here.
Live it up more, you might feel as good as us here, instead of giving out all that hot air....... |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 775
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:58 pm: | |
But apparently nothing so interesting as coming back with the same old tiredness time and time again.
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:05 pm: | |
Monty,
Thanks for the input. Do you know where I can find a good map of the area around Buck's Row that shows Woods Buildings Alley? My map doesnt show this.
I think it would be helpful if someone could post the large, detailed ordinance maps for the entire whitechapel area. Anyone help out with this?
Rob |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 394
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:55 pm: | |
Hi Rob H
This is an 1894 O.S Map of the Bucks Row area.
I personally think (based on his movements after Catherine Eddowes murder) he headed towards Bakers Row, he may have took a right into Thomas Street and swung round into Bakers Row that way and into Old Montague Street. I realise he wont be able to melt into a crowd as he would have been able to do if went via Woods Buildings and into Whitechapel Road, but the side streets would have been practically pitch black and if anyone saw him would they have been able to get a good description?
all the best
Rob C |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 168
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:57 pm: | |
I see Ryder appreciates a laugh and good advice on gas bill economics . I have been promoted to Inspector today. I'm sure I don't deserve it.
to celebrate here is my first 
:-)
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 733
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 8:20 pm: | |
Robert, Hauptmann, already taking your advice.
Kitty, this is simply information and not a criticism in any way before you accuse me of hot air. You become an inspector after 150 posts. Stephen has nothing to do with it. After 500 you will become a Chief Inspector. Exciting, huh?
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 8:37 pm: | |
Thanks Robert for the Map,
OK Monty, now I see what you're talking about... that seems plausible to me. Duck around the corner, then down Woods Building Alley. Makes sense.
Rob |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 401
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:25 pm: | |
Alan,
You become an inspector after 150 posts. Stephen has nothing to do with it. After 500 you will become a Chief Inspector.
You mean all the time I put in studying for the Chief Inspector exam has been wasted? Thanks a lot "Chief Inspector Bring Down."
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls." |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1481
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 4:08 am: | |
The 2 Robs,
Rob Clack,
Bakers Row would have been my second choice. My only problem with that is PC Neils beat. He is coming from Bakers row direction and coupled with Mizen in Bakers row it makes for Jack having lots of nerve.
All that said, its do-able as you mention.
Rob House,
As the other Rob mentions, Old Montague St area is a very interesting location. Theres the possibility that Nichols was picked up there, the location of Tabram (I know, might not be in the series but...) and the apron to name a few interests.....oooh and someone we know abodes near by also!
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 169
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:14 am: | |
aaaahhhhhhhhhh...looks like I'll never get that medal then! |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 171
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:32 am: | |
I note, however, that two new emblems have been installed by Her majesty in my Honour, as a recognition for services to the Family, Detective Science, and revolutionising the Force.
  |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 172
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:42 am: | |
Rob, they only bait me because I am intriguing. I just lay back and soak up the sexy compliment.
 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 423
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 9:01 am: | |
Kitty, if the aim of your research is to find out how people react to someone who harasses and annoys them like a mosquito on a hot summer night, then I agree you’re doing well.
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 174
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 9:26 am: | |
ah.... would people like to leave me alone then, and stop gratuitously gunning down my debates, and leave me at peace without baiting me, so I can talk about what I want, on the pro or anti conspiracy boards I want to go on that genuinely interest me................?
How about less double standards ....?
 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 425
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 11:08 am: | |
I have doubts about you, but I'm sure there are no double standards on my part. If you try to insult me while I haven't even addressed as much as one single letter to you, I bait you. It's that simple. Now I'm going to gladly leave you alone, because, like I said, I'm not the least bit interested in you. So, if you want to have your last word, be my guest.
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 175
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 11:36 am: | |
It all sounds very bitter, all this bickering and aggression directed at me. I'm not in the last word club, I'd like to have discussions without being harassed and gunned down. (It would be nice for other newcomers to be able to do the same). Those who've been doing it know who they are, so there we are. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:03 pm: | |
1) Why at this period in time did a serial killer decide to commit murders of this profound nature? Where are his mentors?
None needed. A man alienated by urban industrialised society; dehumanised by neglect; perhaps of fragile mentality anyway, explodes. he learns as he goes. it's a social thing - the product of a new evolving post industrial revolution/immigrant/ghetto society. No need for mentors.
2) Why did the murders only last over a ten to twelve week period, then no more?
I will not except the basic replies here: Dead, caught, incarcerated without proof.
I feel that Druitt (died) or Kosminski (incarcerated0 are both real possibilities. The other major one is moved away - a la Tumblety. I don't think enough work has been done on similar murders to the JtR ones, elsewhere.
On an outside chance, murdered by somneone (family/a gang?) in his own turn.
3) What possible motive could have driven him to commit these brutalized murders?
Alienation, deprivation, frustration, revenge, impotence (sexual or societal); humiliation; killing women because you hate a woman you cannot kill? I dunno, but there's a few realistic possibilities.
Phil
Cheers,
|
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:59 pm: | |
Hi All,
Going back to question 11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?
In my original post I Wrote:
Take your pick. Anderson was too frugile with his information for us to make a positive connection to any of the suggestions offered.
To add to this, I would like to take the issue of Anderson's witness a step further.
1) Why doesn't Swanson name which one it was in his annotation of his own personal copy of Anderson's memoirs? He names the suspect.
2) Where is the collobarating/supporting evidence of the identity at the Police Seaside Home? Surely there were more people other than Anderson and Swanson privy to this. And again, definitely more in regards the ongoing investigation of this suspect as mentioned by Anderson and Swanson, both.
3) Regardless of who was the suspect, maybe the fact that Stride may not have been a JTR threw the possibility of a positive ID open to question. a) Levy or Lawende identify a suspect but the suspect can prove he was elsewhere when Stride was murdered. b) Schwartz identifies a suspect but again the suspect as an alibi for at least one, maybe two of the other murders. As you can see, this may have created a problem for the police.
Also of note, it seems Anderson did not have a theory until 1894. SIX YEARS AFTER. And no doubt Anderson may have mentioned Kosminski to Macnaghten, who then used him as one the suspects for his memorandum. AGAIN 1894.
This would therefore negate the idea that Kosminski was proposed as a suspect by two separate and totally independant official sources.
Glen,
Knowing you are reading Beggs - The Facts (Robson Books 2004) I think you will find, reading between the lines, that Begg now veers towards Schwartz as being Anderson's witness. Any thoughts???
Cheers,
Michael
|
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:00 pm: | |
Hi All,
Going back to question 11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?
In my original post I Wrote:
Take your pick. Anderson was too frugile with his information for us to make a positive connection to any of the suggestions offered.
To add to this, I would like to take the issue of Anderson's witness a step further.
1) Why doesn't Swanson name which one it was in his annotation of his own personal copy of Anderson's memoirs? He names the suspect.
2) Where is the collobarating/supporting evidence of the identity at the Police Seaside Home? Surely there were more people other than Anderson and Swanson privy to this. And again, definitely more in regards the ongoing investigation of this suspect as mentioned by Anderson and Swanson, both.
3) Regardless of who was the suspect, maybe the fact that Stride may not have been a JTR threw the possibility of a positive ID open to question. a) Levy or Lawende identify a suspect but the suspect can prove he was elsewhere when Stride was murdered. b) Schwartz identifies a suspect but again the suspect as an alibi for at least one, maybe two of the other murders. As you can see, this may have created a problem for the police.
Also of note, it seems Anderson did not have a theory until 1894. SIX YEARS AFTER. And no doubt Anderson may have mentioned Kosminski to Macnaghten, who then used him as one the suspects for his memorandum. AGAIN 1894.
This would therefore negate the idea that Kosminski was proposed as a suspect by two separate and totally independant official sources.
Glen,
Knowing you are reading Beggs - The Facts (Robson Books 2004) I think you will find, reading between the lines, that Begg now veers towards Schwartz as being Anderson's witness. Any thoughts???
Cheers,
Michael
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 12:58 pm: | |
From what I recall of a visit to Buck's Row when it was reasonably intact - the cotages had gone, but much else remained - I'd say that it would have been very difficult for anyone to hide from Cross if they had passed. The street was simply too narrow and the walls relatively flush.
My bet is he went back (probably on his approach route with Nichols) to the wider half of Buck's Row beyond the school, and then perhaps down Court Street. They may even have come to Buck's Row that way.
I think the use of the narrower, if more direct, access to Whitechapel Road, through Wood's Buildings, would have depended on his knowledge of the area. That is, if JtR was Druitt, NO. If JtR was Kosminski, maybe.
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2717
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 5:06 pm: | |
Hi Michael,
Yes, I noticed that he no seems to favour Schwartz as Anderson's witness, and who knows. maybe some of us are taking Lawende for granted just because he has been the proper man to put in this context.
I have personally no idea; you have managed to pick one of the more complex questions in the Ripper case here, and I certainly can make no sense of it -- I would be a liar if I claimed any of the sort.
Begg seems to argue that Schwartz may have been the witness because he was the one who got "the best look at the killer", although he in turn didn't have to be Jack the Ripper (although the police obviously thought he could have been.
Schwartz was held in high regard as a witness by the police, and we also know from documentation that there seem to be question marks surrounding both Lawende and Levy (the former "couldn't possibly identify him again) and Levy didn't seem to pay much attention (unless he was reluctant to give the information and therefore held things back for certain reasons).
Now, if Lawende already in 1888 said that he couldn't "identify the man again", how was he supposed to do so several years later?
And if Levy wasn't prepared to deliver information (if he now did recognise the man as someone he knew), why would he do so several years later?
So, maybe Paul Begg has a point?
Could it have been Schwartz who was the witness? Schwartz, who had earned high credibility by the police as a witness, and who DID get a good view of Stride's killer (if he was)?
The problem is, if that's the case (and even if this man was Stride's murderer)... is then the identification relevant to the Ripper case?
I mean, if we now consider the possibility, that Stride was NOT a Ripper victim (and the police seems to believe that she was, but I personally find it questionable)...
I for my part agree with Paul Begg that the most logical solution to the question regarding the suspect's identity is that Kosminski was Anderson's suspect.
But the identity of the witness... well...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 5:42 pm: | |
Woods Buildings passage is next to Whitechapel Station which leads to the Railway lines.Could Druitt have used that line to get to New Cross?[on way to Blackheath]I am not sure since now Whitechapel Station is part of the tube system and feeds the District,Hammersmith[!],City and East London Lines.But I believe the station was there at the time.It is an early Victorian Station by the look of it and the railway itself was certainly there and the glass covered way over the railway lines and onto Woods Buildings looks as though it too was there from the maps.
What interests me here is that Woods Buildings that narrow passageway possibly used by the ripper to escape from Bucks Row directly faces the Royal London Hospital.Anyone familiar with going to that hospital for whatever reason could also have been aware of the existence of Woods Buildings.In fact it was when I was taking some photos of the hospital that my attention was drawn to its existence[recently it has been sealed off from Whitechapel High Street for some reason].
Natalie |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 21
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:16 pm: | |
Glenn, Michael,
The argument given by Begg ("The best look at killer") is specious, in my opinion.
If we take Anderson's statements litterally, Schwartz is not "the witness who got the best look at killer" but "the only witness who got a look at the killer". (In a certain sense, the witness who got the best look at the killer should be Hutchinson. This is not consistent with the other information we have, though.)
However, Begg's last book is famous, perhaps better than Sugden's, I think.
Olivier |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 399
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:47 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I was under the impression P.C. Neil came from Winthrop Street and walked round the Board School. I don't know why I thought that, might have something to do with him leaving his cape in the slaughter yard and me getting confused. I not sure what his beat was, I tried the Ultimate source book but no luck.
As to your Met search question about why Bucks Row was left off the search area in October. I have been trying to find the source I read but I am buggered if I can find it. But If I remember correctly I think the source was a newspaper, and it involved Inspector Helson. Basically enquiries were made concerning a clue in the Bucks Row area. If I remembered this correctly a door to door search may have been done already for Bucks Row, I think this was about September 10/11. If I eventually find the source I'll let you know.
All the best
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2721
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 8:30 pm: | |
Well, Olivier,
I suspect that the police may have changed their opinion about Hutchinson in 1894.
I for my part don't think he is a credible witness at all.
The witness was said to be a Jew. From what I know, Hutch wasn't Jewish.
But I agree, Begg's book comes real close to Sugden's standard (if not cross it), in my opinion, although I miss some interesting issues that has been dealt with in later debates.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 06, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Sergeant
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 8:53 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
No, I do not say that Hutchinson is Anderson's witness. And, I completely agree with you: he is not very credible.
My point is simply that Begg's argument for choosing Schwartz does not convince me.
We cannot say that Schwartz got the best look at the killer (otherwise, who's got the worst look?). In fact, he is the only one who saw the killer - if we accept that Stride's killer is our man.
Olivier |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
