|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 160
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 6:28 am: | 
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"I know from what you told me that you really are not as 100% sure of this anyway as you make it out to be, so therefore there is no reason to lock yourself into a corner like that. Therefore you shouldn't refer to Stride and Kelly in order to prove a point you believe in."
Glenn, sorry, but you've got it wrong here.
First of all, I only ever told you that I had SOME doubts about Mary Kelly, but as far as Elizabeth Stride is concerned, I am almost certain of her as a victim. Mary Kelly is about 70% likely to have been a victim, in my opinion. The only reasons I have doubts about her are the wait between the double event and her killing, when the others were close together, she was killed indoors when all the others were outdoors, she was 20 years younger than the other victims, and her mutilations were so severe that they can't be properly matched against the other victims. Other than this, everything goes in her favour as a Ripper victim. It is just that element of doubt that keeps me from, in my own mind, fully accepting her as a victim. Though, as I said, I am reasonably sure that she was.
"And I say it again: even if we include Tabram that is exactly what he did anyway! Three weeks later after a frenzy stab murder he starts to mutilate, focus on the genitalia, cut their throats to a degree that he nearly severs the head etc. -- out of nowhere! Three weeks later! Where the heck did those ideas come from?"
That is also true. But apart from the fact that Martha Tabram isn't near as bad as the Canonical victims, I am also of the opinion that he attacked Ada Wilson. She was stabbed, but not killed. She was only stabbed twice. Then he goes through a 6 month period where his blood lust builds up, and then he strikes out on Martha with more stab wounds, but still no actual mutilations. Then he turns to mutilation. So no, he doesn't jump out of anywhere still, if that is the case. Far from it.
"No, not really -- not in the beginning. The papers created a connection between Emma Smith, Tabram and Nichols long before the police did. It wasn't until Chapman and Dr Phillips this link really started to take off on the police's part."
Yes, the autopsy reports too. And I didn't include Emma Smith on my list above, either. The police also linked Tabram, Nichols and Chapman together. I really don't think there is enough trust placed in this original stuff.
"Not the darkness thing. Dutfield Yard was not much darker than Mitre Square, where the murder occurred in a corner and the nearest gas lamp stood on the opposite side of the square. I believe the Ripper had no real problem doing his thing in darkness."
I know the killer had no problem with it, I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to the fact that Diemschutz couldn't tell whether she was alive or not, and that's why he prodded her. So, unless Diemschutz killed Stride (everyone else is a suspect, why not add his name to the list of suspects too?), then that might explain why she was in the position she was. The killer leaves her partly on her side, Diemschutz prods her, which pushes her over a little more, and that's the position she was found in. Makes sense, doesn't it?
"What if your assertions about Stride should turn out to be wrong? Then the whole reasoning falls together like a house of cards. It is dangerous to build any reasoning from Stride in order to prove things in the other murders. This must be done with caution."
It's very hard to prove anything, that's the point. And I don't know how, after 116 years, it could "turn out" to be wrong, unless some definite evidence is brought forward. So, why NOT build your own theories?
"You just explained why I dont believe it was the same man. Thank you for proving my point."
No no no, that's not what I meant at all. My point there was that the Ripper was still in his early days, if and when he killed Tabram, and therefore probably didn't have the same self control and calmness which he displayed later on. I do not believe that outwardly he was a suspicious man at all, and probably quite respectably-dressed and mannered, but when he got to killing again, he let fly with his rage, fury and blood lust in full force. And as I've explained several times before, Tabram seems to follow a sequence of events. It almost makes sense that she wouldn't be mutilated in the same way as the other victims.
"The bruises on the shoulders and the chin probably derived from holding the women during the throat cut or to push them onto the ground. Not from strangulation, which was the whole issue of that discussion."
If they were dead or semi-conscious, he wouldn't need to push them. The bruises may not have completely derived from their being pushed around, etc. If they all were, why are they in so many different places? He didn't need to repeatedly strike or push them. It doesn't completely make sense.
"Sorry. I certainly don't see Tabram as a Ripper Interuptus, Sir Robert. The murderer was most certainly done with her.
And I am not sure Stride was one either..."
I agree that the killer of Tabram wasn't interrupted. He was finished with her. But I believe the killer of Stride was interrupted, twice - once by Israel Schwartz and the other by Louis Diemschutz, within a matter of minutes of one another.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2990
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Adam,
"Yes, the autopsy reports too. And I didn't include Emma Smith on my list above, either. The police also linked Tabram, Nichols and Chapman together. I really don't think there is enough trust placed in this original stuff."
Yes, the police certainly linked Tabram, Nichols and Chapman together -- I just said that in my previous post -- but that wasn't really until the Chapman murder, when Dr Phillips made this connection.
Before that the press as usual jumped to conclusions by establishing a questionable link from the Emma Smith murder to Tabram and onwards, before the police did see a series of murders.
(I know you didnt mention Emma Smith, I am just saying how the early links to the series were established and which victims it contained).
"No no no, that's not what I meant at all. My point there was that the Ripper was still in his early days, if and when he killed Tabram, and therefore probably didn't have the same self control and calmness which he displayed later on. I do not believe that outwardly he was a suspicious man at all, and probably quite respectably-dressed and mannered, but when he got to killing again, he let fly with his rage, fury and blood lust in full force. And as I've explained several times before, Tabram seems to follow a sequence of events. It almost makes sense that she wouldn't be mutilated in the same way as the other victims."
Complete speculations, not based on facts at all. I don't buy any of it.
"First of all, I only ever told you that I had SOME doubts about Mary Kelly, but as far as Elizabeth Stride is concerned, I am almost certain of her as a victim."
OK, I think i remember there was one other besides MJK. OK, so it wasn't Stride (rats!). Still, I'd say you make a mistake when you refer to a victim like Stride and try to use circumstances around that murder to fit into the others. I myself only base my reasoning on the Ripper based on in my mind the three canonical victims Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Stride is very much seen with uncertainty in the canonical context by quite many people, so even if you 100% believe her to be a Ripper victim it may be dangerous to apply the facts surrounding her case on other victims in order to prove a point.
"But apart from the fact that Martha Tabram isn't near as bad as the Canonical victims, I am also of the opinion that he attacked Ada Wilson. She was stabbed, but not killed. She was only stabbed twice. Then he goes through a 6 month period where his blood lust builds up, and then he strikes out on Martha with more stab wounds, but still no actual mutilations."
I have thought abut this too. Ada Wilson is problematic, since she could be a link to Tabram, considering the MO of them both. It is not impossible.
Still, there is a jump anyway from Tabram to Nichols that is unexplainable, and Ada Wilson has really nothing to do with it. It is tempting and not necessarily false to see a link between Wilson and Tabram - as well as some kind of development -- but it doesen't explain the total differences between Tabram and Nichols. Yes, the man who murdered Nichols is still coming out of the blue three weeks later with his mutilation, extreme throat cutting and focus on the genitalia. There is still no link between Tabram and Nichols. Tabram does NOT in my personal opinion follow a sequence of events after her death at all, and the fact that she may foolow a sequence BACK doesene't mean that sequence must follow afterwards.
"It's very hard to prove anything, that's the point. And I don't know how, after 116 years, it could "turn out" to be wrong, unless some definite evidence is brought forward. So, why NOT build your own theories"
As I said, I prefer to build my reasoning on the facts surrounding the three canonical victims that for sure can establish as being performed by the Ripper, not the others.
"If they were dead or semi-conscious, he wouldn't need to push them. The bruises may not have completely derived from their being pushed around, etc. If they all were, why are they in so many different places? He didn't need to repeatedly strike or push them. It doesn't completely make sense."
But that was not at all my point! My point was that there are no marks on the throats from strangulation! I wrote that twice in my post.
That was what that issue was all about. What the bruises on the shoulders derive from, I have no idea. But it could be that he automatically pressed them to the ground when he cut their throats, not because they were alive ot resisted but that it simply was an automatic reflex deriving from the force when he cut their throats. Anyhow, they did get their bruises somehow, and I prefer not to speculate about that.
The point was that there were no strangulation marks. You don't get strangulation marks on the chin and shoulders -- those bruises are pressure marks and in some way the victims got them.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 24, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Hi Guys
The importance of Tabrams killing is key to whether you see Jack, as an Evolving Jack or a 'ready formed' Jack.
I realize ready formed is a bad expression, but for me it means someone with some medical or butching knowledge.
I'm not certain about Emma Smith (depends on whether she lied because of the prostitute thing) But if Annie Millwood and Ada Wilson are Ripper victims then Tabram's attack to Nichol's attack does not appear such a bib jump (sorry if I'm repeating myself hear Glen)
My piont is about the Nature of Evolution. THings only evolve in big jumps while they are wrong, not perfect or causing problems. Once you get things right the need to evolve slows down.
This is true in nature and in the Ripper.
The Ripper, I beleive encially wanted to stab and mutilate the femine parts of his mother. He was both lusting and full of self discust. However the problem was that the women struggled or ran away, he needed to evolve a bettre way to silence his victims, he learned this from experience.
In Tabrams case he probably also learned that if you stab someone alot you get covreed in blood, so he needed to evolve a better form of attack.
By the time he gets to chapman hes discover throatling the victim first lowering them to the ground and cutting there throats is quieter and cleaner. After that there is less reason to use another method because this works.
What he now requires is more time.
I don't beleive Jack was a profesional doctor or butcher. I just see an Evolving Jack. For me the big step in evolution between Tamram and Nichols, as I've said before: He learns he needs to silence his victim quicker, hence he strangles Nichols, he also learns he needs a better knife that will do both jobs, his old clarsp knife and baonet arn't up to the job. Easier to find one knife.
When his knife works he has know need to change it again. Although the use of an axe for MJK shows that Jack is still evolving...the next job would have been bigger and better. He then deid or was locked up.
If we'd gotten better discriptions from Annie and Ada I think we'd know who Jack was. Also I think Jack is a local boy who knows this area, who probably made similar attacks in May, June and July. he probably failed or we'd know about them but has anybody ever looked for suspicious failed attacks at this time?
Jeff
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 208
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Dear Jeff...
With due respect to your opinion,Mrs. Tabram's murder is more probably more dangerous in retrospect,than Nichols' was.
There was the risk factor of the assault on and murder of Mrs. Tabram at the George Yard Bldg. that isn't present on Bucks Row...
Tabram was murdered on the 2nd floor of a building with inhabitants within and the possibility [that eventually indeed happened] that another resident would enter the building,however after the murder.
Its a canon within serial killer modus operandi that the murders accelerate in ferocity and the killers facilitation of said murders.
If we look and compare, in retrospect, at Nichols' terrible murder, to some, it appears he was more facile and less risk-taking [ by location selection],and to me, at least,its a less frenzied murder....would you agree ?
How |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
"it appears he was more facile and less risk-taking "
Hey Howard!
I happen to believe Tabram belongs in the canon. But I also believe Stride belongs, and the location of her murder is only slightly less risky than the George Yard building IMHO.
So if you believe in Stride, how do you reconcile this?
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
Howard...
Not quiet sure if I follow your reasoning.
If Jack is learning as he goes along..which I beleive...Then he learns from the Tabram attack.
If he took chances, nearly gets cault, gets covered in blood..is it not logical that he becomes more cautious, takes less risks, learns from his mistakes and simply gets better at avoiding being cault.
Tabrams killing is in the Ripper heart land..yes it differs but if you think of the Ripper following each of the prostitutes to their choosen location to some extend the murder site is in the hands of the victim rather than Jacks.
Glen is of course right when he states that the only three deffinate victims are Nichols, chapman and Eddows. But surely the point of this thread is to start at the beginning. Trying to understand where that beginning is, is in itself difficult, especially if you think Jack was on the streets learning his craft long before Nichols attack.
I'd still like to know if there were any reports of attempted attacks that never happened. Where the attacker failed and just ran off?
Jeff Leahy
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
How,
Re Tabrams killer.
We talking organised, dis or mixed here?
Cos if the middle or possibly the latter then location, and therefore the risk, means Jack squit to her killer.
And if thats the case it casts certain questions over Stride....thats not to say questions to include her for sure.
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Monty,
what do you mean by "Jack squit to her killer"?
Also, I will say that in my opinion the whole organized/ disorganized dichotomy is not necessarily that valid anyways. From what I have read recently, the FBI uses this much less than it used to, because so many killers fall into the mixed category. When you have a "mixed" killer (like JTR), this element of the profile loses almost all of its informative value.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3036
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
That is true, Rob,
These are all quite narrow generalisations and categorisations. Most disorganized killers actually also show organized traits in certain situations -- that is why they are harder to catch than many believe.
One can usually see the difference in the actual crime, though; the mutilations in the Ripper killings looks -- as in several similar modern cases -- quite bizarre and disorganized to me.
But then his ability not to arouse any suspicions on the prostitutes' part and his ability to sneak away unseen shows organized traits.
So, once again, categories are always difficult. But the nature of the crime itself I would say is disorganized.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1527
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Rob,
By 'Jack squit' I meant that the urge to kill outweighed caution, risk, self preservation....whichever you choose to call it.
I agree with both you and Glenn. Tabram, to me, certainly doesnt look like an organised kill. Dis or mixed, personally I feel mixed. I was merely trying to get across this point. This would rule out a certain suspect/theory (D'Onston) as Tabrams killer whilst also providing a link between Nichol, Chapman and Eddowes......albeit very tenuous.
I was just thinking out loud as opposed to laying a belief.
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Jeff leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Sorry Mont
I dont understand. Whether Jack is organized dis organized or mix wasnt my train of thought because I dont see jack as totally insane or cool and calculated.
To me Jack is a preditor learning his craft as he goes along. evolving, learning by his mistakes and getting better at what he wants after each attack. However as each attack is differant there cant be a logical line of improvement, he has to ajust. But I see that there could (possibly) be a line through milwood and wilson, through tabram-nichols and on to Kelly.
Its an evolving, learning Jack theory...so please can anyone help...were there other attacks-non successful- that may have been connected to the Ripper case, may,june,july?
Jeff leahy
PS have sent a letter/cheque to case book as it is getting very frustrating having to wait so long for replies..thank you all.
Jeff leahy |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1529
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Jeff,,
Organised, dis or mixed isnt a view on the killers state of mind. It to do with his MO, fantasy and urge and nothing to do with lucidity, if he is a cool customer or looney tooney.
If he was organised then he would want to be in as much control of the situation as possible. He would chose a murder location where he feels secure and is usually either a remote spot or somewhere within his own dwelling, transport his victim there and spend as much time as possible with their victims, interaction is important to them. With organised its a power thing.
Jack obviously does not have this trait. Tabrams killer obviously felt the urge to kill more than he felt the need to interact.
That obviously has no impact on your views. An evolution of a MO. The MO (a blitz attack) is prevalent in Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes as well as Tabram, Millwood and Wilson. Though this is no indicator that these attacks should be linked it obviously rules out other victims such as both the torsos.
All Im making is a small...very very small connection between these attacks, and to include victims in the series you must have connections. Larger the better.
It was just an observation.
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 162
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
Hi again all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"Yes, the police certainly linked Tabram, Nichols and Chapman together -- I just said that in my previous post -- but that wasn't really until the Chapman murder, when Dr Phillips made this connection."
Well, naturally it wasn't until the Chapman murder, because that was when it could be seen that the same murderer had committed those 3 murders. Of course, all of the murders were grouped as "The Whitechapel murders", but it was the police who linked those particular 3 together. Before then, there was no clear indication of any strong link to the previous murders for the police! The press is responsible for that part. And Dr. Phillips had experience, he had worked in the district for quite a while, and his opinion was trusted. And for a doctor in Whitechapel over a long period of time during the latter part of the 19th century, I doubt very much would be left to the imagination. He knew what he was saying.
"Before that the press as usual jumped to conclusions by establishing a questionable link from the Emma Smith murder to Tabram and onwards, before the police did see a series of murders."
Yes, that part I agree with. The press did. But not the police, not until later on anyway.
"Complete speculations, not based on facts at all. I don't buy any of it."
Of course not. Wow, what a surprise that is.
In some cases, you need to speculate. You need to suppose and make your own judgements. Stick just to the bare "Facts" and you'll get lead right down the garden path....
"OK, I think i remember there was one other besides MJK. OK, so it wasn't Stride (rats!)."
You're right, there was another one. The 'other one' I was referring to was Alice Mackenzie.
"I myself only base my reasoning on the Ripper based on in my mind the three canonical victims Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. Stride is very much seen with uncertainty in the canonical context by quite many people, so even if you 100% believe her to be a Ripper victim it may be dangerous to apply the facts surrounding her case on other victims in order to prove a point."
Well I am basing what I said there on my own personal opinions. But there is perfectly good reason for accepting Stride as a Ripper victim. And the arguments used to discount her are largely circumstantial. She has the same characteristics of age, cut throat, location of the body, time of the killing, etc. And we know the killer was interrupted atleast once, and possibly even twice. Glenn, you yourself in your Swedish crime history book refer to a possible link between the killings of Kjersti Jonsson and Dagmar Kofoed. Now when you compare their 2 cases, and then look at Stride and the other Ripper victims, then it is clearly much more likely that Stride was a Ripper victim. She was killed right in the middle of the Ripper murders, Jonsson and Kofoed were 5 years apart. She was the same age as the other victims, Jonsson and Kofoed had 45 years between them. I am not trying to jump off topic here, but I do believe if you feel there could be a link between those 2, and not Stride and the other Ripper victims, you really need to re-think your beliefs. Otherwise, it is totally backwards.
"Still, there is a jump anyway from Tabram to Nichols that is unexplainable, and Ada Wilson has really nothing to do with it. It is tempting and not necessarily false to see a link between Wilson and Tabram - as well as some kind of development -- but it doesen't explain the total differences between Tabram and Nichols."
Well, what other kind of murder could there have been in between that would provide a link from Tabram - Nichols? Tabram was repeatedly stabbed, Nichols was Cut. There was only 3 weeks between them. In that time, and without putting more risk on himself, how could the killer have performed a half-stabbing, half-mutilating murder? That's not very likely. Tabram was very seriously wounded numerous times. Her and Nichols aren't exactly a world apart. They DO have similarities.
"As I said, I prefer to build my reasoning on the facts surrounding the three canonical victims that for sure can establish as being performed by the Ripper, not the others."
You'll find that even the other 3 victims haven't gone without doubt being thrown on them over the years as well. Just because Stride is more doubtful than them, isn't a good reason to discount her from being added into the equation as well. Infact, it only makes it more difficult.
"But that was not at all my point! My point was that there are no marks on the throats from strangulation! I wrote that twice in my post."
[...]
"The point was that there were no strangulation marks. You don't get strangulation marks on the chin and shoulders -- those bruises are pressure marks and in some way the victims got them."
A misunderstanding then, Glenn. I apologise. I thought you were referring to other injuries. In that case, I agree with that point. But, as we know, their upper bodies weren't completely without injury, and we can't be absolutely sure of exactly how they all got there.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3057
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
I believe this thread initially was about Tabram, and I think we are losing Phil's intention of diving up the case here.
So I have moved this discussion to the thread "Stride was not a victim of Jack the Ripper".
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 7:12 am: |
|
Hi Monty
I see what your saying now. WHether organized or disorganized he can still evolve and learn.
Jack obviously shows traits of both so I guess hes mixed and I'm not sure how useful this is which suspects does this discount?
I still think Jack did Tabram (opinion) and that he changed his MO from what he learned.
Whether Stride is a victim or not doesnt really seem to be that important either way. He was either interupted, which I guess means his a big risk taker, or he was unfairly blamed.
Eddows murder sugests Jack is a risk taker any way.
For me if we want to know more about Jack we need to look before Nichols not after, not until Kelly anyway.
Jeff
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page