|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:49 pm: |       |
Nice post "extendedping".
I agree with the sentiment you expressed. Now why dont you register and get in here and mix it up a bit. I need some backing for my rather unimaginative theories.
Rob |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:56 am: | |
Hi Dan, Maria & AP Wolf,
Dan, you wrote:
"One thing you'll notice if you hang around here long enough is that there are a lot of people who know the ins and outs of the case very well and still disagree on some of the key points. If you approach things by assuming that the people you are talking to aren't as informed as you on the case or else they'd agree with you, you'll run into problems."
I appreciate your advice Dan, and I'm sorry if anyone misinterpreted me, but it wasn't my intention to say or even imply that I knew more about the Ripper case than anyone else. I certainly don't. There would be people on this forum that have been researching the Ripper for decades longer than me, and are far more knowledgeable. I was referring to any Ripper historians in general, who knew a lot about the Elizabeth Stride case, and meant to say that for any supporter of Michael Kidney being the Ripper, a supporter for Jack the Ripper doing it should be able to counter that argument with stronger evidence than there is against Kidney.
"I think AP Wolf has the ins and outs of the Stride murder down too but just comes to different conclusions. And the possibility that Stride wasn't really a Ripper victim isn't exactly a fringe idea among others who study the case either."
Well, I'll admit it. I got annoyed. This poor woman was viciously murdered and she can't even have the peace of knowing atleast the pseudonym name of the man who killed her. As I said, so many victims come into contention that pretty soon there will be no Ripper victims left at all. I have always felt strongly about Elizabeth Stride and Martha Tabram being Jack's victims, and I always will stand up for my belief in that.
Maria, you wrote:
" We are inundated with stories of women who are in abusive relationships and who yet fail to press charges against their abusers, either out of fear or because they "love" them. Women (and kids) who are abused sometimes would rather live in familiar terror than jeopardize what little stability they have by breaking up their home, however unhappy it is."
That's true, and I agree with you saying that it happens too regularly, but it must also be understood that life in the 21st century has changed heaps in almost every respect since the 19th century. Elizabeth Stride had no need to concern herself with any love left for Michael Kidney, she was used to life on the streets, she could earn her living there. She had no house or children to be concerned with splitting up with him over. And she could go wherever she wanted in London and leave him behind.
So you see, really when you weigh things up, if things had been rough with Michael for 3 years, what reasons did she have left to stay with him?
AP Wolf, you wrote:
"Stride is seen in the company of a man - all night - who plainly is not Kidney. Among the many witnesses is a police constable."
But what does that proove, exactly? She was most likely living as a prostitute at that point. Her job was to coerce men into sex so she could make money. Perhaps this man she liked more than the others, and so she spent more time with him. But, what does it all mean? What are the chances that Kidney would see her with him amongst the thousands of others around the East End? And even if he did, would it warrant his temper to rise so much as to kill her?
"Confrontation with ‘gentleman’, gentleman leaves Stride to deal with Kidney, Kidney in a fit of temper kills her.
Gentleman and Kidney leave."
Anyone who had any conscience at all would not leave a defenceless woman against a supposed obviously enraged man. So do you think this 'gentleman' that was with Stride before was the '2nd man' that Schwartz reported?
"But one witness is convinced that the man he saw attack Stride actually pulled her into the road out of the darkness that hid them and commit the assault there."
First, where's the proof that the man who supposedly assaulted her also killed her? He most likely did, but there was time for that man to leave and the Ripper to grab her.
Second, what's to say that Liz didn't resist to the attack? What's to say that it didn't take some force from the man to subdue her?
As for the article you posted up, it's very interesting, and I don't deny any of what they are saying, but you must allow for changes in character in different killers. As I've said previously, if Michael Kidney was acting in a way in which the police considered to be suspicious, they would keep him locked up. And as I've also said, it was his partner of a matter of years who had just been killed, so his behaviour would naturally be abnormal. The shock of it all would have its effect on him.
And Jack the Ripper was and still is the most infamous killer in history, and back then, why wouldn't he heighten the scare of the time by committing a double murder, 2 in 1 night, to scare everyone even more? The same reasoning can be used to accept several of the letters he likely wrote, namely "From Hell", "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky".
Though I do still believe the failed attempt at mutilation to Liz lead to Cathy being killed that night too.
And I've asked before, and I'll ask again:
Is it not beyond coincidence that supposedly 2 killers struck on the same night, within a fairly short distance from one another, with similar mutilations, both in the same kind of spots -secluded and dark, and remarkably, with quite a few witnesses stating descriptions of the man they saw that are remarkably close to one another?
2 killers with the same outfits, same M.O's, same night killings, same area, AND same placement of the bodies? Really a coincidence!?
I think a major re-examination of all this evidence in support of the Ripper doing it and not Michael Kidney needs to be assessed by anyone who believes Kidney killed Stride, before he can be pushed any further as a suspect!
Regards,
Adam.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Hi Adam.
I agree i can not entertain Kidney, as a killer of stride, he certainly does not fit the bill as a broad shouldered person.
It is my opinion that the same person that killed Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly killed Stride.
Eddowes is a possibility however the soft approach seen by lawande and co, does not seem right.
Tabram I believe was running away from her killer, and entered George yard buildings to gain a shelter, but she was grapped as she reached the first floor landing.
Nichols I maintain was attacked in Brady street and attempted to flee her attacker, before finally being fatally caught in Bucks Row.
Chapman was forcibily manhanded in the backyard of 29 Hanbury street and she fell against the fence.
Stride was manhandled in Berner street, and kelly was rushed back to her room by a sharp walking man, who is believed to have pulled her up the passage.
I have my doubts if Eddowes accoster fits that bill, therefore i would assume that the man seen by lawande, was not her killer, and she encountered him when she entered the square , there is evidence that she too was manhandled note the bruise [ of recent origin] on her left hand between thumb and forefinger, which would indicate that she was grapped tightly and pulled in a direction the killer wanted.
To sum up the whitechapel murderer showed no signs of a chat up approach, he simply approached a victim and made his intentions clear, although he does appear to have shown more restraint with Kelly , that is of course if Mr Astracan was her killer?
Richard. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
Richard-
It's hard to know how the killer could have attacked the women as you described--with all the chasing and grabbing-- with no sound being made. I'd have thought they'd at least have screamed, yet no witnesses reported anything of the kind except for the famous "oh murder" that may have been uttered by Kelly.
Adam-
The problem with Stride being included as a victim is that the murders were not really THAT similar.The coroner's report makes a clear mention of the differences in terms of the kind of knife that had been used on Stride, much shorter and duller than Chapman. Also, though Stride's throat was cut and she did die from exsanguination caused by severing of the left carotid artery, there was no sign of the near-decapitation evidenced in the previous 2 (and later 2) murders.
Mags |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Hi Maria,
In the case of Tabram, she would have been unaware that her murder was to have been the first of a series, and she proberly thought to enter a building would have secured her safety, in the case of Nichols screams were heard or at least sounds by at least two independant witnesses.
Chapman was ill and tired having walked the streets all night, and was defenceless.
Stride did scream.
Eddowes had just sobered up, and was proberly grapped by the hand and mouth by her attacker.
Kelly did utter a scream.
So in at least3 cases screams were reported.
Richard.
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 580
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi Mags,
Eddowes throat wound is not the complete "decapitation attempt" as shown with either Nichols or Chapman, but rather seems remarkably similar to the Stride wound. I posted a comparison of the two wound descriptions ages ago. I found the post, it's in the "Victims - Liz Stride - the Murder" thread, Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 5:36 pm.
- Jeff |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 387
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hi again Adam,
Although I’m late, here are some comments on the post you wrote earlier this week.
You wrote about characteristics being much the same in Stride’s case, but I see a number of things that weren’t characteristic of the Ripper.
The crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were quiet and unfrequented at the time of the murders. Like AP eloquently pointed out, neither Berner Street nor Dutfield’s Yard were particularly quiet and unfrequented shortly before the murder.
Furthermore, besides that it’s questionable if Berner Street and Dutfield’s Yard were commonly used by prostitutes for servicing clients, it’s not clear either that Stride was visiting Berner St. and Dutfield’s Yard as a prostitute. There are strong indications that she was there with someone she was romantically involved with.
Jack the Ripper attacked suddenly, swiftly, silently and efficiently. He first rendered his victim senseless (strangulations seems to be the best fit), then laid her down on her back and then cut her throat. All through the murder he must have kept a keen eye and ear on his surroundings.
Although cutting her throat while she was lying on her back would have been easier, Stride was found lying on her left side. Her bonnet was 3 or 4 inches from her head. There were pressure marks on her shoulders and chest, which is inconsistent with the previous murders. The scarf around her neck was pulled very tightly with the bow turned to the left side, which led Dr. Blackwell to form the opinion that she was pulled backwards by the scarf and is also inconsistent with the previous murders.
So, except for the fact that Stride’s throat was cut from left to right and that she was lying with a wall close to her left side, to me Stride’s murder doesn’t seem all that similar to how the Ripper attacked and killed his victims. Besides, throat cutting was quite a common way to (try and) kill someone in those days. In fact, only 3 miles off and shortly before Stride was killed, another woman’s throat had been cut.
Furthermore, if the Ripper did indeed murder Stride, the dissimilarities indicate that he did not attack her in his usual way and at least suggest that he attacked when he’d already heard the approaching cart and pony. Otherwise he would have started his attack in the usual manner and would actually have been interrupted. But attacking and killing her even though the approaching Diemschutz may have been less than 20 seconds away seems very stupid to say the least.
As for witness descriptions, unless one or more distinguishable features were mentioned by at least two witnesses, I wouldn’t take them too seriously. It’s a fact that they’re usually unreliable anyway, however respectable and trustworthy the witness. A reddish neckerchief, for instance, might be considered such a distinguishable feature. But only Lawende mentioned it. On the other hand, features like a moustache, a height of 5 ft 6 or 7 and dark clothes can’t be considered distinguishable features at all, because they were all very common in the East End of those days.
What I would rather consider as distinguishable, however, certainly in those poor parts of town, would be features like ‘decently dressed’ or ‘respectable appearance’ and things like that. Only two of the official witnesses described Stride’s companion like that and they were William Marshall and PC Smith. Two others, Best and Gardner, were interviewed by a newspaper (Evening News of 1 October 1888), and mentioned seeing a respectably dressed man, who was hugging and kissing Stride at about 11 p.m..
Although I’m not sure Schwartz’ man killed Stride, I’m quite confident Schwartz’ man and Lawende’s weren’t one and the same. And I’m even more confident Schwartz’ man and the Ripper were different men. The behaviour shown by the man seen by Schwartz was most probably nothing like the behaviour displayed by the Ripper. His murders stood out because of the silence. Except for perhaps Albert Cadosche, nobody ever saw or heard a thing.
As for Kidney, he doesn’t seem to have been considered a serious suspect at all, despite his at least occasionally flammable and aggressive nature and probable jealousy, despite the break-up with Stride. The police didn’t seem to make much of the break-up, if anything at all. They seemed to believe Kidney instead of Catherine Lane, when he said that no quarrel had taken place between him and Stride, whereas unlike Kidney, Lane had nothing to gain by saying they did have a quarrel. Which makes it all the more probable that in fact a quarrel had taken place and it had been the reason why Stride left.
The police seem to have readily accepted his explanation that it was drink that made her go on previous occasions, which they probably considered true because Stride was convicted eight times for drunkenness at the Thames Magistrate Court. However, in July of 1888 Kidney went to prison for 3 days for being drunk and disorderly and for using obscene language, causing Stride to walk out on him. This might be considered quite a big quarrel. Walking out on Kidney and heavy drinking may well have been the result of an abusive Kidney.
Furthermore, like domestic quarrels, street brawl and rows were considered so very common that it possibly caused the police to take the assault witnessed by Schwartz less seriously as a possible murder being underway. On top of that, shortly after Stride a certain Ripper victim was slain, which made the interruption scenario in Stride’s case all the more appealing.
So, on the one hand we have the dissimilarities between Stride’s case and those of the certain Ripper victims and the fact that throat cutting was a common way to kill. And on the other we have an ex-boyfriend who may well have been the abusive and jealous man some of us think he was. His strange behaviour at the police station and the inquest fits exactly with the examples of murderers AP posted last week.
Although Kidney may have been perfectly innocent, with only today's information at hand I would still find him worth investigating if I were Abberline.
All the best,
Frank  |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2379
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Frank,
I agree with practically everything in your last post -- you took the words right out of my mouth.
A splendid analysis.
---------------------------------------
Adam,
"Elizabeth Stride had no need to concern herself with any love left for Michael Kidney, she was used to life on the streets, she could earn her living there. She had no house or children to be concerned with splitting up with him over. And she could go wherever she wanted in London and leave him behind."
Adam, as myself being a historian specializing in 19th century history (and having investigated the lives of over a hundred prostitutes), I can't believe you actually wrote this. Are you kidding me? Have you any idea what kind of life the prostitutes led on the streets of East End in the latter half of the 19th century (and some lead a miserable life in the same situation even today)?
Getting married or living in a steady relationship with someone who could support them was mainly their only way out -- a lot of women have put up with abuse because of the rotten alternatives.
"First of all, if Michael Kidney had killed Liz, he was putting himself in a monumentally dangerous situation. If the police had found out he had done it, which they could have, then he would immediately be thrust into the Jack the Ripper position, and even if he was proved not to be, he'd probably hang for killing Liz alone."
And still these things happen on occasion.
Domestic-related murders are generally unplanned incidents deriving from desperation and anger. You are basing your opinion on the distorted fact that they are based on logic. If for example Michael Kidney was drunk and his aggression took over, he would not necessarily think of the Ripper context.
"Well, I'll admit it. I got annoyed. This poor woman was viciously murdered and she can't even have the peace of knowing atleast the pseudonym name of the man who killed her."
Yeah, and attributing her to the Ripper doesen't help her one bit, if the murderer was someone else.
"And Jack the Ripper was and still is the most infamous killer in history, and back then, why wouldn't he heighten the scare of the time by committing a double murder, 2 in 1 night, to scare everyone even more? The same reasoning can be used to accept several of the letters he likely wrote, namely "From Hell", "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky"."
There is absolutely no evidence of that the Ripper was someone who liked to communicate or leave messages; actually there are slight indications of the opposite. The Lusk letter is still a matter of debate and the part of the enclosed kidney would be necessary in order to verify its authenticy, but the other letters have been declared hoaxes. He certainly didn't write either the "Dear Boss" letter or the "Saucy Jack" postcard -- and the police didn't think he did either.
"Is it not beyond coincidence that supposedly 2 killers struck on the same night, within a fairly short distance from one another, with similar mutilations, both in the same kind of spots -secluded and dark, and remarkably, with quite a few witnesses stating descriptions of the man they saw that are remarkably close to one another?"
No it's not. Firstly, as Frank pointed out, the similarities are exaggerated -- and secondly, Stride wasn't mutilated.
But more importantly, stranger things have happened. And the same night another throat-cut of a woman appeared in Westminster.
The Whitechapel--Spitalfields--City of London districts were dangerous and violent turfs, and especially for those females indulging in the most risky trade of the world.
This type of coincidence may appear too hard to accept to begin with, but it's not impossible and can't be ruled out.
"2 killers with the same outfits, same M.O's, same night killings, same area, AND same placement of the bodies"
Wrong on all three counts, I am afraid.
As Frank has stated, besides Lawende's mentioning of a red neckerchief, neither of the men (and we can't be sure of any of them was a murderer in the first place) has any significant details in their clothing or appearance that makes them extraordinary enough in order to base any opinion from the witness description.
Furthermore, the MO is not that similar -- in Stride's case a throat cut that is more superficial and no mutilations (interruption or not). And as far as the placement of the bodies are concerned, Stride was lying on her side and not in the same degrading position as the other victims.
"So if Schwartz wasn't aware even of who the 1st man was speaking to, or what the 2nd man was doing, then what kind of a position does that put him in to say whether he could be so detailed as to call it a 'crime of passion' or an ordinary assault? How would he know?"
If Schwartz's man was Stride's killer, there is no way in the world that the Ripper -- who was very careful about not being spotted -- would use such a careless approach.
"So what that means is that Kidney was stalking her, waiting for the perfect moment to strike, yes? I doubt it. First, he wouldn't have any idea where in Whitechapel, or for that matter, anywhere in the East End, she had gone. [...] What are the chances that Kidney would see her with him amongst the thousands of others around the East End? And even if he did, would it warrant his temper to rise so much as to kill her?"
Why not? He was obviously known to be abusive, and he had motives to be angry with her. And I can't see why he wouldn't know where she'd hang out -- prostitutes mostly prefer certain spots so that they can be found by returning customers; I believe he could have gotten that information from anyone who knew her, if he didn't already know it. There are millions of scenarios to consider.
"I am completely confident in saying that the only reason they didn't match perfectly was because he was interrupted early on, and that is the reason why Catherine Eddowes was suddenly thrust from nobody into a worldwide known woman in 1 night"
True. That, of course, can't be totally disregarded. The interruption theory is indeed the only plausible explanation in order to include her as a Ripper victim, but it doesen't have to represent the truth beyond doubt.
The reasons for suspecting Kidney are several -- first of all the classic ones, he was her closest male relative and he had known abusive behaviour and motive for killing her. And secondly, his very strange appearance at the inquest, which I believe is quite deranged even for someone in grief. How his arrogance and his own reluctance to help the police with information could elude to arouse the police's suspicion goes beyond me. According to the transcripts, he appears as a first class slime and displaying a more than suspicious behaviour.
Then, on the other hand, if his physical appearance differ that much from the Schwartz man, it is indeed a problem for his candidacy (although he apparently wasn't too old or sick to abuse her earlier).
There is also the possibility that the Schwartz man (if he was her murderer) could have been a drunk, aggressive customer or someone belonging to the robbing or pimp gangs of the area (which could explain the second man with the pipe).
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 163
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 7:39 pm: | |
Glenn....
May I add to your outstanding post above,that while it is possible that the Berner Street murder was a domestic affair,that wifebeaters,wifekillers, and wifeabusers,are cowards. For them to be "seen" while in the act, shows them for what they are...and Kidney,had he been the perpetrator,was more than likely a "control freak" who used the verbal/physical abuse in a controlled environment,not in the open with a club full of people nearby and the Pipe Man in proximity,and would probably have not been in his "element", and inevitably preferring a dwelling to open visible murder...
I also want to ask you about your comment...
"There is absolutely no evidence of that the Ripper was someone who liked to communicate or leave messages; actually there are slight indications of the opposite.
I am curious as to what the slight indications of the opposite means.
Since its my birthday,I drink for us both,my good friend ! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 8:58 pm: | |
Hey Howard!
Happy Birthday and Congratulations, my good man! Enjoy the drinks; I may have one as well on your behalf. 
It's true that domestic violence generally is committed indoors. It is the fact that they attack women that makes them cowards.However, one can never rule out exceptions from the rule. If the aggressive male is drunk and out of control, I believe the circumstances is of no real importance. The individual's personal character also is a factor to consider here, and obviously Kidney -- according to the inquest accounts -- was no stranger to making himself a fool in public.
Besides, Stride was out this evening and since he couldn't be sure she would return home to him, it is quite natural that he in a state of rage went out to get her. But this is of course pure speculation.
Now,let me only clarify, that I by no means intend to make a case for Kidney here as Stride's killer with certainty -- I am only laying out some suggestions to why he could be. But she could just as well have been slayed by someone else.
The "slight indications" of a non-communicative killer -- which is not in any way to be reckoned as evidence -- is mainly based on my interpretations of his actions otherwise and the facts on the crime scenes. I see a killer who is psychotic and unsure of himself -- not someone who in a psychopathic manner is reaching out for attention.
Besides, maybe except from the "From Hell" package to Lusk, the letters in question have been regarded as hoaxes anyway. To this date we don't know of any form of communication from the killer. So apparently this detail was of no importance for him. I believe he killed for himself and not to create "shock value" (possibly with the exception of the displaying of the bodies). He was probably in my view not in any need of attention whatsoever.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 16, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 29
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
Hi Richard, Maria, Frank, Glenn & Howard,
Since there has been a large number of long posts added in response to my posts since I last posted here, I'll respond in 2 parts, to make it a bit more readable.
Firstly, Richard, you wrote:
"I have my doubts if Eddowes accoster fits that bill, therefore i would assume that the man seen by lawande, was not her killer, and she encountered him when she entered the square , there is evidence that she too was manhandled note the bruise [ of recent origin] on her left hand between thumb and forefinger, which would indicate that she was grapped tightly and pulled in a direction the killer wanted."
Whilst I agree with most of what you have said, and you've come up with some interesting points, I have to disagree with you on this point. Lawende thought he saw the man talking to Eddowes outside the square between 1:30 and 1:35 AM, most likely 1:32 or 1:33 AM. Her body was discovered at 1:44 AM. That gives the Ripper an absolute maximum of 15 minutes to get her in the square, murder and mutilate her, and then flee the scene. And infact, he could have had as little as 9 or 10 minutes to do it. Now if we assume that the man Lawende saw with Eddowes was NOT her killer, then it's safe to assume they perhaps spent atleast another 1 or 2 minutes there, then parted company. That knocks the time limit back to 8 minutes. She walks into square and gets grabbed - another minute. That gives the Ripper just 7 minutes to murder her, mutilate her in the way he did, and flee. Almost impossible, even for an experienced surgeon. He either wouldn't have finished or been caught in the act.
So, let's assume now that the man Lawende saw with her WAS her killer. Lawende and his mates leave, and the killer then leads her into the square, where he kills her. That gives him atleast an extra 3-4 minutes. Besides, if the Ripper was waiting there, how would he know where Eddowes would come in from? How would he know she would enter the square at all?
Based on all that, in my opinion there is enough evidence to say with a reasonable level of confidence that Joseph Lawende saw Jack the Ripper, and it was Jack that killed Eddowes.
Maria, you wrote:
"The problem with Stride being included as a victim is that the murders were not really THAT similar.The coroner's report makes a clear mention of the differences in terms of the kind of knife that had been used on Stride, much shorter and duller than Chapman. Also, though Stride's throat was cut and she did die from exsanguination caused by severing of the left carotid artery, there was no sign of the near-decapitation evidenced in the previous 2 (and later 2) murders."
It has been prooved time and again that serial killers do not always use the same M.O.'s every time. So therefore just because there was some differences in the cutting of Liz's throat and the positioning of her body, does not in any way mean that it was a different killer. He may have changed knives. Or, more likely, he was rushing because he knew Diemschutz was coming, and so didn't have the normal cutting precision he had with a knife. He cuts her throat, makes sure she is close against the wall, then flees out of the yard. Does that make sense?
The killings of Stride and Eddowes are similar enough to state that 1 man only is responsible for them. The coincidences are far too many to say that there was 2. Though I've clearly gained a lot of flames on this topic with my responses, I have always and will always stand by my reasoning that Elizabeth Stride was a Jack the Ripper victim.
It's also worthy to note, for all Michael Kidney being the killer supporters, that Elizabeth Stride is listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this very site, when other victims with strong cases like Martha Tabram are not, so it's clear that a large majority of the Ripperology community think Liz was a Ripper victim, as I do.
More to come...
Regards,
Adam. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
If Kidney had killed Stride, then why is it that the police were not interested in him as a suspect? I think it is dangerous to assume that we are today smarter or better informed than the police who were working on the case. And also, why wouldnt they just have Schwartz take a look at him and see if he was the "drunk agressor"?
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2381
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:23 pm: | |
Adam,
I must congratulate you for starting interesting discussions here -- the Boards have been rather dull these last months, so your appearance here is much appreciated.
Just some pointers, though...
"It has been prooved time and again that serial killers do not always use the same M.O.'s every time."
True.
"So therefore just because there was some differences in the cutting of Liz's throat and the positioning of her body, does not in any way mean that it was a different killer. He may have changed knives."
Hmm. But then he went back and used the same method and knife on Eddowes some 40 minutes later, as he had done on Nichols and Chapman? Why the sudden change or alteration on Stride just some minutes before Eddowes, when he in the case of the canonical victims didn't break that behaviour pattern and larger parts of his MO otherwise? It doesen't makes sense.
"The killings of Stride and Eddowes are similar enough to state that 1 man only is responsible for them."
No, they're not, Adam. No way. If Diemschutz never arrived there with his cart, giving rise to the interruption argument, we probably would never have had this discussion.
"The coincidences are far too many to say that there was 2."
Absolutely not. Not beyond doubt.
As I said, stranger things have happened, and since the facts doesen't support or prove her inclusion without doubt, that is a wrong thing to state.
"It's also worthy to note, for all Michael Kidney being the killer supporters, that Elizabeth Stride is listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this very site, when other victims with strong cases like Martha Tabram are not, so it's clear that a large majority of the Ripperology community think Liz was a Ripper victim, as I do."
Again, I disagree. Just because this site lists her among the canonicals (which I think is a mistake) doesen't in any way defend her her inclusion. As far as I know it is still not a proven fact.
And reading the majority of the Ripper literature, it is rather obvious that Stride is a question mark in many regards in the Ripper context. Most authors believe (in their personal opinions) that she may be a Ripper victim, but they don't claim it with certainty.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2382
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
Rob wrote:
"If Kidney had killed Stride, then why is it that the police were not interested in him as a suspect? I think it is dangerous to assume that we are today smarter or better informed than the police who were working on the case. And also, why wouldnt they just have Schwartz take a look at him and see if he was the "drunk agressor"?"
These are good question, and in my view probably the most important reasons for getting Kidney off the hook here.
Having said that, although I don't in any way regard the police force of 1888 as fools, I could list a number of strange evaluations and decisions on their part:
-- their lack of interest in Kidney's suspicious behaviour
-- their letting go of Joseph Barnett, dismissing him as a suspect that easily
-- their non-critical confidence in Hutchinson's more or less bogus witness account
-- Abberline's unbelievable statement from 1903, naming Klosowski as the Ripper.
The police of 1888 was under a lot of political and public pressure and had no previous experience of these types of killings. And they obviously made a lot of mistakes and bad judgements.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 30
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Hi Frank & Glenn,
This is the second part of my message.
Frank, you wrote:
"The crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes were quiet and unfrequented at the time of the murders. Like AP eloquently pointed out, neither Berner Street nor Dutfield’s Yard were particularly quiet and unfrequented shortly before the murder."
I wouldn't agree with that assessment of the locations of the victims at all. Let me go through each of those 3 to point out what I mean:
Nichols: She was killed in a gateway, right near the edge of a street. Cross must have missed the murderer by a matter of only a couple of minutes, because he found her at 3:40 AM, thought he detected movement, and when Dr. Llewellyn arrived shortly after 4, he said she hadn't been dead for more than half an hour. So you see, in a number of cases, someone could have stumbled right over the Ripper in the midst of his work. A gateway was not a secure place, by any means.
Chapman: Whilst she was killed in a backyard, the backyard was accessible to anyone off the street. Plus that, she was killed at around 5:30 AM, when day was breaking, and people were on their way to the Spitalfields market. That's why Elizabeth Long witnessed her and, most likely, her killer, because she was on the way to the markets. And Albert Cadosch was up and about when he heard the thud against the fence. Anyone could have walked in on him while he was killing her.
Eddowes: Perhaps the least secure of any of these 3 victims. She was killed in the corner of a square! There was not just 1 entrance, there was 3! Anyone could have walked in on him at any time, and infact, the time between Lawende's sighting and her discovery is dangerously close together anyway.
And Dutfield's Yard was reasonably quiet. Though there was a social club next door, there was a door in the front off the street, so nobody had any reason to use the side door. And in any case, Diemshutz interrupted him, not someone from inside the club.
"Although cutting her throat while she was lying on her back would have been easier, Stride was found lying on her left side. Her bonnet was 3 or 4 inches from her head. There were pressure marks on her shoulders and chest, which is inconsistent with the previous murders. The scarf around her neck was pulled very tightly with the bow turned to the left side, which led Dr. Blackwell to form the opinion that she was pulled backwards by the scarf and is also inconsistent with the previous murders."
As I've said just before, serial killers do change their M.O.'s, and so there is no reason to believe that it wasn't the Ripper just because there was some differences. And besides that fact, if he was in a hurry because he heard Diemschutz, then that explains why she was grabbed and jolted down onto the ground quickly. He was in a hurry.
"So, except for the fact that Stride’s throat was cut from left to right and that she was lying with a wall close to her left side, to me Stride’s murder doesn’t seem all that similar to how the Ripper attacked and killed his victims. Besides, throat cutting was quite a common way to (try and) kill someone in those days. In fact, only 3 miles off and shortly before Stride was killed, another woman’s throat had been cut."
Well, we can start with the remarkably consistent descriptions of the man seen with the women in both Stride and Eddowes' case. Then, we can move on and say that if any of the Ripper letters are real, then one that is widely believed to be authentic did say that there was 2 victims. And if we disbelieve both those points, well we can use the remarkable coincidences of similarity between the 2 victims, as well as both on the same night, and other witness descriptions to basically rule out the possibility of 2 men being responsible, but just 1. And unless Michael Kidney killed Stride and Eddowes, then we are left with no option but to discount him as a suspect.
"Furthermore, if the Ripper did indeed murder Stride, the dissimilarities indicate that he did not attack her in his usual way and at least suggest that he attacked when he’d already heard the approaching cart and pony. Otherwise he would have started his attack in the usual manner and would actually have been interrupted. But attacking and killing her even though the approaching Diemschutz may have been less than 20 seconds away seems very stupid to say the least."
But not impossible. If she had lived, Stride could potentially have been able to give a detailed description of the man who attacked her, and who police could then link to Jack the Ripper. So even if only her throat was cut quickly, and she was left, that ruled her out as a potential key to the Ripper being caught.
"On the other hand, features like a moustache, a height of 5 ft 6 or 7 and dark clothes can’t be considered distinguishable features at all, because they were all very common in the East End of those days."
No, but then it's highly unlikely that Kidney and the Ripper would look so exactly the same. Maybe next it will be suggested that they tag-teamed, and killed 1 each? Really, it is the biggest coincidence in all of history if 2 killers attacked in the same district on the same night and looked almost identical according to witness descriptions. AND the victims do have similarities, and it's important to remember that Diemschutz almost certainly interrupted the Ripper in his killing of Stride.
"However, in July of 1888 Kidney went to prison for 3 days for being drunk and disorderly and for using obscene language, causing Stride to walk out on him. This might be considered quite a big quarrel."
Why then would he wait for more than 2 months to kill her after that? The Ripper scare hadn't started in July 1888. Why not kill her, if he was going to, when there was no danger of him being caught and labelled as Jack the Ripper?
"Although Kidney may have been perfectly innocent, with only today's information at hand I would still find him worth investigating if I were Abberline."
He was checked out, and he was cleared of any wrong-doing. To say that a jealous lover killed Stride - well, the same could be said for Joe Barnett and Mary Kelly, there is no difference. Both were investigated, and both were cleared. Doesn't that say something?
Glenn, you wrote:
"Are you kidding me? Have you any idea what kind of life the prostitutes led on the streets of East End in the latter half of the 19th century (and some lead a miserable life in the same situation even today)?
Getting married or living in a steady relationship with someone who could support them was mainly their only way out -- a lot of women have put up with abuse because of the rotten alternatives."
Life in the 19th century was bad enough for anyone. I know that. You know that. But my point was that all of those women killed, excluding Mary Kelly, were in their 40's. They had spent decades on the streets, they knew how it worked. They were used to it.
And could Michael Kidney support Liz Stride enough to keep her happy and off the streets?
Obviously not, or else she wouldn't have been on the streets and got killed in the first place.
"Domestic-related murders are generally unplanned incidents deriving from desperation and anger. You are basing your opinion on the distorted fact that they are based on logic. If for example Michael Kidney was drunk and his aggression took over, he would not necessarily think of the Ripper context."
Well if Michael Kidney was drunk, chances are he wouldn't have the capacity to kill her in the way he did. And then stumble away before Diemschutz entered the yard.
The entire Michael Kidney theory is based on unsubstantiated and circumstantial evidence, and simply pulling at straws. Show me one solid piece of evidence that Michael Kidney was the Ripper. When you look at it that way, I don't think you can knock my theory too far, when the Michael Kidney one is even worse.
"Yeah, and attributing her to the Ripper doesen't help her one bit, if the murderer was someone else."
No, and blaming her lover for something he didn't do won't help her either. The police didn't think it was Kidney then, and there's a huge amount of people that don't think it was him today. As I said before, if Liz's case is so uncertain, then why is she listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this site, when victims with just as strong cases like Martha Tabram are not?
"There is absolutely no evidence of that the Ripper was someone who liked to communicate or leave messages; actually there are slight indications of the opposite. The Lusk letter is still a matter of debate and the part of the enclosed kidney would be necessary in order to verify its authenticy, but the other letters have been declared hoaxes. He certainly didn't write either the "Dear Boss" letter or the "Saucy Jack" postcard -- and the police didn't think he did either."
It's a bit of a coincidence to note then that there was indeed a kidney missing from Eddowes, that got sent to Lusk, and that the kidney suffered from Bright's Disease, which Cathy Eddowes was known to suffer from. More to the point, why wouldn't he do it? Why shouldn't he do it? He had the whole of the East End of London, as well as a large part of the world terrified of him, so why wouldn't he add even more fright to it by sending in threatening and gruesome letters/postcards?
"No it's not. Firstly, as Frank pointed out, the similarities are exaggerated -- and secondly, Stride wasn't mutilated."
Not mutilated only because Diemshutz turned up with his cart before he could get that far. And the similarities being exaggerated, I disagree with as well. If you want to get a real factual insight into it, read Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" . He presents an extremely strong case for Liz being killed by the Ripper, and discusses the witness descriptions in full. Buy that, before you say it was all exaggerated.
"Furthermore, the MO is not that similar -- in Stride's case a throat cut that is more superficial and no mutilations (interruption or not). And as far as the placement of the bodies are concerned, Stride was lying on her side and not in the same degrading position as the other victims."
Once again, as I've stated before, the fact that the cut to her throat wasn't as serious as some of the other victims could indicate that the Ripper attacked her, saw or heard Diemschutz coming, knew that if Stride got away she could give a good description of what he looked like and how he attacked, and so he cut her throat which would ensure her death, not minding how he cut it. Make sense?
"If Schwartz's man was Stride's killer, there is no way in the world that the Ripper -- who was very careful about not being spotted -- would use such a careless approach."
A careless approach was to kill Polly in a gateway. A careless approach was to kill Annie in half daylight in a public backyard on a Spitalfields Market day. A careless approach was to kill Cathy in a square which could be entered any 1 of 3 ways. When you look at it, he actually did have quite a few careless approaches, so why would Liz be any different?
"I believe he could have gotten that information from anyone who knew her, if he didn't already know it. There are millions of scenarios to consider."
How would that sound? - "Bill, I'm going to be in Dutfield's Yard off Berner Street after midnight tonight. Tell Michael to see me there if he wants to."
Either she was extremely foolish and didn't think straight, or much more likely, it wasn't Kidney that got her at all.
"How his arrogance and his own reluctance to help the police with information could elude to arouse the police's suspicion goes beyond me. According to the transcripts, he appears as a first class slime and displaying a more than suspicious behaviour."
I'd bet because the police had more important things to concern themselves with, other than how Kidney's attitude was. A bad attitude hardly constitutes a murder suspect. And even if it did, there was 2nd murder to worry about at the same time. Police cleared him then, and when the evidence is closely re-examined, he should be cleared again today.
But, my suggestion to any Michael Kidney theorists is to get a copy of Philip Sugden's book, and read his brilliant factual account of it all. It didn't get 5 stars on Amazon for nothing.
Regards,
Adam.
|
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
Hi again Glenn,
In response to your latest posts,
You wrote:
"I must congratulate you for starting interesting discussions here -- the Boards have been rather dull these last months, so your appearance here is much appreciated."
Well thank you, I'm glad to know that I am able to add some excitement and interesting discussions to the boards!
"Hmm. But then he went back and used the same method and knife on Eddowes some 40 minutes later, as he had done on Nichols and Chapman? Why the sudden change or alteration on Stride just some minutes before Eddowes, when he in the case of the canonical victims didn't break that behaviour pattern and larger parts of his MO otherwise? It doesen't makes sense."
No, it doesn't make sense when you look at it that way. But I re-thought about that in my last post, and it might be worth considering that he heard/saw Diemshutz coming, and so cut her throat quickly and didn't worry about his precision too much, for fear of her becoming a potential witness.
"No, they're not, Adam. No way. If Diemschutz never arrived there with his cart, giving rise to the interruption argument, we probably would never have had this discussion."
I agree with you there. And Catherine Eddowes may never have been a Ripper victim, if it hadn't been for the interruption on Stride. However, there are too many IF's and BUT's to consider it as possible evidence.
"As I said, stranger things have happened, and since the facts doesen't support or prove her inclusion without doubt, that is a wrong thing to state."
Stranger things, yes, but 2 similar killings in 1 night within walking distance of one another...it's just too far fetched to believe that any more than 1 man could be responsible.
"Again, I disagree. Just because this site lists her among the canonicals (which I think is a mistake) doesen't in any way defend her her inclusion. As far as I know it is still not a proven fact.
And reading the majority of the Ripper literature, it is rather obvious that Stride is a question mark in many regards in the Ripper context. Most authors believe (in their personal opinions) that she may be a Ripper victim, but they don't claim it with certainty."
Not proven, no, but then what is in the Ripper case? Over the past 116 years, so many If's, but's, maybe's, what if's, etc have been developed that it's nearly impossible to see through to the truth. So that's just another 1 of those things.
"their non-critical confidence in Hutchinson's more or less bogus witness account"
Bogus? Where's the proof that what Hutchinson said was Bogus?
"Abberline's unbelievable statement from 1903, naming Klosowski as the Ripper."
It is not unbelievable at all. Infact, Severin Klosowski is my favourite suspect. Unlike many Ripper suspects, he was a known murderer, killing 3 of his wives. Yes, he poisoned them, but as we have discussed before, serial killers can change their M.O.'s. He lived in the district, as a hairdresser he may have possessed the tools, he fitted in with the age descriptions, and since he did have some money it explains why many witnesses stated that he was no slum. And he was single in 1888, so they are all points that go in his favour. So please, tell me, how come you think Abberline's thoughts are 'unbelievable' ?
Regards,
Adam.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2383
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 12:26 am: | |
Well... this is fun.
OK, Adam, you gave me a handful here, and some of the arguments have been run over here quite a number of times before, but I'll do my best.
Firstly, I think you underestimate many of us here who has studied the case for several years (and who also have been members of the site for a long time), when you instruct us to read Sugden.
Sugden's book is probably one of the more important and most cited ones. Very few people here have NOT read Sugden. And I naturally have my own copy at home. And yes -- I've read it a couple of times over, along with many others. I personally think it's the absolute best book on the subject from a factual point of view, but that doesen't mean one has to buy all of the author's personal opinions.
Secondly, you misunderstand me completely. As I've stated a couple of times, I am not arguing for Kidney to be her killer with certainty, I am just laying forward some reasons for why he could be. But I don't think there is any evidence about his involvement, although I've heard worse theories in connection with Stride.
"Well, we can start with the remarkably consistent descriptions of the man seen with the women in both Stride and Eddowes' case. Then, we can move on and say that if any of the Ripper letters are real, then one that is widely believed to be authentic did say that there was 2 victims."
Once again, there are no "remarkably consistent descriptions". Practically every man during the latter half of the 19th century wore moustasche, and dark clothes (jacket or whatever) says absolutely nothing -- that was worn by a larger part of the male population. The only interesting item that unites the two descriptions is the peaked cap, but that was on the other hand one of the most common headgears among the working class, worn bu hundreds in this area.
The only item that really stands out is the red neckerchief, and that was only mentioned by Lawende. Furthermore, both men was seen at night, in darkness and the places only lit up by gas lamps, the two men wearing dark clothes, Schwartz was a scared witness etc. etc... do I need to go on? There is absolutely no reason to believe that Schwartz and Lawende saw the same man.
And once again, apart from maybe -- and only maybe -- the Lusk letter, the letters have been declared as hoaxes, also by the contemporary police. According to several experts they are great examples of someone literate or semi-literate trying to pass off as uneducated.
As far as the kidney is concerned, although I can't totally dismiss its authenticy, it was believed at the time to be sent as a crank from a medical student. It is not at all established that Eddowes suffered from Bright's disease.
And you can read several explanations in Ripper books, Sugden's as well as Fido's and Rumbelow's etc., regarding the mentioning of the two victims on the Saucy Jack postcard.
According to the postmark, it was mailed after the murders had become public knowledge on October 1st, so this was not information only known by the killer at that time. This you can read about in any book.
"A careless approach was to kill Polly in a gateway. A careless approach was to kill Annie in half daylight in a public backyard on a Spitalfields Market day. A careless approach was to kill Cathy in a square which could be entered any 1 of 3 ways. When you look at it, he actually did have quite a few careless approaches, so why would Liz be any different?"
Completely wrong. There is a grand difference. The Ripper took risks, yes, but he was careful about not being spotted during and after the crimes and the murders were performed fast and quiet. Mr Broad Shoulder's clumsy and rowdy behaviour on Berner Street totally contradicts this. Furthermore, the incident with Broad Shoulders happened several minutes earlier than Diemschutz arrived, even within a presumed margin of time error, so there is no way he would have been interrupted by Diemschutz -- there is no reason for him staying that long with the victim before he killed her, if he was the Ripper. Either she was killed by Broad Shoulders, or she was killed by someone else (in that case maybe the Ripper) the minutes after the assault.
"Life in the 19th century was bad enough for anyone. I know that. You know that. But my point was that all of those women killed, excluding Mary Kelly, were in their 40's. They had spent decades on the streets, they knew how it worked. They were used to it.
And could Michael Kidney support Liz Stride enough to keep her happy and off the streets?"
Just because they knew their way around on the streets, didn't mean that they preferred this situation. It was probably closer to hell than we can ever imagine.
It is a fact, that many of them brought on their own demise due to their drinking (and therefore was left by their husbands), but it was indeed safer and more convenient for any of them to live with a partner. The only salvation for destitute women in the 19th century was to get married with a decent man -- that was the social code. That was probably also why Stride stayed with Kidney for so long. The fact that she went as far as filing a complaint about him, indicates that he must have been something out of the ordinary as far as brutality is concerned.
"Once again, as I've stated before, the fact that the cut to her throat wasn't as serious as some of the other victims could indicate that the Ripper attacked her, saw or heard Diemschutz coming, knew that if Stride got away she could give a good description of what he looked like and how he attacked, and so he cut her throat which would ensure her death, not minding how he cut it. Make sense?"
Yes, it does, but your problem is that you're holding on to this as the only alternative and allows yourself to be blocked by it. Try and play devil's advocat with yourself -- if you stir yourself blind on one scenario, you will end up constructing the facts fitting into it.
"How would that sound? - "Bill, I'm going to be in Dutfield's Yard off Berner Street after midnight tonight. Tell Michael to see me there if he wants to."
Either she was extremely foolish and didn't think straight, or much more likely, it wasn't Kidney that got her at all."
No, this is not what I meant. I didn't say that Stride told him where she was going. I simply meant that it probably wasn't the first time Stride stood on that spot (as I said, prostitutes usually try to return to the same spot so that they can be found by their regular customers), and I therefore think it would be improbable that Kidney wouldn't have found out about it. She must have been seen there by someone who knew Kidney, who in turn told him. If she had placed herself on Berner Street on earlier occasions, this is not a long shot, it is actually quite probable.
"A bad attitude hardly constitutes a murder suspect."
Yes, it does, if the man in question is the closest male relative connected to the victim, and therefore one of the most important witnesses! Furthermore, he not only had a bad attitude, his behaviour was also suspicious.
"And even if it did, there was 2nd murder to worry about at the same time."
True. By this time the police were set on the hunt for a serial killer. That doesen't mean that they were right when they dismissed certain people. And besides, we don't even know of they did; several of the suspect files with additional comments about people figuring in the investigation are lost.
"As I said before, if Liz's case is so uncertain, then why is she listed amongst the 'canonical' victims on this site, when victims with just as strong cases like Martha Tabram are not?"
I just explained that in my other post above.
(And I don't think the Tabram case is as near as strong -- I give Tabram 15% chance of being a Ripper victim, not more.)
"However, there are too many IF's and BUT's to consider it as possible evidence."
Yes, and that goes both ways, Adam. One thing you must learn when you're discussing an over one hundred year old case -- where most of the documentation is in fragments or lost -- is that nothing is clear-cut or can be held for certain. There are just too many holes in the cheese in order to hold it together.
"Stranger things, yes, but 2 similar killings in 1 night within walking distance of one another...it's just too far fetched to believe that any more than 1 man could be responsible."
Yes, if you're too stuck on that approach, but not if you take several f the crime scene evidence and other circumstances in considerations. I used to be of exactly the same opinions on this matter as you, but the more I've studied the case, the more I've had to review them.
"Bogus? Where's the proof that what Hutchinson said was Bogus?"
There is no "proof" of anything. But it is common sense and pure logical deduction to reach that conclusion. This has already been debated lively on other threads about Hutchinson, so I'd suggest you check out the arguments there. Also several author's have discredited him, and rightly so.
Hutchinson found out from the Kelly inquest that a man had been seen hanging outside Miller's Court (namely himself, which he also admitted -- why he was there in the first place we will never know) and therefore probably felt he had to come forward himself with a story that explained his whereabouts at a presumed Ripper site, and -- surprise -- decided to throw in a "suspect" (constructed from Jewish charicatures in the papers) in order to gain the trust of the police. It worked.
All the best
G, Crime Historian,
Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2384
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 1:00 am: | |
Hi again, Adam.
"It is not unbelievable at all. Infact, Severin Klosowski is my favourite suspect. Unlike many Ripper suspects, he was a known murderer, killing 3 of his wives. Yes, he poisoned them, but as we have discussed before, serial killers can change their M.O.'s. He lived in the district, as a hairdresser he may have possessed the tools, he fitted in with the age descriptions, and since he did have some money it explains why many witnesses stated that he was no slum. And he was single in 1888, so they are all points that go in his favour. So please, tell me, how come you think Abberline's thoughts are 'unbelievable' ?"
Oh dear, oh dear.
As you yourself state, this has been debated over and over again for years now on these Boards, and I feel it to be a bit tedious to start it all over again, and this is hardly the right place for it. All the arguments have already been said on his own thread.
But still, here I go:
Klosowski/Chapman is probably one of the worst suspects that has ever derived from Ripperology, alongside The Royal Conspiracy and Jill the Ripper.
For the last time:
We are NOT talking about "change in MO" here!
A systematic serial poisoner is a completely different type of person than a systematic serial mutilator.
Firstly, poisoners usually have specified motives for their crimes, like money or passion, while mutilators have none -- they get the joy out of the act itself.
Secondly, a poisoner is a sadist and a torturer who in a rather cowardly way doesen't mind watching his or her victims suffer a slow death from afar.
A non-sadistic mutilator like the Ripper, on the other hand, needs to get and is not afraid of getting his hands dirty; it is necessary for him to kill his victims as quickly as possible, so that he can get on with the hands-on post mortem signature that drives him to committ the crimes. He is not displaying the same temper, nor the patience of the poisoner.
A poisoner has no signature -- he is only occupied with killing his victims for gain, while it for the mutilator is not the killing itself that is important, but the post mortem signature (the mutilations, which mostly have a sexual meaning).
So -- once again -- we are NOT talking different MOs here -- if we had one mutilated victim and one poisoned one, along with some battered with a hammer etc., I could buy the changing MO stuff, but here we are studying two serial killers with a row of victims killed more or less in a consistent manner in their own right. It is also highly questionable and improbable that a serial mutilator like the Ripper -- who needed to kill and mutilate from strong psychological driving forces -- would some years later turn into a clean poisoner of wives, without the same sexual driving forces that drove the Ripper to mutilate.
We are simply talking about different personalities here, with completely different needs -- not one killer with different methods. Such a scenario would go against all common sense and logic -- not to mention the basics of criminal psychology (which obviously wasn't Abberline's strongest point).
You will find NO police officer or investigator that would accept such a conclusion today, not in a million years. It is absolutely unthinkable.
In order to accept this, the Ripper/Chapman must have suffered from severe multiple personalities, where one personality died after the Ripper murders and another one -- representing the total opposite -- took over.
It is not even theory, it's just fairy-tales and to this day no serial killer is known to ever have committed a series of mutilations and then suddenly changing to a series of poisoning.
It shall also be noted, that Sugden doesen't really stress Klosowski as a personal favourite Ripper suspect -- he simply came across this villain and felt the need to introduce him. But he's not stressing him, in the same way Fido did with David Cohen or William Beadle with Bury.
All the best
G, Crime Historian,
Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
Hi again Glenn,
Well, quite a lot to reply to here, but here goes...
You wrote:
"Firstly, I think you underestimate many of us here who has studied the case for several years (and who also have been members of the site for a long time), when you instruct us to read Sugden.
Sugden's book is probably one of the more important and most cited ones. Very few people here have NOT read Sugden. And I naturally have my own copy at home."
I am not underestimating the knowledge of anyone, I know this site is packed with extremely knowledgeable people, who know far, far more than me. It wasn't my intention to even imply that. You must understand and remember that I am new here, I have only just been here for 1 week now. There is over 200 members, and I haven't got around to seeing who has or hasn't read what books yet. So by mentioning Sugden's book, I am simply stating that it is worth checking out IF you haven't already. If you have, then fine.
"Secondly, you misunderstand me completely. As I've stated a couple of times, I am not arguing for Kidney to be her killer with certainty, I am just laying forward some reasons for why he could be."
Then why is it necessary to have this debate, if you aren't even certain of Kidney's involvement yourself? I, on the other hand, am 99% confident within myself that Elizabeth Stride was a Jack the Ripper victim. You're supposed to go with your gut feeling - and evidence or not, that is mine.
"The only interesting item that unites the two descriptions is the peaked cap, but that was on the other hand one of the most common headgears among the working class, worn bu hundreds in this area."
So were top hats, etc as well. So a peaked cap can't be singled out, there were various hats that were quite common in the area at the time.
"The only item that really stands out is the red neckerchief, and that was only mentioned by Lawende."
That would simply be because Lawende paused to look at him. As for Schwartz, he was scared as you said yourself, and since there was an assault going on, either he wouldn't be able to see the neckerchief, or didn't pay any attention to it if he did. My personal feeling is that the Ripper tried to grab Liz, she resisted, and so he pulled her out into the street. She was probably a pretty tough woman, our Liz!
"As far as the kidney is concerned, although I can't totally dismiss its authenticy, it was believed at the time to be sent as a crank from a medical student. It is not at all established that Eddowes suffered from Bright's disease."
It is widely accepted that Catherine Eddowes was in a serious stage of alcoholism and Bright's Disease, and wasn't going to live for all that much longer even if she hadn't been killed. If it was a hoax, why was it sent to Lusk? And if it was a hoax, how would the medical student have gotten the information about her and the kidney that he required? Too much speculation.
"According to the postmark, it was mailed after the murders had become public knowledge on October 1st, so this was not information only known by the killer at that time. This you can read about in any book."
The name of the letter escapes me at the moment, but remember this from one of them:
"The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send them to the police just for jolly wouldnt you."
This was sent just a few days before the double murder. And guess what? Catherine Eddowes' ears had been cut through! What a coincidence!
"there is no reason for him staying that long with the victim before he killed her, if he was the Ripper. Either she was killed by Broad Shoulders, or she was killed by someone else (in that case maybe the Ripper) the minutes after the assault."
I tend to believe that either Broad Shoulders was the Ripper, and Liz resisted his attack, forcing her onto the street, or else he was not the man who killed her, and the Ripper took advantage of her being in a weakened state after the assault and struck then. Both are equally likely.
"The only salvation for destitute women in the 19th century was to get married with a decent man -- that was the social code. That was probably also why Stride stayed with Kidney for so long. The fact that she went as far as filing a complaint about him, indicates that he must have been something out of the ordinary as far as brutality is concerned."
The whole thing about her filing a complaint about him is taken way too far over the top. She didn't even turn up in court. And that was filed quite a while before the Ripper murders, and her murder took place. So if Kidney was holding a grudge, he held it for an awfully long time. And she obviously wasn't happy with their relationship, or what he was doing for her, or else she wouldn't have been on the streets.
"Yes, it does, but your problem is that you're holding on to this as the only alternative and allows yourself to be blocked by it. Try and play devil's advocat with yourself -- if you stir yourself blind on one scenario, you will end up constructing the facts fitting into it."
Please don't misconstrue this as me trying to tell others what to do again, but I think the best way to study Ripperology is to do it theory by theory, not letting about a dozen theories in all at once, that's much worse. If you realise 1 theory is wrong, you can change things around to investigate a new one. And since I've done that several times, I find what I have already stated fits in best when thoroughly considered. And until I find sufficient reasoning to re-think my theory, then that will be the one I stick with. According to the Kidney theory, then it could also be said that Barnett killed Kelly. Pretty soon, there'll be 3 different Rippers all killing in the same fashion at the same time - 2 is bad enough, 3 is ridiculous. But it's true, the same arguments for Kidney can be formed for Barnett.
"She must have been seen there by someone who knew Kidney, who in turn told him. If she had placed herself on Berner Street on earlier occasions, this is not a long shot, it is actually quite probable."
It certainly is probably, however:
a.) How would Kidney know she would stay in the 1 spot?
b.) How would an informant on Liz's activities know where to find Kidney quickly?
c.) How would Kidney know how busy the area was and how safe it would be to kill her there?
"Yes, it does, if the man in question is the closest male relative connected to the victim, and therefore one of the most important witnesses! Furthermore, he not only had a bad attitude, his behaviour was also suspicious."
Well the police obviously didn't see it as suspicious. They also obviously saw there was no solid ground or no ground at all for considering Kidney as Stride's killer. It is impossible for any of us modern day researchers to tell the real behaviour of Kidney, apart from what is documented.
"(And I don't think the Tabram case is as near as strong -- I give Tabram 15% chance of being a Ripper victim, not more.)"
I say the exact opposite. I give her 95% chance, and Liz 99% chance. To me, the killing of Martha Tabram seems like a build up of blood lust, as I have described elsewhere before.
If Ada Wilson and Emma Smith can also be attributed, or partly attributed to the Ripper, then a sequence of events can be formed:
Non-fatal robbery, (Wilson), Fatal robbery (Smith), Fatal stabbing, but not cutting, (Tabram) and finally the cutting and mutilation, starting with Nichols. It is highly unlikely that the Ripper just jumped out of nowhere and started ripping women to pieces. A build up beginning with assault/robbery makes more sense to me.
"Yes, and that goes both ways, Adam. One thing you must learn when you're discussing an over one hundred year old case -- where most of the documentation is in fragments or lost -- is that nothing is clear-cut or can be held for certain. There are just too many holes in the cheese in order to hold it together."
And so all we can do is theorise, nothing more, in a large number of cases to do with the Ripper. That is what I am doing.
"Hutchinson found out from the Kelly inquest that a man had been seen hanging outside Miller's Court (namely himself, which he also admitted -- why he was there in the first place we will never know) and therefore probably felt he had to come forward himself with a story that explained his whereabouts at a presumed Ripper site, and -- surprise -- decided to throw in a "suspect" (constructed from Jewish charicatures in the papers) in order to gain the trust of the police. It worked."
His story is supported by a witness who testified that she saw a man standing opposite Miller's Court, looking as if he was waiting for someone. That could very well have been Hutchinson. And it has also been theorised that the reason he was so interested was the he and Kelly knew each other, and perhaps had been carrying on a relationship, so he was interested to find out who this man with her was. If his story is to be believed, which I think it should, then the Ripper was in Mary's room for atleast 45 minutes, which is consistent with the horrendous mutilations to her.
"But still, here I go:
Klosowski/Chapman is probably one of the worst suspects that has ever derived from Ripperology, alongside The Royal Conspiracy and Jill the Ripper."
Really? And yet, he managed to make it into the Top 5 suspects in a suspect poll done on this site, which proves that a lot of people consider him a very plausible suspect. Rightly so, Lewis Carroll was right at the bottom. Klosowski is not a suspect to be taken lightly, and there is every chance that he might have actually been Jack himself.
"So -- once again -- we are NOT talking different MOs here -- if we had one mutilated victim and one poisoned one, along with some battered with a hammer etc., I could buy the changing MO stuff, but here we are studying two serial killers with a row of victims killed more or less in a consistent manner in their own right. It is also highly questionable and improbable that a serial mutilator like the Ripper -- who needed to kill and mutilate from strong psychological driving forces -- would some years later turn into a clean poisoner of wives, without the same sexual driving forces that drove the Ripper to mutilate."
Not true. There is absolutely nothing what so ever to suggest that a killer like the Ripper could not change from mutilator to poisoner. It would start getting a little bit suspicious if his own wives got carved up, wouldn't it? But he managed to get away with poisoning 2 of them, and he was only convicted with killing the 3rd one. Their causes of death were listed as different things, nothing like poisoning. He exerted little or no sympathy towards his victims, like the Ripper didn't. And another partner of his was horrified to find that, after he had assaulted her, there was a large knife underneath the pillow of where he had assaulted her. So you see, he still operated with knives.
There is the problem of the times between the killings of Jack the Ripper and those of Severin Klosowski, but perhaps his awful attack in Miller's Court was enough to satisfy his lust for a while.
Based on all of what I have already said, he certainly can be viewed with great suspicion, but let's leave that for his suspect section of the forum.
"It is not even theory, it's just fairy-tales and to this day no serial killer is known to ever have committed a series of mutilations and then suddenly changing to a series of poisoning."
Are you quite sure of that? I don't know, but I'd imagine there must be a case of it somewhere.
In any case, the Ripper was different. I don't know any other serial killer who has had so many movies, websites, magazines, functions, books and documentaries made about him. That doesn't proove anything, I know, but he was famous for getting away with such murders. There is nothing to disbelieve that he may have returned to killing some years later, just with a different way of killing. It actually seems more probable that he would change, rather than resort to the old methods from 10 and more years earlier.
"It shall also be noted, that Sugden doesen't really stress Klosowski as a personal favourite Ripper suspect -- he simply came across this villain and felt the need to introduce him. But he's not stressing him, in the same way Fido did with David Cohen or William Beadle with Bury."
That's true, and he does state that there are serious problems with case against Chapman at the same time. However, he is the odd one out of the other 3 suspects listed, which makes it interesting that he was included. In a way, I'm glad he was, it only strengthened my belief in Chapman being a major suspect.
Regards,
Adam.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2385
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 9:06 am: | |
| | | |
