|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3232
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 11:40 am: | 
|
Hi Jane,
A cream bun coming up!
No, just kidding...
I liked that one about weather forecast... 
"There was one thing I did look into as an alternative or in conjunction with the date idea. That was that her date might have been a Jew and was at the IWEC for some reason, either to see some one or as part of the evenings activities.......Liz did have a fair amount of Jewish connections which would not rule this out.........I checked out the time of the meeting that was being held at the IWEC wondering initially if he might have attended the meeting and found that it finished around 11.45. According to `William Marshall's testimony Liz arrived at Berner Street about this time and was still 'kissing and carrying on' with her escort..going back to what I was saying about prostitutes rarely engaging in that sort of intimacy with a client, I would still plumb in favour of this being a date. (If in fact this was Liz and not someone else of course)
It does seem coincental that they were there just as the meeting was finishing. I couldn't helop but wonder if in fact the man that Liz was with, had to go to see someone at the club after the meeting had finished and that was where he was when Liz was killed..."
Some good thinking there.
Although I am still a bit in doubt about the date thing, that is a very interesting theory, actually.
As for the following point:
"1. The clothes brush and the fact that she was trying to look her best when she went out that night..... "....
See my comment in the last post above.
I can actually find nothing in the statements that even implies that she was wearing anything out of the ordinary. According to Preston, she was dressed to go out, not dressed up. And Tanner said those were the clothes she used to wear anyway.
OK, I've run out of buns...
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 05, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 316
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
HI Glenn again,
I think we were posting at the same time there so we got a few crossed wires............how come you got James Preston and I got Charles Preston?
I'm sure I read from another statement that she was dressed up better than she usually was, but of course this doesn't mean she wasn't wearing the same clothes, I think the idea was that she had fixed her hair, or smartened herself up somehow..
I'll have to track it down....I don't often forget daft things like that, I only forget important things! Maybe I did imagine it........
I did look back at Tanner's testimony and her words in the version I have are:
Coroner 'Do you recognise her clothes?' - Tanner 'Yes. I recognise the long cloak which is hanging up in the mortuary. The other clothes she had on last Saturday.'
I wonder if she meant that these were the clothes that Liz wore when she was going out somewhere special i.e on a Saturday night?
It does look from that wording that they were Saturday night clothes - any ideas on that?
Trouble is the various newspapers give different translations of the words used by the witnesses so who knows which one is right?
One problem I have was that Gardner and Best describe the chap that Liz was smooching fairly heavily with as -
Five feet five inches tall, had a black moustache, sandy eyelashes and wore a morning suit and a billycock hat......
The man Marshall saw her kissing was - five feet six inches tall, stout, looking like a clerk wearing a small black coat, dark trousers and a peaked sailor's cap......( rounded cap with a small peak)
Now either Marshall was mistaken about it being Liz or she was snogging more than one man that night............ or it was the same man and Marshall was not good at describing people?
I still don't think that she would have been kissing and carrying on with a client though, unless she was a very unusual prostitute that actually enjoyed her work! (which does make me question Marshall's testimony a bit)
yes I am very confused as well................
I will try and remember where I got the idea from that she was trying to look her best that night, I might have been naughty there and put words into people mouths.............
Jane
xxxxx
|
Restless Spirit
Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Hi Jane, Glenn etal,
Does anyone know if Elizabeth had any long term relationships prior to Kidney?
If so she may have had the same type of relationship with him that Mary Jane had with Flemming.
If it were a reasonably good relationship minus the abuse she was receiving from Kidney, I suppose it is possible that she had a date with an old flame.
Phil Hill,
The women of the evening at that time had little or no choice as to their livelihood. They lived and worked in very dangerous areas. Some offset their income by prostitution out of desperation.
While it is true some of them can certainly be considered whores, I think it is offensive to categorize all as whores. If I were around during that time, on my own with a child or children , no spouse (dead or otherwise) I would not hesitate to do whatever necessary to put a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs.
I would not have wanted the lives these women had under any circumstances,but I would be more inclined to call them unfortunates.
Restless Spirit
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
An irrational drunk and aggressive person surely wouldn't care about such matters...
Are you saying, then, that you don't think JtR was either irrational or agressive, or that he could have used drink or drugs?
I'm astonished.
Hi Jane,
So would seem to make Berner Street even less likely as a JtR crime scene.......
This has been my point - that if Jack met Liz here, why is it assumed that he would have intended this to be the actual crime scene?
If he approached his victims - or was approached by them - in one location, then went with them to another, his intention was to kill and mutilate the women in the spot where they were intending to do the business - not where business was discussed.
So why is it assumed that Berner St had to be Jack's choice of murder location if he was BS? He could have thought it highly unsuitable for his purposes, while Liz thought it suitable enough for hers. It could certainly explain the lack of mutilation, if Jack was unhappy with Liz's choice.
The case evidence lends itself to the possibility of Jack being the kind of bigot who would look down on Jewish immigrants much the same as he looked down on fallen women.
Wouldn't it have angered an anti-Semitic Jack most of all to see women apparently soliciting near the entrance to Jewish men's clubs? Wouldn't he have wanted to teach women like Liz and Kate a lesson, if he thought of them as "whores who go with Jews"? It would explain the "Lipski!" taunt and, if Jack chalked the message, his spelling of 'Juwes' also implies contempt. Spelling simple names incorrectly can be an effective form of insult.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 05, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 317
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
HI Restless,
Her marriage to Stride broke down in 1881/82 and Liz's husband died in 1884 as far as I remember.
She had been with Kidney on and off for three years, but she did apparently go off with other men from time to time. She did actually move in with Kidney in 1885.
I haven't seen any evidence that there was anyone special in her life though prior to the night of her murder, although of course it is possible.
You can see from what I've posted above that there is some possibility that there was some romantic liason going on on the night of her murder, but again that is only one possibility
Of course it could have been a date with someone from her past...but we have no evidence of that so it might leave us on a sticky wicket.........I wouldn't want to go too far along that route without some kind of evidence to work with......
good thought though
lots of love
Jane
xxxxx
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3234
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Actually, I have been consulting the Jack the Ripper Ultimate Companion, which include all relevant paper and police document material regarding the case, so that is pretty much it. It is in The Times we can find the coverage of the inquest regarding Elisabeth Stride's murder.
I have looked over all the different statements several times, and I can't find anything whatsoever that even implies that Stride was dressed up.
I think it is quite clear from Tanner's testimony that the clothes Stride wore that night were...
"the ones she usually wore, and they are the same she had on Saturday. I recognized the long jacket as belonging to her."
That is a quote from The Times, Thursday, 4 October 1888. (Ultimate Companion, p. 151).
Tanner probably refers to the Saturday of the incident, but it is quite clear that her point is that Stride didn't dress any more differently that night than what she usually did. Even other people from the lodging house recognized her clothes quite well.
The brush means nothing as far as I am concerned; I would assume that lodging houses were rather dusty and dirty and since Preston was a barber it is nothing extraordinary with her asking for a cloth brush. Even the poor working class were rather careful about the clothes, especially if those were the only ones they had. I fail to see how that could even indicate that she intended to go out on a date.
Ops, sorry... yes of course, Charles Preston. One of my usual errors.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 05, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3235
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
"Are you saying, then, that you don't think JtR was either irrational or agressive, or that he could have used drink or drugs?"
Occasionally irrational, maybe, but yes -- not in this way. The other murders on Nichols and Eddowes does not in any way indicate this kind of approach or that the killer was a sloppy drunkard. If you can find that in the evidence, be my guest.
Sorry, Caz, no pun intended but I totally disagree with your interpretations.
"The case evidence lends itself to the possibility of Jack being the kind of bigot who would look down on Jewish immigrants much the same as he looked down on fallen women.
Wouldn't it have angered an anti-Semitic Jack most of all to see women apparently soliciting near the entrance to Jewish men's clubs? Wouldn't he have wanted to teach women like Liz and Kate a lesson, if he thought of them as "whores who go with Jews"? It would explain the "Lipski!" taunt and, if Jack chalked the message, his spelling of 'Juwes' also implies contempt. Spelling simple names incorrectly can be an effective form of insult."
Total speculations, Caz.
And I would advice against using elements like the Goulston Street writing in this context, since it is not very likely that it was written by the killer anyway (or at least it is under debate).
There are no true evidence at all implying that the Ripper's crimes had anything to do with Jews at all. Unless you want it to be.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 05, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 318
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
HI Caz,
I can accept an anti semitic Jack (if of course he wasn't a Jew himself,) and the scenario of him shouting Lipski and being irate at a gentile woman servicing Jewish men is a very plausible one and worth looking at further.....I will have a good think about that one......
As to Liz soliciting outside the club, I had thought along the same lines myself, and the idea of her soliciting outside the IWEC did make a certain amount of sense........
Firstly the men were likely to have had a few jars and they were working men by sheer virtue of the clubs membership criteria. so they would have had some money in their pockets.........some of them at least would have been fairly amorous knowing the effect that drink has on some men's libido........
Liz did have some Jewish connections so could have known about the meeting and the chance of picking up some clients there.....
The back of the yard would have been suitable for Liz to service them as I have already pointed out, because it was very dark and fairly secluded.......which would presumably have been her intention if she had picked up a client from the club........
If you approach it from the other side though,
if Liz was touting there for business amongst the men from the club, where did she intend to take them to do the business?
Surely not outside the kitchen door or at the front of the yard........if she was there soliciting she must have had a more secluded place in mind, so to all intents and purposes wouldn't her idea have been the same as JtR's?
If he approached his victims - or was approached by them - in one location, then went with them to another, his intention was to kill and mutilate the women in the spot where they were intending to do business.
Are you saying then, that Liz intended to service her client at the front of Dutfield's yard? I think that if Liz was soliciting there she would have wanted to go somewhere more secluded which would put her intention totally in line with JtR's wishes.
If Mr BS was JtR and she refused to go with him to a more secluded location there must obviously have been a reason that she did not think he could be trusted or that she did not find him a suitable client for any number of reasons..........
This of course not unlikely and in that case yes he could have got angry with her and killed her where she stood..........but I don't think that it was purely because he wanted to go to a different location and Liz didn't.
That is just personal of course but it doesn't seem to make enough sense for me to buy it........
The same is even more true if JtR came along after the assault and tried to coax her to a different location. Why wouldn't she go with him to another location that was more suitabe for their purposes?
No prostitute in their right mind would service a client at the front of Dutfield's yard when there was a perfect spot a few yards further back.
I suppose you could reason that Liz's idea of a good spot and JtR's idea of a good spot might be entirely different things, but anyone looking at the layout of Dutfield's yard surely would have to say that JtR could not have actually found a better outdoor spot for his purpose than the rear of Dutfield's yard.
I do think though that it is possible that she was soliciting outside the club, but I still don't buy Mr BS as JtR for the reasons I have already given..........I'm still more in favour of it being a domestic.
Love
Jane
xxxxxxx
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3237
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
"No prostitute in their right mind would service a client at the front of Dutfield's yard when there was a perfect spot a few yards further back.
I suppose you could reason that Liz's idea of a good spot and JtR's idea of a good spot might be entirely different things, but anyone looking at the layout of Dutfield's yard surely would have to say that JtR could not have actually found a better outdoor spot for his purpose than the rear of Dutfield's yard."
Absolutely, Jane.
Very good point and I agree.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 319
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I concede that there is no real evidence that Liz was dressed up any differently to any other time.............
but she was in a good mood when she went out and she was kissing that man outside the pub with some relish by the sound of it, so, I'll just put that one on the back burner for a bit.........
Okay you won that bun fight, next time I'll have to get out the heavy ammunition, you won't know what's hit you when you get hit by a lump of my bread pudding!
love Jane
xxxxxxxx
 |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 141
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Restless,
Can we please forego political correctness and act as adults?
I have been reading about this case seriously for around 30 years and i do not need to be reminded that the victims were individuals with dignity who faced a cruel life. I have infinite respect for them (without being reminded by you), and have gained no little affection for most as I have learned about their lives and circumstances.
I used the word whore because I needed another word rather than keep using prostitute. I could have used the period phrases of "fallen woman" or "unfortunates" I suppose. But would it have made any difference?
As a historian, I abhor this desire to rewrite the past in the light of things as we see them today. It simply gets in the way of understanding, and is of no practical use to any of the unfortunate women involved.
I am sorry to snap - but comment on my arguments all you wish. Impune my regard for or appreciation of the people I study on the basis of some senseless fashion, and I will respond sharply. I enjoy your contributions to this board, so please don't take my remarks personally.
Caz - I'm not sure that spelling in the 1880s would have been all that uniform, and if jack were an immigrant (Kosminski) or ill-educated (as most in the East End would be) then I doubt that a deliberate mispelling would have been on his mind. Only a Druitt (or another "toff" MIGHT have considered such a thing) but the whole argument smacks of the Jack playing games theory, for which there is really little evidence.
My own view of Jack is that, whoever he was, he was self-possessed enough to be relatively cautious about where he killed his victims and was probably able to stay alert during the process of mutilation to know when to scarper if he heard someone approaching (Cross in the Nichols case, or the PC in Mitre Square).
That is why I have come to consider Hanbury St as so crucial, as he appears to have put himself in a cul-de-sac. Unless, he somehow knew it already and thought it acceptable; or had an excuse (what that could be with an eviscerated body at his feet, heaven only knows); or he had an escape plan - Vault the fence? Hide?
The difference between the backyard at Hanbury St
and the Club in Berner St, was that the former can be seen as a "calculated risk". It was probably the wrong time (dawn) for too many prostitutes to be bringing clients there. While the number of residents was limited. Another reason for thinking Jack might have "cased the joint" is that he may have known who got up for work when. (Just an idea, I'm not wedded to it!)
In Berner St it was still a busy time, there were many passers-by and the Club was still open and active. Anyone could have exited at any time. I don't think Jack would have accepted being taken there, and would simply have said, "Isn't there somewhere quieter" (or similar).
To me it increasingly just doesn't seem like a Jack spot.
Glenn - my attitude to Kidney, and many other JtR issues is similar to one expressed by the writer Bernard Levin many years ago. Asked who was his favorite composer, he said "Mozart, but then there's always Beethoven." He could never make up his mind which he liked more.
Similarly, I may at this time seem to endorse the Kidney theory; or Kosminski as a suspect; and I dismiss certain things (Diary; Ostrog; Lewis Carroll). Like Adam Went has said, it can help clarify things to argue a particular case. Unlike Adam, I do not defend one position, and am always open to argument. If the Diary were proved to be genuine I might become a Maybrickist. I have recently found myself more persuaded than I used to be by the Barnett and Cutbush arguments, but that doesn't mean I accept them as the sole solution. To sum up, I suppose I try to keep a balance, with one eye on where (IMHO) the weight of evidence lies at any one time. For now, and until I see good arguments to the contrary, I see Kidney as a more likely killer of Stride than JtR, that's all.
Again, thanks Glenn for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
Two last points:
a) Liz's "date" having business in the Club has promise - it would explain why he had apparently left her. If he was a married man, he would not have been eager to come forward later to say he knew her or had been involved. If he was in the Club he might have feared not only being revealed as unfaithful, but being regarded as a prime suspect.
b) the obvious "care" with which Liz prepared to go out that night, is suggested by the recollection that she asked for a clothes-brush. If all the female inmates did that, it would not have attracted attention. If she always did so, it similarly would be less likely to be mentioned. It seems to me that it was recollected because it was unusual. I my mind, I have always connected it to the piece of velvet which she asked someone to take care of; and the flower she wore later. They just seem to add up to something.... but I am not wedded to any particular view.
Phil
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3238
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Jane,
I have always loved bread!
I must admit that I think the kiss is generally not that common in connection with prostitution, though. I have thought about that.
Well, who knows... maybe he had more money than the average customer and she would do anything.
But sure... it is a disturbing element for the client theory.
As for her murder, though (regardless of she was out soliciting that night or not), I am still pretty much leaning towards a domestic motive, and I think that fits the best.
I just don't want to totally exclude other possibilities.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
I love the way this thread has been played out. It shows me two things. First, it serves to illustrate that if you interrogate the evidence long enough it will tell you whatever you want to hear. You'll see clouds in your coffee and coffee in your clouds. And a new killer on every corner of Whitechapel just waiting to conveniently kill a prostitute in a suprisingly similar fashion to Jack. You’ll end believing that coincidences and copycats are the norm and that commonsense and uncomplicated answers that just happen to fit…just aren’t sexy enough. Secondly, this thread shows me that just because this board is filled with smart people don’t mean it ain’t filled with "outsmarters".
For the premise of this thread to be true so must the following: We must…
a) Assume that we know everything that the police did at the time, that all their info was public, and that we now are now in a better position to determine who killed Liz then they were at the time despite how much closer to the case they were in every way then we are today.
b) Assume based on only 2 priors to know what type of man Jack was and how he would have acted if seen. We furthermore assume based on a split second of eyewitness testimony that Liz’s attacker was acting in a clumsy doltish manner as opposed to acting out of necessity (i.e. we assume to know that this attack was gratuitous in nature as opposed to one being brought about by the development of unforeseen or unfavorable circumstances.).
c) Assume based on the above points that Mr. BS could not have been Jack hence keeping alive the vision of a phantom Ripper who never could have been seen or heard.
d) Dismiss the killing of another prostitute with her throat cut 45 minutes later because if coincidences CAN happen then logically we CAN base our theories off the premise that they did happen (which is at best vastly understating the importance of the “coincidence” that was to occur, and is at worst actually flipping the meaning of the word on its back).
e) (optional) Introduce an alternate suspect (kidney) who was most definitely checked out by the police (not that that is proof of innocence I know) and who in all likelihood had no idea where Liz was the night of her murder (oops guess he found her by coincidence so he MUST have found her right?).
f) Finally after poo pooing (is that a word?) the killing 45 minutes later and totally ignoring the statistics on murders in the east end (especially of prostitutes killed with there throats cut), we put the cherry on the cake...We treat the lack of "proof" (such as DNA or an outright capture) that JTR killed Stride as an opportunity to treat all alternate theories equally.
At this point we start to feel pretty darn good about ourselves as amateur detectives. After all not only we are smarter then the police were (not to mention being picture perfect profilers who can extrapolate based on extremely limited evidence exactly how our perp "should" behave in any given situation), but we have also successfully introduced our own theories and suspects into the mix. HOWEVER THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE. All evidence is not equal and an argument that requires a massive coincidence to be true should not be given equal consideration to an argument that relies on simple explanations for its validity…namely that JTR whoever he was, WAS seen and WAS heard and in all likelihood was lucky that he wasn't seen or heard in prior or subsequent murders.
Now I’m not saying there is no merit to the idea that Mr. BS was not JTR or that Kidney was her killer or any of the other ideas we bounce around here. All I’m saying is based on the limited facts we have available and based on the police's belief as well as statistics at the time, the "theory" that JTR killed Stride should take precedence over other theories. Now should COMPELLING evidence be introduced...evidence that does not rely on pure speculation or personal interpretations of how the killer “should” have acted that night on Berner Street (which assumes we know exactly what circumstances led up Mr. BS’s assault in the first place)...well then I think we can look at these alternate theories a bit more seriously. But until we have this evidence we must give more weight to the theory that relies on simple explanations and is in fact buttressed by the "coincidence", as opposed to believing in theories that:
-Attempt to rigidly profile how an immensely disturbed person “should” react in a situation we in reality know terribly little about.
-Have as the cornerstone of their argument the misguided notion that since a massive coincidence could have occurred, it did in fact occur.
-Entertain the childish belief that because a killer was not seen or heard on two prior occasions that the same killer cannot be seen or heard on a subsequent occasion.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I have to agree fully with you again here. I can't equate the swift, silent & ruthlessly efficient Ripper, with the man who almost clumsily threw the woman down on the pavement in Berner St., AND in full view of two witnesses.
I believe that Schwartz saw only an ordinary street altercation, and whatever the man shouted at the witnesses, was just another way of saying, "mind your own business".
What are your views about the woman Glenn??
Was it even Stride at all?? Or did she, after the assault, stagger drunkenly away, and into the waiting arms of JtR, close by?? Or do you NOT think that Stride was a Ripper victim at all??
I ask, as this is my first post on this thread.
Best wishes Glenn.
DAVID C. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hi Frank
You wrote
"Let me start by saying that I do not claim that the men seen in Stride’s company were one and the same. They could have been different men and they could just as well have been one and the same."
I was merely looking at the dress the various men were wearing at the time Frank.
Best and Gardener's man wore a bowler hat, and a morning suit
Marshals man a sailors peaked cap, and short coat (shades of Eddowe)
PC Smith's man a long overcoat.
Brown's man also wore a long overcoat
Now with all the good will in the world, do you think they are all describing the same man?
I can see three men here, which is why I believe that Liz Stride was indeed soliciting that night.
Now yes, Marshals man was seen holding and kissing Liz, and yes, as you say, this does not at first glance seem to be the actions of a prostitute and her client, (they do seem as if they are boyfriend and girlfriend) but let me put it another way.
Liz Stride as she ventured out that autumn evening would have been fully aware of the fact that a maniacal prostitute killer was operating in the neibourhood. Liz was a prostitute, is it possible that Liz, as a precaution of not wanting to end up with her throat cut, only serviced men that night whom she knew, i.e. men whom she had a long term professional business with? Prostitutes do have their regulars, (and Liz Stride was still an attractive woman) could the man seen with Liz by Marshal have been just such a regular, hence the familiarly (kissing and cuddling)
It would explain why she appeared to turn down a client in Fairclough Street, (Browns man) "Not tonight some other night"
What was the MO of JTR regarding the actual first contact between himself and his victim?
Jane you wrote
"He had managed to encourage Polly, Annie and Catharine into relatively deserted places, why would he suddenly fail to do so with Liz?
He only had to take her a further back into the yard........"
I don't (personally) think this is the case.
I believe that JTR did not make the first move regarding the first contact with his victims. Rather I believe that he knew full well where he could go and make contact with known prostitutes, I believe that he let the prostitute make the first move, let her feel in control, this approach is born out by the fact that all the victims chose the place of their death.
Three of them (in my opinion) were using the area behind large double gates to service their clients, (Nichols, Stride and Eddowes.) In two of the cases (Nichols, and Eddowes) the gates were locked, So Jack killed them there in front of the gates.
Where did JTR allow Eddowes to pick him up?
Here is a lighthearted scenario, not to be taken too seriously.
Some have said that Eddowes pitch was by St Botolphs church, Corner of Aldgate st, Houndsditch, a 3, 4-minute walk from Mitre Square.
So what did they talk about as they walked the short distance between the two locations, who knows, but I bet that JTR was the perfect Gentleman.
But wait; did Kate Eddowes smell a rat? I believe she may have, she enforces a small halt to their walk to Mitre Square. Minutes before she is murdered, she is seen by Lawende, Harris, and Levy, she is seen talking to a man (they are both static) in the entrance to Church passage. JTR now needs all his powers of persuasion, and finally convinces Kate Eddowes that no, he is not JTR, she leads him down Church Passage, and into the Square, the rest of course is history.
It could be of course that Kate's pitch was in Duke Street, and Kate Eddowes was not suspicious of the man who approached her that night, as she stood in the entrance to Church Passage, blissfully unaware of the identity of the man she found herself talking to. The man known as JTR.
What do you think?
Regards Cludgy
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
Hi all,
We seem to have narrowed our choice down to Scharwtz being either a drama-queen who embroidered his encounter with Jack and his friend; and Schartz who has invented a plausible tale to be told to idiots and filtered through savants of Hungarian babel.
Perhaps the only sense that can be extracted is that it is a'nonsense' which requires some lost key of perception to unlock it. It could be that the 'nonsense' of the event is far more intelligible that we have hitherto considered.
As Ever,
Rosey :-) |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Hi,
In my usual speculative opinion, I consider Mr BS to have been the killer.
Reasoning.
I have formed the opinion for some time that the killer watched his victim for some time before moving in.
In the case of Tabram[ if she was a victim?.]
I suspect he made his move after he observed her liason with her soldier client.
In the case of Nichols her friend Emily Holland saw her within a couple of hundred yards of Brady street, yet it appears to have taken her an eternity to reach that point, taking in the effects of drink would it have taken her from 230am to approx 320am to cover that distance, or could she have serviced a client en route.
In the case of Chapman.
She was seen by Mrs long soliciting with a over forty year old man.
Stride was carrying on with at least one man in Berner street.
Eddowes [ complete with hand on chest] was with a man [ observed by Lawande and co].
And Mary kelly was last seen with a man at 230am entering the court.
My Scenerio is the Ripper moved in after the final client to each victim left the scene, and despatched them, and it was the act of soliciting between prostitute and client that incensed him to commit these grotesque murders.
Regards Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 523
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn & all,
According to the inquest testimony here on Casebook the Coroner asked Charles Preston: “Was she dressed to go out?” His answer was: “Yes, and asked me for a brush to brush her clothes with, but I did not let her have one.”
This doesn’t mean that she was in fact dressed up, but the direct link between the “dressed to go out” part and the fact that she asked for a clothes-brush does give the impression that she was trying to look good or even her best. Perhaps ‘her best’ doesn’t amount to much in our eyes, but I think one of the few things she could do to look her best was to brush her clothes. In all probability she simply didn’t have a set of nice(r) clothes.
Then there’s Thomas Bates, the watchman of the lodging house. Although he didn’t appear at the inquest, he appeared in a number of newspapers. Much of what he said there, if not all, is corroborated by the witnesses who did appear at the inquest. Among other things he said that “that evening she went out about seven o'clock, and she appeared to be in cheery spirits.”
Later that night J. Best and John Gardner saw a woman in the company of a respectably dressed man, who was hugging and kissing her. Although, like Bates, they weren’t called to testify at the inquest either, according to the papers they did go to the mortuary to see if they could identify the woman. Best was almost certain and Gardner was positive it was the woman they had seen just outside the pub. Gardner mentioned that he’d noticed a flower pinned to the woman's jacket.
About another 45 minutes later Mashall saw a woman in the company of a decently dressed man for about 10 minutes. The man was kissing her while they were otherwise quietly talking and at some point put his arm around her shoulders. They didn’t seem to be the worse for drink. Marshall later identified the deceased as the woman he had seen at about 11:45 pm.
At about 12:30 am PC Smith saw Stride in the company of a man of respectable appearance and they were talking, apparently quietly. The man seemed sober and Smith noticed a flower in the woman’s jacket. As soon as the PC saw the dead woman, he recognised her as the woman he’d seen about 30 minutes earlier.
If, other than the fact that he was of respectable appearance, you don’t attach much importance to the descriptions of the man in Stride’s company on the above occasions, I think the above does give the impression that she was in the company of the same man on all occasions and on a date. And Packer has nothing to do with this. Mind you, I’m not saying she had to have been on a date, but saying that there’s nothing to indicate this, or even saying that the facts we do have actually indicate the opposite seems a bit strange to me.
An interesting thing in this regard is that the Coroner said that “the discrepancies between the several descriptions of Stride’s companion(s) did not conclusively prove that there was more than one man, for every day’s experience showed how facts were differently observed and differently described by honest and intelligent witnesses.”
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 142
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
extendedping:
Good post. Some points taken - although I think you may miss the point of the "game" of "hunt JtR". Few of us, i think, believe we can ever nail down who the killer was - a few of our serious researchers (I don't mean simply those who want to write a book, but those who hunt for new material in a rigorous way) may do so. For the rest of us, however, it is a question of trying the "fit" of the pieces in various ways to see what picture seems to emerge.
Stop us doing that, and this site will shrivel in no time. Speculation and playing with ideas is its heartsblood.
I asked a question earlier in this thread which was ignored in the heat of other on-going discussion. That was, why did the police in 1888 assume that the Stride killing was a JtR deed? What was their EVIDENCE?
You see, "extended", I'm not sure that we today ARE claiming to know more than the police did THEN (as you claim). I think we may be challenging ASSUMPTIONS they made then on the basis of circumstantial rather than direct evidence. If they assumed from the outset that Stride was a Ripper victim, then they may well have dismissed Kindney (as they did other suspects) because he had alibis for one of more of the other crimes. He may not have been JtR - he MAY have been Liz's killer.
Others will know far more than I do to judge whether my question is valid or not, but I would be interested in their opinions.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 143
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Richard, you wrote:
My Scenerio is the Ripper moved in after the final client to each victim left the scene, and despatched them, and it was the act of soliciting between prostitute and client that incensed him to commit these grotesque murders.
How long did Jack wait then for Polly's client to leave Buck's Row before striking? Did she just hang around till the client was out of sight and earshot? Or did jack move in after an assignation elsewhere - if so he had to persuade her to go to another spot.
How exactly was the transition made in Hanbury St? Again did Annie "hang around" in the backyard after the client left? Where was Jack waiting? How, in that case did he know what he would find at the end of the passage (sorry about the pun - recognised but unintentional)? What if there had been a backway that Annie had used?
From which direction did Jack enter Mitre Sq? As there was more than one entrance, did he watch the two of them - again how long did he wait, or how did he keep Eddowes from leaving after she was finished with the client? What if he had chosen the entrance that Jack was standing in? Or if someone else had seen him - a PC or the nightwatchman?
Sorry, but I don't think the theory stands up to scrutiny. Certainly, I'd need a great deal more evidence or persuasion to convince me.
Phil
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3239
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
I know all about discrepancies in witness testimonies -- and the problems connected with them. Believe me, I do.
But the man seen by Marshall is not in any way similar in appearence to the one(s) seen by Brown and PC Smith (or Packer, for what it's worth).
But he does have certain points of resemblance with Mr Broad Shoulders apart from the fact that he has no moustach.
I don't think they all point at the same man.
As for the "dressing up"... dressed to go out, means dressed to go out, nothing more, nothing less, as far as I am concerned.
As I said, supported by the testimony of Elizabeth Tanner, those were the clothes she usually wore anyway. It is all there in the testimonies for everyone to read -- no need to make anything more out of it than necessary.
As for the brush, I can't see its relevancy one bit. Surely it would not be such an unusual thing to do to brush off your coat before going out (for whatever reason), even if you're poor or a prostitute. It is a common fallacy to assume that the people like those in East End couldn't care less about their clothing -- in fact the lower classes took great pride in taking as good care of their clothes as they could. Mostly because they couldn't afford to buy new ones but also because of tradition.
Not many may have owned a cloth brush, though, and this is probably why that rather insignificant detail was remembered by some witnesses. Since Preston was a barber he owned one, and therefore Stride took the opportunity to use it, since her clothes probably had become filthy from living in the lodging house.
Again, I fail to see its great importance!
Still, that doesn't mean she DIDN'T HAVE a date after all! Maybe she WAS supposed to meet someone special, for all we know.
Or maybe she simply had one particular client she was more fond of than others or was more respectable than her usual companies of dregs, and therefore felt extra compelled to look as clean as possible?
All I am saying is, that there is nothing regarding those specific points that suggests that she had a date or love affair not connected to prostitution.
But then there are other confusing details, like the kiss, which makes me scratch my head, because -- as Jane says -- that is really not a common conduct between a prostitute and her client.
So I'd say we're pretty much in the dark here.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 05, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
'speculation and playing with ideas is its heartsblood'.
I could not agree with you more, lets all be honest these murders occured 117 years ago[ nearly] I have been rackling my brains since 1957, albeit seriously since 1965, and although more imformation is availiable, the truth is none of us were present at any where near the events,and unless evidence that proves conclusive presents itself we are left with each individuals opinion and gut feeling when interpreting the facts one sees relevant.
I am a Barnett man, i feel as strong as one can that that he is relevant to this case, but that is just a strong assumption , not a be and end it all fact.
I love this site , because it allows us all to decifer a huge number of opinions, and i live in hope that one day someone will produce a document or exhibit that will lead us on to further fields, even if i am proved way of track.
I take this subject seriously, otherwise 40 years of my brain cells has been entirely wasted, [plus 40 years of alcohol]
Sorry I have forgotten my name.
Oh Yes.
Richard.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3240
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
"You see, "extended", I'm not sure that we today ARE claiming to know more than the police did THEN (as you claim). I think we may be challenging ASSUMPTIONS they made then on the basis of circumstantial rather than direct evidence. If they assumed from the outset that Stride was a Ripper victim, then they may well have dismissed Kindney (as they did other suspects) because he had alibis for one of more of the other crimes. He may not have been JtR - he MAY have been Liz's killer."
I agree completely with Phil.
Well put.
We are challenging their assumptions, because although I believe the police did the best they could in many ways, considering the circumstances, it is also apparent that they did assume and jump to conclusions to some extent and therefore also may have made some mistakes.
For some reason the police seemed convinced right from the start that it was a Ripper murder (also before the Eddowes murder was discovered) although there actually were little evidence pointing in such a direction -- the fact that they deduced it after the Eddowes murder, is another thing and that I can understand.
But when a series of murders have started it is always easier to include a murder in a series than excluding it. This is a common problem in connection with investigations even today.
Extendedping,
Thank you for your brilliant psychological analysis of some of us here on these Boards and our deductions. At least, "brilliant" in your own mind.
Now I can spare those money I had put away for the shrink.
Since you obviously believe you have all the answers and consider everyone who don't play it your way to be displaying "childish beliefs", then I find it tedious that you even bother to enter a discussion. What's the point?
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on March 05, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 524
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Hi Cludgy,
“Now with all the good will in the world, do you think they are all describing the same man?”
If you believe the witnesses all gave accurate descriptions of Stride’s companion, no. But were they? As you can see in my last post above, even the Coroner said that every day’s experience showed how facts were differently observed and differently described by honest and intelligent witnesses.
I think that, if you were to ask anybody with authority on the subject of how reliable such descriptions generally are, I’m not sure that you would find that they are. Not too long ago I had such an experience myself. I described someone I had seen just 5 or 10 minutes before and it turned out that my description wasn’t all that well, certainly not regarding the person’s clothes.
Of course, Stride could have chosen only to service regulars, but (genuinely) unfortunately, there’s nothing in the evidence to support this. However, if she did actually chose to service only regulars and if you believe Stride was a Ripper victim, it follows that JtR was either a regular, or that she for some reason aborted the idea of only servicing regulars the moment she met him.
But again, I’m not hung up on the idea that the man seen in Stride’s company on different occasions was one and the same.
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3241
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Hi David C.,
Schwartz was taken to the mortuary, where he identified Stride's body, so there is no doubt that it was Stride he watched being assaulted.
And no, I find it very questionable that Stride was a Ripper victim. She may very well have been, but to me it is rather unlikely that she was attacked by a second man, who killed her, in the period of ten to fifteen minutes.
It is in my mind an even harder coincidence to swallow then the so called coincidence between this murder and the one of Eddowes 45 minutes later.
And in Stride's case we after all do have a viable suspect in her own circuits to look further into.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I cannot give you 'Evidence' just an attempt to give my opinion.
In the case of Tabram, going by the location of her body it is easy to assume that she was either led to the first floor landing of George yard for a sexual convenience or she entered the building to escape unwanted intentions.
The approx 45 min time lapse between Hollands sighting of Nichols and apparently her encounter with the killer could mean she found a paying customer en route.
With regards to Chapman , if one takes all the evidence we have , it is entirely possible that she serviced the over Forty year old [ Deer stalker] man in the backyard of 29, and because of her tiredness[ walking around since the early hours] she rested against the fence before making a move to wherever destination the poor woman had in mind.
With reference to Eddowes.
Do you honestly contemplate that she was standing close to [ hand on chest] to the most homicidal maniac in English history.
In do not.
I honestly feel that she had no intention of sex for money that night , she to release a fact according to people that knew her was not that way inclined, she was a one man woman.
If the killer of Eddowes observed this couple which apparently appeared soliciting, it is not within the realms of impossibility that he manhandled her once the sailor dressed man gave up his venture.
And the medical report does indicate a forcing procedure by refering to the pressure mark between the thumb and first finger of the left hand[ of recent origin].
In the case of MJK, it is obvious that anyone apart from the dubious Hutchinson could have seen her antics with Mr Astracan.
My Opinion again.
Regards Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 525
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Just one question before I drop the subject (since we seem to be in agreement on Stride): have you abandoned the viewpoint you had earlier that, based on your experience, witness descriptions are usually not very reliable, unless the include one or several more striking features?
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3242
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Nope, Frank.
As I said, I know all about discrepancies in witness testimonies -- and the problems connected with them.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 526
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
I know you said that, Glenn - I read it. But as I remember you saying a while back that in your experience witness descriptions usually do more harm than good (or something along those lines), I was surprised to see that in the recent discussion you do seem to accept the various descriptions almost at face value. That’s all.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 146
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 2:12 am: |
|
Richard - with some of the bruising on Eddowes' body, don't forget she had been pretty drunk earlier. It is not impossible that the police had to "manhandle" her a bit getting her to the station and into the cells.
Why must we assume that Jack could not have been presentable and persuasive enough that a woman could stand close and put her hand on his chest? Did not women get into a car with Sutcliffe? So, yes, I do contemplate what you find difficult to comprehend.
In the case of Tabram, going by the location of her body it is easy to assume that she was either led to the first floor landing of George yard for a sexual convenience...
Why, as I believe more likely could she not have done the leading ?
The approx 45 min time lapse between Hollands sighting of Nichols and apparently her encounter with the killer could mean she found a paying customer en route.
I agree - but was the encounter with that potential client in Bucks Row (BR), or elsewhere? If elsewhere, then either Polly staggered on to BR where Jack found her (did Jack, in your view follow her there or encounter once she had arrived in BR?). OR she met and led Jack to BR, in which case, to all intents and purposes, he surely acted as a potential client?
Why is it so hard to contemplate the possibility that Jack acted as a potential client?
With regards to Chapman... it is entirely possible that... she rested against the fence before making a move...
So how did Jack know what she was doing? That she had not simply left by a back entrance to the yard? Did he just go into a potntial cul-de-sac on spec? Quite a risk - and a wholly unnecessary one - surely?
Eddowes ... according to people that knew her was not that way inclined, she was a one man woman...
Almost all the victims were well-spoken of by their friends and associates at the inquests etc, in a "do not speak ill of the dead" sort of mood. Eddowes may have been faithful to her man, but can we be sure? And she was pretty drunk? Penniless and with nowhere to go? So maybe she did resort to old habits, or try a new game to get some bed money the easy and only way available.
Alternatively, if one accepts the (admittedly shakey) theory that she thought she knew who Jack was... then maybe she was posing? Or she had found him and pretended to be interested?
I'd also point out that a hand against the chest can also be to push away. Did the clinch hide a knife held to her body by him, as he clutched her to him prior to forcing her into the Square? Why didn't she call out? Fear alone might answer that. I don't claim this was realistic, but just think about what the body language might represent. I think there is more than one interpretation.
As ever,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 147
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 2:30 am: |
|
Thinking back overnight to extendedping's post, on which I commented earlier, I realised that we do now have (in some ways) potentially more evidence than the police had at the time, and certainly more than we did a few decades ago.
When I first began to read about the Ripper murders in the 60s (and focusing on the stride killing alone) we did not have the mortuary photograph; I at least was unaware of the photo of Duttons Yard/Berner St if it was known of; the official files were closed; much research on the Club and its activities remaned to be done. A whole battery of realistic suspects were just names or unknown - Druitt, Kosminski, Cohen, in the first category; Tumblety as an example of the latter.
As far as the police if 1888 were concerned, criminology has advanced a long way, as have psychological techniques such as profiling. We certainly have more examples of (can we say we know more about?) serial killings.
Add to that the material unearthed over the years by researchers, about the crimes, the contemporary scene and society and the context.
We can also stand back and question things in a way they could not.
OK,OK, I accept that they knew the people and the places, saw the injuries, explored the evidence and collected much material which has been lost. But I personally, do not discount the police views. Abberline's judgement is a prime reason why I do not accept Barnett as a suspect. On the other hand, AP has persuaded me that in the case of Kidney the police may have been wrong.
NOTE: I do not assert that Kidney killed Stride, only that as a suspect he fits the bill in many ways and more simply than JtR.
Going back to the reason for this separate post, I do think extendeping, that time, distance, changing accretions of experience and knowledge, do make a tour d'horizon of the Whitechapel murders today a legitimate activity, and one that can and should be expected to bring new and realistic insights. factor in the achievements of the researchers, and I think your argument breaks down.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 38
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Glen,
I do mean 'pipeman' as being the man on the corner.The time that Schwartz took,from the moment of the accosting till reaching the corner,would have been a few seconds only,and pipeman was already out on the street,so he must have been very close.
Most drunken killings occur after heated arguements,and in respect,the total number of such killings are few compared with the total number of assaults of that kind.
In the case of Stride,if the drunk is to be suspected,then the intent to kill was almost simultainous with the moment of meeting.I say drunk because that is what Schwartz implies.No heated arguement there,and surely no provocation,so I tend to dismiss BS or the drunk as he is alternativly called.Now if he had walked down the street with murder on his mind,then I would expext a far more savage two handed approach,and not just a hand on the shoulder.
Of course this is opinion only,but opinion based on experience,and in this case it helps a little. |
| | | |
