|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 5:28 am: | 
|
Glen,
No I do not twist facts to suit my point of view.My information is from the interview between a reporter and Schwartz,and published in the Star newspaper.It is there for all to see.
Your account is what Swanson states was given in a police interview with Schwartz,a report which is missing.Therefor it would be folly to quote from something of which we do not have access to.Suddenly you want to believe in the police implicitly,while a post of yours a feww days ago states this is something one shouldn't do.You do appear to be inconsistent.
Now to the activity on Berner st in the period just prior to the murder.
William Packer states he put up the shutters on his shop at 12.30,and there after had heard or seen nothing suspicious.The other three occupants of the house said the same thing.They were interviewed by Sergeant Stephen White.Packer was also interviewed by Sir Charles Warren about the grapes he sold.This occured at about 11.45,well before the incident witnessed by Schwartz.
Joseph Lave said he left the club for about 5 minutes.This was 15 to 20 minutes before news of the murder was known in the club.He reports the yard as being so dark he had to grope along the wall.He reported nothing suspicious.
Charles Letcford states he walked along Berner st at about 12.30,and things were normal.He also states his sister stood outside for 10 minutes from 12.50.Had she done so she must have witnessed somethin.This woman is believed to be Mrs Mortimer,who saw only one person pass along.
Now where are all these other persons that were supposed to be on Berner st around the time of the murder.Where is any reference to them.There only appear to be two persons who fit into the timeframe,and as neither of these two witnessed appear to have seen anything of what Schwartz reports,then it is apparent they must have misttook the time.
Glen,cross my heart,I am not making this up or distorting what has been reported.
Frank,
Only Joseph Lave appears to have been in the yard a short time before the incident took place.
While it is true there were members in the club,it is equally true there were people in close proximity at the other murder sites.Berner St doesn't differ in any great way from other parts of Whitechapel,and I fail to see that Dutfield yard,dark as it was,was more dangerous to the ripper than 29 Hanbury St,where dawn was not far off.
David Cartwright was correct when he wrote the Schwartz incident was the biggest red herring in the case.Together with Anderson's knowing who the ripper was,and the name of the man that could identify him,it,s no wonder the case can't progress.It's time to look for alternatives to the Jewish perspective. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Harry,
I must say you surprise me.
You actually mean that you put larger faith in a newspaper article, than in Swanson's police report??????
True, the police file is a summary written by Swanson, but there is no real reason to assume that it contains so many errors -- it is detailed enough to be rather clear on these matters.
Very few details in the Star interview actually corresponds with the article, and if you look closely you will see that the paper interview contains a lot more drama presumably created to sell more copies. It is common knowledge for every researcher that very little credibility can be put in newspaper articles as sources of information, and how anyone can actually put more credence in those before actual police material goes beyond me.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:27 am: |
|
Hi All,
Hi Glenn,
I find the view that the Ripper would find the circumstances at Berner Street and Dutfield's Yard inviting enough in order to kill and mutilate as a rather problematic one.
As you know, I don’t find this relevant, since there is no evidence that Jack ever intended to carry out his trade mark mutilations in that location. And that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have walked past Dutfield’s Yard when a prostitute, to wit: Liz Stride, was there.
…they right from the start considered the murder of Liz Stride as a part of a series and really didn't even bother to check other possibilities, like a domestic link (which would be the first natural step to take).
You don’t know this is true, you are just guessing. To add to Robert’s examples, there was a news report following Mary Kelly’s murder that suggested there were doubts about her being part of the series, despite the fact that she was mutilated and had organs removed. So it makes little sense to me that they would not even have paused for breath before concluding Liz was killed by Jack.
Hi Frank,
A street that was not particularly known for prostitution.
I simply wonder if Berner Street was as inviting to the Ripper as the other crimes scenes and surroundings – it not being a place particularly known for prostitution either.
Again, the point is that Liz, a prostitute, was there. If a young single bloke plans to go to a club in town on a Saturday night to chat up the girls and strut his stuff with them, but happens to see a fit babe some distance from clubland waiting at a bus stop in a reasonably busy area, is he going to say to himself, “Well, this isn’t the right place so I can’t chat this one up here”? No, he’s going to try his luck and ask her if she fancies going to a club with him. If she declines for any reason, he may try to kiss her or give her his phone number, but he was never going to have a slow dance with her there, was he?
Likewise, Berner Street was not out of bounds to Jack (he wasn’t permanently to be found amongst prospective victims), and he may not have anticipated seeing a prostitute there. But if he happened along that night, he would have found one: Liz. What would he have said to himself? “The historians aren’t going to believe this - old Jacky Boy encountering a whore in such an unlikely and uninviting place. I’m off to look in one of their more usual haunts to make my actions more credible”? No, he’d say, “I expect she’ll be as willing as the other two, but I don’t fancy my chances here, so I’ll get her to take me somewhere we won’t be disturbed”.
I don’t find the ‘hanging around’ or ‘retreating’ bit very feasible from the viewpoint that he was looking for a victim to mutilate and that, with this purpose in mind, he didn’t like the look and feel of Dutfield’s Yard.
I see you take no account of emotion here, Frank. If Jack was BS and killed Liz, we know he failed, for whatever reason, to mutilate her; and we know that within about 45 minutes he had found a ‘willing’ victim and, reaching fever pitch, was successfully mutilating the hell out of her. Imagine how he would have been feeling if he found Liz unwilling to budge from Dutfield’s Yard and the security of the Jewish men’s club in full swing, while Schwartz and Pipeman were providing yet more living proof that this was no place to indulge himself to the full.
Couldn’t it have happened like this: after turning BS down, Liz retreats into the yard, maybe going into a lav at the back to wait until her unwanted ‘admirer’ has pushed off to bother someone else. But Liz has put BS’s nose well and truly out of joint by her lack of co-operation and he’s steaming. He knows she’s in there, so instead of pushing off he goes into the yard and waits for her in the darkness. When she emerges to only silence and blackness, with her cachous in hand, she assumes the coast is clear, starts walking back towards the street and whack! Jack’s back with the proverbial vengeance.
Hi Jane,
I was trying in my inept way to say that I agree that Jack was probably led by his victims to their place of death, ergo I thought that you were saying that if Liz's killer was JtR then she led him to Dutfield's Yard under the same criteria.
I hope I’ve now made it crystal clear that I was actually suggesting that Liz simply didn’t live up to Jack’s expectations - same Jack, he just tried his luck with the wrong victim this time, one who wanted to stay put in the wrong place.
I think it is safe to say that those in more in favour of it being a domestic have put forward a great deal of circumstantial and even solid evidence which might suggest that the accepted inclusion of Liz as a vicim of JtR should at least be re-examined.
While I have seen lots of arguments for Liz’s murder not being one of Jack’s, on the basis that it wasn’t a ‘typical’ ripper crime (when compared with the three mutilation murders we most associate with Jack) - and of course it wasn’t - I have yet to see any good circumstantial evidence IMHO, and nothing that I would call solid evidence, that actually points to a better suspect than Jack for having taken a knife to Liz's throat.
I’m always on the lookout for new and improved arguments though.
Hi AP,
My thinking sort of goes along the lines of what would we see today if such a series of crimes took place in modern London and we had the benefit of looking down from the sky via a modern observation satellite?
In all the other crimes… nothing.
In the murder of Liz Stride?
An episode of East Enders.
I keep pointing to the double event in Croydon in 2003 as a perfect example which had the benefit of CCTV - one man whose first assault that night was your episode of East Enders, and whose other similar and non-similar crimes (including a second attack on the same night which was fatal) were, as you say… nothing.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3284
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
"As you know, I don’t find this relevant, since there is no evidence that Jack ever intended to carry out his trade mark mutilations in that location."
That is an argument that doesn't make sense to me. Regardless of location, I think we can safely say that Jack's main intention was to mutilate, not just to kill or slit throats. Mutilations are a redundant act if you only need to kill someone, so it is apparent, that the mutilations meant something in particular to him and gave him the gratification he craved for. There would be no point in doing them otherwise. I can't see why he should kill Stride and cut her throat without having an intention to mutilate her. It doesn't make sense.
"You don’t know this is true, you are just guessing. To add to Robert’s examples, there was a news report following Mary Kelly’s murder that suggested there were doubts about her being part of the series, despite the fact that she was mutilated and had organs removed. So it makes little sense to me that they would not even have paused for breath before concluding Liz was killed by Jack."
That is true, but fact remains that it is rather apparent from the police documentation that Stride is never questioned as a Ripper victim and that they never in that murder looked at any alternative solutions.
In contrast to those early interpretations of the Kelly murder (which I actually believe could have been correct), we have no indications whatsoever saying that Stride could have been a victim of a murder with domestic motives or an ordinary client. And I believe they made a fatal mistake here.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3285
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Caz,
"Couldn’t it have happened like this: after turning BS down, Liz retreats into the yard, maybe going into a lav at the back to wait until her unwanted ‘admirer’ has pushed off to bother someone else. But Liz has put BS’s nose well and truly out of joint by her lack of co-operation and he’s steaming. He knows she’s in there, so instead of pushing off he goes into the yard and waits for her in the darkness. When she emerges to only silence and blackness, with her cachous in hand, she assumes the coast is clear, starts walking back towards the street and whack!"
Absolutely!
That is pretty much something similar to the scenario I had in mind.
Apart from the fact that I don't see any indications at all on that the perpetrator must have been Jack.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1679
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
Wow!What a post!
Feel the need to congratulate you here Caz.
Quite a tour de force this covering such a range of credible possibilities and ideas.And all very pertinent too.
I think you may need to be nominated for one of AP"s Ripperology prizes for creative insight
and skilful craftmanship!
Natalie
x
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 180
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Harry, you wrote:
...Joseph Lave said he left the club for about 5 minutes.This was 15 to 20 minutes before news of the murder was known in the club.He reports the yard as being so dark he had to grope along the wall.
I would suggest that Lave found the Yard particulrly dark since he had just emerged from a comparatively well-lit interior. His eyes would not have adjusted to the darkness.
My view is that, as I have said before, a supine body at ground level would have been relatively invisible. However, a couple standing up and moving (fighting, struggling or copulating) would have caught the light and attention.
Alternatively, someone like Lave would literally have bumped into them.
This was not like Mitre Square where there was a dark corner to hide in. Had Liz been found deep in the Yard, I might be more convinced by the parallels to other widely accepted JtR murders, but she was not. There is no evidence that she ever left the area close to the street.
If one gate had been closed and she had been found behind that - invisible from the street and probably in darkness within the Yard - I might be persuaded, but she was not.
Look at Jane's remarkable reconstruction of the yard and its layout and I think you'll see what I mean.
Phil
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3286
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
I agree, Phil. Totally.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1680
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 9:15 am: |
|
Don,
I dont have any particular issues with the police.
All I am interested in here is whether their later accounts of what happened are reliable.
I see your point although I am now wary to quote Walter Dew for the reasons given.
Phil
Again I accept that Machnaghten may have acted in good faith revealing that he thought it was most probably Druitt who was JtR.
However when he starts talking about destroying all the evidence and being told secrets that he has sworn never to reveal to anyone I cant help but think it may all be bluff.
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 181
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Natalie
I can appreciate cynicism, but how do you differentiate between bluff and the actions of an honest man in this case.
A gentleman in late C19th would, I believe destroy private papers and anything entrusted to him which he had undertaken should remain confidential. One reason that Anderson did not change his mind to reflect Macnaghten (and don't forget Macnaghten's memo incorporates Anderson's suspect) may have been because the latter never confided in him.
But I agree, Macnaghten may have been protecting either the police/Cutbush family; or alternatively a political Fenian connection by creating a smokescreen.
But a close study of his drafts and the way they were refined persuades me that the memo probably does represent his honest view - I can go into more detail if you wish. I think that Macnaghten may have been the most upright, honest man in the whole saga, with admirable integrity.
But feel free to try to prove me wrong.
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Yes Caz, good post and a very good point.
Just like you I have had to rely on more modern cases to gain further insight into the crimes of Jack, and just like you I have found those modern insights very useful in discussion.
However, as the map unfolds we do now have access to previously unknown material from the LVP and I feel that is where we should be sticking our noses.
For my part I spend my entire time in the LVP now, and one learns quick down there.
Last night I was spellbound by a case I found, at 55 Flower & Dean Street, where this chap had murdered his part-time prostitute because she was seeing other chaps, and I thought: ‘well, it was Flower & Dean Street, she was a part-time prostitute, she was seeing someone else seriously and he did murder her.’
So you see, this sort of thing went on all the time.
Jack was an exception wasn’t he?
Otherwise we wouldn’t be writing these notes to one another.
Liz Stride was not an exception. She was the norm.
But good point and well made.
Just like you I’m not convinced by anything.
Apart from history that is. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 540
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
“If a young single bloke plans to go to a club in town on a Saturday night to chat up the girls and strut his stuff with them, but happens to see a fit babe some distance from clubland waiting at a bus stop in a reasonably busy area, …”
Likewise, Berner Street was not out of bounds to Jack (he wasn’t permanently to be found amongst prospective victims), and he may not have anticipated seeing a prostitute there.”
I see what you mean, Caz. Good points. I must admit that haven’t been able to ‘see’ those possibilities, so thanks for that. Well and creatively written too, although there was no need TO RUB IT IN LIKE YOU DID, now was there? 
“If Jack was BS and killed Liz, we know he failed, for whatever reason, to mutilate her; and we know that within about 45 minutes he had found a ‘willing’ victim and, reaching fever pitch, was successfully mutilating the hell out of her. Imagine how he would have been feeling if he found Liz unwilling to budge from Dutfield’s Yard and the security of the Jewish men’s club in full swing, while Schwartz and Pipeman were providing yet more living proof that this was no place to indulge himself to the full."
Aha, this I can counter (I think)! Because why would Jack/Mr BS have retreated if he were already so flaming mad at Stride when he was doing what Schwartz saw him doing? Why didn’t he just kill her right then and a bit down the passage?
“ Couldn’t it have happened like this: after turning BS down, Liz retreats into the yard, maybe going into a lav at the back to wait until her unwanted ‘admirer’ has pushed off to bother someone else. Etc.”
Now, there’s a good scenario! Although the same might be pondered over with this scenario as with the other one, i.e. if he was so pissed off at her, why loiter around, see what she does, decide to hide and wait instead of kill her right away? But although it makes me wonder, it doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. Hmmm…
All my best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1683
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Well as far as I"m concerned the fact that he went to Eton rather put me off.
Never was there an establishment that has better "mis-educated" young Hoorah Henry"s about their "superiority" over the rest of us than Eton College.
IMHO[ofcourse]
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1684
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Sorry Phil,the above post should have been addressed to you!
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 186
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 2:04 am: |
|
You really shouldn't allow that "chip on your shoulder", your social inferiority or your lack of education get in the way of a good class jibe, now should you Natalie.
Carrying current prejudices into the past doesn't make for good history, frankly.
Phil (singing the Eton Boating Song smugly). |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
Oh Phil!What age do you live in?
I wasnt educated to think others were my betters by right of a silver spoon or the jangle of money in their pockets.
And todays equal opportunities policies thankfully go some way to ensure pupils are educated to see themselves as being of equal value.
But ofcourse there are still those who sabotage
such progress!
Best Wishes
Natalie |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
Glen,
I would not reject what the papers of that time printed,because it is the only source for a lot of the information pertaining to the Ripper Case.
The fact that it took ten days before the reporter qestioned Schwartz,was not the papers fault.There was no word from the police as to his involvement.
I see no great difference in what Schwartz said.Only that the police account has her twisted to the ground,while the paper reports she was pushed back.
As B.D.is said to have been only 5ft 5ins tall,he was facing a taller person.There is still only the hand on the shoulder,so in the circumstances,it would be difficult to force someone to the ground with only one hand placed on a shoulder and not clenched.Any downward pressure would have been minimal.
Phil,
During the period between 12.30A.M and the fist contact between Stride and B.D.only about half a dozen people can be placed on Berner st,and only two of those,Eagles and Lave,in the yard.So much for the many persons that posters talk about.
None of them report any untoward activity.Lave and Eagles mention the extreme darkness of the yard,and your point about the need for time to adjust to this condition,is what I said to be in the killer's favour.There would have been just about sufficient time,after the initial meeting of Stride and B.D,for the conditions to have changed,Stride lured into the yard,the killers eyesight adjusted to conditions there,and Stride killed, before Diemschutz's arrival.
I believe Stride's killing to be the classic of the Ripper series. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Yes, of course I agree that Jack's main intention was to mutilate, not just to kill or slit throats.
But my argument is that Jack wouldn't necessarily have encountered all his prospective victims in a suitable location for carrying out his trademark mutilations. If he encountered Liz on Berner Street and assumed she was just another 'willing whore' who could be persuaded to take him somewhere else where he would feel safe to mutilate, he was disappointed. I can see why rage and frustration at such a setback to his mutilation plans might have made him cut Liz's throat ripper-style and run off quickly before any more witnesses could cause him grief.
...I don't see any indications at all on that the perpetrator must have been Jack.
I wouldn't say it must have been Jack, but don't you think it could have been?
Hi Frank,
Aha, this I can counter (I think)! Because why would Jack/Mr BS have retreated if he were already so flaming mad at Stride when he was doing what Schwartz saw him doing? Why didn’t he just kill her right then and a bit down the passage?
Well, I think even a flaming mad Jack/Mr BS would have had the sense to wait until Schwartz and Pipeman had scarpered before going in for the kill. But a scorned lover, or disgruntled client, in a sudden fit of pique, might have been less cautious than Jack with regard to potential witnesses. We still have those cachous to explain though.
So I now wonder if it was Liz who retreated further into the yard, hoping that BS would take the hint and make himself scarce. She waits a while, freshening herself up and dusting herself down, and assumes from the silence that he has given up on her and gone to make trouble elsewhere, while he is in fact just waiting for the safest moment to strike, furious that she wouldn't co-operate with him. Someone, at that moment, wanted Liz dead and made sure of it. Why couldn't that someone have been Jack?
Liz was a prostitute, hanging about in a location not particularly known for prostitution. But a fish out of water is still a fish - and Jack had his tackle ready that night.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on March 15, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 188
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
Natalie, I couldn't have had my tongue more firmly in my cheek, as I hope my last words made clear.
Nevertheless, we should not libel Melville Macnaghten on the basis of personal prejudice, otherwise I'll be forced to characterise the working class personae of the case as inherently incapable of telling the truth, or of honesty or faithfulness. Which might be a pardonable assumption (based on 1880s attitudes), but would also be a generalisation and completely wrong.
Macnaghten had integrity, I think - and I'll go a long way to defend that.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3288
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 7:57 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
But my argument is that Jack wouldn't necessarily have encountered all his prospective victims in a suitable location for carrying out his trademark mutilations. If he encountered Liz on Berner Street and assumed she was just another 'willing whore' who could be persuaded to take him somewhere else where he would feel safe to mutilate, he was disappointed. I can see why rage and frustration at such a setback to his mutilation plans might have made him cut Liz's throat ripper-style and run off quickly before any more witnesses could cause him grief.
No, I don't agree with this at all. Sorry.
We can't know this with certainty, of course, but in such a situation I feel the Ripper would just simply have aborted the whole thing instead. There would be no point in killing her, really. I don't think the Ripper was someone who killed people just because he was angry or disappointed. Killers like him kill mainly for one reason only: namely to be able to perform the mutilations. Killing in itself has generally no emotional value to them whatsoever. But that is only my personal interpretation.
"I wouldn't say it must have been Jack, but don't you think it could have been?"
No, not really, actually -- and especially not in the context of that particular scenario.
The Ripper's method was to attack his victims fast before they knew what hit them. I can't see him going back for the same victim after he had been disturbed and seen while doing a first attack. The other murders (at least Nichols and Eddowes) tells us a great deal of how he worked, and this doesen't fit. Your scenario fits perfectly someone she knew or an abusive/drunk client, though.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 189
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Glenn, when you write:
...in such a situation I feel the Ripper would just simply have aborted the whole thing instead. There would be no point in killing her, really. I don't think the Ripper was someone who killed people just because he was angry or disappointed...
I feel you are right.
The assumption, when the "double event" was more widely accepted, was that as he was disturbed when murdering Stride, he went away and found Eddowes. This suggests a previous acceptance by many of us of sufficient detachment on Jack's part to allow him to walk away even in mid-murder.
I am with you, that Jack made a clear decision in each case about who, when and where to strike. That is why I increasingly see entering the backyard in Hanbury St as a key moment.
Phil
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Your lack of open-mindedness on this issue is really mind-boggling. In response to "I wouldn't say it must have been Jack, but don't you think it could have been?" you say, in your typically caddy fashion: "No, not really, actually" This is really absurd. Your interpretation of the persoanlity or motivation of serial killers (as indicated by this type of comment: "Killing in itself has generally no emotional value to them whatsoever.") is remarkably limiting and idealized. I mean where do you get this from? There is an enormous amount of variation in both the method, motivation, and psyche of serial killers, and their emotional response to killing also. Also, they are fallible and imperfect, as has been pointed out on many occasions, which both you and Phil can't seem to grasp.
In addition, you are basing your "conclusions" on a remarkably small data pool. Your own interpretation is that there are only 3 canonical JTR murders. OK, lets assume there was only 1 murder, and the victim was mutilated. Would it then be valid to say "The killer ALWAYS mutilates his victims"? Of course not. How about after 2 murders, would it then be valid to make this deduction? No. How about after 5? Still, no. If I didn't know better, I would guess that you had not read much about other serial murder cases, because there is generally an enormous amount of variation between murder incidents committed by the same killer. I really think you have very stubbornly created an image of this killer in your head, and you do not have an open mind to other possibilities regarding his personality type or how JtR "would respond" given certain scenarios. And you have invented this mythological persona based on VERY little data. You cannot make accurate predictions based on a small data set, which is itself based on a small number of variations in scenario. I mean can we truly say:
1. JTR never attacked south of Whitechapel Road
2. JTR never attacked before such-and-such an hour.
3. JTR ALWAYS mutilates his victims.
4. JTR was ALWAYS cautious to not be seen.
I don't think there is any was to deduce such conclusions based on such a small amount of information, and with basically zero understanding of JTR's psyche and thought processes.
Rob H |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 190
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
I must say Robert, that I think you are being unduly hard on Glenn. I regard him as being very open-minded by comparison to many here and one of the most lucid andsensible posters on the site.
I see (on re-reading your rant) that I am included among your criticisms.
Frankly, I don't require you to tell me my failings, but neither do I accept the bilge that you seek to push down our throats as some sort of rationale alternative. Your views are simply one more alternative theory - it just happens that you don't recognise that and seek to peddle it as dogma apparently - though why anyone would buy it is beyond me.
I don't think Glenn or I have ever suggested that our views are infalliable - we are more mature than that.
So think again Robert. |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Phil,
I don't think either you or Glenn are any more mature than anyone else on these boards, but its nice that you keep making that case whenever anyone disagrees with you. Regarding my "dogma" that you refer to (def: statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true)... it's funny that you use that word, because as Glenn will perhaps at least concede, I have always stated that there are any number of interpretations of the Stride event. I do not generally exclude any of them, although I believe that she was a JtR victim. If I am not mistaken, it is Glenn who is being dogmatic about this, as he refuses to give ANY credence to the vague possibility that Stride may have been a JTR victim. This gets frustrating to those of us who disagree with this opinion, especially as Glenn just keeps restating the same opinion over and over again, and then you anf he just sit there agreeing with each other and saying "Great Post" etc. etc. Yeah it is frustrating. I agreed with extendedping's earlier posts on this board, which I thought were well argued and very rational. Although I see you have also deemed him to be too "immature" to have a rational discussion here. So before you decide to become board moderator, I think you should rethink that.
You have anything to say about my specific post, or any of the points I brought up, or do you just want to degenerate into name calling?
RH |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
And by the way Phil, I will admit I get frustrated reading this particular thread. So thats why my post comes across like it does, like a tirade. So excuse me. But if Glenn comes out and makes statements like the one I quoted above, which I take as not only absurd and a bit condescending, and if people are afraid to call him on it because they will then have to get blasted by both you and Glenn, who goes on some tirades himself, then I have to say... I am not afraid to call him on it. There is really very little evidence to back up the general theory you and Glenn are pushing... ie. that Stride was a domestic.
Rh |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3290
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Rob,
Now this is just so typical of you. When people are pushing views you don't agree with, you always get personal -- and to an extreme extent. Now who is immature here?
If you get frustrated that easily, I would advice you not to get involved at all.
Where have I said that my views are the actual truth? I have stated over and over again, that it is nothing but my own personal interpretations. I am expressing my opinions, nothing else. I am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me. I am just stating what I think is credible or not, from where I sit. According to you, a serial mutilator can act practically in every possible way. I clearly disagree with that (and last time I heard, a discussion board in some funny way is supposed to leave room for that), and such an approach would also make any deduction or analysis impossible in the end.
From most of the serial killers we know so far that indulges in these types of mutilations, we know that it is the mutilations that are the main goal and where the gratification lies. Why? Simply because the mutilations as such are redundant and not necessary in order to kill someone. Therefore it is suggestive that a mutilator is not interested in the killing itself, but that he needs something more than that. I wouldn't say that it is fully established (we are after all dealing with individuals here), but several indications and pure logic seems to point in this direction.
The fact that Jack the Ripper seems to have killed his victims quickly and taken them by surprise, indicates in my view that he wanted as little resistance as possible (he was certainly not a sadist), and that the throat cutting as such was not important, but just a way to make sure they were dead before he got on with the important stuff -- the mutilations. Therefore I don't believe Jack the Ripper would kill someone without mutilating, unless he of course was interrupted.
Those are just my personal interpetations (did you read that? I have said that a million times!), but I believe they are supported by some people in the law enforcement and also by FBI. They are certainly not my inventions, and they are hardly controversial or mind-blowing in any way.
And from this, I can only say -- FROM MY POINT OF VIEW -- that the behaviour of Mr Broad Shoulders doesn't fit into this at all.
I know... you don't accept that, but it can't be helped. I still claim my right to hold that opinion.
Now, if others are commenting my posts or are asking me for my opinions, what do you want me to say? That they are right, even though I can't make it add up? To act like a pussycat when people like extendedping are ridiculing and condescending my (and maybe also Phil's) views?
You say that I am pragmatic and that you never have heard me express the possibility that Liz may have been a Ripper victim. That is a blooming lie. I have in several posts said that I am not sure. But I am trying to explore an alternative possibility here and I have no idea where that may take me. Maybe it will turn out to be crap in the end, who knows?
I have said earlier that I give Liz Stride 40% chance of being a Ripper victim, and that still stands. However, considering we in Stride's case for once have a credible suspect, known for abusive behaviour, plus the fact that she wasn't mutilated, I think it is worth the effort to explore the possibility of a motive with domestic content. After all, most murders are of domestic nature. Of course we can play it safe and say that she wasn't mutilated because the killer either was interrupted or dissatisfied with the situation for some strange and unfounded reason. Pardon me, but I don't buy that so easily.
Let me state for the record, that I once started out here as a true believer of Liz being a Ripper victim, and a faithful supporter of the Diemschutz-interruption theory, but i have changed my mind and am now exploring other possibilities and theories -- theories that are NOT my inventions. When was the last time you changed your mind about anything? Like... never?
It is true indeed, there is very little evidence that the murder of Liz Stride was domestic, but then again there are also very little evidence on that she was killed by Jack the Ripper. Facts actually points in both directions; it just that I am inclined to believe one more than the other, for the time being.
But please, Rob, be my guest -- you can stand there, with 30 year old theories up to the waist and get abusive to anyone who tries to interpret the facts in other directions than the traditional ones. Please continue to do that; I believe in democracy so you are free to express that. But I believe I am allowed to express mine without you ranting and getting personal. You have some strange idea about acting moderator and at the same time being abusive to those who disagrees with you -- and you've clearly had issues with me right from the start. People are of course allowed to agree with me, but not in the manner you or extendedping are displaying.
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3291
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Phil,
I know the above posts also concern your views and not just mine, but I want to to thank you for the grand support nevertheless. Much appreciated.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Yes Robert-couldnt agree more actually!
Is it really necessary to use such pejorative language
as "bilge" or "dogma" or "rant" Phil?
I happened to find Robert"s post expressed sentiments that I too have begun to feel these past few months, particularly with regard to Glenn"s attitude of late and who seems to be less and less flexible and tolerant in his arguements.Its not that I dont appreciate Glenn"s posts or arguements -and often agree with them
but rather that they are more and more frequently presented with such absolute certainty and often with an obstinate refusal to consider another"s point of view -[let alone the merits of another"s point of view].This together with "rating" other peoples posts [ as though we were all at school and needed such " performance ratings"]makes it seem as though Glenn thinks himself the only one fit to pass judgment on casebook issues - no matter what the subject.
I thought your post clear, direct and apt Robert.
Natalie
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3292
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Natalie,
How many times do I have to write "in my view", "we can't know this", in my personal interpretation" etc.?
And what do you mean "performance rating"? I have no idea what you're talking about.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Glenn,
First let me say that there is nothing so much more mature about the way you express your opinions to the way I or extendedping do. In case you are not aware of it, your posts, and Phils, often come across as condescending also. Extendedping posted some very rational stuff on here which I thought was very valid, having to do with people creating the image of a phantasm-like super killer, and also the idea that if one over-analyzes a scenario like this, you can "prove" anything. These were both very valid arguments, to which you and Phil took some offence. I saw no reason to call him immature, especially after re-reading his last post. This is overreaction, but of course this was Phil who said it not you.
As far as your having an opinion, fine, yes you have said this a million times. In your opinion there is no chance in hell that BS is JTR, correct? You said as much above.. that was the original statement that I posted in reference to, and we have been over it before. It is not the fact that you have a personal opinion that irks me, it is that your opinion is so closed minded that you can rule out Mr. BS 100%, based ENTIRELY on your own personal idea about what JTR was like. In other words this is you, profiling JTR. I have provided specific criticisms of why this is invalid, which you never really responded to except to say "Well it's my opinion, my opinion", etc. Yeah, so what. It is based on invalid reasoning.
"Of course we can play it safe and say that she wasn't mutilated because the killer either was interrupted or dissatisfied with the situation for some strange and unfounded reason."
Here is another classic statement. How is this playing it safe, and what exactly does that even mean. It is simply the most simple and logical explanation of events. How is that playing it safe? How does that qualify as either "strange" or "unfounded reason". There is way more evidence to suggest that Stride was a JTR victim than otherwise. You make so many unsupported claims in your posts, it is difficult to know where to begin. Glenn, I am sure you know I do not post on these boards very often anymore, especially in these circular discussions that seem to go nowhere. It is just that I can't help it when I see a thread like this that is so divorced from reality. For example, you say "After all, most murders are of domestic nature." How is that relevant at all to anything. Why don't we just assume that all the JTR murders were domestic murders? This is just fuzzy logic. This is like showing up to a murder site in which the victim was stabbed, and saying "Well most murders are committed with a gun", and thus concluding that the victim was shot! In other words, it is irrelevant. That is not logic.
God, this thread is so ridiculous. I am going to try not to post here anymore. I wish I had never posted at all today. I am sure that after I leave you guys will just go ahead and convince yourselves that Stride was not a Ripper victim and Kelly too. Well ok. Whatever. I give up. If you want to reply to my specific critique about why your logic does not make sense, that I posted in the thread at 12:33 pm, go ahead, and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, just call me an ass, or immature or whatever, and we'll just leave it at that.
RH
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Glenn,
This is a perfect example of you "not getting it", which I just referred to:
"How many times do I have to write "in my view", "we can't know this", in my personal interpretation" etc.?"
Let me give you a case example to mull over. How about if I said something like:
"Hey Glenn, IN MY OPINION, your views are completely idiotic and have no validity at all".
NOW do you get it?
RH
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 541
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
“Well, I think even a flaming mad Jack/Mr BS would have had the sense to wait until Schwartz and Pipeman had scarpered before going in for the kill.”
Whoever he was, he seems to have scared off his audience - for whatever reason. But I’m quite sure it wouldn’t have been for that slow dance. 
Schwartz’ account may be interpreted as follows: Kidney walks over to Stride and says something to her. As he doesn’t like her answer he grabs her and tries to pull her towards him and then pushes her backwards, causing her to fall. She screams, but not very loudly, as she doesn’t want to create a further scene by enraging him even more than he already is. As he notices there are one or two men around he tries to tell them to mind their own business by yelling at them, after which they both flee. (Schwartz’ account ends here of course)
Stride is somehow able to calm him down after that and persuades him to talk it over in the yard, where she thinks there’s much less chance of a scene being noticed. They only walk down the yard some 9 feet. She’s standing with her back against the wall while he’s facing her. So they talk and he slowly realises that Stride is serious about not coming back this time.
When she thinks he’s finally got it, she makes a move to walk away, but in one final attempt he doesn’t let her. He pushes her back against the wall, especially her right shoulder, as she’s turning towards the gateway. She resists at first, but then tells him to let her go. He drops his arms at his sides, defeated. She turns towards Berner Street, feeling good about herself. She takes out the cachous, because she’s earned one. But he’s suddenly overcome with fierce anger once more and he’s not going to let her leave.
In a fit of pique he grabs her by the scarf from behind and pulls her backwards while he takes a knife out of his pocket with his right. As the attack is so sudden and quick, she doesn’t drop the cachous, but instead grips them more tightly. She falls back while turning to her left with her head just below his left chest, remaining on her feet for a split second. In that split second he cuts her throat and steps back, trying to avoid getting blood on him. She grabs at her throat, getting blood on the palm and back, and falls on her left side with her legs drawn up, her bonnet falling a few inches from her head. He quickly leaves.
This is what I find a feasible alternative scenario, but there’ll surely be people who see problems with it. I find Stride’s case an extremely complicated one, as there’s not much solid to work with. Much depends on what type of killer the Ripper was. Was he triggered to kill by some specific thing his victims said, did or didn’t do (meaning that he was a ‘spontaneous’ killer)? Was it drugs, or drink that induced him to kill? Was he someone who went out on certain nights with murder and mutilation on his mind? Or did he even plan his murders and left his victims’ bodies purposely on display for everyone to see?
“Someone, at that moment, wanted Liz dead and made sure of it. Why couldn't that someone have been Jack?”
Practically, he could have. There’s nothing tangible or solid that precludes that. But I guess we’re all influenced by what we hear, see and read about certain other cases. Like AP may be influenced by the contemporary domestic murders, like Glenn (in connection with MJK) is influenced by cases like that of Buck Ruxton and like you may be influenced by the double event in Croydon in 2003, I am influenced by the case of Samantha Bisset, who was mutilated by Robert Clive Napper, who’s now being suspected of another murder that bears similarities to Tabram’s.
I think the Ripper may have been much like Napper and if true (something we’ll probably never find out), I cautiously doubt whether Jack would have acted like Mr BS. But of course, that’s only based on what I know about Napper and the other few mutilating killers I know of. So, that really may not say much.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 191
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
In the past few days, I have been called condescending, others have said that my "Back to Basics" threads are a waste of space; and I was accused of being politically incorrect.
All perceptions, of course, which come from those who want the casebook to represent challenging new ideas, promote discussion, welcome newcomers and seek historical truth.
If I was condescending, would I start threads aimed at promoting discussion of the case from scratch, and also (I ask you to check) without peddling or promoting any particular view of my own.
I would point out, Robert, that in discussing the Stride case I have simply consistently challenged the conventional wisdom. Whether you agree or not is up to you, I neither know nor care. Perhaps discussion or debate for you is about winning - for me, it is about learning. One days perhaps you'll understand that distinction.
Phil
P.S. I begin seriously to wonder whether it is worth sticking around this site much longer.
In comparison to the daily post-rate, the percentage of insults is VERY high. Quite honestly, I have better things to do.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4241
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Definitely worth sticking around, Phil. I have seen it suggested that the posts are timid and innocuous compared with those on the old Boards!
I've been here two years and only had trouble with a couple of people.
Robert |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Phil Glenn,
OK I apologise. I overreacted. And you guys both have made some excellent posts here. Glenn will tell you that I have blown up at him before for the same exact thing in the past. I am sorry Glenn, but this is a habit of yours that irks me, and I believe it irks others. I have a hard time sitting back not saying anything, while you speak with such certainty about your own opinions and at the same time, with such certainty that other people are wrong. OK, so by now I should just accept that that is your style, and ignore it. But sometimes I cannot.
Phil, I am open to any debate and challenging conventions, etc. And I admit I did not like the way you called extendedping immature, and the way you responded to some other posts. I think you overreacted to Scott's post. But whatever. I overreact also. OK, I apologize everyone. I admit fault. I still think Stride was a JTR victim. Please resume everyone.
RH |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 349
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Excuse me, polite cough........
Are you saying that anyone that holds the view that it is 60%-40% more likely that Liz's killer was someone other than JtR is supporting views that are - how did you put it -
completely idiotic and have no validity at all".
If so I think you might be quite surprised how many idiots there are on this board, including myself.........
It does seem that 'idiots' is the word of the week, perhaps next weeks word should be
'tolerance'?
Jane
|
| | | |
