|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 19
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:05 am: | 
|
Hi all!
Glenn,
and why can't a drunken client (if we exclude JtR) not be a maniac killer?
Of course, a drunken client may be a maniac killer. But, the point I’m trying to drive home is that, at least that type of attacker would be much closer to a “Ripper character” than the average type of killer. Instead od speculating whether there might have been more maniac killers operating in the same area at the same time or not, we should only assess the fact as it is. We should neither blow it up (saying that it’s evidence for something) nor play it down (“watering the fact down” by adding more unknown elements to the equation, i.e. more unknown Ripper-like killers, etc.). And, IMHO, the fact is that Martha’s murder has more elements of a maniacal hand than a drunken hand. Nothing less nothing more.
Does that mean that this is evidence for her inclusion? No, but when I posted my first post I warned not to mistake Facts for Evidence. I also said that we’ll never know it for sure. For that reason, trying to find the definitive proof that ascertained once and for all whether such-and-such prostitute was or not a JTR’s victim would be a wild-goose chase. That’s why we’ll never find 100% proof for her inclusion (or the others). My goal is to show that there are enough reasonable facts to include her and not being afraid of recanonizacing her (although she may still be disputed). But, if we prejudge the facts beforehand or let our personal ideas replace them, we’ll never be in the position to assess them properly. If you reread my Facts-Substitute #4 you’ll see more about this point.
if they are intoxicated (which we of course have no proof of in the case of Tabram's killer) they can practically act in any way possible.
Well, I’d say that if they are intoxicated or drunk (which in Martha’s case is speculation) they can practically act in any way possible but rationally. In Martha’s murder I can see elements of rational thinking behind her attack and not just the hand of a drunken client at work, as you will see in my Facts Section and other posts.
As for my having a very narrow perception of human behaviour…
Well, I don’t want to blow my own trumpet. Suffice it to say that I’ve been living out of studying human behaviour. I’ve spent half of my life studying it and practicing, I’ve been hired by companies to coach their employees, etc., and now I use human behaviour as a “raw data” and tool to make my living, which is in another line of businness.
But as I said I don’t like to blow my own trumpet. The point is that just because I interpret the facts differently doesn’t mean that it’s due to a lack of perception of human behaviour. The reverse would be true. Because of my understanding of human behaviour I say that I do see in Martha’s case many elements that set her aside from the typical domestic crime or the typical murderer. But, I don’t want to dwell on this matter of personal interpretations or how much perception we have of things. I don’t find it “elegant” to show off how much we know or to place much weight in personal appreciations, and but for your remark I wouldn’t have brought it out.
But since I know that you avoid every possibility that includes "coincidence" I realise that that is a big fish to swallow.
Well, I don’t avoid every possibility that includes "coincidence". What I say is that the “coincidence argument” doesn’t hold water when we use it as a global way of explaining things. I mean, my point is not whether some elements could be a coincidence or not but that I find it very difficult to accept that a whole group of elements, facts, etc., or most of the points taken as a whole, can be explained by coincidence. Sometimes, the “coincidence argument” seems to entail playing down and dismissing all the similarities we could find in the murders. Anyway, it’s a big fish to swallow… 
Yes, that we know of, but do you mean that has to be the same as he was the only one? Because that logic I don't follow.
The explanation is quite simple. As I’ve said I don’t rule out the possibility of more crazy murderers working in the same area at the same time. But we can’t take a possibility and put it on a par with a fact. And the fact is that no other crazy murderer was arrested (or came under police attention) in that few months span. It leads nowhere to substitute the fact that the only known crazy murderer operating in that area at that time was JTR with the possibility that there might have been more crazy murderers. As a possibility is ok, but it still remains a possibility and can’t be promoted as a fact unless we learn of some new data that makes us reconsider it. As a rule of thumb I’d, use the “Occam's Razor principle”, which more or less states that one should make no more assumptions than needed.
Dismembering is not uncommon, but it is not the result of an average killer. So apparently there were more killers than JtR capable of committing crimes outside of the ordinary knife assault on the street or domestic crime of passion.
No, I’m not missing the point. JTR’s murders weren’t only remarkable for their knife savagery but for the rest of elements, too, i.e. victims were assaulted on the streets and the deed was carried out in risky spots for the killer. The attacks were (apparently) motiveless. He always targeted women of similar background (or at least, they looked like that). Those elements are lacking in the torso murders. We don’t know if they were just a case of domestic violence or passion, where the victims were attacked, and most probably their dismembering wasn’t carried out in risky spots. For those reasons we can’t assert that the torso murderer was a criminal similar to JTR. We don’t know whether he’d have been able to commit those murders in the same way and circumstances as JTR did it. We don’t know if dismembering played an important part in the murder or (as I believe) was just carried out to make its transportation easier and being able to dump it somewhere.
You still are looking at a single tree. Your tree is that as somebody can knife a woman to death that means that we can’t attribute some of the murderes to JTR (or something like that). But my point is that you take a step backwards and try to get a global view and see that the tree you are looking at is not an isolated element but part of a forest. And the forest tells us that there is no evidence to say that in that area at that time there were more crazy murderers that met most of the elements of JTR character.
Sure, it's a theory, but just remember that that is all it is.
Yes, I didn't pretend it to be something else. But, bear in mind that although in popular usage, a theory is just a vague sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a synonym to guess, the more scientific use of theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. Anyway, I only said that it could be argued… and my purpose was to show a possible scenario of how things may have happened just using the known facts, i.e. I didn’t make up a story assuming the existence of more crazy killers in the same area, or that all the tenants may have been deaf and that’s why they didn’t hear a single noise, etc. Its purpose was to show that there could be a reasonable theory that explained the discrepancies without forcing the facts . But, please do not press my words further than intended.
I am more of a red wine and cognac man, but if beer has to be considered, porter or dark heavy stout has to be it.
Well, I like good red wine and brandy (I happen to live in an area in which there is good wine and brandy galore). As for the beer I’m a Guinness man. In fact, I think I'm going to have a few drinks to your health… 
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 446
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Hi Inaki,
I know that your reply above was directed at Glenn, but I'm sure my Swedish hearthrob won't mind me putting my two cents in. If he does what can he do about it - he's in Sweden! 
I think you are very right about not seeing the wood for the trees, something we are all guilty of. So I standing back here and trying to look at the overall picture. 
First in you post above you say that
'Instead of speculating whether there might have been more maniac killers operating in the same area at the same time or not, we should only assess the fact as it is'.
Well the facts are her killer was either JtR or he was not. I don't think that is speculating. Unless someone can put a water tight case forward for Martha's inclusion in the C5, then saying that there is a good chance that her killer was someone other than JtR is obligatory, rather than optional. 
This would of course mean that the chances of another Ripper type killer roaming around Whitechapel at the time was at least a very good possibility.
This brings us to the matter of coincedence. Well if there is a good chance that there was another killer in the area at the time, then coincedence doesn't really come into it.
You mention that no other killer was arrested or charged at the time. Well neither was JtR, but he certainly existed. So I don't think that really means much, except that killer's sometimes get away with murder. 
In the subject of intoxication. We know for a fact the Martha and her soldier client were drinking all night in the pubs. So if her killer was the soldier, then the chances of him being drunk were very high indeed.
Of course if he was intending to kill Martha all along and wanted to stay sober he could have been holding back on the alcohol, but I have to say that does not seem likely.
The fact that Liz Stride and even Mary have recently been reexamined as victims of JtR does mean that the likliehood of another killer being at loose in the East End is at least a possibility.
I personally think that there are good grounds for at least questioning Liz's inclusion, so unless I am happy to accept that she committed suicide then that would mean another lurker with a knife somewhere on the scene.
Having said all that, as I said before Inaki, I am seriously swinging the other way because of the points you have brought up, which really are a wake up call. Just not convinced enough to include her in the C5 that's all.
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxx |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3580
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Hi Inaki,
This will have to be my last post on this subject (hopefully) -- life is short.
I really have very little of importance to add, because Jane has put things very well in her excellent post above.
(I don't mind at all you putting your two cents in, Jane -- in fact I wish you would do it more often.)
But I do have some additional comments.
"Well, I’d say that if they are intoxicated or drunk (which in Martha’s case is speculation) they can practically act in any way possible but rationally. In Martha’s murder I can see elements of rational thinking behind her attack and not just the hand of a drunken client at work, as you will see in my Facts Section and other posts."
Yes, I know. It is just that I think you over-empathize the rational bit and read too much into it. Even crazy people suffering from for example paranoid schizofrenia can act rationally on occasion and even shrewd, and then they suddenly explode. I have seen similar behaviour in drunks too (one of my uncles died from alcoholism).
Even if alcohol brings you out of balance and even can turn you into a different kind of person, you must remember that people are different and react differently -- it is true that drunkards are not rational when intoxicated, but they can APPEAR calm and quiet in certain situations (if they are not too pissed), and then we also have an interesting condition called "pathological intoxication".
As I said, people are complex different individuals and one can't make such clearly defined statements about human behaviour.
"Suffice it to say that I’ve been living out of studying human behaviour. I’ve spent half of my life studying it and practicing, I’ve been hired by companies to coach their employees, etc., and now I use human behaviour as a “raw data” and tool to make my living, which is in another line of businness."
Fair enough, but you seem to have missed out a bit on criminal behaviour, because a vast number of crimes pretty much blows holes in your beliefs about rationality contra excitement. No offense, just pointing it out as a fact.
"No, I’m not missing the point. JTR’s murders weren’t only remarkable for their knife savagery but for the rest of elements, too, i.e. victims were assaulted on the streets and the deed was carried out in risky spots for the killer. The attacks were (apparently) motiveless. He always targeted women of similar background (or at least, they looked like that). Those elements are lacking in the torso murders."
Yes, you're still missing the point. As I said, I was not referring to the torso murders as similar to JtR in MO and signature -- I was saying that a person who dismembers the body of a victim, is not your average killer! Dismembering is not something everyone is capable of doing, and it takes a certain kind of personality to commit such an act. Although it is mainly done for practical purposes, it is nevertheless a frightening element that differs this person out as extreme in a different kind of way compared to murders were we have no mutilation or dismemberment. You do not need to be a serial killer to do it, but quite few people can handle such an act. How many elements we can find in the torso murder that are similar in detail to JtR is not important.
All I wanted to say with this was, that the torso murders show that there was more people than JtR around in Whitechapel at the time, who was capable of committing gruesome acts that differs from ordinary attacks at home or in the streets. And if -- I said "if" -- the two torsos were connected, we also here have another serial killer on our hands.
"Well, I like good red wine and brandy (I happen to live in an area in which there is good wine and brandy galore). As for the beer I’m a Guinness man. "
Yes, that's true -- there's a lot of fine wines in that area. Indeed. As for Spanish brandy, you probably should have a talk with A.P. Wolf here on the Boards, because you can't find a stronger fan of that particular drink.
As for myself, I quite enjoy brandy (although I've only tried French), but I generally prefer cognac. Still, if I am out of cognac, brandy will suffice. Unfortunately I have neither at home at the moment.
As for beer, Guinness is my choice as well, but I can choose Porter too if that's not available.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 20
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Well the facts are her killer was either JtR or he was not. I don't think that is speculating. Unless someone can put a water tight case forward for Martha's inclusion in the C5, then saying that there is a good chance that her killer was someone other than JtR is obligatory, rather than optional.
But, can anybody put a water tight case foward for Stride or Kelly, for instance? Should that preclude us from considering them part of the C5? But, if "there might have been another Ripper type killer roaming around Whitechapel at the time", then what’s the point in trying to put foward a 100% proof case for the others, too? Promoting that possibility as a (almost) reality cast the same doubts over the canonicals, too. So, as far as Martha’s case is concerned it is not especially lessened. Instead of that, that possibility only indicates us that we shouldn’t expect 100% proof when assesing all the victims’s murders.
Besides, why should we suppose that two independent killers were working in similar fashion in the same area at the same time?
To quote Sugden: “We may be wrong in thinking of Jack the Ripper as just one man. For Schwartz compels us to take very seriously the possibility that he was really two. The Hungarian certainly saw two men at the scene of the crime that night. Were they, in fact, confederates? Schawartz’s impression at the time was that they were. In his statement to the police he said that the first man, the one attacking the woman, ‘called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road “Lipski”.’ Schwartz then walked away but, ‘finding that he was followed by the second man’, started to run (…) Quite clearly Schwartz was under the impression that the murderer had alerted his accomplice to Schwartz’s presence and that the accomplice, the second man, was seeing him off.” (Sugden, 1998, p.215).
Although, after being cross-questioned by Abberline he couldn’t be absolutely certain that the two men had been acting together, his first impression was that they were. So why not to take into account that possibility, too? 2 men acting together could explain some things.
Besides, how do you know if there is a good chance that there was another Ripper type killer in the area at the time? Only if you beg the question and take it as a fact (and not like a possibility) can you jump on the “coincedence waggon” as a global explanation of the case.
So, as I said in my original post those kind of objections don’t add anything to the equation. Besides, I’d like to make this clear… My intention is to show that there are enough reasonable facts as to include her in the list. When we bring these type of objections up we don’t lessen the facts, they still remain the same. What we do is to introduce new possibilities that we have to take into account and discuss them. That’s fine because that can give us a better understanding of the case. But, as far as the facts are concerned, they are the same. But that (praiseworthy) attitude is extendable to the other victims too. That’s why some of them have been questioned. But, the facts are the same. What those different possibilities have done is that we can give the facts a different interpretation. But, as we can’t put a water tight case foward for the existence of a second Ripper type killer working in the same area at the same time, we still have to label them as canonicals.
My purpose with Martha is to show that she meets enough elements of the Ripper equation and not to prove that anybody can't come up with several objections.
Firstly it cannot be stated for a fact that she was strangled or suffocated enough to render her unconscious… Martha was extremely drunk even at the time she picked up her soldier client. Her and Poll were completely paralytic by the time they seperated to service their two clients… So if her killer was the soldier, then the chances of him being drunk were very high indeed.
As I said in my first post: “Did the victim show any sign of having been strangled? Yes, she did! She had her fists clenched (Sugden,1998, p.16), indicating a possible strangulation. Even the Illustrated Police News stated: “… she being throttled while held down and the face and head so swollen and distorted in consequence that her real features are not discernible.” (Sugden,1998, p.18). Although, there is no other surviving document that corroborates the IPN statement, if we take a glance at her post-mortem picture we’ll see signs of a very possible strangulation”. I feel that there is more than a posibbility that she was.
Sorry Jane, but I can’t find the information that corroborates that Tabram was "extremely drunk or completely paralytic" by the time they separated. As far as I know she had been drinking for aprox. 0.45 minutes (…) and they parted all right. (Sugden, 1998, p.26) and as Paul Beggs states: “Nobody knows what Martha did the she was murdered.” (JTR The Facts, p.33). So, I’d like to see the data that supports that she was in an almost “paralytic state”. Most of the prostitutes were heavy drinkers but that doesn’t allow us to infer that she may have been so drunk that she couldn’t even walk.
And if the soldier was drunk, why should we suppose that he’d have been able to commit the murder so noiselessly? The same logic that it’s used with Tabram should be used with the drunken client. Why when the “drunken client theory” is advanced nobody says the same thing that you have said about Martha and her inability to fight for her being drunk? No one says, well if the client was drunk the Martha could have fought for her life, or it’d have been a noisy murder, etc. I feel as though all the objections are aimed to lessen Martha’s probabilities but not to prove a case against her.
Besides, Tabram and the soldier were last seen at 11.45 p.m. (Sugden, 1998, p.30), long before her body was found. In fact, there isn’t a shred of evidence to think that after the first knee-tremble they both kept drinking and aprox. 3 hours later they went back to George Yard and then the soldier killed her.
I think that Martha’s killer used a similar approching method to the Ripper. Whether Martha was or not drunk means nothing regarding as she was or not a Ripper’s victim. In fact, it could even be suggested that JTR targeted drunk prostitutes (maybe as an easier target). Many of them were the worse for drink before getting killed.
It could have been oral sex which would leave no trace, it could have been a knee trembler, in which case the emissions from killer would have joined the accumulation already on her clothing or her body.
Yes, but you are missing my point. Because it could have been the same with the canonicals. The Fact is that Contemporary medical examinations on the Ripper's canonical victims reported that there was no evidence of "recent connexion", and Dr Killeen “stated positively that there were no signs of there having been recent connexion”. (JTR- The Facts; p.35). That’s a recurring fact in all the Ripper murders. Whether the killer had only oral sex, knee trembles or no sex at all before murdering them is something that we don’t know so all those objections are just speculations.
As I said, try not to mistake facts for evidence. After over 100 years we only have a collection of facts and very little evidence if any. So, try to understand my thesis. "Martha meets enough reasonable facts as to put her in the canon." How many of those facts could be considered evidence? We don’t know, but the same can be said regarding the canonicals.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 448
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
HI Inaki,
Well, all I can say is I wouldn't like to take you on in a boxing ring! You put up a good fight!
I personally would be dubious about putting Liz and Mary in the C5 anyway, although more so Liz than Mary. I think that Mary does fill more of the criteria, Liz I am less sure about.
Which is why I feel that Martha's murder does fall just short of being worthy of reinclusion.
I think it is a good possibility that her killer was JtR, so I am not digging my heels in here and saying no way ever........but I just feel that it is not quite strong enough a case.
I wasn't actually implying that Martha was not strangled, I was saying that it was not conclusive, although it was a good possibility.
This is one of the points you brought up which I found very thought provoking,
It was something I had not thought of before and did push be further towards thinking that she may have been a victim of JtR.
I will go back and check where I found reference to her being very drunk, I suspect that it was because it had been brought up somewhere that Poll was very drunk and that they had been drinking all day.
You are right to point out that I should give sources for it. I'll see what I can find, if not I will certainly apologise and you might see me blush!
Having said that, the point I was making was that her being drunk could have made it more likely that her killer could have overcome her easily, thus making little noise. It really tells us nothing about who might have killed her, just might explain the absence of noise.
'I think that Martha’s killer used a similar approching method to the Ripper. Whether Martha was or not drunk means nothing regarding as she was or not a Ripper’s victim. In fact, it could even be suggested that JTR targeted drunk prostitutes (maybe as an easier target). Many of them were the worse for drink before getting killed'.
I totally agree with that, but I hope I have straightened out what I meant in bringing it up.
I quite agree that there are some good reasons for examining the possibility that JtR might have have actually been two men......but as we don't know whether it was one or two men that killed Martha, I don't think that helps much. It is not even certain that two knives were used and the difference in wound could have been caused as the same knife hit bone and was deflected.
I do think that a drunken soldier as her killer though is not out of the question.
Some men can drink gallons and hardly seem that affected by it at all on the surface, then suddenly they can turn into complete demons.
I have witnessed it far too often. A pleasant conversation and then wallop they are trying to strangle you, with no indications whatsoever. Just as if someone had flipped a switch.
That is why I cannot rule out the good possibility that a drunken soldier could have been responsible for her death, even when one takes into consideration the strangulation.
The reason I brought up the fact that she may have had sex with her killer, again was nothing at all to do with whether or not her killer was JtR, but just to bring out that there was another reasonable explanation for her being in that position with her clothes pushed up. It need not necessarily have been any more than the position she was in when she died and purely coincedental.
The clothes where raised in the other cases in order to expose the area he wished to mutilate. Martha was stabbed, he did not need to raise her clothes to do that. I personally don't believe the other victims were posed,
I think that they were in those positions so that he could perform the mutilations or in some cases they were actually the positions they fell in naturally when being lowered to the ground.
All in all there are just still too many ifs and buts for me to see that it is safe for her to be included.
There is a very good chance that she was a victim of JtR, I have actually included her in my book with the same importance as the C5, but just a few too many doubts to go further than that.
Love Jane
xxxxxx
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
I do not think it true to say that 'no other crazy murderer was arrested (or came under police attention) in that few months span.'
For plenty of 'em did.
Okay, they didn't kill whores, but mostly wives or children, but they were plenty crazy.
Just check a few of the threads hanging around.
Without even referring to my notes I would say that there were at least ten 'crazy' murders during that brief time span... and hence ten different 'crazy' murderers.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3587
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
AP,
I might have to turn to you for some specific references for my research when the time comes, if it's OK with you (although I keep a regular peek on those threads, it is beginning to turn into TOO much information). I might even bribe you with some Spanish brandy.
You seem to be sitting on a goldmine of information there. Quite a lot of interesting and, I feel, valid stuff indeed that should be more acknowledged.
Jane,
Once again, a splendid and intelligent post.
I have really nothing to add, and you are so right about drunken people who all of a sudden can appear calm and reasonable and then suddenly explode without reason. Alcohol (and today, drugs) can do that to certain people. As I said, we are all different and people can act very inconsistently.
Well done.
As for C5... well, Inaki, leaving the door open for a victim's possibility to be a JtR victim is one thing -- admitting her into the canon is another. "Canonization pretty" much implicates a more or less certain position as a Ripper victim without doubt. Which is why Stride (at least) shouldn't really be in there.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 652
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Can one simply "un-pick" the canonical five at this stage, Glenn.
Like the books of the Bible, aren't the number and identity rather set in stone now? One can question their legitimacy, of course, but I doubt whether the phrase or what it means will ever change now.
phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3588
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Phil,
I have a feeling that my poor fellow country-woman Stride may be thrown out of that group within a short amount of time. She has been questioned now for a fair amount of years and most people -- even many famous experts on the case -- are now so doubtful about her inclusion (revealed in both books and documentaries) that she really no longer could be considered a member of the canon. And I personally strongly object to her inclusion as such on this website on the Victims page.
She still might have been a Ripper victim after all, but later research has unveiled so many uncertainties regarding her case that she can not with any stretch of the imagination be considered a Ripper victim with such high probabilities.
Mary Kelly, I fear, is a stronger and more controversial nut to crack, though, and in that department I have no expectations -- it might be too early to raise that question anyway and the issue is still to controversial, and too many questions still remain unanswered.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Yes Glenn
We must be very careful when making claims about ‘crazy’ murderers in Whitechapel in 1888.
Thomas James Uberfield thought that he had animals crawling about inside his skin and slit his daughter’s throat as a consequence, that was in the East End in the September of 1888.
Charles Latham stabbed Mary Newman nine times in the throat in July 1888 and was HMP’d for it.
Henry Baker stabbed Mary Cowen severely in the breast and back in July of 1888.
Robert Bright took a hatchet to his wife’s head in August 1888, not just once but the seven times to make sure.
Levi Richard Bartlett - the Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing - killed his wife with a 14lb hammer while she slept by beating her head to pulp in August 1888.
All in the East End of London.
Nothing rational about these crimes, all ’crazy’.
There are a lot more but I got to drinking some of that fine Spanish brandy… |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 21
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Hi all!
AP Wolf,
I used the expression 'no other crazy murderer was arrested (or came under police attention) in that few months span', in the sense of a Ripper type murderer. Somebody who attacked a specific group of people, without apparent reason, overkilled them, etc.
As it’s stated in The Complete JTR, 1988, p. 3-4: “Until Jack the Ripper, nearly all crime had been ‘economic’ in origin (…) The first criminal case that bears superficial resemblance to the Ripper case is that of the Ratcliffe Highway murders of December 1811 (…) The extreme violence of these crimes produced a nationwide sensation very similar to that produced by Jack the Ripper. Again, in 1828, the activities of the body-snatchers Burke and Hare caused a similar sensation; they killed at least a dozen people, most of them prostitutes. The motive was purely economic (…) In Whitechapel, murders were so commonplace that the newspapers did not even bother to report the murder of Emma smith on Easter Monday, 1888…”.
As it can be seen, people were used to all type of murders, crimes, etc. Most of them had some apparent o "logical" reason, i.e., money, sex, some other kind of domestic violence, etc. But the Ripper murders were off the beaten track, so to speak.
I know the police arrested more criminals but none of them were a Ripper type murderer.
Anyway, thanks for the point and I should have expressed myself better, but I had been drinking to Glenn's health and I was... well, you know what I mean... 
PS- Glenn, most probably you will be very healthy the next months...
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2190
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
No worries Inaki,
the detail is in the detail.
Your premise that Jack was something 'new' is something that I used to suffer from as well.
It was the world that was new, not Jack.
Jack sort of arrived at a time of media development that propelled him into being a killer out of all proportion to himself.
I have always felt it more important to isolate the various victims rather than attempt spurious groupings.
Look at each individual victim in splendid isolation, rather than as whores ripe for slaughter - which is our preconception and prejudice - and then explore the links they provide.
A gut feeling I have is that most people on these boards no longer accept Stride as a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer, but I would postulate that all your reasoning for including Tabram as a victim of the Whitechapel Murderer could be usefully employed in the case of Stride.
You see, it doesn't really matter how many whores Jack killed, we just must nail him for one.
So go for Eddowes.
Much more useful to your obvious logic and intelligence. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3589
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Inaki,
Thanks for the sacrifice; believe me, that can sure be a welcome change from how I usually feel. 
AP, I like the way you think.
Go for Eddowes indeed -- or Chapman. Any of those two will do, I feel.
Looking at each victim as an isolated crime is something that is usual police procedure anyway in the first round of an investigation, even when you have a probable series to consider. Once shall never start with the assumption, that a murder is part of a series -- it should be considered in a later stage when other facts don't fit.
Of course, when you have other previous victims lined up in a similar fashion one shall always be ready to include her, but never forget to start to lok at it as an isolated crime in its own right.
Many, I feel, decides right from the start that a victim is part of a series and then they close the file. Not good.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 449
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
I have just been reading through some notes and I have to say that I was quite wrong to say that Martha and Poll were paralytic........in other words falling down drunk. That was an assumption I made based on the overall impressions I got from reading the witness testimonies. Naughty girl, smacked wrist. 
However, I do think it is safe to say that she was drunk enough for it have affected her ability to fend off her attacker as well as a sober person might, so really I do feel my point still stands and is valid.
Martha was to all accounts an habitual alcoholic, given to fits when she had been drinking, She was deserted by friends and relatives because of her habitual drinking. Almost every penny she got went on drink according to loved ones. It is not unreasonable to think that an habitual alcoholic was drunk when she had been drinking in several pubs that night.
Pearly Poll's testimony is to say the least as dubious as an eleven pound note. If you read through again, it is clear that she was not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but..........
The drinking session with Martha and the soldiers was not in fact three quarters of an hour as she stated in one sentence, but in fact at the very least one hour and three quarters.
She was seen going into several local pubs during the evening, which has to be more than two be definition. If it was only three pubs with a drink in each then she would not have been sober. That is a very conservatve estimate.
Obviously I can only give a couple of the sources, but there are many all saying the same thing. She was drinking for much longer than 3 quarters of an hour. It would have been physically impossible to get round at least three pubs and have a drink in each in that time, unless they ran and downed the drinks in one gulp!
East London Advertiser
Saturday, 25 August 1888.
They all four went into a public-house and they were drinking together for the whole of the hour and three quarters but not in the same house.
By the Coroner: Deceased had been drinking on the night of the murder, and witness was in the same condition. During the hour and three quarters they were drinking they had some ale and a little rum.'
That is not the actions of a social drinker, that is someone on a pub crawl. Just one drink in each pub would be enough to make her drunk enough to slow down in her reflexes and be less alert.
Ann Morriss her sister in law actually contradicts Poll's testimony as well. She states that Martha was alone when she saw her.
East London Observer
Saturday, 25 August 1888.
I knew the deceased, and last saw her alive on the Monday Bank Holiday, about eleven o'clock at night, going into a public house - the "White Swan." She was alone at the time, but I didn't follow her in, and I saw no more of her after that. She drank very heavily, and was a very bad woman in other respects.
This entirely contradicts Poll's testimony at the inquest:
'The deceased did not drink much, and I don't know what she did for a living.'
All in all, I would say that it is not unreasonable to think that Martha was the worse for wear that night, and the point that she was given to fits when drunk, I found very interesting.
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 610
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
AP,
Good point, indeed, that instead of focusing on the forest (sorry to reverse your theme Inaki) we might be better advised to look at just one tree.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Hi all!
AP Wolf,
Thanks for your words.
It was the world that was new, not Jack. Jack sort of arrived at a time of media development that propelled him into being a killer out of all proportion to himself.
Yes, as it’s already been discussed, newspapers and press agencies had a lot to do with propelling him into the type of killer he became. But, please note that in Tabram’s case her murder was described as “one of the most dreadful murders anyone could imagine”… (Sugden, 1998, p.20,28) and that it was a turning point in the perception of Whitechapel’s people? “Such was the alarming effect on the population that a few days later about 70 local men formed the first Vigilance Committee caused by the Whitechapel Murders…” (Sugden, 1998, p. 19).
All this happened before the “police or the press linked” her murder with the previous ones and when her murder was “regarded as an isolated, freak tragedy…” (Sugden,1998, p. 34). So, in her case we can’t resort to any kind of press sensationalism, etc., to lessen the alarming effect. It was much later, when police and press linked her murder to the others.
have always felt it more important to isolate the various victims rather than attempt spurious groupings.
Yes, that’s the first step. As Glenn says: ‘Looking at each victim as an isolated crime is something that is usual police procedure’. But when I say that we should try to see the forest instead of a single tree I mean that we should try to see the whole set of elements within each isolated murder.
Once we have done that we’ll be in the position to say whether such crime has or not enough elements to connect it with the others. In other words, if we only see that somebody has been knifed to death we might be missing the whole set of elements, i.e., pattern of dates, occupation, body positioning, no reason for overkilling, etc., that “make the tree a part of the forest.”
But as you say, we should start looking at each murder as an isolated case.
As for the rest of the victims, I’ll get to them when I get the time. Anyway, I feel that much revisionism is clouding the issue...
PS- So, you like Spanish brandy. Some of them are as good as the finests French cognacs. Actually, and although cognac is a trade name, in Spain people don’t call the drink ‘brandy’ but ‘cognac’ (or, coñac to use the Spanish word). I drink a Spanish brandy (or cognac) which is super smooth and slips down a treat… But, don’t get me wrong... This is for medical prescription: two doses immediately after meals...
(Message edited by inaki on June 13, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 195
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
Hi all
I'm still unhappy about the two soldiers. Knowbody has really given clear thought to which soldiers they beleive murdered Martha Tabram.
And even if Pearli Poll's testimoney was shakey can we assume that she was hiding something? Perhaps it would be better to assume that she simply didnt remember that clearly. I think to take her whole statement as a pack of lies is questionable, most good lies contain elements of truth...and I have know reason to beleive that Pearli had anything against Martha, on the contry. And I dont think admitting to being a postitute was a good idea....look at Ada wilson and emma smiths stories, they had to be carefull with truth but that doesnt make them total liars.
So Pearli leaves with Martha approx 11.45 (doesnt this tie up with sister in law statement martha enters pub 11.00. Jane?)
Pearli Goes with the corpral down Angel Allie.
(I couldnt find an Angel Ally and work out how close to Georges Yard. sorry, but assume close)
Martha goes with Private to Georges yard.
At 1.50 constable Barrett aproaches a soldier in the North end of Georges yard. A private guards man who says he is waiting for his freind.
I can not see how this guardsman conects to the other two.
If this is the same soldier who went with Pearli poll then why does constable Bennett not refer to him as a corpral?
Why does he not notice the soldier is drunk? He clearly excepts the soldiers explination so he does not see anything that unusual. Were there lots of soldier on leave that night?
If this is the same soldier that went with Tabram and killed her, would he be hanging around out side? No he'd be getting out of there.
So how can we possibly conect the soldier that spoke to constable Barrett with the two soldiers that left with Pearl and Martha.
Surely we have three possibly four different soldiers? The second two having no conection with Martha Tabram.
All these street girls were quite able to look after themselves especially drunk clients, infact most of them had reputations for noisy disputes and fighting.
If witnesses had returned from buying lunch we can assume they kept irregular hours and were probably awake when the attack on Martha happened.
I just cant by the silent drunk arguement, most drunks are not quiet....no Martha was cault off guard and killed in comparative silence.
I see nothing to conect soldier in yard to Martha Tabram.
Jeff
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 23
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:21 am: |
|
Jane!
Thanks for your comments. Yes, the time span could have been superior to 0.45 minutes. Anyway, it’s quite possible that she hadn’t drunk so much before meeting the soldiers. (As you also noted) “ Ann Morris saw Tabram outside on entering a pub she thought she was the White Swan in Whitechapel Road. Tabram, she said, ‘was then quite alone’.” (JTR The Facts, p.33). So, if Tabram was quite alone and with no client to pay for her drinks, it’s quite possible that she wasn’t the worse for drink when she met the soldiers.
Besides, even if she had “had one too many” we shouldn’t assume that she was so affected as to being unable to fight for her live. As I said, Tabram and the soldier were last seen at 11.45 p.m. (Sugden, 1998, p.30), long before her body was found.
In fact, there isn’t a shred of evidence to say that after the knee-tremble she kept drinking or pub crawling. No one saw her do that. So, even if she had been tipsy when left Pearly Poll she still could have sobered up enough (like Eddowes) as to having been able to put up some fight.
Bear in mind that police and the local tenants were surprised that no noise was heard. So, unless Tabram had been in a ‘paralityc’ state, if everything happened as a result of a spur of the moment reaction , some kind of noise, fights, shouts, etc., should have been expected.
Anyway, try to see this as a recurring fact that fits with the other murders. Don't see it as evidence for something. If I said that it was evidence I'd only be deluding myself and my reasoning would be open to be dismissed as pure speculation.
As I said, after over 100 years we only have a collection of facts and very little evidence if any. As we can't say if this or that is evidence for something and as we'll never be totally sure that such prostitute was or not a Ripper's victim (there might be some kind of unknown explanation to drop her from the list) I think our starting point should be to see if the candidate meets enough facts as to see a consistent pattern of behaviour behind her murder. Once we have reached that point, we can start debating all the details we wish. This is one of the reasons for which I think the term canonical shouldn't be used and should be replaced with a better definition.
IMHO, Martha's case (whether she was a JTR victim or not) meets enough facts as to be on the starting positions along with the others.
(Message edited by inaki on June 13, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 7:57 am: |
|
I would be willing to toss Stride out except for the Schwartz/Lawende connection.
Knowing that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, I approached the list of eyewitness descriptions (recorded facts in the sense that they are accurate records of the not-so-accurate perceptions of individuals) with the question, "How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?" I concluded (hypothesis that if there was only one person who got it even somewhat right we would never pick them out from all the spurious descriptions. But if there were two we should be able to expect some commonality. Test: As expected I found everything from a dandy to a soldier, but there were two that almost matched. If they were identical, I would have been suspicious of collusion, but they weren't. Look at the description given by Israel Schwartz and the one given by Lawende. They are very similar. I believe they saw the same man. |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 24
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
Hi Diana!
Where some people see a "wall" other people see a "window" through which they could pass into a new scenario.
Stride's case may have more important clues than we might think of.
One day when I get the time, I'll put my ideas down in writing.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
I have always felt that Martha Tabram was a victim of JTR. The reason being the 39 stab wounds. Certainly robbery always has to be considered a motive. But prostitutes such as Martha were not good victims from a robbers perspective because they had no money. If they had money, they would not have been out on the streets in the first place. If you wanted to rob a prostitute (and you were a strong, healthy male) all you had to do was push her to the ground. Even if she resisted, one or two stabs with a knife would subdue her. The inquest showed that she had no enemies. That basically leaves us with the soldier client being her killer or a client she picked up after leaving him. Remember that no soldier ever came forward at a later time to inform on a fellow soldier even though the reward was substantial. But try this experiment. Pretend that you have a knife in your hand. Work yourself up into a rage. Make stabbing motions while screaming things like "you stupid whore, I'll teach you to steal my wallet etc., etc. I am willing to bet that your rage will peak and end way before you get to 39. To me, 39 stab wounds don't show someone in the throws of anger. 39 stab wounds show a very sick individual. 39 stab wounds show it was Jack the Ripper. |
Eric Petrie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Having no access to sophisticated geographical profiling software I simply scanned in the AtoZ map of Whitechapel and played with it. I plotted in the five canonical killings and drew a line joining them. This gave me a rough extent of Jack's range. I then drew two lines from each of the canonical killing sites which gave me a rough centre to Jack's activity.
To this I added translucent circles of approximately 100m diameter and 200m diameter so that any overlaps would show up darker. I then did the same for the places that the victims were last seen.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to copy this in otherwise you would be able to see the results. However,the deepest colour is along Commercial Street (not surprisingly as Commercial Street and Whitechapel Road are the most logical places for him to pick up prostitutes).
The most prominent dark area of the map is over the junction of Osborne St and Whitechapel Road. Jack was on foot when he performed his killings. I understand that serial patterns of killings often begin with an unplanned, chance killing. The most likely place for him to receive the trigger stimulus necessary for him to launch his series would be in the locale where he lived or worked (this may be the same place, of course). The first killing of a spree is often close to the killer's home.
The centre seems to indicate that TABRAM may be a trial run as the centre point of the diagram fits very closely to George Yard Buildings. Her arrangement also suggests the ritual followed by Jack. PC Thomas Barrett is quoted at the inquest, held by George Collier, deputy coroner for the South Eastern Division of Middlesex, that the clothes "were turned up as far as the center of the body, leaving the lower part of the body exposed; the legs were open, and altogether her position was such as to suggest in my mind that recent intimacy had taken place."
These indicators suggest that Jack lived or had a hideaway close to Whitechapel High Street. It probably had an entrance at the back such as in Black Lion Yard, King’s Arms Court or Green Dragon Yard. He seems, almost certainly, to have used Old Montague Street as his return from all of his killing trips (NB he did not return after STRIDE).
From TABRAM at George Yard Buildings it was a minute or two’s walk to Old Montague Street. From the scene of the NICHOL’s killing the most direct route back into Whitechapel is along Old Montague Street if one is avoiding the High Street, it is a staggered junction from Durward St. From the CHAPMAN killing site at Hanbury St there are a number of roads leading directly to Old Montague Street, Greatorex St for example. We can ignore STRIDE for the moment though she was probably seen in Whitechapel High St and followed through St Mary’s Churchyard to Settles St. This is within the 100m radius of the corner of Osborn St and Whitechapel High St. The Goulston St graffiti and the apron are on a direct line of retreat to Old Montague Street from the scene of the EDDOWES slaying. The KELLY killing is anomalous in several ways but she was seen plying her trade along Commercial St very near the junction with Wentworth St (an extension of Old Montague Street) and a retreat from Whites Row along Fashion St and down Brick Lane to Old Montague Street would be simple. (Especially if he did a Lizzie Borden and killed naked!)
He almost certainly did not live in one of the doss houses of Thrawl St, Flower and Dean St or Dorset St as the overcrowded conditions would not have allowed a blood spattered man to leave or enter unseen so easily. This would imply a ‘better’ class of killer though not ‘upper’ class. Charles Booth’s 1889 map puts Whitechapel High Street as ‘Middle Class, well to do’ – most writers suggest that all of Whitechapel was slums but this was not the case. There were notorious rookeries but there were also some ‘sought after properties’. By far the majority of the area was a mixture of poor and comfortably off.
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 25
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
Hi Jeff!
No, I can't see any solid evidence to connect the soldier (or any soldier) to Martha's murder, either.
One of the things that have kept "the soldier theory" alive is the "bayonet myth". It is still widely believed that a bayonet was the murder weapon. Actually, as Jon Ogan notes: "That assumption was wrong. Although no P.M. report remains, a short note appended to a Home Office document gives the revised official view that 'some of the wounds are so narrow that a bayonet WAS FIRST suspected as the weapon. BUT bayonet wounds are quite UNMISTAKABLE...'" ( MARTHA TABRAM - THE FORGOTTEN RIPPER VICTIM?).
So, apart from a soldier seen in the North End of George Yard, there's nothing else that should makes us believe that a soldier was the culprit. Although, as I said, we shouldn't discard the possiblity that JTR was a soldier.
I even wonder if the reverse is not true. Did Dr Killeen see any real evidence that she had been killed by a bayonet or did he reach that conclusion because he had found out that she had last been seen with a soldier and therefore a bayonet could be the weapon used for the deeper wound?
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3590
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:11 am: |
|
Jeff,
The reason for why you can't see any connection in the "soldier" theory, is because you lay too much weight upon Pearly Poll's story. I do not believe she told the truth, and even if she did, there is no need to assume that the soldier in her story has to be the grenadier that was found outside George Yard. Pearly Poll is too unreliable as a witness.
It is that soldier -- found by PC Barrett -- that is interesting.
I certainly don't see it as a loose end, when we have a grenadier seen outide the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of when the murder COULD have been committed, and admitting that he was "waiting for a friend that has gone with the girl". That is definitely a connection and any police officer would consider it to be one of the most vital clues, especially since the witness that reported the incident was a police constable.
To dismiss that as unconnected is to refuse to see things that are there because you do not WANT to see them.
"And even if Pearli Poll's testimoney was shakey can we assume that she was hiding something? Perhaps it would be better to assume that she simply didnt remember that clearly."
There are clear indications of that she was a VERY reluctant witess who didn't want to participate at all, and she gave the police a lot of trouble. They even had to go look for her, since she pretty much tried to disappear into obscurity. There could be many reasons for this, but bad memory is certainly not the answer; she was most probably scared for her safety and did not want to get involved and the police at the time clearly suspected that she deliverately tried to sabotage the line-ups by pointing out the wrong guy or none at all and it can't be excuded, that she aso might have lied about other things in her testimony -- the soldier's rank, the timing etc.
She was certainly one of their most difficult witnesses and bad memory or incompetence just doesn't cut it (pardon the expression). And those are not speculations; the frustration of the police is truly expressed in the documentation.
Think about it: she was asked to pick out one or two soldiers in a line-up, which is what scares many witnesses the most. And as a prostitute she was really in a vulnerable position with no protection afterwards.
Soldiers, like policemen, stand up for each other in loyalty and I do not think any of them would deliberately admit that they had been out with prostitutes.
"All these street girls were quite able to look after themselves especially drunk clients, infact most of them had reputations for noisy disputes and fighting. "
Apparently not, or else we wouldn't be here.
True, prostitutes were pretty capable of handling themselves and were tough in their behaviour against the police, but don't confuse this with being capable of handling a violent client. Because they certainly were not. A man is still strnger, generally speaking, and they were not armed. Prostitutuion was and still is one of the most dangerous and risky occupations and they have always been in a vulnerable position. Being tough and throwing out cocky remarks is one thing.
A very strange and invalid argument.
"I just cant by the silent drunk arguement, most drunks are not quiet"
As has been pointed out now several times on this thread, that is not true. Completely wrong.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Eric
An interesting post for which I agree whole heartedly having often paced the area Old Montague Street and Durward street (Bucks Row) make the obvious conection.
This is specially significant if you have jack down as a local boy who new the area.
I was saying to Glenn teh other week that I always feel the Stride murder is most off Jacks territory.
I'd be very interested in your map if it added in Annie Milwood 8 whites Row in spitalfeild. Also Ada Wilson 19 maidman Street (which I cant find on the map but beleive it to be further down Whitechappel Road towards Mile end.) Ada's attacker was chased by neighbours and it would be interesting to know if any witnesses noted the direction the attacker went...towards Whitechappel perhaps?
Inaki I think it most unlikely that the soldier Constable Barrett spoke to was one of the Soldiers that Pearli and Martha left with. It just doesnt make sense. But if you and Glenn ever want to walk Georges yard or find Angel Alli I can offer you both a place to stay for a weekend, that's one conversation I wouldn't want to miss.
Which leaves me one puzzling question. How does the re-connonization process thing work?
Do Sugden and Begg meet on the winter solstice in the Ten bells...strip themselves naked, cover themselves in blood and dance around the Maybrick diary encanting stange masonic rituals. While a large Viking behind the bar poors pints of cold guiness and that beer they don't like to export. Do groups of Tumblety advocists hand around jars of pickled onions while Patricia cornwall hacks walter Sicket paintings apart, screaming 'out foul spot'. Is there some secret society of cannonizing that perform unspeekable rituals of degredation and Slooth?
And if so....How do I join?
Jeff
Hey I think I've worked out who the bar tender might be....its OK mate your secrets safe with me.
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
Glenn I'm sorry but the one thing I have some experience of is drunks having worked the odd bar in my youth. The majority of them are leary and noisy...just go to any English high street on a saturday night and try and count the silent drunks.
As for noisy I site Eddows screaming like a train engine, I beleive Kelly had a reputation for singing loudly and fighting and annie Chapman had been in a fight the day of her murder. But if drunks are quiet in Sweden perhaps I should move out there because they aint in the Eastend. Emma Smith was seriously asulted by a gang of men, she managed to walk home a feet of almost super human strength.
I should not underestimate the potential for all these women to defend them selves on the street, at least be street wise enough to scream and make noise if they were attacked. Jack was one clever customer who new this...given his failior with Annie and Ada. And what are the chances that Jack the Ripper who new the area well had trodden the streets wasnt out and about three weeks before Nicols murder? He was out that night I can assure you...Jack didnt arrive from no where. He spent time getting to no his kingdom.
You say Pearli Poll was dilibarately obstructive but then give out a list of reasons why she would be in danger of pionting out the soldiers. Pearli Poll certainly didnt like the police why should she? however is that the same as not wanting justice for the horrific murder of her freind?
Besides when I said difficulty remembering I was of course refering to the large quantity of alchol she had consumed. Havnt you ever woken with a hang over and no idea what time you left the pub or how you got to bed...man you need to get out more.
Why would Pearli Poll invent the story about A private that went with Martha and she went with a corpral? Do you think Pearli Poll wanted to appear a better class of prostitute? No that at least has the sound of truth.
You admit that its quite possible that the soldier seen by Constable Barrett had nothing to do with the soldiers that left with P n M.
But you admit Georges Yard is a place fequented by prostitutes and there was more than one entrance that could have been used...Surely it is just possible that the soldier was telling the truth...this soldier wouldnt have been recognised by pearli Poll anyway...perhaps she wasnt being unhelpful at all perhaps they were differant soldiers?
And as Inaki has pionted out the two soldier story has entwined itself into the statements that Tabram was killed with a Bainett. And that two knives were used.
If this was a differant soldier that PC Barrett saw who spoke of a freind I see nothing what ever to assume this man had any conection to Martha Tabram who was probably killed at least an hour after this conversation. I mean how long did a average trick take 5 or 10 minutes.
Your story only really works if you can conect the soldier that P n M left with with the soldier seen by PC Barrett.
And I bet there were some very sheepish soldiers with hang overs not keen to be identified for going with prostitues but that dosnt make them homicidal murderers who would stab someone 39 times.
Jeff
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 26
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Pearly Poll only showed the distrust in authority, which was (and still is) so common in people of her class. We should bear in mind that it was her who first volunteered all the information to the police. Why would she have done that if she didn't wish to assist the police?
As Bob Hinton points out: "Pearly Poll seemed most anxious to please, offering to attend parades in an effort to identify the soldiers." (From Hell, p.19). It's true that she hid with her cousin, and showed some reluctance when cross-questioned, but the reason may well have been that she simply got "cold feet".
Possibly, she only had some cloudy recollections of that Bank Holiday Day (she had been drinking a lot), and maybe she realised that she couldn't identify any soldier or offer any supporting evidence.
Try to see things through her eyes: after all, she was just a poor prostitute while the soldiers were more "respected" citizens. What if they denied everything and accused her of lying, verbally abused her, etc. Would authorities have helped her? She wasn't like Pc Barret, another "respected" and well-intentioned citizen.
Another possibility is that she had second thoughts about it and got scared for some unknown reasons.
Anyway, we can't assume that she just wanted to sabotage the investigation. Most probably, she had good intentions at first only to realise that it was safer to keep the mouth shut. By then, it was a bit late and authorities were looking for her.
And yes, a man is stronger than a woman and prostitution is a dangerous and a risky business but that doesn't mean that it' | | | |
