|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2408
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:05 am: | 
|
Jenni,
Exactly. How can we?
I think it's a good point that they may have delivered their views to cover up the fact that they really had no clue. Perhaps also personal prestige against one another could be another complementary reason, who knows?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:09 am: |
|
Glenn,
exactly - we can't!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!!
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Glenn,
On the whole I agree...but the arrogance in this statement....
....."But, in any case, you are the crime historian, not me. I wouldn't know the first thing about a criminals psyche, so I better not argue that point."
Yes, I think that would be best...
Im no professional Footballer......but I know a good player and a lame donkey when I see one. (Montys Dad)
Understand ?
Monty
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2409
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:11 pm: |
|
It was meant as a irony, Monty -- not to be taken seriously!
As I said in my post, I am hardly a full grown expert compared to many others here anyway, and I am certainly not a professional, but Adam is clearly stating things with an incredible self-assureness and arrogance without knowing one bit what he's talking about on some issues. I'm sorry, I can't accept it -- if I am supposed to accept such arrogance from a newbie and am not allowed to retort to it, then I'll gladly back off and lay off the discussion. With pleasure. It's like hitting a brick wall anyway.
If now Adam himself admits that he knows little of these things, then why on Earth do he make claims saying it's like this and that, and won't listen to other voices than himself? To be stubborn if you're ignorant (and knows it!) is not a smart move to recommend.
But OK, I'll jump off the train here. I hardly wanna be accused of scaring off newbies anyway.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1180
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I do not believe that you have any chance of scaring of Adam, he may be a newbie, but he certainly writes a intresting post.
I enjoy a gush of fresh air, i do not accept his theory regarding Chapman, even if Abberline made his famous remark, he was only twenty three in 1888, he was a small man, and it is also well documented that his change of M.O is out of sequence with modern day knowledge.
Abberline merely made a tonque in cheek remark, as he freely admits no member of the force had any idea who the whitechapel fiend was.
I do not believe that the killer of stride was the man seen by Lawande , but there are two explanations for that.
A] The killer of stride grapped Eddowes after the man seen by Lawande was given the heave ho by her, or there were two killers working in conjunction with each other.
Richard.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2410
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
"I do not believe that you have any chance of scaring of Adam"
Rats!...
"...even if Abberline made his famous remark, he [Chapman] was only twenty three in 1888, he was a small man, and it is also well documented that his change of M.O is out of sequence with modern day knowledge.
Absolutely. I agree.
"Abberline merely made a tonque in cheek remark, as he freely admits no member of the force had any idea who the whitechapel fiend was."
Yes, probably. Sounds reasonable.
"I do not believe that the killer of stride was the man seen by Lawande , but there are two explanations for that.
A] The killer of stride grapped Eddowes after the man seen by Lawande was given the heave ho by her, or there were two killers working in conjunction with each other."
Regarding the first option, what do you mean exactly? Can you elaborate? I am not sure I agree, but I didn't quite get that.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Regarding Lawandes sighting of Eddowes, my reasoning is that the calm scenerio spotted by the three gents that passed, does not fit the rough approach by Broad shoulders, so i would say either Stride was not a ripper victim, or the person seen by Lawande and co, was not her killer.
Explanations.
The killer of stride had a accomplice who was adaptable to a different approach, or the man seen by Lawande was given a reject by Eddowes[ after all she was not reconized as a prostitute] and simply may have been telling a randy sailor 'I am not that type of person'
She then takes a cut through Mitre square and she is attacked from behind by the killer of stride who makes the most of the opportunety[ we must not forget the brusing on Eddowed left hand which is significant as it was of recent origin]
The other alternative is that the killer of stride had a accomplice and it was that person that Lawande saw and he convinced her to enter the square for sexual favours.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2411
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:23 am: |
|
Wow, things have certainly happened here during the last 12 hours!
All good posts, folks.
I have really nothing to add to them.
Phil,
I think what you encountered then was the Casebook in its former format. You can watch the graphical changes it has gone through, on a page via the meny to the left.
I believe the site is much better looking now, though. And more inviting.
Yes, Phil and Michael,
Do register!
And if you do, you won't have to wait until your posts have been granted. You can publish them directly without standing in queue.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2412
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:09 am: |
|
Radka,
"Despite that mr. Ryder may not like to read this, I'll say it again:
If Ladybird Johnson married Admiral Byrd, she'd be Ladybird Byrd.
Think about it, in context of this discussion."
WHAT??????
Too much Swedish "glögg" this Christmas?
All the best,
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Checkable Detail: Can we find out anything about the history of Kidney before and after JTR? Was he a violent person? Did he have a pattern of spousal abuse? Runins with police? Mental problems? -- Newspaper items, jail records, records of Old Bailey, birth and death info. census info |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 393
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Hi again Adam,
“Well, the Ripper wouldn't always know how many people saw him, would he? … Same policeman on the beat theory can be applied to Catherine Eddowes."
Again, that’s not my point. Like I already wrote, there was always the chance that witnesses appeared at the scene after he had started his attack. He didn’t have any direct influence on that. What he could do was choose a neighbourhood that he knew as quiet and unfrequented. You say one or the other of the victims had to have the most witnesses, I say something else.
In Stride’s case there were about a dozen, while in Nichols’ there were o, or 2 if you count Charles Cross and Robert Paul, in Chapman’s there were 2 (Long & Cadosche) and in Eddowes’ there were 3. Those established facts can hardly be called a coincidence. So, I’d say the difference is significant. Besides, at the time of the murder there were still some 20 people in the Socialists’ Club, well awake, which was nothing like the other 3 cases.
”No, and there is no basis for suspecting Michael Kidney, either. It's all conjecture.”
The dissimilarities that are obviously there between Stride’s case and the other ones give rise to looking for other suspects. The most logical one would be the murdered woman’s boyfriend or husband. I believe that’s normal police procedure in modern murder investigations -- and not without reason. In this case that’s Kidney. He had not only been left by Stride shortly before the murder, there are also strong indications that she had a romantic date and some indications to believe he was abusive of her. That hardly points to him being the murderer, that’s true, but it would be reason enough to want to investigate him.
So, based on the (little) information we have at our disposal today, he remains on my suspect list. Saying that police cleared him isn’t enough for me, because we don’t know what the police did to investigate him and what convinced them to discard Kidney as a suspect. From what little we know, it seems that the police even did nothing at all to investigate Kidney.
”And Liz wouldn't have been running, since she was basically right outside the yard entrance. She may have been walking past, for example, and the Ripper grabbed her from just inside the gateway. … He didn't speak English either, so perhaps a mistake was made with his statement. Or, he simply forgot. There is any number of possible explanations.”
I know Michael has already addressed this point, but here’s my more summarized version anyway. There’s another point Swanson’s report and the Star report of 1 October agree on. Swanson’s report reads: “…& had got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed he saw a man stop & speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.” The Star report reads: “… and presently noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her.” In other words, she was clearly standing in the gateway, while the man was already walking in the street (on the footway) before he started his assault.
”Well, there is a couple of options that could be considered in regards to that. … If he saw or heard Diemschutz coming, then perhaps he just pushed her over and then fled. Second, and perhaps a possibility that hasn't been considered before.... So he prodded her to say if she responded. Now what if this 'prod' was strong enough to roll Liz, just slightly? What if this 'prod' was harder than it sounds? That would explain why she was found the way she was. Any thoughts?”
The rain earlier that evening seems to have transformed the passage between Nos. 40 and 42 into a muddy channel. The doctors who examined Elizabeth Stride found that the left side of her head, hair and coat were well plastered with mud, while there was only a small amount on the right side of her jacket. This seems to indicate that she had only lain on her left side, but not actually on her right side or back.
”Because the Ripper was just that, THE Ripper. But Kidney in that case would be a one-off killer, and if that was the case and the police found out, then he would be highly likely to get charged with all of the Ripper murders.”
What are you saying here? That it was less serious for the Ripper if he got caught? That a one-off killer would have been punished less severely than the Ripper? Even if Kidney were Stride’s killer but not the Ripper, the police would have had to prove that he’d also done the other women in.
”Well if she resisted, like I believe she did, then she may have got a good look at the Ripper. … She could testify to a lot of things. And have Schwartz as a back-up witness.”
OK. Let’s try this. The Ripper and Stride are standing by the wall in the yard and he’s got murder and mutilation on his mind. He hears, from the open first-floor windows of the club, people chatting and singing. She doesn’t suspect a thing. Then his attention is drawn by an approaching cart. It’s coming their way and will pass or arrive at the yard very soon. What should he do? Kill her anyway, although he hasn’t done anything suspicious yet, and risk getting caught without his needs having been satisfied? Or wait for a new chance?
This is the scenario that I find the most likely if we are to consider Jack the Ripper having been Stride’s killer, i.e. the interruption scenario. It’s based on the assumption that he would have used the same MO, that he wouldn’t do anything too suspicious until he actually struck (or, that he stuck suddenly) and on the dissimilarities. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Ripper couldn’t have killed her anyway, but I just seriously doubt it.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2421
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Frank,
Good post as usual.
Regarding Mr Broad Shoulders, I have always found the notion that he had to kill Stride because she could identify him as strange, especially if he was not the Ripper.
Firstly, when he was assaulting her in front of Schwartz and the second man, he still hadn't committed murder. I find it quite hard to grasp why he should risk capital punishment for murder, AFTER he knew he already had been spotted.
Secondly, why kill Stride just because she could identify her, when he also had been in full view of Schwartz and the other man? He would in that case have to find and kill those two as well, since they also could identify him.
So in short: Regardless if he was the Ripper or not, killing Stride on basis that she could identify him, seems a bit redundant. And once he did it, he would risk capital punishment and still being identified by Schwartz and the other man.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Going back to the issue of the relationship between Stride and Kidney, and whether he was a violent or abusive partner… and Stride’s non-appearance at court proceedings where she had charged him with assault.
For the last two days I have studied hundred upon hundred of cases at the Old Bailey - from approximately 1760 to 1840 - featuring acts of either sexual or common violence on women by their partners or others.
The results are quite disturbing.
I would say that out of every ten cases brought before the court, at least eight are thrown out of court because the ‘prosecutix’ - meaning the female bringing the charge - has not appeared in court to give evidence.
There is a definite pattern in all these cases where it does appear the victim is at first willing to press charges but at a later date before proceedings has a sudden change of mind and determination.
So I would say that obviously these many hundreds of women did have a valid and good reason not to prosecute, and that must have its origins in fear of reprisal or financial gain and inducement.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 2:07 am: |
|
There is a definite pattern in all these cases where it does appear the victim is at first willing to press charges but at a later date before proceedings has a sudden change of mind and determination.So I would say that obviously these many hundreds of women did have a valid and good reason not to prosecute, and that must have its origins in fear of reprisal or financial gain and inducement.
AP - From what I see and hear on TV, I believe that what you say remains true of many cases of "domestic violence", in the UK at least.
I often wonder whether it is partly a reflection of the fact that the woman loves her partner/attacker despite what he does (Nancy's song about the abusive and ultimately murderous Bill Sykes, in the musical "Oliver" sums this up for me).
As I understand it, from what the experts say, the victim in some way comes (falsely) to believe that they are responsible for what is done to them and becomes tied into the spiral unable to break out.
Either of these mental states might have been a motivation for Stride to meet Kidney, or explain her actions if it was indeed him she met.
Phil
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:22 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Good point! Why kill stride? If the man was just a client he probably would have just walked away instead of killing her. If he was a mugger he would have just walked away? Sounds rational. The problem is criminals do not always act rational. They act out of the heat of the moment. However, a very good question.
I think that if IS did see stride's killer. He was the one that scared him off not the carter. Strides attacker would have been takeing a big chance that IS would not have gone after help. If IS saw the ripper with Stride and the carter did scare the ripper away jack would of had 15 minites to mutilate the body before the carter scared him off. Jack needed les then 10 minites to mutilate Eddowes. There would have been more mutilation other then a cut throat. If IS did see the ripper then I believe the ripper made short work of Stride and fled quickly after being spotted. Giveing him more time to find Eddowes then thought.
I do not believe that Michael Kidney killed stride. However, that does not mean the ripper did.
Wishing you the best in 2005, CB |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Just been re-reading through a lot of old press reports concerning the circumstances of Stride's murder, and in The Times - produced the next day - there is a strange reference to Stride as a 'paramour'.
I hadn't seen this before, but maybe it's old hat now?
A 'paramour' is of course the lover or illicit partner of a married person.
This can't be a reference to her relationship with Kidney as they lived as man and wife together in the same accommodation for some considerable time.
Can anyone explain this reference? |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 395
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
AP,
While I would be loathe to suggest a failing by as important a British institution as the Times, it simply could have been for the same reason given by Dr. Johnson when questioned about his definition of pastern: "Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance." Lacking any other evidence of Stride being involved with a married man, my guess is that it was just a certain imprecision of langauge on the part of the reporter.
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2650
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Hi, CB,
Wishing you the best in 2005 as well!
Well, I do think Mr. BS was Stride's killer, but I don't feel he had to kill her just because she could identify him, because in that case he had to kill Schwartz and Mr Pipe Man as well, or else that would a rather redundant act.
I think he killed her for other reasons, and those could be as many as suggestions on his identity.
he may have been Kidney, he may have been an ordinary violent drunk or customer, he could have belonged to one of those gangs that assaulted and threatened prostitutes etc.
But the Ripper, I believe, he was not.
All,
As I am at the moment reading Paul Begg's book (published 2004), he proposes an interesting suggestion, based on several paper articles (yes, I know... papers... but still): namely that there are some indications on that Pipe Man actually may have been questioned by the police.
In some of these articles it is mentioned that the police have brought in two persons that have witnessed the assault on Stride. Now one of them would naturally have been Schwartz, but the other one...? This would, as Begg suggests, only leave Pipe Man, since those to are the only ones we know of that witnessed the incident.
If this is correct -- I said if -- it would mean that Pipe Man actually was brought in for questioning an was just another witness that ran off, like Schwartz, and that he was cleared from any involvement.
Unfortunately we have no verification of this in the police documentation, that I know of, but it's interesting nevertheless.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 396
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Certainly an interesting suggestion by Begg, but I wonder if, since there is no documentation on a second witness, there really was only one witness. That is, could the "second witness" have been someone from the Hungarian community who accompanied Schwartz (or was sent for by the police) and who served as facilitator/translator?
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2651
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Don,
Well, if that was the case he should have been mentioned in the police material as a witness himself.
Although it is a bit strange that this second witness wasnt mentioned in the police material at all -- OK, the source here is news-paper artcles but they are more than one saying the same thing; when reading about it, it doesen't appear to be one of the ordinary elaborated paper stories).
I don't think there were any more people on Berner Street that particular moment, than Stride, Mr. B S, Schwartz and the pipe man.
Besides, the friend who was Schwartz's interpreter, only followed Schwartz the next day to the police in order to help him give his testimony. All information we have says that Schwartz watched that scene alone without any companion (if we don't count Pip Man) on the night of the murder.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 02, 2005)
(Message edited by Glenna on January 02, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 397
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Glenn,
You have the advantage of me because you have Begg's book in hand with, I would assume, the newspaper stories reprinted.
So, I was/am only suggesting that considering how poor police/press relations were that reporters were not told "Erm, well we have, erm, had two gentleman assisting us with inquiries in regard to the Berner Street murder."
Rather, I am only guessing that either some constable let slip "they 'ad two chaps wot sawr somethin' on Berner" or else reporters saw two men go in (or, if the police sent for an interpreter, saw a second man enter) thought two men constituted two witnesses.
Anyway, since we have no record of a second witness, pipe man or anyone else, were there actually another witness I have to figure that whatever he said was much less than helpful.
Ah, if that were the only thing about the JtR investigation about which we know less than we'd like, eh?
Don.
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls."
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
I remember someone on the site recently writing about smart people feeling the need to put forth complicated theories in situations where simple ones would have sufficed (what I call outsmarters)...lets face it theorizing is what makes this dastardly subject fun to begin with...but I really think so much of the Stride question (along with Kelly and Tabram) is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees...a maniac goes on a spree killing prostitutes in a relatively small geographical area which though poor and violent, has experienced relatively few homicides in its recent past...The Ripper strikes several times providing authorities with a basic mo(throats cut body ripped open)and sadly we now have more 2 unfortunates with there throats cut on the same night, in the same (basic) area, and within a time frame that perfectly fits the idea of a frenzied killer needing to get his fix (like a junkie in a shooting gallery that suddenly got raided who was lucky enough sneak out he back door with his works intact). Based on this I really believe the odds are overwhelming that the ripper killed Stride (and Tabram and Kelly despite those killings not exactly fitting the mo the ripper established for his OUTDOOR victims) and I also think its once again a case of being an outsmarter to believe that Stride was attacked twice. Therefore I believe Mr. broad shoulders was The Ripper. Now I know I could be completely wrong about everything I just said...but I think staring too closely every nuance of the attacks or trying to say his mo was this so he couldn’t have done that can be compared too staring too long at clouds...you may see a fuzzy bunny, an aardvark, a vintage Cadillac, and a sawed off shotgun go floating by...but really its just another cloud. The point is ultimately all we really know is Jack killed prostitutes with a knife or by strangulation...we don’t know if he was careful or just plain lucky (I tend to lean towards lucky, too may circumstance he had no control over simply fell his way), charming or brutish, Jew or gentile, drowned or diseased...in short we know nothing...and till we do (if we ever do) I think its intellectually honest to not play the role of outsmarter but instead go with the simple explanations...which is as the saying goes that we don't know jack...all we know is that in the autumn of 1888 there occurred a sudden outbreak of attacks on prostitutes, the similarities and locations of which imop trump any deviation of method the killer displayed in any of the individual murders. I think the evidence points to 1 killer for the conical 5 and Tabram...overwhelmingly. Now let me jump over to the "changing our minds" thread and I’ll probably come back with a completely different opinion…after all its undeniably more fun to be an outsmarter then it is to be a dull “I believe in the obvious” type, when regarding a case that has had the imagination of armchair detectives running wild for well over 100 years. |
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
I remember someone on the site recently writing about smart people feeling the need to put forth complicated theories in situations where simple ones would have sufficed (what I call outsmarters)...lets face it theorizing is what makes this dastardly subject fun to begin with...but I really think so much of the Stride question (along with Kelly and Tabram) is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees...a maniac goes on a spree killing prostitutes in a relatively small geographical area which though poor and violent, has experienced relatively few homicides in its recent past...The Ripper strikes several times providing authorities with a basic mo(throats cut body ripped open)and sadly we now have more 2 unfortunates with there throats cut on the same night, in the same (basic) area, and within a time frame that perfectly fits the idea of a frenzied killer needing to get his fix (like a junkie in a shooting gallery that suddenly got raided who was lucky enough sneak out he back door with his works intact). Based on this I really believe the odds are overwhelming that the ripper killed Stride (and Tabram and Kelly despite those killings not exactly fitting the mo the ripper established for his OUTDOOR victims) and I also think its once again a case of being an outsmarter to believe that Stride was attacked twice. Therefore I believe Mr. broad shoulders was The Ripper. Now I know I could be completely wrong about everything I just said...but I think staring too closely every nuance of the attacks or trying to say his mo was this so he couldn’t have done that can be compared too staring too long at clouds...you may see a fuzzy bunny, an aardvark, a vintage Cadillac, and a sawed off shotgun go floating by...but really its just another cloud. The point is ultimately all we really know is Jack killed prostitutes with a knife or by strangulation...we don’t know if he was careful or just plain lucky (I tend to lean towards lucky, too may circumstance he had no control over simply fell his way), charming or brutish, Jew or gentile, drowned or diseased...in short we know nothing...and till we do (if we ever do) I think its intellectually honest to not play the role of outsmarter but instead go with the simple explanations...which is as the saying goes that we don't know jack...all we know is that in the autumn of 1888 there occurred a sudden outbreak of attacks on prostitutes, the similarities and locations of which imop trump any deviation of method the killer displayed in any of the individual murders. I think the evidence points to 1 killer for the conical 5 and Tabram...overwhelmingly. Now let me jump over to the "changing our minds" thread and I’ll probably come back with a completely different opinion…after all its undeniably more fun to be an outsmarter then it is to be a dull “I believe in the obvious” type, when regarding a case that has had the imagination of armchair detectives running wild for well over 100 years. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2656
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Hi extededping,
I know where you're coming from and I hear what you say -- I used to have the same views myself. You are right that one can make things unnecessary complicated, but it is also dangerous to settle for simple solutions when there are indications in other directions.
You can't speak of odds in a case like this.
And if we should, what are the odds for that all the major crimes in a poor, large populated area only had one major violent criminal and murderer?
Certain years, events and murders can explode for no reason and we must also take into account that the crime statistics for the previous years are not that reliable.
We know gangs operated in the area and it is also possible that there WERE other murderers in Whitechapel at the time, if you don't also want to count the torsos as crimes being committed by the Ripper. And I certainly think both Coles and McKenzie were copy-cats or unrelated to the Ripper. So if these were unrelated to the Ripper, so could others.
Besides, the same night as the "double event" another throat-cutting murder was perpetrated by a husband to a woman in Westminster.
The odds for that the Ripper should be responsible for all the major murders in the area is really not more credible than the opposite.
And as I said, it is dangerous to speak about odds anyway. Crimes rarely follows statistics in the way we'd like them to.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Well, Extenderthing
I enjoyed your post just as much as Glenn did.
But you gotta take into account history here, and I can throw at you right now, one petty session of a London court in the LVP where about 11 women were murdered by having their throats slit with a knife, 13 women were brutally sexually assaulted, and numerous children were subjected to rape.
The LVP was not like you think. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Just a note on an interesting case I've found where a sometime violent relationship has landed up in the police courts, in this particular case the man had persuaded the woman - through violent threats - not to appear at the courts to follow through her charges of violent assault, but in the end she did appear in court, and so did he, actually threatening her in open court with violence if she proceeded, and when she did proceed he pulled out a heavy poker which he had concealed in a newspaper and proceeded to batter her with said weapon in open court whilst shouting out to the astonished officials 'there's a witness for you!', almost killing her.
(The Times, October 22nd 1881, Jesse Searle.)
My feeling is that this is the sort of relationship Kidney and Stride enjoyed and that is the reason she never followed through her charges against him.
She was too bloody scared and after reading that no wonder.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3345
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Yep, AP.
We have too little information, of course, in order to be able to establish anything, but this is pretty much my belief as well.
After all, these domestic situations and motives with these types of crimes are so common anyway, so -- considering the circumstances -- I'd say it's hard to overlook. Unfortunately the connection with the Eddowes murder in both time and locations seems to have influenced both the contemporary police and several scholars in another direction.
The case is by no means rock solid, as I see it, but it is rather logical and fits the facts to an equal extent as the Ripper alternative.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 649
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Hi AP,
Hmmmm, certainly an interesting defense strategy.
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
In July 1888 Henry Baker stabbed Mary Cowen several times on the street - in the East End of London - almost killing her and causing her to be confined to hospital for some considerable time. Henry Baker was apprehended by Inspector Chisholm who attempted to prosecute Baker in court, but although Mary Cowen had recovered from the attack she refused to attend proceedings.
Inspector Chisholm staunchly maintained that friends of Henry Baker had intimidated Mary Cowen to the extent that she was too frightened to appear in court. The judge ordered her to appear, but even when marched to court three months later by Inspector Chisholm she was still too terrified to give evidence against the man who had almost killed her.
However during proceedings it became known that the couple had formerly lived together, and when Mary Cowen left him for another man he had followed her through the streets and then in a sudden confrontation attacked her with a knife as she attempted to placate him.
I think this is getting very, very close to what we discuss here. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Re Stride and Kidney’s relationship.
I have found what I think is a remarkably similar domestic situation which leads to a very violent and vicious assault on the woman concerned.
This is the case of William Hobbs, who is supposed to be a cab driver, but is well know to the local police as a drunken and violent pimp who forces his wife to go out on the streets as a whore to earn his beer money. Although not charged the police have been called to the common lodgings they share on numerous occasions to prevent Hobbs from killing his wife, but later his wife has dropped the charges using the excuse that ‘the drink was upon him’.
However the vicious and violent assault he makes upon her in August 1876 is too much for her and she finally gives him into charge.
Coming home drunk, Hobbs demands money from her for more drink, and she hands over a shilling - which is four tricks she has turned that night at the going rate - but he is less than pleased with that and shouts at her: ‘What! You’ve been walking the streets all night and that’s all you’ve got to show for it!’
He kicks and beats her to the ground, punches her in the head, kicks her over her entire body while she lays prone on the ground and finally is strangling her when a police constable arrives on the scene and only manages to get Hobbs off the poor woman by dragging him off by his hair.
I believe this to be a fair assessment of the relationship enjoyed by Stride and Kidney, and that all the necessary motive for the attack on Stride is probably contained in this charming little story from the LVP. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Hi AP,
He kicks and beats her to the ground, punches her in the head, kicks her over her entire body while she lays prone on the ground and finally is strangling her when a police constable arrives on the scene and only manages to get Hobbs off the poor woman by dragging him off by his hair.
This is a typical heavy domestic carpeting, and it's very probable that Stride 'enjoyed' a fair bit of abuse at the hands of Kidney from time to time.
But I'm not sure how any of these details relate to the Berner St skirmish as witnessed by Schwartz, and the later discovery of Stride with hardly a mark on her apart from the fatal gash to her throat, her killer having done an invisible man "you'll never catch me" number.
Liz wasn't mutilated, but neither was she beaten up.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on April 18, 2005) |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Dr. Bagster Phillips: "Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collar-bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration..." Described by Dr. Blackwell as: 'not regular bruises' but 'pressure marks.'
These, obviously, were as a result of an assault and may well have been caused by blows but failed to fully develop as bruises as she died shortly after they were inflicted. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Thanks for that AIP. Nicely timed.
Caz
I was of course referring to the social and domestic situation of Kidney and Stride rather than what may or may not have taken place on the night of her death.
We know for a fact that Kidney punched Stride about in the past, he was charged thus, but Stride refused to give evidence, and he was discharged.
I was merely postulating that the reason he punched her about was that she wasn't earning enough money on the street to support his drinking habits.
And when she left him he lost his temper big time and stabbed her with a knife. I do have another case for you where this exact thing happens... but this chap stabs his whore 21 times just to make sure.
Caz, you really got to take those blinkers off and get your head out of the nose-bag... it's a big world out there. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Hi AP
You had better watch out with your nose-bag remarks, matey.  In fact, your "evidence" appears to point out in the direction that Michael Kidney would have done her over a treat... which is just what Caz is telling you, that the marks Stride possibly sustained in the tustle before her murder are not consistent with what we know about the violent domestic abuser Michael Kidney.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1975
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Sorry Chris
All I'm saying is that it was not unusual for the male partner of a prostitute to beat her up or kill her. The method, motive and procedure are of no import.
It happened, a lot, and Caz has to accept that fact.
The most recent case I have found from 1900 shows a whore who has suffered years of brutal violence from her male partner/pimp of a non-lethal variety, and then he snaps when her earnings fall under a certain level and he stabs her 21 times, killing her, with no other associated non-lethal woundings or bruising.
He just stabbed her.
Let us not pick nits here.
Caz has vested interest here, as has been pointed out before. |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
But AP,
What evidence is there that Stride and Kidney's relationship was anything like this. I mean she pressed charges for domestic abuse, then failed to show up. Am I missing something...? I mean their relationship may have been somewhat abusive perhaps, but how can you really claim that it is analogous to these examples you cite? That is kind of going out on a limb isnt it?
rh |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1976
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Yeah Robert, out on a limb is right I suppose.
All I'm saying is that there is a great deal of factual material - not evidence - to show that the killing of Stride followed a fairly persuasive pattern of domestic violence between men who had a record for violence and drunkeness and co-habited with prostitutes.
Violent death was not an unusual outcome of such a relationship, which had been built up over a period of years by lesser violence in the domestic relationship.
The case that I'm looking at right now shows that the man in the relationship used to sit and sharpen his knife in their common lodgings; and tell his partner - the prostitute - that if she ever left him he would kill her with the knife, and he did, kill her, when she left him.
But he only beat her in the meantime.
So Kidney beat Stride, but when she left him, he killed her.
Now isn't that nice and simple? |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 11:38 pm: |
|
Hi AP
You wrote: "The case that I'm looking at right now shows that the man in the relationship used to sit and sharpen his knife in their common lodgings. . ."
I'm sorry, but I have to share Robert House's objections to this implied "reflected glory" to apply to the relationship Michael Kidney and Elizabeth Stride. You are implying, indirectly, that Kidney was the type to "to sit and sharpen his knife in their common lodgings. . ." You don't have the evidence for that sort of implication.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 6:23 am: |
|
And when she left him he lost his temper big time and stabbed her with a knife.
But Liz wasn't stabbed. Her throat was cut.
Find me an example of a man who used his fists to regularly misuse his woman, then finally took a knife with him, found her on the street, and cut her throat - some minutes after pulling her about a bit.
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
| | | |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page