|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:30 am: | 
|
Vlad,
Well, we sometimes tend to base our assumptions on what we know from the case in retrospect, but can we really assume that the Ripper knew all those things? I am just speculating here, but I am not so sure he really were that concerned about the anti-semitic climate in the first place; he may have had his own agendas to worry about.
But of course, even if the there were a lot of categories of foreigners in the East End, the East European Jews seemed to be in some sort of majority (although I can't verify that).
But what if Jack the Ripper himself was a Jew, for example a Jewish butcher? Then it wouldn't be that smart to throw the police on a Jewish trail.
(Vlad et al; I don't think this is the thread for discussing the writing -- it is so terribly easy to loose the subject on these Boards, and Stephen has become harsher on this point lately... I'll be pleased to continue that on another thread, though.)
Sarah,
Yes, thank you. It's not just me then. Sometimes some of the lines and borders are becoming dotted or pale, and the symbol icons won't always load down. I wonder if something has happened with the server? Still, I don't trust my own computer; I have been infected with a couple of trojan horses lately and been having some problems with Internet Explorer, so I am formatting my hard-disk drive this week-end. Hopefully that helps.
Well, Annie Millwood. The reasons why she's slipping away may be that we don't know that much about her and the murder. I am running out of things to say about her. Anyone has got any new inputs on the subject? PLEASE!!???
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Police Constable
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 4
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 9:24 am: |
|
Aboout Annie, I think her attack has alot in common with Martha Tabram's, but I am not so sure that Martha was a victime of JTR. Just does not feel right.
I could be very wrong.
Vlad |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1238
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 6:58 pm: |
|
I agree, Vlad. I have exactly the same feelings as well about that. (Thank God I am not the only one...)
But as you say, we could be wrong just the same. But nevertheless...
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 221
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hi Vlad & Glenn,
In the night from 3 to 4 November 1993 an attractive young mother and her 4 year old daughter were brutally killed in South-East London. The mother’s complete trunk had been cut open and her rib cage pulled back so that her organs were exposed. The crime scene made Britton think of pictures he had seen of Mary Jane Kelly. On November 9th the police asked Paul Britton, a forensic psychologist, for his advise.
In Britton’s opinion the murderer was older than 25 and it wasn’t his first crime or sexual offence. Voyeurism, exhibitionism, assault and rape probably were his less picky sexual hobbies. He could also have used prostitutes and maybe he stabbed or tried to stab them instead of sexually assaulting them.
And a quote from Britton: “He will always look out for new victims and reacts immediately on higher-risk victims or when the opportunity arises. … But every now and then a much stronger need, connected to the kind of fantasies leading to Samantha’s death, emerges.”
If you add this to the fact that Martha Tabram was killed right in the heart of the Ripper’s hunting grounds, the similarities with at least the mutilated canonical victims and if you consider the fact that the Ripper still must have been inexperienced as a killer, it sounds very plausible that she was a Ripper victim.
You both talk about feelings that make you lean towards excluding Tabram, but can you put those feelings into words, can you explain why you feel she wasn't a Ripper victim?
Take care,
Frank
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Police Constable
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 3:39 am: |
|
Frank,
In that unfortunate incident night from 3 to 4 November 1993, was Paul Britton correct with his profile on the murderer?
I take profilers and thier opions with a grain of salt. Here in the US we had the Washington DC sniper. All of the profilers said it was a white man, acting alone, between 25 - 35 years of age. (At least that is what I recall). None of profiles were close. It was 2 non-white men, 1 was younger than the profile and one was older.
At this point in time, not having been there in 1888, we have to look at the evidence and try to make an assumption as to who did the crimes and whom all the victims were. I just do not see the stabbings in the Tabram and Millwood cases as being the same as the canonical 5. (I am not even sure of stride)
It could be that Polly Nichols was his 1st as the mutilations were not as gruesome on her as the others. (Stride excluded)
The 39 stab wounds on Tabram and the multiple stab wounds on Millwood were about the legs and torso, nothing about an attack to the throat, no stangelation. (At least I do not believe that there had been) If they were the begining of the series, I would think it would have been a gradual change and not straight to Stangelation, throat slitting (all the way to the vertebrae) followed by disembowling. It is a big leap from what appears to be a crime of passion/anger to the cool methodical way that JTR dispatched his later victims. No slow change but a big jump.
That is why it does not feel right to me.
Hope I stated how I see that clearly, sometimes I ramble and confuse people.
Vlad |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 223
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Hi Vlad,
Thanks for your view on Millwood and Tabram, you explained perfectly why these victims don’t feel right to you as Ripper victims.
To answer your question about Paul Britton, his profile was very close to reality. If you like you can read a little more about this case here: ../4921/9015.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Police Constable
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Frank,
Very nice points, the only thing I do not think is right (my humble opinion) is JTR learning to be kewl and methodical. I guess you can to a point, but I do not think people drastically change who they truely are. I have tried to learn to be patient, calm, cool and collected, and while I have made small strides, not the giant leep that going from Tabram to the others would indicate. (No we can not compare my life with JTR as I am not homocidial)
But this is my personal feelings, and that is what this board is for. 
Vlad
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Hi Frank and Vlad,
I think you both are equally correct in your own right, really.
What you say, Frank, is absolutely plausible; Tabram was killed right in the heart of the Ripper district and the time of her murder in 1888, prior to the other Ripper murders, would indeed make it suitable for her to be regarded as an early attempt by the Ripper, and this goes for Annie Millwood as well.
However, as Vlad points out, we should be careful about including her among the canonical victims (a status I feel she is beginning to possess), since the modus operandi nevertheless is different. As far as I am concerned there are three canonical victims with a clear consistency in the wounds (although there is a difference in degree): Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman and Catharine Eddowes. Regarding Millwood, Tabram, Stride and Kelly we can never be sure if other killers were at large at the time -- these victims do fit well into the time scale, geography and also the view of the Ripper as an evolving killer so to include them is of course logical and we could also with certainty find suitable explanations in order to make them fit. However, Martha Tabram was stabbed a number of times -- not mutilated -- and we can't look away from that. I agree that there seem to be a concentration on the chest and the abdominal area in her wounds (which could point to a sexual focus in the attack, like in Jack the Ripper), but her murder could just as well be a coincidence. I think it's evident that there were more people than the Ripper indulging in knife attacks and mutilations in 1888 in East End, and therefore it is not unrealistic to keep an open mind about it, since we don't have a complete consistency in the MO (although I am very well aware of that murderers and serial killers can slightly change and develope their methods further).
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 840
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 7:43 am: |
|
Glenn,
Just something I want clarifying Buddy,
However, Martha Tabram was stabbed a number of times -- not mutilated -- and we can't look away from that.
So you feel the 3 inch wound (which is a fair length) in Marthas lower abdomen was a stab wound and not the begining of mutilation ?
True, we cannot look away from that but we also cannot assume that Martha was solely a stabbing victim.
Thats my view anyhoose.
Monty
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 9:13 am: |
|
You are absolutely right, Monty, but you are missing my point nevertheless.
I am not assuming anything -- I wouldn't be suprised at all if she was a Ripper victim, along with Annie Millwood. I am not trying to stress an opinion here, just keeping an open mind about it.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 842
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
Glenn,
Im not missing your point...stop assuming !
Im with the majority. Martha should not be considered as a canonical victim. I understand your stance. Im just concerned that Martha is being viewed as a stabbing victim and only as a stabbing victim.
That said, my primary 'query' is that I just wanted your view regarding the 3 incher, thats all.
Besides, I also feel I have laboured this point on the wrong thread....sorry folks.
Monty
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Monty,
About the three inch cut, was Martha lying down when the all the stab wounds were committed? Maybe she it was one of the first cuts and she slid down. Or mabey the attacker, just pulled up or down as he pulled the knife out. Or maybe the attacker turned his head or flinched because he heard something.
Just some thoughts.
Vlad |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 845
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 3:22 am: |
|
Vlad,
Fair comment that.
Just like to add one more....or maybe Jack (no, not fair to put Jack, her Killer) was about to start the mutilation sequence when he (or she) was disturbed and fled.
But you are right, its another maybe.
Monty
|
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 4:40 am: |
|
Monty,
That could most definitely be true. It is to bad we do not have more detailed descriptions of Annie's wounds. It could tell us if maybe her attacker made larger wounds on her also. we could then compare and make a better judgement.
Vlad |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 856
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 4:31 am: |
|
Monty,
Actually that's a very good point. Maybe that's why he didn't stab the canonical five because it took up too much time and so in future he thought it wise to just slit their throats and get straight to mutilating.
Just a thought.
I know this should be on the Martha Tabram thread. Sorry if this has already been taken there but I haven't been able to get on here much over the past few days.
Sarah |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 12:19 am: |
|
Actually, I think Millwood and Tabram's cases show evidence that it was not a military man behind all this. A military man, particularly a foot soldier would know how to use a knife to kill effectively. If Millwood and Tabram are Ripper victims, it shows that JTR had to learn to be a more effective killer. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Hey Eric,
Yea, as they say.."ya gotta learn somehow"
Paul |
Ronald James Russo Jr.
Sergeant
Username: Vladimir
Post Number: 18
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 2:06 am: |
|
Eric,
I do not think the attacks of Annie and Martha show evidence that it was not a military man. We do not know that the man JUST wanted to kill the two women. I am not going to hazzard a guess as to the motive, but it would seem to be more of a frenzy, not a calculated, cool, methodical killing. So that being said, a man in the military with a couple of screws loose could still act, and attack in a frenzied fashion.
I always wonder if things come out right, I hope this does.
Vlad |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 7:40 am: |
|
Hi, i don't know anything about 'Annie Milwood'
could someone email me with information?
(i know i've joined this forum late, but only recently found it on the net) shelleywiltshire@blueyonder.co.uk
I would have thought that the killer did chalk the message above the apron, he was running from a murder scene and he had seen 3 men come out of the jewish working men's club, he knew he had been seen with Eddowes (also he didn't know or hadn't realised how much the witnesses saw), i think this chalked message was a warning to those 3 men to shut up or else. I'm inclined to think that the policeman was correct in spelling 'Jewes' not 'Juwes', even though Detectives are very alert and observant, the letter 'u' could look so with the left side of the inital curled over slightly at the top so that to some it would look like an 'e', but not forgeting, this would have been written rather hurriedly. Also with the killer having chalk in his pocket, is it possible for him to have been a father, chalking his children's marks/markers in the game marbles? The Yorkshire Ripper was married with children, they're not all single fellows you know. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 7:19 am: |
|
It would be VERY surprising to me that "Polly" Nichols was Jack's first victim. the MO seems to mature and the lack of mutilation can be explained by the murderer being interrupted by Cross or someone else.
I make no claims to be a criminologist, but it appears from what I have read that serial killers sort of "rehearse" before finding their "mature" style. Thus I would expect there to be earlier attacks/murders. I think there must be a high probability that Annie was an early victim.
I equally think that Tabram cannot easily be relegated from the list of victims of JtR - to do so implies more than one knife murderer capable of frenzied assault at work at abouit the same time. Not impossible, of course.
So while I accept neither without reservation, I rule neither out.
On the graffito issue I have three brief points:
a) I find no problem with its interpretation and never have. It's the simple double negative of the semi-literate. It's intended to give emphasis as in "I didn't do nothing!"(probably nuffinck, in context), and means, "I didn't do ANYTHING!"
The Juwes message on that basis means simply "It's all the fault of the Jews!" and is simply anti-semitic goading that has nothing to do with the apron fragment.
b) As the beat policeman clearly missed the apron fragment for an hour, I doubt his evidence on the graffito. The walls of the East End must have been covered in scrawled words, and I cannot believe that the policeman would have recalled them all, or even one as innocuous as this.
c) The idea of the murderer stopping to write an incoherent message that has absolutely no meaning in terms of the murders strikes me as plain daft. An illiterate man would not have thought in terms of words anyway. A literate man with an intention would have made his meaning abundantly clear.
Occam's razor (the simplest explanation) says to me that the murderer cut off the apron to clean the filth of his crime off his hands, and threw it into the first convenient opening he came across when he was done. He neither wrote, nor even saw, the previously existant graffito.
Phil
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 2:45 pm: |
|
You may very well be right. The only thing that might suggest that Jack wrote the graffito was his annoyance at being interrupted by Diemschutz. I am suggesting on another thread that Jack didnt kill Stride but that Diemschutz killed Stride thinking she was his drunken wife. I guess I just like putting out feelers in all directions! |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 380
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 8:05 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Welcome to the boards. Always good to see fresh views on the case. I have some comments on your post above. Perhaps no major points, but I thought they are worth mentioning.
“c) The idea of the murderer stopping to write an incoherent message that has absolutely no meaning in terms of the murders strikes me as plain daft.”
Like you I have doubts about whether the graffito was written by the Ripper. However, Richard Trenton Chase, another mutilating killer much like Jack the Ripper who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, claimed among other things that UFO’s had followed him around commanding him to kill. If the Ripper was a paranoid schizophrenic as well, the ‘aliens’ following him and commanding him to kill may have been ‘the Juwes’.
Schizophrenics are inclined to withdraw from society, so don’t do the strange things they may do to draw the attention of the public. They are also known to think, talk and behave incoherently at times. The fact that the graffito was supposedly written in rather small letters and was, as you say, an incoherent message, fits with the notion of a paranoid schizophrenic.
“Occam's razor (the simplest explanation) says to me that the murderer cut off the apron to clean the filth of his crime off his hands, and threw it into the first convenient opening he came across when he was done.”
It would take about 6 minutes at least to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, the distance being some 1500 to 1600 yards. If the apron’s only purpose would have been to wipe his hands and knife, it seems strange to me that he didn’t get rid of the apron any earlier. I'd think there would surely have been some opportunity closer by.
All the best,
Frank
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 381
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 8:28 am: |
|
“The only thing that might suggest that Jack wrote the graffito was his annoyance at being interrupted by Diemschutz.”
As you can read in my previous post I think there’s another thing that might suggest that he wrote it. The ‘problems’ I have with your suggestion is that it’s not sure that Stride was indeed a Ripper victim and that I think the Ripper was rather a paranoid or a paranoid schizophrenic than a psychopath.
In case he was the latter, another thing is that I wonder if a psychopath would have communicated that someone else was to blame for his actions before he was asked about it. Why I wonder about this is that I feel that psychopaths don’t think about why they do the things they do or point a finger unless they are forced to think about it, which I think they wont until asked.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2363
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 9:12 am: |
|
Phil,
I find it very hard to believe that Polly Nichols was the Ripper's first violent attack -- as you say, the lack of further disembowelling of Polly Nichols was probably a result of him being disturbed by Cross or anyone else -- but there is very little indication on that it might be Tabram.
The problem is, which also your interruption scenario points out, that regardless of Martha was a victim of his or not, the Ripper with Nichols started a ready-made, already finished modus operandi and signature.
And a consistent method and signature that he sticks to throughout for at least two or three murders after Nichols, with very few changes or alterations.
As I see it, Martha Tabram's murder differ to much in order to be a credible "practice run", if we consider the short time span. We are only talking of three weeks here, and we have no victims in between pointing towards a development to the technique used by the Ripper (and then this MO and signature should appear out of the blue). It just don't add up to me.
The fact that serial killers often in some ways change and alter their modus operandi is one thing, but it is actually more common for these types of serial killers (that are displaying a very consistent method throughout for several murders) to start killing with their new method directly from scratch, and before that only have done minor offenses.
The Ripper murders clearly show that his approach was consistent, based on more or less careful methodology and contained a post-mortem signature (the mutilations) that was extremely important to him (and which is non-existing in the case of Tabram), so I can't buy the "practice" theory regarding Tabram, whose murder apparently seems to have been done in rage and possibly sexual frenzy. I therefore suspect that she was killed by somebody else. Both killers are sexual homicidal freaks, but they seem to have had different needs and personalities -- I think the Ripper was crazy like a wild dog, but he didn't kill in frenzy.
As far as the apron and the Goulston Street writing is concerned, I totally agree with you.
I don't believe the Ripper wrote it and in times of anti-semitism, I would find it very likely that such writings occurred on several walls in Whitechapel. I see no reason to go beyond that he dropped the apron there after having wiped off his hands and knife (which we know he did anyway) -- then, if he dropped it there on purpose, as he may have noticed the writing, is of course impossible to determine.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 04, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 136
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 9:19 am: |
|
Very good point about the schizophrenic vs psychopath, Frank. I agree that if Jack suffered from a pathology was was much more likely to be paranoid delusions of some sort. The frenzy of the attacks leads me to think this is the case, although I also can make room for the idea that he was-not to make light of it- sort of playing around;experimenting in what he could do with his knife and going a little farther each time to assuage his curiosity about women's bodies. Anyway, I'm not married to any particular theory.
Phil-
I've enjoyed reading your posts and hope you'll continue with your lively and interesting discussion. I have my doubts about the graffito too. It might be the biggest red herring in history.
Mags
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 383
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi Phil & Glenn,
Phil wrote: “…and the lack of mutilation can be explained by the murderer being interrupted by Cross or someone else.”
Glenn wrote: “… -- as you say, the lack of further disembowelling of Polly Nichols was probably a result of him being disturbed by Cross or anyone else --…”
The fact that blood was still flowing from the throat wound when she was found may be an indication that the murderer was indeed disturbed. However, the wounds themselves, as far as we’re able to picture them, in my view don’t indicate that he was about to disembowel. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There was one long, deep and jagged wound running along her left side, which had cut through the tissues and seems to have started on her right side, just below the rib cage. Three or for similar cut were made on the right side of Nichols’ abdomen. All of this cutting would have taken a specific amount of time.
If the Ripper’s objective was to rip her abdomen open in order to take out some of the organs, in my view it seems that he could have done so in the amount of time mentioned above. Or in other words, if he had had some of the cuts intersect with some of the others, like in the case of Chapman, he could have cut away at least one flap of skin so that he had unobstructed access to her internal organs. But the impression I get reading about her abdominal wounds is that they were rather randomly made, without any particular further objective in mind.
All the best,
Frank
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2364
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
"However, the wounds themselves, as far as we’re able to picture them, in my view don’t indicate that he was about to disembowel."
That is absolutely true, Frank -- they don't. And I didn't mean to imply that. Still, I think the circumstances very much allows such an interpretation, although no details in itself proves it.
As for the rest of your points... don't get me wrong, but I feel that you're speculating and theorizing way too much here (as you also had a tendency to do in the discussions about Kelly). You just simply can't theorize over such details in an over one hundred year old case -- not in a million years. He could have heard footsteps from quite far away on the cobble stones... there could be hundreds of alternatives for why he might have aborted the mutilations and chose not to continue.
As for the time, I just don't see your points. The situation is completely different compared to Chapman's murder, it's a different crime scene and the time span after the murder and until the body in Buck's Row was discovered must have been much tighter than in Chapman's case.
I also don't see your points about the mutilations. The same small cuttings you can see on Eddowes as well (on Chapman the area of the opened abdomin is too large) -- look at "A CLoser Look at the Victims' Wounds" here on the Casebook. Since there is no reason to believe that the Ripper did those cuttings after the larger mutilations, I find it very hard to believe that he should have done those cutting after he mutilated his victims.
But more importantly, Nichols was the absolute first victim that we know of, that was attacked and "signatured" in this specific way, so I would assume it to be natural that he would be extra careful and not so keen on taking too great chances the first time around. If you hear foot-steps or sounds from a near-by passage in such a situation, you probably give it up.
There is of course always a possibility that had satisfied his curiousity enough this time in order to do it in a more extreme way the next, but that is just speculation and due to the other circumstances and facts on the crime scene I feel it's rather logical to deduce that an interruption took place.
The incision with the protruding organs indicate to me, that he there had begun to mutilate her like later Chapman and Eddows, but suddenly had to stop. Based on the crime scene evidence and witness reports, to me it's rather logical and I see no reason do dispute it.
This detail, along with body warmth, flowing blood etc. and the tight time-line, are points that indicate that he was disturbed.
Now, this is not a discussion about Nichols and her wounds, but a discussion about Tabram, I just wanted to clarify why I don't go along with you here. I find it tedious to get involved in speculations about petty details we just can't know anything about anyway.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 04, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 384
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You must have (partially) misunderstood me, because I wasn’t arguing against the possibility that the Ripper was disturbed. He may have been, and for all the reasons you mentioned. No problem there.
My point was simply that, other than the intestines being exposed, the wounds don’t tell me that JtR had reached the point of plunging his hands into the abdominal cavity to cut out organs. To me, the ‘pattern’ of the wounds seems to lack that purposiveness (is that a good word?!). In Chapman’s case 3 flaps of skin were cut away from the abdomen (2 were found above the left shoulder, 1 was taken away) in order for him to get inside her. In Eddowes’ case the Ripper made one long and more or less straight cut from the breastbone to the pubes to enable him to ‘dig in’. This is not what I see with Nichols.
As for the time, let’s say that the wounds that he made took him half a minute (just a random example). My point here was simply that if he had used those same 30 seconds to do exactly the same amount of cutting, but in a different ‘pattern’ (for instance 1 long straight wound from breastbone to pubes), he could have had easy access to her insides. The actual wounds don’t seem to have provided access that was that easy. That’s the only point I was trying to make as far as time’s concerned. Nothing more.
So again, I don’t dispute the possibility that JtR was disturbed, but, judging from the ‘pattern’ of the wounds on Nichols’ abdomen, it’s not clear to me at all that he had wanted to get into her insides yet when he left, disturbed or not. He may simply have satisfied his curiosity on that occasion.
“I find it tedious to get involved in speculations about petty details we just can't know anything about anyway.”
Then why bother if you find my speculations about petty details so tedious? You always know how to put things nicely, my Swedish friend! You make me smile.
Hälsningar,
Frank
 |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 412
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 11:59 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You wrote: "it is actually more common for these types of serial killers (that are displaying a very consistent method throughout for several murders) to start killing with their new method directly from scratch, and before that only have done minor offenses."
Of course we can argue about just how very consistent the method was, as there were several notable changes in each of the killings, but right now I'm more interested in whether you have a reference source you could name that would support your statement.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 156
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 1:59 am: |
|
Dear Phil...
What you posted about the GSG is quite possible.
What do you think about Warren having a graffiti erased that,as many say,was just another possible anti-Jewish comment on a wall that had other graffiti on it ?
In other words,why would Warren make this graffiti important ? Because,from where I sit,he is the one who did and no one else....not Halse and not any subordinates....
If we examine that scenario,where Warren is summoned on to the site of the discovery of Eddowes' apron...Warren doesn't have to make a big deal of the graffiti,does he?
Warren could have simply taken the evidence and moved on. However,by his actions and in light of the other graffiti said to be present along with this unusually worded statement, could it make you reconsider that he either attached more significance to an otherwise garden variety graffiti out of a "sudden sense of social responsiblity"....or maybe this apron was just a little closer to the very small area on the wall where the message was found and he put these two together?
I'm not implying Warren was without a social conscience...Just that in light of the discovery of the apron and the Eddowes mutilation,worrying about a graffiti seems like worrying about what one is having for lunch tomorrow,when their house is on fire.
How |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 157
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 2:02 am: |
|
P.S. I forgot to add that this graffiti was most likely 5 inches by 7 inches in size. 35 square inches to 45 square inches. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 4:43 pm: |
|
I am almost certain Kidney killed Stride. I don't think it viable though to urge the genuineness of one fact (graffito) on the possibility of another (Diemschutz as killer). Dangerous grounds IMHO.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 2:42 am: |
|
Howard
Chief Commissioners have to be (are expected to be as much politicians as policemen. They need to take a wider view and factor in sensitivities that are not connected with the immediate job.
Warren was NOT a policeman per se (or by training), so his instincts would have been likely to differe from those of professional policemen.
I think, in seeing the graffito, he immediately recognised that it could be used (perhaps by the media, perhaps within the East End community) to stir up racial tension/anti-semitism. he had already seen the Leather Apron episode, and his subsequent correspondence with the Chief Rabbi over the meaningof the word "Juwes" underlines (to me at least) his deep concerns in this regard.
Whether the graffito was written by the murderer or not, the juxtaposition of the scrap of Eddowes' apron created a relationship between the two.
I think one can also see in Warren's decision to erase the writing his view that this was old/unrelated to the apron fragment. The Chief Commissioner was no fool, and would hve realised the implications of what he was ordering - indeed, his subordinates on the ground would have reminded him. But the perception of Warren as bull-headed and imperceptive in this action, largely (IMHO) relates to the theories of those who wanted him to have an ulterior motive (masonic?) or be incompetent.
I incline to a more charitable view of warren, as a man brought in for qualities which the professional Met policement did not possess - and he exercised that difference of perception here.
The difference?: between the pursuit of a single, admittedly sensitive and high-profile investigation; and the real danger of racial unrest and even rioting in the East End - a risk enhanced by the tension introduced into the area by the murders themselves. If you think about it, such violent unrest would have distracted the police from the JtR investigation and made its solution less likely - indeed, it might have been cover for MORE murders.
I think Warren may consciously have adopted the lesser of two evils in erasing the graffito.
Does that answer your question?
P.S. Where does such certainty about the size of the graffito originate?
Phil |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 158
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 10:26 am: |
|
Hi Phil !
Actually I dropped the ball on Warren being the original idea behind removing the graffiti...it was,naturally, Superintendent Arnold's proposal,as he had already sent someone with a sponge [ for erasure ] and for this person to wait for further instructions....Paul Begg courteously reminded me of this oversight. Warren did have it removed...and Arnold,whose advice Warren wasn't obligated to follow,who suggested it first. In either case,it was attached to the GSG by Arnold initially and by Warren in his act of removal.
The size of the graffiti...Halse says that the capital lettering was 3/4 inches high.
I took it upon myself,as a Junior G-Man, to re-create the GSG on a poster and found that I didn't need anything more than a 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper.
The width would be,and owing it to Halse's description....5 1/2 inches...The length would have been 7 inches [because of the 4 line message ]. Halse said it was written in " proportion ". Unless the graffiti was spread out vertically, and not compressed , the graffiti appears to have been rather small.
One reason and this is just my own dumb idea,that is was small and compressed,is that it made an impact such as it did. Had the lettering been spread over,say,a foot between each line,and being 3/4 inches high, they may very well have overlooked it.
What are your thoughts,Phil ? Seem kosher or maybe a mistake to assume such...I still don't get it why they didn't just take the apron and avoided all the rigamarole of the sponge and erasure...know what I mean?
Thanks for your reply. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2365
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 10:42 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Sorry for sounding so grumpy; I should learn not to involve myself in discussions when my patience is not having a good day.
"Then why bother if you find my speculations about petty details so tedious?"
Well, I had to answer you, didn't I? Or at least I thought it appropriate to do so.
"My point was simply that, other than the intestines being exposed, the wounds don’t tell me that JtR had reached the point of plunging his hands into the abdominal cavity to cut out organs."
That's right, and I guess this was because he had no time to do so. If he (presumably) wasn't interrupted, we should probably have seen something similar to Chapman in Nicols' case as. I personally feel the notion about Jack the Ripper as an evolving killer with a progressive method, to be highly exaggerated, not to mention questionable.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 85
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Okay, good people,
Did Jack, infact, do a practice run on Annie Millwood?
Yes, Glenn, even though I'm not Dave, I'll buy your pegs 
Bestest,
Lyn |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2366
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 12:47 am: |
|
Hi Lyn,
Short answer, from where I sit: no, I don't think he did a practice run on either Annie Millwood or Martha Tabram.
Seems to me it was Polly Nichols who became the object of a practice run instead.
"Yes, Glenn, even though I'm not Dave, I'll buy your pegs"
Thank you, Dave.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1434
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 4:07 am: |
|
Guys,
Best thread I have seen on this site for months.....
...thank you !
I kinda argee with Glenn but Polly wasnt his first though.
Just playing around with an idea that has struck me (and yes I know this isnt the thread but when in Roma). Does anyone think that Jack was disturbed by the same noises Mr Colwell heard?
Just Monty playing around......as mentioned.
Monty
And Mr Andersson....like what I have done with the place? No sorry, I mean, get yer own catch phrase Buddy....
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 680
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 7:35 am: |
|
Phil
The Juwes message on that basis means simply "It's all the fault of the Jews!" and is simply anti-semitic goading that has nothing to do with the apron fragment.
I agree totally about the double negative thing and I too have never seen it as particularly ambiguous. But I have always taken the meaning to be "The Jews don't take responsibility for their actions." My thinking is that it was probably written by someone with a specific grudge because he was ripped off by a Jew (whether that someone be the Ripper or not)
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 11:34 am: |
|
Arnold's readiness to remove the graffito shows that Warren's judgement was not faulty. Both were concerned about its potential to incite civil unrest.
I admire your efforts in trying out how the graffito might have looked in practice. But I regret that I find all such reconstructions valueless as evidence or as a basis for conclusions. The fact is we don't even know how it was spelled for sure, let along how big it was.
To my mind, however, a small graffito would be more likely to be old and un-JtR-related, than a larger one. Jack would have wanted to draw attention to it more urgently and probably have written large to ensure it was no missed. A small graffito suggests to me someone who wants to give simply offence. But I am not wedded to either view really.
Phil |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Dan wrote:
"Of course we can argue about just how very consistent the method was, as there were several notable changes in ea | | | |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page