|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3262
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:00 pm: | 
|
Radka,
"Based on research conducted at several ancestry web sites, I have determined that the Swedish "Lauritz" surname is rooted in the Polish Semetic "Lobulsk." Israel Lobulsk changed his name to "Lipski."
Do I sense a certain obsession with Polish Jews here? The name Lauritz is very common in Denmark, though, and is not considered Jewish there.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3263
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
extendedping,
"Problem is these boards are (IMHOP)currently tipped way in favor of the people who like finding alternate explanations for potential Ripper murders. Just look at this thread as an example, how many here have stated that they believe in the established view that Stride's murder was the work of JTR?"
Firstly, these ideas are not just a product of these Boards, but also serious studies from noted researchers in the field, who to a larger degree more and more starts to question those old notions.
Secondly, I'd say those who are in favour of the old accepted canonical numbers are still in majority here, so your statement is a rather exaggerated one.
"So don't the people who believe in the more established views of the Rippers activities have a right to state their views emphatically..as do the many contributors of these boards who adamantly protect their alternate theories?"
You're paranoid. It is we who try to keep an open mind to alternative ideas that rarely can get our voices heard before we are being snapped at by people who are convinced of that the old traditional ideas are to be regarded as facts and never can be questioned.
"Finally, if the fun of the whodunit and the presentation of alternate theories is what makes these boards hum why do those who put forth Sickert or Maybrick as suspects routinely get hammered?"
I won't get involved in the Maybrick discussions, but as for Sickert, his candidacy is based on incorrect and twisted facts, and subjective, dubious art analyses. That's why. It is not even speculation, because speculation has to be built to some extent on true facts.
The moment someone is displaying even credible and sound reasons for why Sickert should be a reasonable candidate for the Ripper, I'll be listening.
Besides, suspect theories doesn't interest me.
David C.,
"You're right too, that it's really pushing coincidence to think that TWO knife-wielding killers should be operating on the same night, with a convenient forty-five minute gap between them."
No, it's certainly not.
And it is quite amusing that it's generally the same people who on the other hand have no problem with the idea of Stride being attacked twice in a period of ten to fifteen minutes on the same spot. That is apparently not "pushing coincidence".
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 537
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Thanks Jane & Glenn for the positive comments.
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 343
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Fess up, Glenn. It was you what done for 'em all.
Mags
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 171
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
David Cartwright, you wrote:
I agree with every word you say. I don't believe that there were any "no-go" areas for a killer like JtR. You're right too, that it's really pushing coincidence to think that TWO knife-wielding killers should be operating on the same night, with a convenient forty-five minute gap between them.
Your beliefs are always interesting of course, but some evidence to back them up would help take the debate forward. Could you cite some "facts" on which you base your opinion, to demonstrate that you have read more than this thread on the subject?
Luke W - please keep your insults to yourself.
When you write:
...Firstly, an opportunist killer like Jack the Ripper would hardly have known in advance, the risks of interruption in Dutfield's Yard.
Why not if he was local? Opportunistic he may have been - where is the evidence that he was ever foolhardy or unwise?
...where do you get these ideas that any of you know better than the professionals who were there on the spot?? Caz is one of the few who isn't trying to sell personal fanciful ideas that have no evidence to support them.
First, I am seeking to "sell no theory"; secondly I am interested in the highest standards of academic scrutiny of all evidence. Thirdly, as i argued in another thread recently ALL evidence needs to be rigorously scrutinised for many reasons?
Do you, Luke, actually believe that we should NEVER question evidence or old assumpptions? What practical use is that? Surely experience suggests that old assumptions can be unfounded and plain wrong? No doubt you support the warren Commission's findings and believe Stain a model of rectitude?
The reasons why we should challnege past assumptions - and do so without arrogance - is that:
a) we have evidence the police then did not have - we know about Tumblety and Druitt etc - which at the time of the Double Event they did not.
b) we have more experience of serial killings, more examples to discuss and seek reference from.
c) police methods have evolved and thinking changed - this might lead to different conclusions.
d) we are more detached from the murders than police in 1888 were, and this distance may allow us to arrive at different conclusions, divorced from the political, social and progfessional pressures of the time.
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 172
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:55 pm: |
|
Cludgy
For me, i'm afraid you'll have to prove that the gates in Buck's Row and Mitre Square were ever open for prostitutes to get inside. Not all the murders occured near such gates (Chapman and Kelly did not) and 50% could be a coincidence.
Also gates have "give" which a wall does not, which may be why the women liked to lean against them. That might explain their choice.
David C:
Your later post stated:
The killer's intelligence and daring should not be underrated. This man killed and escaped, right under the noses of patrolling policemen and a warehouse nightwatchman in Mitre Square, on the same night.
So you have judged that the same killer did both deeds before evaluating the evidence from Berner st have you? That doesn't provide for much confidence.
The Dutfield's yard situation would not have deterred him. It might not - but this assumes the same man committed both crimes. prove that, please, without reference to the other crime.
extendedping - please feel free to join us in the real world of adult debate, including evidence, challenge, argument and analysis, anytime you feel grown-up enough to face it.
Phil |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 339
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Hi All,
There only a few additions that I can add to Phil's post, which more of less does the job for me again anyway...........a very good post Phil.........
I think it is a question of opinion versus evidence.......which side of the debate does carry the balance of evidence and which the balance of opinion?
On the side of Liz being a victim of JtR, we do have the weight of opinion from the Police and Doctors at the time and of course this is a very powerful argument in it's own right, but what evidence were they basing their opinions on? We do have to examine this and not take it at face value without question. I can't imagine that any serious researcher would disagree with that.
The doctors obviously had the medical evidence and their own expertise, which we can't minimize and the concensus was that she was a victim of JtR. This is a powerfully persuasive argument, but in the light of advancement in science since then, we should still examine their testimonies to make sure that there were no errors in their findings.
True we do not have the bodies of the victims, but we should at least go over the findings with the evidence we do have. There should be no problem in them standing up to scrutiny if they were correct.
The same with the Police reports, we do need to see what evidence they had on which they based their assumptions and not just take it at face value.......both the doctors and the police have been shown on more than one occasion to be in error, so it is not safe to assume without investigation that they were correct all of the time. I think that anyone would agree that would be poor research......
I have to say that the evidence that Liz was in fact a victim of JtR, I mean the actual phsycial hands on evidence does seem to be less, (even if only marginally so) than for a domestic killing.........perhaps not much less, but enough to put some doubt in my mind at least.
I would be really grateful if somone who advocates JtR as being the perpetrator of Liz's murder would actually list the evidence for the case in favour of that scenario, because I have seen the police and doctors professional opinions put forward as evidence, but not much in the way of other solid evidence......perhaps it is assumed that everyone knows what the evidence is, but it would be helpful to see it set down in a logical way.
I think it is safe to say that those in more in favour of it being a domestic have put forward a great deal of circumstantial and even solid evidence which might suggest that the accepted inclusion of Liz as a vicim of JtR should at least be re-examined.
Of course it can never be conclusive, but surely we must look at alternatives. If the police and the doctors were correct in their assumptions, then the weight of evidence will back up their statements.......
All the best
Jane
xxxxxx
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4223
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
I doubt if it was a domestic murder. The police would have questioned Kidney, and would probably have asked Schwarz to take a look at him.
I also doubt if BS was the killer. Why would Liz take out her cachous if a man who'd just attacked her was still hanging around?
Robert |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 340
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I hadn't really put Kidney as such in the frame for it, although he is of course a possibility along with quite a few others. I should have said a domestic or a disgruntled client or even a date, but got a bit sloppy........my bad...........
I still have leanings towards it being BS, but with the notion that Liz had thought he had left when she took the cachous out.......that idea wouldn't grate too much on my nerves, but of course it could have been another attacker.
The only thing that steers me towards BS is that he was actually seen at the scene of the crime assaulting Liz only moments before and no-one else was. Unless of course we start looking at Mr Pipeman more closely......
I am open to all possibilities........just have to go with what I believe seems more feasible at this moment in time......always open to persuasion though!
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxxxx
 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Robert,
Thats right.Also there were quite a few people who came and went that night as well as standing at their door[a man a few yards down Mr Marshall[no 64],Mrs Mortimer[no 36] both stood outside their houses looking out at the street and others came and went from the club-Morris Eagle saw his girlfiend home then returned to the club,James Brown went to the chandlers shop on the corner etc so there would have been quite a few who could have identified Kidney if he had been around that night apart from Schwartz and apart from PC Smith who was on his beat that night which included Berner Street where he believed he saw Stride with a man in a hard felt deer stalker hat!
So I think there would have been a number of people who would have seen him and later been able to identify him had he been there.
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
But then Jane, if it was just any old client or hopeful lover[!]what Caz says seems to make so much sense----two knife wielding men murdering prostitutes within 15 minutes of each other!It stretches credulity a bit-especially given the opinions of the doctors and we are told all the police on the case that Stride was a victim of Jack the Ripper. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4224
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
I take the point that the police, like anyone else, can make mistakes, and that everything about this case - everything - is up for discussion and possible re-evaluation.
At the end of the day, though, the police were on the spot. They were in possession of evidence which has since been lost to us. Therefore, if the police regarded Stride as a Ripper victim - or if (to give another example) they cleared Barnett - then this to me weighs in favour of Liz being a JTR victim, or Barnett being in the clear. Of course it's not conclusive, but it is a factor which must be taken account of. We're only ever going to get a balance of probabilities in any event.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 460
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Robert,
Well said. I endorse your sentiments (and that should satisfy the five-word rule).
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3265
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 8:56 pm: |
|
And I totally disagree.
I can't for a minute understand why we should take the police's word for it, especially since we lack a lot of information, and not to mention the fact that the police at the time were in a situation they had practically no experience of whatsoever. We have no remaining information about why some suspects and witnesses appearing in the case were not followed up.
Robert has a good point when he says that the police most likely would have taken people like Schwartz to identify Kidney as Mr BS.
True.
There is only one problem. They probably didn't! And they never for one moment seems to have considered Kidney as a suspect -- in spite of his spiteful and arrogant conduct at the inquest and their knowledge about his prior abusive behaviour.
I don't want to knock down the police of 1888, but if that was the case -- and we have no indications of otherwise -- that really puts them in a rather questionable light, and even further empathizes that they right from the start considered the murder of Liz Stride as a part of a series and really didn't even bother to check other possibilities, like a domestic link (which would be the first natural step to take).
After all, in a murder it is usually the victim's closest relations that are to be investigated first, and we have several indications on that the discovery of a serial killer in this early stage of the investigation appears to have clouded their judgements here and made them do a lot of serious errors.
Every murder is supposed to be investigated in their own right, even with a repeat killer at large, and treated as a separate murder in the early phase of the investigation.
From the material it is evident that the police didn't follow this procedure (which is pretty much standard today) in the murders of Stride and Kelly.
I am sorry, but I am not prepared to place such overwhelming trust in a 1888 police force that had practically no experience of how to handle a situation with a roaming serial killer (which no police force at the time really had anyway).
Compared to many police forces at the time, the London police of 1888 were pretty much serious thinkers and hard workers (and they were pretty much geniouses compared to my local police force over here at the same time period, who were more or less total idiots), but they suffered from great inexperience of such complex matters, and so did the doctors at the time -- who hardly could estimate the time of death properly in a time when human blood couldn't even be separated from an animal's.
Fact remains, we know loads more about serial and domestic killings than they did in 1888. Not to forget the pressure they were under from the papers and the general public -- that being an extreme and rather new situation in itself.
From the remaining documentation we have, it is evident that they believed right from the start -- and without proper evidence for it -- that Liz was killed by the same hand that killed Nichols and Chapman and therefore didn't even bother to interrogate Kidney as a suspect, which has to be considered a serious fallacy and a grave error. And if they did, this would have been mentioned in the conclusive reports sent to the Home Office or mentioned by Swanson.
And if they for some strange reason never bothered about Kidney as a suspect -- since they believed JtR did it -- when why would they call the witnesses to identify Kidney (as they should have done)?
I am not saying that Kidney did it. All I am stating is, that it appears as the police missed out on this possibility altogether because they were mindset and inexperienced, and therefore their interpretations and actions shouldn't be relied on too much as a canon of truth.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 462
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Glenn,
My friend, you also make good points but I think you made one mistake before you got to making your arguments -- Robert didn't say we have to take the word of the police for things. He said their view of events must be a factor in balancing the probabilities of what happened and I heartily endorse that notion. Robert may place more reliance on the police view and you clearly place much less, but I suspect (and hope) it is not an "all or nothing" situation for either of you.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3267
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Don,
No, it is not a mistake.
I know that Robert doesn't say that the opinions of the police are conclusive -- and I never implied anything of the sort -- but he does seem to think that they overweigh the balance enough in order for them to be seen as a true indication of things.
And I somehow disagrees with this notion -- in my personal opinion.
My post wasn't directed to Robert especially, but was a general reaction to those who follows the same kinds of arguments, some in a way more pragmatic way than Robert, and who can't believe in their wildest dreams that the police ever could do something wrong (Robert cleary doesn't belong to that category).
It is not an "all or nothing" situation. That we to some degree must place some weight on their perceptions, since they were there, I think is quite natural. But the problem is that people in general seems to give the police of 1888 TOO much credit here.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't place some trust in them (after all they were incredibly hard workers and many of the officials were succesful academics and thinkers) -- I just think that we should be more cautious about this and that this general misconception is widely accepted too easily without questioning.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify, Don.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 463
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Robert & Glenn,
Okay, I'm going to be Switzerland on this thread from now on. And while you two have at it, if you have any assets you want safeguarded I'm quite willing to hold them in numbered accounts -- and I'll then send you both a nice postcard from extradition-free Brazil. 
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3268
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:59 pm: |
|
Don,
Postcard? How about a pack or two of the brazilian coffee instead...?
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 464
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Glenn,
If your deposit in my "Swiss bank" is large enough I'll gladly send you a coffee plantation. 
And we better stop or Mr. R & Mr. N will have more to complain about "idiots" who clog threads with frivolous chatter.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 174
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:00 am: |
|
Surely there is a difference between "rejecting" the opinion of the police in 1888 (I have seen no one do that) and "questioning" their assumptions and conclusions - which I see as a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
Indeed, such questioning is essential towards understanding the truth.
Are those who say we should accept the 1888 conclusions without question or challenge, arguing that every word the police said then was gospel?
Phil |
Harry Mann
Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
David,
Thanks for your comments,and it is interesting that those who call for evidence seem the same people who provide little themselves.
Lets take the supposed attack by the drunk on Stride.There was only one witness who came forward to give information,Schwartz.What did he say,only that he saw a drunk put a hand on her shoulder,and she fell to the ground.What other information is there.None.
No punches were seen thrown,no kicks to the body while she was down,and no weapon seen in the possession of the supposed attacker.No report by the doctors of any injuries consistant with an assault.No scarf being twisted around her throat.Schwartz saw none of this,and no one else came forward as witness to say they did either.
Yet people persist in the notion of an assault.Where is evidence to support such.It can not even be established whether she was forced to the ground or slipped.
It is the same story with the supposed pedestrian traffic.Exactly how many people can be placed in Berner st that night,and specifically between a quarter to and one o'clock.And how many can be placed in the yard itself between those times.For those who say many,please supply evidence.Name the witnesses.
The police questioned all who were in the club,and all persons living adjacent.No one saw or heard anything on the street or in the yard.No one was seen to come or go from the yard,or along the street,except the drunk,Schwartz,Stride,the man on the corner and Diemschutz.One died,two gave information,and two never came forward.
Now what evidence is there to support the contention that there were other people using the yard or passing on Berner st in that 15 minutes between a quarter to and one o'clock.
For those who claim an assault and a busy st,detail the evidence.If it differs to what I have written I shall be very surprised indeed. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3271
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:41 am: |
|
Harry,
"Yet people persist in the notion of an assault.Where is evidence to support such.It can not even be established whether she was forced to the ground or slipped."
The "evidence" for this lies in Schwartz's own statement, which totally differs from your account.
Of course it can never be established, but please tell me why we are supposed to believe in your interpretation instead of the one delivered by Schwartz himself. And I'd say yours and his differ in content like sugar and salt. The reason for that you can't see any assault, is because you choose to twist his statement beyond recognition in order to make it fit your views.
I assume you can read properly? Or do you mean that he lied (in such case, where is the proof of that?)
Schwartz testimony clearly says: "He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly."
Not the words "threw"and "pull".
Your notion about him "putting his hand on her shoulder" and she "tripping and falling" is really not at all supported by any evidence whatsover or any written material. It is your own constructions and inventions!
You choose not to see it as an assault, while it is absolutely quite clear that it was, unless you totally want to dismember and refurnish Schwartz's statement into something it wasn't. Schwartz clearly saw it as a brawl and an assault by a threatening individual, not just some woman who happened to trip and fall during a conversation, like you try to make it out to be.
Another thing that can't be disregarded is the over-all aggressive conduct of Mr Broad Shoulders. Schwartz in fact felt uneasy and felt inclined to run away, a sensation that was increasing due to the uncertain behaviour of Pipeman.
Schwartz is the only witness to this incident, it's true, but I see no reason to dismiss what he says just because it doesn't fit what one wants it to be. If you want to discredit and dismiss Schwartz as a witness or make your own personal interpretation, that's fine by me, but don't try twist his words into something unrecognisable just to produce an argument and put forward that as fatcs. If we start to manipulate the testimonies in the way we want, we really can come up with practically anything pointing in the directions we want.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 345
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Just to answer the other part of your post about the business of Berner Street at the time......this is from the summing up by the coroner at Liz's inquest...........
It was late, and there were few people about, but the place to which the two repaired could not have been selected on account of its being quiet or unfrequented. It had only the merit of darkness. It was the passage-way leading into a court in which several families resided. Adjoining the passage and court there was a club of Socialists, who, having finished their debate, were singing and making merry. The deceased and her companion must have seen the lights of the clubroom, and the kitchen, and of the printing office. They must have heard the music and dancing, for the windows were open. There were persons in the yard but a short time previous to their arrival. At 40 minutes past 12, one of the members of the club, named Morris Eagle, passed the spot where the deceased drew her last breath, passing through the gateway to the back door, which opened into the yard.
I would say that was pretty busy by anyones standards..........
lots of love
Jane
xxxxxx |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4225
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:36 am: |
|
Hi Don, Glenn and Phil
Don, thanks for the support. Hopefully we won't need to call in the Red Cross. 
Now Glenn, you say that the police had virtually no experience of serial killers. True. Of course, there had been previous mutilation murders, as you and AP have pointed out, but as these were probably not part of any series, your point still stands. But then you go on to say that the police, who were inexperienced in serial killer investigations, also neglected to do the thing they were experienced in - i.e. investigating husbands/partners. This I find a bit difficult to swallow.
Swanson's report 6th November 1888 says : "deceased...was living in adultery with a man named John Kelly, respecting whom enquiry was at once made by Metropolitan and City Police, the result of which was to shew clearly that he was not the murderer." So they did investigate Kelly. They also found and questioned the Pensioner, and of course Barnett. Swanson's report of 19th October has, under point 'd' : "The numerous statements made to police were enquired into and the persons (of whom there were many) were required to account for their presence at the time of the murders & every care taken as far as possible to verify the statements." Granted, the word "presence" may suggest that these enquiries concerned only the people in Berner St. We do however at least know that 2000 lodgers were questioned and upwards of 300 suspects had their movements enquired into. I suggest that Kidney is in there somewhere. It beggars belief that the police would question American cowboys, but forget all about Kidney.
Baxter in his summing-up mentioned the possibility that Liz was killed by someone she knew, but concluded that there was no suggestion that this is what happened, and said that the murderer was probably a stranger to her.
Baxter also threw in the idea that perhaps Kate's murderer was an imitator! So he at least was prepared to suggest to the police an alternative. I imagine the police pondered all kinds of scenarios about JTR, and how many victims he had - just as we do. In the end, they made their decision, but I don't see why we should necessarily believe that they leapt to conclusions.
By the way, re Barnett, Wilkinson's answer at the Eddowes inquest, about whether anyone could have left his lodging-house after 12, shows that the police were aware of lodging-house comings and goings.
Phil, I believe that we should question everything. I even believe in speculation, purely in the way of thought-experiments, as long as it's remembered that the speculation is just speculation (unless it leads somewhere).
I don't see any areas of the case as being "off limits." And contrary to the opinions of Mr N and Mr R, I think these discussions are very valuable.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3272
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
No no, that is not what I meant. Domestic killings as such they would probably have been rather experienced in... but not in the context where a roaming serial killer is at large!
It can be quite a difficult thing -- also today -- to distinguish which victim or not that is domestic and which should be attributed to the repeat killer, and if they had little experience in serial killers, then they also would have equally little experience in dealing with this problem, which is probably one of the toughest tasks of all.
It is true that Baxter had these thoughts, and he was very much ahead of his time here, but he was no police officer or investigator, and we can't know how much interest the police really put in his views regarding these matters. Judging from the police documentation, there does not seem to exist one single consideration of the murder of Stride being a domestic one. Maybe they should have listened more closely to Baxter...
As for Kidney, I don't see any evidence whatsoever on that they treated him anymore differently than an ordinary witness; there are no signs on that they ever saw him as a suspect, and the fact that they already seemed convinced of that the Ripper did it, could be the reason for this.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4226
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
I see what you mean, but the police did evidently go to the trouble of checking out the other partners, e.g. Kelly at the time of the Eddowes murder. Maybe they did it because it was routine practice. Maybe they thought Kelly could have been a copycat. Maybe they hoped to find that Kelly was JTR! But they did it, and therefore I can't see why they would have checked out Kelly, but omitted to check Kidney.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3273
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:28 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
I see what you mean as well, and your thoughts are valid indeed. I really can't say that you are wrong.
But there is a difference between hearing a witness and interrogate someone as a suspect. Unfortunately the interrogation notes are all gone in the blitz, and therefore we cant draw any conclusions either way, but if they ever considered Kidney to be a suspect worth interrogating, this would have been mentioned in the official summary files going to the Home office, like Swanson's overall summary.
Clearly the police didn't see the Stride murder as a domestic killing at all, and it is suggestive that this influenced their selection of people whom they interrogated as suspects. kidney never ever seem to have been considered, which is odd considering his known abusive behaviour and his pathetic and spiteful conduct at the inquest. Here I believe -- in my personal opinion -- that the police did a grave error, and it was probably not the only one they did.
I think we just have to agree to disagree on this, Robert.
Still friends? 
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4227
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Hi Glenn
No problems, still friends. 
I also find myself on the other side to AP as far as Stride and Kidney are concerned, so this one's for AP :
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3274
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Right back at ya, Robert.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 538
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
I think it’s fair to say that the ideal district for Jack the Ripper to hunt would be a district where he knew people would go to bed at, say, midnight at the latest and would rise at 6 a.m. at the earliest. Furthermore, no police constables would be walking their beats between those times. The only people around in the streets would be his victims and the Ripper himself. In this ideal place there would have been practically no chance of him being caught and he would have had about all the time he needed to do what he wanted.
Unfortunately, reality was different. What is striking, however, is that Buck’s Row, Hanbury Street and Mitre Square seem to have been as close to this ideal place as could be, while this doesn’t seem to have been the case with Berner Street. Although nobody but Stride and her murderer were in the yard at the time of the murder, Berner Street and Dutfield’s Yard were not deserted shortly before Stride’s body was found. And there were obviously people wide awake at the Socialist Club.
So, Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were killed in or near streets that were quite deserted shortly before and at the time of their deaths, while this wasn’t the case with Stride, who also wasn’t mutilated and seems to have been attacked differently than the 3 others. My main question with regards to Stride has always been: was this a coincidence? And I’ve always tried to look at Stride’s case as if Eddowes wasn’t killed that same night.
On its own merits, I think Dutfield’s Yard may have been as good a place as any for the Ripper to do business. However, that has never been my point. To begin with, I simply wonder if Berner Street was as inviting to the Ripper as the other crimes scenes and surroundings – it not being a place particularly known for prostitution either.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 539
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Good posts Glenn. You pretty much said what I think on the subject as well.
An interesting thing in this regard may also be that the police didn’t seem to make much of the break-up between Stride and Kidney, if anything at all. They seemed to believe Kidney instead of Catherine Lane, when he said that no quarrel had taken place, whereas unlike Kidney, Lane had nothing to gain by saying they did have a quarrel.
The police seem to have readily accepted his explanation that it was drink that made her go on previous occasions, which they probably considered true because Stride was convicted eight times for drunkenness at the Thames Magistrate Court (which they seem to have found out).
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has its advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3276
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Indeed, Frank, indeed.
Couldn't agree more. Good point.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1674
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 8:40 am: |
|
Robert and Glen, All,
Certainly on what we know in 2005 regarding the Murder of Elizabeth Stride it seems as though the police were not always attentive regarding certain aspects of the case----they didnt call Mrs Mortimer or Israel Schwarzt for example who had given his extraordinary account of the assault he saw to the police and which the home secretary Henry Matthews,
believed ,In deed Matthews seems to have developed some irrational beliefs about the ripper being a Jew based on the word "Lipski" that Schwarzt was said to have heard.
On another thread I noted that Walter Dew was being quoted as the fountain of all police wisdom .
Another man whose records dont always match the facts -mind its not surprising since he was writing them some FIFTY years after the event!
Of the stride case he recalls that the ripper was never caught even though Mrs Mortimer[the one they didnt call as a witness ] saw the ripper carrying a shiny black bag and that she was "the only person to see the ripper in the vicinity of his crimes".[ from"I caught Crippen"Walter Dew].
The man leaving Dutfields Yard around the time of the murder was ofcourse Leon Golstein who lived nearby at 22 Christian Street who went along to the police atation after reading about himself in newspapers[from Paul Begg"s JtR The Facts].
But even if Walter Dew did treat aspects of the Stride case in a less than accurate way it doesnt entitle us to start making up the bits that dont fit to suit our own needs or the needs of books any of us may see ourselves knowledgeable enough to write.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 348
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Even though I harbor deep doubts about Stride as a victim, one thing bothers me,and I've brought this up before--
If you were the police, wouldn't you go out of your way to prove that Stride was NOT a victim? After all, the more victims the Whitechapel Murderer had, the worse job the police were doing, and the Double Event certainly prodded them on to greater vigilance. The stepping up of patrols happened after this. The populace was hysterical.
If I'd beenn in charge I'd have left no stone unturned to show that Stride was the victim of a domestic or a business deal gone wrong.Why didn't they?
Mags
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4229
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Hi Natalie and Mags
I'm puzzled as to why Schwarz wasn't called to the inquest. Nor can I understand why Pipeman didn't come forward to describe BS and put himself in line for a share of the reward, though AP's theory has the merit of answering that one.
Mags, let's suppose for a moment that the police were only interested in protecting their image : I think it would be a toss-up between having Stride listed as an ordinary murder, so that Jack wouldn't appear to have killed twice on one night, versus pinning Stride's murder on Jack, so that the police were only looking for one murderer and not two. Then when Jack was found, everything could be tidied up.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3278
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Hi Mags,
As Robert partly implies, I'd say it is easier to look for one killer instead of two separate ones -- the last thing you need while investigating a serial killer case is to have domestic or unrelated stuff thrown at you as well at the same time, especially if there are similarities that makes it even further complicated.
Plus the fact that when there is a serial killer at large, it is always tempting to include it in a series rather than looking at it individually. This is a common problem in detective work, that is acknowledged in a lot of police handbooks.
However, it is essential that every murder is investigated in its own right separately form an objective approach, at least in the initial stages.
Robert,
Paul Begg has an interesting theory that some sources speaks of two witnesses being interviewed from the Schwartz incident. One would be Schwartz of course, but according to Begg there is a possibility that the other one could have been Pipeman. Unfortunately the second witness is not mentioned by name or specified further so it has to remain speculations.
As for Pipeman, it is quite common that some witnesses simply do not want to get involved, maybe because they are afraid of being mixed up in the whole mess as suspects or other reasons. Some witnesses are just simply never identified because they don't come forward.
But I agree, it is strange that some witnesses like Mrs Mortimer and Schwartz wasn't called at the inquest and I too can't understand why.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 346
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I do agree that the police made some fairly monumental mistakes during their investigations, but they were of course only human. In Liz's case I do feel that they did as you say make serious omissions. The point about Matthews is also very valid.........
I think you might be referring to the post I put up quoting Walter Dew, although I really don't think that I was quoting him as the fountain of all police wisdom......I merely pointed out that a couple of the points he brought up in that particular passage were quite interesting......I did in fact prefix it with the lines that police memoires could only be of limited use as they were reliant on memory and were of course subjective..........I don't think that could be classed as a eulogy.................
This would seem to be what you are saying anyway, that in fact memoires are notorious as sources of reliable evidence.
I wasn't quite sure which 'bits' you were referring to that have been 'made up' on this particular thread, but certainly agree that evidence and information should not be fabricated to suit a particular theory, that is non productive and unhelpful.......and yes of course the same is true of any books that might be written........I think we have all seen enough of books that leave us more confused than when we started!
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxx |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4230
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
Is that the "Star" report, to the effect that a man who resembled one of Schwarz's descriptions had been arrested?
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3279
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I have no idea; I have no time to look it up in Begg's book since I am rather busy at the moment. I'll get back to it later, unless someone else can check it out.I am not sure that the person should have been "arrested", though, but I can say for sure.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 13, 2005)
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Robert, no worries on that concern.
Back in the 90’s I did firmly believe that Kidney had murdered Stride, but since then, posters on these boards have taught me - rather painfully - that Kidney’s culpability is really only a ‘maybe’.
Regardless of continuing debate I still feel that the best evidence for his guilt was his fairly demented appearance at the police station and his claim that he could do a better job of finding the killer than the police.
For me that is highly suspect.
It fits the classic behaviour of a man who has involvement and is desperate to learn the result of the police investigation. The problem with this behaviour is that a man who feels that the police may think he is guilty of such a crime - when in fact he had no involvement - will also do exactly the same thing.
My thinking lately is that Kidney probably thought he was going to go down for this murder, and attempted to pre-empt this with his appearance at the police station. His record for violent behaviour was not a good one, and he must have been changing his diaper every half an hour when he heard that Liz Stride had been murdered.
However I’m afraid I still feel that the ’noise’ associated with the crime does make this murder look like a ’domestic’ affair of some nature.
My thinking sort of goes along the lines of what would we see today if such a series of crimes took place in modern London and we had the benefit of looking down from the sky via a modern observation satellite?
In all the other crimes… nothing.
In the murder of Liz Stride?
An episode of East Enders.
That is the very reason there is so much discussion on these boards about the murder of Liz Stride, and so little about the other victims.
We know too much about the murder of Liz Stride. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4231
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
I take your point, AP. My own feeling about Stride is that it's more likely that she was a JTR victim than that she wasn't - but not by much. So I try not to use any of the Stride info as stepping stones in any theory about the murders as a whole. I don't really see Kidney as the murderer, or for that matter BS, but beyond that things just get very murky.
It's a great pity that we can't say that Liz was definitely a JTR victim, with Fieldgate St being so close by!
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
Robert
Regarding the closeness of Fieldgate Street, I suppose young Thomas could have slipped out for some cod and chips for uncle Charles and sort of bumped into Stride and settled instead for some grapes and a few cachous?
I’ve an open mind too, Robert, and quite honestly think that sometimes our lack of insight is driven by a lack of real knowledge, so it is to that task we must set ourselves.
Only information can settle the issue.
This might take years, and I for one can’t wait for the later Old Bailey transcripts to come up for the period from 1840 till 1900, and then to type in that one word ‘Kidney’ to the search engine and see what comes up.
Trouble is I’ll have probably fallen down those stairs by then. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4232
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi AP
Well, there's the Old Bailey, plus presumably digitisations of all the major newspapers to look forward to, sometime in the next...oh...500 years.
My advice is to hold tight to the bannister.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 465
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I tend to take a backseat to no one in casting doubt (and aspersions) upon Walter Dew's long-after-the-fact memoirs, but I think the part Jane quoted is not in the same class with his tendency to blur facts. It was in the way of an opinion and was probably based on his later experiences in the Crippen case. There can be no question that the lack of good press relations in the Ripper investigation led to a lot of misinformation (then and now) whereas better cooperation a couple decades later helped in Crippen's capture.
Glenn & Robert,
Is there not some enigmatic suggestion that Schwartz's information was given to the Stride inquest? I have wondered if, because of the cost and confusion attendant to bringing in a Hungarian translator, some arrangement had not been made that the coroner and jury would accept reading Schwartz's police statement with an option of actually calling him if necessary. Lord knows coroners were always carping about costs.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3280
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Don,
How was Brazil?
Regarding Schwartz... I have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4233
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Hi Don
I have Paul Begg's "Definitive History" out of the library (but haven't read it yet - lot going on my end).
Paul mentions a draft letter of Anderson's to the Home Office, in which Anderson mentions Schwarz giving evidence at the inquest. Paul thinks that this shows that Schwarz gave evidence "in camera."
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Hi Donald
Well regarding all those police involved I do believe they did their best-searched rooms,chased up suspects,sought alibis made every effort to catch the Ripper for all the reasons you and others have given.
But if you are looking for reasons why it all ended in failure thats another matter.I think as AP pointed out earlier that Abberline was particularly "hands on"
and tireless. But reading about his behaviour over the Cleveland Street case you start to see a man capable of putting politics before justice-in the sense that we understand the term "justice" today.He may or may not have acted with "total integrity" during the ripper hunt.
In Walter Dew"s case , fifty years later he seems not to have bothered to check out his facts -on several occasions at least- and yet he feels free to criticise the handling of the investigation and by implication his colleagues at the time.
The sad impression given is that none of them had a clue who the ripper was or how to catch him.In Anderson"s case, quite a lot later,he seems to identify Kosminski but says he died soon after admission to an asylum which he didnt[amongst other strange assertions about "seaside homes"and various inaccuracies].
Machnaghten didnt seem to know when Druitt had died,what age he was,or what he had actually done for a living.
In addition they all seem to have taken it for granted that inconsistency and inaccuracy was OK. -either when naming their prime suspect [Anderson and Machnaghten]or when recalling events[Dew].
So OK the point being made was about the press and may seem reasonable, but to me Dew"s criticism sounds too much like being wise after the event and putting the blame on other factors viz failures of relations with the press etc rather than admitting that much of the "investigation" was just a wild goose chase that led nowhere and with nothing whatever to show for it by way of an end result.
And if you add the wildly off the wall remark Dew made about Mrs Mortimer being the only person to have ever seen the "Ripper" when even at the time the police knew very well that the man with the shiny black bag was perfectly innocent, and had gone to the police himself to prove it, then you see why I myself dont give much weight to what he had to say about the ripper investigation.
Best
Natalie |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 466
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Clearly, you have many issues with the police investigation, but all I was concerned with in my post was his comment about press relations. It was a valid point even if "wise after the fact." Some few geniuses may be wise before the fact, but for most of us we must learn from experience. In this instance Dew may well have done so and that was all I concerned myself with.
As for his memoirs, I am well aware of the book's deficencies and some of my previous comments are still in the "Squibby" thread.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 467
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Since you and Robert did NOT see fit to deposit funds in my "Swiss Bank" and my Portugese is much worse than my Swedish, my visit to Brazil was short and unhappy. 
Did I ever tell you about my visit (this is true) to Mexico when I resolved to speak nothing but Scots Gaelic? It was strange if nothing else.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 178
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 1:55 am: |
|
Natalie - Macnaghten was writing from memory (and us apart no harm in that). In a background brief for the file, his argument concerned the likelihood of a particular individual was less likely than at least three others to have been JtR.
What he gets right about Druitt is that he was a professional (doctor rather than lawyer) and the age is wrong by exactly 10 years suggesting slip of pen or memory. The date of death is not particularly relevent to his argument except that it was shortly after MJK was murdered.
More worrying than that IMHO, is that the police at the time thought Ostrog a potential suspect when all the evidence we have today suggests he was a different sort of criminal.
But macnagten was a policeman fascinated by the Whitechapel murders, who came to the Met after the autumn of terror and was involved only in the later (IMHO questionable) murders. It can be argued that his understanding of the complex issues (rather than facts) behind these crimes, based on reading and memory rather than first hand experience, is actually very impressive.
I am sure that if we had (and if only we had) Abberline's memoires, they (like those of Swanson and macnaghten's memo) would contain to us apparent errors of fact.
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
