Post Number: 161
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 6:41 am: || |
INTRODUCTION / CHAPTER ONE
I agree with Wolf in that we are nowadays further away from identifying the true 'Jack the Ripper', because many writers have introduced suspects to fit their theory. One in particular has based her beliefs on the myth that the killer took the time to write many letters to the police and press.
Maybe Wolf is a bit unfair to accuse the majority of writers of concentrating on 'Jack the Myth', just to add 'pornography designed to titilate the discerning reader....with its elaborate theories of forbidden sex and bodily destruction'. Simply to sell books. Unfortunately, the serious armchair detective/author must consider thoughts labelled: 'pornography', to explore every possible motive.
Are you, A.P. Wolf, suggesting that authors should not include the: 'horrifying pictures of the bloody remains of the victims of the Ripper'? Of course they help to sell books, because they make an observer/potential book buyer angry!
I agree that describing the killer's behaviour like a 'dog copulating with a bitch on heat', was unnecessary!
I agree that if the police had taken curious coincidences more seriously they may have come closer to catching 'Jack'. I recently typed 'Dorset' into the search engine to locate a newspaper report that I remembered contained the words 'Dorset Street', and was shocked at how many inquests occured with 'Dorset Street' mentioned. - and not just Mary Kelly's!
Post Number: 162
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 6:56 am: || |
Wolf says that: 'The mid to late Victorian era was a time of brutal violence. Over 11000 people died yearly from acts of violence...'
In Bruce Paley's 'The Simple Truth', there's a photo of a statistics report showing deaths in Whitechapel for the year 1887. I can't include exact figures here because that particular page has 'walked' from my copy, (can anyone help?), but I remember reading that there were no recorded 'Homicides', alot of 'Accidents' and a few 'Suicides'. Late Victorian times were a times of violence in the East End, yes, but 'First Degree Murder' was rare. That's why I include the murder of Elizabeth Stride as one of the Ripper's. It 'matched the form' of an interupted Ripper.
Post Number: 58
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 7:50 am: || |
AP Wolf, marvellous book! I truly enjoyed it. You have a refreshhing, and stimulating writing style, not in the least verbose, or ponderous. The book was exciting, and never once bored me. I couldn't put it down.
All in all, I remain true to my original convictions. However, you made an excellent case for Cutbush, whom I had never even considered as a serious suspect, before. He's still not my number one choice, but he's been bumped up several notches in the running, as a result of your book.
I made six pages of notes, which I consolidated into the following questions, or points. Sorry for the length of this post.
1) McNaughton (in his memorandum) may well have been defending Cutbush because his Uncle was a senior Police Officer. But that does not make Cutbush the Ripper- McNaughten certainly could have been defending an innocent man, albeit for reasons that were in the interest of his department.
2) I've always been highly dubious that Munro's "Hot potato" comment was hinting at a conspiracy. Quite simply, the case was a hot potato, people were near hysterical, the media was highly critical of the police, and the whole affair was highlighting the horrible conditions of London's poor. Social upheaval was in the air.
3) Missing files, and seemingly conflicting information could easily be the result of ineptitude. Even in these days of information technology, police departments and government agencies do make mistakes, and lose information. More often than not, this is not as a result of conspiracy.
4) I didn't see any evidence of a close relationship between Thomas and his uncle. The example that you give, of them both sharing the common delusion that they were being poisoned, is not convincing enough.
The delusion of being poisoned is a common one for paranoid schizophrenics. Thomas was apparently taking some type of medication from his doctor, which was not making him feel better- so to his mind, it is poisoning him.
It's a very sad story, but the mother of a close friend of mine is a paranoid schizophrenic. She also believes that there is a 'they', and that 'they' are trying to destroy her. In some cases, poisoning her food. When my friend moved out, his mother threw a hammer at his head. A violent act, but this woman is not a vicious killer.
Regarding the fact that he threatened to shoot his doctor in a letter, this only ties in with his uncle's consistent carrying of a firearm very loosely. I did a very quick search, and found that gun ownership was not that uncommon in Victorian England.
5) Cutbush's mother being described as 'excitable' by McNaughten does not tell me that she was also schizophrenic. Actually, it sounds to me as if she may have suffered from anxiety. As for her not being 'reliable', this is quite common for anxiety sufferers, as they have a low tolerance for stress.
6) I saw no evidence that Cutbush's mother taught him that sex was evil, or that women were dirty at all.
7) I also saw no evidence that Cutbush saw himself as a religious-type saviour, bent on ridding the world of prostitutes.
8) The article you posted from 'The Sun', reads to me like an incredibly sensationalistic piece of reporting. I'm pretty sure that many of the reporter's points, were grossly exaggerated. For instance, Cutbush slipping out of his window, and jumping over garden fences, as a youngster.
This is not that uncommon, my own parents were fairly strict with me, and as a teen, I did my fair share of slipping out the house without their knowledge (as did some of my friends). Also, I'm fairly fit (I run every day), and could hop a fence with relative ease, should I choose to do so. Yet I possess no abnormal strength, or agility.
9) Regarding Cutbush 'studying' medical textbooks: this seems to me a symptom of his obsession with his disease (syphilis), and his compulsion with trying to cure himself. His threatening to shoot his doctor, could also be a symptom of this.
10) Regarding the drawings of women in 'indecent' poses: this tells me very little. Many young men have an interest in pornography, which was not so readily available in the Victorian era, as it is today. Hence the drawings. I also wonder what was considered 'indecent', in the Victorian era.
11) Regarding Cutbush's late night walks: how do we know he walked the streets of Whitechapel, at all? As you say, no policeman claimed to have seen Cutbush on his beat. As there were several policemen around, it's more likely that Cutbush wasn't in the area, than it was part of a giant conspiracy to cover up the fact that he was.
12) You compare Jack's murders with those of Richard Chase. This is not entirely accurate, because Chase killed his victims with a gun. This type of sudden, 'blitz', or clumsy attack is common for disorganized killers. Chase didn't engage his victims in any type of social contact, before killing them.
From Larry S. Barbee, 'Introduction To The Case', Casebook:
"The autopsies constantly revealed clear indications that the victims had been strangled. In the past some writers believed that the Ripper struck from behind when the victims were bent forward, their skirts hiked up their backsides while waiting to engage in anal sex. This is a very awkward arrangement and the risk that they may scream or elude his clutch's make this unacceptable. The Ripper then lowered his victims to the ground, their heads to his left. This has been proven by the position of the bodies in relation to walls and fences that show that there was virtually no room for the murderer to attack the body from the left side. No bruising on the back of the heads shows that he lowered the bodies to the ground rather than throwing or letting them fall. Given the inclement weather and filth in the streets it is unacceptable that the prostitutes or their client would have attempted intercourse on the ground. He cut the throats when the women were on the ground. Splatter stains show that the blood pooled beside or under the neck and head of the victim rather than the front which is where the blood would flow if they had been standing up. In one case blood was found on the fence some 14 inches or so from the ground and opposite the neck wound and this shows that the blood spurted from the body while in the prone position on the ground. This method also prevented the killer from being unduly blood stained. By reaching over from the victim's right side to cut the left side of her throat, the blood flow would have been directed away from him, which would have reduced the amount of blood in which he would have been exposed. If the victim was already dead before their throats were cut, then the blood spilt would have not been very much. With the heart no longer beating the blood would not have been "pressurized," so only the blood in the immediate area of the wound would have evacuated gently from the cuts."
This method of killing shows premeditation, and skill in relieving a body of life, with the least amount of fuss, or mess.
The only similarity between Jack's, and Chase's killings, is in the subsequent mutilations, not the method of the murder.
13) Cutbush's attacks on women were completely haphazard, and opportunistic. He stabbed women in the buttocks with a knife, and had no thought to hide his actions, had no thought of the consequences of his attacks. This is typical of a disorganized offender, and is a symptom of the disorganized thought process of delusional psychotics. He was quite easily apprehended for these actions, which is again usually the case with disorganized offenders.
If he had committed the previous Ripper murders, (in a similar haphazard manner, with no thought to consequences), why was he not apprehended at the time, when police were swarming the Whitechapel area?
The fact that he was easily apprehended for stabbing women's buttocks, doesn't bode well for him having evaded capture as the ripper.
14) I'm not sure why Lawende's testimony seems to have been 'suppressed', or the reason for the press black-out at this time, but isn't it just as likely that these actions could have been seen to benefit the investigation? I'm not sure I sniff a conspiracy to shelter someone in particular.
15) You state that both Cutbush's defense, and his prosecution believed him to be Jack the Ripper, I had not read this before, could you please tell me where this information comes from? It's interesting, and I'd love to read more about it.
However, I rather suspect that both defense and prosecution were being naive in thinking this. Mental illness was not so well understood in the Victorian era, and to many people, a delusional psychotic could make a likely candidate for a killer like Jack. These days we understand mental illness better, and statistics show that only a very small percent of schizophrenics are dangerously violent.
Yes, Cutbush did commit a violent act, but so did the mother of my friend, when she threw a hammer at her son's head. This does not necesarily make either of them a killer of Jack's calibre.
16) Cutbush may have been incarcerated for life, simply because he was as mad as hatter. You make the comparison between him, and Colicott (who committed a similar offense, but only recieved a minor sentence). This is possibly because Colicott did not appear to be insane. One doesn't have to be a delusional psychotic to poke a woman in the bottom with a knife.
If Colicott didn't appear to be a raving lunatic (as Cutbush did), he may not have seemed as 'dangerous', to the thinking of that era. Hence the lighter sentence.
17) You seem to suggest a complicity between Thomas Cutbush, and his uncle, in commiting these crimes. This would mean that some of the killings, particularly the Eddowes murder, was premeditated. It seems to me unlikely that two men who obviously suffer from disordered thinking processes, could plan, and execute such crimes, and evade the consequences of those crimes so efficiently.
18) I don't think we can readily attribute Cutbush's uncle's suicide to guilt over his own, or his nephews actions.
The suicide rate for schizophrenics is very high, up to fifty percent higher than in the general population. It's estimated that half of all deaths amongst schizophrenics, are a result of suicide.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thank you for taking the time to have this conversation! I'm no crime expert, or historian, and it's an honour for me to be able to bounce my ideas off you.
Post Number: 89
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 1:33 pm: || |
Thank you for your comments and thoughts.
Yes I do believe that publications should no longer include photographs of the naked and brutalized victims, this because I am well aware that young children - who do have easy access to this type of publication - are heavily and negatively influenced by such images when they know them to be true images, a major research projecty has recently proved beyond a shadow of doubt that children exposed to a news programme featuring death and destruction will be far more negatively influenced than if they had watched the 'Texas Chain Saw Massacre'. Reality is the key, so such photos are degrading to the authors and their readers. For any serious researcher there are sites available.
To my eternal credit - I hope - when I started the Myth I had never even heard of Thomas Cutbush, and my aim was to write a book that would basically ridicule many of the authors involved with the case at the time and introduce some common sense to the over-sensationalised situation, however during that research I came across young Thomas and was fairly seduced by him as a possible suspect.
However I have never lost grip on reality because of Thomas, and do accept his many faults as a suspect, but he has proved a useful vehicle to put across some very essential points which I feel have long been ignored in this case.
As I have pointed out before, my views have changed dramatically in recent years towards genuine researchers, writers and people who just enjoy the basic mystery of the case, but I still feel there is a tinge of pornographic attraction which even today some writers do exploit.
Post Number: 90
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 1:40 pm: || |
I was referring to the entire UK when I made that reference about the late Victorian period being a violent age, and I was basically referring to men's attitude to women at that time in society, rather than murder.
It is well worth reading both:
'The Worm in the Bud' by R. Pearsall &
'The Victorian Underworld' by Kellow Chesney.
Post Number: 91
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 1:48 pm: || |
Blimey! I'm going to have to write another book just to reply to all your pertinent points.
Thank you for your kind comments and interest. I'm glad you enjoyed the fresh style and approach, back then in the early 1990's it was considered revolutionary... so I'm told.
Every one of your points is valid and I will do my best to answer them without getting more egg on my face.
But not now as I have just finished the penultimate chapter and must correct it and send it off tonight. As soon as that is done I will be back with some fragile answers.
Post Number: 92
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 5:18 pm: || |
My dear lady, the honour is entirely mine.
As keen as I am to discuss this with you, your point does form a major issue of the last chapter which I am reworking right now, so I must hold fire for fear of polluting my own thoughts.
Yes, I do agree with you, Munro's hot potato is very likely quite a cold little spud really, but I couldn't refuse it at the time.
Am in total agreement with you. As Stewart Evans has often pointed out missing files are nothing more than just missing files and do not show evidence of anything apart from missing files. Again I was tempted by that forbidden fruit.
Don't agree or can't agree. Given the fact that Thomas' father had left him at a very early age and that both Thomas and Charles shared the same birthplace, I believe the family was much more close knit than we presently think. Sadly this needs a lot more research... and again this is something I am presently working on for the last chapter.
Quite right. I have taken an unknown situation here and attempted to make it known. Maybe wrong but I was attempting to push the information into some sort of usefullness.
Same as above. I have merely tried to peer through the mist.
I took later cases and applied it to Thomas' known behaviour and upbringing.
Actually when I read the reports in the Sun I was struck by the very level headed nature of the articles and I did not find them sensational at all. You must not confuse the Sun of today with the Sun of yesterday, this is a mistake many make.
It was not the fact that Cutbush used the back gardens, yards and alleyways to move around Whitechapel as a child that I remarked about, it was the fact that he did it right through the period of the Ripper crimes when he was no longer a child.
I'd like to see anyone confined to a lunatic asylum with all their clothes removed in a supposedly escape proof room guarded by four male guards escape. Any of us might be fit, but this was super fit. He scaled the walls which were supposedly unscaleable.
You see I now don't think Cutbush had syphilis, I believe he imagined he had syphilis. That is a different ball game.
It wasn't the indecency of the images Cutbush drew that I was concentrating on, it was the fact that these images were of naked women with their intestines and other internal organs hanging out of their bodies.
I thought this not normal.
Macnaghten is the best witness for this. And he was the best source available at the time.
I don't believe Jack engaged his victims in any type of social contact before he killed them.
I think Chase used his gun to nullify his victims, not to kill them or mutilate them, he just used the quickest method available to him at the time, as did Jack. Firearms were really only available to the upper class at that time in history. I cover this more extensively in the next chapter.
He most certainly was not easily apprehended for these crimes, in fact several policeman lost their jobs as a consequence of his late arrest, and later escape, and as we know Macnaghten was forced by his superiors to offer a plausible explanation for the entire farce.
I am not happy with your use of modern terminology here, particularly the word 'disorganized' as there is now an abundant wealth of evidence showing that a so called disorganized killer can sometimes be a very organized individul and that an organized killer can sometimes be very disorganized.
Be wary of forensic profilers carrying bad fruit.
Yes, if it were to happen today I could perhaps see your point, but given the infancy of the police force at the time, no.
They were yet not clever enough to surpress crucial evidence to catch a killer. That came twenty years later. At that period in time it is highly suspicious.
Reported in the Sun.
My comparison of the differing sentences handed out to people who had committed similar offences in the same time period was based on sentencing policy. In other words it would have been very difficult for a judge to have passed the sentence on Cutbush when similar cases were available for him to consider, and those cases showed a vastly more lenient sentence. In any English court of law both defence and prosecution are legally obliged to present previous and similar cases to the one being tried and to publicly catalogue the sentencing policy of the judges and courts involved, thus allowing the judge to reach a reasonable and just verdict in the case he is sentencing. Failure to do so would represent a serious miscarriage of justice.
This was obviously not done in Cutbush's case and there can be only one reason it was not done, a directive from a higher authority.
I also think you are not fully aware of the seriousness of being detained under 'Her Majesty's Pleasure'. This was the ultimate weapon of the establishment, and anyone who suffered this would never be seen by society again. It was the ultimate punishment, without question and without recourse.
I have never used the word premeditation.
I prefer the word provocation.
It strikes me that a man who is a senior executive police officer at Scotland Yard would be capable of some sort of organisational ability even when he was a complete and utter headcase who thought he was being poisoned by the Catholic population of England.
I did show you a similar series of events.
On the face of it there seems to be no good reason for Charles Henry Cutbush to have committed suicide, he was a well respected officer who had often appeared in the press for his good deeds and excellent policing record.
I like that. That means he did have a reason to commit suicide. We just don't yet know why.
I disagree with your sampling percentages.
For instance if you sample suicide victims in Germany and England today you will find that Germany has a higher percentage in suicide amongst young healthy teenagers than does England and that the schizophrenics of Germany do not even figure in the percentage.
I would agree that perhaps today in the USA or the UK the percentage of schizos committing suicide is very high, but it would not have been in the Victorian age beacuse most would not have been aware that they were mentally ill and would have carried their illness in society much like we carry AIDS today. My point, AIDS has been with us since the 1950's but we were not made aware of that until twenty years later, so nobody died of it before then.
Weird thinking but I think I'm right.
I'm enjoying this and hope you take my replies in the good spirit they are sent.
Post Number: 69
|Posted on Tuesday, April 08, 2003 - 8:31 pm: || |
Re: Chapter 14
‘In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.’
In fairness to the Bible the context indicates that the shedding of blood referred to here is Christ's sacrifice on the cross, offering Himself to atone for man's sin. This was prefigured by the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. Nowhere does the Bible advocate wholesale random murder and mutilation. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty unequivocal. God's Word is not at fault if madmen choose to twist and misinterpret it.
In order to be evenhanded we need also ask how many murders, rapes, and other horrors have been prevented because of the influence of that Book.
Post Number: 168
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 12:53 am: || |
G'day Wolf, everyone,
I'm with AP Wolf 100% in his claim that '35 Dorset Street' deserves a closer look, because of statements made at four seperate inquests, (Tabrams, Nichols, Chapman's and Kelly's). That newspaper report I mentioned that I was looking for, concerned an incident that happened on Dorset Street. I'll keep looking.
WOLF: are you saying that Catharine Eddowes, (note the spelling with an 'a', as per her birth certificate), was aware that her daughter had moved? I read somewhere that her daughter was dodging her, because she always bludged money.
Catharine was about to claim that she knew the identity of the Whitechapel murderer, (remember that he wasn't christened yet!), and she wasn't a regular prostitute. Maybe she felt safe because of that! But the killer decided to include her in his tally, because of his failure to mutilate Stride and his anger at near capture? She may have hinted at her suspicions in an attempt to bribe? If she said: "I saw...", that could be why he made a mess of her face!
Post Number: 169
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 1:09 am: || |
The report on that incident in Dorset Street that I am looking for, WASN'T the one about that roasted chestnut seller!
Post Number: 61
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 6:57 am: || |
Hi AP Wolf,
I'm enjoying this greatly, too! And of course I'm taking this debate in good spirit. I'm grateful that you're taking time out of your schedule to chat with me.
(Also, I think it's laughable when people get all bent out of shape about the ripper murders. I recommend a brisk bout of fresh air, and a good dose of fun for anyone of that character).
1)- 3) Fair enough.
4) Upon reflection- you're absolutely right. It's a reasonable assumption to make, that he was close to his uncle.
5) - 7) I just wasn't comfortable with those assumptions, at all!
8) I can't agree about 'The Sun' article. I also wondered about how much of the asylum story was exaggerated, it sounds like something from a movie.
9) If he didn't have syphilis, then it does change the facts, a bit! But how can we be sure of this?
10) I'm not sure whether to believe the fact that the drawings were of women with their intestines hanging out. Did this come from Mcnaughten, or The Sun? If it was the paper, I'm inclined to believe that they made up the intestines bit.
11) But McNaughten didn't say that Cutbush wandered around Whitechapel, did he? I thought he just wrote that Cutbush's whereabouts couldn't be ascertained.
12) I disagree, and I think that Jack did engage his victims in social contact, before killing them.
Let's just assume Cutbush was the killer: my reason for using 'modern terminology', is to make a clear definition between purely haphazard, opportunistic killers (such as Chase), and killers such as Jack. You see, I believe that Chase is a poor example for Cutbush, as you seem to be presenting him, because I believe that Cutbush was a 'mixed' killer, as there were clearly some elements of premeditation in his murders.
You seemed to say in the other thread, that there was an element of premeditation in Eddowes' murder. Particularly if Cutbush's uncle was able to find out when Eddowes was released, and give that information to Cutbush. Plus, we have Lawende's testimony, that Eddowes was seen talking with a man.
In your book, you seem to hint that Lawende's testimony was suppressed, because his description of Eddowes' killer would incriminate Cutbush. Does this mean that you accept the fact that the man seen talking with Eddowes was Cutbush, and therefore, he must have engaged some of his victims in social contact?
To have arranged the timing, and place of Eddowes murder shows a good deal of organization. And this is all hanging on your blackmail theory. They decided to kill her, because she was blackmailing them/ threatening to report them.
Also, in the other thread, you stated that these killings were not driven by 'cunning', but by 'hunger'. Allow me to quickly object to the simplicity of that statement, and also to disagree. Jeffrey Dahmer was cunning, and he certainly committed some horrific crimes.
Furthermore, if Cutbush didn't offer Mary money for sex, how did he get into her room, to murder her?
13) I thought only one Officer lost his job, as a result of Cutbush's arrest? The other was promoted, wasn't he?
In comparison, Cutbush was very clumsy when he got caught for poking women in the bottom with a knife. Compare this with the swift, silent, skillful Ripper murders, right in the heart of Whitechapel- which was literally crawling with police. If it was the same man, he certainly was better at evading capture, and silencing his victims, as the ripper.
But it's somewhat possible that his bottom- stabbing activities, and capture were due to the deterioration of his mental capacities.
14) Hmmm. I don't know enough about policing in that age, to comment further. Will have to research.
15) If it was in The Sun, I'm inclined to treat it with much caution. I think they were trying to get a juicy story.
16) Yes, I'm not very strong in my knowledge of legal matters, or the law, so I'll have to agree with you.
17) Exactly my point, I don't think that Cutbush, or his uncle were similar to Chase. Chase wandered around trying doors, and covered in his victims blood, in broad daylight. If Charles and Thomas worked together in these crimes, they must have organized their actions, and were cognizant enough to take several precautions to avoid capture.
18) I stand by my statistics. Schizophrenia is very frequently accompanied by depression, which is a major cause for suicide amongst the mentally ill. Particularly in the Victorian era, when medicine was very poor, and support groups/therapy was non-existant.
Post Number: 93
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 1:12 pm: || |
I'd go along with what you say if we just look at this one example of biblical text in isolation, however we cannot do that as the Bible is a book and must be taken as a whole.
And no I don't believe the Bible to have a message of love, goodwill or anything like that, it certainly does not teach us to love our fellow man and it certainly does not tell us not to kill.
Perhaps tiny segments of the New Testament could be viewed in that manner but certainly not the Old.
Let me explain with the help of my trusty International Study Bible which has been my constant companion now for over thirty years.
I assume you know the term 'redemption'? But do you know what it means?
'Redemption' is nothing less than the killing of an animal in the place of another animal... or even human. To 'redeem' something actually means to kill it.
The common word 'Holy' actually means to be infected by some terrible disease.
'Holy things' are Holy because if we so much as glimpse them we shall die a horrible death.
'The Glory of the Lord' and 'The Spirit of the Lord' were actually the cloud that settled on the Ark of the Covenant, and the flames and fire that spat out from the Ark killing thousands of people.
Something that is 'Dedicated' to the Lord is something that has been utterly destroyed, and something that is 'Blessed' by the Lord is something that will die a slow and painful death.
Modern biblical scholars who attempt to explain these damning points soon find themselves on fragile ground and can only offer interpretations which speculate that the destruction of people served the purpose of putting them in the hands of God.
Now if you read chapter 14 of the Myth you will see now what I was getting at. For this is exactly what the serial killers claimed they were doing.
The most telling point is that these same biblical scholars see little difference between the terms 'devote' and 'destroy'... in a Christian sense of fellowship so to say.
No, I'm sorry but the Bible is an awfully destructive engine that very likely provides the weird mechanisms for a lot of these killers.
I have written a book about this and carefully researched that for over twenty years, so I am not making these statements flippantly or lightly.
But your point was a good one, so thank you for that.
Post Number: 94
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 1:29 pm: || |
yes you are quite right. When I first started researching this subject I could not believe how often Dorset Street flashed up, and I feel the street to be a central hub to the eventual answer to the identity of Jack.
The answer will be there for sure.
Yes, I felt that Eddowes had no idea where her daughter lived on that fateful day. My understanding is that her daughter actually moved some two years before the events we are discussing took place, but I might be wrong.
I have always been strongly drawn to the circumstantial facts that Eddowes claimed that she knew who the Whitechapel murderer was a few days before her death, then set off on a bogus journey on the day, was arrested by police for being drunk - surely being drunk in Whitechapel in those gin laden days was the norm so why arrest one out of thousands? I have always found that strange and imagined a situation where a police officer had actually complained to fellow officers about her drunken behaviour and she was arrested at his behest - was released by police to make her way back to where she had been arrested and was subsequently killed outside a policeman's house in Mitre Square.
Lot of coincidences there and as I did stress one must always take these coincidences seriously in cases of murder. They are usually pointing to somewhere and often to someone.
Post Number: 96
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 4:35 pm: || |
Thank you for that.
Unfortunately the only sources available to us at this time concerning Thomas Cutbush are Macnaghten's memo and the reports in the Sun newspaper so we must make the best of them that we can.
I have been reliably informed by what I would term as an impeccable source that there is at least one researcher - when not two - who know a great deal more than we do about Thomas Cutbush and his relationship to his uncle, Executive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush, and this because they have access to privileged information not normally available to anyone who is not in the 'force' so to speak.
The snippets I have heard from this source - which I am unable to repeat here because of confidentiality - are what I would term as most alarming, and do seem to indicate that there was something very strange indeed going on with Charles henry Cutbush and his nephew during the period of the Ripper crimes.
I would urge anyone with a genuine interest in this case to attempt to track down the police pension records of Charles Henry Cutbush where I think medical material and opinion may emerge which will show the strange circumstances of his life and death.
Trust me, all is not what it seems.
Actually Macnaghten did say that Cutbush 'rambled' around Whitechapel at night and that during the Ripper crimes.
We are really going to have to agree to disagree concerning Cutbush and premeditation. He was a chrome ball in a pin ball wizard subject to the vagaries of the players. Flick the right switch and you lived, flip the wrong one you die.
As with Chase, leave your door unlocked you were dead, locked you were safe.
Thomas and Richard are exact twins. Their social and family history are just coins pressed out of the same machine, and their escalation and crimes were pure carbon.
I think Eddowes did talk to a Cutbush that night but I don't think it was Thomas.
I simply can't agree with you that Dahmer was 'cunning'. When I followed the events and read the press it just screamed at me 'stupid, stupid, stupid'. It just so happened that the police investigating his crimes were also stupid.
And please don't misunderstand my 'hunger' as 'hungry', two very different things.
I was being clever about the two officers losing their jobs, because of course Charles Henry Cutbush lost his job firstly and then secondly lost his life.
I go along with the deterioration of Cutbush's mental capacities as to the clumsy nature of his later crimes. It fits the general situation of the progression of his illness.
I would stress once again that the complicity I have presented between Thomas Cutbush and his uncle Charles is not of the nature of a shared responsibility in the actual crimes, but rather something much more subtle.
I feel the Catholic angle is best foot forward.
I'd even argue your point about support groups and therapy reducing the incidence of suicide amongst depressive schizophrenics, as there is a powerful and persuasive group of thought now - mostly from America - which is telling us the opposite is true, and that merely by treating the illness you are recognising it and empowering it, and it is this that leads to suicide. The Victorian schizophrenic was probably better off.
All good points though and I admit to being hard pressed to contain your obvious common sense and logic, however rest assured that I will do my best.
Post Number: 63
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2003 - 5:21 pm: || |
Hi AP Wolf,
As usual, your responses to my points are valid, and reasoned.
I'm particularly intrigued by what you describe as privileged information, pertaining to Charles, and Thomas Cutbush. I'll have to take your word that there is more than meets the eye, there.
However, it seems like there are many points in which we simply can't agree. And points in which we simply seem have different concepts. So in some areas, we have reached an impasse.
I can't agree with your theory, but I can't dismiss it, because it is plausible- and you present your case well.
I'm sure there may be more points that I wish to bring up in the future, but I'll have to think on them a while.
So we'll agree to disagree on some of the areas we've covered so far. I want to present my case pertinently, and to avoid areas of our debate that may become circular.
Cheers for the stimulating debate! And most likely I'll be back for more....
All my best,
Post Number: 177
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 9:20 am: || |
CHAPTER 2 - LONG LIZ
Wolf, you wrote: 'After this another witness, Mathew Paker said that he sold a bunch of grapes to long liz and her male companion...' Well mate, I'm afraid it wasn't as simple as that! When Paker was first approached on the day Stride's body was found, he stated to police that he did NOT see any suspicious person about. Yet after the publication in the newspaper appeared with descriptions of the man seen by the P.C., Packer's statements suddenly changed. He then claimed he saw: 'a young man aged 25 to 30, about 5ft 7ins, dress long black coat, buttoned up, soft felt hat, rather broad shoulders, rough voice, rather quick speaking, with a woman wearing a geranium like flower, white outside, red inside, and he sold him half a pound of grapes.'
It was thought that he was just after a cut of the recently publicized reward for information, so any statement he made would have been rendered almost valueless as evidence!
Wolf, you then wrote: 'Louis Diemschutz, told the 'Evening News' that she did indeed have a bunch of grapes clutched in one hand...' Where did you get that information from? Reading the statements made at Stride's inquest, when the Coroner asked Diemschutz: "Did you notice her hands?", he replied: "I did not notice what position her hands were in".
Then you wrote: 'at the inquest Dr. Phillips who performed the post-mortem said that there were fruit stains on the handkerchiefs found on the body.', yet reading the testimonies, Dr. Phillips said nothing about fruit stains and said: "I have not seen the two pocket- handkerchiefs."
And 'Mrs Rosenfield and Eva Hartstein' weren't even called to testify.
If a grape stalk was found in the drain of Dutfields Yard, who's to say it wasn't put there by someone else?
Post Number: 178
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 9:47 am: || |
This is how I read Schwartz's statement, which had to be interpreted by his friend: "...,but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting a pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road "Lipski" & then Schwartz walked away,..." Schwartz saw the second man after HE crossed the road, so the second man was on the same side as the first man!
When the first man called out "Lipski", Schwartz was already across or half way across, so the second man became: "the man on the opposite side of the road".....WITH ME?
Post Number: 100
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 1:31 pm: || |
you are like a fox terrier at a rabbit burrow.
That is a compliment by the way. Tenacious.
In the original volume published in 1993 I did source all these points, and it was only pure laziness and lack of time which prevented me from doing so now.
Although all the hiccups you catch me on are probably valid and reasonable, I have tried to present the case of Jack the Ripper in a different light and one that is not subject to the constant bickering that went before it.
So - to my cost perhaps - I am not prepared to get bogged down in minor points of detail - which I agree may be vastly important - but would rather digress into the type of topics we have already been covering, the psyche of the killer, the relevance of his crimes to society then and now and so on. But hey, I'm a fighter as well, so I will trawl through the old book and see if I can reference my statements.
If I can't I better find a rabbit burrow with a steel door.
Post Number: 179
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 4:55 pm: || |
Don't worry mate, I'm note going to attack ya!
That statement of Schwartz's is a killer! When I was stuck on Mary Kelly's case, I thought like you and alot of enthusiasts do.
Then when I had a closer look at Stride's case/Schwartz's statement and the diagram here on casebook, it all clicked. Go to 'Witnesses' on the left panel, click on the name 'Israel Schwartz', scroll down and check out the picture that changes.
Post Number: 11
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 8:33 pm: || |
Hi Leanne & A P
Just to clarify Phillips thoughts on the stained handkerchief, on 6 Oct. 1888, the Daily Telegraph report of the doctor’s recall included the following:
Dr. Phillips, surgeon of the H Division of police, being recalled, said: ... The Coroner also desired me to examine the two handkerchiefs which were found on the deceased. I did not discover any blood on them, and I believe that the stains on the larger handkerchief are those of fruit. Neither on the hands nor about the body of the deceased did I find grapes, or connection with them. I am convinced that the deceased had not swallowed either the skin or seed of a grape within many hours of her death.
Post Number: 12
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 9:07 pm: || |
The Evening News, 1 Oct. 1888, page 2, after describing the position of the body, included:
“GRAPES IN HER HAND.
In her right hand were tightly clasped some grapes, and in her left she held a number of sweetmeats.”
A lengthy interview with “Diemschitz” appears on page 3, in which he reportedly claimed:
“Her hands were tightly clenched, and when they were opened by the doctor I saw immediately that one had been holding sweetmeats and the other grapes.”
Post Number: 182
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 9:58 pm: || |
From her official inquest report:
THE CORONER: "Did you examine her hands?"
POLICE CONSTABLE HENRY LAMB: "I did not; but I saw that her right arm was across the breast."...................
MR. FREDERICK WILLIAM BLACKWELL: "...The hands were cold. The right right hand was lying on the chest, and was smeared inside and out with blood. It was quite open....."....
DR. GEORGE BAXTER [sic] PHILLIP: "...The right arm was over the belly..."
Let's put Paker's grapes in the same bucket with Kelly's child shall we?
Post Number: 13
|Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 10:33 pm: || |
I wasn’t aware that we had access to the ‘official’ inquest report on Stride. What I am aware of is the testimony reported in several newspapers of the time. (The extracts you quote above being from the Times, I believe)
By all means put the alleged Berner Street grapes, and Matthew Packer, into any bucket you wish. I, for one, wouldn’t place reliance on anything Mr. Packer had to say about Whitechapel murder.
All I sought to do was answer a couple of questions you posed in your post to A. P. Wolf.
Post Number: 101
|Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 2:35 am: || |
And I thank you for that Alexander.
I think everyone has shown here that there is always available a different interpretation on any facts put before us.
However I am not one to go along with dismissing absolutely everything that was written in the newspapers of the time, and holding onto inquest reports and the like as the holy grail in the answer to this tarnation.
Firstly the newspaper reports do contain the major body of evidence and we would be foolish to dismiss them all out of hand as pure sensation and speculation.
I for one do not believe that the press were quite so sensational as many would have us believe here and when I read through the segments available on the Casebook site I am in fact impressed by the often level headed approach taken by the journalists of the times. Of course there was some sensational reporting going on, but it is still in the minority.
I also see great flaws in solely accepting inquest and other official evidence as read, as we do know there was an enormous amount of chicanery going on which still remains unexplained today.
Macnaghten's report being just one classic example of a wilful effort to deceive and divert attention away from one clear supect and refocus it on a group of totally implausible suspects.
Much is not what it seems in this case but I don't think niggling and back biting about such minor detail of no great import to our understanding of the case as a whole pushes our knowledge any further. In fact it hinders it.
My message to those who seek to drag us through the sewers of infinitesimal detail is:
If the suit don't fit then you shouldn't try wearing it.
Thank you for your fair minded attitude Alexander.
Post Number: 14
|Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 10:47 am: || |
Hi A. P.
I couldn’t agree more with your view of the relative merits of newspaper and ‘official’ reports. Indeed, where comparison is possible, inquest coverage in the press clearly provides far more detailed information than official notes of proceedings.
The nature of the beast, however, ensures that uncorroborated newspaper reports will always be open to question. Even where the same information appears in several newspapers, this often derives from a single source and so remains essentially uncorroborated. Still, it’s all part of the joys of Ripper studies.
Given the dearth of indisputable fact, it is perhaps understandable that attention becomes disproportionately focused on minor detail. I’m not sure this is always such a bad thing. After all, any misunderstanding of minor detail has the potential to distort our understanding of the case as a whole.
It is for this reason that an occasional dip into the “sewers of infinitesimal detail” (wonderful turn of phrase, by the way) may be required to help ensure leakage of erroneous detail taints the broader view as little as possible.
That said, of course, niggling and back biting gets us nowhere fast. I wouldn’t like to think I was responsible for the introduction or fuelling of any negativity on this thread, and that was certainly never my intention. Nevertheless, if my recent posts have been seen in that light, I apologise, without reservation, to all concerned.
Use of these
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.