Author: Penelope Vilela
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 11:41 pm |        |
| Do the police still have the evidence? The case was never really closed was it? So I assume they would still have the victims clothing, personal items, blood samples, hair samples, etc. Did the police save things like that back then? I have to remember not to apply modern standards to this case. The reason I am asking is that there may be enough blood to do a PCR. Grizzly thought: exhume one of the bodies, do a postmortum using modern technology. Test for drugs. Drug residue remains in human hair basically forever. Maybe the murders had something to do with drugs???? I don't know what good it would do but it would be interesting if something came up. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:06 am | |
Hi Penelope:
The possibility of being able to apply modern forensic methods to the case is slim. Slimmer still is the feasability that such tests might get us any closer to identifying the murderer. You say, "I assume they would still have the victims clothing, personal items, blood samples, hair samples, etc." Grey Hunter or Paul Begg could speak to this point better than I can, but I believe none of those items are still extant. Such items were either lost or buried with the victims. There is even doubt that the bodies of the victims could be recovered. I understand that although the position of the bodies is known more or less, some of them were put in graves in which there is more than one person. It is also my understanding that the grave of Annie Chapman is unknown. There is a slim chance that the Lusk kidney may still exist, or at least a slide of it, which would comprise a section of the kidney on a glass slide. Dr. Tom Ind is investigating the possibility of its survival. Of course, with that in hand, the best we could hope to know if whether it did indeed come from Eddowes, from a DNA match, but this would depend on whether Eddowes' remains could be located and permission could be obtained for their exhumation.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 01:09 pm | |
Thanks Chris
When looking at JTR's case it just amazes me how far police forensics have come in the last one hundred years. The police back then really had their hands tied. Of course look at what happened with OJ Simpson. Lots of evidence available but no conviction.
PV |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 05:31 pm | |
Hi Penelope:
You are exactly right. The OJ Simpson case well demonstrates that modern-day forensics are not infallible, particularly when combined with the failings of the justice system. Another example might be the Yorkshire Ripper murders in England. The man eventually caught and convicted, Peter Sutcliffe, had been interviewed by the police but was eventually caught red-handed more through luck than by modern forensic science.
Chris George |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 10:36 pm | |
Chris
There was a case near here several years ago similar to Sutcliffs. A young girl named Polly Klas was kidnapped, raped and murdered. Seems the police stopped the murderer, ran his name thru the computer-nothing came up-they let him go. Turns out he was a convicted rapist and POLLY WAS BOUND AND GAGGED IN THE TRUNK OF HIS CAR AT THE TIME THEY STOPPED HIM. Computer glitch!!! Anyway, back to Ripping.
Thx, PV |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 03:57 am | |
Hi Penelope,
We had an almost same example as yours, in Belgium. A convicted child rapist was let out after doing 2/3 of his time. He kidnapped in total 6 girls afterwards, and kept them for a while alive in his cellar bunker. The first pair (kidnapped in pair), ages around 10, were still alive when he kidnapped the other pair, age around 17-18. And disposed himself very fast of the last 2. The first were still alive in his cellar, when he was doing time for car thefts. Since his wife had not nourished them well, while he was in jail, they were near to the starving death. Both the first 2 died shortly after he was home again. Meanwhile he killed his accomplice Weinstein. Again he kidnapped the last 2, but they were retrieved alive and rescued.
Police had been on a house call while the first two were still alive, and the policeman had heard children's cries, and tried to search for them, but overlooked the cellar. The criminal's name was Dutroux, and he was easily to be found in the computer, and easily linked with witness statements of sighted cars at the times of the abductions.
All very sad,
Jill |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 12:24 pm | |
Jill
From what I have read thus far in the police reports it says that they pulled in unsavory individuals for questioning. So I take it that back then there was profiling done and recorded on certain crimes and suspects. I imagine that the murder of prostitutes was not very high on their list. To say that all of these women were drunks and prostitutes does them a dis-servive. They were surviving, though not very well. Perhaps if I found myself in "Dire Straits" I would do the same thing. Who knows. I say "Take a walk in their shoes." Anyway, back to my point. The police and press both issued warnings to the public. Patrols were increased. People in the area were on alert. Then why did the victims let down their guard? I think they knew JTR. I think he was "part of the scene". I cannot imagine any other reason why they would go with him. No one is that stupid! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 01:56 pm | |
Penelope
Profiling is too organized a word for it. They simply pulled in suspicious, violent, crazy looking people.
To the best of my knowledge (someone correct me if I'm wrong) but I dont think the murder of Emma Smith even made it to the newspapers. Violence in that part of the city was common, and deaths were not so unusual.
Actual cases of identifiable murder were not common, but contemporary reports tell of people who may have died due to drunken street fights, or at least that is what was assumed.
It was the savage murder of Martha Tabram that made some news, if she had simply been stabbed once, as opposed to 39 times, then she too may have remained an unknown statistic. And even after this I think the police & press did not go overboard with concern.
Locals in the area were becoming concerned though, and some third hand reports tell of a citizen complaining about the lack of police in the dark streets, "'else there'll be something terrible happen again"......shortly afterwards, Mary Nichols was found in Bucks Row......then the Press jumped on the three murders and a 'serial killer' was born....the Police now had to respond, you know the rest.
Jon |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 02:53 pm | |
Jon
So it was the press who first lumped the murders together not the police. This is what I suspected buy was not sure. The police were responding to the press reports of the murders and not the murders themselves. I wonder if anything was ever said at HQ about shutting the press up on this one?
Thx, PV |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 03:43 pm | |
Yes Penelope, the police, from the start, were at the mercy of sensational press speculation.
I believe the story goes something like.....The Star, being the most radical paper was the first to provoke the police with 'social conscience' type issues, all in the name of selling more copies.
The other newspapers slowly followed suit as the weeks rolled by. The Times, I believe, was the last one to join in, always taking the side of police upto that point. In the end all the press were against the authorities, mainly because of the inept Charles Warren.
But, the police on the ground were not stupid or bufoons, most of this antagonizm was aimed at police officials, Home Office & specifically Warren. |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 04:19 pm | |
Jon
A thankless job all around for the police. They were the ones that had to clean up the mess so to speak. The papers get the glory for their insightful reporting and the police got the boot from all around for not solving the case. Sounds like today. Things have not changed much!
Bye, PV |
Author: Jill McDole
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 04:24 pm | |
Hi Penelope,
Keep in mind, even with the ability today to obtain forensic evidence, in only about 10% of murder cases is there enough forensic evidence available to do the voodoo those forensic folks do. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 03:34 am | |
Hi Penelope,
These woman were so desperate, they needed both their booze to get through the day, and then had to go out on the streets to earn a bed to sleep. These woman had to choose between taking a customer or sleep in the gutter. Although the idea that JtR could have been a familiar face to them has its merit, it only might well have been a man with an innocent expression they thought harmless. They even might have been so desperate to even agree to a less harmless looking guy.
Hi Jill,
Welcome
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 12:26 pm | |
Hi Jill M.
I came into this research with the preconceived notion that the police blew it on this case. Bad thing to do! I am beginning to believe that they were as much victims of circumstance as the girls.
What I don't understand is why they stopped the official investigation so soon.
Bye, PV |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Tuesday, 10 October 2000 - 01:03 pm | |
Hi Jill D.
From what I have read MJK was not sleeping in the gutter. She had a place to take her Johns. Of course her murder may not be linked to the others. I don't know. These women were not new to the job. I believe some of them had been at it for many years. They must have developed some street smarts or they wouldn't have lasted as long as they did. Am I wrong? I feel for these women and realize in my own pampered way how life must have been for them. Self preservation is a very atavistic instinct. I just cannot believe that these women would make themselves sitting ducks. Even in the worst of times hope and lust for life are the strongest motivators. As I said before I am new to this and may change my mind. But, it's going to take a real U-turn to make me concede that these women were so desperate that their attitudes contributed to their own murders.
Bye for now, PV |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 03:13 am | |
Hi Penelope,
Most of the victims sounded gay, but I don't think you can call women with an alcohol problem, optimistic. Many people have an attitude that nothing can pains them when they are drunk. But when they start drinking habitually to be gay, this means they have little to be happy about when they're not drunk.
It sounds illogic that they squandered the little money they earned to drink, but when someone is in such an emotional state that there seems no hope, this is actually not so strange a reaction.
I also know from experience by now, that often depression signals are hidden. From the people I know who had killed themselves, everyone was surprised. Friends knew the person in question had some problems in the past, but all thought the person was getting above it and finding hapiness again. Not that I am implying that the victims were conscious suicidal, but presenting that even in severe depression cases, surroundings are very much surprised.
As you will soon find out: Chapman for example was not feeling al that well, mentally and physically. She just was released a few days from the infermery, was taking pills, and was thinking to get herself readmitted. Why else would she still be on the street around 4 to 5 am, than being desperate?
As for MJK, she faced eviction, since she was in great debt for the room she rented. She was definitely in a desperate need for money. Eddowes' husband had to pawn his boots that day to have some money for food, while he had no other footware. All the others had to find their doss money every night again to find themselves a sleeping place.
Greetings,
Jill Helen(to dispell confusion) |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 08:10 am | |
| Jill and Caz, I agree with you completely with what these poor people had to put up with. Every day was a hard fight to live, in fact it wasn't living it was existing! What depressing lives they led, and the approach of winter must have been terrifying. We today can't imagine what it was really like, we live on a different planet. And all this only 112 years ago. Regards to both, Rick. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 10:04 am | |
Thanks Rick, warm regards to you too - winter draws on!
We really are all spoiled beyond those women's wildest dreams, aren't we? Though I guess there are still far too many parts of the globe, including our own inner cities, where desperate fights for survival still sadly take place every day.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 11:56 am | |
Jill Helen
You are very convincing. I keep applying my modern upbringing to this case. It's hard to really put oneself in their shoes. It is profoundly sad that there was no one out there to help these women! What about halfway houses, churches, refuges? I know there was a movement to clean up the East End. Was this movement preoccupied with cleaning up the end for financial reasons (development) and just dust the poor people that lived there out the door? Or was this movement truly interested in helping the people that lived there? Am I slipping into modern comparisons again?
Always, PV |
Author: Chandler
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 03:18 pm | |
Hello Penelope,
There was what we might call today
a movement towards urban renewal which appears though to have degenerated into a "gentrification"
by the raising the rents of "renewed" properties to a level that only artisans/tradesmen could afford. The greed of the doss house owners replaced by the greed of the real estate developers.
In Cullen's "When London Walked in Terror" there is an interesting discussion on this point.
I'll leave the discussion of charitable institutions and the Workhouses to more knowlegdeable posters.
reguards,
chandler |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 11:53 am | |
Thanks Chandler
Sad to think that the powers that be would use these murders as an excuse to "clean up" the East End thereby raising their property values. Even today, in some cases, destruction of property is more harshly dealt with than destruction of people. I will check out your book when I have time. From what I have read about workhouses it sounds like being on the streets was preferable to being in a workhouse. Will check further!
Bye, PV |
Author: Chandler
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 01:23 pm | |
Hi Penelope,
Cullen's an interesting read but take him with a healthy measure of salt. He did do one thing that I find very interesting. Since he was writing in late 50's-mid 60's he was able to interview some eastenders who were in their teens during the "Autumn of Terror". Since Cullen favors Druitt I wish he had tried to find and interview some former students of Mr. Valentine's school to see what, if any, stories they might have had to tell concerning Druitt and his being fired.
In a sad way the workhouses almost seem like punishment for being poor.
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 06:23 am | |
All 'extracts' quoted from the E-Book:
"THE SEVENTH SEAL. Count Dracula's Letters to Amenophis.(1999)"
David Guyatt Archive.Aug-Sept., 1999. |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 07:16 am | |
P.S.
The SECRET lies at Longitude 33 and Latitude 42.
THIS TREASURE BELONGS TO SION!
(As it was.As it is. So it shall be EVERMORE) |
Author: peter martin
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 01:49 pm | |
I wonder if they could use one of those 'what's it' cameras that can photograph ulta-violent-infra-red 'what'sit' stuff to show the heat traces of what was there years ago on the Wentworth building? This could uncover any fragments of the 'what'sit'...graffito.
Pete |
Author: Steve
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 02:54 pm | |
Pete,
Nice idea but looking at Stewart Evans photo of the scene today it looks as if the original brickwork around the doorway has been replaced,if not the 'what's it' camera would have to see through layers of cooking fat.
No jokes about cooking fat being what I call my cat("Carry on Loving" Circa 1971).
Regards
Steve |
Author: peter martin
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 11:15 pm | |
"Cooking fat, cooking fat, well that's what it sounds like!" I think that was Valerie Leon Steve, one of my favourite jokes.
Never mind well catch Jack another time.
Pete |
