Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Fisherman 22 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 24 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Joshua Rogan 25 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Michael W Richards 47 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Jon Guy 50 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 56 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (30 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (11 posts)
General Discussion: Collaboration on Mitre Square and GSG? - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-14-2016, 09:13 AM
YomRippur YomRippur is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
Hi Yom and Thanks,

Dr. Phillips felt the two murders were by a different hand. His assistant, Dr. Percy Clark also felt only 3 of the 5 canonicals were by the same hand. Superintendent Arnold felt "Miss Kelly" was by a different hand than the others. There really isn't a 100% agreement by anyone on anything.

As far as probability of another killer? There was another killer at the same time frame. The Torso killer. So statistics of another serial killer being unlikely means little, really.
But behavioral science have given us better understanding about these killings than the people had a century ago. Specifically, the canonical five victims (except Stride) all showed a common "ritualistic" aspect of the killer. A "ritual" is something the killer *must* do to gain fulfillment. And that was the mutilation, which was missing in the torso murders. A serial killer may change his modus operandi and/or may improve on his techniques, but the "ritual" must be done. For the killer to commit the torso murders and the Ripper murders in the same period, it would mean he would have to drastically change his ritual back and forth. From behavioral science's standpoint, that's unlikely. My point about probability was rather that it would not be probable for two killers to have the same ritualistic need and roughly the same modus operandi given the low murder rate at the time.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-14-2016, 09:18 AM
spyglass spyglass is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: gravesend,kent
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It is an officer we must trust until anything surfaces to contradict him. It is that simple. There was never any counterweight in this errand, all we have is Long emphatically denying that the rag was there at 2.20, and so that sets the agenda.

Anybody who wants to work from the presumption that the rag was there at 2.20 will do so in conflict with the evidence. For whatever reason.
Hi,
Am I correct in thinking that bizarrely, he didn't takes notes until about three weeks later, rather than on the actual night.?

Regards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-14-2016, 09:43 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyglass View Post
Hi,
Am I correct in thinking that bizarrely, he didn't takes notes until about three weeks later, rather than on the actual night.?

Regards
Three weeks isn't possible, as he gave evidence on 11 Oct. Are you suggesting he wrote his notes when he went to fetch his notebook that he had 'forgotten' to bring to the inquest?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-14-2016, 09:54 AM
spyglass spyglass is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: gravesend,kent
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post


Three weeks isn't possible, as he gave evidence on 11 Oct. Are you suggesting he wrote his notes when he went to fetch his notebook that he had 'forgotten' to bring to the inquest?
Hi,
Not me. I just remember Simon Wood bringing it to our attention a few years back.
I don't think he was the only policeman either that night as I r ember it.

Regards.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-14-2016, 10:14 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyglass View Post
Hi,
Not me. I just remember Simon Wood bringing it to our attention a few years back.
I don't think he was the only policeman either that night as I r ember it.

Regards.
From the inquest into Eddowes´death, debating the GSG:

Coroner: Did you make an entry of the words at the time?

PC Long: Yes, in my pocket-book.

So Long clearly stated that he took notes on the night, as he was supposed to do.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-14-2016, 10:43 AM
spyglass spyglass is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: gravesend,kent
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
From the inquest into Eddowes´death, debating the GSG:

Coroner: Did you make an entry of the words at the time?

PC Long: Yes, in my pocket-book.

So Long clearly stated that he took notes on the night, as he was supposed to do.
Hi,
I can't ague with that, and I did say " correct me if I'm wrong".
However all I remember is that Simon had a different view on it, possibly one of his theory's, or he had other information.
Just wish my memory was better these days.

regards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-14-2016, 11:10 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It is an officer we must trust until anything surfaces to contradict him. It is that simple. There was never any counterweight in this errand, all we have is Long emphatically denying that the rag was there at 2.20, and so that sets the agenda.

Anybody who wants to work from the presumption that the rag was there at 2.20 will do so in conflict with the evidence. For whatever reason.
It's by no means a fact that the rag wasn't there when PC Long passed at 2.20. We only have one man's testimony, and one whose professionalism is subject to doubt.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-14-2016, 11:40 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,218
Default

Hi All,

On 11th October 1888, Alfred Long PC 254A had not thought it necessary to bring his notebook, in which he had written down the purport of the GSG, to Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

Long did not write his official report upon this pivotal piece of evidence until five weeks after the event.

He wrote it on 6th November 1888, coincidentally the same day Chief Inspector Swanson, Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Warren wrote their accounts of the Goulston Street fiasco.

Events must have been fresh in their memories.

Were they all sitting around the same table at the time?

Regards,

Simon
__________________
Fidiamo in Legno.
http://deconstructingjack.net/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-14-2016, 11:49 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
It's by no means a fact that the rag wasn't there when PC Long passed at 2.20. We only have one man's testimony, and one whose professionalism is subject to doubt.
You are hitting the head on the nail, Harry - we only have one man´s testimony. You see, that is the deciding factor here.

I don´t know why you press the point that it is not a fact that the rag was not in place at 2.20, since nobody is saying that it IS a fact. It makes your point kind of redundant.

Whether Longs professionalism is in doubt or not is of secondary interest. If there had been another source that said that the rag WAS there at 2.20, then any lacking professionalism on behalf of Long would have been of a more primary interest. But as it stands, just like you say, we have only one statement about whether the rag was there or not at 2.20, and that statement says emphatically that it was not. And not a soul is gainsaying it. There is no counterweight. Nor is there anything that suggests that the rag must/would have been in place at 2.20, since we have not a clue what the killer did after the strike.

Much as it is no establshed fact thatb the rag was not there (although some people would say that Longs certainty makes it look like a fact), it nevertheless makes it by far the best guess. The probability that it was missing at 2.20 is larger than the probability that it was there.

That is all we can say. The rest is idle semantics, trying to swing it one way or another.

Last edited by Fisherman : 09-14-2016 at 11:54 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-14-2016, 11:52 AM
spyglass spyglass is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: gravesend,kent
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
Hi All,

On 11th October 1888, Alfred Long PC 254A had not thought it necessary to bring his notebook, in which he had written down the purport of the GSG, to Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

Long did not write his official report upon this pivotal piece of evidence until five weeks after the event.

He wrote it on 6th November 1888, coincidentally the same day Chief Inspector Swanson, Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Warren wrote their accounts of the Goulston Street fiasco.

Events must have been fresh in their memories.

Were they all sitting around the same table at the time?

Regards,

Simon
Hi,
Pheeeew!
Thanks Simon for letting me climb out of a hole I felt I was digging myself.
Regards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.