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:
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 20 minutes ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by Abby Normal 49 minutes ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (29 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (15 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Poet - (2 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (1 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 > Victims > Elizabeth Stride

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #211  
Old 03-18-2017, 10:15 AM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,422
Default

Hello Michael,

Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was having an affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid he might blurt it out. Can you prove me wrong? Of course not because NOBODY KNOWS why he did not appear so please stop implying that you somehow know. You are only speculating.

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:24 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by c.d. View Post
Hello Michael,

Schwartz didn't appear at the inquest because he was having an affair with Queen Victoria and they were afraid he might blurt it out. Can you prove me wrong? Of course not because NOBODY KNOWS why he did not appear so please stop implying that you somehow know. You are only speculating.

c.d.
cd, this is simply a logical conclusion,..because I for one like using logic rather than pure speculation. Israels story, in written, oral or hieroglyphic form is not recorded at the Inquest. Fact. Israels story, if believed or not already proven inaccurate, would be essential in the question of whether Liz Stride might have been killed,...which is what the Inquest was for. He claims to have seen the victim minutes before her death, being assaulted no less.

I know you like imagining that Liz's killer might have been interrupted, though there is no evidence of that at all..or that Israels account is trustworthy, despite the fact its not used at all to determine how she died at the Inquest...but you have no grounds for continually crapping on me for pointing out the actual facts.

Liz died because someone cut her throat once...there is no evidence anything else was planned or intended to happen. There was no interruption...therefore, the lack of injuries is very significant. The fact that Israels story isn't present in any form at the Inquest means that it was not deemed to be helpful in the question of how she died, which is unthinkable if it was believed and supported by the authorities.

These are not complicated riddles, they only become complicated when someone wishes the answers to add up to what they personally believe and they don't. So people assume 5 murders cause they want to believe in Jack, not because there is sufficient evidence to do so. And people assume interruptions because they believe Jack killed Liz, and that he would normally mutilate after cutting the throat.. And people assume Israel is important, despite the fact that not one witness that night sees or hears anything he says occurred, and that his story is not used at all in the Inquest.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:06 PM
c.d. c.d. is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,422
Default

"I know you like imagining that Liz's killer might have been interrupted, though there is no evidence of that at all..or that Israels account is trustworthy, despite the fact its not used at all to determine how she died at the Inquest...but you have no grounds for continually crapping on me for pointing out the actual facts."

I am not crapping on you, Michael. I agree with you 100% that Schwartz did not testify at the inquest. That is a fact. If you want to point out that that in and of itself is suspicious that is fine. But you insist on using that as proof that his story is made up that is simply being disingenuous.

c.d.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:14 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,969
Default

Can't be assed to get into a protracted point-by-point argument. However...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Organized killing is much more about being in control.
So why (in your opinion) did the Torso Killer put himself into an environment that he had little control over?
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 03-19-2017, 04:58 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Harry D: Can't be assed to get into a protracted point-by-point argument.

Sure you can, Harry!

However...

There you go!

So why (in your opinion) did the Torso Killer put himself into an environment that he had little control over?

I think his priority number one was to gain control over the body of his victim. And I think he considered himself to be in control over the circumstances, no matter what, more or less. Of course, Bucks Row offered much more risk than a secluded indoors venue, but my guess is that the killer was not too worried about that - he felt he could handle whichever situation came along. And the reason for that was because he felt he was in control, in the driving seat, ruling what happened.

Now, you may of course say that he could not rule what happened in Bucks Row, and factually, there can be no disagreement with that. However, what I am speaking about is not the factualities as we understand them, but instead how the killer interpreted the factualities in his own head. And in there, complete arrogance and narcissism will have prevailed, if I am correct, meaning that he would never feel that he was out of control.

A typical example would be an open street killer who was able to bluff it out if he was caught redhanded, and to whom it never even occurred that he may be found out.

I can think of one such possible example, actually ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 03-19-2017, 08:56 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Harry D: Can't be assed to get into a protracted point-by-point argument.

Sure you can, Harry!

However...

There you go!

So why (in your opinion) did the Torso Killer put himself into an environment that he had little control over?

I think his priority number one was to gain control over the body of his victim. And I think he considered himself to be in control over the circumstances, no matter what, more or less. Of course, Bucks Row offered much more risk than a secluded indoors venue, but my guess is that the killer was not too worried about that - he felt he could handle whichever situation came along. And the reason for that was because he felt he was in control, in the driving seat, ruling what happened.

Now, you may of course say that he could not rule what happened in Bucks Row, and factually, there can be no disagreement with that. However, what I am speaking about is not the factualities as we understand them, but instead how the killer interpreted the factualities in his own head. And in there, complete arrogance and narcissism will have prevailed, if I am correct, meaning that he would never feel that he was out of control.

A typical example would be an open street killer who was able to bluff it out if he was caught redhanded, and to whom it never even occurred that he may be found out.

I can think of one such possible example, actually ...
If the goal was for the killer to have complete control of the victim, he wouldn't have killed them in locations with no guarantee of being undisturbed. Plenty of serial killers have a false sense of superiority. BTK was an arrogant SOB, but he still murdered all of his victims indoors. He didn't take to killing on the streets. We have to look at what the murders tell us about the killer, and in the Ripper's case the murders show little planning or organisation. They were random attacks on women who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whereas the Torso murders have the hallmarks of a more organized serial killer.

Disorganized serial killers have been known to evolve into organized ones, and vice-versa, due to various factors, but if the Torso & Ripper were the same man, then he appeared to flick back and forth between the two, which seems unlikely based on what we know.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:17 AM
Premium Member
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Batman: Fisherman,

What is organized about murdering Eddowes and being literally a few meters away from a policeman's lamp in Mitre Sq.?

Did I say that was organized? Or is it you suggesting that I somehow did? What seems organized to me in the Eddowes murder is how it seems she was chatted up by the killer, who made her feel secure with him - organized enough. He then took her away from the open street into the comparatively safer Mitre Square - organized enough. He chose the darkest corner - organized enough. He took a piece of apron with himself, probably for practical purposes - organized enough. He left no traces in Mitre Square - organized enough. He left unnoticed and made no commotion - organized enough. He did not shout out what he had done from the rooftops - organized enough.

It is commonly said that the Torso killer was organized. I agree. But employing your tactics, I could ask "what was organized about cutting part of the colon away from a victim?", "what was organized about dumping a victim in identifiable clothes" or "what was organized about sawing off a limb on a victim he had already proven himself able to disarticulate?"

We can go on like that for the longest time, and that is because some traits an organized killer have may look to a degree disorganized - as long as you don´t see the underlying reasons.

JtR was boxed in. A few more steps and a PC would have caught him in the act.

So you believe. I´m afraid it has never been proven, but even if it IS correct, it does not make the killer disorganized. It only makes him a killer who was willing to take risks - for organized OR disorganized reasons.

If the neighbour next to Chapman's murder scene just looked over the fence he would have seen the ripper in the act.

No, he would not, if you mean Cadosh. He would see Chapman, but not the killer, who was long gone by that time.
But reardless of that, a whole score of very organized serial killers have killed in spots where they could have been spotted. That does not make them less organized if they had chosen themselves to take that risk. A disorganized killer, however, will normally not even know that there IS a risk.

Schwartz saw a man assault Stride.

A man who may or may not have been the killer, yes. And organized serial killers HAVE been caught in the act, or preparing for it. There is always the element of risk, and there is always the element of chance. If all organized serial killers were always inclined not to take a single risk, we would not be aware they existed.

JtR was lucky. Not organized. Just very lucky.

You are welcome to that misconception, Batman. Lucky he was indeed, but he was in all probability not a disorganized killer, but instead an opportunist with an urge to kill, a willingness to take risks and an arrogance that made him think he would always get away with it. Much the same as so many other serialists we know of - organized but reckless men.
This reads like you completely reject the original investigation.

The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia Paperback – 24 Jan 2002
by Keith Skinner (Author), Stewart Evans (Author)

There are more than enough documents there to compromise your interpretation of the Whitechapel murders.

Do you really need to deny police beats, times, locations and all the viable witness accounts to make JtR organized?

Disorganized offenders can be organized in some ways but that doesn't make them organized offenders that target a specific victim at a specific time/place. Why? The fantasy requires it. There ya go.

This is not the case with JtR. He could not have known who had their doss money and who didn't for example. The double event in itself disorganized to the core.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.

Last edited by Batman : 03-19-2017 at 09:24 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:34 AM
Premium Member
Batman Batman is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,493
Default

I really don't get how some people can just gloss over the fact that someone leaving Stride's murder scene at the time of her death and walking towards Mitre Sq., MUST see Eddowes because she headed that way after coming out of the drunk tank. You can plot the courses and their intersections. Time Eddowes leaving drunk tank to TOD at Mitre Sq. Time walking from the TOD of Stride towards Mitre Sq. Draw a circle around the intersection. When do they both go into a window of each other? Near Mitre Sq.

There could have been 6 or even 10 people with their necks slashed at that night, but that isn't the point. The point is that the timing and distance between crimes at walking pace would infer that its the same assailant. We can rule out lots of proposed connections because of times and distances, some too far away, wrong times, etc,. for example... but you can't do this with the double event because it is right there. You can't rule out this connection between events because this goldilocks zone is as plain as day.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:43 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
This reads like you completely reject the original investigation.

The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia Paperback – 24 Jan 2002
by Keith Skinner (Author), Stewart Evans (Author)

There are more than enough documents there to compromise your interpretation of the Whitechapel murders.

Do you really need to deny police beats, times, locations and all the viable witness accounts to make JtR organized?

Disorganized offenders can be organized in some ways but that doesn't make them organized offenders that target a specific victim at a specific time/place. Why? The fantasy requires it. There ya go.

This is not the case with JtR. He could not have known who had their doss money and who didn't for example. The double event in itself disorganized to the core.
Now, what parts of the original investigation do you think I am rejecting? I don´t think Chapman was killed in daylight, but then again, nor did Swanson.

So what is the problem you are having? Which police beats do I deny, which times, which locations?

You need to be a bit more specific in your criticism. As it stands, you are swinging wildly and not explaining what you are aiming for. Once you do, I can assure you that I have a perfectly feasible version of events.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:56 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Harry D: If the goal was for the killer to have complete control of the victim, he wouldn't have killed them in locations with no guarantee of being undisturbed.

You are putting an unnecessary restraint on yourself, and the result is that you are missing out. Try to realize, Harry, that a confident killers´ultimate challenge would be to kill in public without getting caught.

You think it can only be the result of not having a safer place to kill in.

Instead, try and see it as a conscious choice on the killer´s behalf, and new avenues will open up.

Plenty of serial killers have a false sense of superiority. BTK was an arrogant SOB, but he still murdered all of his victims indoors. He didn't take to killing on the streets.

Kürten was an arrogant SOB who did. Try - if you can - to widen your perspective!

We have to look at what the murders tell us about the killer, and in the Ripper's case the murders show little planning or organisation.

No, Harry, they do not tell us either way. There may well have been lots of premeditation, there may have been a choice of venues, of killing method, a plan for the escape etcetera. We just don´t know, and so I cannot let you decide for me.

They were random attacks on women who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They were completely methodical murders, following a plan that was repeated, they were silent murders, they were murders where the killer made his escape, they were murders with no clues left behind. A killer who has a plan for street killing can be just as organized as any other killer. He may well have abandoned a number of opportunitites because they were not to his liking. Once more, we don´t know.
You only think you do.


Whereas the Torso murders have the hallmarks of a more organized serial killer.

It is the same kind of murder, the same kind of damage, the same kind of abdominal wall procurement, the same stealing of rings etcetera. There is one difference only, and that is how the killer used a safe nest. The dismemberment was led on by that - to a degree. To another degree, another matter governed what he did - but he did the same to the Ripper victims.
Thing is, you have not realized what that was.

Disorganized serial killers have been known to evolve into organized ones, and vice-versa, due to various factors, but if the Torso & Ripper were the same man, then he appeared to flick back and forth between the two, which seems unlikely based on what we know.

Both series worked. Why would he not do both? Both allowed for his agenda. Why would he not do both? Once again, look at Kürten - he changed methods and changed back again. Silly him!
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 07:28 PM.


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