Different Killers

[lynn cates]

bruising remarks

Hello John. Thanks.

Those are some good reasons. Best, however, is that there is actual evidence of facial bruising which had been absent after Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Jon. Good question.

Kate Eddowes--hands down.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Connections

Hello John. Good question.

Want an honest answer? Alice McKenzie--no joke.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Interesting. I may be completely wrong but I would speculate that might be because of the two stab wounds, that might have been an attempt to duplicate the parallel cuts observed in the Annie and Polly murders?

Of course, according to Dr Bond her throat was cut when she was on the ground, which broadly connects with the C5. And Begg and Bennett (2012) suggest that the cutting of the genital area echoes Polly's murder. Dr Philips was also of the opinion that the throat was skilfully cut.

And I suppose the least that could be said is that this murder, as regards connections, offers some support to a number of theories. She was killed close to Goulston Street, where, of course, the graffiti was discovered. Then there's the quasi conspiracy theory espoused by Tom Westcott in the Bank Holiday Murders. I don't believe he suggests Alice as a "Ripper" victim, but perhaps, considering who he thinks may have been the perpetrator, he should have: at the time the body was discovered passing along the street was Isaac Jacobs, who just happened to be on his way to John McCarthy's shop in Dorset Street for his supper- a complete coincidence, apparently!

Of course, the Dorset Street connection provides a link with Kelly's murder. But that's surely the problem with connections: trying to determine which are potentially relevant and, conversely, which to consign to the waste paper basket!

[Wickerman]

Okay, as this is the "Different Killers" thread, I'll ask a surprising question but, for me, one that's deceptively difficult to answer. Who's more likely to be a "Ripper" victim, defined as the same individual who killed Polly and Annie: Smith, Tabram, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly?

A simpler question might be, who is the least likely?

[lynn cates]

Alice doesn't live here anymore, but should.

Hello John. Good question.

Want an honest answer? Alice McKenzie--no joke.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mas

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"You can't be sure that the way she is holding the sweets was how it was when the murderer left her there because the body was disturbed by several individuals."

Very well. Then how came they to be between her thumb and forefinger? Looks like a rather definite position. (Of course, one silly billy from the past argued that they, in effect, levitated upward.)

"If she can still hold the sweets in death after all of that then she can definitely hold onto them while alive!"

Of course she held them. But, once again, you entirely miss the point. You can't hold onto them whilst being bounced off the ground.

Height variables? My wife was about the same as Liz. How tall was her killer?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Shamans R Us

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"You should have switched university."

Why? It was in the text, and used by other universities.

"I take it you dropped out of psych 101 or something."

No. After getting a first in psych, I decided NOT to go to graduate school in psychology. Like ALL social science, an UTTER waste of time.

"We in the western world, with our high and mighty view of things to the point where we insult other cultures with our History Channel hogwash of why Egyptian people needed aliens to build pyramids, but here in the west, us civilized people can do skyscrapers without the need for aliens."

This may come as a shock but I entirely agree. As for the shaman, I MUCH prefer him to the lame brains in the west who call themselves social scientists.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Okay, as this is the "Different Killers" thread, I'll ask a surprising question but, for me, one that's deceptively difficult to answer. Who's more likely to be a "Ripper" victim, defined as the same individual who killed Polly and Annie: Smith, Tabram, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly?

[Batman]

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

Since you are hung up on gravity, here's my challenge. Reproduce the event, and be sure the "victim" has some match heads (these work fine) in tissue paper and held between thumb and forefinger. Throw her down.

Don't forget to log the results in a journal. (If you're self-conscious about grammar--which would be understandable--I can ghost it for you.)

Cheers.
LC

You can't be sure that the way she is holding the sweets was how it was when the murderer left her there because the body was disturbed by several individuals. So there is room to believe things have been dislodged. In fact, as you know, the person who discovered her described her in a different pose to the one the doctor found her in. Her head was moved by civilians. Attempts where made to lift her with a stick after prodding her.

If she can still hold the sweets in death after all of that then she can definitely hold onto them while alive! Rigor mortis hadn't even set it either.

So how did you work on the height variables in your video which you say I should accept as what happened?

[Batman]

Why treated Shaman like that?

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Psychology? That is HARDLY forensics.

When I began to pursue a career in psychology--oh, over 30 years ago--I discovered that the BIG embarrassment for the discipline was that the tribal shaman had a marginally more successful (1%) cure rate in treating mental illness than the clinical psychologists. That, in conjunction with psych texts full of experiments to corroborate this or that philosopher, helped me steer clear of that "discipline."

I have never regretted it.

Cheers.
LC

You should have switched university. I take it you dropped out of psych 101 or something.

The idea that psychology can't treat mental illness any better than a placebo from a shaman sends my Carl Sagan baloney detector into full swing. Believe me I am being kind when I say I am also more than a little disappointed in your anthropological conjecture comparison that reeks of prejudice. Shaman, South American Amazonian Shaman, have an extensive pharmacy from the rainforest based on hundreds of years of experimenting, including mixing so that some chemicals which wouldn't work with us directly, will. We in turn just stole all their knowledge, which we treat everything from foot fungi to making anaesthetics from, didn't compensate them a penny and deforested most of the pharmacy we could have used. We in the western world, with our high and mighty view of things to the point where we insult other cultures with our History Channel hogwash of why Egyptian people needed aliens to build pyramids, but here in the west, us civilized people can do skyscrapers without the need for aliens. So when it comes to comparing Shaman to Psychologists, you can also compare them to pharmacologists. Do you know the Egyptians did cranial surgery? Did you know African Shaman can perform trepinations? So I think even you can agree, this is not a good comparison to make.

There are branches of Psychology. Some psychology is soft, like some social sciences. This means its partially uses empiricism with subjectivism. Some psychology is hard, like neuropsychology. This means its neurologically explained empirically with little subjectivity, if any at all. Then we have neuropathology, neuropsychiatric and psychopathology. Some expert witnesses, are experts in say psychopathology, but also experts in blood analysis. So they can combine where the disciplines crossover. We don't have to accept them 100%, but the strength of their expertise can be gauged by their usefulness. The journal you dismissed, has a stronger history of successful application then I think you are aware of. Maybe in your world where us in the west top those in the jungle you might have contemplated that journals like these helped civilization share important data that some other cultures didn't discovery, thus helping us to parse truth from fiction quicker.

Plus you would have to run several battalions of former PTSD sufferers who have been cured by psychotherapy, alone.

[Wickerman]

Hi John.

Very sober observations there John.
It is rare to read of someone raising doubts over the Mitre Square witnesses, yet the points you raise are all perfectly valid. For my part, I also do not hold Lawende as high as others do but my reservations are more or less limited to the fact Lawende & Co. only saw the woman from the rear.
Echoing Swanson's own reservations in that Lawende could not firmly identify the victim due to not seeing her face. Therefore, he was not given the opportunity to identify Eddowes in the mortuary.
Streetwalkers typically wore dark clothing, and in poor light, at night, after a passing glance, with no cause to take specific note to what he saw, can the police really put much faith in his sighting?
I fear not.

Could the police be taken for such fools? It should be remembered just how desperate they were by this stage. Was it this desperation that lead them to accept Scwartz's account,...

This scenario alone is good food for thought in any discussion concerning reason's for the Met. to select Schwartz as Anderson's witness.

....and the highly experienced Abberline to initially place so much faith in George Hutchinson's wholly implausible story? And, anyway, by giving such a qualified account Lawende must have seen as the witness beyond reproach.

I do agree that they did jump at the opportunity presented by Hutchinson, though I do not agree that they threw caution to the wind. Abberline may have even attempted to avoid them having their own 'Lawende' type witness. Certainly, if Swanson had any say in the matter, as he had expressed his doubts and may have even cautioned Abberline privately.

The fact the press reported that the police were still pursuing the Hutchinson suspect well into mid November should lend itself to the reality that in so far as the story was verifiable, it must have stood the litmus test.
Finally arresting the one suspect who did fit the description given by Hutchinson, in every way, in early December is a sound indication the police had not dropped him as a witness.

[lynn cates]

Wirtkofsky was the suspect

Hello John. If you wish to know the identity of the chap who was supposed to recognise his fellow Jew, try Julius Lowenheim.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

try it

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

Since you are hung up on gravity, here's my challenge. Reproduce the event, and be sure the "victim" has some match heads (these work fine) in tissue paper and held between thumb and forefinger. Throw her down.

Don't forget to log the results in a journal. (If you're self-conscious about grammar--which would be understandable--I can ghost it for you.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

psych

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Psychology? That is HARDLY forensics.

When I began to pursue a career in psychology--oh, over 30 years ago--I discovered that the BIG embarrassment for the discipline was that the tribal shaman had a marginally more successful (1%) cure rate in treating mental illness than the clinical psychologists. That, in conjunction with psych texts full of experiments to corroborate this or that philosopher, helped me steer clear of that "discipline."

I have never regretted it.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Yes he did, which is what I wrote:
"....the request can be made in open court, as is what happened.".

Which was perfectly acceptable.




Well, that is an assumption.
One of the Mitre Square witnesses was used, the name of the witness was not given. Yes, we "assume" it was Lawende, but if this press report is anything to go by...

"Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man. Mr. Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give us the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air."
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

Can we really be 'sure' it was Lawende?

Note: "only the back of the man" must surely be an error for, "back of the woman"?

You know I seriously wonder about these three. Harris' view that neither of his two companions saw more than he did, i.e. the back of the man, is extremely interesting. I mean, clearly both Levy and Lawende did claim that they saw more- Lawende even commented on the suspects complexion and moustache. Moreover, it's surely inconceivable that, by the time of this interview, the three friends hadn't exchanged information and discussed in some detail what they respectively saw.

And why is Levy so uncommunicative all of a sudden? It's suspected that he was hiding something. I agree, but what? Could it be possible that this whole story was an entirely fabricated account? Was Levy now starting to have regrets, fearful they would be caught out? Is Harris desperately trying to dig them out of a hole, also concerned that things have gone to far, that the police are taking things much more seriously than they envisaged, especially as Lawende appears to have got a little carried away?

And what of Lawende? According to the Evening News:"And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr Joseph Lavender [sic]...they are paying all of his expenses, and one if not two detectives are talking to him."

Well, it certainly seems he was being feted by the authorities. Is it possible that this otherwise poor and inconsequential man was beginning to revel in his new found status of prime witness? Did he feel pressurised by the police to provide additional information and felt obliged to respond?

If so, perhaps he broke ranks with the other two friends. Maybe the intention was to make a bit of cash from the papers and, as long as they were scant on the detail, what harm could it do?

Except Lawende becomes more and more reckless, eager to please and enjoying the attention. Of course, he qualifies his statement by saying that he wouldn't recognize the man again- the ultimate get out of jail free card!

So when finally called into action he fails to identify Sadler. And he's surely the most likely candidate for the Kosminski identification- perhaps the police felt it was high time he started to make himself useful and put him under further pressure. However. if he was the witness then clearly he refused to testify- I bet he did!

Could the police be taken for such fools? It should be remembered just how desperate they were by this stage. Was it this desperation that lead them to accept Scwartz's account, and the highly experienced Abberline to initially place so much faith in George Hutchinson's wholly implausible story? And, anyway, by giving such a qualified account Lawende must have seen as the witness beyond reproach.