where do you stand?

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Ben

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.

I never said anything except "fairly well off." This would fit the maps. As for 'toffs" not being comfortable in the East End they went, didn't they to enjoy a lifestyle they didn't dare to do in their own locale.

The murderer did not need anything other than audacity to commit these murders. Take Bundy for an example. He was very good at convincing girls that he was harmless, or their friend, or injured. He killed and dumped bodies all over the USA, staying in some areas even after reports that could implicate him, such as descriptions of his volkswagon. He didn't even bother to change cars.

Serial killers have been stopped with bodies in the car and cheerfully bluffed their way through. Caught in out of the way areas, near where bodies were dumped, they manage to convince police that they have good reason to be there. Dahlmer was so convincing the police returned a victim that had escaped to him. The serial killer knows no bounds.

[mklhawley]

Since what I said was pretty much, "A stab to the abdomen of a live person can produce a huge gush of blood, if it happens, and there's a good chance of it doing so, to hit the aorta; therefore, it makes a lot of sense to kill the women by slitting their throats first, even though JTR had no special interest in the throat, and proceeded to go to work on the abdomen and genitals as soon as the victim was dead. As an added benefit, a woman stabbed in the abdomen might get in one pretty good scream before she died, even if getting stabbed in the aorta kills almost as quickly as getting one's carotid cut through."

I don't see where you think I misunderstood, so I guess I must not have been clear.

Yet a second added benefit to throat cutting is that it is, if anything, more effective if done from behind, giving the killer an element of surprise. There's going to be a moment of visual recognition, if he comes at the victim from the front with a knife, giving her more time to scream, or even pick up a rock, or something. One the other hand, attempting to stab someone, especially someone corpulent, in the abdomen, from behind, isn't easy. Either you hit the aorta right away, and make a mess, or miss, and she has time to scream, and even possibly get away and alert someone.

My apologies RivkahChaya. With six kids running around and me sneaking on the computer before the wife sees me, I read too fast.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wickerman]

Thanks Neil.
I guess 'beat' is just assumed, if the PC was out on the street and working then....

Let me ask you, we read in the Chapman murder...
Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed: On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street.

Why is an Inspector on duty in Commercial St.? - I mean what duty would that have been, any ideas?

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

White was actually a Sergeant, not a PC.

And had been since 1881. So wouldn't have been on a beat.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Hi C4
Agreed, and it has been speculated that PC White was the mysterious "City PC in Mitre Square". I just think some of us struggle with the question, why was he not called at the inquest?

Regards, Jon S.

[curious4]

Hello Wickerman,

True, but so much paperwork is missing. Pc White may well have filed a report at the time. (Here I go again, speculating!)

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Hello,

I don't think Pc Stephen White's account of his encounter with the man "with eyes like glow worms" was fictitious, was it? And there are other references to a man with peculiar eyes.

Best wishes,
C4

Indeed, but there is no contemporary account of what PC White saw. The story handed down to us came by way of his recollections, many years later.

You are also thinking of the man seen with Stride at the Bricklayer's Arms (no eyelashes), or the man seen by Bowyer in the Court on Wednesday night (peculiar eyes).

If all these sightings are the same man, he appears to have flown under the radar.

Here is another account which tries to summarize the claims by Lewis, Kennedy and Paumier...

“Shortly afterwards, it is stated a respectably dressed man accosted Kelly and offered her money. The appearance of this man is far from definitely ascertainable. Some say he wore a high silk hat and brown overcoat; others that he was habited in dark mixture trousers, long, dark overcoat, and low-crowned, brown hat, and that he carried the now famous shiny, black bag in his hand. In stature he is variously described as of medium height and slight, short and thick set, and of awkward gait. Nearly all the accounts agree, however, as to his wearing a black moustache and having a very remarkable and unpleasant glare in his eyes."
Sunday Times, 11 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious4]

Peculiar eyes

Hello,

I don't think Pc Stephen White's account of his encounter with the man "with eyes like glow worms" was fictitious, was it? And there are other references to a man with peculiar eyes.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Mack the ant?

Hello Fisherman,

Just teasing. I'm sure it's delicious - I do enjoy a glass of whisky!

Cheers,
C4

[Fisherman]

They named a whisky after a scottish ant?

C4

MacMyra, you mean? (Myra is Swedish for ant). Yes it would seem so. But donīt brood on it - have a glass and youīll forgive them!

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

They named a whisky after a scottish ant?

C4

[Jonathan H]

I realize that among certain of the Orthodox it is resented that all roads lead back to the police sources and the original suspects.

For example, a researcher does not choose Kosminski because they have a penchant for rough trade but rather because they have judged Sir Robert Anderson (and/or Donald Swanson) to be the most reliable of those primary sources.

If Anderson had chosen Druitt, or somebody else, then such a researcher would argue [provisionally] that that is probably Jack, because the best professional, cop source of the day decided as much.

Writing people off as Druittistalites and Kosminskinauts, and such like, is missing the point.

Though it is a way of never dealing with the specifics of an argument.

We cannot get to the layer of evidence, if it ever existed, behind those top cops' opinions (although Tumblety has a rich record for grotesquerie and chicanery, and Aaron kosminski threatened a woman with a knife, and belief in Druitt as Jack emerged from Dorset not London, and obviously Chapman was a proven killer).

The original thread-starter asked about how many murders?

If you take Druitt and Tumblety out of the equation then you can have seven, or nine victims -- there is no longer a reason it has to be Macnaghten's five.

[Phil H]

Coming back to this thread, after a good night's sleep and in a detached, benevolent mood, I found myself chuckling.

The social "class" of the killer - which is something I only mentioned in connection with how the writing on the case has evolved over the past 50 years or so, is pretty irrelevent.

We simply don't have enough descriptions or evidence to go on - and by and large, I suspect all of us shape our "image" of the killer to our preferred suspect or suspect "type". Hence a Kosminskiite will favour a lower class killer - perhaps actually reading evidence or rationalising away elements that don't sustain that mental view; while a Druittist (as an example) needs a middle-class killer, and no doubt shapes his view of the case accordingly.

It is all pretty subjective.

The debate is also warping this excellent thread which was started for wholly different reasons.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

If you're into your Scotch, it's all about Laphroaig quarter cask. At 48% it's a bit naughty, but it's about the nicest thing possible in liquid form. And the peatier the better as always!

All the best,
Ben

We really need to cherish the things we agree on, Ben - and we agree totally on this. My son has just built me a beauty of a liqur cabinet in massive oak. And if itīs not a good and preferably peaty whisky, then thereīs no space in that cabinet for it. Ardbeg, Lagavulin, Caol Ila, Talisker ... love it. And the cask Laphroaig is the perhaps best one of them all.
I first tasted it some years ago on a whisky testing on the small island of Ven outside the coast here, where there is a Swedish whisky Brewery (yes - we have two!), and though it was a blind test and though I had never tried it before, there was asolutely no doubt about what it was. Been a great favourite ever since.
You should try Mackmyra some time, if you ever get the chance. Itīs Swedish whisky, and itīs a really nice range of tastes, some mild, some peated, all aged in very small oak barrels. I was sceptical until I tried, but no longer!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

I'm afraid you're the one who keeps relying on the "discredited nonsense", and apparently because you're anxious to avoid a local, shabby blue collar worker as the ripper despite the evidence making this the more probable solution.

There is no "more probable" solution, but if you insist on a tally...

It was not a blue-collar worker seen by Mrs Long (1-0), neither was this a blue-collar worker seen by PC Smith (2-0), nor by Schwartz, who incidently used "respectable appearance" as part of the description (3-0).
The man seen by Marshall was "decently dressed.....appearance of a clerk" (4-0).
With Millers Court we have one of each, a well-dressed man or men?, and a shabby sort in Blotchy (5-1).
The man at Church passage could have been either one, so where do we see an overbearing consensus?

A simply tally of prominent suspects provides an overbearing consensus in favor of a respectably dressed killer.
Was that easy to understand?

Yes, but before that they would have provided a police statement, where they would have provided their evidence more as a narrative.

Agreed, and as the police were interested in how he discovered the body then this is what we get, and all we get. The police do not ask questions with voluntary statements.

You should notice, the question about 'Wednesday' was posed by a Juror. Which was basically off-topic with respect to the immediate inquiry and why Bowyer was summoned. Which is why this sighting was not included as part of a narrative in his pre-inquest statement.

I'm afraid I'll need to see some sort of evidence that this was the case before I accept this as a "gem" worthy of being "written down for future reference".

Its all here on Casebook, in fact you can find some specific quotes among the press reports where 6:30 in the evening, and 8:30 at night, are both specifically referred to as 'afternoon'.

It's due to the police having no reason to use the expression "well-dressed" or any synonym thereof,

Well, yes they do, if the witness used it, but only if the witness used it, like Schwartz, by way of example.

Less of the "we're", please. There's hardly a huge chorus of people queuing up to agree with you.

No Ben, I don't need accolades or the proverbial 'pat-on-the-back', I stand on my own two feet.
I was actually referring to 'readers', nothing more.

Regards, Jon S.