Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    If you ask me, a population of 250,000 in the "vicious, semi-criminal" milieu of Late Victorian Whitechapel strikes me as a fertile breeding-ground for killers of all types, whether serial or otherwise.
    Whitechapel in 1888 in terms of population density, poverty and crime is not exclusive or unique in the calculation considerations I provided.

    There are plenty of places around the world with the exact same conditions and yet none of them have produced anything remotely like two serial killers operating even in much larger areas and in greater populations than Whitechapel, before 1888, after 1888, in the 1900s through to the 1950s through to the 1980s through to today. Nothing remotely like it.

    This is because there is no direct link between sexual serial killings and poverty. The link is mostly between sex workers and where they work.

    Basically, poverty and crime doesn't produce serial killers. It produces potential victims.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    The entrance to the courtyard is a long stone archway, anyone entering the courtyard or leaving it could be easily spotted. Once in the room, with his back turned towards the window if you factor in the physicality of the situation, he is essentially very trap-able.

    I agree with Sam that vaulting over fences would wake everyone with windows open facing that yard, but at that point who cares,..he still can get away. He is not "trapped".

    Ill never see that rationale for assuming that a killer who has a track record of public venues and short spans of time to do his work suddenly decides to try private small rooms with virtually no escape should he be spotted. I don't see any evidence that the killer of Polly, Annie or Kate was seeking longer stays with a person he has just killed. He kills, he cuts, and he leaves the body to be found shortly thereafter. The room in Millers Court was left locked, the curtains drawn. That's "to be found shortly thereafter?" She could have been in that room all day had Bowyer not gone for some rent.

    Its my belief that the killer of Polly and Annie might have watched the crowds gather as part of the exhilaration he was seeking. That's why he wanted the bodies found soon after.
    Not if the killer, like most serialists, was an opportunist. A lot of the working gals back then didn't have the "luxury" of their own digs. Nichols & Chapman had been living in lodging houses before their deaths. However, this time the killer was able to procure a victim with her place, and more time to indulge his depraved fantasy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    this was a private room with a door that could be locked.
    It was by far the safest spot to commit a murder-which is evidenced by the damage done to Mary.

    unless someone was going to beat down her door, or climb through the window, entering her room illegally-the killer really had no fear of getting caught. he could even clean up a bit and leave when he wanted to.
    The entrance to the courtyard is a long stone archway, anyone entering the courtyard or leaving it could be easily spotted. Once in the room, with his back turned towards the window if you factor in the physicality of the situation, he is essentially very trap-able.

    I agree with Sam that vaulting over fences would wake everyone with windows open facing that yard, but at that point who cares,..he still can get away. He is not "trapped".

    Ill never see that rationale for assuming that a killer who has a track record of public venues and short spans of time to do his work suddenly decides to try private small rooms with virtually no escape should he be spotted. I don't see any evidence that the killer of Polly, Annie or Kate was seeking longer stays with a person he has just killed. He kills, he cuts, and he leaves the body to be found shortly thereafter. The room in Millers Court was left locked, the curtains drawn. That's "to be found shortly thereafter?" She could have been in that room all day had Bowyer not gone for some rent.

    Its my belief that the killer of Polly and Annie might have watched the crowds gather as part of the exhilaration he was seeking. That's why he wanted the bodies found soon after.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    I don't think it's that much of stumbling block when you factor in the victimology. Chapman bumped off his mistresses insidiously...
    Agreed, and each one poisoned gradually over a long period of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    It's a damn good guess because two serial killers operating in a 3km^2 area at the same time, even in Whitechapel's population density, is unheard of.

    The population density of Whitechapel in 1888 was approx. 250,000.

    This is at the very least 150,000 people shy of the bare minimum we have for two serial killers operating in the same place
    The "same places" we're used to in more recent times comprise a mixture of poor and better-off neighbourhoods, with the overwhelming majority being decent, well-adjusted people. This was not the case in the Victorian slums of the East End, which had a disproportionate number of poor areas compared to the (comparatively) better-off, and a higher proportion of violent and badly-adjusted residents than we see in most modern Western conurbations of equivalent, or even greater, size.

    If you ask me, a population of 250,000 in the "vicious, semi-criminal" milieu of Late Victorian Whitechapel strikes me as a fertile breeding-ground for killers of all types, whether serial or otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    The biggest obstacle to Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski being Jack the Ripper is a change in MO.
    I don't think it's that much of stumbling block when you factor in the victimology. Chapman bumped off his mistresses insidiously to avoid suspicion, not the same as targetting a bunch of random streetwalkers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Abberline was about to write to Macnaghten, "to say how strongly I was impressed with the opinion that ‘Chapman’ was also the author of the Whitechapel murders."
    It's a damn good guess because two serial killers operating in a 3km^2 area at the same time, even in Whitechapel's population density, is unheard of.

    The population density of Whitechapel in 1888 was approx. 250,000.

    This is at the very least 150,000 people shy of the bare minimum we have for two serial killers operating in the same place

    To hit the sort of density where you could have two or more serial killers operating in the same area is like 400,000+ ... and the areas are NOT 3km^2 but 420km^2 ! ... or even 1000s of km^2!

    All of London, Ontario (which has the figures above). All of Los Angeles. Long island (2,168.85 /km^2 and 7.5 million people).

    Then we have Whitechapel with a smidgen of an area and two serial killers operating at the same time.

    The biggest obstacle to Seweryn Antonowicz Kłosowski being Jack the Ripper is a change in MO.

    Well MO changes are a fact of modern criminology and a change in MO is simply no reason to claim obstacles anymore.

    Hutchenson also describing someone who looks like George Chapman before we knew of George Chapman isn't a bad fact to consider either.

    Modern forensic sketches
    http://www.forartist.com/forensic/co.../jtrsketch.jpg
    https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/jack-the-ripper-4.jpg

    George Chapman
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/headstuffup...orge_trial.jpg
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...apman_illo.jpg
    http://murderpedia.org/male.C/images...chapman000.jpg
    Last edited by Batman; 09-26-2018, 03:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    But George Hutchinson didn't exist, anymore than Mr. Astrakhan.
    Hutchinson existed all right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    But George Hutchinson didn't exist, anymore than Mr. Astrakhan.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Yup, and as far as we know, he wrote in glowing terms of George Hutchinson, and this glowing endorsement is what made it into the introduction of The Trial of George Chapman by Hargrave Lee Adam (1930) which tips its hat to the trustworthy George.


    I seem to have ruffled Abby's feathers, but I'm just trying to help the poor kid out, as she stumbles down the road to reason. There is nothing in the record to suggest Hutch was discredited...just speculation piled on speculation.


    If I had to hire a detective, I would hire a gullible one. The worst he could do is waste time following a false lead; the skeptical detective, on the other hand, will throw away the most vital clue that solves the case, thinking it is just more horsesh*ite. RP
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-25-2018, 09:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Abberline was about to write to Macnaghten, "to say how strongly I was impressed with the opinion that ‘Chapman’ was also the author of the Whitechapel murders."

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Abby: Abberline was going to write to Macnaghten, but his arm was still recovering from a gardening accident, and he didn't write. The interview spared him the effort. It is unknown if he wrote at a later date, and no one knows what he would have written. So to claim that Abberline's extensive writings don't mention Hutchinson is utterly ridiculous. Those extensive writings don't exist any more than Ben's extensive police reports mentioning witnesses after Nov 1888.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    ??? Are you codding me dear Boss? What police documents on the "subject of witnesses" were written after November 1888? Can you give us an example of one of these documents, Ben?



    Another interesting revelation. Abberline's brief and altogther general comments made in a 1903 interview are now being called extensive "writings" about witnesses?

    Okayyy. I sense which way the wind is blowing.
    The MM was written after nov 1888 i beleive.

    And yes on Abberline. And why do you put writings in quotes?and interview in italics?

    I already pointed out what you missed. Abberline had already written several pages about it when the reporter called on him.

    If your going to be snide anout it, at least get it right.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    the conspicuity of Hutchinson’s absence from police documents on the subject of witnesses, written after the murders.
    ??? Are you codding me dear Boss? What police documents on the "subject of witnesses" were written after November 1888? Can you give us an example of one of these documents, Ben?

    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Except for Abberline. he wrote a lot-about suspects and witnesses.
    Another interesting revelation. Abberline's brief and altogther general comments made in a 1903 interview are now being called extensive "writings" about witnesses?

    Okayyy. I sense which way the wind is blowing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    The police didn't write much after the murders because there was not much they could right. They had no positive clues as to the identity of the killer. all we are left with are baseless opinions of police officers in later years, which are as much use as a one legged man in an arse kicking contest.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    for the most part your right. Except for Abberline. he wrote a lot-about suspects and witnesses. He was exceptionally qualified to talk about it-being hands on during the case.


    nary a word about hutch, a witness he personally interviewed, eventhough some may say that Aman actually could have resembled his favored suspect Chapman-curled up mustache even!

    if hutch came to be veiwed as a not credible witness, as seems to be the case, then it would explain alot.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X