Striking after being seen?

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm, but if Hutch was Jack, why would he come forward in the first place?

Jon

he couldn't resist inserting himself into the case, either to boost his ego or to further his anti semetic hatred, not sure.

because the description of him seen waiting outside isn't nearly GOOD enough to bother him, in fact, it's one of the worst suspect descriptions of all !

if he is JTR, he is as safe as houses, because without any evidence anywhere, the only way to nail him is if admits to being JTR, he went to Abberline knowing that he was seen outside...... GOOD, he now looks like a legitimate witness, the only thing that the police are interested in, is to catch LA DE DA as soon as possible, GH helps them even more by saying that he thought he saw him in Petticoat lane, his description is so good that this leads the police investigation in totally the wrong direction..a wild goose chase, it's actually quite amusing in a sick way !

it's not ``i fought the law and the law won``, it's the other way around

all of this is realised later, but GH is dismissed as a reward seeking time waster.... but by then this GH has probably left Whitechapel anyway.

this inserting himself into the case wouldn't work today, he'd be sussed out very quickly, because too many Yanks have tried this trick recently and ended up being caught out.... but back then they didn't have this FBI serial killer profiling.

going to the police is bloody stupid yes, but only nowadays!

but there is far more with regards to GH, i've only briefly mentioned part of it

[Wickerman]

dont forget that if JTR is indeed GH, then he's in real trouble if he carries on mutilating, simply because he's been seen by maybe as many as 20 police officers, (when he went to the station plus over the next 2 days)... and any one of these could recognise him again 3 weeks later.... VERY EASILY!

so this is a valid reason to explain the ripper murders stopping..... but only if JTR is GH.

Malcolm, but if Hutch was Jack, why would he come forward in the first place?

Jon

[Malcolm X]

oh yes, i do realise that the other murders could be him too, plus there are many reasons for the murders to finally stop, this goes without saying.

but for me the climax is Kelly and this murder is part of a trio, the other murders afterwards could be him downgrading or another killer !

dont forget that if JTR is indeed GH, then he's in real trouble if he carries on mutilating, simply because he's been seen by maybe as many as 20 police officers, (when he went to the station plus over the next 2 days)... and any one of these could recognise him again 3 weeks later.... VERY EASILY!

so this is a valid reason to explain the ripper murders stopping..... but only if JTR is GH.

[ChrisGeorge]

I knew Glenn, actually met him once when he was living and working in the UK. He knew a lot about the Ripper and was much more of a criminologist than I.

I thought he was still around a few months back. No idea what he is doing now though. (His last post on here was 25 April 2010.

Phil

Hi Phil

In regard to Glenn Andersson, I am in contact with him through Facebook. I asked him if he might have been coming to the recent Whitechapel Society conference but he indicated that he was unable to do so. He was at one time resident in the UK but now is back in Sweden, I understand.

All the best

Chris

[Phil H]

it is fair to assume that Kelly is a hideous version of Eddowes, simply due to the fact that the killer had far more time to carry on mutilating her....Kelly is the next stage on from Eddowes

I don't think that that is a "fair" (or even the only) assumption one could make.

MJK could be an attept to replicate the mutilations on Eddowes done by someone who had READ about them, but not seen the body. In other words, MJK's murder was made to LOOK LIKE the work of "Jack" but was not done by him.

he really made a mess of her, this is also maybe due to the fact that she was younger and more attractive than the rest, so this angered him, he was basically removing any trace of womanhood and sexuality from her.... he was destroying her identity.

Or that he did not understand quite what he was doing - he had read or been told that certain things were done, including facial mutilations, but did not quite know how or what.

all 3 murders are linked due to anti-semetism, the graffiti and Dutfields yard.

Which THREE? I see no antisemitism whatsoever in the murder of MJK.

dont expect JTR to always kill exactly the same, because what you're looking at instead

But you seem to be arguing that the murders are linked because of similarities!!

...this killer is evolving and not only becomming more hideous, but his ego is growing all the time, he's becoming more brash and arrogant, just like Zodiac, so he's starting to leave messages, taunting the police and then to top it all we have his ``GRAND FINALE``.

This is circular reasoning and thus flawed.

You rely on the identification of the number of murders to then determine motive. But what if you are wrong? What is McKenzie was a Ripper victim - there are many similarities to Nichols. Kelly is not then a climax. What if Kelly was not the work of "Jack"?

nothing after Kelly ? yes this is most odd, the killer left Whitechapel; almost definitely, it looks like Kelly and all the rubbish afterwards is him saying goodbye to us.

What do you mean by "all the rubbish afterwards - Hutchinson's doings? - you compound circular reasoning, unfounded conclusions with still more baseless hypothecation.

But there may have been killings after Kelly, as I have mentioned already. Also there are other reasons for an end to the series - suicide, illness, incarceration, mental collapse, to name but a few.

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Unless the woman was directly blocking Lawende's line of vision, there was no obstacle to noticing details of the man's clothing, such as the pepper and salt jacket. The fact that the description appeared in the Police Gazette assures us of its authenticity, unless the police tampered with the description or Lawende lied, and neither of these suggestions is credible. As I've mentioned on other threads, it is quite possible to provide a good description of somebody or something without being able to recognise him/her/it again. As such, there is no contradiction between Lawende's reasonably detailed description and his expression of doubt as to whether or not he could identify the man. As for Harris, it is clear that he saw the least of the trio, and was unlikely to have been the source of that October 2nd description.

Best regards,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm. But surely the mutilations on these 3 vary widely?

If you look at Baxter's summation at the Stride inquest, he sums that notion up admirably.

Cheers.
LC

not really no, this variation is mainly due to the time available to mutilate, plus one of these was never intended as a mutilation anyway...finally, these might also vary due to his mood swings.

it is fair to assume that Kelly is a hideous version of Eddowes, simply due to the fact that the killer had far more time to carry on mutilating her....Kelly is the next stage on from Eddowes

he really made a mess of her, this is also maybe due to the fact that she was younger and more attractive than the rest, so this angered him, he was basically removing any trace of womanhood and sexuality from her.... he was destroying her identity.

but my guess is, this is probably due to the fact that he had loads more time with her to indulge his twisted fantasies.

all 3 murders are linked due to anti-semetism, the graffiti and Dutfields yard.

dont expect JTR to always kill exactly the same, because what you're looking at instead, is a spate of murders/mutilations suddenly erupting like a volcano in Whitechapel 1888 and then dieing back down after Kelly.

this killer is evolving and not only becomming more hideous, but his ego is growing all the time, he's becoming more brash and arrogant, just like Zodiac, so he's starting to leave messages, taunting the police and then to top it all we have his ``GRAND FINALE``.

nothing after Kelly ? yes this is most odd, the killer left Whitechapel; almost definitely, it looks like Kelly and all the rubbish afterwards is him saying goodbye to us.

[tji]

Hi Tom

Thanks for that, Teej. I didn’t know that.

No probs, contrary to popular belief, I am a nice person really

Teej

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Malcolm. But surely the mutilations on these 3 vary widely?

If you look at Baxter's summation at the Stride inquest, he sums that notion up admirably.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Glenn believed that MJK was a copycat killer and he got a lot of stick for this, we argued quite a lot, i think he favoured Joe Barnett, if my memory servs me right.

it wouldn't be hard to copycat Eddowes, so he was right with regards to this, it's just that everything fits that this is JTR.

The most likely scenario of all if you favour this route, is that STRIDE, EDDOWES AND KELLY belong to one killer and all the rest someone else....but it is very hard to argue that KELLY AND EDDOWES are 2 different people, in fact, almost impossible.

because the link between this trio is simply way too strong, they're chained together in high tensile steel

.

[Malcolm X]

I knew Glenn, actually met him once when he was living and working in the UK. He knew a lot about the Ripper and was much more of a criminologist than I.

I thought he was still around a few months back. No idea what he is doing now though. (His last post on here was 25 April 2010.

Phil

yes us two went back a long way, i notice quite a few of the old crew missing, i hate to see this because it always makes me fear the worst

[Tom_Wescott]

"...of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

The above differ's a little from Swanson's version published, as you noted, in the Police Gazette, Oct. 19th.

"...A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor."

Sound like similar descriptions given by two different witnesses to anyone else?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Jon - Lawende's inquest testimony wasn't merely "cut short". It was deliberately suppressed, only to appear later in the Police Gazette,

Ben, my point was that we never heard Lawende's story from his mouth. Yes, his story was suppressed, but thats the reason he was cut short, I was not questioning the reason, just the fact we do not have his story in his own words.

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of its content.

No, it is not the accuracy we are talking about. Whatever Lawende saw I am sure he was telling the truth. The question is not so much accuracy as content.
By his own words Lawende did not see too much at all. In the days between the murder & the Inquest (Oct. 11) Mr Lawende had been sequestered & a pledge of secrecy imposed on him, but not apparently on Levy or Harris.

According to the Evening News, Harris is the one who was talking to the press, and therefore the first description of the suspect which appeared in the Times, Oct. 2nd, may have come from Harris.

"...of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak".

The above differ's a little from Swanson's version published, as you noted, in the Police Gazette, Oct. 19th.

"...A MAN, age 30, height 5 ft. 7 or 8 in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor."

Notice that the inquest testimony suggests that the woman obscured the view of the man, who was but a few inches taller than the woman. This might suggest that all which could be seen of the man was that which was above her shoulders, that is to say, his neck, face & head.

Interestingly, this is just what the description in the Times (Oct. 2nd, above) offers us, his height, complexion, cap, face, moustache & cravat, but nothing below the neck, obviously because the woman was standing in the way.

So where does the rest of the description come from?

Lawende's version, or that attributed to Lawende, was held back for three weeks, and when we do read it we have the added details including his build, his jacket & it's colour, the colour of his cap, and his overall appearance, ie; a sailor.

Considering Lawende's own admission that he would not know the man again, but that the man looked rather rough & shabby, we are then on Oct. 19th presented with an almost complete description.

By contrast, the police already had the description given by Schwartz, which caused me to pose the question, "...did the interviewer of Lawende already 'know' what he was looking for by way of a 'complete' description?".

Schwartz:
"...age about 30, ht. 5ft 5in. Comp. Fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands."

The discussion has only dealt with the facts of the case as we know them, there is nothing 'spurious' included here.
The question is a reasonable one.

Regards, Jon S.

[K-453]

He aimed at the facial features – eyes, nose, mouth, ear. The cuts were irregular and “shaky”, but basically aimed.

About the “communication” theory: He must at least have known the mutilations would be seen by other people after his victim was found, and, as everybody was crazy over him now, by many people, and newspapers would write about it.
Unless he did not commit his murders in a totally “switched off” state in which he was not aware of that.

About the eyes: Maybe he wanted to “cross them out”, but did not dare to hurt them really bad. Maybe eyes were something untouchable for him, for what reasons ever. When Mary Jane Kelly’s eyes were still intact, that is remarkable, thinking of the state in which the rest of her body was.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, Eddowes did have a small face & features, not a broad face like Chapman or Turner. An 8in blade would be sufficient and the knife would have been dragged across the face to produce such damage.

Don't forget Tom, the doctor described the "triangular" cut's on each cheek as "flaps of skin". Stabbing the face with the point of a knife to produce a 'V' will not make that cut into a flap of skin. The knife must slice the skin behind the "triangle" to separate the skin from the face thereby producing a flap of skin.
However you look at the cuts across the cheeks they were produced by a slicing action.

Everything you say makes perfect sense. I don’t think this is a crazy idea at all. What I rail against is the notion that the cuts were accidental and not intentional on the killer’s part. Maybe you’re exactly correct in how they got here. When Sam published his essay, he had Jane Coram draw up a half-assed version of the cuts on Eddowes’ face, omitting some of the wounds, and that got my knickers up because it meant either he hadn’t paid good attention to the evidence, or he DID and just chose not to give it all to his readers, which is not like Sam. I spent a lot of time comparing blow ups of Eddowes mortuary pics (received from Robert MacLaughlin, so top quality), the in situ and mortuary drawings, etc to arrive at an exact replica of Eddowes face, and what became apparent is that all the wounds were put there intentionally. Like the graffiti, this is yet another clue the minimalists want to strike from the records. It seems to want to strip the case bare of any and all evidence. Buncha Macnaghtens, they are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott