Ripper Victims?

[sdreid]

Regarding the Ripper quasquicentennial, I believe it will be 125 years on May 11 that the unidentified woman's torso was pulled from the Thames in what is now known as the Rainham Mystery.

[Steven Russell]

That's really weird. Why only the piano?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Wickerman]

P.S. Clearly, Mennonites have changed in the last 28 years since I was around them.

I worked with an Engineer who married into a Mennonite family. There are different levels of Mennonites, some have cars, others only buggy's. Some are allowed appliances other are not, while in some communities there is no restriction on musical instruments, then in others only the piano is permitted.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fiddymont,

I suppose someone could ask me anything they'd like, but I studied the case for years before I knew anything about Le Grand, and typically when I discuss the murders, or the evidence, I'm not even thinking about him. When I'm asked about Le Grand, or writing him, that's a different story. I think you have to first be extremely familiar with the facts of the case before you can capably factor in any individual suspect. In Malcolm's case, he doesn't seem capable of producing a post of any length without mentioning 'GH', 'Toppy', 'LA-DE-DA' or all the above. That's his prerogative, but since he said the back and forth of considering him Toppy was frustrating him, I suggested he might get more out of a study of just the case itself. It wasn't a mean suggestion at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Clearly, Mennonites have changed in the last 28 years since I was around them.

[Mrs. Fiddymont]

Hi Malcolm. You seem to have an inner struggle with George Hutchinson that hues the lens through which you view all the evidence (this is consistent with GH, this isn't consistent with GH, etc). Have you thought about putting GH aside for the time being?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, with sincere respect, couldn't someone just as fairly ask you to "put aside" Le Grand "for the time being" too?

Also--I live within 10 miles or so of a group of Mennonites and I don't know where you get the idea that Mennonites "are less progressive than the Amish..." I have Mennonite friends and one of their favorite jokes is that they're "liberal Amish"! Mennonites around here are becoming more and more mainstream, only the adults conform to homemade clothing and even there the skirts of the women keep getting shorter! The Mennonite children dress no differently than any other children around here--they most certainly do not wear suits and hats as the Amish boys do!! They also drive cars like anyone else, I've never seen an Amish-type buggy around here, the shock of seeing one would probably cause a wreck lol! Anyway, sorry for getting so far off-topic, I will now .

Back to the original question: Personally I do not think that Jack was the Torso Killer. Their killing methods were different, their treatment of the bodies were different, and I just cannot picture Jack deciding "Right, this one I will disembowel and leave displayed in a public place", then haring off to murder another woman, hack her to pieces, and deposit her dismembered remains in the water, then back to the first method....it just does not make sense. There is some logic even in madness!

[Malcolm X]

Hello Malcolm. Yes, a waste of time. I'm tempted to add, "So also is any hunt for this lone serial killer, JTR." But I had better not.

Cheers.
LC

this forum is still quite interesting though, i want to do a quick google about fred and rosemary west, because i saw them on a tv drama a few days ago.

[lynn cates]

waste not . . .

Hello Malcolm. Yes, a waste of time. I'm tempted to add, "So also is any hunt for this lone serial killer, JTR." But I had better not.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

yes kids dressing like adults is quite true, but back in the victorian times this problem of identifying JTR is easy to understand

1.... most adult males from the middle/ working classes looked the same, there was also very little variation in colours, especially in the ship yards/ down the mines etc.....white shirt/ waste coat/ dark trousers/ jacket and a cloth cap or a Wide awake.

you only have to look at football crowds from the 1920s and 30s, 140 000 at Hampden pk and they all look the bloody same , even the upper classes tended to look the same, just miles smarter !!!!!!!

so obviously at night, JTR looks just like everyone else and with a moustache, at least 7 years older, height ? as we all know, these eye witnesses are a disaster, none of this will hold up in a modern court of law, JTR would get off easily.

we have Maybrick, that looks like a fat bank clerk, or even BS.. we have G.Chapman that looks a bit like a surly looking Druitt, it's a waste of time isn't it !

[Tom_Wescott]

It's all true.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

Hi Steven. Actually, Mennonites are less progressive than the Amish, and that's not a joke.

Yes, witness evidence is less reliable for height and age, but in Victorian times would be more reliable for this like headgear. The closer the age of the person witnessed to the witness, the more reliable. Also, obviously, the length of time they witnessed the individual and the circumstances. Best and Gardner almost certainly saw Stride and were able to identify her by truly identifiable characteristics, such as her unique mouth and flower.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This is pure babble from the sickbed. Are you alright, Tom? Is there anything we can do?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steven. Actually, Mennonites are less progressive than the Amish, and that's not a joke.

Yes, witness evidence is less reliable for height and age, but in Victorian times would be more reliable for this like headgear. The closer the age of the person witnessed to the witness, the more reliable. Also, obviously, the length of time they witnessed the individual and the circumstances. Best and Gardner almost certainly saw Stride and were able to identify her by truly identifiable characteristics, such as her unique mouth and flower.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Steven Russell]

Not at all, Jon. It seems we agree. Are the Mennonite people a bit like the Amisch?

Best wishes,Steve.

[Wickerman]

... Looking at Victorian photographs, it seems that young people had more or less the same fashions, haircuts, facial hair etc as their parents, making people's ages even more difficult to pin down.

Quite true Steven. In fact just 30 minutes north of where I live are Mennonite farms, schools & a church. The little boys are all dressed like old men. They wear small suit jackets, trousers, flat caps & boots. And the girls dress like their mothers in long dresses and something on their head like a hair net?
And to look at them, I couldn't tell you how old they are except by guessing from their height.

I mention this because the children remind me so much of how the young street urchins are dressed in the Victorian photo's on the East End. When I drive up north around St. Jacobs, & Elmira it's like driving back through time.

A little off-topic, sorry.
Jon S.

[Steven Russell]

Estimating age.

Good points, Tom and Wickerman. Added to which -

These days there can be clues (not always reliable) to a person's age due to hairstyle and fashion, speech, gait etc. Now I may be wide of the mark here but I would suggest that these distinctions were not so obvious in Jack's time. Looking at Victorian photographs, it seems that young people had more or less the same fashions, haircuts, facial hair etc as their parents, making people's ages even more difficult to pin down.

We often hear that the teenager was invented in the 1950s. I suppose gangs like The Hoxton High Rips were the Teddy Boys of their day but I wonder if there was any identifiable style of dress they favoured. In other words, people of different callings may have tended to dress in a particular way (appearance of a clerk/sailor/military man etc.) but I doubt if you could make a decent guess about age unless you had a goodish look at someone's face.

Any thoughts?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Wickerman]

...In short, the estimations of height and age in this case, as in any, are the least reliable evidence we have to work with.

Correct Tom, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable, yet it is assumed to be the most reliable.
There are a number of sources any witness will use to give a description.
A witness may say the suspect was "tall'ish", because he was taller than they are.

If the witness was not sure of the height the interviewing officer will ask, "Taller or shorter than me?", whereby we then go from "tallish" to a precise 5' 11", when the witness in reality had no clue.
The measure actually comes from the officer in his attempt to create a detailed description from vague opinions. The suspect may not have been 5' 11" at all.

Much the same problem exists with respect to age, some people do look older for their age, light and shade have an appreciable affect on whether someone looks 30'ish or 40'ish, especially at night in poor light.

Likewise a deerstalker hat (with peak fore and aft) can look like a "cap with a small peak" if the suspect is standing with his back to a wall, or if his collar is turned up hiding the rear peak, or making it less obvious.

Another example would be the overcoat. Such a description brings to mind a coat which extends down to the ankles, yet if a suspect wore a suit jacket under a 3/4 coat (Morning coat) then he would be wearing an overcoat because he had one longer coat on top of another.

We place a great deal of weight in witness descriptions yet there is incredible "room for error". Especially as most of the sightings were a passing glance, a fleeting glimps. Yet the witness is expected to provide a description comparable to a short study, so yes, perhaps the witness then comes up with some details that are just purely wrong.

Regards, Jon S.