Ripperologist 128: October 2012

[Tom_Wescott]

Mondo Turdburger

Truly revelatory findings relating directly to the unsolved murder cases of Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes or Mary Jane Kelly are exceedingly rare. I'm trying to remember the last one.

Ripper Notes #25.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Ps Michael I think thanks to research we already know about all the things you mention in the first part of your psot

Hi Jenni,

And I respectfully submit that Im aware that the information is enjoyed by many Ripperologists who enjoy learning about all aspects of the times, crimes, and the people.

My comments were to reflect my personal position that I place emphasis on data that relates directly to the investigations and potential solving of one of these unsolved murders. Ive enjoyed learning about the LVP since beginning my studies into the cases, but in all honesty I am less interested in reading about many of the tangential elements going forward.

If one of these murders could be figured out, just one...a meaningful one, like perhaps Liz Strides, whose murder created a Double Event and a solitary multiple kill night,..we might better understand what we are looking at as a whole. Lynn Cates has made an interesting case for a suspect in only the first 2 murders due to the restriction of freedom at that time, if provable, that kind of data excites a student like myself.

Ive never believed that these 5 women were linked to a mad killer, it would be nice in my lifetime if that was proven. Some early students didnt have that luxury.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Truly revelatory findings relating directly to the unsolved murder cases of Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes or Mary Jane Kelly are exceedingly rare. I'm trying to remember the last one.

So, for example, Colin's discovery that our honest witness Cadosch later proved to be a lying bigamist wasn't revelatory? It was to me...made me look twice at his evidence anyway...

Debra's evidence that John Richardson was in all likelihood an epileptic, likewise...

How much do you need?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

So, for example, Colin's discovery that our honest witness Cadosch later proved to be a lying bigamist wasn't revelatory? It was to me...made me look twice at his evidence anyway...

Debra's evidence that John Richardson was in all likelihood an epileptic, likewise...

How much do you need?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

With all due respect to the researcher/authors, and bearing in mind that Ive stated Ive read many off shoot aspect papers and enjoyed them, if Cadosche lied that doesnt even validate Long let alone solve any riddles, even if he lied the kill could still have been taking place at approximately the same time, with or without his presence. Nor does it shed any direct light on a possible motive and/or a suspect.

Similarly, being almost sure Richardson was epileptic is an interesting theory, but even if true, nothing about the known facts concerning the murder cases themselves would be altered forever.

As I said I dont disparage any of the people providing this kind of material, there is demand for it, certainly. I just have a personal preference for the material that concerns a forensic review of the murder cases specifically. Motive. Unknown and discovered connections....as I understand there may well be in the case of Israel Schwartz and the International Club. Previously unknown documents or records pertaining to police opinion on suspects, definitively identifying requisite killing strengths and pointing out weaknesses, uncovering new suspect details and connections unknown to this date, ....all these areas appeal to me.

As I said, discoveries related directly to known or previously known suspects and victims, pertaining specifically to their respective murder investigations, are rare.

Discoveries and new Theories shouldnt be, and are not, interchangeable concepts.

Cheers Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Tsunami?

And yet if new discoveries give rise to new theories? For example, I personally now give far more credence to the medical evidence than I did before to Long, Cadosch and Richardson...which in turn lends far more to the MO of killings in darkness...which...

Oh let's just say a ripple here or there can create a cascade or two downstream...I have no favourite suspect to defend so perhaps it's easier for me...but, whatever, it's a pretty poor scholar, after all, who's not prepared to take account of and adapt to new evidence as it arises

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Turdburger Redux

Hi Cog, while I don't find your examples revelatory in any way, they do show that important findings regarding people involved in the case are still being found. I think the term 'revelatory' is relative to the individual. I think in MR's case, it would need to be a discovery that proves HIM right on some point.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

I'd like to put in a word of support for the importance of new research such as that on Cadosche, Richardson and others.

Cadosche's subsequent behaviour, if there had been a trial, could have been used to seriously undermine or negate his evidence. he was clearly capable of duplicity and we should be aware of that.

Similarly Richardson's possible illness, if it might explain his behaviour, is important. Look at the discussions about the possibnility that Joe Barnett suffered some afflicion as suggested by his behaviour at the MJK inquest. If we KNEW there was a reason for that, other than just nerves, it might change our view of his evidence and behaviour. These small increments in knowledge add incalculably to the patchwork of evidence avaialble and one day a tiny revelation such as these might be the thing that "cracks" the case.

In my view, in any case, Cadosche and Long/Darell were both wrong. "Jack" struck that night much earlier, in darkness and while the inhabitants of No 29 slept. This would be in keeping with the murder of Nichols (almost certainly by the same hand) and much reduce the risks to the killer. By after 5.00 am the area was beginning to come alive and the yard was overlooked by many windows, people were coming into yards to use the privy.

Thus while I may think Annie died much earlier, that still does not make the additional info on Cadosche useless.

Phil H

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Cog, while I don't find your examples revelatory in any way, they do show that important findings regarding people involved in the case are still being found. I think the term 'revelatory' is relative to the individual. I think in MR's case, it would need to be a discovery that proves HIM right on some point.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You misread me Tom, in fact its quite the opposite....I dont think Id be satisfied unless some established premise is dismantled and discarded.

You should know that one of my main hopes is that we remove the idea of a serial killers Canonical Group from this study, and return to studying unsolved murders.

Ive no doubt that some are connected by killer, but the ONLY this 5, or at least these 5 for me is sorely unsupported by the existing evidence alone.

I can understand why contemporary investigators grouped some of the murders, and Im sure that their reputations would improve as a result of that assumption...how would 11-13 unsolved murders with the possibility all were by different men look on the books? The Canonical group cuts that down to 6-8 possible murderers.

Why we still are told its the most probable answer is something that I cant abide by.

Cheers

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mike. I don't subscribe to "5 victims and 5 only" any more than you do. However, I DO personally believe that the C5 were related killings. I just happen to believe that there are more murders outside those five that can be laid at the same killer(s) feet. I don't know which ones, but I'm sure there's more.

Having said that, I thought Lynn Cates did a very strong job of arguing that Nichols/Chapman were two-offs. It's the strongest argument I've yet seen for separating the C5...certainly stronger than any argument yet put forth for singling Liz Stride out as a one-off, or Mary Kelly for that matter. But convincing me that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by two different men will take more work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

work

Hello Mike, Tom. Thanks for the kind words. I indeed have my work cut out. So I'd better get busy.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike, Tom. Thanks for the kind words. I indeed have my work cut out. So I'd better get busy.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, Tom,

Tom mentioned one point that has been bugging me as well, and I know you too Lynn. If we accept hypothetically that one killer killed the first 2 women only, something I can accept, then really only Catharine remains difficult to figure out. Of the 5, those 3 seem eerily similar to a layman like me.

Ive been trying to figure out some link between her murder and Kellys because I believe its likely the murderer in room 13 simulated a murder like the ones in the papers the past months. So if they are connected somehow, it wouldnt be a stretch to them surmise perhaps Kates murder was a simulation of sorts.

But Kates killing and Marys were by different skill sets, in my opinion.

Cheers Lynn, Tom

[robhouse]

Ive been trying to figure out some link between her murder and Kellys because I believe its likely the murderer in room 13 simulated a murder like the ones in the papers the past months. So if they are connected somehow, it wouldnt be a stretch to them surmise perhaps Kates murder was a simulation of sorts.

But Kates killing and Marys were by different skill sets, in my opinion.

As I have stated many times, in my opinion, if you read the descriptions of the post-mortems of Kelly and Eddowes, the similarities are undeniable. It is actually surprising to me that people say they see a different hand in these two killings. The main difference, which is quite obvious, is that the killer in Kelly's case had much more time to mutilate post-mortem. So yes there is a difference in extent, but not in the character of the wounding.

RH

[Michael W Richards]

As I have stated many times, in my opinion, if you read the descriptions of the post-mortems of Kelly and Eddowes, the similarities are undeniable. It is actually surprising to me that people say they see a different hand in these two killings. The main difference, which is quite obvious, is that the killer in Kelly's case had much more time to mutilate post-mortem. So yes there is a difference in extent, but not in the character of the wounding.

RH

Hi Rob,

I think one relevant difference, maybe only due to time available, are the stomach flaps cut from Mary. An idea that may have originated with the Hanbury murder coverage.

Im not opposed to an argument that pairs Eddowes and Kelly as 2 victims by the same hand, but I believe the evidence suggests that this man was less skilled and less knowledgeable than the man that killed Polly and Annie, 2 victims of which I am personally certain were by the same killer.

One factor troubles me when pairing Eddowes and Kelly....I dont see compelling evidence in the Eddowes mutilations that suggest that she knew the man that killed her, and yet I see that in spades in room 13. I still am open minded on whether Kate was killed because of something related to the aliases she used her last 24 hours and her alledged conversation about the reward, which if true, means that she was killed by someone she did know of at least.

Cheers Rob

[robhouse]

I believe the evidence suggests that this man was less skilled and less knowledgeable than the man that killed Polly and Annie, 2 victims of which I am personally certain were by the same killer.

One factor troubles me when pairing Eddowes and Kelly....I dont see compelling evidence in the Eddowes mutilations that suggest that she knew the man that killed her, and yet I see that in spades in room 13.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your reply. I have to say, I disagree with your conclusions here though. I am aware that generally speaking, facial mutilation indicates that the killer knows the victim... however, this is not an absolute. In this case, I do not think the Ripper really differentiated between the face and the rest of the body. I think his mutilation was all over the place. Again, I think that the main reason there was more extensive mutilation in this case (including facial mutilation) is that the killer had more time. You also see indications of facial mutilation in Eddowes. So I think this fits with the general escalation of mutilation.

I also don't really see any more skill in the earlier killings. I would be interested to see why you think this is. In my opinion, there is a great similarity between the mutilation and the MO evident in all 5 canonical murders (Stride excluded because of interruption)... and I think the similarities are evident if you do a close comparison of all the victims.

But perhaps this is all off-topic anyway... I see the Ripperologist 128 is out now, and I am hoping there will be some discussion on the boards as there are some important new articles, specifically I am interested in the 2 Kozminski related articles.

Cheers to you sir.

Rob

[Cogidubnus]

But perhaps this is all off-topic anyway... I see the Ripperologist 128 is out now, and I am hoping there will be some discussion on the boards as there are some important new articles, specifically I am interested in the 2 Kozminski related articles.

Hasn't hit my inbox yet...I await it's arrival with interest

All the best

Dave