|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 3:56 am: |       |
Reflecting on the case over Christmas, I began to try to resolve things into the key questions to which I would like answers. These are the questions and issues where I believe answers might help us move the case forward. What follows is my initial list - still at an early stage of evolution. I would welcome any discussion, suggested changes or additions. Over to you:
1. Were the suspected early victims (i.e. before 31 Aug 88) attacked by JtR or someone else? Were there two murders operating the in East End, or just one?
2. Given that Cross found Nichols' body only minutes after she was killed, by what route did JtR leave Buck's Row?
3. Had "Jack" been into the yard of 29 Hanbury Street before? It seems a dangerous dead end to enter sight-unseen!
4. Why only a short gap between Nichols and Chapman; then a longer one to the "double event"; and an even longer one to Kelly?
5. How accurate is Schwartz' testimony? Did Kidney kill Stride?
6. Are the GSG and the apron scrap directly connected (i.e. did JtR write the graffito)? Is the recorded wording accurate? Did the police miss it until later?
7. Is the Lusk Kidney, Eddowes'? Do we thus have ONE confirmed communication from the murderer?
8. Is there any connection between the Rumbelow amputation knife, the Phoenix Park murders/Fenianism/and JtR?
9. Was the body in the bed MJK's? How reliable is the testimony of those who said they saw MJK after she is assumed dead?
10. Can George Hutchinson be believed?
11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?
12. Why did MJD commit suicide? What was Melville Macnaghten's private information?
That will do for now.
By te way, to all those kind people who wished me welcome and encouraged me to register, I can tell you that my form was submitted today (31 Dec 04). I look forward to joining you formally soon.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 4:54 pm: | |
Phil,
Welcome to the boards , your questions are serious debate, and i am sure that each and every point will be addressed....Once our hangovers are gone.
Happy new year to you.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2614
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
I concur with Richard,
I think most of us will be happy to debate some of those issues after the holidays. Some of them -- or rather, most of them -- are relevant to a large degree.
Cheers.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 235
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
Yaaay, Phil.  So glad you've registered. I don't know why others have been so adamant about it but for me it's an indication that you'll be around for a while, and that's very good news indeed.
Hey,everybody, let's have a party for Phil over in the Pub when he's official.
Now, back to business. Wish I had answers but number 3 leads to the idea that the victims chose the spots. Sounds right to me.
Happy New Year to all.
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2619
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
Happy New Year, Mags.
Wish I could be there to celebrate Phil's official membership registration.
Have a great 2005 beginning, Mags (and others).
All the best
G, sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 697
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 11:19 pm: | |
Hi Phil
It's 4 in the morning, I've had a fair amount to drink, and I've just been dancing to the Scissor Sisters so I'm not in the best state to answer your questions, but I'm going to have a go at some of them anyway!
1. Were the suspected early victims (i.e. before 31 Aug 88) attacked by JtR or someone else? Were there two murders operating the in East End, or just one?
In my opinion, the kind of brutality required to be capable of the kind of attack seen in the Tabram case is quite rare. We know that there was probably a second serial killer operating at this time (the torso murders), the chances of a third person capable of this kind of attack seem slim. This is why I consider Tabram, and probably Millwood, as likely Ripper attacks, although this is purely conjecture.
2. Given that Cross found Nichols' body only minutes after she was killed, by what route did JtR leave Buck's Row?
I would say the most logical route for him to use was through Woods Buildings. It was the quickest way to Whitechapel Road where he could blend in with the crowd on their way to work/market.
3. Had "Jack" been into the yard of 29 Hanbury Street before? It seems a dangerous dead end to enter sight-unseen!
I don't see 29 Hanbury Street as a departure. Polly Nichols and Kate Eddowes were both murdered outside locked gates to enclosed spaces. I think enclosed spaces were the locations Jack favoured.
4. Why only a short gap between Nichols and Chapman; then a longer one to the "double event"; and an even longer one to Kelly?
In a word (well two actually), police activity. I also think this explains his movement. As one area became hot with police activity he moved to another. Similarly, after the Chapman murder he had to wait until police vigilance had slackened off before his next attack.
5. How accurate is Schwartz' testimony? Did Kidney kill Stride?
I see no reason to doubt Schwartz's testimony, but I don't necessarily think the person he saw was her killer.
6. Are the GSG and the apron scrap directly connected (i.e. did JtR write the graffito)? Is the recorded wording accurate? Did the police miss it until later?
No. I have never had the problem other people seem to have had with understanding the GSG. You said elsewhere that you have lived in the East End. So you will be as aware as me how common this kind of double negative is in that area. The GSG is plainly someone complaining of a perceived injustice at the hands of a Jew. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't the Ripper, but I see no particular connection to the apron.
7. Is the Lusk Kidney, Eddowes'? Do we thus have ONE confirmed communication from the murderer?
I was as taken in as everyone by the "Openshaw said it was from a woman, aged about 45, heavy drinker" thing. However I have from a VERY good source (trust me) just a few days ago that he said no such thing. Accepting that, I think it is impossible to say whether the kidney was from Eddowes or not.
8. Is there any connection between the Rumbelow amputation knife, the Phoenix Park murders/Fenianism/and JtR?
I would need to see more evidence regarding the origin of the knife to accept any of these connections.
9. Was the body in the bed MJK's? How reliable is the testimony of those who said they saw MJK after she is assumed dead?
The police at the time seem to have been fairly convinced that Mrs Maxwell was mistaken. I think the medical testimony tends to suggest a time of death much earlier than 9-10am. But I'm not putting money on either thing.
10. Can George Hutchinson be believed?
How long is a piece of string?
11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?
I'm not sure it was any of these. Neither Lawende or Levy claimed to have got a really good look at the killer, and Schwartz only got a fleeting glimpse.
12. Why did MJD commit suicide? What was Melville Macnaghten's private information?
I'm afraid I my research on MJD is sorely lacking so I will leave this to others to postulate.
That's my twopennyworth!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 245
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 1:52 pm: | |
Just want to keep this thread active while I muse. It's going to take me a while to gather my thoughts.
Mags |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 4:45 pm: | |
One thing at a time
#1 should last all year
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 5:37 pm: | |
Am going to have a go here too..Right this is New Yrs Day...
1.Tabram I feel may well have been a victim.....whether of 'Jack' tho..who knows
2.From Bucks Row...through Woods Bdgs would be sensible but whatever happens to scuttle away the fastest way down a rat run would make most sense
3.Dead ends seem a tad dangerous here BUT insome ways they have the sfaety of being enclosed and with all those people in that house..relativel;y easy to 'be off to work'
4.I dont know ..wish I did...cycles of the moon maybe..either that or the Old Bill were knee deep at the time and best to lay low
5.I dont believe Stride was
a victim
6.I have a dark theory that Kate left the piece of apron there herself during the day or whatever and that the GSG had been there for some time
7.possible but HIGHLY unlikely
8.Sadly we dont have enough evidence either way here
9.As many a conspiratorialist will tell you we'd all like to think it wasn'y May but there we are..
10.George who made the statement certainly saw something
11
Anderson has a reputation as an opionated and irritating man...hmm maybe Lawede but who knows
12.We'll never know
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1756
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 5:42 pm: | |
Am going to have a go here too..Right this is New Yrs Day...
1.Tabram I feel may well have been a victim.....whether of 'Jack' tho..who knows
2.From Bucks Row...through Woods Bdgs would be sensible but whatever happens to scuttle away the fastest way down a rat run would make most sense
3.Dead ends seem a tad dangerous here BUT insome ways they have the sfaety of being enclosed and with all those people in that house..relativel;y easy to 'be off to work'
4.I dont know ..wish I did...cycles of the moon maybe..either that or the Old Bill were knee deep at the time and best to lay low
5.I dont believe Stride was
a victim
6.I have a dark theory that Kate left the piece of apron there herself during the day or whatever and that the GSG had been there for some time
7.possible but HIGHLY unlikely
8.Sadly we dont have enough evidence either way here
9.As many a conspiratorialist will tell you we'd all like to think it wasn'y May but there we are..
10.George who made the statement certainly saw something
11
Anderson has a reputation as an opionated and irritating man...hmm maybe Lawede but who knows
12.We'll never know
Suzi
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 109
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 5:42 am: | |
Hi Phil,
Let me give you an early welcome to the boards! Best of luck, you do provide good discussions!
Now, to answer your questions:
"1. Were the suspected early victims (i.e. before 31 Aug 88) attacked by JtR or someone else? Were there two murders operating the in East End, or just one?"
Ada Wilson and Martha Tabram I do believe could likely have been Ripper victims, and maybe Emma Smith. The Ripper certainly wasn't the only murderer operating in London at the time, I believe there were several seperate ones, and the torso murders are a different thing entirely, with a different killer.
"2. Given that Cross found Nichols' body only minutes after she was killed, by what route did JtR leave Buck's Row?"
Most of the victims bodies were found minutes after they were killed, and the Ripper somehow always managed to get away. I think this is anyone's guess - but I think most likely back the way he came. He had to get back to where he was staying sooner or later, and the longer he lingered in the streets, the more danger he was in.
"3. Had "Jack" been into the yard of 29 Hanbury Street before? It seems a dangerous dead end to enter sight-unseen!"
It's possible, though I tend to doubt it. Elizabeth Long saw Chapman standing talking to a man outside 29 Hanbury Street, which makes me believe that he accosted here. That coupled with the fact that he was the one who asked "Will you?". Therefore, I think his attacks were just where ever he thought best at the time. I don't think he just stood waiting in the 1 spot for someone to come along, that would be very suspicious. And the yard was accessible from the streets to anyone from the public. Whilst he was in danger, it's the same with the other murders, so I don't believe the Ripper had especially become acquainted with the backyard, no. It's an obvious place.
"4. Why only a short gap between Nichols and Chapman; then a longer one to the "double event"; and an even longer one to Kelly?"
Reasons known only to him, I'm afraid. But if we include Tabram as a victim, we can see a pattern forming.
3 weeks - 1 week - 3 weeks.
As for the gab between the double murder and Kelly, well, the double murder had sent everyone into a frenzy, there was lynch mobs on the streets. Everyone was on the look-out. He probably felt it was too dangerous, and his built up rage over the waiting period was taken out in full force on poor Mary Kelly.
"5. How accurate is Schwartz' testimony? Did Kidney kill Stride?"
Schwartz told the truth of what he believed, I'm sure, but I think he probably misinterpreted the nature of the assault taking place on Elizabeth Stride, and "Lipski!". I don't believe the 'second man' was at all involved in the murder.
And, Glenn won't be happy, but I am 95% sure that Liz was a Ripper victim, and I am 99.9% sure that if she wasn't, then Kidney didn't kill her. She and Tabram were both considered as victims in contemporary times, and I believe it should remain so. There is any number of explanations for the differences. Remember, he was interrupted - twice!
"6. Are the GSG and the apron scrap directly connected (i.e. did JtR write the graffito)? Is the recorded wording accurate? Did the police miss it until later?"
I believe JtR is responsible for both the graffito and the apron, and they were deliberately put together. And I believe the generally accepted version, "Juwes" is the correct one. Or else I doubt it would have been changed.
"7. Is the Lusk Kidney, Eddowes'? Do we thus have ONE confirmed communication from the murderer?"
In my opinion, yes, we do.
I don't discount "Dear Boss", either, it looks very promising, whether it has a different handwriting or not. But I do believe the kidney was from the Ripper. Eddowes was missing a kidney, after all. And Eddowes supposedly had Bright's Disease, which the kidney sent also had.
"8. Is there any connection between the Rumbelow amputation knife, the Phoenix Park murders/Fenianism/and JtR?"
I don't think so, I think they were seperate, but that's just pure opinion and guessing.
"9. Was the body in the bed MJK's? How reliable is the testimony of those who said they saw MJK after she is assumed dead?"
I certainly think that it was indeed Mary. Her own partner of a reasonable amount of time identified her. Whether it was by only a couple of characteristics or not, Barnett would have known. And other testimonies like those of George Hutchinson support that. It's an interesting theory, but I feel sure that it was Mary, nobody else.
"10. Can George Hutchinson be believed?"
Definitely.
I don't think he could have made all of that up and still have been believed by a very wary and suspect-conscious police, and not only that, he has support in his saying that he stood on the opposite side of the street waiting for someone to come out, in that another witness (name escapes me) stated that she saw a man standing on the opposite side of the street looking as if he was waiting for someone to come out. And it appears that he atleast knew Mary as an acquaintance, in his saying that Mary asked him for some money earlier on.
So, by all means, I believe what Hutchinson says.
"11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?"
I say Lawende. Hyam Levy ran off and claimed he saw nothing later on. Lawende was the only one with useful information, so there would no point in Levy being dragged back a matter of years later to identify someone that he claimed he had never even seen in the first place, especially when Lawende could have been asked. And Schwartz didn't get a really clear look at the man, because he was attacking Liz at the time. Lawende paused to look.
"12. Why did MJD commit suicide? What was Melville Macnaghten's private information?"
Because he was sacked from Mr. Valentine's school, felt at the time that he was in ruins and slowly failing, and that pretty soon he would be completely grasped with mental illness/insanity -like his mother, as he said. And I believe MM's private information was most likely some correspondence with Montague's brother, William.
Well, there's my answers and 2 cents.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1761
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 8:27 am: | |
Adam!
EXCELLENTjust got what passes for brain back in gear today and been working my way through this all again
Hutch has to believed at the end of the day....he is the most believable witness we have lets face it
Cheers
Suzi
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 186
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:40 am: | |
Ah...graffiti..hmm..lemme see here..
Show me or anyone else who believes in the connection of the apron to The Twelve Words one example of a graffiti anywhere on earth with a similar syntax....and I'll buy you a cheesesteak. Nowhere is it mentioned that any other graffiti was present on that area of the Wentworth...Graffiti is created for directness and expressiveness and shock value..not to have people muse what it could mean.. "Cornbread Rules Da Hood !" means Cornbread is in charge of the neighborhood,not that Mr.Cornbread is the admiral of HMS Hood...or Robin Hood...or the head covering on a jacket..can all you homies get down wit' dat ?...Yet here we have a convoluted message right above the apron...Does it have a connection ? O ! most sapient conclusion !
Mr.Phenomenal Mnemonical, a.k.a. Hutchinson...
Try and remember what you were wearing two days ago...and you were wearing it ! Abberline probably didn't swallow G.H.'s memory trick, but believed he was innocent for another reason..This may lead ripperologists to believe that the "total recall" was what was believed by Abberline. Certainly most of what Hutchinson saw was true...its the exactness in the detailing that sounds un-kosher. Just a thought.
Can I get a witness ?.... Sho' nuff ! Lawende didn't see anything worth remembering, so why waste a trip to Hove with a know-nothing ? My rubles are on Izzy. Levy lived near the Kosminski people and would have been a good choice too...
(Message edited by howard on January 02, 2005) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2648
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:46 am: | |
OK, here we go.
I can't answer all of them, because I simply have not enough knowledge or information in order to form an opinion, but neverthelss...
1. Were the suspected early victims (i.e. before 31 Aug 88) attacked by JtR or someone else? Were there two murders operating the in East End, or just one?
I believe there were several. The torso murders are possible indications on that, and possibly also later murdered women like Coles and McKenzie, who I believe to be copy-cats or unrelated.
Apart from the attack on Ada Wilson (maybe), I more or less rule out all the early victims like Millwood, Tabram etc. And I absolutely rule out Emma Smith; she was according to herself attacked by a gang and I see no reason to doubt her word upon this. And I don't believe the Ripper belonged to a gang either. We know there existed gang activities in East End, targeting prostitutes, so I'd say she fell a victim of those.
I'd say we have really only three confirmed canonical Ripper victims; Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, but that does not in itself exclude the possibility that he killed others, of course.
2. Given that Cross found Nichols' body only minutes after she was killed, by what route did JtR leave Buck's Row?
Have absolutely no idea. I am not enough familiar with London in order to form an opinion of this. One can of course lay out theoretical routes by checking maps, but I haven't so far gotten into that to an enough extent.
3. Had "Jack" been into the yard of 29 Hanbury Street before? It seems a dangerous dead end to enter sight-unseen!
Possible. Just because the incident with Annie Chapman seems unplanned, doesen't in itself imply that he hadn't been there on previous occasions. An interesting point about a dangerous cul de sac, seems like a reasonable consideration.
4. Why only a short gap between Nichols and Chapman; then a longer one to the "double event"; and an even longer one to Kelly?
Sorry, but your guess is as good as mine, Phil.
here we dive into theorising that goes way beyond the information we have.
5. How accurate is Schwartz' testimony? Did Kidney kill Stride?
I believe Schwartz is a credible witness, although he was a scared one. I'd rather lay weight on the statement given at the police than the one given in the papers.
I think there is a possibility that Kidney killed Stride, yes, or that she fell victim of ruffian customer or one memebr of the gangs that assaulted and threatened prostitutes. At least in Kidney we have a credible candidate who knew her and who had a possible motive. He was also known to be abusive.
I am not sure whether his features corresponds with the witness descriptions of Mr Broad Shoulders, though.
I don't believe Stride was a Ripper victim but i am not 100% sure and I can't prove it.
6. Are the GSG and the apron scrap directly connected (i.e. did JtR write the graffito)? Is the recorded wording accurate? Did the police miss it until later?
Another $1000 question.
I think the graffitto is unrelated and possibly was there earlier. But it's uncertain. I don't believe the Ripper to be a killer that left communications anyway and I can't see why he should do it when he was hunted by the police on his tail unless he had written it earlier.
Of course, the placement of the apron is a weird coincidence but stranger things have happened.
7. Is the Lusk Kidney, Eddowes'? Do we thus have ONE confirmed communication from the murderer?
No, we certainly have NOT a single confirmed communication from the Ripper. The letters we know -- except the Lusk letter -- has been declared hoaxes and Dear Boss and the Saucy Jack postcard was probably the work of some journalist, since it was mailed to the Central News Agency and not to the papers or the police directly. They also seem like attempts by a literate person to make them look like they've been written by a less literate author.
The Lusk kidney is impossible to say; we would need the piece of the kidney enclosed with the letter and to compare it with Eddowes' in order to establish that. It is possible, though, and I've read somewhere that the piece of the kidney did match the remaining parts of it still in Eddowes, but I am not sure.
I think if there might be one letter that COULD be genuine, it might be the Lusk letter, but I dare not have a total opinion on this.
8. Is there any connection between the Rumbelow amputation knife, the Phoenix Park murders/Fenianism/and JtR?
Hane no idea.
9. Was the body in the bed MJK's? How reliable is the testimony of those who said they saw MJK after she is assumed dead?
I certainly believe that stressing the idea that the corps may not have been MJK is to stretch things to far, if not ridiculous. Maxwell's testimony is a mystery; since she spoke to the woman and seems to have known MJK at least superficially, I find it questionable that she was mistaken on the person. However she was mistaken on the date or time is another matter, although she claimed with certainty that this was not the case. Our real problem is that we can't with certainty estimate Kelly's time of death and the questions regarding the doctors' opinion on this.
10. Can George Hutchinson be believed?
No, I think not. I believe him to be one of the least credible witnesses we have. Except for the part where he is standing outside the court (although he wasn't identified), his story is not supported by other sources. Since he knew that he had been spotted outside the court he had every reason to come up with a story that would put the police's attention away from him as a possible suspect, and what better if not also throw in a suspect?
I believe the man seen by Hutchinson never existed. His description is far too detailed in order to be credible, and his character is not exactly credible in East End. I have read enough witness testimonies in order to be able to question these types of detailed descriptions.
I think Hutchinson was a bogey man, if not a crook himself. All he said about MJK -- that she had asked him for money -- came only from himself, no others. I could be mistaken, but to me Hutchinson is as trustworthy as a Coca Cola bottle in the Sahara desert.
11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?
Have no idea. I don't think it was Schwartz, though -- possible Lawende or Levy but I can't say which. I believe Lawende had a better look at the couple (although maybe not especially brilliant); Levy seemed to have been rather uninterested, if we are to believe himself.
12. Why did MJD commit suicide? What was Melville Macnaghten's private information?
I think the reason why Druitt committed suicide was in short mentioned in the letter; he says it himself rather clearly: that he had felt that he had become insane like his mother. It is of course possible that the fact that he had been sacked, would add to it. But I have no reason to believe that the main reason was anything else but what he himself stated in the letter.
I have no idea what Macnaghtens private information was that made him say his family regarded him as the murderer, but my bet is that he must have done or seen personal interviews with Druitt's relatives. Besides that, no clue.
Well, that's about it.
Good luck with the registration, Phil!
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 02, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 409
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi Phil,
Here are my 2 cents.
"1. Were the suspected early victims (i.e. before 31 Aug 88) attacked by JtR or someone else? Were there two murders operating the in East End, or just one?"
I definitely think the Ripper attacked women with a knife prior to Nichols. Annie Millwood and Martha Tabram in my view are very good possibilities as Ripper victims, and even Ada Wilson, who lived relatively far from the heart of the Ripper’s killing zone, doesn’t seem all that unlikely. Emma Smith certainly wasn't a Ripper victim in my view. There's every chance that there were at least 2 murderers at work in the roughest part of London.
"2. Given that Cross found Nichols' body only minutes after she was killed, by what route did JtR leave Buck's Row?"
I don’t necessarily think he got away the way he came, but I do think that the Woods Buildings seems the most likely way out.
"3. Had "Jack" been into the yard of 29 Hanbury Street before? It seems a dangerous dead end to enter sight-unseen!"
I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t have been there before. The Ripper may well have been a user of prostitutes and as such, may have been in the yard prior to the murder. Even if he didn’t make use of the services of prostitutes, he may well have known that the yard was commonly used by prostitutes to service their clients. There’s every reason to believe Jack was a local man and I think he may have been the type to make long walks at night through the district. Which enabled him to know where and when he could find victims with as small a chance as possible of being disturbed and being caught in the act.
The fact that he only waited a week after Nichols before he struck again may indicate that he was very needy. The fact that he struck in near daylight and in such a dangerous dead end yard supports this in that he seems to have cared less than in the other cases about being seen or caught.
"4. Why only a short gap between Nichols and Chapman; then a longer one to the "double event"; and an even longer one to Kelly?"
See above. Although Annie Chapman’s case is the only one (of the ones killed outside) in which the body wasn’t found only minutes after the deed, maybe he got scared after hearing and perhaps even reading about the murder and learned from it that it wasn’t smart to kill in near daylight and that he’d better restrain himself for a while.
I think the most obvious reason why he didn’t kill in October would be the increased police activity in the district and the decreased activity of the East End inhabitants in general during the night in that period. So, on the one hand it would be too dangerous with all the police around and on the other, it would be too difficult to find a victim.
"5. How accurate is Schwartz' testimony? Did Kidney kill Stride?"
Although he seems to have been very scared at the time of the assault, which may have influenced his observing skills somewhat, I think Schwartz testimony was quite accurate. I’m not sure if he saw Elizabeth Stride’s murder in progress, but I’m quite sure he didn’t see Jack the Ripper.
Like I said on another thread, the obvious dissimilarities between Stride and Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes give rise to looking for other possibilities than the Ripper having been her murderer. In my view Michael Kidney would be a logical suspect and may well have killed her.
"6. Are the GSG and the apron scrap directly connected (i.e. did JtR write the graffito)? Is the recorded wording accurate? Did the police miss it until later?"
I’m not sure the GSG and the apron were connected. The graffito seems to have been written at shoulder level, which would put it at the very least about 3 feet 4 above the ground. If it was indeed written in the small letters as can be read somewhere (about 1 inch high), there’s every reason to doubt that they were connected. It would certainly make the notion that the Ripper wrote it as a message for the public and the police, rather unlikely. For if it had been, it seems likely that the Ripper would have written it close above the apron, and big(er).
In my view, a small lettered GSG written at shoulder level could fit a paranoid schizophrenic Jack the Ripper, blaming the Jews for perhaps following him and forcing him to kill the women.
I don’t know if the wording was accurate, “The Juwes (or however it was supposed to have been written) are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.” sounds good to me. Like Alan, I don’t have a problem with understanding it and I don’t think the exact wording has much bearing on the case. But that’s just my view at the moment.
"7. Is the Lusk Kidney, Eddowes'? Do we thus have ONE confirmed communication from the murderer?"
As far as I’m concerned, the Lusk letter is more likely to have originated from the Ripper than the GSG, although there’s an interesting similarity. If they both were from Jack, then the letter’s authenticity was confirmed by the kidney, the graffito’s by the bloody apron.
If the Ripper wrote the letter, in my opinion he wrote it to let everybody know that he, and not someone calling himself Jack the Ripper, was the only genuine murderer. That’s why he didn’t sign off with that name.
"8. Is there any connection between the Rumbelow amputation knife, the Phoenix Park murders/Fenianism/and JtR?"
I know too little about this to answer your question.
"9. Was the body in the bed MJK's? How reliable is the testimony of those who said they saw MJK after she is assumed dead?"
I think it was MJK. Joe Barnett, who had known her intimately for 18 months, identified her, if only by a couple of characteristics.
I don’t think the testimony of those who claimed to have seen her on the morning of 9 November is reliable.
Caroline Maxwell had only known her for about 4 months and had only spoken to her 2 twice. She hadn’t seen her for 3 weeks when she supposedly saw her on 9 November. From what I can gather, it seems that Maxwell came out of the lodging house, saw Mary across the street, had a very short conversation with her, and then moved on without having crossed the street.
Maxwell also stated MJK was a young woman who never associated with anyone and in the ‘Illustrated Police News’ of 17 November she described Mary as a “pleasant little woman”. Both are untrue. Furthermore, there’s no record of MJK having been at the Britannia pub, which Maxwell claimed she had.
The fact that Maurice Lewis wasn’t heard at the inquest, must have been because the police didn’t find his account credible at all.
"10. Can George Hutchinson be believed?"
I don’t think so. His explanation of why he was watching Miller’s Court is way too thin compared to his otherwise very detailed account. Furthermore, the fact that he had just returned from Romford (10 miles off) on foot through cold and probably rainy weather and that he had possibly passed the place he usually slept without obvious reason, make it incredible that he would have waited outside for another 45 minutes at least, with the chance of having to wander the streets all night – which is what he claimed to have been forced to as the Victoria Home was closed when he went there after 3 am.
I think he came forward because he thought he had to, when he learned that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis. Why he thought he had to come forward, I don’t know.
"11. Who was Anderson's witness? Lawende? Schwartz? Hyam Levy? Someone else?"
Lawende claimed he doubted whether he would know the man again. Schwartz most probably didn’t see Jack the Ripper. Although he may have been the witness, to me it would be odd if he recognized the alleged suspect anyway. Levy claimed not to have got a really good look at the man seen with Eddowes, but seems to have known more than he told. Out of these 3 men I think Levy seems the most likely, or perhaps, the least unlikely.
"12. Why did MJD commit suicide? What was Melville Macnaghten's private information?"
Probably because he was suffering a depression, even so much so that he feared becoming like his mother. The fact that he got fired probably was what put him over the edge to commit suicide.
As to the private information, we don’t have a source and we don’t know what the substance of this information was. MacNaghten never revealed what he knew, so, we’ll probably never know. His claim that he had destroyed all of his documents coupled with the many errors that he made could indicate that he actually had no private information at all.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 115
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:12 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
You wrote:
"EXCELLENTjust got what passes for brain back in gear today and been working my way through this all again
Hutch has to believed at the end of the day....he is the most believable witness we have lets face it"
That's right, unfortunately he is. All of the witnesses are subject to some kind of scrutiny, and Hutchinson is obviously one of the main ones subject to scrutiny because he said the most about the murder. But I don't consider his statement to be unbelievable at all, and neither did the police at the time apparently, so I would believe what he says. As Suzi says, he is the best witness we have. The most detailed one. There's nothing we can do about that.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 9:16 am: | |
Hi Adam
Hutch is of course the most 'imformative' of the imformants....maybe too much so ,some may believe.
However,there is certainly something here,as you say following his trek from Romford,(although do we know that he had done that trip during the preceding hours?)
As I recall George said in his statement "I have spent all my money going DOWN to Romford"
Maybe Im being a tad vague here but is it purely assumption that Hutch had walked back from Romford earlier that day or was just remarking that he'd spent his cash on a trip earlier?
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 4:26 am: | |
Thanks for all your interesting contributions folks. Much appreciated.
When I wrote the first post in the thread, I was aware that we would all, almost certainly, have differing takes on the answers. Your responses indicate that is the case, but very interestingly.
What I was really interested in, however, was the implications of the questions. ARE these the significant outstanding questions to which a solution would allow us to move the case forward? Or are there other questions even more important that require answers?
To clarify a couple of other points:
On the Chapman killing, I really do think that the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street really is different in type to the other (canonical) sites at least.
Nichols, Eddowes (Stride if we allow her) were all killed effectively in streets. The Ripper was not faced with a dead end. If Nicols lead him to Buck's Row, or Eddowes to Mitre Square, he could see with his own eyes (or perhaps knew from his knowledge of the area) and could also probably evalutate, what "escape routes" were available. There were three exists from Mitre square, if someone came down one, he had two left. he could not easily be corned. Same in Buck's Row - he could bolt in the opposite direction to anyone who came along (i.e. Cross).
Only MJK's room (and the narrow single enty to Miller's Court) was equally problematical to the Hanbury St yard, and at No 13 he had a door to close to give privacy. if anyone had knocked once he had got to work, all he had to do was stand back to the door and pretend no one was in.
It makes sense to me therefore, as no more than a possibility, that JtR had foreknowledge of somekind of what lay behind no 29 Hanbury St and had a plan of how to escape if cornered. What if there had been another prostitute come in? We know the toilet for several people was there, and that people used the yard and sat on the steps. If Jack went in "blind", it surely tells us something about his foolhardiness or bravado. But, to me at least, the other killings all demonstrate very clearly his cunning and an element of pre-planning for getting away.
That is one reason I am suspicious that Stride was NOT a JtR murder, since the locale was too exposed, too public.
With Hutchinson's evidence, it is simply the level of detail that gives me pause - I don't find it plausible. Though I think he was there, and agree with others that the outlines of what he saw might be roughly right.
On the Fenian knives there is a good essay by Nick Warren in the "Monster Book of JtR" (silly title for an excellent book!!)
Enough for now,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 3:41 am: | |
Thanks for your response Alan.
I would just pick up one point. I do see a difference between the backyard at 29 Hanbury St and other sites. Leaving aside the interesting question of gates, Buck's Row and Mitre square both had alternative exists. The Hanbury St yard did not, bar vaulting a fence.
The only site which is a "dead end" (sorry about the pun) apart from 29, is Miller's Court. But that was indoors behind a closed door in relative seclusion. We know 29 was frequently visited or used (toilet was there, and people from No 29 and outside came in and out).
BIG RISK to "Jack" for me. Why did he take it? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:26 am: | |
I think as a colloquialism, "going down to Romford" encapsulates the entire round trip. as in "I spent all my money going down town", would include the journies there and back. I don't think there is an implication (necessarily) that he spent all his money getting TO Romford.
Just my interpretation though.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 414
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 12:49 pm: | |
Hi Suzi & Phil,
In the Pall Mall Gazette (London) of 14 November 1888 Hutchinson said: "On Thursday I had been to Romford, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street. Etc.”
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 3:33 pm: | |
Thanks Frank!!!!
God got a tad worried by that bracketing!!!!!
OK Got ya that makes a lot of sense.....thanks again!
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 417
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 5:16 pm: | |
You are quite welcome, Suzi!
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 718
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 5:31 pm: | |
Phil
My point was, and you have to bring the gates back from where you left them, that the Ripper may well have been intending to commit his murders in the yards that the gates led to, but was unable to on account of their being locked.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Phil,-look forward to more of your apt observations[as above].
I have pondered myself about this and as I understand it the back yard was accessible to anyone "in the know" simply through walking through the hallway/corridor of the Hanbury Street House.I think its the landlady herself who said the doors were not locked and that people did walk through from time to time -and I think it was also said that such people were as you said -using the yard for various purposes such as prostitution or relieving themselves.
Natalie |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 418
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:10 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
Another peculiarity about Hutchinson's description is that he managed to see and remember probably almost every detail about the man's clothing and everything else, but revealed nothing of real importance about the client's most important feature, his face.
True, he said the man had a moustache (heavy or slight), curled up, dark eyes, bushy eyebrows, no side whiskers, clean shaven chin and that he looked like a foreigner. But if the police would have arrested all men fitting this (facial) description, their police stations would have been crammed.
If Hutchinson was able to describe Mary Jane's client as well as the rest of what he witnessed in such detail, then why didn't he give some distinguishable facial features for the police to work with? Did the man have a round face, or was it rather long and narrow? Was it a fluffy face, or a rather bony one? Did he have a narrow nose or a wide one? Did he have full or narrow lips? Were there any marks on his face, like dimples, scars or moles? Did he have high cheekbones? Big ears, small ones? Good teeth, bad teeth, teeth missing, no teeth at all? Etc.
Yet, despite the very detailed rest of his description and account, the description is a blanc when it comes to the important facial characteristics. And that's another oddity, for me at least.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2676
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 7:03 pm: | |
Indeed, Frank, indeed.
very good points.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 120
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 3:22 am: | |
Hi all,
Suzi, you wrote:
"Hutch is of course the most 'imformative' of the imformants....maybe too much so ,some may believe.
However,there is certainly something here,as you say following his trek from Romford,(although do we know that he had done that trip during the preceding hours?)"
I don't know much about what he said about his trip to Romford, but with regards to him being suspected because he supposedly said too much, I think that's a bit rich.
He didn't make his statement until a while after Mary Kelly was killed, and thus, he did not appear at the inquest. It's quite reasonable to think that the main reason for this was that he was afraid of some way being tied to her killing.
If the way to treat witnesses is to treat them like suspects, then we won't got anywhere. Just because they saw something doesn't mean they are Jack the Ripper. Quite the opposite, it is thanks to them that we know anything about the characteristics of the Ripper at all, and Hutchinson certainly gave us the most detailed description. I believe him.
Frank, you wrote:
"Another peculiarity about Hutchinson's description is that he managed to see and remember probably almost every detail about the man's clothing and everything else, but revealed nothing of real importance about the client's most important feature, his face."
He said in his statement that the man basically tried to hide his face from Hutchinson as he walked past, he had to stoop down to see him, and he did describe him as having a stern expression at him.
"True, he said the man had a moustache (heavy or slight), curled up, dark eyes, bushy eyebrows, no side whiskers, clean shaven chin and that he looked like a foreigner. But if the police would have arrested all men fitting this (facial) description, their police stations would have been crammed."
How much more could he have said about him? He's given just about every detail he possibly could about his face and his clothing. Not to forget it was reasonably dark, infact, the only light was the lamp light he said he was leaning on. But we can't expect miracles from these witnesses - I don't think there is anything else he could have said.
"If Hutchinson was able to describe Mary Jane's client as well as the rest of what he witnessed in such detail, then why didn't he give some distinguishable facial features for the police to work with? Did the man have a round face, or was it rather long and narrow? Was it a fluffy face, or a rather bony one? Did he have a narrow nose or a wide one? Did he have full or narrow lips? Were there any marks on his face, like dimples, scars or moles? Did he have high cheekbones? Big ears, small ones? Good teeth, bad teeth, teeth missing, no teeth at all? Etc."
WHAT??????
OK, let's go back to the start.
He was walking past Hutchinson with Mary. Note: He was walking past. It's a wonder he saw as much as he did, in the space of no more than 5 seconds, how is he supposed to notice the size of his nose, the shape of his face, and a good analysis of his teeth? Yes, he followed them but note once again: He followed them, he would therefore only see them from back-on.
And if he was walking past, then the man would not have been looking directly straight at Hutchinson, he would still be kind of side on, so to tell the details of whether his face was narrow or round, or about his cheekbones would be impossible. How would he see things like dimples in such light? Besides, anyone can can screw their face up in a certain way and scars/lines/dimples will appear, instead of when you just have a relaxed face. And Hutchinson did describe his facial expression.
I really don't know what you expect of witnesses like Hutchinson. As I said above, we're lucky he saw as much as he did, let alone any more.
It's a bad way of going about things. Witnesses who don't say enough are criticized for hiding something, witnesses who say too much are accused of being Jack the Ripper, and some witnesses are accused of both of those in one.
And I don't think at that point Hutchinson would have been thinking that he may be looking at the man that was going to kill Mary.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2678
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 9:46 am: | |
Adam,
You may have a point regarding the facial features, actually. Furthermore, facial features are in fact rather hard to describe. Even ordinary descriptions of facial features in police material are to a very large degree rather thin and and says very little.
So I can acknowledge that we may not draw to hard conclusions from that.
Still, one of the greater problems with Hutchinsons' statement is the very detailed description. As I said earlier, I have read enough testimonies in order for such detailed renderings to arouse suspicion. To me the man he describes seems totally made up and constructed from the anti-semitic pictures of Jewish characters in the illustrated papers.
Hutchinsons' statement is not verified by others. We must not forget that Hutchinson had a very clear motive for coming forward himself and deliver a story that would make the police uninterested of his own whereabouts in the vicinity of the murder scene. The only thing we do know is that he stood outside the court for 45 minutes, according to himself. The reason for why he stood there -- as well as rest of his story -- seems like complete nonsense to me, possibly with the exception of the Romford trip. The fact that he met Mary Kelly is also unsupported by others and we don't know if he even knew her at all. Barnett never mentions him in his detailed account, and Hutchinson himself doesen't say that much about Mary Kelly in addition. I don't trust Hutchinson one bit and I think he is a very dark horse here.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 04, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 143
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:37 am: | |
Great idea for a board, but just to quickly point out that 'Key Question' is a phrase distinctly belongng to Kitty ( see 'Evidence for or against a conspiracy' ) who isn't too keen on being plaguerised. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2681
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:56 am: | |
Kitty,
Are you insane? Are you putting me on?
No one here is in the position to claim any "copy rights" of anything!
Read my lips: NOTHING here belongs to you!!!!!!
Have you any idea how often the term "key question" have been used before you entered the Boards?
Really, Kitty, I don't think I have ever come across such an incredible narcissist as you!
You are making a fool of yourself.
Get out of this board, Kitty. You and your craziness really have no business here.
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 04, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 146
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 12:08 pm: | |
Sorry, Glenn, no can do. You'll just have to get used to coherent opposition!
However, I have a busy life. I advise you to get one aswell!
For most of the time I expct you'll be able to speak here for as long and loud as you want!
I just hope someone's listening. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 769
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:52 pm: | |
Not only is she narcissistic to an unimaginable degree, she's thick too. Kitty, dear, you might want to check the date of the first post on this thread and then check the first time you used the phrase "key questions" on the conspiracy thread. Then you may want to apologise to Phil for "plagiarizing" him.
(Message edited by Ally on January 04, 2005)
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 148
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:10 pm: | |
Sorry, all. I've got things to do. 'key Question' is a very regular Kitty expression, I'm cool with that. I'm here on the other boards for good debates, when there are any. Anything else is a complete waste of time. No disprespect, I'm not going to engage with Phil and students of his level. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 770
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 4:40 pm: | |
How shocking that when asked to research the facts that disprove her claims, Kitty has better things to do.
Shocking, I tell you.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:10 pm: | |
Dear Kitty,
I Am Lost for words , why do you insist in coming across so argumentive and so destructive in your posts , we all have opinions on this subject , but we at least in the majority of times, endeavour to hear points of view, and respectively disagree , or agree.
You Madam [ although without any idea of your true personality] come across as a pompous, and self rightous person, that to be frank gets up everyones goat,[so to speak].
One of the main reasons i love these boards is the family aspect of the regular posters, that i respect enormously.
All we are asking Kitty, is to tone down the disrespect attitude of your posts, and start relaying actual reasons for your beliefs.
What more can be said.
Regards Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 419
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:11 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
“WHAT?????? Etc.”
I only listed so many questions about facial features to show how many there are. However, I said nor meant that I would have expected Hutchinson to describe each and every one I mentioned. But considering that he was obviously able to see and remember details like a horse-shoe pin, a red stone hanging from the watch and a strap around the small parcel, I would have expected him to have been able to mention at least one or two more important facial features as well. The fact that we got zip in that department seems out of proportion with the amount and substance of details he gave in the rest of his description.
Like Glenn said – and he hasn’t been the only one experienced with witness descriptions who said it - witness descriptions are hardly ever, if not never, as detailed as Hutchinson’s.
You yourself gave several very good reasons why the credibility of his description is to be doubted.
If MJK’s client tried to hide his face from Hutchinson, like you wrote, his hat somewhat over his eyes, how was he still able to see, know and remember that the man had dark lashes and bushy eyebrows? This seems especially odd if you consider that the light source was most probably behind the man’s head, casting a shadow over his face and especially the eyes.
We should indeed not forget, like you also said, that it was reasonably dark, and that in fact, the only light source was the lamp of the Queen’s Head public house.
Another thing you wrote was: “But we can't expect miracles from these witnesses.”
Yet, Hutchinson seems to have made one, delivering such a detailed account.
Then you wrote: “Note: He was walking past. It's a wonder he saw as much as he did, in the space of no more than 5 seconds, how is he supposed to notice the size of his nose, the shape of his face, and a good analysis of his teeth?”
I think it would have been a wonder indeed if he saw (and remembered) as much as he did. But doesn’t the same go for the horse-shoe pin, the red stone, the bushy brows, and not only for the size of his nose, etc.? He had no more than 5 seconds for them either.
“… note once again: He followed them, he would therefore only see them from back-on.
And if he was walking past, then the man would not have been looking directly straight at Hutchinson, he would still be kind of side on, so to tell the details of whether his face was narrow or round, or about his cheekbones would be impossible.”
If so, then I think it’s fair to say that the same would go for the rest of him and his features.
“And Hutchinson did describe his facial expression.”
Which means that to his own admittance he got a rather good look of his face. It seems rather strange then that he wouldn’t have been able to notice any facial feature at all, certainly considering that he was able to make out the bushy eyebrows that were half hidden under the brim of his hat.
It all becomes even stranger – in my view at least – if we consider that according to Hutchinson the wealthy man had put his right hand around her shoulders, which would mean that Mary Jane was positioned between the two men when the couple passed Hutchinson. This would make it hard for Hutchinson to notice anything at all about MJK’s punter, because she was blocking his view. It would also make the stooping Hutchinson is supposed to have done rather awkward.
The parts of Hutchinson's account that I guess to be true are his trip to Romford and back and that he waited for about 45 minutes opposite the entrance to Miller's Court for someone to come out of there, as this last bit was corroborated by Sarah Lewis. I have serious doubts about the rest.
"Witnesses who don't say enough are criticized for hiding something, witnesses who say too much are accused of being Jack the Ripper, and some witnesses are accused of both of those in one."
I don't recognize myself as having said something along any of those lines. I don't think Hutchinson told the truth, but that doesn't mean he was MJK's killer or Jack the Ripper. He may have been though, or just some crook, or he may have just feared becoming a suspect. I don't know.
Anyway, these are my views.
All the best, mate,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:20 pm: | |
I think, Frank, that it must have been twenty years ago that I said that anyone wearing a gold watch and chain in Dorset Street in 1888 wouldn't have made it past number one before being mugged.
No way was this guy in Dorset Street at night in Dorset Street wearing a visible watch, even a Timex.
The police reports of 1888 make it quite clear that even they wouldn't go down Dorset Street unless they were in a regiment.
Kitty just needs a rub and some treats now and then, she'll be okay then.
Her litter tray needs to be emptied as well. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2688
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 7:06 pm: | |
Richard,
Well written.
Frank,
A splendid post. I agree with every word of it. Not much further to add to those great comments.
AP,
regarding his cold chain and other stuff wouldn't last long in East End, I remember that line from you, and I am still convinced that you were absolutely right about that. I have also expressed that same opinion later.
"Kitty just needs a rub and some treats now and then, she'll be okay then."
You have always been an optimist... 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 152
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:52 am: | |
Let's be clear about one thing,
Kitty has a life, alot of mates, a good research project, academic success, a boyfriend, alot of great colleagues, loving family members, and good research of her own, and very interesting discoveries. That is why she is truly, genuinely, not atall interested in the few who want to spend their time discussing her on this board.
I thoroughly reccommend those who've nothing better to do that insult and moan about Kitty, get a life. It will definitely do them and their work some good. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 125
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:11 am: | |
Hi all,
Kitty, you wrote:
"Great idea for a board, but just to quickly point out that 'Key Question' is a phrase distinctly belongng to Kitty ( see 'Evidence for or against a conspiracy' ) who isn't too keen on being plaguerised."
Oh Kitty, do you never give up?
Like Glenn said, you don't OWN anything that you say (Whoops, sorry Glenn, I may have just "plageurised you". Sorry, Please forgive.)
Now, for the sake of Kitty, let's have a little look in the dictionary at what "Plageurise" means:
"Take (the work or idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own."
Well now, you should be able to tell already that Phil has not done that. It wasn't Phil's "work" in the first place, because he was ASKING us. Not TELLING us.
And then....once you get proven wrong, replies like these pop up from you:
"Sorry, all. I've got things to do."
And:
"However, I have a busy life."
I don't know why you even bother any more, Kitty. Everyone is awake to what you're up to. You don't mind insulting and accusing other members, but as soon as you get proven wrong, you claim you're "busy" - well, if you were just SO busy, then you wouldn't have the time to accuse members of things they never even did, would you?
"I thoroughly reccommend those who've nothing better to do that insult and moan about Kitty, get a life. It will definitely do them and their work some good."
The difference is what exactly? You've got nothing better to do than "insult and moan" about us members. You could get on so much better, Kitty, if you just took the advice of the rest of us.
But no. You continue to carry on as you did before. Next I'll be the one getting asked to leave on THIS thread too. If you haven't got anything constructive to add to threads, then don't post on them. We all know you are only trouble-making, attention-seeking and trying to big-note yourself. You're doing the opposite, you should know that by now.
Don't play innocent, Kitty. It should be obvious we all know your game by now. It seems everyone agrees on that.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 155
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:51 am: | |
No, there's a small group who're attacking people they don't know, who're boring us all silly. Adam, you seem to be one of them. No disrespect, but you can wait till the Moon Turns to cream cheese before anyone with any insight takes any notice of you and your silly boring campaign. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 126
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:56 am: | |
Hi again all,
Now, Frank, to get back to your response.
You wrote:
"But considering that he was obviously able to see and remember details like a horse-shoe pin, a red stone hanging from the watch and a strap around the small parcel, I would have expected him to have been able to mention at least one or two more important facial features as well. The fact that we got zip in that department seems out of proportion with the amount and substance of details he gave in the rest of his description."
Well I have to (reluctantly) agree with you there. But then again, remember, he was likely afraid of some way being implicated in the murder, and maybe he drew the line of saying TOO much. Perhaps he considered it not necessary to mention. It would be no use in police investigations anyway, because the Ripper obviously would have changed his clothes. He would have been able to see his body/clothes clearer than his face anyway. It's just fortunate he was leaning on a lamp at the time.
"If MJK’s client tried to hide his face from Hutchinson, like you wrote, his hat somewhat over his eyes, how was he still able to see, know and remember that the man had dark lashes and bushy eyebrows? This seems especially odd if you consider that the light source was most probably behind the man’s head, casting a shadow over his face and especially the eyes."
Because Hutchinson said in his testimony that he stooped down so that he could look at the man's face, that's why he could see it.
As for the light, if Hutchinson was leaning on the lamp post, I would have thought it would have partly shone right in the man's face. Unless it reflected a shadow off his hat. Light reflection is difficult to predict a lot of the time, so we can't be sure on this. But Hutch did atleast see his face. The details he described would not have been difficult to see anyway, regardless of the light.
"Yet, Hutchinson seems to have made one, delivering such a detailed account."
He followed him, so it would not have been so difficult to see some of the details of his clothes, etc. And as he turned corners, etc, he would partly see him again. We should thank Hutchinson for his detailed description, not disbelieve him for it, IMO.
"I think it would have been a wonder indeed if he saw (and remembered) as much as he did. But doesn’t the same go for the horse-shoe pin, the red stone, the bushy brows, and not only for the size of his nose, etc.? He had no more than 5 seconds for them either."
Well Mary and the man had to pass Hutchinson first, he was leaning on the post before they passed him, so he would have seen him before that. It's only his face he had to take note of as he passed. And he did quite a good job of that for the time that he had. I don't think his testimony is beyond belief at all, I would trust him more than some witnesses. I don't really believe in any of that "loss of memory" stuff either, it was only a few days later, I'd bet he wouldn't have forgotten things by then. People can remember stuff from 70 years ago that I know, as I've said before. It might be the general belief, but I don't believe that "loss of memory" plays a part in much - unless they get dimentia, alzheimers, etc.
"It all becomes even stranger – in my view at least – if we consider that according to Hutchinson the wealthy man had put his right hand around her shoulders, which would mean that Mary Jane was positioned between the two men when the couple passed Hutchinson. This would make it hard for Hutchinson to notice anything at all about MJK’s punter, because she was blocking his view. It would also make the stooping Hutchinson is supposed to have done rather awkward."
It depends what side of the street it was on. On one side, his right arm around her shoulders would have placed her between them, yes, but on the other side it would have put him closest to Hutch. So I am thinking it must have been on the latter side. Depending which way they were facing.
"I don't recognize myself as having said something along any of those lines. I don't think Hutchinson told the truth, but that doesn't mean he was MJK's killer or Jack the Ripper. He may have been though, or just some crook, or he may have just feared becoming a suspect. I don't know."
Oh no, I didn't mean you, I was just referring to the community as a general whole. But I agree with what you say, I think he feared becoming a suspect, so was hesitant.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 156
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:02 am: | |
It's interesting what lengths the bores here are prepared to go to, to attack and insult someone they don't even know who is using a pseudonym for discretion and carefulness. 'Kitty' could be three blokes for all they know. I suppose with the 'boring six' around , though, there's no chance of poverty in Spitalfields ever occuring again on quite the same level. There's enough hot air in coming out of their mouths to heat up East London for at least three winters. Same goes for their theorising. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 127
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:04 am: | |
Kitty, you wrote:
"No, there's a small group who're attacking people they don't know, who're boring us all silly. Adam, you seem to be one of them. No disrespect, but you can wait till the Moon Turns to cream cheese before anyone with any insight takes any notice of you and your silly boring campaign."
"Boring us all silly" ?? "You and your silly boring campaign" ???
Kitty, you make it sound like I'm running a Blitzkrieg here. And if you take a look at previous posts, you will clearly see that about 95% of posters who have responded agree with what I and others have said. I bet you that atleast 50 people would agree, want to take me up on it??
If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time. Each and every post you make like that only makes you look even less intelligent than almost everyone already considers you to be. You can evidence that for yourself, if you read posts properly.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 729
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:12 am: | |
Yes, in fact we have been duped. Kitty is, in reality, Don Rumbelow, Phil Sugden and Stewart Evans. Super wheeze guys, you had us all fooled!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 157
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:14 am: | |
y aa---aaa --aaawn!!! So many people who're desparate to get the last word.
I'm going to work. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 129
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:59 am: | |
Hi all,
Alan, you wrote:
"Yes, in fact we have been duped. Kitty is, in reality, Don Rumbelow, Phil Sugden and Stewart Evans. Super wheeze guys, you had us all fooled!"
My god, Alan!
You have solved the case! My congratulations! It's so obvious! Well, now we have solved an easy one, let's get back to the one that's important..
And it ain't not Kitty!
Kitty, you wrote:
"y aa---aaa --aaawn!!! So many people who're desparate to get the last word.
I'm going to work."
Oh, the usual excuse, I see.
Don't follow your usual trend and post another message 10 minutes after you have 'left' then. Wouldn't want you to be shown as a liar too now, would we?
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 771
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:28 am: | |
You know I wonder who is "us", as in "boring us all silly". I do find myself to be rather entertained actually. And she uses this word "boring" over and over and over (and over)again to describe people's constantly refuting what she claims. The facts are Boring folks! Let's focus on the fantasy! Works for me.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:22 am: | |
Kitty has a life, alot of mates, a good research project, academic success, a boyfriend, alot of great colleagues, loving family members, and good research of her own, and very interesting discoveries. That is why she is truly, genuinely, not atall interested in the few who want to spend their time discussing her on this board.
Kitty - what has this got to do with ANYTHING. read the posts and you'll see no one has attacked you. Our "gripe" (if I can call it that) is that you will not engage in solid debate. It is that which calls your "credentials" into question.
Seems like we touched a raw nerve though!!
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
