|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 11:59 pm: |       |
After reading the account of Annie Farmer I am convinced she was not a Ripper "almost victim". Does anyone out there actually think the man in question could have been the Ripper? |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 625
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
I am currently transcribing an article about the Farmer incident> After the usual description of the attack the passage below was attached without further comment. Anyone know more about this please?
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 433
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 11:15 am: | |
Hi Eric,
No I agree; it's seems rather unlikely that the Ripper could be blaimed for that one. If the statement about the incident is true (that she had hidden coins in her mounth), I think the assumption that she tried to decieve the man and frame him by shouting "The Ripper", and that he then became furious, is a more believable one.
Sorry, Chris. Didn't mean to overlook your post, but I have no clue whatsoever. It would be interesting to find out who the bloke was, but I assume it was just another drunkard.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 5:17 am: | |
I don't think for one second that the man in question was JTR, however, I suppose that, after realising she was stealing from him, the man MAY have attacked her but, even if he had, which I don't even think he did, I don't see the ripper leaving someone alive. If it had been the ripper, surely he would have mutilated the throat like his other vitims and not just grazed it. So I agree with you both, I don't think she was an "almost" ripper vitim.
Sorry Chris, I have no idea with regards to your post. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2622
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Chris, there's this small item :
"Times" Nov 22nd 1888 :
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 534
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:03 am: | |
What makes this article particularly interesting is the fact that the suspect put up (potentially deadly) resistance. This would generally be an indication of probably guilt since an innocent man would be more likely to go quietly and trust that he would be exonerated. Of course, even if the suspect were guilty of something it doesn't mean he was JtR.
Are there any other JtR suspects who put up a fight with a weapon upon being arrested? I cannot think of any.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on June 28, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2630
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
Hi Andy
Well, according To Swanson Kosminski was taken away with his hands tied behind his back, which seems to indicate violence, albeit there is no mention of his using a weapon (at least when he was taken away).
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 535
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 1:43 pm: | |
Robert,
I had forgotten about that statement with regard to Kosminski. Maybe I'm reading something into it, but I have always assumed his hands being bound were due to a general violent lunacy on his part rather than a coherent effort to resist arrest.
But I was really thinking of any other suspect who resisted arrest with a weapon.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2632
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Andy, I can't think of one. There's Henry Taylor on the Leather Apron thread, but I wouldn't necessarily call him a JTR suspect yet.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 537
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Let's clarify things a bit here. The above article does not seem to refer to the Farmer incident, but to one that happened the next day (Nov 22 at 1 or 2 AM).
If this is not the Farmer incident, then this bears some investigation. Wouldn't it be quite possible that JtR's luck finally ran out and that he became careless enough to allow a potential victim to sound the alarm? Note that he was captured at the Truman Brewery, near Chapman's murder site. I'd like to know more. I wish those arrest records still existed.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2633
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 6:40 pm: | |
Hi Andy
Yes, it would be nice to know more. I'll keep my eyes open in case he re-surfaces in the "Times". One thing seems clear, though : to judge from the article in the "East Anglian Daily Times" Nov 26th, quoted in the Sourcebook, the police didn't connect the incident with the Farmer incident - the article says that nothing further of the man (who attacked Farmer) has been seen.
Re the various arrests taking place at the time, I suppose one is tempted to say that none of the men concerned could have been the Ripper, as the police were on the spot and were best placed to judge. On the other hand, though, it's quite possible that Jack made an occasional botched or aborted attack, and either escaped or managed to talk himself out of trouble - at least as far as being JTR is concerned.
It would be nice to find someone convicted of a relatively less violent offence around, say, Oct 9th, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment!
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 538
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Well actually...
One of the suspects arrested could have been the Ripper. For example take our man above. He was arrested for assaulting a woman. The police might have been convinced that he was JtR, but without any evidence connecting him to the murders they could not prosecute. Remember that at the time of the London Monster (William Rhenwick in 1790) stabbing ladies with a knife was not even a felony! In order to charge Rhenwick with something more than a misdemeanor, he had to be brought up on charges of defacing the ladies' garments (which he did when his knife penetrated). Incredibly, stabbing was a misdemeanor but defacing someone's garment was a felony! Perhaps things had changed a bit by 1888, but the suspect still would have gotten off easy if all they could charge him with was simple assault.
Andy S. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2649
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
Hi Andy
What you said about our bizarre legal system rang a bell. I'm sure I remember once hearing that, up until a certain time, bodysnatching wasn't illegal! If you removed a corpse from the ground, your only crime would consist in stealing the clothes - the shroud or smock. In other words, if you stripped the corpse naked and were careful to leave all clothes, lockets etc in the grave before taking the body away, you were in the clear.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 540
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 1:34 pm: | |
To correct myself, The London Monster was Rhenwick Williams and not William Rhenwick! Sorry.
But attempted murder was not a felony in 1790.
I would not be surprised if JtR was at one time in police custody during the time of the murders or immediately after. Without hard evidence, they would not be able to hold him.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on July 06, 2004) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
