|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 1:52 pm: |       |
Hi,
I read a press report a few days ago, which i found intresting [I am in the process of trying to find the source] that mentions that at 10.10am on the morning of the 9th november 88 a man was on his way to work via Mitre square, when a man rushed into him in a excitable manner, he noticed that his face contained several streaks of blood, and his collar was heavily bloodstained, he also carried a paper parcel under his arm.
He at that moment did not think about the murder, as it had yet to be discovered.
My Point is as the time was 10,10am that could possibly be ascribed to the killer of Kelly if she was killed after Maxwells sighting.
Also as the bloodstained man was rushing through Mitre square, we could draw conclusions that he lived close by, and may well have sought that route on September 30th after killing Stride, and as eddowes was seen in the immediate area could have come upon her whilst fleeing to his place of refuge.
Of course people will say' He may have cut himself shaving, or he may have been attacked in the street just previously, but the fact is kelly was reported to have been seen alive that morning, and a man showing a excitable nature covered in blood happens to be passing through Mitre square in a obvious hurry , the scene of the previous murder, is well worth a second glance.
Regards Richard. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 169
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
You wrote:
"Of course people will say' He may have cut himself shaving, or he may have been attacked in the street just previously"
Don't forget the more reasonable explanations that he was one of the many butchers who worked in the area, or that the alleged witness may have been lying, or that the press report may be completely unreliable.
Butchers worked in the area. People were saying that they could walk about with blood on themselves without drawing undue attention (as seems to have happened in this case until someone later heard of Ripper and remembered the Mitre Square link), so when you have someone who is doing just that, there's no reason whatsoever to link it to the Ripper killing.
Also, lots of people sought publicity during these murders by inventing totally bogus stories, either to sell papers or to feel important. These kinds of press reports are almost as unreliable as the folklore and legends that evolved later.
A dubious report that conveniently just happens to be in the location of the previous crime and is from a time of day that doesn't match reliable reports of the murder that happened earlier (and is just unlikely anyway -- Jack would clean his face of and would walk around in daylight and not get noticed by anyone but this one person...?) just doesn't sound like the sort of thing worth investing too much faith into.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 52
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
Thomas Bowyer said at the inquest of Mary jane Kelly that he noticed her speaking to a suspicious man on the night of Wednesday 7th November around the time that she purchased the half penny candle from McCarthy's. Bowyer only noticed the gentleman, because his white cuffs and shirt collar were quite prominant. He also said that the collar did stand out. If and it's a really big IF, this chap may be a Ripper suspect, then the blood stained collar would have been noticable. But for only one person as per the press report to see this "suspect" he must have lived very close by, as I cannot imagine any one else not seeing him, especially at that time in the morning.
Busy Beaver  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 969
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi Dan,
Firstly this individual that claimed to have bumped into a strange man, remarked that he was respectably dressed, not the apron stained butcher, I am obviously aware that people liked to attention seek , however here we have an alleged witness who claims to have seen a man of shall we say of' Excitable appearence' rushing through the very same square as the previous murder[ like may he well have done after leaving Berner street on sept 30th] carrying a parcel under arm which could or[mayby not] contained all sorts of horrendous contents.
As for getting to Mitre Square and beyond without being seen, he proberly was seen , however no murder had been present in whitechapel for weeks, and so why take particular notice?.
I was trying to make sense of all the facts known, and taking the time , and location, i cannot dismiss this report as frivolous.
Regards Richard. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 263
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Hello Richard,
Let us look at just a couple of points of this anonymous man's story.
He was in an excitable state: what does that mean?
Probably, that by his facial expression and general demeanour he conveyed an impression of panic or shock.
He was carrying a package wrapped in paper:
this by itself does not arouse suspicion, but coupled with the other images conjured by our anonymous informant, suggests the package could have contained knives.
His face was streaked with blood and his collar
heavily bloodstained: given that the Ripper had previously slipped through tight cordons of watching police, presumeably by not being conspicuous, the image presented could not have been more obtrusive had he been painted a luminous orange and blown a rusty bugle.
The really startling point about this story is ,surely, that he had not been beaten to death by an outraged mob (think of the Leather Apron)
before he had reached Mitre Square.
Of course, this man MAY have been the Ripper, and, after all, most police and vigilante people would have retired to their beds after all-night
watches by 10 a.m. but, until we can read the original newspaper account it would be hard to credit this extraordinary collision of Ripper symbols - all in the one place.
But please dont be dejected Robert ,I've been wrong many times before! |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 264
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:23 am: | |
And please don't be dejected Richard.You see I have been wrong since! Sorry for calling you Robert, Richard. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 12:13 pm: | |
Chaps,
I suppose it also depends on which direction this guy was rushing!
Monty
....all good pals and jolly good company !! |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 810
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
Hi, Monty
Who said the man was Russian? 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 3:21 am: | |
Hi John,
Oh I do not feel rejected, a couple of points also, As Monty states it would depend on which way the guy was rushing ie, towards Dorset street or away, regarding the blood stains we should remember that there had been no murder since september 30th, and at 10.10am that morning the discovery of kelly had not been made, infact people in the area were more complacent then previously.
I would have thought that if the murder had happened light hours, then the killer would have hardly walked casually away from millers court, infact his safety would have insisted that he made haste.
I started this thread because i believed it was some kind of possible comformation that kelly was killed after 9am,and therefore would give some kind of credence to Maxwell and co.
Regards Richard,
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1258
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 4:54 am: | |
Chris,
I dont wish to know that....
....kindly leave the stage !!
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five ! |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 548
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I hope you do find the reference; it is interesting. However, it doesn't seem to me that this alleged man's behavior is consistent with that of an escaping murderer. To carry a paper parcel out in the open containing the murder weapon(s) is absolutely foolish. If he is a respectably dressed man in November he is surely wearing a greatcoat or overcoat of some sort. A killer would at least conceal his weapon(s) under that article of clothing. It may be true that the murder had not yet discovered -- but remember, the killer didn't know that. He would have no way of knowing how long it would take for the crime to be discovered and so would have to take precautions from the time of this escape.
Also, there is a logistical problem. Assuming this is the same man who killed Eddowes, he seem to be travelling in the wrong direction. If he fled from Mitre Square to Goulston Street that night, why is he fleeing in the opposite direction, from Miller's Court to Mitre Square, now?
Andy S. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Hi Andy,
your last paragraph is simply explained, if , and i repeat if this man was the killer of Kelly, he would be fleeing from Dorset street to his point of refuge, and IF this man was a certain Barnett, after killing Eddowes he would be returning to Dorset street.
This is pure speculation, but i just thought it strange that at 10,10am on the morning of the 9th november, some 35 minutes before the body of kelly was discovered, a man in a excitable state with heavy bloodstains on his shirt collar, and blood splashes on his face, was seen to be hurrying through Mitre square the scene of the previous murder, carrying a paper parcel under his arm[ i never suggested that this parcel contained blood soaked knives]
Regards Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 554
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
Richard,
Fair enough, you did not say the parcel contained weapons. But that's clearly the implication -- even if not your implication -- of the parcel's mention. If it doesn't contain something of an implicating nature, they why would the killer bother with a parcel at all? And if it is of an implicating nature, why would he not conceal it?
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on August 03, 2004) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
Hi Richard,Andy and all
I dont believe it was uncommon for witnesses to claim to see a man with a parcel. I believe that PC William Smith claimed to see a srange man carring a parcel in the Stride case and I know I have read others I just can not site them correctly by memory so I will not try. The implication has always been that the parcel was concealing a weapon. It is not the fact that the person claimed that the man he saw running through the streets was carring a parcel that bothers me with the story. Of course it is the time of death and maybe the fact that the gentleman claimed that the strange man was running. A running person would attract more attention then a walking man would. I believe the ripper knew how not to draw attention to himself.
I am sure some of you have seen the A&E special The Hunt For Jack The Ripper. I have watched this special many times. All the major ripper historians participate in the show, and I found it interesting. The show claims one thing I am not sure about and when Richard mentioned this newspaper article I felt the need to ask. The shows claimed that the man that Cox saw Kelly with was carring a parcel. My question to all is has there ever been any reference to the fact the man that Cox saw Kelly with was carring a parcel or was this just a mistake that the show made.
All the best,CB |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 993
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 4:06 am: | |
Hi CB,
According to the statement issued Cox saw a blotchy faced man carrying a quart of ale[ not a parcel] Huchinson claimed the man was carrying a small parcel wrapped in american cloth.
I Have never believed that statement report which allegedly came from cox.
I believe what Mrs coxs neice told Dan farson many years ago that being he was a 'real toff' which is why the police believed Hutchinson when he came forward after the inquest, and why the original suspect Joseph Barnett was not considered.
Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 147
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:28 pm: | |
Richard,
Why do you believe something supposedly told by Mrs. Cox's niece to Dan Farson? And do you mean to suggest by your last post that a 'toff' topped the police's suspect list? Then explain Kosminski, Chapman, Issenschmid, Sadler, Pizer, Swanson early comment (in Stride report) that he suspected a Jew (i.e. not a 'toff'), and the millions of pieces of other evidence that suggests the police thought, above all others, the Ripper would end up to be a poor Lunatic of some type. But you're suggesting Barnett was disgarded as a suspect simply because Hutchinson said the Ripper was a 'toff' and the police ate it up because they wanted to? Who wrote your edition of 'The Ultimate JTR Companion'? Tom Slemen? What are your sources?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:51 am: | |
Hi Tom,
I believe that up to the discovery of Mary Kelly the police were looking for a working class man of shabby genteel appearance, or since Eddowes a person of sailor like appearance.
But Mrs coxs account if the true account was one she told her neice [not the one the police released] altered drasticaly their way of thinking, that is why a policeman remarked during that period[ Mrs Paumier?]'We are looking for someone different' which would have enhanced on the monday evening after Hutchinsons statement.
I am of the opinion that the police believed that kelly fell into the hands of the ripper around midnight , on seeing kelly was a likely target with her own secluded room left her to fetch his weapon[ weapons] which they believed was the small parcel that hutchinson saw the astracan man with.
Because of this they took Hutchinson very seriously, and Barnetts interview was disregarded.
Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 148
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
If they did, in fact, take Hutchinson 'very seriously', then that would indicate that in the pocket of her dress, which was found neatly folded and undisturbed, there rested a red handkerchief. Something tells me there wasn't, though, and that is why, although the police, as they should, took his statement seriously enough to investigate it, eventually discarded it.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 1:31 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my post. I guess the A&E special mixed the stories of Cox and Hutchinson together. There have been lots of stories of witnesses claiming to see a man carring a parcel. Maybe the ripper did carry a parcel.
All the best,CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi Richard and Tom,
There could be another reason the police took George Hutchinsons description serious. Chris Scott started a thread called American suspect. This thread is located under suspects then go to general discusion. There we find out that a well dressed tall American was arrested on october 4th on suspicion of being JTR. He was realeased after questioning.
It is possible that the police took GH's description serious because of the way he claimed the man was dressed. [Like you suggest Richard] The man that was arrested on October 4th was dressed similiar. I of course am about to mention the name of Tumblety. I wonder why Tumblety was suspected at all for being the whitechaple fiend. He doese not match the descriptions given by witnesses. He doese not match the age given by witnesses. However the police still arrested him on suspicion. I realise that th Police brought alot of suspects in for questioning, but Tumblety was not the kind of shabby genteel nor was he a sailor. Why was Tumblety a suspect at all? Tumblety I believe was arrested soon after GH came forward with his description. [Itis unclear to me if George came forward before Tumblety was arrested or after but it is possible that the police held Hutchinsons description and the fact that he came forth from the press untill they had picked up Tumblety] Could Tumblety have been arrested because he was a toff and he was in fact the American that was arrested October 4th his s manner of dress was similiar to the man that George described. Could it be that Tumblety was picked up because what Richard has written is true and the description of the man that Cox saw and later described to her niece was that of a toff and matched the description of the American that was arrested on October 4TH. [The American being Tumblety] Lets steel from Richard's theory. Tumblety meeets Kelly outside the pub. I assume a violet I plucked from my mothers grave was playing in the pub. The song is stuck in Kelly's head. She is drunk. She meets Tumblety. They go back to her place. Tumblety taken of guard by there meeting doese not have his knife. He leaves. Kelly has dodged a bullet. Unfortunately she goese back out. Spends the money that Tumblety had given her. She goese back out on the street. She meets Dr. Tumblety now with his knife. They go back to her place spotted by Hutchinson. This of course is all in fun but the fact remains Tumblety was suspected. Why was he? Maybe he was picked up because Cox's description was different from her testimony [But why have her testify at all at the Inquest if they wanted to keep the description under wraps] Maybe they did take George Hutchinsons description serious and he describe a similiar manner of dress as the man that was arrested on October 4th.. Maybe an under cover policeman on the street saw Kelly with Tumblety the night she was murderd and reconised him as the man that was arrested on october 4th, or just maybe the description that GH made and the description of the toff that Cox described [If a fact] or the man that the policeman saw was of similiar dress as Tumblety when he was picked up for gross indecency on the 7th. I belive that Tumblety was picked up because he was reconised either by George's description or a policeman saw him in the company of Kelly. George's description matched the way Tumblety was dressed when he was picked up on the 7th or a policeman reconised him as the man arrested on the 7th.
All the best,CB
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
