|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Local Suspects The Answer?.
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Local Suspects The Answer?.
Author: Jeff D
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 02:33 pm |        | Hello all !
David.... No I haven't forgotten anything. I did say I would explain further in due course.
Graziano; I was sincerely hoping for some good arguments against my posting. Splitting hairs over use in various terminology was not what I had intended.
I have seen theories built using every kind of suspect from the gutters to the palace. All I am saying is that "is something that was noticeable enough that a witness actually remembered it, not worthy of further consideration". Here we have a gentleman that had something about his face or his complexion that was memorable. Some people go red in the sun, others brown. Is this the extent of your argument?
I genuinly believe that these two descriptions are of one and the same man. I would love to hear peoples opinions on these 2 incidents, but discussing the difference between sunburnt and blotchy was not exactly what I had in mind. If you were a policeman, would you assume everything that a witness told you was correct. Would you take everything so literally that there could only ever be one interpretation? Pleeeze !
Jeff D |
Author: graziano
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 04:39 pm | | Jeff D,
doesn't blotchy-face mean something like red spots on the face and sunburnt a kind of taint uniformally spread all over the surface ?
Why would something memorable concerning the face (even if, as in the case you mentioned, not quite the same something) be important and not a wideawake hat ?
I know, I know, Jeff D, these are little points and you certainly deserve better.
Something like a Donald Rumbelow coming here and telling to all of us that yes, you did it, you found the point that proves beyond doubt that the Seaside Home witness couldn't have been other than the little jewess Rose Bierman.
There is only a little problem Jeff D, Donald Rumbelow does not come.
And the Seaside Home witness was a man.
In the meantime please accept my deepest apologize for having intervened in your thouroughful (or something like that) theory
with my little useless s**ts.
Accept from me a virtual apron to clean all the faecal matter I indecently spilt over it.
Go on son, what's next, the colour of Elizabeth Prater cat ?
Do you (genuinely) believe it was black or white ?
All over the body ?
As far as I am concerned, if one wants to have "serious" discussions, details must be cleared up before beginning.
If you begin stating "sunburnt" and "blotchy-face" are one and the same thing, it will be hard to put up whatever serious thing you would like.
Oh dear, dear, dear...
Modesty, where do you hide on these boards ? |
Author: Orchetanna
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 08:10 pm | | Graziano
suntanned, is a darkeming of the skin
sunburnt , is a reddening of the skin and yes it can be blotchy, but perhaps the Victorians used the same word for both?
Jeff
considering the dates,
ada wilson march - MJK november,I dont think blotchy face was likely to get sunburnt in England
so he would have to be a travelling man, one whos work took him away as he doesnt appear to be financially well off,he could have course have been a sailor, (sigh) i've allways thought of him as a podgy little man so it doesnt really fit the bill,
a ships cook maybe ?
wonder if the crew enjoyed the kidneys .....
(smiley face)
Anna
P.S. prolonged exposure to the sun lightens the hair |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 08:19 am | | Hello all !
Sorry about the semantics Graziano. The thing is, Mr. Blotchy face had never been ruled out of police enquiries and throughout all of my readings on this subject, something about Mr. Blotchy face just won't go away. We even have witnesses who supposedly saw Mary Kelly on the morning after she had been brutally murdered, my real argument is that we can never totally trust everything that a witness says, but there is always some truth in there.
I have tried experimenting, like when walking past a group of youths or see someone just walking along, I try to remember what that person looked like a few hours later and write it down. It is really difficult but there are some characteristics that do stand out. Like the type and possibly the colour of the persons coat, did they wear a hat, etc., etc., It is very difficult, even when I am purposely trying to remember. When remembering the face, it is even worse. We walk past 10's, even 100's of people every day and rarely do we take notice.
The hat is a good example and is actually something that can be remembered reasonably accurately. Whenever there is a witness sighting of the possible killer, there does appear to be a different hat described each time and I wonder whether this is intentional. Annie Chapman, for example, a man was seen talking to the victim, wearing what appeared to be a deerstalker-type hat. The witness sighting at the entrance to Mitre Sq. noticed a cloth cap with a peak, etc., etc. A few things that do appear to be consistent with witness sightings of a particular individual are the fair/reddish hair, 5'7" or so tall, fair/reddish moustache, shabby-genteel sort-of appearance with dark coat and light trousers. People with red hair do tend to have a complexion that reacts quite badly to the sun and often get burnt and go red don’t they?
I am sorry to have taken you wrong and I hope you will accept my apologies for what appeared to be such a brusque rebuttal Graziano. This was not my intention. I have had some very good discussions here on these boards and I have a great deal of respect for those who take the time to post their opinions, questions or arguments here. There is enough knowledge on this site even without the contributions of Mr. Rumbelow and I hope to always show respect for every persons opinion. It is the silly, some-times offensive arguments that I have seen here that I have no time for. Again, please join in and pick out the holes in my argument, that is why I post these items and it is through this kind of open, honest debate that I have learned so much about this series of horrific crimes.
Many Regards
Jeff D |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 08:47 am | | No apologies needed, Jeff D, because no offense taken.
But yes, your post seemed brusque to me, so I tried to answer in the same way, but not for vengeance, just to stay in the same tone.
Rereading my post I feel it could have given you the impression I took your point as a ridiculous one.
Hope you understand this is not the case at all.
That's why I spoke of Rose Bierman.
After all, if you are right, she could have been the only person to have really had a good look at Jack.
Aside, of course, of Ada Wilson.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 11:37 am | | Jeff,
Are you aware of the suspect 'John Anderson'? This may very well have been the 'blotchy-faced man'. I just got done doing a little write up on him.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 11:51 am | | Tom,
Pray, tell us more.
Intrigued Monty
 |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 12:23 pm | | HiYa Everybody !
Tom; I would love to check out this recent write-up of yours, I'm with Monty, and would be pleased to hear more !
Jeff D |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 12:34 pm | | Jeff, Monty,
Tom's write up is probably in the next issue of 'Ripper Notes'. Till then, do a Keyword Search on the name John Anderson. C.T. George has contributed several good posts on this interesting suspect.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 12:09 am | | Kevin,
I didn't realize you had replaced CM Digrazia as editor of RN. Actually, my intention for the write-up is to include it in my book (although, oddly enough, I am considering submitting this particular portion to RN). One section will be devoted to discussing suspects not yet explored in books, including Anderson, Charles Cross, and Frank Cater. The main pulse will be exploring D'Onston in a new light, particularly some excellent evidence that he wrote some of the primary Ripper letters. Chris George is of the same opinion. But anyway, if Chris George has already posted info on Anderson on these boards I second the suggestion to do a search. To post it all here would be grueling. However, if anyone would like, just post your email address here and I'll email you the article from 1896 that opened the can of worms on Anderson.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 07:35 am | | hello jeff,
It's interesrting to hear you points regarding witnesses observations.
A few years ago psychologists carried out an experiment to test just how observant the average person was.A group of volanteers were told that they each were required to sign a form of consent to an experiment,the nature of which was not disclosed.
However they were
assured that nothing realy nasty was going to happen to them.
On the day of the experiment,each participant was asked to enter a room, sign the consent form and then leave the room ready for the next person to do the same.
As each person entered the room they were met by a man wearing a red shirt,standing behind a counter.Unbeknown to each participant was the fact that there was a second man crouched down behind the counter wearing a blue shirt.
The man in the red shirt greeted each person,commented on something trivial like the weather,then told them he would get their consent form.
He then crouched right down below the tall counter.
The man in the blue shirt then stood up and presented the participant with the consent form to sign.
incredibly,out of the 20 people who took part in the experiment,only 2 actually noticed the swap!
The other 18 didn't bat an eyelid!
It was later observed that the two who did notice the swap were slightly more nervous in their nature than the others.
I personally find this almost unbelievable,but it was all genuine.
My coclusion is that the two people that were least relaxed spotted the swap straight away because they were more likely to have been on their gard and were therefore more observant because their inbuilt protection mechanism required them to be.
The point is,the vast majority were totaly ignorant as to what was going on!
Regards,
Mick |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 03:47 pm | | John Omlor, are you still there ?
It took me twenty hours or so (I never said I was fast) but I got it.
Now I understand the joke.
Hope Donald Rumbelow will forgive my misuse of english.
In any case I swear I never spoke with his wife.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Robeer
Friday, 05 April 2002 - 10:41 pm | | JtR may have lived in the City jurisdiction but committed crimes in Met territory knowing the mentality of the police. Instinctivly the Met would assume that JtR lived in their patch and would concentrate their investigation in their own jurisdiction. The only murder attributed to JtR was the second of the double event. He hotfooted out of Met territory to commit this one murder in his own backyard. Was any detective at the Met thinking the same thing and could this be why a possible Met stakeout was set up in City territory, perhaps at Mitre Square?
The obvious question would be: "What about Goulston Street?" The answer should be just as obvious: to lead the police away from his home base and convince them he lived somewhere in Met territory. He would want to convince the City police of the same thinking. |
|
|
|
|
