|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:27 pm: | 
|
Hi,
I Keep reverting back to the Murder Of Mjk, who is telling the truth..?.
a] Is it the witnesses such as mrs Cox, Sarah lewis, Mrs kennedy . Mrs prater, her friend Lottie, Maria Harvey, her friend Julia, George hutchinson, Maurice Lewis, and of Course joseph Barnett, not to mention the ace witness Mrs Maxwell.
Wow, we have a selection here, but each of them gave statements to there sightings on the evening of the 8th /9th November.
My argument does this sound like mjk, simply returning home from a non eventful evening, and it was simply a case of person or persons unknown perpretrated this murder [proberly one of the most sadistic in police investigations of all time].
I believe that the evidence that each witness was able to describe leads us to a solution .
However yours truely has not the brain capacity at this hour however young[ meaning time of day]
to understand and deciver this equasion.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3313
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
OK Richard-
The extensive cast above gave their statements re. the 8th/9th November because that was when they were asked for their recall!
All I get from these... (We'll put Mrs M and Maurice Lewis aside for the moment).. is that Mary was up and about for a deal of the night,seen with people various...beginning and end of story and statement...the veracity of these 'statements' of course is relevant to the 'attraction' of the Police/Press interviews and must have some relevance to the fifteen minutes of fame....[never disregard that!],especially when there may have been some sort of fiscal reward....not to be disregarded by any stretch in 1888 Whitechapel!
'A non eventful evening'...I feel that Mary's evening was by all accounts fairly 'eventful'....Let's (ignoring the afternoon!) just start with being in the room with Maria/Julia/or whoever?? and Joe turns up she then goes out and then we have My Carroty and Mr Astrakan ,bumping into Hutch (and who knows what else between these witnessed things)
That's pretty eventful I think especially as Mary was (allegedly) not too well!
There is no solution here Richard just a deal of confusing and confounded remarks
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:06 am: |
|
I'm not sure MJK's evening was "eventful" at all.
Look at the sociology of Whitechapel and Spitalfields as we know it from the other murders. I haven't time to look up the references, but a couple who lived in the building where Tabram was killed came home and then went out to buy in food. Nichols meets a chum on a street corner in the small hours, Chapman is out in relatively crowded streets in the early morning, and look at all the comings and goings in Millers Court that we know of.
These people, quite apart from the women plying their trade, kept very odd hours by our standards. Like villagers in my youth, they called on each other and went to the local pub at will.
Kelly may have changed her habits a little once Barnett moved out, but I suspect that she always had callers (Fleming) and clients when Joe was not there and more often after his departure.
If we knew as much about Kelly's days a week before her murder, as we do about the night of her death, I think we would see a very similar pattern.
This is where much more serious research into the society and context of these crimes is required. We simply don't really know enough about such things as patterns of life etc.
Phil |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hi,
I’m afraid before you can explore this any further you ought to define what you mean by terms such as ‘the truth’ or ‘a lie’
For example what is lying? Personally I define lying as saying something that is not accurate with the intention of deceiving.
For example if I tell you a certain film star appeared in a certain film, and it turns out I was mistaken, I wouldn’t count that as lying – simply in error.
As for the truth. That is harder to define. Is the truth defined as that which is accurate and correct – or correct in the sincere belief of the teller?
I am sure many of the witnesses made statements that they sincerely believed were accurate and correct – but in fact were in error. That doesn’t make them liars – that makes them wrong.
I believe for example that Maxwell was telling the truth. In other words she was a relating an incident that she honestly believed occurred- but I also believe that it didn’t!
The only person I would accuse of lying would be GH in that he deliberately said things that he knew were untrue and that he said them with the deliberate intention of deceiving people.
It is noticeable that apparently the police also came to share this view.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3314
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Hi,
This thread is developing well!!!!
Bob-
Myself and Abberline (first and only time you'll see us together!) obviously believe that GH was a 'credible witness' and that he was worth the time,something to be remarked on at this state of affairs in the murders.
Now ,if GH was lying.....why??????, to clear himself, re the Sarah Lewis statement??,and in which case the over elaboration is a mistake on his part. OR he had other reasons to distance himself from the murderer.
Have to think more about this.....but there is a problem surrounding GH which continues to wrangle....
Suzi
a)He was worth listening to |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
It is probable that each of these people was telling a version of the truth, as they saw it. However, people in police work acknowledge that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable which is why the critical evidence about a crime is scientific, forensic evidence not the testimony of witnesses.
Each of these people experienced something at a different time in the night, and each who spoke about movements in the court could be talking about different people coming in and out of the court in addition to Mary Jane Kelly herself. So what was witnessed may or may not have anything to do with the actual murder. This is the great weakness in the case, in that we have a lot testimony of men with the victims but no way of knowing usually, except perhaps in the case of Eddowes, whether the man seen with the victim was the murderer.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3315
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
There was a b) somewhere!
Suzi |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 78
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
We say that Abberline believed that GH was a credible witness. But would he alone have intervied GH? Were the other police officials taken in by his story as well? Would any of them have said, "Hey Fred, this guy's story is just too good to be true?" Would Abberline simply have ignored this admonition or would it have made him come to his senses? Something just doesn't seem right here.
c.d. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3316
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
cd-
Wouldn't it be good to have a picture of FGA!!
failing that..
All we have are the comments..his 28 pages of 'Reminiscences'' need I suppose to be looked at.........does anyone have such a joy??
Quote ..from FGA
..'Theories! we were almost lost in theories there were so many of them ' c 1892... THE BEST line ever!!!!!!!!!
Oh well what can we do ....go with the press????
.....doubtful.............
go with the police
...................doubtful
but maybe more interesting...............
or go with the locals which as has been said is still sadly.....well just not there!!!.....
...Every day takes us further from a grandparent who may have had some thoughts and memories..My Grandfather was a Stward on the White Star Line and SHOULD have sailed on the Titanic....,shall we say he was a little 'relaxed' in Liverpool and missed the boat train to Southampton to meet the ship.......by Grandmother didn't forgive him for 4 days.....until...........
AND then...the same thing happened in Machester when he missed the Lusitania!!!!!! LUCKY!!!!
[SAD-BUT.............
(My Grandmother was born in 1888....and my Junior School (St Denys in Southampton) built in the same year!....bad timing!)]
Oh well carry on chaps !
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3317
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Sorry about those spelling horrors there,,....kept adding bits and then posted it ...Oh well hope you get the gist!
Suzi x |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 53
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
"Now ,if GH was lying.....why??????"
To deflect suspicion away from himself and his dubious, loitering presence outside Crossingham's lodge just one hour before Kelly's cry of "murder" emanated from Miller's Court.
The over-elaboration can hardly be described as a mistake on GH's part. Anti-semetism ran rampant in the East End, and his statement merely pandered to that. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3321
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
If GH was 'lying' , it was obviously to deflect attention from himself....otherwise why lie?
'Dubious,loitering prescence'.... OK George's lurking act is 'odd',but no more than that, he had no money and was obviously committed to spending the night 'carrying the banner', and a nosey (OK) 45 minutes watching Mary's activities seems preferable to trudging the streets,especially as there may have been the tiniest possibility of a bed,when Mary's visitor left.
Anti-semitism was of course rife but that description,OK with some amti-semitic references is SO outrageous on closer inspection that almost anything could be considered..
Suzi |
Alan Friend
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Until such times as all files,mark that word,ALL files,are finally unearthed and released into the public domain,we will never be sure of the full unvarnished truth of practically anything involved in this whole nightmarish saga of Jack,aside from the basic facts concerning his deeds.Throughout the intervening decades since this real life horror story,every theory imaginable has been conjured up.-He was connected with royalty-He was some mad out of work actor-Freemasons anybody?-He was just some drunken nobody trying to get recognition by preying on prostitutes.Only a few of the countless notions,as I've said,and you dont need me to tell you how many books,short story anthologies,films,television shows and goodness only knows what else have been spawned by the events.Whilst some theories have an almost hypnotically compelling ring to them,and seem a lot more plausable than others,we simply do not know the real truth.The bandwagon,like the bandwagons of so many other things,got more and more out of control.Some of the most outlandish extremes of this are even an episode of the original Star Trek series,Wolf in the Fold,which revealed Jack to be an amorphous alien creature,able to assume human shape,and feeding off fear impulses,not to mention having a life span of centuries and moving from planet to planet,spreading his bloody reign and legend.Even Jack the Ripper figurines have been released,something which,if it had occured at or soon after the time of the murders,would have resulted in total outrage.Another example is the notorious murderer Peter Sutcliffe being referred to as the Yorkshire RIPPER.Where does it end?What of the theory that it wasn't a man at all,but a woman-Jill the Ripper?It is high time to face a somewhat unpalatable fact.WE MAY NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH.Then again,maybe that is as it should be.Where's the fun in a great mystery-with a solution? |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
Alright Richard,
I Do not know you, but I like you. I like your spirit. You have stood by your convictions. I respect that.
Lets get this out of the way. I do not think Maxwell saw Kelly at eight in the morning. I do not think she was lieing. The officials thought she was honest. However, they thought she was mistaken. I will go with that.
I have had a few drinks. sorry, but I think Lewis claimed to see Kelly around ten in the morning? No way my friend. I hesitate to call anyone a lier. so lets just say he was mistaken as well.
I believe Maria and Joe. I think they were with Kelly that afternoon. I think Joe may have lied a little. I feel they probably argued that day. He probably recented Maria being there. It is normal to argue with your girlfriend. Take my word for it.
I think Cox is probably the most reliable witness. I think there is no doubt that she saw Kelly that night with a man
I think most of the witness were telling the truth. However, I have come to believe that none of them saw the ripper. I think Kelly went out after three, and picked up her killer.
I know you think Joe killed Kelly, and he may have, but he killed her after three and before four.
Keep up your research. I wish you the best, and if you are right I will buy you a drink.
Your friend Brad |
Alan Friend
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Until such times as all files,mark that word,ALL files,are finally unearthed and released into the public domain,we will never be sure of the full unvarnished truth of practically anything involved in this whole nightmarish saga of Jack,aside from the basic facts concerning his deeds.Throughout the intervening decades since this real life horror story,every theory imaginable has been conjured up.-He was connected with royalty-He was some mad out of work actor-Freemasons anybody?-He was just some drunken nobody trying to get recognition by preying on prostitutes.Only a few of the countless notions,as I've said,and you dont need me to tell you how many books,short story anthologies,films,television shows and goodness only knows what else have been spawned by the events.Whilst some theories have an almost hypnotically compelling ring to them,and seem a lot more plausable than others,we simply do not know the real truth.The bandwagon,like the bandwagons of so many other things,got more and more out of control.Some of the most outlandish extremes of this are even an episode of the original Star Trek series,Wolf in the Fold,which revealed Jack to be an amorphous alien creature,able to assume human shape,and feeding off fear impulses,not to mention having a life span of centuries and moving from planet to planet,spreading his bloody reign and legend.Even Jack the Ripper figurines have been released,something which,if it had occured at or soon after the time of the murders,would have resulted in total outrage.Another example is the notorious murderer Peter Sutcliffe being referred to as the Yorkshire RIPPER.Where does it end?What of the theory that it wasn't a man at all,but a woman-Jill the Ripper?It is high time to face a somewhat unpalatable fact.WE MAY NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH.Then again,maybe that is as it should be.Where's the fun in a great mystery-with a solution? |
AAH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
But then, of course, Mr. Hinton, Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper - wasn't he? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
