|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 797
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 8:52 am: | 
|
Hi Tom,
Thanks for that extraction from Dr. Brown's post mortem notes.
The reason why I, and perhaps others, said that Dr. Brown felt Eddowes' killer had no great anatomical skill is that Dr. Saunders deposed at the inquest that he agreed with Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira that the wounds were not inflicted by a person of great anatomical skill. I have to admit that I wrote my previous post before checking what Dr. Brown actually stated.
What Dr. Saunders deposed contradicts what you wrote, however, the "JtR Sourcebook" doesn't have Dr. Brown explicitly talk about medical knowledge. It talks about a great deal of knowledge, knowledge likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals.
Anyway, I think Swanson was right when he wrote in his report of 6 November that the mutilations gave no evidence of anatomical knowledge in the sense that it evidenced the hand of a qualified surgeon. I think JtR was at least someone with a serious interest in the female body, who might have learned something about it through medical texts and drawings, but that he wasn't necessarily someone with a professional medical background.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Sir Bob posited the idea that GH comes forward primarily due to being seen in the vicinity.
This allows both sides of the pro/con argument some "space". It doesn't nab him or let him off the hook.
Since he's walked from Romford and in the rain [ who is going to remember him and later mention seeing GH during this ?]...he essentially doesn't have an alibi for the 2-3 hours or so [ walking at a 5 mph clip ] he spent going back to the East End, other than his own word for it. Being young and aware of his status [prole] in the eyes of the police and having been seen in the general vicinity of Millers Court by a local..he needs a good alibi and rather quickly.
This is where the extraordinarily detailed description of Astrakhan Man is born. Someone from a different ethnic group...a different financial status....a different physical type...a different age group. Essentially,someone who is the antithesis of himself.
Mr.Hinton,to me, is correct that GH is the only known suspect in the Case who can be put at the scene of any of the crimes. He IS a suspect,solely because of HIS conscious decision to BE a suspect.
Even if he definitely had been seen, and been guilty or otherwise,there was nothing that forced him to go to the police three days later,since it WAS three days later.
The hypothetical person[s] who may or may not have seen him evidently did not report seeing him. This three day span also would indicate to GH that he was off the hook. Nothing,to me at least,after reading what I have about GH [ from here and from Wroe ]...coerced him to become a suspect as he has become. What prevented a guilty or not guilty Hutchinson from leaving the East End? Nothing.
This scenario is respectful of both sides of the issue.
Sir Bob also mentions the ease in which Anderson [ the slightly older one ] is often dismissed for his statements regarding certain matters. Thats good. They deserve to be, as well as Hutchinson's statements do.
On the basis of his location,GH is the best suspect in the case for at least one murder,other than the Astrakhan Man.
In short,while others wrote letters to the police and press falsely incriminating themselves , here we have a man who walks right into the lion's den and takes a chance at being blamed for the Kelly murder.
This allows for the possibility that Kelly's murder was not one of the C5 murders. This could explain what Senor Wescott was referring to about the efforts made in other murders to take organs and then use or discard them. There is no proof that any organ was taken away and out from that room. The fire may have taken care of that issue.....
Happy new year to one and all.... |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 698
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
"Mr.Hinton,to me, is correct that GH is the only known suspect in the Case who can be put at the scene of any of the crimes. He IS a suspect,solely because of HIS conscious decision to BE a suspect. "
I would suggest that three things red flag him as a suspect:
1) Going to the police 3 days late, as opposed to immediately after learning of the murder.
2) Giving a statement that contains obvious falsehoods. (The detailed description of the absurd AM - a caricature of an upscale Leather Apron type figure. Chris Miles raises the valid point that Hutch couldn't have had a more detailed description if AM had posed for him for 20 minutes, writing pad in hand...)
3) Standing in the rain outside Kelly's room despite the downpour, and despite having just walked 14 miles.
He's a bona fide suspect of the murder of MJK, at the very least.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 137
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
As he didn't have his own place, we must do away with the organs the Ripper took from the victims.
Whoah there, big felluh! How and why did you arrive at this conclusion? Given the overcrowding of the lodging houses frequented by Hutchinson, it is unlikely than any one lodger had the inclination to take any particular notice of another's business.
To my mind, the biggest detriment to the case against Hutchinson is that it's not readily apparent that he had medical knowledge or skill.
What about the official report submitted by Dr. Bond, in which it is clearly stated that the ripper need not even have posessed knowledge of the very rudiments of butchery? Would a medically skilled individual make such an astonishing hash of decapitation and the evisceration of a uteris? (sorry! Not very Christmasy this!). I believe the ripper was succesful in removing Eddowes' kidney by accident, not by design.
Be advised also that medical "knowledge" does not necessarily equate to medical "expertise". I have medical knoweldge, so do most people. I am not, however, an expert, and neither was JTR.
Ben, no offense, but I have the feeling you so readily accept Schwartz's man #1 as the Ripper because he's about the right age for Hutchinson and is behaving in a way that suggests someone of the lower class.
An accusation I could easily level squarely in your direction, Tom.  I will explain why in the proceeding paragraphs. The vast majority of Stagetalk's readership will have long since resigned themselves to the obvious truth that the man observed attacking Stride was the same individual who murdered her a skant few minutes later.
We learn from Schwartz's evidence:
"He [Schwartz's first-man] tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway".
Superficially, this makes no sense whatsoever. Why pull a women into the street and then turn turtle and hurl her in the opposite direction? In order to account for this discrepency, we must interpret Schwartz' sighting and arrive at the most logical conclusion: Man grabs Stride - Stride attempts to flee in direction of street - man is still clinging to Stride, presenting the illusion that man is pushing Stride into street - Man overpowers Stride and pushes her in the intended direction...OFF the street.
To return to the debate at hand, a rather more pressing question presents itself: Why does Tom Wescott not want Schwartz's man to be Stride's killer? I would respectfully submit that the answer to this qusestion can be found in my fellow interlocuter's profile. Here is the description of Schwarz' "Lipksi" man:
"5'-5", 30 years old, broad shoulder, fair complexion, small brown moustache, dark pants, black cap with a peak, dark jacket, brown hair."
Oh no! Not very D'Onstonish! Tom has intimated that I have labelled Lipski bloke as Stride's killer because he looks like Hutchinson - my objectivity being thus tarnished. Not true - I 've never seen a photograph of Hutchinson. I only have at my disposal primary sources, all of which point towards the overwhelming likelihood that Stride's vicious attacker turned into her vicious murderer minutes later.
But this overwhelming likelihood is inconvenient to researchers who want the Jack the Ripper to be D'Onston, Tumbelty, Maybrick, Gull and chums. So what do they do? Reject it in favour of an altogether less likely scenario - one which involves Lipski man departing at lighting speed, only for D'Onston, who had been coiled, puma-like, in the shadows, seeking the auspcious moment and assailing Stride. It just wasn't her night! Oh, if only Lipski man had sported a prolific grey moustache and was slight of build.
Of course, the above is not impossible, but it's not as likely as my interpretation of the Stride attack, a point which the discerning readership will heartily acknowledge, publically or not. Why not go with what is more likely, even if it means re-thinking your prime suspect?
Let's stick with D'Onston (who I'm picking on a bit here - sorry). Let us assume that he is JTR and, having murdered Stride, he makes for Mitre Square. Again, we have a description of the man who was almost certainly her murderer:
"30 years old, 5 foot 7 inches tall, fair complexion and mustache with a medium build. He is wearing a pepper and salt colored jacket which fits loosely, gray cloth cap with a peak of the same color."
Still not very D'Onstonish! Or was he waiting in the wings again, waiting to pounce the moment Lawende's back was turned and the 30-year-old, 5 ft7 bloke had vanished at lightening speed? Not impossible, but very very very unlikely.
Why strive to convince ourselves of the patently false?
Then there is the issue of the discarded apron. Wrong direction! D'Onston is headed for the London Hosptial, and Goulston Street is most assuredly NOT on the return journey. Either we resign ourselves, at this point, to the likelihood that D'Onston was not - could not have been - Jack the Ripper, OR we pretend that the man was not the ailing, alcoholic 49-year-old we know him to have been, but an agile mongoose of a man who zig-zagged his way home in an effort to delude the persuing police. Guess which option I would go for?
Finally, we must return to Mary Kelly and Miller's Court. Whatever suspicions we might harbour as to the identity of Astrakhan man, it is viritually impossible that this man was D'Onston. So how do we account for this?
As I mentioned earlier, I was targetting D'Onston to illustrate a point, but my observations are equally applicable to Francis Tumblety, for example.
I don't understand your final point, Tom: the fact that we know nothing at all about him is what keeps him in the frame as viable.
Why? Surely you recognise the intrinsic folly in the assertion that: We don't know enough about him, so he's a crap suspect. How does that work?
Best Regards,
Ben |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1305
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Sir Bob:
"I would suggest that three things red flag him as a suspect.."
Exactly sir. The inference made by me was that he made himself a suspect [ with the resulting description of Astrakhan Man etc...] In reality,he didn't have to. The dilemma is,is that in the three day interval, he didn't know that. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4302
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Richard,
"Why on earth are we doubting this mans account he was there we were not.. "
Again, and for the last time...:
because his story doesen't add up on several points!!!!!!
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
'Because his story does not add up on several points'
To start from the beginning many possible George Hutchinsons have been researched but only one has a direct relation coming foreward.
That being Reg[ late]the son of George William Topping hutchinson, who has claimed on Radio and Faircloughs book'The ripper and the royals' that his father was interviewed by the police as he knew one of the victims, and his efforts to trace the suspect he alleged saw , gained him the sum of a hundred shillings[ no small sum in 1888].
Are we saying that this Reg was a liar and his father was not born on october 1st 1866 [ proved by census] and that this man did not state in the twenties and thirties when the ripper subject was brought up that he knew one of the victims, and was interviewed by the police.? unless Reg was a fraud and his father knowing [ as a obvious expert on the subject] that having the same surname as a man interviewed at the time played on that as a pub story, i would suggest that the father of Reg was none other than our George.
In which case as it was documented by Reg that his father had a great eye for detail and because of this he did estimates for plumbing work way past retirement age, and this hard working man married in the 1890s was fond of music hall, violin playing , and a passion for ice skateing, does this person sound like a violent killer, a prostitutes pimp, or a person incapable of recalling a description of a man seen with a friend that was brutally murdered.
We must also remember detail that us living in the 21st century would considering the dim lighting of that period impossible to ajust ones eyes to colours etc would have been normal eye focusing at that time.
The official files quotes Abberline finding Hutchinsons statement true, and i accept his findings as he interviewed the man and he was no fool.
sorry folks instead of trying to discredit poor Hutch, why not try to accept it, regardless that to some people 'It just doesnt add up'.
Richard. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 516
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Of your three points that put Hutchinson in frame, the first two also fit Matthew Packer to a T. And his workplace/home was actually closer to the spot of Stride's death than was the spot Miss Sarah put her loiterer, whom we presume to be Hutchinson. Regarding the third point, who's to say he walked 14 miles in the rain? Regarding 'rain', this is also a good part of what gave away Packer's lie, since he had Stride and her beau standing in the rain for a 1/2 hour, though once found the exposed portion of her clothes were perfectly dry.
Ben,
Your version of events RE: Stride & Man #1 is certainly feasible, however, a more likelier scenario is that the man was trying to bring Stride along with him when she turned to pull away and fell down. Naturally, this would appear to Schwartz as though she was pushed. But then, Schwartz didn't know she had a deformed leg and balance for her was difficult. In any event, what Schwartz witnessed - if he indeed witnessed anything - was a drunk man trying to score. This man could very well have been a member of the socialist club or just a chap on his way home. But walking up on a woman and giving her a fright before you've even pulled your knife - and without even thinking to look around for witnesses - is not the Ripper's M.O. at all, regardless of the suspect. The crime scene evidence tells us this much. She was not "viciously attacked" as you suggest, she was pulled around by a brute, likely drunk. Her killer, on the other hand, was dispassionate. Study the case. Incidentally, you keep bringing up D'Onston, not me. If I want to discuss D'Onston, I'll do so on an appropriate thread. Your comments regarding D'Onston betray a seriously deficient knowledge of not only the argument against him, but of the Ripper case in general. Not intended as an insult to you, but it seems you might be a little early in your study of the case to settle on a suspect, let alone to become so perturbed when people don't buy into the idea. I know I'm too green to state that I've solved the case beyond all doubt. Although I have a preference of D'Onston, I am not staking my name on his having been the Ripper.
And as for Hutchinson, you - and not I - state that our lack of knowledge of him makes him a "crap suspect". I don't feel this way. At this point, with what we know, he remains under an umbrella of suspicion. But for him to advance to full-fledged suspect status, we need something else. Anything. A complaint of stalking, a history of violence. Something to show that his presence in Dorset Street that night - if he was indeed there - was not entirely innocuous. Something to separate him from the dozens and dozens of witness who came forth after the fact with bogus info who you and others are NOT on here arguing for in favor of their guilt.
And regarding Jack's medical knowledge, or lack thereof, your comments confuse me. You seem to think one can just cut someone open, and reach in right for their kidney? I read up on Richard Chase and he did nothing of the sort. Seems he just took out all the organs! Also, I'll notice you didn't mention the uterus, nor how the Ripper went about taking it out. Imagine a man pulling these feats off, in almost complete darkness, under extreme duress. And doing so repeatedly without getting caught. Let's also not forget that Dr. Phillip's was certain that the knife used on Chapman was "not an ordiary knife", but likely an amputating knife.
Since you want to talk D'Onston, okay. How bout this. The Ripper was someone with medical knowledge and experience, but that which hadn't been put to use in some time.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
"Be advised also that medical "knowledge" does not necessarily equate to medical "expertise". I have medical knowledge, so do most people. I am not, however, an expert, and neither was JTR."... Mr. Holme above...
Dear Mr. Holme...If you have the time or inclination,someday ask some people at a family gathering or even at work where their liver is on their body. Most folks do not know where it is. Try it. Knowing where one's wisdom teeth are or where their sacroiliac are,are givens...but the liver is a good test.
Tom hits the nail on the head. RDS may not have used his surgical acumen [ probably dormant for 28 years]....but wouldn't forget it. Its like riding a bicyle. Once you've learned it,you never forget it. Due to the impact and attentiveness required on the field doctor/ surgeon's part,its leaves an indelible mark on the man. That is,if RDS is the man in question. Neither would any other medically experienced suspect.
Removing a kidney requires expertise,if it was removed in the way Mrs.Eddowes' was. America's leading forensic pathologist,Cyril Wecht,confirms this.
Out of curiosity,why are you convinced that The Ripper couldn't have been an expert medically or rather,in the field of surgery,Ben? Thanks....}
H.B.
Stephenson-as-Ripper Hype Machine V.P. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 699
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
"Stephenson-as-Ripper Hype Machine V.P."
WE'RE GETTING THE BAND BACK TOGETHER
D'Onston remains a sentimental favorite of mine as JtR, although I believe more and more that dear ole Melvin fitted him up just like one of the hoaxes he used to delight in popping.
However, I do think that the slaughter of MJK was so wholesale that surgical knowledge was not necessary/useful/evident/hinted at etc etc. Some of the other C5 do set me wondering on that issue.
For the record, I believe:
1) Hutch wasn't the Ripper.
2) He was a big fat liar, and told lying lies. Why, we can guess at...but never be sure. He deserves to be somewhere on the Suspects list for this alone.
3) Abbeline was no fool, and would not have approached GH from a position of blind trust. I wouldn't be surprised if the coppers kept an eye on him for some time..."Trust, but verify" as Ronnie so wisely put it.
4) MJK was a Ripper victim.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 284
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 4:06 am: |
|
Most posters,even if believing Hutchinson not to have been the killer,certainly believe he was lying in his statement.
If Kelly being on the street, was one of the lies,the alternative is surely she was in her room ,and did not leave it that night after returning at midnight.
So what knowledge did the killer possess,that he could walk into that court,select a location that contained a victim that was suitable,gain access to the room,and kill the occupant.
Could it have been a complete stranger? |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 7:48 am: |
|
Tom,
First of all lets get the missing organs out of the way. There is no evidence whatsoever that the killer took the organs away. There is only evidence that some organs were missing.
You make the comment:
“So, we either have giant rats carrying them off - which I won't waste time discussing”
Which is rather short-sighted in my view. Why do you assume that any animal capable of eating body parts needs to be any than normal size?
When I served abroad in the 60’s we came across the body of a terrorist who had been shot and wounded several days earlier. He had crawled away and died in the jungle. I can assure you that quite a lot of his body parts were missing, including internal organs, but no one accused a human of removing them. In case you’re wondering how rats etc get to the internal organs they usually work their way in through the anus and out through the stomach wall! Sorry if you’re eating!
With the Rippers victims being so savagely mutilated and eviscerated I would be absolutely amazed if some of the local rat, cat or dog population didn’t dig in. Don’t forget Chapman was found in the rear of 29 Hanbury St which housed a cats meat dealer, I should imagine number 29 was a vermin’s gourmet dining area.
If you want to know just how daring the local rat population was in its quest to grab a quick bite checkout Mayhew – he will leave you in no doubt.
When Brown talks about medical skill needed to remove a kidney he is talking from a surgeons point of view. In other words to remove a kidney takes medical skill. However it takes absolutely no skill at all if you ‘slash and grab’. There have been several serial killers who have removed various organs, hearts, kidneys, liver etc etc with absolutely no skill at all.
I wouldn’t mind betting that modern SK’s who have had no medical knowledge at all have duplicated every mutilation and removal of organs on JTR’s victims.
All the best
Bob |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5479
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 8:35 am: |
|
But Bob, Eddowes could only have been there for a minute or two before discovery.
Plus, both Chapman and Eddowes had their wombs removed, which seems a bit of a coincidence - unless we're looking for a rat who hated its mother. 
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 798
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 8:47 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
"We must also remember detail that us living in the 21st century would considering the dim lighting of that period impossible to ajust ones eyes to colours etc would have been normal eye focusing at that time."
I don't believe it works that way, Richard. Colour is dependent on light. Without light there simply is no colour. So, in bright light red would be red, in dim light red would be something brownish (but not red) and in complete darkness red would be black. You can focus your eyes all you want in dim light, but only if you know something to be red, you will 'see' red.
If you don't know what colour something is, you wont see red, simply because red isn't really red anymore in relative darkness. Only if there would have been a bright light source shining upon the handkerchief, GH would have been able to see the colour.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 799
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
"We must also remember detail that us living in the 21st century would considering the dim lighting of that period impossible to ajust ones eyes to colours etc would have been normal eye focusing at that time."
I don't believe it works that way, Richard. Colour depends on light, not on ones eyes. Without light there simply is no colour. So, in bright light red would be red, in dim light red would be something brownish (but not red) and in complete darkness red would be black. You can focus your eyes all you want in dim light, but only if you know something to be red, you will 'see' red.
If you don't know what colour something is, you wont see red, simply because red isn't really red anymore in relative darkness. Only if there would have been a bright light source shining upon the handkerchief, GH would have been able to see the colour.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 800
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
Oops, didn't realise I had actually posted the first post. Sorry.
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 9:11 am: |
|
Dear Mr. Hinton:
"When I served abroad in the 60’s we came across the body of a terrorist who had been shot and wounded several days earlier."
I'd bet that had the terrorist been killed only a day before,he'd had been gnawed at as well. In Eddowes case,we are looking at an hour, tops.
As far as the organs not being present, the effort involved in removing them suggests they were taken or discarded in a nearby trash pile or down a loo...the additional time taken in the mutilations suggests this as well. In Hanbury Street,its a given that the police checked that small area as well as could be. They found an apron,of course,but did not find anything else.
Nichols,of course,was to the best of our knowledge not eviscerated with organs removed. Nor Stride. Kelly is a different matter,being indoors,with a fireplace. So that leaves only Chapman and Eddowes.
No mention of rats being at work either at Hanbury Street despite the proximity to a cats meat vendor in the front. Certainly,the m.e.'s would have been advised of this by the police and the work of any rat be taken into account in the medical report.
"In other words to remove a kidney takes medical skill. However it takes absolutely no skill at all if you ‘slash and grab’."
This conflicts with the statement by Dr.Brown who states that the left kidney was carefully [ his emphasis ] out and that in his opinion,someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.
"There have been several serial killers who have removed various organs, hearts, kidneys, liver etc etc with absolutely no skill at all."
Yes sir,thats true. Correct me if I am in error here, but none of the medical reports on their victims mentions the handiwork in the way Brown mentions the "careful removal" in the Eddowes case,do they? If they do,then someone with surgical skill or from a medical background was probably the perpetrator in those crimes in which 'skill' was required.
The point is,is that in only two murders out of the C5,were rats possibly involved with hauling away internal organs. The time between murder and discovery are short...and there was no mention of anything other than the organs disappearance at the two Inquests.
I almost forgot to mention something else.
A while back,I remember someone theorizing, I think it might have been Mr. Begg...that in the lifting of the two victims who had organs removed....Chapman and Eddowes..that body parts fell off of or out of the vehicle utilized for the corpses transport to the examiners office.
This actually works against the idea of organs being left at the scene of the two crimes.
The mess of what was left of both women was lifted up and removed. Had anything fallen out,the police who remained would have seen the organs. They didn't all leave in unison when their bodies were taken away. Some police most likely stayed and continued doing routine work afterwards....If they were on a gurney and it collapsed in ratio to their weight,then the recess created would envelope the bodies and contain the bodies along the sides of the gurney.
(Message edited by howard on January 01, 2006) |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 138
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 9:20 am: |
|
There exists an age-old correlation between debators who resort to personal invective and those who are demonstrably incapable of refuting the arguments presented to them. Until Tom Wescott is capable of satifactorily refuting my arguments against D'Onston's candidacy as JTR (and indeed my argument in favour of Hutchinson's), I must regrettably label him as an example of this generic type. Disappointing.
You've presumed insight into my knowlegde of D'Onston and the case in general (do I need ANY insight - other than pictorial evidence - to know that D'Onston looks nothing like the suspects observed by Schwartz and Lawende?), but have singularly failed to tackle the points raised. If you think I'm unschooled on certain issues relating to D'Onston, by all means tell me where I'm going wrong. For instance, if I'm incorrect about his being a patient and resident at the London Hospital during the murders, tell me where he really lived and we'll analyse the extent to which it impacts on the Goulston Graffiti etc. If I was wrong about him being an ailing alcoholic, again, put me right and we'll go from there.
Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Tell me what I'm wrong about! That would be helpful. A clarion call to "study the case" - not quite so helpful.
You argue that is was mere coincidence that an attack on Stride should be followed minutes later by her murder, just as you argue that it may have been mere coincidence that a cry of murder should precipitate a REAL murder minutes (if not seconds) later. In other words, you reject two likelihoods in favour of two startling coincidences. Wow.
But for him to advance to full-fledged suspect status, we need something else.
Loving the royal "we" there. Who appointed you chief barometer of suspect merit?
You seem to think one can just cut someone open, and reach in right for their kidney?
Who is to say he was looking for the kidney? Might he not have happened upon it by accident? I DID mention the uterus. I made reference to the botched job he made of extracting it.
If Hutchinson is not your favourite suspect, that's fine. But to describe him as "a weak suspect at best" when there exists a whole host of silly theories to examine, is fallacious.
Anyway, no more D'Onston after this. We can start a new thread.
Ben |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 139
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
Dear Howard,
If you have the time or inclination,someday ask some people at a family gathering or even at work where their liver is on their body.
But once again, this entire premise presupposes that he was looking for a liver, searching for a kidney.
Try this simple test:
Visit the beach - preferably a rocky one - and plunge your arm into one of the many rock pools which populate the coastline - preferably a deep, seeweed-filled, non-stangant one. Pull out whatever item your submerged hand first alights upon. It could be a rock. Well, they're easy to find. Too boring. Plop it back in.
Plunge your arm into the pool for a second time, but have a good old old rummage around this time. Allow your wandering hand to explore every nook and cranny of that rockpool, removing your hand only when you think you've found somthing interesting and shapely. What is it? You may have extracted a star-fish, a molusk, a small sea anenome, or even a slightly more interesting-looking rock.
In order to carry out this simple expedient, you have been both inquisitive and thorough. You did not require years of arduous institutional study culminating in a degree in rockpool studies to do what you did.
A degree might have been useful for such an exercise, but it certainly wasn't necessary. You see the difference?
The same is true of JTR when he eviscerated Eddowes. He didn't need medical training, just determination...oh, and depravity. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 9:49 am: |
|
Dear Mr. Holme:
Yeah, that Tom...he's as generic as they come.
I'll be your "interlocutor" if you wish. Allow me to point out that the photo of Stephenson may be from a later date than circa,1888.
I think that when some of us contend that the Ripper was not looking for the kidney, we are not mindful of the fact that it is difficult to find [ especially in the dark...] and that it was time consuming.
I'm with you on Hutchinson being a suspect...at least by his actions after three days....in the Kelly murder. Like RDS,he doesn't have any known run-ins with the police to our knowledge..yet.
And yes,Stephenson liked his sauce from what we know. He had already been in the Hospital for 5 weeks and one day before the first C5 murder.
Plenty of time to dry out.... |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 10:02 am: |
|
Dear Ben:
Me again. Yes,there is no doubt that the Ripper was extremely depraved,perhaps with a mask that allowed him to live among people for many years,unbeknownst to them, to the nth degree,regardless of whatever type or whatever suspect he was. I hear you.
I understand the intent of your analogy and agree with you. Its apropos'.
However, the seminal difference between you and I looking for objects at a leisurely pace and without fear of doing so and the mutilation-in-the-dark-with-the-possibility of being apprehended at any moment is somewhat different. Oh yeah,you're right. If we wanted to explore rocky pools for the different objects on our terms,we could...and succeed.
In the case of the extra work and time that the depraved animal took on Eddowes and by the words of Dr. Brown [ who can argue with a Brown ?], I see it slightly differently. If the kidney removal was not intentional,why take the time to carefully remove it ? I'm not arguing that it was used in some sort of black magic ritual or for consumption or even for a trophy...just that to the Ripper,it had some value.
Thanks for the reply. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 700
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
"the effort involved in removing them suggests they were taken or discarded in a nearby trash pile or down a loo."
Hey How - First off, Happy New Year to you and yours.
Secondly, there is the very obvious question of the Lusk kidney, which I believe to be genuine. If it was the real deal, delivered by the freight train From Hell, the Ripper obviously kept it and stored it somewhere...which to me argues for a bolt hole instead of a bunk in a common lodging house.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4303
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 11:19 am: |
|
Richard,
Please try and read Hutchinson's statement again.
I am not talking about his detailed description of the Astrakhan man - after all, people do deliver those kind of descrip[tions from time to time. I am talking about other things that don't at all add up in his story and they are quite easy to spot. It doesn't take any rocket scientist to see that most of what Hutch is saying can not be probable and can't add up with reality.
Those odd features in his story have all been pointed out in earlier treads and messages. I would also advice you to read Stewart Evans' article on the matter in Ripper Notes.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 11:27 am: |
|
Hi Frank.
I Accept that opinion, but of course Abberline would have asked Hutchinson why he describes the colour of the Hanky as being red, and i would have thought Gh would have given him a acceptable reason for stating so, mayby when kelly and client passed by the lamp under the queens head he noticed the item hanging out of a pocket on his clothing.
I wish we had a inventory available from Kellys room, not only the possiblity of a remaining hankerchief, but remains of fresh milk in a churn.
If Mr astracan was not her killer would he have wished for the return of the item after kelly had used it, hardly a gentlemanly act, but of course if he was her killer he would have retrived that item incase it incriminated him..or burnt it in the room.
The only dubious part of Hutchinsons statement is the colour of the hanky, but as stated Abberline would have satisfied himself on that account, before accepting that point.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3525
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Richard-
Now we've been throught the red handkercheif thing before!!! RED is the most unseen colour at night......hence the number of accidents involving red cars at night....yes that's true!
As to the hanky being in Kelly's room......
Unlikely I'd say...anyone flaunting such a thing to be seen by a 'witness' would have made sure that whatever else he took from that room it would have included said hanky!
The hanky was the ONLY dubious part of Hutch's statement Richard?????
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 11:41 am: |
|
Glenn,
Abberline was a experienced police officer, he was faced with a statement which even by standards then would have been worth a second look, yet he clearly accepted the version as true and he deployed two officers to patrol the local area with Gh for several hours after.
i would suggest that if the sum of one hundred shillings was paid to George for his efforts is true, then he assisted the police a lot more then that.
Five pounds in 1888 was no mean sum, that amount would have paid for his lodgings for the next five months.
There are two people i believe told absolute truths one being Gh, the other Mrs Maxwell, but what we can decifer from that puzzle eludes me.
Richard. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1311
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Sir Bob:
Likewise to you and yours,sir...looks like we are getting the band back together,eh?
 . ..
......... 
In true rockabilly/Ripper style,we'll be called The Possum Holler' Eviscerators, featuring you as the frontman. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 315
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 12:07 am: |
|
I don't know why I care but..... It takes absolutely no medical experience to remove an organ, or to cut into someone to take an organ, or two. If I was looking specifically for the gall bladder or the appendix, I would have to have just a quick look at a book.. "So that's the gall bladder! I'll be taking one of those tonight now that I have my anatomical bearings."
There is a supposition that JTR knew what he was removing. Who says? He may have just been cutting and removing willy-nilly, and that would be as simple as seeing where one organ ended and the next began. No matter what the old experts thought or didn't think, there is no evidence that Jacky was anything but a killer. Now, if you want to tie a certain 'Mr. Lusk' letter to Jack and then say it proves he knew a kidney from a kumquat, well... you've got to tie that letter to him don't you.
It all comes down to assuming that Jack knew what he was cutting out. And what is it they say about assume? And now back to our regularly scheduled braying.
Cheers and Happy New Year
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 286
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 2:51 am: |
|
Do we know for certain that Hutchinson had nowhere private to take the missing organs.
Being a resident of the Victoria Home,it is quite possible that he had a room of his own and was not dossing with others. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 4:03 am: |
|
Richard
I’m afraid you’re wandering into Nunnerisms again.
“Accept that opinion, but of course Abberline would have asked Hutchinson why he describes the colour of the Hanky as being red,” (1)
and then later
“but as stated Abberline would have satisfied himself on that account, before accepting that point.” (2)
You see what I mean? You make a statement, usually containing the words ‘of course’, with absolutely no foundation in fact, and then later use that unsupported guess as established fact! (2)
You can’t keep pulling things out of the air and expecting other people to believe them. In any case as far as I recall Abberline did not take GH’s statement, he simply came along later and read it. I could be wrong here but I believe it was taken by a Sergeant Badham.
And then later:
“i would suggest that if the sum of one hundred shillings was paid to George for his efforts is true, then he assisted the police a lot more then that.
Five pounds in 1888 was no mean sum, that amount would have paid for his lodgings for the next five months.”
And I suggest that if the Arch angel Gabriel came down and told everyone that dear old Reg’s dad was a nice guy that would be interesting too – but that never happened either.
You damage your case by this constant harping on about some wildly inaccurate information printed in a book now proved to contain very little but inaccurate information. If you want anyone to accept your theory that Reg’s dad was the GH then go ahead and prove it, but for Pete’s sake stop relying on stale, useless information - information that apart from you, no one believes is accurate.
Please do some research into eyewitness statements before droning on about GH’s statement only contains minor errors. Talk to some police officers. Do what I have done. Take a copy of GH’s statement down your local nick and show it to some experienced police officers, people who take and read statements all the time. See if anyone, even the canteen cat, will agree with you that GH’s statement is believable.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 4:13 am: |
|
Hi,
Here’s an extract from a recent issue of the International Journal of Police Science and Management:
“To develop a method to assess the reliability of eyewitness testimony in a real criminal case, a field experimental or simulation method was introduced. In that case, an eyewitness witnessed a man at night who was in an escaping vehicle and identified him as a criminal from a photospread about two weeks later. The description of the eyewitness was detailed; however, there might be estimator variables that lower his performance of perception and memory. To clarify whether such testimony is trustworthy, a field experimental method was adopted. Results of the experiment showed that almost all subjects of the experiment could not only not recall the details of the events but also could not identify the target person. From these findings it is concluded that the testimony was not reliable enough to convict the suspect. In this paper the usefulness of a field experimental approach is stressed and it is suggested that guidelines such as PACE or recently issued US guidelines for treating eyewitness testimony should be used to prevent miscarriage of justice. "
I will be posting further titbits as and when.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 4:31 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
Go to this website:
http://www.geocities.com/LennyVasbinderPI/FalseEyewitnessID
and you can take an on line test for eyewitness accuracy.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 4:38 am: |
|
Here's another site that may be of interest.
http://www.criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.html
I like the opening quote! |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 142
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
Thanks for your latest.
"Allow me to point out that the photo of Stephenson may be from a later date than circa,1888."
That's true, but bear in mind that it is still relatively easy to distinguish a 50-year-old from a 30-year-old, grey moustache or not.
You are correct to point out that my rockpool analagy does not yet make for an apt comparison. However, carry out the experiement at night time, throw in couple of coast-guards - loitering some distance away - who have an aversion to rockpool-botherers, and we have a fair test. The same conclusions apply.
Regarding the disposal of organs -
Let us assume for a moment that the Lusk letter and kidney were genuine. The author of this grisly missive claimed that he "fried and ate" the absent portion of the organ. If the author was JTR, could he have used this vomit-enducing method of disposal for all the organs he removed? Donald Rumbelow provides the salient detail here: In describing the average common lodging house, he relates the following: "In the kitchen, men and women may be seen cooking their food, washing their clothes, or lolling about smoking and gambling".
Busy kitchen! Who would notice a labourer cooking a piece of red meat that is barely distinguishable from a pork chop?
The relevent page in Rumbelow's book is 14.
Off to investigate Bob's links.
Ben |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Frank, Richard,
Between you, you both had the right answer. Sort of! Colour perception is actually quite subtle and complex, but I'll try to explain. To recap your exchange that prompts me to write:
""considering the dim lighting of that period impossible to ajust ones eyes to colours etc would have been normal eye focusing at that time."
I don't believe it works that way, Richard. Colour depends on light, not on ones eyes.""
True, but the light needs a receptor to interpret the colour and, in this, the eye itself certainly has its part to play.
The retina, as I'm sure you know, contains two types of light receptor - the "rods" and "cones". The cones are responsible for colour perception and function best in bright light, especially daylight. The rods are responsible for monochrome perception and "night vision". A good analogy is to think of cones as ISO200 colour and rods as ISO400 black and white film.
It just so happens that cone cells are especially sensitive to the red side of the spectrum, and rods to the blue end of the spectrum. Combined with the differences in sensitivity of rods and cones to ambient lighting, this has the effect of making a red handkerchief seen in bright sunlight appear brighter than a blue handkerchief.
Conversely, in dim light - which is precisely what we have with Hutch's situation - the cone cells get increasingly less effective, whilst the rods are firing on all cylinders. Now, the same two handkerchieves mentioned above swap places - the blue one will appear much more vivid than the red one.
This is known as the "Purkinje Effect" or the "Purkinje Shift", and it's a simple and intriguing phenomenon to reconstruct and experience for yourself. Try it with a bluish flower (lavender or bluebells, say) and a reddish flower (roses or tulips) this spring. Look at an example of each flower together in your hand in bright sunlight, then quickly move them into the shade. You should find that the red flower looks vivid in bright light and drab in the shade, and vice versa for the blue flower.
The "drabness" of the red flower will also subtly alter its hue, because the cones are less capable of precise colour perception under low lighting conditions. The rods, however, come into their own in dim light and, being sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum, are particularly good at judging between shades of blue. The net effect is that bluish items still appear unambiguously blue in dim light, whereas anything reddish starts to look a bit "muddy" once the lights go out.
As you rightly imply, this is what would make it difficult to be certain whether Astrakhan Man's handkerchief was orange, brown, red or any related shade in between. A piece of cloth dyed in any of those hues would take on pretty much the same drab brown colour, unless Hutch inspected it directly under one of the notoriously dim street lights of the time. Even then, the cones wouldn't have been working at their best and we can't be 100% sure that Hutch's eyes weren't deceiving him. Assuming, of course, that he actually saw anything of the kind. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
"It’s not an observation – it’s a fact!
GH was in the proximity and at the approximate time of one of the murders. No other suspect can claim this!
If you think they can then tell me who?"
Sorry Bob, i have to disagree. This is no evidence at all. |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 1:55 am: |
|
I agree with Glenn here. Why would Jack The Ripper allow a witness to stare him in the face and then mutilate a woman for 2 hours while GH waits in the rain outside is unfathomable. Also, ask yourself this, if GH knew Mary Jane Kelly for 3 years and they were such good pals, why did Kelly call George Mr. Hutchinson? Would she not just call him George? Or was it customary for a woman to call a male friend Mr. So and So in the 19th Century? His testimony does not gel with me either. I think he just delivered a suspect that the police believed was the killer - an insane Jew. |
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Hi All,
In this day and age I find it astonishing that the audience cannot grasp the subtle manipulations and the veiled illusion of the Indian Rope Trick, aka, R. D'Onston. [Must try harder!]
M. G.Tomas,( The Hermetic Order of Alexandria ) edited the essays of Tautriadelta for posthumorous(?) publication in, The Veil of Isis, 1924, entitled: THE MODERN MAGICIAN.
Perhaps one of the most perspicacious insights on human psychology published."Once I was blind but now I see".
Rosey :-) |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2006 - 9:54 pm: |
|
There are a number of allegations about Hutchinson here that have very little foundation to them imo. Indeed some of the allegations are quickly turning into accepted facts.
Not one part of Hutchinson's statement was proven to be false. Dont you believe Abberline would have checked his statement for inaccuracies? He described the well dressed suspect he saw with Kelly as well as he could remember.
Most of the criticism of Hutchinson's statement should not be levelled at GH. Instead it should be levelled at whoever transcribed it - he is the main culprit in any suspiscions now floating around against GH. |
APP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Yes, that sounds about right for a typical CID man. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
Richard,
the wearing of spats which were strictly day time dress imply that this man was dressed for a event that day... the Lord Mayors show"
You mean to say that Mr Astrakhan was all togged up at two o'clock in the morning, fully 9 hours before the Lord Mayor's parade traditionally starts? Scarcely believe! More likely he'd just left his club and fancied a bit of "slumming" on the way home. If he ever existed, of course. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 10:11 am: |
|
Hi Ben !
Well, your analogy of the rockpool isn't farfetched to me at all. Its basically the same as what the Ripper did,if he had no intention of taking the kidney beforehand. What sort of 'steers' me in the direction of an action with forethought is the "careful removal" part of Brown's report. The surrounding area to the kidney was not damaged,by this inference by Dr. Brown..
Its good to see the Baron back ! Happy New Year,dude.
You're right Mike...Nobody knows for sure if there was intent. One small note though...In your post,you mention that if you wanted to find a gall bladder,you would look in a book for it and that its not that hard to do.
Knowing that you lean toward a Kosminski type as being our boy, does this indicate that you feel the type of person you lean towards in the Case had knwoledge beforehand of the location of this organ,found in the back of a body ? Thank you,sor.
By the way,Ben...The uterus [ according to serial killer and gormand Chikatilo,a bona fide cannibalizer ] is too spongy to eat. Even cooked,it probably wasn't edible. I don't think he ate any of the organs by any method...but its possible.
(Message edited by howard on January 02, 2006) |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 482
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 10:54 am: |
|
Dear Jason,
You write:
“It’s not an observation – it’s a fact!
GH was in the proximity and at the approximate time of one of the murders. No other suspect can claim this!
If you think they can then tell me who?"
Sorry Bob, i have to disagree. This is no evidence at all.”
You’re not making any sense. I’m asking a question ‘If you think they can then tell me who?’
The response I was looking for was an answer – you haven’t supplied one! Do you have an answer? In case you don’t recognise it that’s another question!
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 10:56 am: |
|
Dear Gareth,
Many thanks for your interesting post, which scientifically backs my point, that under little or no light conditions colours lose their definition.
Strangely enough the best camouflage for night time isn't black it's various shades of blue!
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 11:08 am: |
|
Dear Jason,
You write:
“There are a number of allegations about Hutchinson here that have very little foundation to them imo. Indeed some of the allegations are quickly turning into accepted facts.
Not one part of Hutchinson's statement was proven to be false”
From my point of view the allegation that GH’s statement was largely false has foundation in common sense and many years sorting through peoples statements in a court of law. It also has foundation in the research that has taken place wordwide (see links above) that show that eyewitness testimony is one of the most unreliable.
It is also impossible for a great deal of his statement to be correct – and by that I mean not unlikely but simply not possible.
It is also extremely unlikely that a great deal of his statement is correct – and by that I mean not impossible but extremely unlikely.
As for proving this, this is not necessary. If I said to you I can run at sixty miles an hour I would suggest you would have a hard time proving that to be false – it wouldn’t make the statement correct!
Bob |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
"many years sorting through peoples statements in a court of law"
I dimly remember that you have a legal background, Bob. Care to tell us about it ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 11:43 am: |
|
"many years sorting through peoples statements in a court of law"
I dimly remember that you have a legal background, Bob. Care to tell us about it ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
I'm a Justice of the Peace or more commonly known as a Magistrate.
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
I Sincerley hope i dont have the misfortune to appear at one of your hearings, i would be guilty before i opened my mouth, especially becoming aware that i was Assistant Commisioner Richard Nunweek that always uses Nunnererisms.
Only joking Bob Honest..
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2769
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Bob,
Going back to your post above regarding rats etc.You state that the back yard of Hanbury Street
was probably teeming with rats.If so then this can give us several important clues about the probable time of her murder.The organs were mostly surrounding the corpses in several of the cases anyway.So if the area was infested with rats
the murder must have been committed just a short while before?Less than an hour almost certainly.
I have read a description of how Jack the Ripper"s arrangement of the blood red organs that had been placed about her corpse together with the dishevelled state of clothing of the corpse
made the first people who came across the scene
feel faint.In other words,the sight of her slashed open throat together with this "arrangement" of her "removed" organs made an extraordinary crime scene and were what distinguished ripper murders from other murders at the time.The same can be said of Catherine Eddowes.Rats or not, when she was discovered, only minutes after her murder,the same extraordinary spectacle met the eyes of the onlooker.This is also what happened in the case of Mary Kelly.Body parts,this time more wildly procured possibly ,but still placed in such a way as to dazzle the onlooker with the sheer grotesque bloodiness of it all ,each of his victims "poised" in a sort of "tableau noir". |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
