|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 12:51 am: | 
|
Hi c.d,
If Watkins is correct, and he walked through the square at 1:30 and Eddowes was not there, and then he walked through the Square at 1:44 and she was there, logically the time of death would be between 1:30 and 1:44. The doctor that examined the body at the scene claimed the body could not have been dead for more then 40 miniutes. He claims he got there around 2:20am that would place the time of death about 1:40 they seem to back eachotherrs claims up.
I always thought that the doctor that examined the body at the scene was the coronor. I apologise, however when I discuss the time of death, I am talking about the time of death that the doctor who first examined the body claimed.
Your friend, Brad |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2051
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
Brad,
Im being picky I know, but Watkins deduced the time as 1.44am.
He called on Morris who, prior to coming out, retrieved his lamp (and one assumes whistle), looked at the clock which he stated showed 1.45am and then left with Watkins. From this Watkins estimated the time he arrived at the murder scene. Like I say, picky but a minute is quite a while !
What I am trying to say is that the Morris time of 1.45am should be the hub from which to build a timeline wheel.
I think Morris actions speak volumes. He shows awareness in terms of clocking the time. I guess being ex Met this is understandable but it gives us a structured timeline that no other crime in the series can.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 888
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
CB,
Just to be perfectly accurate, Lawende did not "see" Eddowes; he saw a woman, from the back, whose outer garb seemed to him to be the same as Eddowes's when he was shown those items later. It was for this reason that Abberline was somewhat hesitant about Lawende's description.
I think he did see Kate and JtR, but as with so many of the Ripper "facts" it isn't iron clad.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
NOW we begin to understand Swanson's statement. The man Lawende saw was almost certainly Jack the Ripper, and thus, any positive identification of JTR would of course lead to a hanging.
Only if he was found fit to plead, and only if the jury considered Lawende's positive identification to be 100% reliable, and were 100% satisfied that the man he was able to identify did indeed go on to kill Eddowes.
Certainly, Swanson can only offer opinion as to whether ot not a jury would return a guilty verdict, but he was well aware that this was not his department. He wanted the reader to be left in little doubt as to what would happen to the suspect *IF* a guilty verdict was returned.
Well yes, we don't need Swanson to tell us that a guilty verdict in a case of murder led to the death penalty. So if the suspect was deemed sane and the case had gone to trial by jury, and if that jury had found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Eddowes's murder (on whatever evidence was presented), we all know what would have happened.
But Brad pointed out that 'Lawende testified that he would not know the ripper if he saw him again'. (More correctly, he doubted he would recognise the man he saw with a woman if he saw him again.)
So all in all, the ifs and buts surrounding the reliability of Lawende's testimony (had he been willing to swear and had the suspect been fit to plead), make Swanson's words far from cut and dried IMHO.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on December 08, 2005) |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Hey monty,
and the timeline is tight, right?
"Are you hanging up a stocking on your wall?"
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 74
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
"Only if he was found fit to plead, and only if the jury considered Lawende's positive identification to be 100% reliable, and were 100% satisfied that the man he was able to identify did indeed go on to kill Eddowes."
In an ideal world, a jury is morally and legally obliged to return a guilty verdict only when "100%" convinced of a person's guilt. Alas, I do not believe that such vigorous objectibity would have been enforced during the Lawende-suspect trial, should it ever have taken place. Given the ripper-terror which must have prevailed in the aftermath of the Eddowes murder, I have no hesitation in surmising that the jury would have delivered a guilty verdict based on the extreme likelihood of the 1:34am man's indentity as JTR, and nothing more. Call it 90% satisfied.
And it is, let us face it, *extreme likelihood".
When Lawende was asked if we would recognise the man again, he replied, "I doubt it". And yet this assertion is contradicted by no less that two factors - THREE is you accept Lawende as Anderson's suspect.
1) We know that a description, given to police was conspicuously glossed over at the inquest - never to be presented in it's entirety.
2) We know that this same description was detailed. If you don't remember a face, it follows naturally that you tend not to notice red hankercheifs and loose-fitting pepper-and-salt jackets either. But he DID register the face, because he was able to discern - in the blackness of Duke's passage - a "fair" complexion and a "fair" moustache.
Ben |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 75
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Hi Brad,
Your last post raised some very pertinent questions, and personally, I cannot quibble with any of the conclusions you arrive at as a consequence.
Good stuff. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your comment. I think we agree about alot that has to do with the Eddowes murder.
Your friend, Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Hi Donald,
You said what I was trying to say, However you were much clearer. Lawende only identified the woman as Eddowes by clotheing. He did not see her, and he did not know her so it is possible he misidentified the woman as Eddowes. I agree.
Hi Monty,
Thanks for your responce. I just get the feeling that something has to be wrong with the Timeline. It is way to tight. The ripper must have been one lucky piece of ----
Your friend, Brad |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 5:44 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Do you not think that the suspect, if he was indeed the man Lawende saw, and whether or not he was guilty, would have had the sense to ditch the red kerchief and pepper-and-salt rig-out (just right for a 'seasoned' killer  ) to become the kind of fair-complexioned, fair-moustached chappy that Lawende doubted he would recognise if he saw him again?
Add to that a considerable time lapse between the events of September 30 1888 and the formal identification and trial, and I suspect the defence would have quickly shot enough holes in Lawende's evidence to leave any jury in reasonable doubt.
Love,
Caz
X |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 896
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 8:00 am: |
|
I wonder if the tight timeline didn't result from Kate and JTR lingering outside the square till they saw that the constable had made his 1:30 pass through and then hurrying inside to take care of their business, knowing they would have a quarter of an hour? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2412
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
I don't see why not. It's logical to think that the victims didn't particularly want to attract a copper's attention any more than Jack did. And having the woman's co-operation in this regard (whatever Kate's purpose was in entering Mitre Square) would have been a distinct advantage, making it easier for him to get away with murder in the short time available to him.
Hi again Ben,
For some more opinions recently expressed about the potential efficacy of Lawende's evidence vis-à-vis seeing Jack swing, see the 'Anderson's Suspect' thread under 'Police Officials'.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 82
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
A witness who was astute enough to observe and record the suspect's attire must surely have registered the man's face too.
Joseph Levy, who only recorded the man's height (sort of) is in a far better position to "doubt" whether or not he would recognise the man again, and the same is true of Harry Harris, and yet Lawende, who gave a very detailed description, expressed such doubt.
Quite simply, this does not compute.
If Lawende was Anderson's suspect, the police cannot attached much credence to his professed "doubt" either. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2055
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Ben,
A witness who was astute enough to observe and record the suspect's attire must surely have registered the man's face too.
Depends on the positioning and height of the suspect and the reason why the witness was looking. The lighting situation on that particular spot. Clothing may have been more illuminated than face.
In my experience some pick up more on clothing than facial features whilst others remember faces but cannot recall the attire.
Some, and this is very rare, pick up on both. This because something distinctive had happend for them to remember, odd behaviour for example..
Now, a man and a woman talking in the street. Odd behaviour?
Monty
It begins.....
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 83
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
But he DID register the face. In the dark recesses of Duke's Passage, he was able to discern both a fair complexion and a fair moustache.
Condsidering the poor lighting, he gave the best description he could of the suspect, but why was his attention thus drawn? Well, if they had just been "a man and woman talking", Lawende would have given them only the most cursory of glances. Indeed, he might have done precisely that were it not for Levy's obvious perturbations.
That, I suggest, is why he made a point of recording the man's apperance. "Levy thinks they're up to no good so I'd better look them over".
I still consider it important that the police, in all likelihood, did not buy his purported "doubt" either.
Caz - Thanks for the reference. I will investigate the "Anderson's Witness" thread. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2057
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Ben,
Granted. However fair complexion and fair 'tache indicates a cursory look as opposed to a good hard stare. This may have been born out of Lewandes reluctance to look further or the suspect moving around, possibily both.
Logging the info is one thing. Its the retrieving that causes problems and mistakes.
Levys obvious pertubations? Neither man stated this at the inquest. Infact judging from Lewande answers to questions from the Coroner he seemed non-plused by the couple.
"[Coroner] Did you overhear anything that either said? - No.
[Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
[Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.
[Coroner] When the woman placed her hand on the man's breast, did she do it as if to push him away? - No; it was done very quietly.
[Coroner] You were not curious enough to look back and see where they went. - No.
And Levy stated...
I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church-passage, but I did not take any notice of them. I passed on, thinking they were up to no good at so late an hour.
and
Nothing in what I saw excited my suspicion as to the intentions of the man.
Its such a shame neither man was asked if this occurance (men and women near the passage) was regular. If so then Levys supposed complaints made have been bared with a sigh from Lewande and a glance, a sorta 'here we go again'.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 898
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
You have to take into account the mental makeup of people.
There are some people who are not very meticulous and seem to be quite sure of themselves. They have a personality that does not worry about accuracy or details. They tend to fill in blanks with their imagination without realizing they are doing it. This results in their being very self assured about what they "remember".
Then there are the fusspots. They worry over every fine point. Let's see -- am I totally sure it was this way -- or was it that way? They wrack their brains and present their results with fear and trembling.
Of the two I think the latter will tend to be more accurate although in manner and appearance they seem much less impressive. I would be inclined to believe that Lawende would be one of these. He has discovered by a deep and very critical look into his own soul what most criminologists already know, that eyewitness evidence is subject to distortion. So the Lawendes of this world are cautious and tentative in their words and manner and are likely to qualify their words with statements like "I don't think I could identify him if I saw him again."
If I was an innocent person accused of a crime I did not commit I would welcome a Lawende as an eyewitness.
Contrast Lawende with Hutchinson who is very sure of every detail. Maybe it isn't so much that Hutchinson was lying, but that without realizing it himself, he was filling in details from his imagination, his preconceived ideas of what Jack would look like. He actually believed what he said, but that did not make it correct. He tells Abberline that he is sure he could identify the person if he saw him again.
Hutchinson was taken all over to look for the man but never found him.
A number of years ago I sat down with all of the eyewitness accounts of Jack's appearance. They were very diverse. I even entertained the possibility for a time that Jack was into disguises.
Realizing that eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate I reasoned that some would be more inaccurate than others. If just two of the witnesses were anywhere close to accurate their accounts would agree, certainly not in every point, that would be too much to hope for, but substantially.
Sifting through the descriptions I did find two that substantially agreed; that of Schwartz (Stride) and Lawende.
(Message edited by diana on December 13, 2005) |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 84
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hey Monty,
"However fair complexion and fair 'tache indicates a cursory look as opposed to a good hard stare."
On the contrary, a fair complexion and a fair tache is all that could possibly be discerned from a "good hard stare" when we consider the lighting in Duke's passage, or rather, the lack thereof. However, I believe that Lawende recorded sufficient facial detail to allow for a recognition, should their paths have ever crossed again.
It is possible, very probable in fact, that the totality of Lawende's (and possibly Levy's) evidence was suprssed at the inquest, and moreover, that those responsible for that "supressing" of evidence were prudent in their actions. If both Lawende and Levy had informed a *public* inquiry that they had recorded the suspect's appearance, and would be able to recognise him again, the ripper would have been deeply perturbed. And how might these perturbations have manifested themselves? Well, the ripper might drastically alter his apperance, or worse still, he might leave town altogether.
Fearful of such possibilities, the authorities had no chose but to request that the witnesses play down the extent of their observations. And the witnesses, for the most part, complied.
But Lawende was clumsy. He stated that he had given a "description" to the police, a detail which did not sit well with his "doubt" that he would recognise the suspect again. Levy, too, came close to giving the game away. A reporter observed: "Mr Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air."
The reporter's inferences were well justified. He did assume a knowing air, because, in all probability, he did KNOW more than he intended to divluge at the inquest. But researchers have miscontrued this "knowing air", suggesting that he supressed his evidence because he was aquainted with the family of the suspect.
I believe that both Lawende and Levy DID get a good look at the suspect, and WOULD have been able to recognise the man again. (They discussed it at the scene - of course the couple were properly observed. And why else would Anderson use one of them as a suspect who got a "good look"?) However, if they had provided these details in their entirety to a public inquest, the ripper would likely have escaped.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
And the reason Abberline pretended to believe Hutchinson and did not suppress his description would have been to set Jack at ease.
However if you look at GH's description and toss out all the foolishness about astrakhan coats and fancy watchchains and spats you have a 34 or 35 year old man (Schwartz/Lawende said 30) with a pale complexion (Schwartz/Lawende agree) and dark hair (again Schwartz/Lawende agree) and a slight moustache (Schwartz/Lawende substantially agree although they don't mention a curl at the end and they specify brown where GH doesn't mention color).
Maybe Jack was dressed up a little more the night he killed Mary. Maybe GH noticed that in a general way and filled in the details with his imagination. This would imply muddled thinking more than deliberate lying. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Hi,
I am of the opinion that Mary jane knew the man she was accosted by after leaving Gh, thus the laughter shortly upon being detained by him shared by both.
As i have said before this was the eve/ morning of the Lord Mayors show and the gents attire including spats[ daytime wear] would be appropiate if this person was planning to take part in some kind of official pocession etc,
I am of the opinion that Mary was shocked to see mayby a person she knew dressed in this manner hense the laughter.
He may have been a ex client of hers , mayby a local businesman but i would certainly be surprised if the paronoid Kelly would take a complete stranger back to her room to be alone with him dressed complete with a parcel?in his hand without complete trust.
I Still maintain that this man along with Mr Blotchy face were innocent people that came and went during the morning of the 9th, and she either met her killer by venturing out after 3am or less likely was killed by a intruder around 4am, not to mention my own opinion she was killed after Maxwells sighting.
obviously once Kelly was found murdered the two people that mayby innocently shared her room for periods of time would not dare come forward for obvious reasons.
Regards Richard. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2061
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 4:09 am: |
|
Ben
Can I ask you to clarify a point?
Are you suggesting Lewandes attention was drawn to the couple because of Levys remark?
There is this assumption that the three men were together. They left together true but Lewande was a little way off from Harris and Levy when he came to the couple. Levy is quite clear in his point that he was on the opposite pavement to the couple. Lewande does not. Were the three men even on the same side of the street?
Levy stated his comment was made to Harris, not Lewande. And Harris stated he saw nothing except the mans back and questioned what Lewande and Levy saw. He said that they saw nothing more than he did.
So this witness incident, viewed by three men, differs in each mans statement.
As for the news reporters comments that Levy was ‘absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information’.
I feel this may be sour grapes at Levys refusal to give the said reporter a scoop. I see nothing sinister in this.
Cheers
Monty
It begins.....
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 85
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
Are you suggesting Lewandes attention was drawn to the couple because of Levys remark?
Precisely, and I would be inclined not to invest too much significance in the distance between the three men. The fact that the three left "together" suggests that they remained more or less so until they went their seperate ways. I do not believe for a moment that Lawende had walked so far away from the other two so as not to overhear Levy's exclamatory remarks upon sighting the couple.
And they were exclamatory. "I'm off" says Joseph Levy.
Lawende and Levy need not have been joined at the hip for the latter's vocal perturbations to be heard.
And Harris stated he saw nothing except the mans back and questioned what Lewande and Levy saw. He said that they saw nothing more than he did.
And I, for one, don't believe him, because if he saw the man's back, then he must have seen Eddowes' face. And yet he makes no mention of this at the inquest.
For the reasons expounded upon above, I believe the authorities were prudent in preventing the full extent of witness descriptions from being publically divulged. The three Jewish men acceeded to this request out of good faith, but as has been demonstrated, they were careless.
"I feel this may be sour grapes at Levys refusal to give the said reporter a scoop. I see nothing sinister in this."
Nothing sinister per se, but I believe the reporter had the right idea. When scrutinised properly, Levy's contradictions are baffling:
At the inquest, Levy says: "I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church-passage, but I did not take any notice of them."
But when at the scene:
"Look there. I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about. I'm off"
A person who does not take "any notice" of a couple does not say "Look there"!
Ben |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 86
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
While I would respectfully beg to differ regarding a number of your observations, you make a valid point concerning the similarites of the Lawende and Schwarz descriptions.
It isn't just Hutchinson's ludicrous description that prompts myself and others to look upon him and his actions as decidedly dodgy. So many other factors reinforce this view.
How did this mysterious foreign-looking stranger expect to depart Spitalfields unmugged - bedecked as he was with a conspicuous gold chain etc?
Would this same individual go on to commit brutal murder, secure in the knowledge that a potential witness had "stooped down" to get a good look at him?
Would this man enter his victim's room just after 2.00am, vascilate for nearly two hours, and THEN decide to butcher her - prompting Kelly's cry of "murder"? (Sarah Lewis, who returned at 2:30am, made no mention of any conversation through the broken pane of No. 13)
Hutchinson expressed surprise that a man so fastidiously attired should be seen in the area, but then states his belief that he "lives in the area". Odd?
What happened to the policeman to whom GH first reported the incident?
Why did he allow three days to elapse before coming forward? Where was he at the inquest?
Would Mary Kelly have ventured out in her drunken state, and moreover, would she have succumbed to the advances of a mysterious stranger given her alleged fear of the ripper?
Why did he go North and bypass his lodgings upon returning from Romford - if indeed he ever went there at all.
These are only half the problems with GH, although to list any more would be supererogatory.
His witness description appears to have been nothing more that an amalgamation of previous witness sightings, strung together like pearls to create the fictional Mr. Astrakhan. He borrows liberally from the likes of Lawende (red hanky), PC Smith (parcel in hand), Sarah Lewis (hat pulled low over eyes), Israel Scwarz (small moustache - which changes suspicuously to "dark and bushy") and Mary Ann Cox ("he made no noise")
...amongst others.
Finally, I have trouble accepting the notion that, if Astrakhan man truly existed, GH would invent accessories that weren't there to "fill in the blanks". If you posit the false existance of something so conspicuous as a gold watch and chain, you are not confused...you are lying.
All the best,
Ben
(Message edited by BenH on December 14, 2005) |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
.If you posit the false existance of something so conspicuous as a gold watch and chain, you are not confused...you are lying.
You have no idea of the capacity of a naive, uneducated and childlike mind to unconsciously create remarkable and outlandish embellishments, especially when given three days to do so. Its too bad they didn't get to question him sooner. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 88
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
You have no idea of the capacity of a naive, uneducated and childlike mind to unconsciously create remarkable and outlandish embellishments
For all I know, what you describe is a very real phenomenon. I just don't believe for a moment that Hutchinson's description is an example of such a phenomenon. Nor do I believe that GH had a "naive, uneducated and childlike mind".
Let's leave the description for a bit. What about all the other indications that he was lying, as alluded to above? |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 905
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
I can explain most of your objections but the one about Jack waiting for two hours in Mary's room had me baffled, I admit.
Then I remembered something Douglas said about Jack killing his victims blitz style right away because he felt uncomfortable interacting with them.
Either what you say is true and Hutch made up everything out of whole cloth for some unknown reason, or else he had a vivid imagination and unconsciously embellished what he saw. I guess his core consistency with Schwartz/Lawende was what struck me, since I consider those two descriptions to be the most reliable. I have reached the point of judging other descriptions based on their consistency with Schwartz/Lawende. When you ignore the clothing he wasn't that far off. Jack didn't have to wear the same things every time he went out. While I don't believe Hutch's description of the clothing (who would wear expensive clothes like that to do what he was going to do -- they would be ruined), he might have been a tad more dressed up.
I don't think he wore what GH said he wore so the concern about mugging is not warranted.
George might have gotten a glimpse of the man's face in passing. Don't forget he described the whole things to his friends first. The natural desire to make yourself important would easily cause him to exaggerate the glimpse to stooping and staring. Then after having told it that way several times, by the time he gets to Abberline thats the way he remembers it.
Hutch is confused so in one breath he is surprised that someone dressed like that would be in the area and in the next "well he lives around here". People are quite capable of incredible muddleheadedness. Ask any teacher.
As to the policeman to whom he reported the incident, he may have told someone about it. That person may not have given it the proper weight.
As to his waiting three days to come forward its obvious. Even today people suspect him of being the ripper. Admitting to being outside Mary's door at that time was perilous. Only after another witness said she saw him did he decide to come forward.
Mary had already ventured out in her drunken state and succumbed to Blotchy Face. Her rent was due the next day. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2062
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Ben,
Precisely, and I would be inclined not to invest too much significance in the distance between the three men. The fact that the three left "together" suggests that they remained more or less so until they went their seperate ways. I do not believe for a moment that Lawende had walked so far away from the other two so as not to overhear Levy's exclamatory remarks upon sighting the couple.
You do not believe?
Lewande does not, at any stage, mention Levys remark. Levy himself states that the remark was made to Harris. He did not mention it was made to both men, just Harris.
They left together. Again, they do not state they walked together. Infact Lewande is clear in mentioning that he walked seperate from Levy and Harris.
True they need not be joined at the hip but you suggest it was Levys remark that caused Lewande to look. Lewande does not mention this remark, Levy made his remark, as I have said, to Harris and not Lewande.
So how is this assumption made that Lewande heard Levys comment?
Why does Lewande not mention this as a reason to look?
And Harris stated he saw nothing except the mans back and questioned what Lewande and Levy saw. He said that they saw nothing more than he did.
And I, for one, don't believe him, because if he saw the man's back, then he must have seen Eddowes' face. And yet he makes no mention of this at the inquest.
My point is that at least two people who were at the same incident have completely differing accounts as to the position of the man.
At the inquest, Levy says: "I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church-passage, but I did not take any notice of them."
But when at the scene:
"Look there. I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about. I'm off"
He saw a couple. A couple he deduced were a prostitute (this is made clear at the inquest) with a client or even worst a pimp. The rolling of punters, or any passer by even, was not unheard of as we know. Such muggings were widely reported if you read the papers of the time.
Being wary of such people makes one react in a way as to avoid confrontation. Eye contact is often key as fear of being caught staring would lead to possible assault. So when Levy clocks the couple he immediately assumes they were up to no good. Maybe assuming prostitute and client or assuming they were on the look out for a person to attack and rob. He makes the comment to Harris. However, conscious of avoiding confrontation he did not look long enough to note them in terms of attire, build, ect. Thats why he did not take notice of them.
Now what you see as baffling is not so when you consider the possible thought process of Levy at that time, the process I mention. Of course I concede that I may be wrong. Levy may have been holding something back.
Im just trying to get across that, by nature, witness statements are often confusing and contradictory. And this inturn leads some to feel something sinister in occuring when, in reality, it is not.
Just that someone was mistaken.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
You say mistaken, surely you arent suggesting though are you, that either of the men are reporting something other than they believed was happening?
ps not being funny just asking!
"Does a 'ton up' on his sleigh? Do the fairies keep him sober for a day?"
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 89
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
I am not suggesting that anything "sinister" took place. As I have stated previously, I don't believe any party acted out of bad faith. There is sufficient evidence to reinforce my opinion that the police were eager to prevent detailed witness descriptions from being released at a public inquest. There was no motivation behind this prevention other than to dissuade the ripper from slipping through the net out of fear. As long as the ripper was secure in the "knowledge" that his witnesses only got a fleeting glance and "would not recognise him again" he would remain in the area...or so the police reasoned.
Mine is no controversial theory. During the Eddows inquest, the coroner specifically requested that no additional details of the man's appearance be supplied.
"Lewande does not, at any stage, mention Levys remark. Levy himself states that the remark was made to Harris. He did not mention it was made to both men, just Harris."
Of course Lawende did not mention Levy's remark. If he mentioned it, he would have conceded, in essence, that the ripper's appearence was conspicous enough to record. But again, if the ripper knew this, how might he have reacted? Radical change of appearance, fleeing altogether to commit atrocities elsewhere? It's not worth the risk.
If three men leave a club together, and are headed in the same direction with no-other club members around, it is only natural to infer that they remained more-or-less together. Under the circumstances, Lawende must have been anti-social in the extreme to depart from his colleagues. Occasionally, when I'm walking as part of a trio, my two friends are engrossed in conversation on a subject entirely disinteresting to me. I hover close by. I don't veer off eccentrically in another direction to a point more than ten feet away from them. That would be rude, and I don't believe that Lawende was ever guilty of such social gaucherie.
"So when Levy clocks the couple he immediately assumes they were up to no good."
Firstly, we have no idea when the suspect became aware of others observing him. He may have been so preoccupied with the rigmarole of enticing his victim that he failed to notice the approach of the three men. If Levy did not succeed in getting a good look at the suspect, what on earth qualifies to refer to them as "those characters" in obviously disparaging terms? A brief glance is hardly enough to pronouce such negative judgement.
Why would Levy be so fearful of confrontation, anyway? It was, after all, a situation of three against one. He could afford to get as good a look at the individual as courtesy dicatated. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2063
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Ben,
I am not inferring that you are suggesting sinister ongoings. I apologise if it comes across that way.
There was no motivation behind this prevention other than to dissuade the ripper from slipping through the net out of fear. As long as the ripper was secure in the "knowledge" that his witnesses only got a fleeting glance and "would not recognise him again" he would remain in the area...or so the police reasoned.
I totally agree.
Of course Lawende did not mention Levy's remark. If he mentioned it, he would have conceded, in essence, that the ripper's appearence was conspicous enough to record.
Lewande did not have to mention the remark ad verbatim. Just that a comment was made. However even if it was mentioned, Levys remark is ambiguous enough to be construde more than one way.
If three men leave a club together, and are headed in the same direction with no-other club members around, it is only natural to infer that they remained more-or-less together. Under the circumstances, Lawende must have been anti-social in the extreme to depart from his colleagues. Occasionally, when I'm walking as part of a trio, my two friends are engrossed in conversation on a subject entirely disinteresting to me. I hover close by. I don't veer off eccentrically in another direction to a point more than ten feet away from them. That would be rude, and I don't believe that Lawende was ever guilty of such social gaucherie.
This is an assumption based on personal experience. I have the opposite experience, yes I am anti-social. Despite your own account Lewande states he was seperated from Harris and Levy. Levy states he was on the opposite side of the road. Was Lewande? If so then his description is pretty good when considering the information he gives. If not then he is farther away from Levy and this strengthens the argument that he did not hear Levys remark.
That would be rude, and I don't believe that Lawende was ever guilty of such social gaucherie.
You knew Lewande?
Firstly, we have no idea when the suspect became aware of others observing him. He may have been so preoccupied with the rigmarole of enticing his victim that he failed to notice the approach of the three men.
That may be but I am looking at the situation from Levys possible point of view.
If Levy did not succeed in getting a good look at the suspect, what on earth qualifies to refer to them as "those characters" in obviously disparaging terms? A brief glance is hardly enough to pronouce such negative judgement.
A brief glance yes, experience however gives one the ability to judge rapidly. Experience of living or frequenting such a well know prostitute area.
Why would Levy be so fearful of confrontation, anyway? It was, after all, a situation of three against one. He could afford to get as good a look at the individual as courtesy dicatated.
Im assuming you have little contact with the undesireable element in society. Courtesy gives way to disrespect, no matter how many versus how many, disrespect leads often to violence. None of which matters when the aim is to rob.
How was Levy to know the odds were certainly in his and his acquaintancies favour?
How was Levy not to know that, lurking around the corner or further down the passage, more ruffians were ready to aide these 'characters'?
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 91
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Monty,
How was Levy not to know that, lurking around the corner or further down the passage, more ruffians were ready to aide these 'characters'?
He saw a man engrossed in conversation with a woman. Nobody else in sight. No, I don't believe for a moment that Levy entertained the prospect of ruffian reinforcement arriving to fend him off. Eddowes and the suspect could hardly be described as "alluring bait" for any interested party.
I don't see how Levy's remark could either be misheard or misinterpreted. "Look there" and "I'm off" are both exclamatory statements, and Lawende couldn't have harboured any doubt as to his companion's meaning.
I would respectfully suggest that we agree to disagree regarding the proximity of Lawende to his two companions.
What is clear is that the suspect drew the attention of both men; Levy voiced his concern about the man AT THE SCENE, and Lawende recalled a detailed description. Both factors utterly contradict any subsequent claims that they did not take any notice of him etc etc.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2066
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Ben,
OK, I agree to disagree. And not just on proximity.
I don't see how Levy's remark could either be misheard or misinterpreted. "Look there" and "I'm off" are both exclamatory statements, and Lawende couldn't have harboured any doubt as to his companion's meaning.
Yeah, 'Look here' and 'Im off' are indeed exclamatory. I wasnt referring to those. I was referring to the comment in the middle, the 'I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about'. Thats the comment which could be misinterpreted. What is meant by 'those characters'?
It was the couple that drew attention, not the suspect. Both state a man and woman. Levy voiced his concern at the pair of them and used the pural 'those characters'. A reference to both.
Like I have said, witness statements are notoriously erronous. Most are not intentionally granted and not to be ignored completely. Unless conclusive evidence establishes error.
Caution should be used when passing such testimonies as fact. Unless, of course, the two (at least) statements match. Which, incidentally, Lewande and Levys statements almost do.
At that I shall leave this matter be.
Cheers
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
However, I believe that Lawende recorded sufficient facial detail to allow for a recognition, should their paths have ever crossed again.
I doubt that very much. Even at the height of the ripper scare, people didn't go round 'recording' facial details of every man they saw talking to a woman, just in case she was later found murdered. And judging by the remark about 'those characters' (plural), no one at that point was thinking along the lines that the woman may be talking to the 'orrible murderer himself.
...he saw the man's back, then he must have seen Eddowes' face.
Not necessarily - it depends on the angles. For instance, the back of the man's head and upper torso could have been obscuring the front of the woman, especially if they were facing one another.
And as Monty says, you don't do anything to make dodgy-looking 'characters' think you're eyeing them up - they don't need that much excuse to say "Wot you staring at?" and start something. You clock them quickly, realise they might be trouble and just as quickly avert your gaze and walk off smartly and with purpose - even more so if you are in 1888 Whitechapel.
Love,
Caz
X |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
One element that relates to the whole issue of whether Lawende heard Levy's remark would be concern that Kate and JTR also not hear it. If there was any distance at all between them, then Levy would probably have had to speak rather loudly to be heard by Lawende but then he would risk being heard by the couple, and since the remark was insulting to them he probably would have avoided that. |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 94
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I have personally never suggested that either Levy or Lawende recorded the suspect's appearance out of suspicion that he might have been JTR. I have merely noted the level of detail in Lawende's description - detail which could not have resulted from a casual, disinterested, cursory glance at the couple. Either we accept that the spectacle of "those characters" conversing in a passage caused all three men equal perturbation, or else Joseph Levy made an initial observation, and his two companions accordingly acknowledged the object of his concern.
These three companions left the Imperial Club together and remained ostensibly "together" until their paths diverted. Surely a trio of Jewish business acquaintances would wish to remain together for as long as possible in 1888 Whitechapel?
Let us remind ourselves again of some salient facts:
1) The police were eager to prevent the ripper from fleeing the area out of fear of capture.
2) Lawende's witness description was deliberately withheld at the Eddowes inquest.
3) The Mitre Square witnesses contradict eachother on several points. Take, for example, Harry Harris' assertion that he only saw the suspect's back. This is in direct contradiction to Lawende's description of the man's complexion and moustache. One of these men was wilfully peddling an untruth, for it is impossible for the suspect to face opposite directions at the same time!
4) A reporter who interviewed Joseph Levy was of the opinion that he assumed a "knowing air" when quizzed on his suspect sighting. I am certain Lawende was involved in a reporter situation which paralells that of his companion, but I don't have the details to hand at present.
5) Anderson's witness was a Jew.
6) This same Jewish witness was considered by police to have been the "only person to have got a good look at the murderer."
7) This very same Jewish witness would, according to Donald Swanson, "be the means of the murderer being hanged". SOMETHING must be behind Swanson's obvious conviction that the jury would return a guilty verdict.
8) In an altercation involving three men against one, the "three" will usually win should the altercation lead to violence.
Those are the facts, and the theory I have posited is the only one, to my knowledge, which sits comfortably with all seven of them. And what is that theory?:
That all three Jewish suspects at Mitre Square satifactorily clocked the appearance of the suspect, and that one of them got a particularly good look. I believe the three companions were specifically requested that their descriptions be either dumbed down or not submitted altogether. This was almost certainly done to allay any fear on the part of the ripper which could, in turn, herald his departure from Whitechapel to kill elsewhere. The Jewish men aquiesced to this request, but were clumsy about it - a clumsiness which accounts for, among other things, Levy's "knowing air" and Harris' "revolving" suspect.
That these men and others were never re-introduced to look George Hutchinson over is an astonishing oversight.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2068
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Guys,
Just realised that we have gone drastically off topic here.
Ive moved it over to what I consider the correct thread....hope thats ok.
../4926/5740.html"../../clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>
It begins.....
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 8:10 am: |
|
I don't know whether Mary was killed in her sleep or not. I can imagine four scenarios.
1)Mary goes on the street and picks up a customer. She brings him to the room and the minute the door is shut he attacks her.
2)Mary goes on the street and picks up a customer. She brings him to the room and after a time the two of them fall asleep (or she sleeps and he fakes it). When she is sound asleep he attacks her. She awakens just long enough to cry out before he kills her.
3)Mary is done for the night. She folds her clothes, puts on her chemise and climbs into bed, falling asleep. Jack somehow gets into the room (window trick? she forgot to lock the door?) and attacks her, awakening her just long enough to cry out before he kills her.
4)Mary thinks she is done for the night. She folds her clothes, puts on warm bedclothes and retires alone for the night. Sometime later there is a knock at the door. A customer. She decides to let him in. Then she changes into the chemise and he attacks her.
The problem with number 1 is the chemise. He at least must have given her enough time to dress for bed. Douglas said he preferred a blitz attack and as little interaction with the victim as possible, so why would he wait till she put the chemise on? Then there is Diddles. He didn't arouse Mrs. Prater until right before the death scream. If things had progressed slowly Diddles would have awakened Mrs. Prater much sooner. She would have heard a lot more of the preliminaries. (See the "What can Diddles tell us (seriously)" thread for my full argument on this.
The problems with #2 are fewer, but very real. It explains the chemise, but why would he actually have Mary service him and the two of them fall asleep? That was outside his pattern. Douglas says he did not want interaction, he wanted to get the kill over with quickly. It would, however, be consistent with Diddles not arousing Mrs. P. till the last minute.
The main problem I have with number 3 is the chemise. It got down to 39 degrees fahrenheit that night. For you centigrade people that is not too far from freezing. I can see her putting that thin thing on to service a customer, but not to sleep. That room was unheated except for a fireplace. We once had our heat go out in winter and while the repair man worked we huddled around the fireplace. Let me tell you it helped very little. Still, the beer from Blotchy's bucket (if he was her last customer before she went to bed) might have warmed her and muddled her judgment about what to wear to bed. It would be consistent with Diddles behavior.
#4 explains the chemise. However, it does not explain why Jack didnt attack immediately before she changed her clothes since he didnt like interaction. It conflicts with the evidence of Diddles since he would have created sounds before the actual attack.
(Message edited by diana on December 16, 2005) |
mousie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
taking into account all the victims names does the initials try and spell out james maybricks wife frances perhaps that is the clue?} |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 97
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
A timley reminder that we have digressed from the topic at hand. I will "see" you on the new thread to continue our discussion.
Hi Diana,
Just some very brief observations. I'm of the opinion that scenario 3) is by far the most compatible with the extant evidence, while 4) is another plausible theory which has perhaps not been given the consideration it deserves.
Scenario 2) is utterly disasterous, with 1) being only marginally less so.
Just my 2p worth,
Ben |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5389
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 11:16 am: |
|
Hi Diana
I go for number 3. I don't think the chemise is a problem here - Mary's clothes would have been wet, and she wouldn't have wanted to sleep in them. I'm assuming here that she wouldn't have worn the pilot coat over her dress to go out soliciting in - that's what I've been advised, anyhow. If she did wear the coat over her dress, then her clothes, or part of them, might have stayed dry, but I'm assuming she didn't.
It may be a problem that she didn't wear the pilot coat to sleep in instead, if she was on her own and only had a chemise and the bedclothes to keep her warm. Perhaps the coat was too valuable as a draught-excluder over the window?
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 787
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
For what it's worth, I see a 5th scenario, which is really a combination of your scenarios #2 and 3.
Mary goes on the street and picks up a customer. She brings him to the room, they take off their clothes and they lay down in bed. After a while Mary falls sound asleep as a result of too much alcohol. The customer leaves, because there's no fun in staying.
Jack sees the man leave, somehow gets into the room (window trick? she forgot to lock the door?) and attacks her, awakening her just long enough to cry out before he kills her.
This scenario takes care of the problem with the chemise and introduces the possibility of a sort of stalking Jack. In which case George Hutchinson would become very interesting.
However, a problem with this scenario might be the window trick. If it was easy enough to find out about it, why didn't the police get into the room that way the next day? Unless of course Jack was familiar with that place (by which I'm certainly not saying that it had to be Joe B. - it might just as well have been a punter too, regular or not!)
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)
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Mary's bed-blanket (or at least a large bolt of coarse woollen fabric), appears to be rolled up on the right side of her bed, with one sock neatly laid over it.
If that is Mary's bed-blanket, either her killer had rolled it up himself (which I find unlikely but not impossible), or the blanket was not on the bed when the killer struck.
The inference of the latter scenario is that Mary was not asleep in bed at the time of her death and had just finished, or was about to start, using her bed for a totally different purpose.
Given my belief that Mary still had on her right stocking (see other threads) when killed, I'd further argue that she was in the process of "peeling off" prior to entertaining a client or a friend, and fully conscious when the attack started. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 1:17 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
I am not an expert. I thought that a woman wore a chemise under her dress? Is it possible that Kelly undressed down to her Chemise, and then got into bed? She may not have had to put on the chemise.
Scenario one is not possible. The ripper for what ever the reason let Kelly get undressed, and fold her cloths before he attacked her. If Kelly invited her killer in from off the street, then he let her undress. This can be explained away easily. Maybe the ripper could not corner Kelly. Maybe he was careful. The room was small. He may have felt safer getting Kelly to lay down. She was a bigger woman. A younger woman. A stronger woman. How long do you feel it would have taken her to undress, and fold her cloths?
Scenario Two is possible. I do not feel the ripper had sex with his victims. That does not mean he did not have sex with Kelly. Kelly probably wanted the men in and out as quick as possible. However, at that hour she may have allowed someone to stay the night. I can not argue with scenario two. It is soild. I just do not buy into the theory.
Scenario three can work two ways. 1. The ripper is watching Kelly. He knows when her last client has gone. He waits to give her enough time to fall asleep and then he takes his chance. This of course would favour Hutchinson. I can see why Ben would favour this scenario. 2. The ripper is on the street by chance. He notices Kelly's last client go. He waits a period of time. He wants to give Kelly a chance to go to bed, and then he takes his chances. This scenario only works if the ripper knows Kelly is alone. I guess he could have followed Kelly home. I can not argue with the break in theory. men have broken into a womans apartment, and attacked her. I do not see why this could not have happend in 1888 as well.
Scenario four is possible, and if I was a barnett suporter this Scenario is were I would hang my hat. The idea fits Barnett and Hutchinson. Both men knew Kelly, and they may have had the nerve to knock on the door at that time of night. She may have been inclined to let them in. I supose that any strang man could have knocked on the door if they knew she was in the buisness, or they knew she was alone.
I am starting to consider that Kelly went back out after three. She picked up a custumer. They went back to her place. The room was small. I feel the ripper waited untill Kelly undressed down to her chemise. He waited untill she was in a more easy position, then he attacked from the front. She had time to let out the screem. I read a report that a woman had claimed to see Kelly talking to a rather tall man after three in the morning. I am not sure if that is acurate. Have you ever read such a report?
Anyone of your scenarios is possible. Who knows. We may someday find out who Jack the ripper was, but I doubt that anyone will ever piece together exactly what happend to Kelly in her room that night.
Your friend, Brad |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 789
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Hi Brad,
"How long do you feel it would have taken her to undress, and fold her cloths?"
As she was probably still under the influence of alcohol which would obviously influence her coordination, she probably wore several layers of clothes with buttons, straps and strings and such, I think it may have taken a bit longer than you seem to be suggesting. Two or three minutes then doesn't seems unlikely at all and that is a relatively long time, certainly from the point of view of a blitz-attack type killer, which is the viewpoint Diana used when she wrote this scenario.
Dr. Bond's report on MJK's post mortem suggests that, besides obviously the cut in her throat, only the incision in her right thumb and the abrasions on that hand were done before she died.
If so, it seems she only had time to raise her right hand and possibly utter one single cry. I'm inclined to think that if he attacked her while she was awake, there would have been more signs of a struggle. Certainly if he was expected to undress too, it would not have been easy for him to hide the knife from her, I'd imagine. Still, he had it with him when he first attacked her.
I completely agree with you, though, when you say that we will probably never find out what happened exactly in poor Mary's room.
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)
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 130
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Diana,
Your remark about the fireplace made me wonder what Mary would have had to burn to heat the room. Remember that the killer burned clothes for heat and light. I know that Mary was short of money but a cold room is hardly an inducement for a client to spend the night. Can we attempt to draw any conclusions from this?
c.d. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:12 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Thanks for your responce. I was actually asking a question. I was not trying to make a suggestion about how long it would have taken Kelly to undress.
I still feel the ripper attacked her as soon as he got a chance. I do not feel he spent much time in the room with her before he attacked her.
I believe the cry of murder came from Kelly, so I think she picked up a customer after three. Somebody broke in after three or someone came by after three. I do not think he had sex with her and I feel she was awake when he attacked her.
What if the cry of murder did not come from Kelly? Then all bets are off.
Your friend, Brad |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1979
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
G'day,
George Hutchinson's press statement read like this: 'Kelly DID NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE DRUNK, (my capitals), but was a little spreeish...' (Pall Mall Gazette - 14 November 1888).
Can't we stop assuming that Mary Kelly was 'blind-drunk'?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 20, 2005) |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 106
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Can't you stop assuming that George Hutchinson was telling the truth about meeting Kelly that morning?
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1981
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
G'day Ben,
Jokes aside for a minute: I can't imagine someone that was spotted and identifiable by his "wide-awake hat", that was never on the minds of police before this, turning up at a police station and inventing a story like Hutchinson's.
As I've said before: I believe he was telling the truth, but he didn't volunteer the entire story.
*What would he have done if Mary or client appeared again that night?
*He said that his regular lodging house was closed. When did he find this out, after he left at 3:00a.m. or before he waited there?
*He said how long he had known Mary Kelly, but how did the pair meet in the first place?
*Did they meet before or after she went to France?
*What was he doing in Romford?
There is more that could have been asked, but I have to go now because I have a bus to catch.
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
There is more that could have been asked, but I have to go now because I have a bus to catch.
You see, that's fine for us to say that. But I'm struggling with the notion some other posters have that someone like Abberline, working on the ripper case and having to deal with the immediate aftermath of November 9, must have had a similar attitude.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 109
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hmm...wouldn't surprise me at all, Caz. Something prompted Abberline to swallow Hutchinson's nonsense whole, and that something may well have been a preoccupaton with catching the last bus home. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 131
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Well I'm struggling with the assumption that some people seem to have that Abberline acted soley on his own in this matter and that he failed to consult with his peers and those above him for their opinion. I find that hard to believe.
c.d. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 272
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
C.d.
There would probably have been much discussion between Aberline and his peers which was never put to paper.
We can understand from later writings of both Anderson and Swanson,that very early in the Kelly investigation,they claim to have known the identity of the ripper and that he was a Jew.Nothing to the contrary would have swayed their belief,so whatever Aberline discussed with them,unless it bolstered their views,would have had no effect. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page