|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 8:59 pm: | 
|
"There is nothing to link Hutchinson with any of the other murders, so far as I know; and the police at the time clearly did not think he was there man."
As heretical a suggestion as it may be; why do we invest so much stock in what the police made of George Hutchinson? According to this website's biography of GH, the chief "problem" with his ripper candidacy was that the police did not consider him a viable suspect.
That is NOT a problem with his candidacy.
That is a problem with the police at the time.
For what is remotely credible about this man's testimony?
(Message edited by BenH on September 03, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 815
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 1:36 am: |
|
Ben
On that basis I propose Charles Cross the carman who "supposedly" just found the body of Nichols in Bucks Row.
He was there before anyone else, might have killed her rather than found her, then put up a pretence when Paul came along. he could have had blood on him, and was never searched for a weapon.
The fact that the police dismissed him clearly points to a "problem with the police at the time".
And PROVE he wasn't at the other murder scenes too?
He obviously could drive a cart too.
Cross, "j'accuse"!!
Phil
PS - This is not serious, but as a suspect he is every bit as good as Hutchinson. But I challenge the Hutchinson supporters to demolish the case against Cross. I will then use their arguments against their candidate. fair? |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 168
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Phil,
The difference between assessing Cross and Hutchinson,is that in the latter we have a witness statement,signed by Hutchinson.
There is no corresponding statement signed by Cross that is available for us to make a judgement.
Now had Cross stated he followed Nicholls,saw her with a customer,gave as detailed a description of that customer as Hutchinson gave of Kelly's,and then hung around for forty minutes in a particular spot,I am sure he would have been very much thought of as suspect.But he didn't say he did those things.
If you wish to propose Cross as a viable suspect then do so,no one is preventing you.Lay out the evidence against him,so we know to what we have to respond.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 820
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
I see your response as special pleading, Harry. You can read up Cross as well as I can. The circumstantial detail is there.
He was actually WITH the body when Paul came upon him. He seems to have tried to put suspicion on a "Jew" - interesting tie in there with the graffito, no?
There is confusion about what cross told the policeman (Mizen) when they met him - the PC said there was no mention of the fact that the woman was dead.
My problem is that this is simply a contrivance. There is a similar one in the Mammoth Book - excellently done. Just as I cannot take Cross seriously as a suspect, I cannot take Hutchinson.
If you perceive the latter to be interesting, good luck to you. It's your time to waste. But it's a contrivance - no more, no less. the people who met him in 1888 did not think him worth following up. They weren't fools. Why should we think him worth study - it's boredom that's all, and a desire for novelty. But that's just my opinion (as you seem to delight in assuming I try to force my ideas on others).
Phil |
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 9
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
In neither capacity - witness or suspect - should Cross and Hutchinson be considered remotely comparable, I'm afraid.
Consider, for example, that Cross offered his evidence at the official inquest of Polly Nichols, whereas GH was conspicuously absent from that of Mary Jane Kelly.
For a man so concerned for MJK's safety that he followed the Jewish Astrakhan suspect for the purpose of discreet surveilance, does it not appear bafflingly illogical that he should then cogitate for three days before approaching the police with his ludicrous witness description?
It is entirely reasonable to surmise that he came forward the moment he learned that his loitering presence was observed in the immediate locality of the murder scene by Sarah Lewis, and on the night in question.
There are no such inferences to be drawn from Cross' tesimony.
Incidentally, I am troubled by the suggestion that a perceived "failure" to demolish the case against Cross would, in any way, detract from the case against Hutchinson.
Depending upon what one defines as a "link" between the murders, I would hesitate to say that GH can be linked to MJK and no other. Kate Eddows's blood-smeared apron was found on the North-East end of Goulston Street, in close proximity to the Victoria Home - Hutchinson's lodgings. It could be further observed that a "link" (rather a vague word, "link) ought to be established between the infamous graffiti and GH's apparent willingness to deflect suspicion in the Jewish direction.
the people who met him in 1888 did not think him worth following up.
Yes, but why are people so ill-equipped to perceive that the above is a pitifully silly reason for excluding a suspect? The police may not have been fools, but they didn't catch JTR either. In the instance of GH's testimony, I believe Abberline et al were either foolish in the extreme, or else they "feigned" support for his credibility as a cautionary measure.
Why should we think him worth study - it's boredom that's all, and a desire for novelty.
No, a persitence in the belief that JTR was a top-hat wearing, flamboyant dandy with a twirly moustache is a desire for novelty.
Mine, I would suggest, is altogether more realistic.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
The 'inkling v inclination' question is a matter of dialect usage going back to the late 18th century, and was discussed in relation to the diary, in a more appropriate thread.
Chris Phillips brought this 'nonsense' up again here to try and insult me once more about my less than complete understanding of how these two words may have been used or misused over the years.
I understand that, regarding 'inkling = inclination', Joseph Wright, in his English Dialect Dictionary (1898-1905) records ‘a faint or half-concealed desire or inclination’ in ‘general and dialect use in Scotland and England’. Also ‘a slight conjecture or suspicion; a faint idea, a ‘soupcon’; a slight hint or intimation’ likewise, though with a Scottish and Northern bias. Apparently there was widespread use in the 19th century, but I don't know anything much about more modern usage.
And as I say, one of today's dialect experts sees no reason why the two words should not have interchanged and interconnected - in dialect.
Now back to eliminating what is truly impossible.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 824
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Then Ben, we have different ideas of realism. My post was satire. What is your's?
The graffito is not yet shown to have any connection with jack - whomever he was. Indeed, the failure of all the "heroic" efforts here to make a connection, for me demonstrate that there probably IS no connection.
In any case, the location of the graffito (in geographic terms) tells us nothing about the killer. It would depend - even if his work - on which direction he approached from. IMHO, it certainly can't strengthen a case against Hutchinson. But clutch at straws all you will....
By the way, your analysis of why the police dismissed Hutchinson is incomplete. It may reflect your belief, but misses several options: that they were satisfied that he was telling the truth (at least in terms of what he did); or that good evidence ruled him out. The paperwork we have on MJK is so incomplete as for either to be possible.
Besides, I NEVER treat people in the past as incompetent or wrong-headed without definite evidence. It is far to common a trait among Ripper-fans to assume that officials in the past were incompetent, duplicitous, corrupt (oth in reference to cover-ups and conspiracy), unprofessional - without ever taking into account the limitations of their age, or the mores of their society. I abhor this libelling of hard-working people who surely did their best in the face of unprecedented events. It is not deserved and not worthy.
As I take almost no interest in the diary - as it is unprovenanced, and in all probability a forgery - the whole inkling "thing" is of no interest to me.
Phil
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Chris Phillips brought this 'nonsense' up again here to try and insult me once more...
Poor lamb!
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 876
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 1:55 pm: |
|
Phil,
I think you'll find that assuming that the police could do no wrong -- even despite several examples of very clear errors on their part -- is far worse than admitting that they were human and could and did make mistakes just like any other human. It really gets tiring to see people pretend that any conclusion any police official came to is somehow writ in stone as the voice of undeniable wisdom... or, worse yet, suggesting that any common sense questioning of just how much they could have known is somehow "libel" (oh how I wish people here would learn the real meaning of that word) or unfair because "they were not fools."
I'm sorry, but first off we don't know that they weren't fools. It'd be nice to think that no police force anywhere ever had any fools in charge, but that's simply not realistic. And, to top it off, at least a couple of officials in the Ripper case have a fair amount of evidence against them hinting that they weren't really all that competent. And secondly even otherwise quite skillful investigators can be completely out of their depth or lack sufficient information from which to make conclusions. Even today it's quite difficult to capture serial killers when we have more knowledge about them and greater technology, so it's just absurd to try to assume that only "fools" wouldn't know what they were talking about during a search for a late 19th century killer.
There's a huge difference between eliminating a theory that was built from factual errors and deceitful twisting of facts (if not often completely making them up out of thin air) and also has a lot of strong contradictory evidence against it (Prince Jack, Cornwell's impotent and letter-writing obsessed Sickert, Lewis Carroll the anagrammatic Jack, etc.) and pretending that other far more reasonable theories have been eliminated. This thread is not intended to be a list of what Phil refuses to accept as a possibility, it's supposed to be about which things have been shown to be impossible.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 826
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
I'm not sure, Dan, that I have tried to wholly dismiss any theory but the royal conspiracy. I even have an open mind about the possibility of conspiracy - especially one involving the Fenians.
But to turn to my point about the police. Dan, I have NEVER said that I believe that the police got it all right, that they did not make mistakes. What I questioned was the wisdom of considering people of former periods fools.
No one has yet shown that the police did dismiss Hutchinson or Barnett prematurely or unwisely. They MAY have done - but no one until recent years has pointed the finger at either man.
As an historian, I find it best to judge people of the past by the standards and as far as possible in the context of their own times. there is a well known (but wise for all that) saying that one should never judge another until one has walked a while in his shoes.
I see an awful lot of abuse thrown at Abberline, when by my reading he seems to have been very thorough (for instance, in chasing up possible suspects) according to the surviving files. He was also discrete, and considered a safe enough pair of hands to be given the ultra-sensitive Cleveland St case the following year.
Macnagten is another I see on Casebook regularly "bashed" as engaging in cover-ups and fabrications, on the flimsiest evidence.
I don't think these men deserve it, frankly.
Finally, what is your understanding of the word "libel". My understanding (and usual usage in the UK, is a written defamation or accusation. Slander is the same thing when spoken.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 877
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
"What I questioned was the wisdom of considering people of former periods fools."
No, what you did is set up a straw man argument where any criticism of any police official is depicted as an attempt to label them as fools instead of typical human beings with typical human failings. Either that or you've decided to focus only on the most extreme positions of certain posters and tried to paint everyone else who questions any police conclusion as being the exact same thing.
"No one has yet shown that the police did dismiss Hutchinson or Barnett prematurely or unwisely. They MAY have done - but no one until recent years has pointed the finger at either man. "
OK, so you admit the may have? Above you made it clear that you considered the whole idea ridiculous and not worth anyone's time.
"As an historian, I find it best to judge people of the past by the standards and as far as possible in the context of their own times."
But you aren't even doing that, you are treating them far more kindly than they were treated in their own times. And even if we give them the benefit of the doubt it doesn't mean they are infallible.
"Macnagten is another I see on Casebook regularly "bashed" as engaging in cover-ups and fabrications, on the flimsiest evidence."
Well, of course if you label them flimsy I'm sure that goes along way to convincing yourself that you are right. And of course your slant on what exactly his critics say is a bit of a hyperbole. Cover ups and fabrications? How about mistakes and unconsciously choosing to interpret evidence is a very specific way that may not have anything to do with reality? Certainly if what he said were true it'd be unlikely that the other police officials could disagree with him, yet they most certainly did. Would you accuse Anderson and Abberline of calling Macnaghten a fool because they disagreed? Or do you only use such emotional language against modern people who disagree with you?
"My understanding (and usual usage in the UK, is a written defamation or accusation. Slander is the same thing when spoken."
Accusation? No, accusations in and of themselves are not libelous by any stretch of the imagination. Defamation? Yes, but then it doesn't really help to pull out another word to support yourself if you don't know what it means either.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 828
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
The definition of libel was actually taken from a dictionary. So disagree all you like with that Dan. It does for me.
You also characterise my post as more extreme than was ever intended. That may have been your perception, but I KNOW what my intent was and my position is.
I don't intend to debate the point with you, my post is there for anyone to read.
And I don't think that Anderson and Macnaghten did disagree, other than I might disgree with colleagues at work in emphasis rather than thrust. Both considered Kosminski a suspect.
It is also possible (just IMHO) that Macnaghten's memorandum is intentionally misleading. That could be either because of the Cutbush affair (for which I bow once again to AP) or in regard to the cover-up of Fenian involvement - see Nick Warren's article in the Mammoth Book. But on the whole, I think the more simple explanation of MM's memo as a note of guidance for the file, work's best. That may include minor inaccuracies - but the memorandum was probably not intended for public viewing perse, and would have been checked against the files had it been drawn on (say) for a statement in the House.
Actually (and genuinely) I find that if indeed MM wrote from memory as I believe he said he did, then the memorandum is remarkable for its accuracy rather than its mistakes. Again just my view, but it's one I have set out in full several times on Casebook.
Finally, I have nothing but the greatest respect for you, Dan (though I have never read your magazine). As to the reverse? You are welcome to whatever view you wish to take of me - I don't intend to change my approach or my views.
Phil
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 170
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
Phil,
I am not forcing anything on you.It was you who proposed that Cross was a viable suspect,so it is up to you to respond,and state why he should be viewed as such.You seem to be wasting time on other posibilities,a little more on Cross shouldn't worry you. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
If you think that the police most likely had good grounds to eliminate Hutchinson from their enquiries into MJK's murder - or to not suspect him in the first place - do you not think that would also have applied to Kidney regarding Stride's murder?
Hutchinson stood for 45 minutes close to where MJK was butchered, and you feel his name has been 'plucked at in desperation'.
Kidney, for all you know, was never near Berner St when Stride's throat was cut, yet you feel he 'probably' killed her.
What is wrong with you? Can't you see how inconsistent and selective your opinions are?
Why shouldn't you be accused of plucking at Kidney in desperation, in your campaign to strip away 'myths' by lowering a serial killer's body count until he disappears altogether and remains the only myth?
Love,
Caz
|
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 10
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Phil,
My post was satire. What is your's?
Ah, if it was satire, that would explin it. I knew you can't have been wholly serious in your suggestion that Cross and Hutchinson make for an apt comparison of suspects. 
I'm not labelling the police as "fools" per se. Far from it. I'm merely suggested that they *might* have been misguided in their blind acceptance of Hutchinson's testimony. However, it is equally possible, as I noted above, that the police were initially distrustful of GH's evidence but were reluctant to point the accusatory finger for the sake of caution.
Surely you recognise the intrinsic folly in the assertion that "they believed him in 1888, so he must be innocent"? The notion is risible in the extreme.
The graffiti may not be wholly indicative of the ripper's actions/movements, but surely the blood-stained apron is a different matter altogether? This, as I've illustrated previously, was located in close procimity to the Victoria Home, and moreover, was on the return journey from Mitre Square.
The word "link" is a vague and encompassing one, but the above is nonetheless a "link" between GH and the Eddows' murder. A tenuous one, you may argue, but it remains a link. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 831
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Ben - see the PS to my original "Cross" post above:
PS - This is not serious, but as a suspect he is every bit as good as Hutchinson. But I challenge the Hutchinson supporters to demolish the case against Cross. I will then use their arguments against their candidate. fair?
Surely you recognise the intrinsic folly in the assertion that "they believed him in 1888, so he must be innocent"? The notion is risible in the extreme.
I'm not sure I do (pace Mr Norder). Logically, wouldn't that approach have us re-opening the book on EVERY suspect the police considered and let go?
Caz - I'm beginning to get a persecution complex. You seem determined to follow me around. Going back to where all this started, in my rigourous denunciation of the "royal" conspiracy theory - I note no one is questioning my analysis in the thread I opened. So do you all (those of you who have been hounding me) actually agree with my position?
My position on Hutchinson is this - for around 100 years after the murders no one considered him even remotely a suspect. Suddenly, as people look around for a new angle, his name is thrown into the ring. those of others, just as likely as suspects (like Cross) are not.
Kidney is different because that arises from the oddities about Stride's murder that have always been there - location, lack of mutilations, out of usual hunting ground; combined with AP's recognition of his behaviour in going to the police; and (admittedly circumstantial evidence) of his prior brutal treatment of stride, and her likely presence with another man on the evening of her death. Add to that the pecularities of the schwartz statement and you have considerable grounds for looking again at the case.
I don't see anything like the same grounds for re-assessing Hutchinson, but if you want to waste your time that's your affair.
Phil
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 245
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
At present , I'd say that there isn't a strong enough case to convict any suspect , we simply don't have the evidence.
Therefore I would say that the Royal Conpsiracy case is the strongest case at the moment , no matter how ridiculous you think it sounds , because ' Lack of evidence IS evidence ' i.e. it could be evidence of a cover-up.
Think of all the great minds ( and not so great minds as well ) that have tried to fathom out this case and got nowhere. The police of the time got nowhere , and now WE are nowhere nearer finding the Ripper than we were in 1992 before the Diary controversy. Why is that ?
Maybe the most profitable line of inquiry may be to ask why the police and detectives of the time could not solve the case : also Phil may have a point with his comparisons to the Cleveland Street affair. If the Ripper case was a conspiracy covered up , why was it different to the Cleveland Street case ?
I can't see that trying to profile the killer would work , because we are talking about an age before film & television & radio here - all things that would inform a modern serial killer. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 833
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Simon - please go into my specific thread on this (current) and show me where the possibilities for a cover-up exist. I'd be grateful for such a critique. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 727
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Simon,
Maybe the most profitable line of inquiry may be to ask why the police and detectives of the time could not solve the case
I would suggest the answer is for the same reason that modern police forces, with all the advances in science from the past 117 years at their disposal, are so lamentably slow in catching contemporary serial killers. 'Tain't easy today and was much harder back then. Serial killers usually pick victims at random from the margins of society and those traits certainly contribute to the difficulty.
' Lack of evidence IS evidence '
A statement worthy of Lewis Carroll, but if you truly believe it you might want to investigate Francis Dawson, a gentleman who was in Whitechapel at the time and did have an interest in the murders, but for whom there is absolutely no other evidence whatsoever to connerct him with the crimes.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 728
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
no other evidence whatsoever to connerct him with the crimes.
Or connect him for that matter. 
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 315
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I've always regarded the "royal theory" as one of the lesser "solutions" but exactly which royal theory are we speaking of here? There have been combinations of Eddy, Gull, Sickert, Anderson, Netley, Stephen, Lees, in addition to a complicit Queen (and I'm probably forgetting some others) taken 2-n at a time. Where will it all end?
Goodies,
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 837
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Stan - I am seeking to address them all in a current thread. All are inter-related, and all ultimately flawed.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I don't think there is a great case against Hutchinson or Kidney, so I was just interested in your reasons for suspecting Kidney of murder (although the police at the time didn't), while not suspecting Hutchinson (supporting your argument with the fact that the police at the time didn't).
You wrote:
My position on Hutchinson is this - for around 100 years after the murders no one considered him even remotely a suspect. Suddenly, as people look around for a new angle, his name is thrown into the ring.
And I could write:
My position on Kidney is this - for around 100 years after the murders no one considered him even remotely a domestic murder suspect. Stride was considered to be a ripper victim. Suddenly, as people look around for a new angle (such as reducing the serial killer's tally to three at most), his name is thrown into the ring.
I don't see anything wrong with re-assessing Kidney or Hutchinson. But how do you know that it isn't you wasting your time with the former? It's patronising and arrogant in the extreme - and very debatable - to claim that others are wasting their time on a certain angle but that you are not.
I simply disagree that there is any clear evidence that Kidney 'probably' killed Stride, that the police at the time would have completely overlooked. They weren't so gormless that they didn't question Barnett - a man with no apparent history of violence or abuse who had recently split with MJK. So I see no reason at all to doubt that they would have checked out Kidney.
But we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.
I have yet to digest the posts on your new thread:
Royal Conpiracies - a critical view.
Just like with you and the diary, there are certain topics that I find less absorbing than others.
Love,
Caz
X |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 246
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 7:25 am: |
|
Don , ' a lack of evidence IS evidence ' means there has been a cover-up by somebody in a high place , i.e. they removed what evidence there was. When you encounter a situation with suspiciously little evidence , it is possible that evidence has been gotten rid of.
This doesn't mean anyone with no evidence against them could have been the Ripper - !!!!
However , its not something you could convict someone on is it ? |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3989
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
Since it is quite apparent from the official reports (which are all pretty much complete), that the police did NOT check out Kidney as a viable suspect, but in fact already from the start considered the Stride killing a Ripper murder, truly indicates that the police at the time were influenced in a negative way and didn't explore alternative directions. Kidney was called at the inquest, where he gave a very dubious and arrogant testimony - period. In spite of this, it appears rather obvious that he was never investigated as a suspect. Which is just another example of how many mistakes the police made.
The same with Hutchinson's testimony; there are so many Swiss holes in it and so many dubious details, that apparently the police were happy to ignore just because he delivered them a suspect at a time when they were under extreme pressure.
I can't say, that the fact that the police seem to have 'accepted' certain persons as credible automatically rules them out as suspects. The police at the time probably worked as hard as they could, but interview techniques were in their infancy and their experience in serial murders were practically zero, and it is quite reasonable to suggest that they were totally over their heads in the Ripper case and not cut out for such a vast investigation. So the fact that they cleared some people from suspicion means absolutely nothing.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
I can't say, that the fact that the police seem to have 'accepted' certain persons as credible automatically rules them out as suspects.
I have no problem with that and, as you know, I think the opposite applies too, ie that the fact that the police named certain persons as suspects, or even 'likely' suspects, does not automatically make them better suspects today than the newer variety.
And as I keep saying, I don't think there's anything wrong with thrashing out ideas, old and new, or with re-assessing the suspects we have. That's what we do here!
I just don't think the evidence allows anyone to say that Kidney 'probably' murdered Stride, or that anyone suspecting Hutchinson of foul play must be desperate.
That isn't being open-minded and it isn't merely playing with new ideas - not by any stretch of the imagination.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3991
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Well, actually, Caz,
If you are implying is that the suspicions against Kidney (if we now are taking him as an example here to prove a point), are taken out of thin air, you are clearly wrong.
With his history of abusing her (if we are to believe Stride) and his strange conduct at the inquest in mind, he would be a very reasonable suspect and quite clearly a suspect that the modern police would have focused their attention on.
Therefore it is stupid not to do so on our part, just because the police in 1888 didn't seem to have done so.
The suspicions against Kidney are no fantasies a la Stephen Knight, they are built on facts regarding violence and abuse and on his relation to the victim. This is normal police procedure, that you choose to dismiss.
For the last time, Caz, we don't have evidence here of ANYTHING, and if we had to wait for evidence to pop up, we probably wouldn't get anywhere. You know it, and I know it.
But what we DO have are interesting indications pointing in certain directions and that are worth investigating. It is quite reasonable to follow those up, and being stuck in the old and in my view very much outdated Canonical Five concept, is certainly not creative when we have indications pointing towards other directions.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 249
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Glenn , this is the thing with the Royal Conpiracy theory : there isn't much ( if any ) solid evidence to support it , but there are interesting indications that something like this may have happened. Both Knight and Fairclough drew erroneous conclusions from the evidence , but I don't believe this discredits the idea that a conspiracy could have taken place.
Who would have believed that George V was given a lethal injection on his deathbed in 1935 ? But subsequent royal records now in the public domain show that this was the case , it shows the Royals do conceal things so who knows what else may have been hidden from the public ?
(Message edited by simonowen on September 06, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 842
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
But the "royals" did not conceal the facts about George V's death. There was no attempt to cover-up the facts when they emerged.
But this cover-up malarky is not rubbish simply because of a lack of evidence. Viewed as a whole, in its historical context, with due regard to the personalities involved, the political atmosphere and the ascribed motives - it just won't hold water.
There is, as I think I (echoing Rumbelow and others) have done in my new thread is to show that the alleged motive for the cover-up simply does not exist. I can (just about) take the idea that absence of evidence might suggest something to those inclined to believe, but surely to insinuate a cover-up you have at least to indicate why one was needed?
I await, Simon your correct conclusions based on the "evidence" as against Knight's and Fairclough's erroneous ones. I assume you have some to make the remark.
I continue to affirm that the royal conspiracy is totally and utterly discredited, and I will happily debate any opposite contention - as I have been doing.
that said, I repeat that I do not rule out all possibility of conspiracy - the Fenian situation might just have demanded a political curtain to be drawn. Again, I point to Nick Warren's essay in the "Mammoth Book".
So time to put up or shut up, IMHO, Simon. Ready?
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3993
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Simon,
"this is the thing with the Royal Conpiracy theory : there isn't much ( if any ) solid evidence to support it , but there are interesting indications that something like this may have happened."
No, there are not. What we do have, on the other hand, are facts that totally shreds these ideas to pieces.
We actually have clear evidence - yes, evidence (not indications) - (based on proper research done by by people like Rumbelow) that more or less disproves the most vital parts of the theories involving Royal connections.
There does not exist one single indication on any Royal connection or cover-up linked to the Royals in the Ripper case.
The theories we know so far putting forward these ideas have proven littered with deliberate lies, hoaxes, factual errors and inconsistencies.
Let it rest where it belongs - in the fairy-tale books.
As for cover-ups... it would be a very bad decision to murder a number of prostitutes in a very spectacular way if you wanted to cover up something linked to the Royal house. In 1888 there would have been a number of more discrete and effective ways to cover something up if you wanted to. It would be quite easy to let some destitute prostitutes in East End disappear without a trace.
That said, the Feninan connection and political motives can never be totally ruled out, but I fail to see any true indications or facts pointing towards it, based on what we know so far.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 850
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
My thread is available for Simon's detailed criticism and refutation 9should he care to try) at any time. The thread awaits - I have set out my case at length. Dare he do the same?
For instance, I have yet to see him set out his "indications". Now is the time.
Over to you, Simon.
phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2403
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
The way I have seen it is from the point of view
of "method".
If anyone-a Govt. Minister,a Free Mason,Sir William Gull- whoever was supposed to have been involved in any " cover up " would they have chosen to murder the victims in such a spectacularly public way?
The obvious way to get rid of such women ,if they were say blackmailing someone in the Royal household,would have been by them quietly arranging for them to "disappear"-not by killing them in a fanfare of publicity.
And even in the very unlikely/improbable scenario of Prince Eddy or others in his set being involved in these Whitechapel murders it would have been rapidly stopped by the powers that be.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 851
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Very good sense, Natalie.
Thank you, Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2405
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Thanks Phil,I too think its best to concentrate on the possible rather than the [highly]improbable!
Natalie |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 250
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
" But the "royals" did not conceal the facts about George V's death. There was no attempt to cover-up the facts when they emerged.
Yes , but the facts didn't emerge until nearly 60 years later ( George V died on 20th Jan 1936 , my mistake above ) !!! |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 251
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
The indications for a Royal conspiracy lie in the anecdotal evidence which has emerged since the time. I can't say more than that.
I don't feel that it is my place to attempt to prove or disprove a Royal conspiracy theory either , I've tried to do that before and not succeeded.
Of course such a theory is improbable , its not every day that a member of the Royal family would sanction the murder of prostitutes is it ? There would have to be very special circumstances for that to happen , if it did happen at all.
So improbable yes , but impossible no. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 921
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:53 pm: |
|
One of the reasons,objectively,to discount [ not eliminate for a moment ] the multi-man conspiracy involving the Monarchy would be the fact that it was a pretty sloppy collection of "hits", as in being conducted by royally-motivated hitmen. Because thats basically what the Royal Conspiracy theory is: a series of hits conducted for the benefit of someone other than the actual murderers.
Few conspiracies would involve a man who probably couldn't move faster than 5 miles an hour [ Gull ]...a prole behind the leash [ Netley ]..and due to more than two men being involved, the increased risk of one blackmailing the Crown. Even with another set of assassins, the more men involved, the greater chance of one getting caught and divulging a very,very nasty secret.....Hitmen usually work alone.......
Hitmen do their thing without all the concomitant muss and fuss of skewered body parts..witness sightings...and risky outdoor mutilations.
Just a thought....
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 922
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Glenn...
"Kidney was called at the inquest, where he gave a very dubious and arrogant testimony - period."
Glenn..does this sound like a man with something to hide?
"In spite of this, it appears rather obvious that he was never investigated as a suspect. Which is just another example of how many mistakes the police made..."
This is based,my friend,on your interpretation of Kidney's performance at the Inquest. You and I didn't see if he fidgeted..retracted...flushed in the face at a question..squirmed..raised or lowered his voice..nada. The Police,who were present...DID.
"If you are implying is that the suspicions against Kidney (if we now are taking him as an example here to prove a point), are taken out of thin air, you are clearly wrong."
With his history of abusing her (if we are to believe Stride).."
Another problem. Stride was human,all too human. Capable of all the vices we are not immune to to make friends,win over people,and in general,be a bullshit artist. Stride made the false claim regarding the Princess Alice and the death of John Stride. Why should the claim that Kidney abused her,elevate him to the degree necessary to make him so viable of suspect status today, if Stride was a known liar ? Many men "abuse" their spouses and many men don't "abuse" them to the degree alleged. Women,God bless them,aren't above lying...Stride lied. Stride was a prostitute. Show me an honest prostitute..please !!!
"he [ Kidney ] would be a very reasonable suspect and quite clearly a suspect that the modern police would have focused their attention on..."
He sure would. But based more so on his relationship with Stride as a lover/boyfriend....as would Barnett regarding Kelly. The abuse charges would definitely be checked into if anyone had heard of them. If not,and Kidney had an alibi for that night...he walks....just like Barnett.
"But what we DO have are interesting indications pointing in certain directions and that are worth investigating.."
Exactly, my ex-Swedish,now British,amigo. When someone can explain concretely why Kidney in all his belligerence and bushy upper lipped glory walked on the day of the Stride inquest, besides assuming police incompetence,then I'll wave that flag along with you..
But keep fighting against the C5...by all means.
A.P. is unearthing what looks like gold elsewhere....
How do you like England,by the way,Glenn? Do you want me to send some real food?
How
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 852
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 2:03 am: |
|
But keep fighting against the C5...by all means.
We should all fight against the "C5" (if by that you mean the canonical five victims).
As police accounts of the time make clear, there was no real concensus as to the number of victims. Nichols was for long seen as the second or third victim.
The five are simply a conventional wisdom, and I believe we should approach this case as if it were new - hence the Back to Basics threads that I started months ago.
That said we should use the five when convenient - if only to deconstruct it.
I don't understand (let alone agree with) this mind set that says we shouldn't challenge the five (How, Caz) - why NOT?? It's like the criticism of me for daring to perceive a "killzone" north of Whitechapel Rd. I have never said we should NOT continue in parallel to include the Berner St site - but fresh perspectives bring fresh ideas and that opens possibilities - to new patterns in what facts we have, for instance.
The first policemen to encounter these crimes had to approach it as "fresh" - so should we. Like a modern archaeologist going over the papers of an old dig and re-assssing and re-evaluating what was found long ago.
Simon - so you won't back up your earlier assertions then? Let other's judge the implications of that for my earlier statements - the royal conspiracy theory is dead after all, because its adherents won't even fight for it intellectually.
As for information on George V's death, I'm not surprised it only emerged after decades. Euthanasia - which it effectively was - remains illegal in the UK. But it was done for good reasons - mercy and dignity. I wouldn't expect the royal family to release details of the last moments of the recent deaths of HM The Queen Mother or Princess Margaret - it's too personal. Time and distance, on the other hand mean that these things are somnewhat less sensitive.
Simon - has any version of the royal conspiracy theory had a member of the family "sanctioning" the murders - commissioning was always alleged to have been done by the politicians, as I understand it?
How - there is not a SHRED of evidence that netley was remotely associated with the killings other than the tainted statements of Joe Gorman. Knight embroidered those - or tried to - but his unnamed coachman, and "Nickley" remain in doubt as reference to Netley. Let him and Gull rest, say I.
Indeed, we can now all write RIP on the royal conspiracy and have Simon's blessing on it.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3994
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:04 am: |
|
How,
Thanks, I love it here and don't regret moving to England for a second.
No need to send me any food - I actually haven't eaten this good in years. The unfair bad reputation English cousine has received is clearly a result of exaggeration. It is very fresh, the meat is excellent and the vegetables are wonderful.
But thanks anyway.
Now to Kidney,
"Glenn..does this sound like a man with something to hide?"
It wouldn't be the first time a suspect acted strangely. All I know is, that it is the conduct of a man who doesn't seem to be all right in his head, and probably also a drunkard.
"This is based,my friend,on your interpretation of Kidney's performance at the Inquest."
No, it is based on the alleged history of abuse (together with the conduct at the inquest). As for his character, his testimony speaks for itself, no need for any interpretations.
The point is, that - regardless of the alleged abuse had any truth in them or not - this would have been enough for the police to treat him as a suspect, but there are no indications at all on that they did.
"The abuse charges would definitely be checked into if anyone had heard of them."
Well, apparently they were not.
It is quite clear that the police saw the Stride murder as the work of a Ripper (especially when another body pops up in Mitre Square less than an hour later) and that they in that case dfidn't seem to have focused their activities in other directions. Every indication we have points at, that Kidney therefore was treated as an ordinary witness - NOT interrogated as a suspect (and therefore didn't check his alibi in the first place). Don't do the ultimate mistake by trusting everything the police did.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4940
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
But Glenn, they checked Kelly out.
Swanson's report, November 6th :
"...deceased, who was separated from her husband, and was living in adultery with a man named John Kelly, respecting whom enquiry was at once made by Metropolitan and City Police, the result of which was to shew clearly that he was not the murderer."
Robert
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3995
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:28 am: |
|
Exactly, Robert.
But we have no such information in a report regarding Kidney, do we?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
This is how Sugden sees it:
Inquiries into the background of a murder victim are usually productive of some clue pointing to the identity of the killer. This is because in the majority of cases murderer and victim are known to each other. By the fifth Whitechapel investigation, however, it must have become apparent that this type of investigation was not going to elucidate this particular series of crimes.Chief Inspector Swanson, writing his summary report on the Stride murder, did not deem what the police had learned about the victim's past even worth of recapitulation. 'It may be shortly stated,' he noted gloomily, 'that the inquiry into her history did not disclose the slightest pretext for a motive on behalf of friends or associates or anyone who had known her.'
Presumably the enquiry into Kelly's whereabouts was carried out by the City police, not by the Met?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4941
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
Glenn, I'd say it would be highly improbable for the police to think to check out Kelly, but not to think to check out Kidney.
Robert |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3996
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:59 am: |
|
Robert,
Judging from the reports we have, they appear not to have checked out Kidney, whether one finds it improbable or not - considering his alleged history of abuse, it would actually have been far more relevant for them to include info about him in the reports to the Home Office than Kelly.
One reason for why John Kelly was questioned and checked out in a proper manner, could be that the City Police (whom I consider more professional in their approach) were involved in the Mitre Square murder.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4942
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
Well Chris, Swanson says both, and of course we can't say who did what.
But are we being asked to believe that the police investigating Stride's murder would actually go so far as to check out three American cowboys....but not Kidney?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4943
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Well Glenn, I think Kidney's in there, you think not, because he wasn't mentioned by name. We'll have to leave it at that.
PS Check out English sausages.
Robert |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Gentlemen,
Phil is of course correct. Slander is an utterance that has the intent to damage a person's reputation. Libel is the written form of the same thing.
There is nothing in what Phil has written so far as I can see, that indicates a belief in the infallibily of the police. Is it possible the police made mistakes? Of course it is, but groundless conjecture is not a way to support theories, or rather, it is not a proper way, though many seem to resort to such methods.
Mike |
Bradski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 10:41 pm: |
|
I have a problem with PAV as the ripper. I think that if all of the eyewitnessess, and the prostitutes who were murdered, had seen Prince Albert, they may have been more than slightly perturbed. They may have bothered to mention it to the police and press. That is unless, ofcouse, they did not know what their future king looked like. It is more than likely that if Eddy had to reassure his manhood, he would have gone deer hunting , or off to Africa to bag a few elephants. |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Hey,
When this thread was started, it was for purpose of weeding out impossible Rippers. That was lowered to highly improbable if I'm not mistaken. Conspiracy theories are highly improbable. Unless real documented testimony miraculously appears, I'm leaving the prince off my list. Heck, I may even grow some cojones and toss old Tumblety.
Cheers,
Mike |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
