|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
johnghtrer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 2:36 am: | 
|
And to add George was'nt the worse.In one newspaper article a man went to a police station and proclaimed that he was the ripper.After some investigation and his dad saying he was with him all night he was released.Just a drunk. |
Restless Spirit
Police Constable
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi all
I am greatly intrigued by the mention of 2 george Hutchinsons mentioned in Stan Russo's book The Jack the Ripper Suspects. I had not seen this mentioned before in any of the countless J t R books and articles I have read and viewed. I have no doubt that many of you have read this book and am wondering what your thoughts are on the lunatic from the US. Is it possible that the British George Hutchinson was cunning enough to fool the seasoned Abberline. How much is actually known about the British Geo. H ? Is it possible that the American Geo. H was one and the same? I know that British & American speech is very different but if one travels between the two places it doesn't take long to pick up the various accents. Not to forget that today actors and actresses regularly train themselves to speak according to their roles and location. Why couldn't old George.
This information in Stan Russo's book really stood out as fact or fiction that definately needs to be proven or disproved.
Hope to hear from you soon
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Hello all.
If,according to his statement, Hutchinson was so concerned with Mary's welfare,why did he actually just leave the scene after waiting 45 minutes in the rain?
Now,I don't know for sure,but I suspect that 3 quarters of an hour was considerably longer than the average "Session" therefore surely Huchinsons concerns would have deepened the longer it took for Astrakan man to re-emerge from the court.
But,rather than going to check to see if Mary is alright, according to his own statement,Hutchinson just buggers off!
Now if this aspect of George Hutchinson's statement alone doesn't look suspicious,then I don't know what does!
Kane
|
Mitch Hannah
Police Constable
Username: Mitch
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Hello all,
In reference to Bob's initial post. One case where a serial killer claimed to have associated with the police, and talk about his own murders would be that of Edmund Emil Kemper, the co-ed killer from the late 1960s early 1970s era. I say claimed because I don't know if the police ever acknowledged this boast on Kemper's part.
As to Hutchinson. I believe his relationship with Kelly was far different than he elaborated to police. He seems very like a man who "fancied" Kelly, and either never broached the subject with her, or may have been rejected. I am more inclined to the former. As far as what he saw, or claimed to see you have two options:
1) He was a conspirator, who deliberately misled the police as to the description, or possibly his description was simply a fabric he wove to cover for the earlier client seen by other witnesses.
2) He wanted to see his name in print. His 15 minutes of fame as they say.
He may actually have seen what he described. No one knows with any certainty. I would cast no aspersions on the deceased, but we do not really know what his moral character was. Option 1 above would certainly account for his hesitation in coming forward, but the one-day inquest was, in itself, a farce when compared to Wynne Baxter relentless pursuit of justice in the cases he presided over.
Mitch
"On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest, and, resting, died."
Anonymous c. 1900
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hi Mitch,
I still wonder if Hutch may have introduced the odd client or two (pun intended re 'odd') to Mary, and worried sick that he might have been responsible for leading Jack to her.
Giving an accurate description to the police or papers of the client he suspected may have killed her, could have had a number of drawbacks, not least that the client, if Jack, could find him again and seek revenge for having the finger pointed at him.
Alternatively, the client may have been entirely innocent, in which case Hutch may not have wanted to be responsible for putting a rope round the neck of someone he may have done business with before.
And any business associations with a client arrested on suspicion as a result of his description could have landed him in hot water too.
Hutch may have calculated that not coming forward at all could have had even more serious drawbacks than giving the police just enough wrong information to send them on a fool's errand.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 463
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Pure speculation of course. This is all perfectly reasonable, but unsupported and unprovable.
Phil |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2448
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 07, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Caz
Good point ..... IF Hutch and Mary were 'chums' its a possibility that that could be the case.
There is the point though that sticks in my mind...why did he decide it wasn't worth hanging about after the old 45 mins....something more interesting take his attention? or what?
Suzi xx |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Maybe he was just homeless and had no other place to go? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2459
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Diana
Hutch I feel was the sort of chap who could have 'made a bed' for himself anywhere
I dont think that being without a bed or a room ws a prob to GH!
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 3:29 am: |
|
Hi,
I believe that George H was simply telling the truth when he said it 'was strange to see such a well dressed man going off with Kelly'
In other words he was curious or just plain nosey.
On hearing of her death he became very apprehensive and after conversations with fellow boarders was advised to approach the police with his version of events.
To me there is no big mystery only the identity of the Lord Randolph Churchill look alike?...
Regards Richard. |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 79
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
Perhaps too, Hutchinson was that underated nobody who fooled everyone.There are such people,even of his class. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1743
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
G'day,
The 'Atchinson Daily Globe' of Kanvas USA reported: 'He had no thought of the previous murders and certainly no suspicion that the man contemplated violence, since his conspicuous manifestations of affection for his companion as they walked along formed a large part of the incentive to keep them in sight.' Why should a prostitute's client showing 'conspicuous manifestations of affection' toward the prostitute cause any alarm?
LEANNE |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Hi Caroline.
All this mysterious conspiracy stuff, not only about Hutchinson, but a whole multitude of innocent people, is making a ridiculous joke out of an already complex case. As Phil said, this stuff is wholly unsupported and unprovable.
Why, for once, can't you accept the probable "human nature" reason, that Hutchinson was, initially, simply afraid of being caught up in the Kelly murder, and possibly finding himself being treated as a suspect.
That sort of "don't want to get involved" situation, is happening every day.
Regards.
LUKE WHITLEY
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2466
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Caz
(Ello dearie!)
I agree with you here re Hutch,the fact that Hutch waited till Monday to 'cough up' is a worry but your reason would make a lot of sense!
Leanne
LOVE the "Atchinson "Daily Globe!!! bit close for comfort eh!(misprint!?  )
Mr Hill
MOST things here are "unsupportable and unprovable!" thats what keeps us alive!
Suzi
Richard
The well dressed man of course is a prob and Churchill Snr did of course fit the bill (!) but................. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
Hi Luke,
Why, for once, can't you accept the probable "human nature" reason, that Hutchinson was, initially, simply afraid of being caught up in the Kelly murder, and possibly finding himself being treated as a suspect.
Why so touchy?
I was actually basing my speculation on exactly what you yourself are now speculating - ie that Hutch may have been afraid of being caught up with police enquiries one way or another, because of his activities that night.
What's the problem with speculating on what those activities may have been, and what may have motivated them?
Love,
Caz
X |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Hi Caz.
My apologies if I appeared touchy. You are of course right that we should speculate on all things. But we've got to be careful about speculating too far, and ending up in the realms of the ridiculous. George Hutchinson was a casual labourer, probably as poorly off as most people in that poverty stricken community. But I've seen him being tagged as a possible "pimp" or even murderer.
The same unfounded speculation has linked poor Joe Barnett with being Kelly's killer, or even the Ripper himself, and then there's Michael Kidney etc. There's not an ounce of evidence to contadict Hutchinson's statement of what he saw and reported to the police.
Let's speculate about another "Ripper" for a moment. If Peter Sutcliffe hadn't been caught, a hundred years from now, every victim's husband or boyfriend would have been the subject of accusation. Every witness, the subject of suspicious activities. That he knew or was known to his victims. Let's be honest about this.
But when the truth came out, none of these things applied. Sutcliffe was just a random killer, unknown to his victims, who killed and mutilated for his own sick reasons.
Isn't it more likely than not, that the Jack the Ripper case was just as simple and uncomplicated??
Must everyone ever mentioned in the case be viewed as a possible conspirator, one way or another??
Speculate by all means, but there has to be some reason, even if only very small, to question the known facts or evidence surrounding any particular person.
With warmest regards Caz.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Hi Caz.
My apologies if I appeared touchy. You are of course right that we should speculate on all things. But we've got to be careful about speculating too far, and ending up in the realms of the ridiculous. George Hutchinson was a casual labourer, probably as poorly off as most people in that poverty stricken community. But I've seen him being tagged as a possible "pimp" or even murderer.
The same unfounded speculation has linked poor Joe Barnett with being Kelly's killer, or even the Ripper himself, and then there's Michael Kidney etc. There's not an ounce of evidence to contradict Hutchinson's statement of what he saw and reported to the police.
Let's speculate about another "Ripper" for a moment. If Peter Sutcliffe hadn't been caught, a hundred years from now, every victim's husband or boyfriend would have been the subject of accusation. Every witness, the subject of suspicious activities. That he knew or was known to his victims. Let's be honest about this.
But when the truth came out, none of these things applied. Sutcliffe was just a random killer, unknown to his victims, who killed and mutilated for his own sick reasons.
Isn't it more likely than not, that the Jack the Ripper case was just as simple and uncomplicated??
Must everyone ever mentioned in the case be viewed as a possible conspirator, one way or another??
Speculate by all means, but there has to be some reason, even if only very small, to question the known facts or evidence surrounding any particular person.
With warmest regards Caz.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Hi Luke,
I actually agree with everything you say here.
Jack is the only individual we can say for certain was up to no good on the nights when prostitutes were murdered most foully.
Hutch may have waited outside Mary's room for 45 minutes, hoping for a cuddle when her client left.
But if he had worried for one second about her safety with that client, he would surely have tried to check that she was ok before leaving.
I think he must have had a very guilty conscience when he learned what had happened, thinking to himself that he may have been outside doing nothing while Jack was inside about to do Mary.
Love,
Caz
X |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 608
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Hi Luke,
I’m not going to suggest Hutchinson was MJK’s murderer or even Jack the Ripper – it may very well have been like Caz suggests: that he was just someone who ended up having a very guilty conscience, realising he may have been outside doing nothing while Jack was inside about to do Mary.
But – by his own account Hutchinson connected himself to MJK, to a spot very close to the crime scene at a time that at least may be considered as very important to MJK’s case. In that way he clearly differs from the husbands and boyfriends at least. Perhaps even more importantly, his account might be considered a conspicuous one. On the one hand he gives a very thin explanation of why he was there considering all the circumstances, while on the other he gives an unbelievably detailed description of a possible killer.
This is what sets Hutchinson apart from the other witnesses in the Ripper case as well and according to some of us, to use your own words, provides the reason to question the known facts or evidence surrounding him.
But again, like Caz suggests, he may very well just have hoped for a perfectly innocent cuddle after the well dressed punter had left.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 8:55 am: |
|
Hi Caz.
Yes, I can see what you mean about Hutch.
He'd been curious enough to follow Mary and her client back to Miller's Court. Something must have troubled him, as he stayed on watch for about three-quarters of an hour, even venturing into the Court for a closer look.
He would have been as aware as anyone else of the spate of murders, so I can't understand why he didn't seek out a patrolling policeman, and state his concern about Mary. It might have proved a little embarrassing for Kelly, if her client was genuine, to have a policeman knocking on the door, but that would have been preferable to the terrible fate that befell her.
If Hutch, and his statement, were true and accurate, he must have felt dreadful when he heard the worst possible news about Mary. On top of that, he had Jack the Ripper trapped in a cul-de-sac, and failed to take any action.
With Whitechapel in mortal fear, I'm sure that you or I, in Hutchinson's place, would have felt the need to do SOMETHING to ease our concerns, rather than just walking away.
Therefore Caz, you are right in saying that we should speculate as to whether there was more to Hutch than meets the eye. At the very least, his actions suggest that he may have known Mary better than he was letting on.
Warmest regards Caz.
LUKE WHITLEY.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2539
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Hi
The 45 minutes wait is, and aways will be a worry to me!
I can't get over the fact that Hutch and Mary may have had 'something' going at some point and that may or may not explain the 'following back'
Why he stayed 'watching' for that time will never be known sadly..maybe something distracted him and took him away OR maybe he just thought sod it and shuffled off disappearing into what he thought was obscurity but became the message boards!!!!
Suzi x
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2540
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
OK
Let's assume that at some point in their chequered career that Hutch and Mary had some sort of shall we say 'relationship' and that that may have resulted in a 'friendship' which would of course explained the 'Can you lend me 6d' and MAYBE Hutch following her back 'home' and tiring after the 45 mins and maybe thinking 'Oh Mary she'll be ok'......ish......shuffled off!
As to why he waited till Monday ..there are a lot of potential reasons...
a) He was the killer
b) He saw the killer ............... or
c)he was just a local bystander who 'knew' Mary and was known to 'know' Mary ....and so kept quiet....till Monday....Perhaps by the Monday the hue and cry was to such an extent that people were pointing the finger at George saying HE 'knew' that woman...ask him where he was......thinking this may be the 'problem' George took himself off to the Police.
At the end of the day I can't help but think that if George didnt 'do it' (cue for a film!) then he knew a man who did!!!!!
Suzi |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi Suzi.
The one thing that I DO believe, is that Hutchinson was NOT Mary's killer. There's no doubt in my mind, that her murderer was the same maniac who butchered Nichols, Chapman, Stride, & Eddowes.
I do believe that he knew Kelly pretty well, in fact, if the "Times" reported his statement to them correctly, he admitted as much. I quote, "I met the woman Kelly, whom I knew very well, having been in her company a number of times".
Suzi, I'm inclined to believe that his curiosity was indeed aroused by the spectacle of such a well-dressed man in Mary's company at that hour. As I've said before, If Hutch was so intrigued as to stand watching over the Court, and with the spate of murders on everyone's mind, then why do NOTHING, and just walk away.
I think you're probably right, that the hue & cry may have brought him unwanted attention from those who knew that HE knew Kelly, so he went reluctantly to the police, after his initial preference was NOT to get involved.
He may well have done "business" with Mary himself.
Warmest regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2551
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Hi Luke
There is of course no proof that Hutch was or was not Mary's killer and there are many threads to argue this back and forth!
As to Hutch noticing the 'well dressed man' in Mary's company..well yes that would have caused George to "notice" him, but the man was tired and probably in need of a bed himself so maybe he followed 'good old Mary' back thinking that she may have turned out Mr Well Dressed and that Good old George could have got a bed ,or maybe a floor in what would have passed for warmth for the night......after 45 mins he probably thought better of this plan and shambled off,...
Sarah Lewis of course had observed his 'observation' by this time of course and more than likely news had got about....of course George was there etc etc, even to the extent that someone more than likely had a word to George along the lines of ..'George...that Laundress woman's spreading the word that you were seen hanging about outside that lodging house opposite Millers Court the other night....' ,by Monday that may have been enough to make our man (guilty or not) to make his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station at 6pm and make his statement.
The fact that he admitted that he 'occasionally "gave Kelly a shilling" ' is another thought altogether....how that is interpreted is something to ponder on I think!!
Suzi x |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Hi Suzi.
Yes, I take your points.
We tend to overlook good old fashioned local gossip, and if Sarah Lewis knew Hutch, his presence would certainly have soon become the talk of the neighbourhood.
But Suzi, I just don't see Hutch as Mary's killer, or Jack the Ripper. There isn't a shred of evidence recorded, that Hutch had any record of violence, either before or after the Ripper murders. To butcher another human being with such inhuman savagery, takes a bit of doing. They say that everyone, given the right circumstances, is capable of murder. But to me, Kelly's killer was a rare animal. Jack the Ripper was not your everyday man in the street.
That George was pretty familiar with Mary, I wouldn't argue with. He may even, as you said, have entertained the idea of a bed, after the well-dressed man had left. But the idea of his being her killer, is too far-fetched for me, as is poor Joe Barnett for that matter.
Warmest regards Suzi.
LUKE WHITLEY. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2568
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Hi Luke,
As you say there isn't 'a shred' really for any of our suspects, but when you say that JTR wasnt 'your everyday man in the street' I have to say that I think that maybe he was..hence his 'invisibility'.
I'm not saying that Hutch,or Joe was the Ripper but....despite the illustrious list we have before us, a local man,who apparantly lived an otherwise 'blameless' life..to which we have witness in many modern comparisons would seem to be a likely 'possibilty'.
Suzi
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3492
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
There is not even a shred of evidence that Hutchinson knew Mary Kelly, unless as possibly one of her clients.
As have been stated before, Joe Barnett lived with Mary Kelly for 18 month and although he names Joe Flemming, he never ever mentions Hutchinson.
As I see it, George Hutchinson may have been one of Mary Kelly's occasional clients, that's all. The rest was probably -- as most parts of his testimony in general -- more or less fabrications. Hutchinson came forward because he (for reasons we can only speculate about) had been hanging around the crime scene the night of the murder, and after the inquest learnt that someone had seen a man there at the same time he was there.
He therefore felt compelled to come forward since he couldn't know how much the police really knew about that man's identity, and turning himself in -- as well as delivering a figment suspect, based on the Jew charicatures in the illustrated papers, in order to turn the police's attention away from himself -- was probably something he felt was a better solution than waiting for the police to track him down (in case they identified him) and making him a prime suspect.
There is not one single piece of evidence -- besides his own words -- indicating that he knew Mary Kelly to the same extent he claimed in his testimony.
Hutchinson was probably just someone who wanted to save his own skin or maybe one of those goofs who likes to inject themselves in police investigations.
It is of course possible that he murdered her, though, but our problem here is that we have no motive to dwell upon in his case.
And as far as him being Jack the Ripper... well, someone has to convince me of that Mary Kelly was a Ripper victim first.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 06, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
Hi Caz & Glenn.
Caz, when I said that Jack the Ripper was not your everyday man in the street, I meant in actions only. I'm quite sure that he would have appeared to be an inoffensive person in everyday life. Many serial killers have escaped attention because they seemed so quiet and harmless to all who knew them.
Glenn, there is no reason to believe that Kelly WASN'T a Ripper victim, any more than Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes. The far greater extent of mutilation in the Kelly case was due to the fact that the killer had all the time he needed. I'm quite certain that the other three would have been served in a similar manner, had they been indoors.
The police & Doctors involved in the investigations expressed no doubts about Mary's killer, and I've yet to read of any solid evidence to the contrary.
I fully respect your views, which seem to indicate that you DON'T believe that she was a Ripper victim. As I always say, all our opinions are only personal ones, and we are all as likely to be wrong, as right. Maybe time will throw up the truth.
Warmest regards to you both.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3497
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Hi Luke,
"Glenn, there is no reason to believe that Kelly WASN'T a Ripper victim, any more than Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes. The far greater extent of mutilation in the Kelly case was due to the fact that the killer had all the time he needed. I'm quite certain that the other three would have been served in a similar manner, had they been indoors."
This is not the thread for it, but that is nothing but speculations and assumptions. I am afraid there are a lot of valid arguments that speaks for that Kelly MAY not have been a Ripper victim and taking her inclusion for granted is not something that the evidence allows us to do. There are certainly no solid evidence that proves her candidacy, but there are certainly a lot of reasons to suspect that she was not a victim of the Ripper, if one reads the facts from an unbiased position. There are indeed circumstances surrounding Kelly's murder, and it is certainly not as clear-cut as the murders on Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.
Still, as you say, it is my opinion, but that goes for those who argue for her inclusion as well, and they also have some oddities concerning the crime scene evidence to try to explain convincingly.
Again, this is not the thread for it.
But when people are discussing Hutchinson in the context of Kelly's murder as it was a proven Ripper crime beyond doubt (show me any evidence that totally proves that any victim besides Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes can be safely included in the canonical line-up), it can lead to the wrong deductions.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 07, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 615
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Glenn, I endorse everything you have said above.
No longer can one take it for granted that MJK was beyond doubt a victim of Jack. To summarise the reasons for such doubt (as I understand them):
* the possibility that Barnett was the killer has been raised (either as jack or, relevant in this context, hiding his work beneth the Ripper's style);
* it may not have been Kelly who was killed;
* the location and the style of the killing were different;
* other "canonical" victims have been challenged - notably Stride;
* as AP has observed this week, statistically, some the murders ought not to be Jack's work (as to assume that implies no one else killed prostitutes in 1888);
* there may well be some motive - Fenian? past life? to explain MJK's killing;
* the mystery of her identity;
* the mystery of the facial mutilations, basis of identification, sightings after she was supposedly dead etc;
* (to make this post relevant to the thread) Hutchinson himself might have killed Kelly (and been Jack or not).
All these points suggest that MJK's murder was not such a straightforward Ripper killing as Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes and may have been the work of some other hand.
I remain 60:40 sure that Kelly was killed by Jack, but I do recognise the doubts and room for other theories.
Phil
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3498
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Phil,
As usual -- the voice of reason.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
As you say, this is not the correct thread for it, so I'll be as brief as I can. I try to look at every issue with an unbiased view. Why is it that every major JtR historian, Sugden, Begg,etc., express no doubts about Kelly's inclusion in the Ripper series?? Are you saying that these people who have thoroughly researched all the availabe facts & evidence, have not done so with an unbiased view??
We are being asked to believe by the Kelly doubters, that in the midst of this spate of horrors, another similar maniac just happened to wander onto the scene. This theory is also being worsened by accusations toward both a casual labourer (Hutchinson) who happened to be a witness, and a then unemployed market porter (Barnett), neither of whom had any known record of violence either before or after the Kelly murder.
I'm sorry Glenn, but I just don't buy it. But that doesn't alter the fact that I have the highest respect for your knowledge and experience as a crime historian. We'll just have to agree to differ on this one.
Warmest regards
LUKE WHITLEY |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Thought provoking stuff, Phil. However your statement " as AP has observed this week, statistically, some the murders ought not to be Jack's work (as to assume that implies no one else killed prostitutes in 1888)" is incorrect.
There is a sub-population of prostitute murders in 1888 that is attributable to JTR, another sub-population that is not. One cannot argue that Kelly should be excluded from the subset of murders committed by JTR, based on some arbitrary "Law of averages" argument if we are dealing with separate statistical populations.
In addition, "motivic" factors could have been relevant to any of the other victims - all of whom had pretty colourful, if not Fenian, past lives - and does not single out Kelly especially. Neither does the fact that JTR's involvement in other cases cast any *special* doubt over Kelly's, any more than doubts over Stride mean that we have more reason to doubt his involvement in Chapman's or Eddowes' deaths.
I wouldn't go overboard with the various "mysteries" attaching to Kelly either. There must have been thousands of dispossessed souls in late Victorian slums throughout Britain whose identities are undocumented. I can't even nail down my great-grandfather's family - and they were respectable, educated, God-fearing lot. What chance do we have with a fly-by-night prostitute who, apart from using several pseudonyms (not unusual in the trade), had apparently "been around a bit" and who lived amongst habitual alcoholics and the criminal classes? No great mystery there.
Finally, the extent of the facial (and abdominal, let's not forget) mutilations could in a somewhat circular fashion answer the difference in JTR's choice of location, even possibly the style of killing. In recent times Huntley, Brady & Hindley perpetrated far more horrific acts against victims on their own premises than they did in their previous careers as opportunist sex-pests or moorland killers.
True, the Kelly case is not as straightforward as some of the others but somewhat unique in that we have so many named suspects in connection with her in life and in death. Applying the slightly wonky "Law of averages" approach somewhat hypocritically, could it just possibly be that JTR's killing of Kelly was the nearest he got to being "buckled" after all?
That said, I agree with your concluding sentence but would put the ratio a bit higher in favour of Jack.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
Hi Luke, Gareth,
I agree with almost everything you say here.
While there are more arguments that can be made for MJK not being Jack's work than, say, Chapman or Eddowes, they don't IMHO add up to anything like a good case for eliminating her murder from our Jacky Boy enquiries.
I always think it's quite perverse to want to nail someone else for a murder and mutilation session that Jack himself could only have dreamed of, in the weeks following the double event, which may have scared him off the streets and made him take stock.
There are more than enough reasons IMHO to see Jack back with a vengeance, inside that room, giving full and free rein to everything inside him that made him start killing and mutilating East End unfortunates in the first place, to compensate for the various arguments for a different hand at work.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 10, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3534
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
Luke, you're wrong,
Actually Stewart P Evans (which I'd say is one of the absolute most prominent ones), has expressed serious doubts about Kelly as a Ripper victim. (And that goes for the inclusion of Liz Stride as well.)
Then we have Turnbull, then we have Alex Chisholm.
Most of the older, more well-known researchers haven't written a NEW book in a while, and you have to attend their lectures sometimes in order to grasp their fresh beliefs, because new things happens all the time. But yes, I don't think Rumbelow or Begg supports such an idea.
But you can read about it in Evans' & Gainey's "The Lodger", for example.
This idea has also recently gained vast attention in later Ripper documentaries, and supported by some of the experts participating there.
Also Paul Britton has expressed the same beliefs.
This is open to interpretation, guys, and if you can't see those points (which I have gone over quite extensively on other threads, so no need to repeat them here) -- fine -- but a I see it, the unwillingness to even consider and keep an open mind to another alternative in Kelly's case is partly based on ignorance of similar cases in crime history plus the fact that Kelly has always been seen as the Ripper's "grand finale", which makes some people totally incapable of looking at it with objective eyes.
I do NOT believe the common old, tedious argument of choice of location (indoors) in Kelly's case, explains it all -- this is usually the only argument people manages to put up in opposition and it does not hold water.
Those who have evidence strong enough to prove why they are so set in their beliefs and certain of whom is a Ripper victim or not -- please provide those evidence.
Everybody knows where I stand on this, so I am not prepared to discuss it further -- it can all be read on other threads.
The point is, one can NOT discuss a person like Hutchinson or any other character in the periphery, on the basis of that MJK was a Mary Kelly victim without doubt.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
As you say, we're on the wrong thread here. I'm away on holiday tomorrow, but will get back to you on another thread. I can't decide which thread yet, because we've incorporated a few in this discussion.
I'll just say this. As the senior police officers and Doctors involved in the Ripper case, plus the major researchers, Sugden, Begg, Rumbelow etc., all read from the evidence, that Kelly WAS a JtR victim, then the onus is on these new theorists to prove that she wasn't.
I'm hopeful that you, as a clearly better informed student than I am, will reveal to me this new evidence which suggests that all the above-mentioned people are wrong. And I do mean TANGIBLE evidence, and not just new, but unsupported theories.
Glenn, having read hundreds of your posts on all aspects of the Ripper case, I probably agree with you in at least 95% of the issues involved, but until I see real evidence that another hand killed Kelly, nothing else will convince me that she wasn't slaughtered by the same maniac who mutilated Nichols, Chapman, & Eddowes.
Warmest regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3540
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Hi Luke,
I don't claim that anyone should agree with me on 100% of the issues, and so far I'll be lucky if anyone agrees with me on 50% -- and practically speaking I don't care. Anyone can choose to agree with me or not.
However, I must say I am impressed that you managed to dig through hundreds of my posts, especially since not all of them is that great. But I thank you for that effort and feel rather flattered.
And as I said, there DO exist distinguished researchers and experts that supports this theory.
Of course no EVIDENCE can be produced, but then again, there exists no evidence either that without doubt confirms that she really was a Ripper victim.
As for the facts and arguments regarding this theory... this has been already debated to death on threads devoted to Mary Kelly and also I think on Barnett.
As I said, read the appendix in Stewart & Gainey's The Lodger as well as Chisholm's article Done to Death, and also pick up a few of the latest Ripper documentaries where several experts are giving their opinions. And then add to it some ground research on other cases involving similar mutilations, that -- lo and behold -- apeear to be domestic ones and not works of serial killers.
Then -- if you add to it the political and press related circumstances of late 1888 -- try and look at the Kelly murder with new objective eyes.
Keep an open mind to it. That is all I ask. But I have no intention whatsoever to try and convince you.
Have a good holiday, Luke. I could use one myself.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 10, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 638
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
“I do NOT believe the common old, tedious argument of choice of location (indoors) in Kelly's case, explains it all -- this is usually the only argument people manages to put up in opposition and it does not hold water.”
I’m not going to go over the whole thing again, because we’ve done that enough in the past and neither of wants to go over it again, but I just couldn’t resist reacting to the above statement. The choice of location may be old and may be tedious to you as an argument, but it does hold water.
I know you agree that the most important thing to the Ripper was his need to mutilate and that this was the very thing that drove him. Being indoors not only offered him the opportunity to mutilate as he pleased without much chance of being disturbed, it also allowed him not having to be as concerned about getting blood on him as killing in the streets had. Killing indoors would also give him time to clean up before he would leave, even to take off some of his clothes to prevent them from getting all blood spattered.
As it turned out, whoever killed Mary Jane Kelly cut her throat in such a way that blood splashed against the wooden partition and only spoilt the top right hand corner of the bed, the remainder ending up under the bed where it couldn’t bother him. Subsequently to cutting her throat he moved the body away from the bloodiest part of the bed. All of this might suggest that he didn’t get much blood on him in the first place.
So, IMHO the argument of location holds as much water as your suggestion that MJK may not have been killed by the Ripper.
By the way, could you elaborate on Paul Britton’s input or tell me where to find it? That’d be much appreciated!
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')
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3557
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
"As it turned out, whoever killed Mary Jane Kelly cut her throat in such a way that blood splashed against the wooden partition..."
Yes, which was not really how the Ripper did it anyway. Apart from the Chapman scene we have very little blood splatter at all, and if the indoor location in Kelly's case now would supposedly make him more secure and give him more time, why would he indulge in a larger amount of blood splatter when he actually could have had the opportunity to do a really neat job instead of creating a slaughterhouse?
Just a point to ponder.
Paul Britton's quite thorough comments (among others -- there are more experts from other fields that seems to consider this idea) can be found in the Ripper television documentary To Kill and Kill Again, probably the in my view best documentary out there on the subject, since it is the one that is most accurate regarding the facts (not 100% correct, but the one that comes closest) and also makes quite in depth analyses.
It also contains a vast number of experts from different fields, besides most of the known distinguished names in Ripperology.
Highly recommended.
In this documentary, Paul Britton (whatever your feelings are towards profiling) is of the opinion that the Kelly murder is quite possibly performed by someone close to the victim and that it might be a copy-cat. He also describes a murder site that he himself had witnessed in reality -- with strong similarities to the Kelly crime scene -- and that turned out to be a domestic. Just to prove that the possibility can never be excluded.
I don't know where it can be obtained, though; I was sent a copy on VHS from a friend who had taped it from television. Maybe it is out there for sale, I don't know, but I haven't seen it on Amazon.
Anyway, highly recommended.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 639
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for the info on Paul Britton. That documentary sounds very interesting indeed! I'm interested in Britton because I've read a book from his hand, called "The Jigsaw Man". Among other cases it contains the one I posted somewhere here on the Message Boards about Robert Clive Napper, another (one time) mutilating killer. This particular case reminded Britton of MJK's case. Also quite recommendable.
The thing I like about British profilers, as opposed to American ones, is that they are psychologists treating each and every case as a separate one, whereas their American colleagues aren't and tend to generalise more.
By the way, why would Jack have needed to do a really neat job in Mary Jane's case? He seems to have been a practical man, so I'd think that as long as he managed to leave her room relatively clean from blood, he'd be OK. Just another point to ponder right back at ya!
Anyway, thanks again for the info.
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')
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3563
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Tjena, Frank!
Yes, it's a brilliant documentary. It is apparently the 1st Edition of a 2002 ITV1 television series from 2002 (producer/director Carole Peters) about different serial killers -- this 1st Edition was about Jack the Ripper.
On ebay and Amazon I did find some of the other editions (about Dahmer etc.), but not this particular one.
I don't know where to get this one, and I do not have the technical means to copy it at the moment. If you want I can try and look itno it, if you don't have any luck.
Yes, British profilers (mostly represented by people like Canter and Britton) have a slightly different approach from the FBI version, and they have also critizied the FBI on some points. As you say (regardless if it's good or bad), the British profilers are usually more connected to the academic world and the psychological institutions.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 640
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Tjena Glenn,
Thanks once more for the additional info. I will first search the internet myself to try and find something about the documentaries (the others sound interesting, too). Tak as well for the offer.
Vi ses,
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')
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1840
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Anyone who thinks Tumblety was a likely ripper is kind of obliged to find reasons why MJK may not have been one of his series.
The womb was removed but left at the scene for one thing.
And for another, there remains the possibility that Tumblety was not free to go to Miller's Court that night.
Just something to bear in mind, when citing the views of ripper historians.
I think anyone who doubts that MJK's murder was down to Jack the serial killer should come up with the name of the person known to Mary who could have done it instead - and some evidence would be good. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3576
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Yeah, and if it was up to you, the Ripper would probably be responsible for all deaths in the latter part of the 19th century and we should all stop where we are by accepting theories that was produced 15 years ago as well as the same canonical victims that has been presented since 1976.
I know which researcher you are talking about, and although I don't actually agree with his choice of "good" suspects (like Tumblety and D'Onston), he knows his facts ten times better than anyone and has a 30 year experience as a police officer -- which means he has seen more in real life then you and I never will see in theory. He has actually said himself that Tumblety's case at the end of the day "is not proven" -- from how many other so called Ripperologists will we ever hear a similar honesty about their own theorising?
Guess whom I prefer to rely on, Caz, if I should rely on anyone.
Besides, I only dropped some names on people because I was asked to -- I certainly can make my own deductions and interpretations of the evidence.
As this particular researcher also states, the womb was taken out but left in the room. Yes. It was, wasn't it? The killer didn't take it with him!
I perfectly agree with him, that in Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, the womb most likely was the target, which from the very beginning has been my view as well. In Mary Kelly's case it most certainly was NOT, since he didn't put it in his pocket.
Although Nichols was for some reason not totally opened up and there was no organs missing, the lower abdominal area was especially targeted with no other mutilations on the body. And if the killer hadn't been interrupted or if he had been more experienced -- which version one prefer -- we don't know which organs what would have been missing anyway, but the womb would be my choice because of the location of the incision and the fact that in both Chapman's and Eddowes' case the womb was taken out and missing (there actually still exists people who, thanks to the Lusk letter, think that the kidney was the only thing missing from Eddowes).
"I think anyone who doubts that MJK's murder was down to Jack the serial killer should come up with the name of the person known to Mary who could have done it instead - and some evidence would be good."
Names have been mentioned, Caz, and theories have been put forward. The fact that you don't accept them as credible is your own problem. None of us have evidence of anything.
Like someone who gets involved with the Diary should talk... Let's see... Maybrick, wasn't it?
Swell...
(Message edited by Glenna on June 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3577
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
Tjena, Frank!
I just watched the documentary again last night, and I need to revise things a bit regarding Britton's statement.
What he actually says about the case where he himself walked into a murder scene that was very similar to the one in Miller's Court (maybe apart from, as he says, "the amount of blood"), is that he doesn't really confirm that it was a domestic -- what he is saying is that it was NOT done by a serial killer, but in fact by someone who had not indulged in serious crimes before.
He also says that a person do not have to be insane in order to commit such a crime -- abnormality is not the same as insanity.
Just thought I'd set the records straight.
However, I have myself heard police officers saying that they too have seen crime scenes equally horrifying, if not worse, than the one in Miller's Court, and that have turned out to be domestic crimes. In fact, crime history is not short of such domestic cases.
Some people just don't want to accept it, because it is a too disturbing thought and because of preconceptions of the human mind and what we are capable of.
It is interesting to note that also FBI -- for what it's worth -- seems to accept the possibility of a copy-cat in Kelly's case, not least because of the hysteria created by the papers about the murders.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 647
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Well, thanks again Glenn, for your comments!
I think the case Britton was talking about is the same one I've brought up here on the Message Boards somewhere. That's the one about Samantha Bisset and Robert Clive Napper. What you say certainly sounds a lot like it. Just like that comment about not having to be insane in order to commit such a crime sounds very familiar.
Before Napper was arrested, Britton thought the killer might be paranoid or paranoid schizophrenic. After his arrest Napper was diagnosed schizophrenic. I believe he's in Broadmoor now.
Only recently (in 2004 I believe), it has come to light that, before killing Samantha Bisset and her little daughter, there's a very good chance that he killed another woman in a way that bears similarities to Tabram's murder.
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, 'The Rookie'
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3581
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Thanks for that info; I'll check it out. Very interesting. Napper is certainly a name that springs to mind, although I never knew what it was he did. Thanks again.
Just remember, we have loads of cases where domestic killings can turn out this way, and apparently the FBI had a good deal of such cases to refer to as well, although they didn't say which ones.
You certainly do NOT need to be a serial killer in order to produce such gruesome results in a homicide -- most cases we know of so far produced in this extreme manner has been made by a person close to the victim. That is still a fact. And then we have to take the context of the Mary Kelly murder in consideration and the mass panic and media coverage at the time -- which is a good breed for these types of domestic killings.
But wait a minute -- shouldn't this thread be about Hutchinson and his testimoiny????????????
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 12, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3582
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
Hi again, Frank,
I have looked at the interesting thread you produced, and although I haven't read Britton's book myself, I find it a bit surprising that he (although he actually was right -- which of course is nice!) assumed that such a murderer must be the unmarried loner, because we have several indoor crimes of this nature where this is not the case, but in fact the perpetrator was the boyfriend or husband. So that puzzles me.
Apparently this Napper guy was also a serial rapist.
Maybe the boyfriend was checked but cleared? Usually an unrelated murderer is not considered until people in the victim's closest circle are ruled out, or other victims pop up.
However, in the documentary, Britton is quite clear on the point that these types of killing do not NEED to be a part of a series. He also says, that when new victims are discovered -- in a context where a serial killer is at large -- it is quite easy to include them in a series because you simply expect new victims to appear in that series. Which could be dangerous from an investigative point of view.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 649
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Hi again Glenn,
Just to be clear, I didn't write my previous post to make it a point in favour of MJK having been a Ripper victim, but I just elaborated a little about what I know about that particular case - which I find a particularly interesting one.
I know there's a good deal of cases where someone close to the victim is responsible for the victims' horribly mutilated remains. You yourself have put forward a number of interesting cases in that respect, which have made me put (and keep) the door ajar to the possibility that MJK wasn't done in by Jack the Ripper.
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, 'The Rookie'
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
Thank you very much. I shall do my best to enjoy the holiday.
I do have a couple of documentaries, which I recorded on video from the Sky History Channel. I shall view them again when I return. I can't comment on the other modern Authors you named, but I'm NOT very trusting of Stewart Evans.
Call me plain old-fashioned suspicious if you like, but on one documentary I saw a while back, Evans voiced his doubts about Stride being a JtR victim, but made no mention of Kelly.
When it was pointed out to him, that HIS suspect, Tumblety, couldn't have killed Kelly, as he was in police custody at the time, he came back with the unconvincing speculative comment that, "Tumblety must have been out on unrecorded police bail".
Now, he suddenly questions Kelly's inclusion in the series of murders. That of course fills a gaping hole in his case for Tumblety, which is very convenient. Glenn, I'm always suspicious of Authors who are not unbiased, and out to push their own theories and suspects in books, for obvious financial gain, and a little literary fame.
I can honestly say, that I take a good deal more notice of points made to me by people like yourself, than I do of someone who is trying to sell me a theory, and a book. At least I know that YOU have no ulterior motive for the points you make to me.
Warmest regards.
LUKE WHITLEY
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
