|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 - 1:31 am: |       |
Leanne,
Please explain the following:
1) If Anderson is talking about Joe Barnett's pipe why does his statement indicate the owner of the pipe was never determined?
2) If Joe Barnett's pipe was thrown into the fireplace, why does Abberline report nothing of consequence was found in the fireplace other than burnt clothes?
3) If Anderson is talking about Joe Barnett's pipe as such an important clue pertaining to the Ripper identity, why is his suspect not Joe Barnett but a poor Polish Jew? (or are you going to now conclude that proves that Joe Barnett was actually a poor Polish Jew?)
4) If a doctor threw the pipe into the fireplace after the door was forced at the Mary Kelly scene, when everyone was there to witness such an act, why is there absolutely no mention of this anywhere?
5) If there was a concerted coverup (to explain 4), why wasn't the same thing done for the pipe that got broken from Alice McKenzie's evidence when we have the same doctor involved? Why didn't he just leave it out of his medical report and simply not mention it at the inquest?
Anyway, I've put forth my case for concluding that Anderson is talking about a pipe found with Alice McKenzie. I don't really understand your case for him talking about Joe's pipe, but based on your arguements it does seem to be based upon the mention of a fireplace at the scene of the crime. If we accept this as "true", then yes, the only crime scene with a fireplace is Mary Kelly's. But, that logically leads to having to claim that Anderson's suspect is Joe Barnett, and that, we all know, is just not true. Since the original assumption must lead directly to a false conclusion, the original assumption must be wrong.
No matter how you slice it, as soon as one makes the assumption that Anderson is talking about Joe Barnett's pipe, one finds that the evidence gets contradicted all over the place. If you assume he's talking about Alice McKenzie's pipe, the only real details that get lost are the ones that describe a very unorthodox set of behaviours by a doctor at a crime scene.
But, take your pick. I rest my case.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 3:29 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
1) I am reading Anderson's comment now: 'In one case it was a clay pipe before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fireplace and smashed it beyond recognition. In the other case...' I am trying to find the bit that indicates the pipe's owner was identified. Can you help me?
2) Inspector Abberline was reporting to Kelly's inquest on what he found in Kelly's fireplace, to determine what was burnt on the night of her murder. He suddenly mentioned that a pipe was there, (exactly where he didn't say). If he was aware that it had been broken by a doctor, he needn't have mentioned it being in the ashes.
3) After Anderson's single mention of a doctor smashing a pipe, he continued to write about the other destroyed evidence, (the graffito), because it was better suited to his 'low-class Jew' theory which he first mentioned in 1901.
4) If a doctor threw Alice McKenzie's pipe in the fireplace at the mortuary, why is their absolutely no mention of that anywhere?
5) If Dr. Phillips blamed a mortuary attendant for dropping McKenzie's pipe in his report to Anderson, then added that the pieces 'have not been recovered by me', Why did Anderson later assume that they were thrown into the fireplace?
LEANNE |
Phil A.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 04, 2003 - 1:28 pm: | |
Leanne,
Why is the clay pipe such a big deal? A simple explanation is that it was left their by Barnett before the crime, which he had nothing to do with.
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 05, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
G'day Phil,
The pipe found in Mary Kelly's room could have shown whether or not Joe had returned there, depending on the condition of it's ashes.
The easy way out is to assume that Sir Robert Anderson was referring to Alice McKenzie's pipe as an important clue. McKenzie's pipe was found underneath her body when she was lifted to be placed on the ambulence!
People argue that there's no written proof as to what happened to the Miller's Court pipe, I say that Anderson's article has given us that proof!
To say that Barnett left his pipe at Mary's before the crime, is another 'simple explanation'!
LEANNE |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 72
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 12:55 am: | |
Leanne,
Hello. I think the crucial point in all this, is the accuracy of Anderson's memory.
Just how well has his recollection of other events we can confirm, measured up?
Because two murder sites involve pipes, and the information, as recalled by Anderson, seems not to fit either scene.Might this not mean Anderson has erred in his recall of events? |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 6:14 am: | |
G'day,
I am trying to work out how Anderson's comment doesn't fit the Miller's court scene! It does!
2 short clay pipes were also found in Catharine Eddowes' clothes. How come no one picked her case to blame Anderson's frail mind on?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
G'day,
I find it amuzing that Anderson first wrote about the 'enterprising journalist' who he believed invented the name 'Jack the Ripper' in 1901, and many researchers believe this. Then 7 years later, in 1908, he wrote about the pipe in question, and many researchers believe his memory must have been faulty!
LEANNE |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 7:24 pm: | |
Keep on asking those questions Leanne. In my opinion you're focusing on aspects from Anderson's crime scene statements that have never been adequately explained before. Remember, Anderson said that the other important clue was the writing on the wall which, as we know, was considered highly significant by the police. So was, apparently, a broken pipe, regarded as the other significant clue. And Anderson didn't believe that McKenzie was a Ripper victim, so how could the smashed pipe have been an important clue to the Ripper's identity, if he was referring to the one found on McKenzie? Also, we don't know when Abberline sifted through the ashes of the fireplace in Miller's Court. He could have left the room after taking his 'lost' inventory of the room's contents. Someone assisting Phillips could have then smashed the pipe shortly before or after the time Anderson had arrived on the scene.
However, I disagree with you in regards to origin of the smashed pipe. Assuming it pertained to the Miller's Court scene, I don't believe that the police thought it belonged to Barnett. |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 73
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 5:29 am: | |
Leanne,
What information do you have on the "supposed" Ripper pipe G.R.Sims claimed to have in his
"collection of criminal curiosities"? |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 12:46 am: | |
Leanne,
Oops! I mis-read your first question asking for help about where Anderson indicates the owner of the pipe was identified. I thought it was asking for where Anderson indicated the owner of the pipe was not identified.
Anderson never indicates the owner of the pipe he's talking about was identified. He indicates that the pipe was one of two clues that could have secured proof of the killer's identity if the clues had not been destroyed. In other words, if they could have tracked either 1) the owner of the pipe that he's talking about or 2) the writer of the graffito, then either of those lines of investigation would have led to the identification of the killer (in Anderson's opinion, obviously). However, because these two clues were destroyed, it was impossible to identify the owner of the pipe or the writer of the graffito.
In otherwords, Anderson is pointing out that the owner of the pipe was NOT identified. In other words, I can't direct you to any part of Anderson's quote that suggests the owner of the pipe was identified since he indicates that this was not the case. Sorry.
As I've included in other posts, this is one more strike against the pipe found at MJK's. The owner was identified; it was Barnett and Anderson is talking about an "owner unidentified" pipe.
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 06, 2003 - 6:07 pm: | |
Leanne,
1) It's in part of his quote you left out, I've covered this previously as well.
2) Nothing of consequence beyond burnt clothes means no parts of a broken pipe. We have nothing to use to build a case to suggest this testimony was in error.
3) Anderson's quote, in parts you left out, link the writer of the graffito and the owner of the pipe as being the same person. So, if the writing fits his "low class Jew" theory, then this means he suspects the owner of the pipe to also be a "low class Jew". Unless you can demonstrate that Anderson believed Joe Barnett to be a low class Jew, then you can't suggest Anderson is talking about Barnett.
4) If you read my previous posts, you'll realise I never make the claim implied in the question so it's irrelevant. You'll in fact find that because I've found evidence that suggests the pipe was broken by the doctor's mortuary assistant when the pipe was thrown on the floor, that I've concluded that some of those details are incorrect.
5) I could specualate all I want about why Anderson's quote is incorrect in the ways that it is, but what would that accomplish? What's most important is to find out what details are accurate. For example, the reported decided to "up the drama" of the event and actually changed what Anderson actually said. Of course, such an answer is not provable and I'm not suggesting that is what happened and I offer this only as an example of how one can make up stuff that fits what they want. But such speculations are not helpful. We need to see what details are supported by the evidence, and after establishing the links that we can verify, we determine which details are in error. The errors, because they are errors, can be explained by a huge number of unverifiable theories. This is the major problem with the Barnett theory in terms of the pipe quote. All the errors are being placed from evidence gathered at the time (i.e., Abberlines failure to mention parts of a pipe in the fireplace and specifically saying nothing of consquence was found etc) while trying to maintain the unsupportable claim that a doctor picked up a piece of physical evidence at the scene of a crime and destroyed it in full view of the onlookers (which included the police) simply because the statement includes the word "fireplace" and that convienietly fits with one suspect, while the majority of the facts included in the statement actually fit a different event all together.
As for Eddowe's pipes, there's no more evidence to suggest that Anderson is talking about her pipes than there is to suggest he's talking about Barnett's.
And where do you get the idea that Anderson's mind is frail? Are you telling me that mis-remembering an event that occurred nearly 20 years ago is evidence of a "frail" mind? The details that he does recall are actually pretty good, and include all of the most salient facts. The errors are of the normal sort that occur to memories over time. I see no evidence that Anderson's mind was frail? And, if you think Anderson's mind was so frail, how come you are suggesting his memory for Barnett's pipe was so sharp?
Anyway, there's my answers. Please post your answers to my original questions rather than simply turning my questions around, which is not actually answering them.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 494
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 9:46 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
1) What part of his quote that I left out? I have a copy of that article in front of me, in 'The Ultimate Companion'. Was there more to the same article?
2) Anderson said at Kelly's inquest: "...in the grate & found NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE except that articles of woman's clothing had been burnt..."
"NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE"!!!!! A pipe that was put there later, wouldn't have been of consequence and wouldn't have rendered his testimony a lie!
3) Haaaaah? How do you come to that conclusion?
No one is saying that Anderson's suspect ever was Joseph Barnett. His written statement suggests that he could have seen it as an important clue!
4) I've always known about that statement about a pipe being dropped by a mortuary assistant. It was in a report from DR. PHILLIPS!
5) I'm not making anything up!!! You're the one who is suggesting that Anderson's memory was faulty!
What onlookers do you think were at Miller's court when the contents of the room where first examined? The crowd that were cordonned off and waiting at either end of Dorset Street?
What are the 'majority of the facts included in the statement'?
It has been suggested by people that Anderson was suffering from his first sign of dimentia. No I don't agree with this, I think that's a desperate attempt to make his statement fit Alice McKenzie's pipe.
What were your original questions?
LEANNE  |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 3:35 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
This is getting mighty confusing. You say:
'No one is saying that Anderson's suspect ever was Joseph Barnett. His written statement suggests that he could have seen it as an important clue!'
Nevertheless you have been arguing that Anderson was referring to a (the?) pipe found at Miller's Court as an 'important clue' to the murderer's identity. Are you saying that Anderson wasn't aware that a (the?) pipe had been identified as Barnett's by your man himself? And that Abberline was aware that a (the?) pipe was Barnett's but never saw it as an important clue?
And are you saying therefore that, due to a combination of Anderson's lack of information and/or faulty memory, and Abberline's cluelessness and lack of detection skills, a (the?) pipe, identified by your man Barnett as his own, and identified by Anderson much later as an important clue to the identity of the Miller's Court murderer, which should have been pieced together mentally with its rightful owner, Jack, to win this game of Cluedo, never was?
Is this not getting just a little far-fetched? Or have I totally lost the plot?
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 8:00 am: | |
G'day Caz,
Anderson could have thought that the pipe found at Miller's Court was an important clue that wasn't investigated!
Just because Abberline said that Barnett had informed him that it was his pipe, Anderson may have disagreed that this was sufficient reason to dismiss it!
If the killer wasn't Barnett, he may have still smoked it. That could have revealed whether or not the killer hesitated before he mutilated the body. Alternatively he could have paused before he made his escape.
This would have helped them to determine whether mutilation was his main aim, or whether it was just to silence the victim.
If Mary's cry of "OH MURDER" was thought to be her time of death, and the mutilations were thought to have taken about 2 hours, then they could have placed more importance on the person heard leaving the court at 6:15 a.m.
Just because Barnett told Abberline that the pipe belonged to him, that was no reason to dissmiss it as crime scene evidence!
LEANNE} |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 7:39 pm: | |
Leanne,
Your proposed solution to the searched fireplace has a problem.
You've suggested:
2) Anderson said at Kelly's inquest: "...in the grate & found NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE except that articles of woman's clothing had been burnt..."
"NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE"!!!!! A pipe that was put there later, wouldn't have been of consequence and wouldn't have rendered his testimony a lie!
Now, Anderson doesn't say the pipe was "PUT" anywhere, he says it was "thrown into the fireplace" where it was broken "beyond all recognition". And, in his statement, this all happens before "we" arrived.
The only doctor that could fit the "arrived before we" part would be Dr. Phillips, who is reported as being the first to enter the crime scene. Therefore, the only time available for this whole pipe smashing episode is BEFORE Abberline searches the fireplace. So this solution can not be true. Sorry.
It wasn't Anderson, but Abberline who searched the fireplace by the way.
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
Leanne,
1) read the sentences just preceding the one you quoted, where Anderson tells us he's talking about 2 lost clues that could have resulted in obtaining proof of the identity of the killer. In other words, he's telling us they did not have the identity of the killer because the two clues they had that might have led to this information were lost. That's the part you left out this time.
2) Huh? You're arguing that the police believed the pipe was an important clue to the identity of the Ripper (Anderson's quote) but now you're saying it wasn't? I'm not sure how many twists of logic are required to hold this all together, but I'm curious to see them.
3) You are saying Anderson's suspect is Joe Barnett. Anderson, in his quote, as you point out, goes on and talks about the writing because it "fits his low class Jew theory" is what you said. So, at the time of making the quote, Anderson still believes the "low class Jew" theory, Right? You do agree with your own statements don't you? Ok, since we both agree on that, who's pipe was found in MJK's room? Oh yah, Barnett's pipe! remember, he said he owned it. Now, let's put the two together. Anderson talks about the graffito because it fits his "low class Jew" theory. He also mentions what you claim is Joe Barnett's pipe as being a piece of evidence that would also have led to the writer of the graffito. Now, that means, what you are arguing is that Anderson's "low class Jew - writer of the graffito" and "Joe Barnett - owner of the pipe" are one in the same. This is one of the biggest problems with the theory that the pipe Anderson is talking about is Joe Barnett's.
4) Huh? I think if you read back through this thread you'll find that it's taken a few posts to get you to accept that there was even one broken pipe associated with Alice McKenzie's murder, so I don't know why you are claiming that you "always knew about this pipe". I think I might have even been the one to point out Dr. Phillips report to you. I know I included references to it.
5) I'm suggesting that after nearly 20 years, Anderson may have got some facts incorrect, yes, but I'm not saying that his mind was frail. In fact, the amount he has gotten correct reflects a very good memory. If you look back over any thread, I think you'll find lots of cases where people make mistakes between posts of even a few months, days, etc. There is no way I mean to imply that Anderson's memory was in any way other than at least normal; simple errors of this kind are not indicative of anything "frail".
As for the onlookers, there were all the police, there was a photographer, etc. Enough that the "crazy evidence destroying doctor" would have been seen by many doing the deed.
I have never suggested Anderson was suffering from the first signs of dementia. And, as clearly indicated above, I also disagree.
Now, once again, please provide answers for these questions:
1) If Anderson is talking about Joe Barnett's pipe why does his statement indicate the owner of the pipe was never determined?
2) If Joe Barnett's pipe was thrown into the fireplace, why does Abberline report nothing of consequence was found in the fireplace other than burnt clothes?
3) If Anderson is talking about Joe Barnett's pipe as such an important clue pertaining to the Ripper identity, why is his suspect not Joe Barnett but a poor Polish Jew? (or are you going to now conclude that proves that Joe Barnett was actually a poor Polish Jew?)
4) If a doctor threw the pipe into the fireplace after the door was forced at the Mary Kelly scene, when everyone was there to witness such an act, why is there absolutely no mention of this anywhere?
5) If there was a concerted coverup (to explain 4), why wasn't the same thing done for the pipe that got broken from Alice McKenzie's evidence when we have the same doctor involved? Why didn't he just leave it out of his medical report and simply not mention it at the inquest?
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 8:06 pm: | |
The following is Abberline's testimony as covered by the Daily Telegraph (cut and pasted from the Official Documents page found on this site).
There are a few points I would like to make concerning it, and will do so subsequent to it's presentation.
"
Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, inspector of police, Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland-yard, stated: I am in charge of this case. I arrived at Miller's-court about 11.30 on Friday morning.
[Coroner] Was it by your orders that the door was forced ? - No; I had an intimation from Inspector Beck that the bloodhounds had been sent for, and the reply had been received that they were on the way. Dr. Phillips was unwilling to force the door, as it would be very much better to test the dogs, if they were coming. We remained until about 1.30 p.m., when Superintendent Arnold arrived, and he informed me that the order in regard to the dogs had been countermanded, and he gave orders for the door to be forced. I agree with the medical evidence as to the condition of the room. I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room. There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt.
[Coroner] Can you give any reason why they were burnt ? - I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see what he was doing. There was only one small candle in the room, on the top of a broken wine-glass. An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy. There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it.
[Coroner] Is there anything further the jury ought to know ? - No; if there should be I can communicate with you, sir.
"
Now, in this citation, the words "nothing of consequence" are not included, however what is included are more details concerning the articles of clothes found in the grate. The quote that does contain the "nothing of consquence" is found in the Ultimate Companion.
Regardless, Abberline places the pipe "in the room", not "in the fireplace". The pipe is not described as broken, in pieces, or in any way is the pipe conntected with the doctor or the fireplace. I know you desperately want to put that pipe in pieces in the fireplace, but the evidence is so stacked against you that to do so requires ignoring the evidence we have. Also, to do so, leads to equating Anderson's suspect with Joe Barnett, which we know is not true. In other words, there is just absolutely no way to justify the conclusion that Anderson could be talking about the pipe found in Mary Kelly's room. Why? Because based on the evidence we do have that conclusion must be wrong.
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Leanne,
You suggest that "Anderson could have thought that the pipe found at Miller's Court was an important clue that wasn't investigated!"
Yes, I suppose he could have. However, I suggest it's just as possible that "Anderson could have thought that the pipe found at Miller's Court was not an important clue because it was investigated and found to be owned by Joe Barnett".
You also offer "Just because Abberline said that Barnett had informed him that it was his pipe, Anderson may have disagreed that this was sufficient reason to dismiss it!"
And "He may not have disagreed because they did investigate Barnett and found nothing against him". C'mon now, at least I've only suggested Anderson showed normal signs of forgetting after almost 20 years whereas you're suggesting Abberline's an idiot along the lines of "Oh we found the ex-boyfriends pipe at the scene of the crime. He even says it's his. Must be a good boy, let him go and don't ask nothing more of him. Yuk yuk yuk".
You suggest that:
"If the killer wasn't Barnett, he may have still smoked it. That could have revealed whether or not the killer hesitated before he mutilated the body. Alternatively he could have paused before he made his escape."
You've now presented an arguement that someone other than the owner may have used the pipe. Obviously that could be true. But Leanne, you've just presented something that contradicts what Anderson's quote is. He says the pipe was an important clue to the proof of the IDENTITY of the killer! Can you please tell me how a stranger smoking Joe Barnetts pipe makes the pipe a clue to the identity of the stranger.
Regardless, how does this line of conjecture actually change if Anderson is talking about Alice McKenzie's pipe? We do know there was a pipe in Mary's room. Couldn't the stranger killer have simply picked up and smoked Joe's pipe? And couldn't this stranger-killer you mentioned have smoked it "after" mutilating Kelly, to "bask in his glory" because the aim of the killing was the mutilation? How would the police be able to determine exactly when this pipe was smoked last, to such a precise time as to know it was before or after the mutilations, especially given that determining the time of death and the mutilations appears to be so difficult? Regardless, this has no bearing on which pipe Anderson is talking about.
Neither does Mary's cry of "Oh Murder" actually have any impact upon which pipe Anderson is talking about.
Anyway, we've cancelled each other with our "could haves" and we could continue with this kind of speculation and get nowhere. Let's try and stick with claims about things that we actually have evidence for. When we want to offer conjecture, try and stay at least close to some sort of evidence that actually exists and actually suggests what we offer as speculation rather than just making up scenerios based on evidence that "could have existed". There are far too many things that "could have" happened, and with no evidence to guide us, we are rather unlikely to simply guess the right one and we have no way to know if we have.
So unless the person wrote down "what they thought", they "could have thought" anything. Unless you can show they were given information suggesting "idea X", they could have thought anything. Even when given information about "idea X", it's possible they "could have disagreed". Could have gets us nowhere; for a great example of overuse of could have, read Cornwell's book.
- Jeff |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 - 10:58 pm: | |
Here's Anderson's statement:
"Something of the same kind happened in the Ripper crimes. In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin.
In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had had taken it up, thrown it into the fire-place and smashed it beyond recognition.
In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognized as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated."
Now, I will step through this slowly so I apologise for the length of this post.
Let’s take the first paragraph.
Something of the same kind happened in the Ripper crimes. In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin.
Ok, let’s stop there for a bit. First of all, from this first part, what is Anderson saying? First, that we’re talking about events from two separate cases from the Ripper series. We’re talking about clues that were wiped out completely. Moreover, these clues had the possibility of identifying the assassin. Since Anderson talks about a single series (The Ripper series), two crimes, and a singular assassin, the “lost clues”, in Anderson’s mind, must have had the potential to indicate the same individual. We know that Anderson’s suspect was a poor Polish Jew. So, Anderson is telling us that these lost clues were things that, had they not be lost, might have connected his suspect with the Ripper murders.
The second paragraph, mentions the pipe, and as that is the focus of this thread, I’m going to skip over it for now and go to the last paragraph. In this last paragraph, Anderson tells us of the graffito. This is a lost clue from Eddowe’s murder, which we know the police were very divided on about its erasure. Now, because Anderson tells us he’s talking about two cases from the Ripper murders, and only mentions two clues (the pipe and the writing), the pipe must be related to a different murder than the writing (so it's not one of Eddowes' pipes).
Now, as for the pipe, Anderson tells us that it was a clay pipe. That it was broken. It was broken specifically by a doctor. It was broken at the crime scene. It was broken by being thrown into a fireplace, specifically by the doctor. The doctor arrived at the crime scene before “we” did. The pipe is one of the clues that his first paragraph tells us is one of the clues that was “wiped out absolutely” and had the potential of “securing proof of the identity of the assassin”, who is also the same assassin he associates with the lost writing, and we know his suspect is a poor Polish Jew.
First, Anderson’s use of “we” does not mean before he personally arrived. Anderson was out of the country during Eddowes murder, but he uses “we” in that context as well. Anderson’s use of “we” could mean the “police” in general, or perhaps more specifically, senior police officials. Regardless, he is not referring to himself personally, so his presence at a particular crime scene is not necessary.
Eddowes was found to have two pipes on her. However, since these pipes are listed as part of her inventory by the police, they clearly weren’t destroyed ‘BEFORE’ we arrived. Also, Anderson indicates two different crimes are being discussed, lists two clues, which means one clue per murder. In other words, the pipe is not assossiated with the same crime as the writing. So Eddowes’ pipes are out.
At Mary Kelly’s murder scene, however, we do find that Dr. Phillips is listed as being the first to enter the room after the door was forced. There was a pipe found at the crime scene, as testified by Abberline at MJK’s inquest. There was a fireplace at the crime scene, as testified by Abberline at MJK’s inquest. Now, this is starting to look better I admit. However, the pipe that was found was identified by Joe Barnett as being his. We know Anderson’s suspect was not Joe Barnett. Since the owner of the pipe was known, and since Anderson’s suspect is not Joe Barnett, and since Anderson thinks of the pipe as a clue to the killer (his suspect), Anderson can’t be talking about Joe’s pipe. Moreover, Abberline’s testimony also indicates that the fireplace was searched, and that it contained nothing but burnt clothing. He describes the pipe as being “in the room” not "in the fireplace", and does not indicate it was broken. Now, since Dr. Phillips is the only doctor who we could assert entered “before the police”, if the events occurred as Anderson describes, then Dr. Phillips would have had to throw the pipe into the fireplace before Abberline had a chance to search the fireplace. As already shown, Abberline testifies the pipe was found “in the room”, and that the fireplace contained only burnt clothing. In other words, this pipe, owned by Joe Barnett, simply cannot be the pipe Anderson is talking about. The owner of it could not possibly be his poor Polish Jew suspect, there is no record it was ever broken, it is reported as being found “in the room”, not “in the fireplace” and not “in pieces”. Finally, what Anderson describes is a doctor entering a crime scene, picking up a piece of physical evidence, and deliberately breaking it. This is so outlandish that these details, as stated, simply cannot be entirely correct.
But, from MJK's pipe what details can we verify?
1) there was a fireplace
2) it was a clay pipe
3) there was a doctor
What we can’t do is link any of these bits. There is nothing to link the doctor with the pipe. There is nothing that links the pipe to the fireplace. There is nothing that even indicates the pipe was broken. And finally, there is nothing to indicate that the pipe was considered a clue of any sort.
However, after MJK, Alice McKenzie was murdered, and at the time was considered as a probable Ripper suspect, although there was not complete agreement on this. Dr. Phillips, during his post-mortem examination details that a pipe fell out of her clothes when the mortuary attendant was stripping her. This pipe, he also adds, was then broken when his assistant carelessly threw the pipe on the floor. Dr. Phillips then set the broken pieces aside, but he reports that the pieces went missing. This pipe, that appeared to be in the bosom of her dress, got broken and lost before the police had a chance to see it. Moreover, at the scene of her crime, a broken pipe was found underneath her. This "crime scene pipe" was produced at her inquest, and was similar to the kind Alice was known to borrow and smoke; so prossibly this was hers. Given that the “lost and broken pipe” was found down her dress (not in her pockets, Dr. Phillips was sure of that), and that "her" pipe is probably the one underneath her, there is a large possibility that this pipe was dropped on her by her attacker. But, the police were never able to identify who might have owned this pipe because it was broken and lost before they ever got a chance to see it. Finally, there are newspaper reports where it is suggested by the press that this broken and lost pipe might have been a clue to the identity of the assassin.
So, what details can we verify from Alice McKenzie's pipes?
1) it was a clay pipe
2) it was broken and lost after being found by the doctor’s assisstant
3) the breaking and loss of this pipe is associated with a doctor
4) the breaking and loss of this pipe occurs before the police ever see the pipe
5) the pipe, given it’s location down the dress of the victim, has a strong possibility of being dropped by her attacker (i.e., it could be a clue to the identity of her killer)
6) because the owner of this broken/lost pipe could never be determined, the owner of this pipe could have been Anderson’s poor Polish Jew (of course, it could have been anyone’s, but that’s the point whereas Barnett’s pipe could not have been Anderson’s suspect’s pipe)
7) the breaking of the pipe occurs when it is thrown
8) Alice McKenzie’s inquest involves a lot of questions concerning pipes, and the newspapers suggest this was a lost clue that might have identified her killer (so, like the writing, there was discussion at the time that this pipe was a lost clue).
In other words, Anderson’s statement describes, with some errors, events surrounding a pipe found with Alice McKenzie. What details are not correct?
1) there’s no fireplace
2) the pipe gets broken at the mortuary not the crime scene (but note: a broken pipe was found at the Alice McKenzie crime scene as well)
3) the pipe gets broken by the doctor’s assistant, not the doctor himself.
So, the details that don’t really fit are the one’s that make the described event unbelievable in the first place.
Now, we also know that Anderson did not count Alice McKenzie as a Ripper victim. If that’s the case, why is he describing events from her case as being part of the Ripper series?
Two possible explanations come to mind.
1) he’s simply forgotten that the details surrounding the broken pipe come from a murder that was initially thought to be a Ripper murder, but later thought not.
2) He’s talking during an interview, he knows readers of the paper consider Alice McKenzie a Ripper victim, and he’s not concerned if they continue to think so. Since he goes on to talk about the writing anyway, which fits with his theory, inclusion of the pipe is just another story to make things more interesting. This is not an official document, so he’s being “careless”.
I’m sure we could make up all sorts of explanations, none of which we can prove. Given that the original statement is made nearly 20 years after the events in question, normal forgetting is the most likely explanation, if not the only one. We have to remember that Anderson is being interviewed, he isn’t writing an official document, and he is unlikely to have his notes out in front of him during an interview. The inaccuracies are relatively minor, while many of the details can be verified with independent source information that was gathered at the time of the crime.
Regardless of why these errors occur, the important point is that many of the details, including links between doctors, pipes, breaking, and "clue status", can be verified in relation to Alice McKenzie's pipes but none of these links can be verified in terms of Joe Barnett's pipe. If you keep the fireplace, you have to throw away far more evidence and then speculate the rest to make Anderson's statement fit Joe Barnett's pipe. In contrast, the details one has to conclude are errors if you look at the Alice McKenzie murder are the details that are originally unbeleivable anyway.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 504
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 5:22 am: | |
G'day,
JEFF: Pardon? Whatyasay?
I did write out a long reply, looking at all your comments in turn, then I thought: 'Why bother? I'm tired of discussing the pipe and have better things to do. It's not vital to Bruce Paley's theory on Joseph Barnett, and doesn't even get a mention in his book!
You asked me to provide you with answers to some questions, so here they are:
1) I am still trying to find the words in Anderson's statement that say that the pipes owner was never determined.
2) Typing 'NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE' in capitals like that was to show that Abberline saw that the items of burnt clothing WERE of consequence to the case. If pieces of a pipe were also found there, someone just had to say: " Oh, they're of NO consequence, because they were thrown in this morning!"
3) I'm NOT saying that Barnett was Anderson's suspect. I am saying that whoever put his lips to Barnett's pipe last, could have been important in Anderson's opinion.
4) Yes you pointed out Phillips' report this time, but it has been pointed out on these boards before.
5) People have always argued that Anderson was getting his cases confused, but that's an easy way out!
About the Miller's Court scene:
All available constables and detectives were out searching the neighbourhood and how many men could have fitted inside that tiny room at once?
Why wasn't the breaking of Alice McKenzie's pipe covered-up? It was blamed on the clumsiness of a mortuary attendent and no one owned up to doing it!
You say: 'a broken pipe was found at the Alice McKenzie crime scene too.' It is described here as: 'an old clay pipe, besmeared with blood'. Nothing about it being a broken pipe!
LEANNE |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
Leanne,
First part of Anderson's quote links one killer to the murder that contained the writing of the graffito and the murder that contained the pipe. The writer of the graffito is never identified, hence the owner of the pipe is not identified.
However, one could interpret things as Anderson was pretty sure who the writer and pipe owner were, but because these two clues were lost, he couldn't prove it.
Now we know Anderson was convinced of his poor Polish Jew, that means Anderson believes the writer and pipe owner are his poor Polish Jew. You name the pipe owner as Joe Barnett, that's why it is you who is linking Joe Barnett with Anderson's poor Polish Jew.
Now, we both know you don't believe that last bit, and neither do I, but it's a consquence of asserting that Anderson's talking about Joe's pipe. This is just another reason to discount Joe's pipe as being the one that Anderson is talking about.
You give a possible situation where someone other than Joe Barnett kills Mary Kelly, and at some time, smokes Joe's pipe. Very possible, but of course pure speculation. Still, even if that did happen, there was no way in 1888 that Joe's pipe could possibly have "securred proof of the identity of the assassin" if the "assassin" wasn't Joe. So now you're accusing Anderson of making mistakes, which is what you're saying is so wrong with my interpretation. You can't have it both ways.
As for the broken pipe at Alice McKenzie's crime scene, you include: It is described here as: 'an old clay pipe, besmeared with blood'. Nothing about it being a broken pipe!
I don't know where "here" is, but here is the inquest testimony found "here" at Casebook under "official documents/inquest testimony/Alice McKenzie".
Take special note of the 2nd sentence inside the quotes:
On the second day:
Detective-Inspector Edmund Reid:
"
...
After the body had been examined by the doctor it was placed on the police ambulance, and underneath the body of the deceased was found the short clay pipe produced. The pipe was broken and there was blood on it, and in the bowl was some unburnt tobacco.
"
Now, I would like to point out that I had posted this, with more, a while back. It appears that despite all the discussion we've had you've forgotten the detail that Alice McKenzie's pipe, found underneath her at the crime scene, was broken. That in a span of less than 20 weeks. Can you imagin what kind of errors of memory can occur after 20 years? And to be absoultely clear on this, I'm not implying you have a bad memory at all. Given people things to remember, and 20 minutes later test them, people will forget details. It's normal, in fact, to not forget or confuse details, is abnormal. This is why we have to be so cautious with memoires and such. Memory is not perfect, we should expect to find some errors. In fact if we didn't find any errors of memory, we would probably conclude the person was working from notes and official documents and not relying on their memory.
This is why suggesting Anderson got a few details incorrect, while still being largely correct, indicates his memory was actually really good, but not perfect. It's also why such an explanation is reasonable in this situation. He's being interviewed, it would be unusual to expect him to have his official documents out for consultation, especially over the details of a pipe he mentions for 1 or two sentences.
I would like to point out as well, that Dr. Phillips, who would be the first "suspect" for being the "crazy evidence destroying doctor", is testified by Abberline at MJK's inquest as requesting that the door not be forced until the dogs arrived, that he documented in his notes the breaking of the pipe from the Alice McKenzie murder rather than hush it up, and that he made this embarassing admission again at her inquest. In other words, Dr. Phillip's behaviour seems to indicate he was actually quite careful in terms of perserving evidence, and that he would rather accept embarassment over a mistake made when he was in charge than cover it up. This doesn't sound like a fellow who would do what Anderson describes; but of course he could have, couldn't he.
Anyway, I agree. This discussion is going nowhere and there's still no evidence that any of the events described by Anderson correspond with events surrounding Joe Barnett's pipe. We do agree on that don't we? You do agree that there is no evidence that the events Anderson describes occured with reference to Joe's pipe, don't you? If you don't agree, I do hope you'll list what that evidence is because I can't for the life of me find it.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 2:20 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
'The first part of Anderson's quote...'? Are you refering to: 'In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed wiped out absolutely. Clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin'? Does that show to you that Anderson thought the killer of Catharine Eddowes was also the killer of Alice McKenzie and they just needed a pipe to prove the 'identity of the assasin'?
Anderson didn't write that he wished to identify the owner of the pipe! Imagine a murder scene being investigated, and a used coffee cup was found in the room. Then at the inquest, an Inspector says: "Oh it's alright, that coffee cup belonged to the owner of the house!" See what I mean? It was CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE!
I don't think Anderson could have been 'pretty sure' who wrote the graffito, because I don't think the assasin wrote it! Why would a killer halt his escape, pull out a piece of chalk that he just happened to have in his pocket, and write a message in dim light? People now and then WANT to believe he did, because it introduces the word: 'JUWES' to the case!
'Here' is the official Home Office files on the case, contained in the book: 'The Ultimate Companion'. It says that Superintendent Arnold wrote a report: '....but nothing was discovered beyond an OLD clay pipe besmeared with blood...'
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 7:55 am: | |
Sorry Leanne, you've lost me completely now. In Anderson's opinion, a pipe at one murder scene, and the graffito, were both clues that could very easily have secured proof of the murderer's identity, had they not been destroyed, wiped out.
I can't see a problem with concluding that Anderson was imagining that the murderer left his own pipe at the scene, and that the graffito was in the murderer's handwriting. (It wouldn't have been very easy to connect the pipe or the graffito with the murderer in any other circumstances, it would have been nigh on impossible.)
Love,
Caz
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 514
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
G'day Caz,
I think Anderson was very conceited, being certain that Jack the Ripper was a 'low-class Jew'!
LEANNE |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
'The first part of Anderson's quote...'? Are you refering to: 'In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed wiped out absolutely. Clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin'?
Yes.
Does that show to you that Anderson thought the killer of Catharine Eddowes was also the killer of Alice McKenzie and they just needed a pipe to prove the 'identity of the assasin'?
Yes. He refers to two murders of one series, and the assassin is singular: so a singular assassin connected to two separate crimes of the same series, to me means the same person is being implemented. What does it mean to you?
I fail to see how the pipe could be a clue to the identity of this singular assassin except through ownership, just as I fail to see how the writing could be a clue except through authorship. There was no way in 1888 to identify a stranger who may have smoked Joe's pipe.
Moreover, given that there was a pipe found in a very suspicious location (down Alice McKenzie's dress), then identifying the owner of the pipe had a strong possiblity of leading to her killer.
Now, don't get me wrong here. None of what we're talking about indicates that Alice McKenzie was ACTUALLY killed by the same person as Eddowes. And in fact, we know that Anderson has indicated he didn't think she was. What I'm saying is that the event of the "broken and lost pipe clue" is describing the pipe found at the Alice McKenzie crime scene. In contrast, I can find no other murder that was, at the time, associated with the Ripper series that details events that even closely resembles what Anderson describes.
Moreover, Anderson doesn't say either clue HAD to lead to the identity of the killer, only that they COULD have. This means Anderson is saying the clues had the potential to lead to the killer. The writing had the potential because it MAY have been written by the killer. The pipe found down Alice McKenzie's dress MAY have been dropped by her attacker, and therefore both had the potential to lead to her killer. What needed to be done was follow up these clues to determine what possiblity was in fact true. Both clues, however, were destroyed before they could be investigated to determine where they led as clues.
Both of these clues may also have ended up being red herrings and leading nowhere had they been investigated (i.e., found to be normal graffito, found to be Alice's own pipe). This possiblitiy isn't excluded in Anderson's statement either, because he isn't defininately saying these clues had to be from his singular killer, only that the circumstances around them indicated a strong possibility they might have been.
Remember, at the time she was murdered, Alice McKenzie was thought to be a Ripper victim. All I'm saying is that Anderson has recalled this event in relation to the Ripper series, but has not recalled that it was specifically associated with Alice McKenzie (because he later decided she's not part of the series). The specific details about the breaking are more or less correct, with a few details wrong. All of these "errors" are of the normal sort that occur when people recall events from 20 years ago. Hence, I suggest he's simply made some errors because during the interview he's relying on memory.
- Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
