|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 517
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 5:45 am: |       |
G'day Jeff,
That quote of Anderson's regarding the pipe was written in 1908 for 'The Daily Chronicle'.
2 years leter he wrote his book: 'The Lighter Side of My Official Life'. On page 113 or 114 he wrote: 'However the fact may be explained it was a fact that no other street murder occured in the "Jack-the-Ripper" series.' A footnote adds: 'I am assuming the murder of Alice McKenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand.' Does that say to you that this retired detective changed his mind?
We could say that perhaps Dr. Phillips read that article and threatened to sue once his name is mentioned as this pipe throwing doctor, but Dr. Phillips was there in Millers Court before Anderson was too! This is trying to read the minds of dead people, so let's not get into that. It still doesn't point to a specific crime scene, so we're 50/50.
In 1908 Anderson was responding to public criticism over the efficiency of Scotland Yard, so he wrote: 'In one case it was a clay pipe....' He mentioned it as an obstacle once, and never mentioned it again.
What if it was discovered that the pipe given to Alice, was not given to her by a 'low-class Jew'? Where would that have left Anderson's theory?
If a pipe was found down the front of Alice McKenzies dress, while an attendant was searching her clothing at the mortuary, how could her killer have just dropped it there? If it magically fell down the front of her dress, how come it didn't just magically fall out again when her body was being placed on the stretcher?
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 6:58 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
In my previous post I point out that Anderson doesn't think Alice McKenzie was a Ripper victim. Once again, what appears to have happened is that during the interview, Anderson has recalled the lost/broken pipe in relation to the Ripper series, not in relation to Alice McKenzie specifically.
If the event is true, you can't sue. Where is there any evidence of this hypothetical law suit?
Look, something is possible so long as it doesn't violate the known rules of the universe. As a silly example, because large monkeys exist, and because crime scenes exist, and because some evidence does go unreported, it's possible that a large monkey was present and seen at Mary Kelly's crime scene but it was never reported. But I would hardly suggest that simply because this is possible that it makes for a very strong arguement about what actually happened. So, unless you have some evidence to suggest Dr. Phillips was about to sue, we might as well conclude he was going to hire the monkey as his lawyer for good measure. There's a difference between trying to describe an event that directly left the evidence trail, and suggesting "possible" events which have left no trace of themselves. The former is a deduction that may lead to a better understanding of the case, the latter is our monkey that leads nowhere.
We're no where near 50/50. We're more like 99/1. The events Anderson describe correspond to documented events that occured in relation to pipes found at the Alice McKenzie crime scene. No other crime has documented events that even closely resemble Anderson's statement. Therefore, the probability that Anderson is talking about events that occured in relation to Alice McKenzie's pipe is much higher than the probability he's talking about Joe Barnett's pipe. The 1 acknowledges the possibility he's not; but then there's our monkey, so possibility doesn't mean plausibility.
"What if it was discovered that the pipe given to Alice, was not given to her by a 'low-class Jew'? Where would that have left Anderson's theory?"
My post just before yours deals with this extensively.
Are you suggesting that Alice normally kept her pipes down the boosom of her dress? Or is it that finding a pipe down a murder victims dress is not, in your opinion, worthy of further investigation as compared to finding a previous tenants pipe, which they admit to owning, in the same room as a murder victim?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
Jeff,
I mentioned the possibility of Phillips threatening to take legal action against Anderson, because two years later, in another Magazine he wrote: 'I should almost be tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to, provided that the publishers would accept all responsibility in view of a possible libel action.' Whether it was true or not, no one recorded the event, so Phillips could have claimed that it wasn't true. As I've said before, Barnett told Abberline that the pipe was his, but it was still crime scene evidence! It should have been shown to the jury and Coroner, who could have asked Barnett: "Is this the pipe you say is yours? Do you have more than one pipe?"
This is part of a report written by Dr. Bond to Robert Anderson re Alice McKenzie: ' The clothing was fastened round the body somewhat tightly & could only be raised so as to expose about a third of the abdomen.' and you believe her killer could have dropped a pipe down there?
At Alice McKenzie's inquest, Elizabeth Ryder said: "...I have often seen her smoking she would borrow pipes from the other lodgers in the kitchen." It's obvious that she borrowed two that day and was saving one for later, or perhaps she forgot that she'd tucked it away! And you think that Anderson could have thought for one minute that a pipe tucked away belonged to her killer? Hey, perhaps she 'borrowed that pipe from Anderson's 'low-class Jew!!!!!! 
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 3
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:17 pm: | |
Leanne,
Now I'm really confused? Are you saying Anderson thought Dr. Phillips was the Ripper or the pressman? If neither, please explain how the above law suit suggests Dr. Phillips was going to sue?
And yes, a more in depth questioning of everyone should have been done at MJK's inquest. Unfortunately, it wasn't.
The boosom isn't near the waistline of the dress. Difficulty raising the bottom part of a dress in an attempt to expose the abdomen has no bearing on the neckline of that dress.
It's not obvious she borrowed two pipes, but you think she "tucked it away" down her top? Do you really believe this?
I'm glad you realise the last part is impossible, since Anderson's suspect was supposed to be locked away when Alice McKenzie was killed.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:23 pm: | |
Leanne,
Anderson thought the broken/lost pipe was a clue to the identity of the assassin. You claim the pipe he's talking about is Joe's. So ...
Please explain why Anderson suspected a low class Jew and why he didn't suspect Joe; the owner of the pipe that was supposed to be a clue to the identity of the assassin.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
Jeff,
No, no, no,! Anderson didn't think Dr. Phillips was the Ripper or the pressman! Libel actions were on his mind! He was more careful about what was published.
Do you think that the boosom of Alice McKenzies dress was so wide open that someone could drop a pipe down there? He must have been a lot taller than she was!
Catharine Eddowes had:
12 pieces of white rag,
1 piece of blue and white shirting,
2 short black clay pipes,
1 tin box containing tea,
1 cube of sugar,
1 piece of flannel,
6 pieces of soap,
1 small comb,
1 table knife,
1 spoon,
1 red leather cigaette case,
1 tin match box,
1 piece of flannel containing pins and needles,
1 ball of hemp, all hidden in her clothing! Notice the TWO black clay pipes!
I already explained how I didn't think that Anderson suspected the pipe's OWNER! No where did he write that he wanted to know the pipe's OWNER!
LEANNE
|
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:13 pm: | |
Leanne,
Do you really beleive Catharine Eddowes carried all her stuff down the boosom of her dress? Or for that matter, any of it? Don't you think she might have had, oh I don't know, pockets?
He didn't have to be taller, she just had to be on the ground.
I recall you mentioning something about a stranger killer may have smoked Joe's pipe last. I don't recall you ever explaining how you think this make's Joe's pipe a clue to the identity of the stranger (in 1888 I mean, today, obviously they might look for fingerprints, DNA, etc).
So, just how do you explain how a pipe in 1888 would be a clue to the killer's identity if the killer wasn't the owner of the pipe?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 7:32 am: | |
Jeff,
No, not down the bossom of her dress, but in her clothing! The point I was trying to make was that she carried alot of possessions on her - including TWO pipes!
If McKenzie was on the ground and her killer knelt over her, don't you think he was likely to have picked up his pipe if he'd dropped it?
Joe's pipe may not have turned out to be a valuable clue after all. Anderson probably mentioned it to include it as an example of destroyed evidence, as he seems to have thought the graffiti was. Maybe he realized how it couldn't have proved anyone's guilt. That could've been another reason why he didn't write about it again after that.
I don't have to explain how a pipe in 1888 would have been a clue, that's not the argument here!
LEANNE
|
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 9:10 am: | |
Leanne,
"I don't have to explain how a pipe in 1888 would have been a clue, that's not the argument here!"
Er, I rather think you do if you want to try and make Anderson's statement apply to Barnett's pipe. If it couldn't be a clue, then it's not the pipe Andersen was talking about.
It's clear how the pipe in the Mackenzie murder could have been a valuable clue either to the identity of the murderer or to her movements that night.
But Joe's pipe was already identfied. There was no techology at the time that would have allowed any forensic determination of who had smoked it last, or when. So how could this have possibly have been a clue?
And as Anderson thought it was a clue to the Ripper's identity, (and we all know who he favored) why would he think that Barnet's pipe would have been of interest?
I would also LOVE an explination as to why you feel that this hypothetical broken pipe at the MJK scene was completely and totally covered up, and yet there was no similar coverup when lightning struck twice and evidence was destroyed in the Mackenzie case.
Regards,
John |
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 6
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 7:49 pm: | |
Leanne,
Ok, so you admit Eddowes didn't carry things down the boosom down her dress. But doesn't that argue that the location is suspicious for Alice's pipe?
Given no other evidence, yes, I would think it likely that he would have picked up his pipe if he knew he dropped it. Given, however, the pipe was obviously not picked up and taken away, I fail to see the point of this. If the pipe was her killers, he clearly did not pick it up and take it away. If the police had the opertunity to investigate this pipe, we might just know the answer for sure: was it or was it not her killer's pipe? Don't know. Might it be a clue to her killer? yes, for sure.
And as John has pointed out, yes you do have to explain how Joe's pipe could have been a clue. You have said a stranger could have smoked Joe's pipe, and you have said that this is why Anderson might have thought it a clue to the identity of the killer. You have said that he doesn't think Anderson wants to identify the owner of the pipe. Now, in order to make any sense of this, then you have to explain how the pipe could have been a clue to this stranger. If you, the author of this theory, can't explain how Joe's pipe is a clue to anyone's identity other than Joe, then your theory isn't worth much as an explanation.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 3:23 am: | |
Jeff,
I think you are the one who is twisting Anderson's written statement to fit Alice McKenzie's pipe! You think "Oh Anderson was just confusing his cases!" Because that's the simple answer!
Look at his statement: 'Before we could get to the scene of the murder...' You say that he was reffering to the police in general when he put 'we' and that instead of 'scene of the murder', he meant to write: 'at the mortuary'. I'm saying he confused neither and there were several doctors at Miller's Court before Anderson rolled up in a cab.
'...A doctor had taken it up, thrown it into a fireplace...' If he was referring to Alice McKenzie's pipe, he meant Dr. Phillips was the doctor, (who blamed a mortuary assistant). If he was referring to the Miller's Court pipe, he was either blaming Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr Browne or Dr. Gabe, all of whom were at the scene of the murder before Anderson rolled up in a cab.
Lightning didn't have to strike twice on Dr. Phillips at all, John!
Take a look at any photograph or even an illustration of any female of the time. Please point out the picture that causes you, Jeff, to believe that McKenzie's killer could have dropped his pipe down her boosom!
I never said that Eddowes carried all of those things specifically down her boosom. She could have had cloth shoved down there or perhaps one pipe or both. A pipe in McKenzie's boosum would not have been suspicious at all!....not in the least!
If the police had have been able to go around her lodging house asking: "Which one of you owned this pipe?" and some one said: "Me Sir" that's no evidence! If no one had've had the gutts to own up to it, but said: "Oh I know who owns that pipe, it blongs to _____" All that person had to say was: "Oh I gave that to her" and then the police would be back where they started, with no evidence!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 4:08 am: | |
I thought I already explained how the Miller's Court pipe would have been important:
1) If it was found on the floor, the killer could have dropped it when he was leaving.
2) If it was found unclean on the mantle-piece, that would indicate that her killer paused at some stage of the opperation to smoke a pipe.
3) If it was found clean and on the mantle-piece, that would mean that Barnett either put it there intentionally, or that Kelly could have put it there when she tidied up.
4) If it was found on the floor under the broken window, that could have shown that the killer perhaps dropped it while he was reaching through to open the door.
They could have determined a lot more things if Barnett's pipe was shown at Kelly's inquest, than they could have if McKenzies pipe wasn't dropped at the mortuary!
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 9:03 am: | |
Leanne,
Um, no you haven't. None of those things you suggest could be discovered from a pipe that was simply found at the scene. We're into serious silliness now.
1) In that circumstances it could also have been dropped by Joe, or knocked off by Mary or any of her varied and sundry guests. Evidentiary value, zero.
2) No, it would mean that SOMEONE smoked it. (Joe, Carrotty Moustache, etc) As it wasn't possibile to determine when it was last smoked this would not have even been a consideration
3) This has the same problem as above. There is no way to tell who cleaned it or when. No evidence there.
4) That would be pure speculation.
NONE of these things you suggest would provide any kind of evidence, and certainly none that would indicate the identity of killer. (a certain low-class jew) Showing the pipe at the inquest couldn't have determined much of anything beyond, yep, it was Joe's pipe, and yep, he left it there. Not very impressive.
Regards,
John
P.S. You're right that in the Mackenzie case the pipe could have come to nothing, but considering her habits those pipes were definately important clues that could lead to to the identity of her killer or at least to her movements. Look at the inquest testimony and look at how many times those pipes come up and try and believe they weren't considered imporant clues at the time. (As opposed to Joe's pipe in which case there was zero interest.) |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 5:23 am: | |
John,
Of course the exact position of the Miller's Court pipe was important! Why did Abberline even mention it's being there, if it was an insignificant thing! Because he said that it belonged to Barnett, Joe must have been asked about it!
Alice McKenzie's, ('Claypipe' Alice's), pipe could have belonged to her, in fact it very likely did, and you claim that it's position was suspicious!
I doubt very much that Mary Kelly would have put it on the mantle piece without emptying it's ashes first, and we have no idea if it was clean or not because Abberline didn't tell the jury!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 7
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 5:10 pm: | |
Leanne,
I started with Anderson's statement. I figured he's either making it all up (or it was the reporter making it all up), or that his pipe statement actually corresponded to a real event.
I then looked at the various murders that were associated with the Ripper series to see if I could find any documented event that corresponded to what Anderson said. Given that 20 years had passed since the Ripper crimes, it would not be surprising if the "real" event was not quite 100% accurately described.
So, that means I start with 3 possible situations. 1) complete fabricration 2) a real event with some errors 3) a real event perfectly accurate.
If 1, then we would expect to find very little correspondence between the statement and the event. If 2 or 3, we would expect to find either a good deal (2) or all of it (3).
With Alice McKenzie we find two clay pipes, one was found underneath her by the police, the other was found in her cloths, apparently down the boosom of her dress. This later pipe was found in a location that was suspicious and may have belonged to her killer, this pipe was broken when it was thrown, it was broken and lost while under the responsibility of a doctor, it was broken and lost before the police had a chance to see it or investigate it, her inquest involves a lot of questions concerning her pipes. This pipe was written up in the press as being a clue to the identity of her killer that was lost. And finally, Alice was, at the time, thought to be a victim of the Ripper.
In contrast, Joe's pipe is mentioned briefly and in passing. There is nothing to indicate it was broken at any time. There is nothing to indicate that a pipe was broken in the fireplace and in fact there are statements that specifically rule that possiblity out. There is nothing to indicate that anyone at the time thought Joe's pipe was any more of a clue to MJK's killer than Eddowes's tin match box was. There is nothing to indicate that Dr. Phillips was the kind of person who would have destroyed physical evidence at a crime scene, in contrast his actions tend to reflect someone who was responsible about preserving evidence; even to the point that he would report important things that got broken and lost while under his responsibility.
Dispite all this documentation that describes an event quite similar to what Anderson's mentions, and the huge lack of documentation that makes any connection between the statement and Joe's pipe, you continue to argue that Anderson is talking about Joe's pipe. But this the problem I'm having with your arguements. They are based upon a series of hypothetical situations, but these hypothetical situations are not based upon any documentation. They are events that, for the most part, are simply possible because they are not impossible. But these events have not, apparently, left any trace of themselves even though they are highly unusual events which would be expected to impact upon the documentation trail (i.e., lawsuits, doctor's destroying evidence at crime scenes in locations that later get searched, etc).
However, you have presented, as far as I can figure out, one impossible arguement. That being that Joe's pipe could somehow have identified a stranger who smoked it last. This, given the technology of the times, would be impossible.
So, what it boils down to is that Anderson's statement reflects the documented events surrounding the broken and lost pipe of Alice McKenzie reasonably well. It does not reflect the documented events surrounding Joe's pipe. Nor, does it reflect the documented events surrounding Eddowes pipes, or any other pipes.
You keep presenting possible situations to suggest that Alice's pipe did not belong to her killer. And, as I've repeatedly indicated, this is entirely possible but that doesn't change anything. The graffito was a lost clue as well. Whether or not it was written by the killer doesn't change the fact that it was a clue.
A clue is something that has a reasonable possibility of leading to the killer. The writing, because it was found near the apron, could reasonablely have been written by the killer. It also might not have been written by the apron leaving killer.
But the fact that it's possible that it wasn't written by the killer doesn't change the fact that it could have been. And it takes further investigation to determine if it does or if it does not.
Alice's pipe is exactly the same thing. It's a clue that has a reasonable possibility of being connected to the killer. It might not have been, but so what? It would have required further investigation to determine if it did or if it did not. But just like the writing, it was destroyed before the police had a chance to do this. Again, this is what Anderson is talking about.
Joe's pipe, as you point out, was investigated. They found out it belonged to Joe. They asked him about it, hence they knew it was his. He claimed it. This is called investigation. And this investigation has left it's mark on the evindence, which is why we know it's Joe's. Things that happen leave marks, sometimes they are clear, sometimes they are faint, but they leave their marks. There is an impact upon the data. Your hypothetical situations are not tied to any marks in the data trail. This is why they can not be supported and are unlikely to be accurate descriptions of what actually happened. Not all things that are possible actually happen. But the things that actually happen will leave a trail of themselves. This is the most important rule of investigation.
Now, since it is impossible for a pipe, in 1888, to be a clue to the identity of the person who smoked it last, but it was possible for a pipe to be a clue to the identity of the owner of the pipe, we come back to the biggest problem with trying to equate Anderson's statement with Joe's pipe.
Please tell me why Anderson's suspect is a poor Polish Jew and not Joe Barnett if, as you claim, he's talking about Joe's pipe?
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 9
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
Leanne,
Do you think it's impossible for the pipe found in Alice's clothes to have belonged to her killer?
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Police Constable
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 10:34 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Jeff,
I think you are the one who is twisting Anderson's written statement to fit Alice McKenzie's pipe!"
I realise that, as I'm sure you realise I believe the shoe is on the other foot. But, that is the nature of different opinions. I'm trying to back up mine with documented evidence and trying to be consistent in my explanation. Also, though I've not convinced you of this, I'm trying to minimize the amount of data I call "errors". I give greater weight to the documents made at the time of the crimes, and less weight on the specifics of a statement made 20 years after the fact. I find a lot of the details correspond to documented events surrounding Alice McKenzie's pipe (as I've written many many times now). The parts of Anderson's statement that don't appear to be documented anywhere else, are also the parts that are most unbelievable. Because these parts (as I've gone through great length to describe) are 1) unbelievable and 2) contradicted by the documented evidence that supports the rest of the details; I have concluded that these details are "errors". Not a big stretch of the immagination.
"You think "Oh Anderson was just confusing his cases!" Because that's the simple answer!"
Correct. It's the simplest answer because it 1) fits the known data and 2) it doesn't involve any implausible speculations. I prefer such explanations over ones that 1) do not fit the known data and 2) speculate implausible scenerios to fill in the missing data or to explain away disconfirming data. Which sort of explanations do you prefer?
"Look at his statement: 'Before we could get to the scene of the murder...' You say that he was reffering to the police in general when he put 'we' and that instead of 'scene of the murder', he meant to write: 'at the mortuary'. I'm saying he confused neither and there were several doctors at Miller's Court before Anderson rolled up in a cab."
I understand this. However, in the same quote Anderson also uses "we" in reference to the graffito. He was out of the country during this event. Therefore, Anderson is not using "we" with specific reference to himself with respect to the graffito. Given that he uses identical phrasing in reference to the pipe, there is absolutely nothing to indicate a different interpretation should therefor be applied. We've both agreed to this in the past so I have no idea why you are questioning it now. Still, to be precise, I've offered a couple of possible interpretations that one might wish to apply such as 1) police in general or 2) senior police officials. I have indicated that this use of "we" is ambiguous, so really all one has to show is that the scenerio one presents should include something that might correspond to "we". For example, for Joe's pipe, Dr. Phillips is the first to enter the crime scene after the door was forced, so this "before we" part of the quote could be argued to discribe this. Also, the "before we" could be argued to describe Alice's pipe because it was broken and lost before the police had a chance to investigate it.
"'...A doctor had taken it up, thrown it into a fireplace...'"
Which is simply so absurd that to assume this is an accurate description of the event would require documented evidence from the time of the crime that actually backs it up. For no crime, however, is such an event documented that fits this rather dramatic scene. Therefore, we have to look for an event that best resembles it. I have presented documented evidence from the Alice McKenzie case that does just this; it resembles the statement in many important ways. If you wish for people to seriously consider the possibility that Anderson is talking about Joe's pipe, you will have to show documented evidence that resembles the above statement to at least a degree that it resembles Alice McKenzie's. Highly creative speculations are not documented evidence. I applaud your latteral thinking, but you need to be able to back up your case with some sort of evidence and not speculation.
"If he was referring to Alice McKenzie's pipe, he meant Dr. Phillips was the doctor, (who blamed a mortuary assistant)."
Correct.
"If he was referring to the Miller's Court pipe, he was either blaming Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr Browne or Dr. Gabe, all of whom were at the scene of the murder before Anderson rolled up in a cab."
Possibly. But show me one document from 1888/1889 that links any doctors with Joe's pipe in any way. Show me one document from 1888/1889 that indicates, or even hints at, Joe's pipe being broken at any time. Show me anything that documents anything that sounds like Anderson's statement. All we can document is 1) Joe's pipe was a clay pipe, 2) there was a fireplace at the scene of the criem, and 3) doctors were there. What we can not document is a link between any two, let alone all three, of these individual bits. At least for Alice's pipe we can link the pipe with a doctor, and both of these with the act of throwing and of breaking and of loss and of being a clue, and all of this occuring before the police had a chance to see the pipe at all. This means a lot of the details and the links between the bits are actually documented for Alice's pipe.
Lightning didn't have to strike twice on Dr. Phillips at all, John!
If it's not Dr. Phillips, what about the "before we" part? At least Dr. Phillips is documented as entering before the police, which could be used as documented evidence to support that claim. That means you have to point the finger at Dr. Phillips, OR show documented evidence that suits another doctor who fits the "before we". And finally, you would have to explain why Dr. Phillips doesn't mention it this time since Dr. Phillips is the first to enter, so he was there whenever this 2nd doctor entered and deliberately broke the pipe.
"Take a look at any photograph or even an illustration of any female of the time. Please point out the picture that causes you, Jeff, to believe that McKenzie's killer could have dropped his pipe down her boosom!"
I don't have to do this. The pipe is reported as being in her clothes, and Dr. Phillips indicates he believes it was down the boosom of her dress. He saw the dress on the victim, he was there when the pipe was originally found. Since I wasn't there, I am forced to accept his testimony that indicates this was a reasonable possibility. I can't just throw it away unless some other evidence with as much authority indicates that Dr. Phillips was wrong. If you want to say it wasn't possible, then you will have back up that claim. Otherwise, we have to accept it as possible because it's part of the evidence and we have nothing to suggest it's wrong.
"I never said that Eddowes carried all of those things specifically down her boosom. She could have had cloth shoved down there or perhaps one pipe or both."
This, is highly implausible.
"A pipe in McKenzie's boosum would not have been suspicious at all!....not in the least!"
I completely disagree. The boosom of a dress is one of the most unlikely location for one to carry one's pipe. Mind you, it would have raised a few eyebrows at the pub when she wanted to have a smoke, perhaps this is how she advertised for customers? Hey, want to light my pipe?
"If the police had have been able to go around her lodging house asking: "Which one of you owned this pipe?" and some one said: "Me Sir" that's no evidence! "
What then, IS evidence?
"If no one had've had the gutts to own up to it, but said: "Oh I know who owns that pipe, it blongs to _____" All that person had to say was: "Oh I gave that to her" and then the police would be back where they started, with no evidence!"
Incorrect, the police would not be where they started. They would now have a name, so they would now have a suspect. Investigating that suspect would include a bit more than just seeing if they admitted to owning the pipe. It would involve checking up on them. There's a lot more to investigation than just seeing if the person denies it. And, if this turned out to be her killer, then the pipe would have been the clue that led to the identity of the killer, now wouldn't it?
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 7:31 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Police did a thorough search of Alice McKenzies crime scene: 'but nothing was discovered beyond an old clay pipe besmeared with blood and a farthing, which were found lying under the body when removed'. If another pipe was dropped by her killer and fell down her bossom, wouldn't it have been obvious to the searching police?
A 2nd pipe was found when removing her tight fitting clothing at the Mortuary, and was dropped by a MORTUARY ASSISTANT! If any police men visited the mortuary afterwards, hense the line: 'before we could get to the scene of the crime', please pin point the recorded document of this event. (or was that faulty memory too?)
What statements rule out the possibility that the Miller's Court pipe was broken? Did police seek the owner of Catharine Eddowes' tin match box? Perhaps that belonged to her killer or more likely, one of her two clay pipes!
The first mention of Anderson's theory emerged in an article by Major Arthur Gritfiths in 1893, in which he stated: 'Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by commital to an asylum.'
In 1898 Griffiths wrote: 'It is at least a strong presumption that Jack the Ripper died or was put under restraint after the Millers Court affair, which ended this series of crimes.' So Scotland Yard entertained the opinion that the murder of Mary Kelly was the last by Jack.
In 1901 Anderson retired and wrote an article in which he put: '...after he had been safely caged in an asylum.' So his suspect was the same as Giffiths suspect, who ended his series of crimes as Millers Court.
So how come in 1908, Anderson starts writing about a pipe that turned up at a mortuary, after a murder that followed the Millers Court one?
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 2:33 pm: | |
Leanne,
"Of course the exact position of the Miller's Court pipe was important! Why did Abberline even mention it's being there, if it was an insignificant thing! Because he said that it belonged to Barnett, Joe must have been asked about it!"
If the position was so important, then why was this not established at the inquest. But I again must remind you that while the position of the pipe could certainly be used as a basis for wild speculation as you indulge in above, it's not going to help identify the assassin as there would have been no way to determine when or how it got there.
I am sure Joe was asked about the pipe, and indeed he was almost certainly shown the pipe. I don't see how he could have identified a smashed pipe.
"Alice McKenzie's, ('Claypipe' Alice's), pipe could have belonged to her, in fact it very likely did, and you claim that it's position was suspicious!"
As Alice was in the habit of borrowing pipes, I would love to know what you're basing your assumption that it was her pipe on. (Other than wishful thinking.) And nowhere did I claim that it's position was suspicious, where you got that idea from I have no idea.
The case for this being Barnet's pipe just gets weaker and weaker.
To make it be Barnet's we have to assume the following at the very least:
1) Although Andersen was incorrect in several contemporary statements regarding the case, the fireplace comment was accurate enough to place it at the scene of the MJK murder! 
2) Although Andersen thought the Ripper was a low-class jew, and would have seen the pipe as evidence that supports his beliefs, he was wrong. He got the fireplace right, and the clue right, but the wrong suspect! 
3) That a complete (sucessful!) cover-up of the pipe smashing incident at Miller's court took place!
4) That lightning struck twice, 2 pipes were broken by medical men and that the second incident was not only not covered up, but avoided all mention of the earlier breakage! 
5) That although Barnet's pipe had no evidentiary value (And you have not come up with any reasonable explination of how it could), that it MUST be the pipe that Andersen was talking about.
6) Although the pipe in the Mackenzie case matches the circumstances Andersen describes almost exactly, and despite the fixation on the pipes at her inquest that was NOT the pipe in question.
Given the unlikely circumstances that would need to have occurred for for the pipe mentioned to be Barnett's, I'm quite happy taking the easy way out. Not just because it's easy, but because it makes sense and it doesn't make the least sense at all for it to be Joe's.
Taking it easy,
John |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 11
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 4:59 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
"Police did a thorough search of Alice McKenzies crime scene: 'but nothing was discovered beyond an old clay pipe besmeared with blood and a farthing, which were found lying under the body when removed'. If another pipe was dropped by her killer and fell down her bossom, wouldn't it have been obvious to the searching police? "
Only if they stuck their hands down her dress.
"A 2nd pipe was found when removing her tight fitting clothing at the Mortuary, and was dropped by a MORTUARY ASSISTANT! If any police men visited the mortuary afterwards, hense the line: 'before we could get to the scene of the crime', please pin point the recorded document of this event. (or was that faulty memory too?)"
Um, that's recorded in both Dr. Phillip's report and his inquest testimony. We've mentioned both of these sources a bazillion times by now. If you mean the "before we arrived ..." in reference to the police? Well, by Dr. Phillip's account, the pipe gets found, thrown, and broken in less than a minute (It's found then thrown, probably less than 15 seconds). Unless the police arrived during that 1 minute interval, then the pipe was found and before the police got there, it was broken. Whether or not the police showed up later doesn't matter because the statement can accomodate either.
"What statements rule out the possibility that the Miller's Court pipe was broken? Did police seek the owner of Catharine Eddowes' tin match box? Perhaps that belonged to her killer or more likely, one of her two clay pipes!"
The fact that the pipe was identified by Barnett suggests that the pipe was not broken beyond all recognition; I mean he recognized it didn't he? It's not definitive, but it does suggest the pipe was shown to him and it was not broken. In addition, given that mentioning the state of the pipe was done in other cases when the pipe is broken, (i.e., the broken pipe found underneat Alice is described as broken; Joe's is not), the absense of such for Joe's also points away from his pipe being broken. In other words, what evidence we have suggests Joe's pipe was not broken at all.
More importantly though, Abberline searched the very location where Joe's pipe was supposed to have been broken (the fireplace) and found nothing but burnt clothes; no pipe parts. Your explanation is refuted by the data; the fireplace was specifically searched for evidence, anything that was in there would have been reported. So, even if Joe's pipe was broken, it was not broken in the fireplace. To claim otherwise would therefore require stronger evidence. Got any? Any at all?
Although I suppose Catharine's tin match box and one or both of her pipes could have belonged to her killer, there is nothing to suggest this. But then, I suppose they could also have belonged to a large monkey, since there's nothing to suggest this either.
As for Anderson not thinking Alice McKenzie was actually a Ripper victim, if you would read my previous posts you would already know my answer to this. In fact, I have pointed this out to you a few times now, and have answered it.
Now, please answer my questions.
1) Do you think it's even possible that Alice's pipe could have belonged to her killer?
2)Why is Anderson's suspect a poor Polish Jew and not Joe if he's talking about Joe's pipe?
(note, your previous explanation that the pipe was a clue to a stranger who smoked Joe's pipe is impossible, so it's not an explanation).
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 13
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 21, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
Leanne,
Obviously you're not convinced by the evidence I've presented; which is fine. However, we've been spending all of our time trying to poke holes in my explanation. This has been very helpful for me as I've found more source materials along the way which, in my opinion, have provided more support than I started with.
Anyway, I've presented the case "for Alice" in a few posts already, so there's no point in me re-posting it all again.
What we're missing for comparisons purposes is a detailed presentation of the alternative; the case for "Joe", if you will. Perhaps it's time we turn the floor over to you to present your case from start to finish.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:05 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Why wasn't the pipe mentioned further at Kelly's inquest? I don't think too many would argue that Mary Kelly's inquest was way too short. The jury just had to determine her cause of death, and anything else was the concern of the police.
By saying that Alice McKenzie's pipe was likely her own pipe, I meant that it was likely one that was given to her that day - by a friend! Why should that be wishful thinking? This pipe business is such an insignificant thing!
1) Oh please point out the 'several contemporary statements regarding the case in which Anderson was proven incorrect.'
2) What makes you say that Anderson could have seen the pipe as vital evidence to support his theory? He wrote that article as a 'contribution towards the enlightenment of the public on the obstacles that Scotland Yard officers have to overcome'.
3) No one ever did record what happened to the Miller's Court pipe. If it was given back to Joe in one piece, no one officially recorded that. Why would you want it?
4) You found 3 and a third lines that told of a MORTUARY ATTENDANT breaking a pipe at a MORTUARY, and link it to Andersons statement revealing to the public that a DOCTOR broke a pipe at the SCENE OF THE MURDER.
5) That pipe at Millers Court was CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE!
The searching police would have seen a bulge in Alice's boosom or are we to believe that it fell then hid itself?
I asked: When did the police go to the mortuary.
ABBERLINE: "We found a clay pipe in the room at Miller's Court."
BARNETT: "Oh it's OK inspector, that was mine. I must have left it on the mantlepiece."
The pipe found underneath the body of Alice McKenzie was not broken! It was 'an OLD clay pipe'. Exactly which pipe are you using to support your conclusion, the one found under her body or the one found in her clothes?
Inspector Abberline was describing the contents of the ashes in Mary Kelly's grate, when he mentioned articles of woman's clothing, (then he was side-tracked into an explaination that Kelly's key had been missing for some time and couple had since used the window trick), then the very next thing he said was: 'a pipe was there and used by him'. Where, in the grate with the clothes, on the mantlepiece with the candle, or under the window?
Why do you keep bring up a large monkey?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:27 am: | |
Jeff,
Now I'll answer your 2 questions:
1) No.
If Alice's killer was smoking his pipe when he suddenly got the urge to pull out his knife and dropped his lit pipe down her boosom, wouldn't it have burnt her skin a little or left a tell tale sign on her clothing?
If it was in her killer's teeth, wouldn't he have spat it out to retrieve later?
If he was holding it in his hand, holding her down with the other, who pulled out his knife?`
2) As I've explained earlier, Anderson was merely enlightening the public of obstacles.
Anyway, I'm tired of arguing about this pipe business! It's not important, and doesn't ruin my favourite suspect's chances of guilt!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:28 am: | |
PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!!!!
|
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 14
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 5:32 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
"Why wasn't the pipe mentioned further at Kelly's inquest?"
I don't know. There are, in theory, an infinite number of explanations one could make up to answer this question. For example, 1) the pipe was not considered in the least bit important and was only mentioned in passing 2) the pipe was considered a hugely important and vital clue that the police did not want made public but later forgot about as evidenced by their complete and utter lack of ever mentioning it again. 3) Abberline saw a large monkey in the crowd, which reminded him of his childhood toy given to him by his father who smoked a pipe and this reminded him of the pipe he saw at the crimescene sitting on a shelf, so he mentioned it. Etc.
"I don't think too many would argue that Mary Kelly's inquest was way too short. The jury just had to determine her cause of death, and anything else was the concern of the police."
I suspect a lot of people who post here would disagree and would have preferred a much longer and more in depth inquest. There was some discussion over whether or not the inquest was supposed to cover "all injuries" or only enough to conclude "wrongful death".
"By saying that Alice McKenzie's pipe was likely her own pipe, I meant that it was likely one that was given to her that day - by a friend! Why should that be wishful thinking? This pipe business is such an insignificant thing! "
It's not wishful thinking. It's one possibility and I've never said it couldn't be true. However, because the pipe could also have come from her killer the pipe has the potential to link (note, link, not conclusively prove) a specific indivual with Alice's murder. Regardless, this pipe was a clue that could have led to Alice's killer. Since you agree that Alice's killer could have dropped the pipe, you must agree that had the pipe been investigated it was possible that her killer would have been found. NOTE: I am not saying here that this investigation, even if the pipe was her killer's, would have been successful. They might have tried and failed in locating the pipes owner. It is because the police never had the chance to determine where this pipe came from that this pipe, like the graffito, represents a missed oppertunity that had a chance of success.
"1) Oh please point out the 'several contemporary statements regarding the case in which Anderson was proven incorrect.'"
I don't think I ever said that, and this must be directed at someone else.
"2) What makes you say that Anderson could have seen the pipe as vital evidence to support his theory? "
The reason is given above. Things that might have identified the Ripper could have led to his suspect (which would support his theory). Because he remembers the pipe in relation to the Ripper series, then the rest follows.
"He wrote that article as a 'contribution towards the enlightenment of the public on the obstacles that Scotland Yard officers have to overcome'."
If "that article" is the one the debated quote comes from, Anderson didn't write it. He was interviewed. The reporter wrote it (another potential source for some of Anderson's errors).
3) No one ever did record what happened to the Miller's Court pipe. If it was given back to Joe in one piece, no one officially recorded that. Why would you want it?
That's right.
"4) You found 3 and a third lines that told of a MORTUARY ATTENDANT breaking a pipe at a MORTUARY, and link it to Andersons statement revealing to the public that a DOCTOR broke a pipe at the SCENE OF THE MURDER."
Well that's three and third lines more than you've shown, and if you would actually read my posts, you would realise that I've presented far more links than those. You've presented nothing but speculation, as of yet.
5) That pipe at Millers Court was CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE!
I never said it wasn't.
"The searching police would have seen a bulge in Alice's boosom or are we to believe that it fell then hid itself?"
??? Just how big do you think this pipe was???
I asked: When did the police go to the mortuary.
I answered, it doesn't matter because they didn't arrive between the finding and the breaking of the pipe. They don't even have to show up for Anderson's statement to remain appropriate.
"
ABBERLINE: "We found a clay pipe in the room at Miller's Court."
BARNETT: "Oh it's OK inspector, that was mine. I must have left it on the mantlepiece."
"
I've never seen this quote before! Is it real, or have you just made it up. If the former, I'm very interested in where you found it. If the latter, I'll counter with:
ABBERLINE: We found this pipe in the room at Miller's Court.
BARNETT: That's mine. I left it there so I could smoke it when I visited. Would it be ok if I smoked it now while we talk? By the way, your large monkey is making me nervous."
"The pipe found underneath the body of Alice McKenzie was not broken!"
Yes it was. Read my earlier posts and I source the reference. In fact, I think it's the inquest testimony found here on the site.
"It was 'an OLD clay pipe'. Exactly which pipe are you using to support your conclusion, the one found under her body or the one found in her clothes?"
The one found in her cloths is the one that the police never see, and gets broken. That's the event that contains most of the details Anderson talks about.
"Inspector Abberline was describing the contents of the ashes in Mary Kelly's grate, when he mentioned articles of woman's clothing, "
He specifically says that this was the ONLY thing found in the fireplace. A man's clay pipe is not women's clothing. There is simply no pipe in your fireplace.
"(then he was side-tracked into an explaination that Kelly's key had been missing for some time and couple had since used the window trick), then the very next thing he said was: 'a pipe was there and used by him'. Where, in the grate with the clothes, on the mantlepiece with the candle, or under the window?"
The contents of the fireplace are mentioned and specifically rule out a pipe, so all we know is that the pipe was somewhere else. Where that "else" was, I don't know exactaly.
"Why do you keep bring up a large monkey?"
I use a large monkey as an obviously silly example of how one can present something that is "possible" if they don't constrain their explanations to available evidence.
For example,
Large monkey's exist.
Crime scenes exist.
Some evidence goes unreported.
These 3 things can possibly co-exist (occur at the same time). So, I can suggest it's possible that "A large monkey was seen at Mary Kelly's crime scene but was never reported". That is "possible".
There is, however, nothing in the evidence trail that suggests or supports this rather silly claim. In order to suggest "a large monkey" and have anyone consider it a valid alternative theory, I would have to present some evidence of that monkey other than the mere fact that it is possible because large monkeys do exist.
My "monkey" is not meant as an insult but as a blatently obvious example of the dangers one can get into if they speculate too far beyond the evidence. Evidence has to be used to constrain our explanations. We have to avoid the temptation to explain away disconfirming evidence or to speculate in confirming evidence.
The only time one should decide to dismiss data is when the evidence set contradicts itself if you don't dismiss something. For example, Anderson says a doctor broke the pipe. Dr. Phillips records that it was his Mortuary attendant that broke the pipe. These two statement contradict each other if they are talking about the same pipe. On the surface, this suggests they are not. However, many of the details Anderson mentions are confirmed in relation to Alice's pipe that is mentioned in Dr. Phillips report. So, if we conclude they are different pipes we throw away all of the correspondence. If, however, we throw away the contradiction (one of them is wrong), we keep all the correspondance. Because that which corresponds includes unlikely events (evidence getting thrown and broken, etc) and no other pipe shows anywhere near as many correspondences, then we limit the amount of data we dismiss by rejecting the contridication. Furthermore, Anderson's statement should be viewed as "subject to error" because of 1) the time between events and statement and 2) the fact a reporter is quoting him. This is why we give the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Phillip's report. By doing so, we keep as much of the evidence as possible. If, however, new evidence turns up we may have to re-evaluate our decisions. If we change our minds because of this new evidence, we admit our mistake and move on, continuing to employ the same technique. Because this technique will limit the number of times we reject evidence when we shouldn't have. Theories are not truth, they are simply explanations that fit the bulk of the data. We don't know truth, we chase it, and try to paint it into a corner. The evidence is our paint, speculation represents the vast area truth can still run around in.
So, because no other pipe in all of the murders is recorded as being broken by someone after the body is found, and because there are many aspect's of Alice's pipe that make it resemble Anderson's statmeent (it's broken, it might have come from her killer, the papers talk about it as a clue to her killer, it gets broken when it is thrown, the breaking is done by the Doctor's helper which links the breaking of it to a doctor, etc), the resolution to the conflict in the data is that Anderson's attributing the act of breaking to the doctor personally, and not the doctor's helper, is an error. An error of memory or an error of transcription by the reporter, take your pick- we have no paint to cover up either so truth could be in either place. Since, however, either place does't change the conclusion of "error", it's like we're at the edge of what we've painted.
Also an "error" is the location of where this breaking took place. So is the fireplace. Given that Anderson's statement is made 1) 20 years later and 2) is written by someone other than himself (the reporter; who could have embellished the details to make it more "sale-able"), I put more weight on Dr. Phillip's version of events because they were 1) written at the time the breaking occured and 2) written by himself in an official document.
What I've done is called 3 bits errors (doctor is the breaker; the fireplace; breaking at the crime scene) while confirming the following statements of Anderson's quote:
1) the pipe is a clay pipe
2) the pipe comes from a victim who was, at the time, considered a Ripper victim
3) the pipe is broken after it is found
4) the pipe is broken when it is thrown
5) the breaking of the pipe is still linked to a doctor through the attendant
6) the breaking of the pipe occurs before police have a chance to see it
7) the pieces of the pipe are lost making it "beyond all recognition"
8a) the pipe was considered a clue to the killer of the victim (the newspapers report on this)
8b) the pipe's location suggests it could have come from her killer (8a and 8b both support pipe as clue aspect)
And now, once again, I've gone through the case for Alice's pipe. All of these claims are documented and in previous posts I've given you the sources for all of these claims, I've stepped through it a few times now.
Now, it would really help if you would go through the evidence that suggests the pipe Anderson is talking about is actually the one found at Miller's Court. Forget about having to show it's not Alice's pipe, just present your case that shows it is the Miller's Court pipe.
- Jeff
P.S. You're correct, the pipe has no bearing on Joe's guilt. But it does have some important implications surrounding other aspects of JTR research. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
