|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 15
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 6:21 pm: |       |
Leanne,
"Now I'll answer your 2 questions:
1) No. "
Good! We agree it's possible her killer owned the pipe.
"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? "
I would think so. Since nothing of the sort is mentioned, we can't conclude the pipe was lit, and can reasonably suggest it wasn't.
"If it was in her killer's teeth, wouldn't he have spat it out to retrieve later?"
I suppose so. If he spat it out and it fell down her dress and he didn't notice, that could be how it got there. But I admit this is highly speculative and starts bringing up visions of monkeys, so I guess it's possible but it's only one of many possible ways the pipe gets there, and is one of the more implausible ones at that.
"If he was holding it in his hand, holding her down with the other, who pulled out his knife?"
If we accept your initially assumptions, then someone else. If, however, we don't wish to suggest a 2nd killer was involved without more evidence to suggest it, then we would reject the initial assumptions. For example we may decide he wasn't holding the pipe in his hand when he pulled out his knife. Or, he wasn't using his other hand to hold her down when he pulled out his knife (used his knee instead). Or we could reject both. Since we don't have to reject the "pipe in hand" (used his knee), this has suggested another possible way the pipe gets where it was found.
Another possible way, which I've suggested before, is maybe he had the pipe in the same pocket as the knife, and when he pulled out the knife while on top of her, the pipe fell out of his pocket and he didn't notice?
We don't have any evidence as to "how" the pipe got there. Without evidence, we are left unrestrained and so after noting it's possible the pipe is her killer's we should avoid going further and trying to argue a specific series of events that gets the pipe down her dress. That's when we enter "large monkey territory" (i.e., the killer's large monkey put it there).
Note also, that because the evidence doesn't require the pipe to be her killer's (the evidence hasn't constrained us that far), we should also note this possiblity and how it would affect our explanation. Because something has "clue to killer's identity status" so long as it has the possibility of being connected with the murderer's identity, this alternative doesn't change the "clue status" of Alice's pipe. So even if the pipe isn't her killer's, until that is determined, the pipe is a clue. We have to 1) keep ourselves close to the data and 2) ensure our theory doesn't crumble if we speculate wrong. Keeping to those guidelines helps one develope good and useful theories. They aren't as "dramatic" as one might hope, but they allow us to limit the possibilities and guide our investigations to look for evidence to decide which route of speculation is worth following. The theory helps point us in the right direction.
In otherwords, exactly how the pipe gets dropped is difficult to deduced given the limited data. All we know for sure is that the pipe was found in her clothes, apparently down the boosom of her dress. Because it is possible the pipe came from her killer (as you agree), then the pipe has "clue" status. And that's the critical part that links with Anderson's statement. Exactly how the killer drops a pipe down her dress gets us into speculations that can't be either confirmed or disconfirmed. So, we can't know for sure exactly how it happened.
"2) As I've explained earlier, Anderson was merely enlightening the public of obstacles."
I don't see how this answers the question "Why is Anderson's suspect not Joe"?
Anyway, like I've said, it would be a lot easier if you just presented your arguements and evidence that shows how Anderson's statement corresponds with what we know about the pipe found at Miller's Court. I've shown how I think Alice's pipe(s) correspond to Anderson's statement. What I would like to see, because I may very well be missing something, is how Anderson's statement corresponds with Joe's. You feel it does, but we've spent all our time talking about how you think it doesn't fit Alice's rather than talking about how it does fit Joe's.
So, maybe we'll get further along if you take the reigns for awhile and present the "case for Joe". It may be that it's as strong as the one for Alice, corresponding in different ways with different evidence. That's what we really need to further both our understanding.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 5:51 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
The 'NO' I put was in answer to your questions 'Do you think it's even possible that Alice's pipe could have belonged to her killer?' I think there's about at much chance of that Pipe belonging to Alice's killer as Kate's tin match box belonging to her killer.
I think the police would have waisted their time trying to find the person who was kind enough to give her an old pipe. It would only have been worthwhile if there was evidence to suggest that a fight started over a pipe, resulting in her death. If they had have found the pipe's owner, all he had to say was that he gave it to her, (even if that was a lie, the police couldn't prove anything!)
When I wrote: 'anything else was the concern of the police', I was illustrating how the public felt at the time. I totally agree that Mary Kelly's inquest was too short, compared to the other victims.
That quote of mine was made up, to show how simple it was for Joe to confirm the Millers Court pipe was his.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 6:36 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Ok now I'll go through the evidence, as you suggest:
'Something of the same kind happened in the Ripper Crimes...' Anderson said : 'RIPPER CRIMES'. The murder of Alice McKenzie was doubted. '....In two case of that terrible series there were clues destroyed, wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin. Anderson was responding to public criticism of the efficiency of the police in detecting criminals. We both agree that both pipes wouldn't 'easily have secured proof' for them.
'In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder....' Miller's Court was a scene of a murder, and some doctors were there before Anderson. Not just Dr. Phillips.
'..the doctor had taken it up,... DOCTOR DOCTOR!
'...thrown it into THE fire-place and smashed it beyond recognition. Did a monkey tell you that there was a fire-place at Whitechapel mortuary?
There is not much documented about the Miller's Court pipe, but in Anderson's book which he wrote in 1907, he wrote: 'Were I to unfold the secrets of Scotland Yard about the crimes respecting which the police have been disparaged and abused in recent years, the result would be a revelation to the public. But this is not my subject here.' Was the article written a year later, a revelation of what happened to that Miller's Court pipe?
LEANNE |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:15 am: | |
Jeff, a couple of posts above you wrote, "The contents of the fireplace are mentioned and specifically rule out a pipe..."
But we don't know when Abberline searched through the remains in the fireplace. It could have been before a pipe was thrown or dropped there. I suspect Abberline would have conducted his investigation of the contents of the room soon after it was first entered, later leaving Phillips and the other doctors to conduct their examination of the body. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Just as a for instance, let's suppose your Joe - you know, the ripper who hates prostitutes so much that he killed several of them in 1888 and satisfied the police of his total innocence - happens to encounter Alice the following summer. She says to him, "Hey Joe, give us yer pipe, luv, and tuppence for a gin, and I'll give you a good time." Joe thinks to himself, "She'll be lucky, I ain't givin' the tart no money and I've 'ad it with the likes of them." He gives her his clay pipe though, and the momentary distraction as she tucks it away inside her dress affords him the opportunity to strike, as a touch of the old red mist returns, and Bob's yer uncle - no more Alice. But Joe finds his heart's not really in his post-mortem work these days after such a close call the previous November and off he goes, determined this is the very last time a tart taunts him into putting his own neck at risk by cutting hers.
We may be deep in great ape country here, and I don't believe for one second in this scenario, but does it work for you and, if not, why not? You appear to be saying that the police would have been wasting their time had they investigated anyone who may have left their pipe with Alice, but that the police were negligent in not spending more time investigating the person they knew left his pipe in Mary's room.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 461
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi Scott
This seems as good a time as any to mention something that rather puzzles me - the apparent delay in checking the contents of the grate.
In the Sourcebook, Abberline is quoted as saying "I have since gone through the ashes in the grate." In the "Telegraph" version of the inquest, he uses the same word "since". This seems to imply some lapse of time, which is odd because you'd have thought Abberline would have wanted to check the fire quite quickly.
I'm sure I read somewhere that Abberline returned to the room on the Saturday to check the fireplace, but I can't remember where I read this.
Robert |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 1:21 pm: | |
Scott,
Actually we DO know when he searched the room. From the inquest testiomny:
"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."
He specifically states that he took his inventory of the room AFTER the medical folks had done their examination, where he found Barnett's pipe intact. And after that they went through the fireplace and there were no pieces of pipe there. There's not much room for doubt I fear.
Regards,
John
|
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 4:07 pm: | |
But there is room for doubt John. You could be right of course, but I can't determine when the fireplace was searched from this inquest testimony. It's too ambiguous. |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
Scott,
I have to disagree. Abberline was specific about the order of events even without giving actual times. I cannot imagine what the words "subsequently" and "since" were doing in his testimony if in fact he meant "prior to the medical examination".
Look at the following statments.
"I agree with the medical evidence as to the condition of the room."
"I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room." (Subsequent to the events of the previous statement)
"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." (Since the inventory was taken)
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 9:34 pm: | |
G'day,
Inspector Abberline arrived at Millers Court at 11:30 a.m., then had to take statements from Thomas Bowyer, John McCarthy, Joseph Barnett, Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, Caroline Maxwell, Sarah Lewis, Julia Venturney and Maria Harvey, before he recorded the contents of the room. Then with Walter Beck, they had to close off the Court to all persons.
Once the door was forced, he made a note of what was in the room and noticed that a large fire had been burning in the grate.
JOHN: An inventory of the room doesn't involve an examination of the ashes in her grate. At Kelly's inquest he doesn't mention that Barnett's pipe was 'intact' at all! And when he said: 'A pipe was THERE...', what did he actually mean by 'THERE"?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 9:47 pm: | |
G'day,
The 'Times' 12 November, states that: 'The police, on making a more minute search of the room in which the body was found, on Saturday morning discovered in the fireplace....' So that's what you probably read Robert.
Mary Kelly's inquest opened and closed on the 12th of November, so it seems Abberline searched the ashes on the morning of the day of the inquest.
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 9:51 pm: | |
Leanne,
"An inventory of the room doesn't involve an examination of the ashes in her grate."
Yes. If you read my post carefully I made that point very specifically.
"Kelly's inquest he doesn't mention that Barnett's pipe was 'intact' at all!"
No, it's not usually necessary to say something is intact. That's most objects default state. It would however be usual to note that an object was broken.
"And when he said: 'A pipe was THERE...', what did he actually mean by 'THERE"?"
Presumably he meant that it was being held by the large ape.
"The 'Times' 12 November, states that: 'The police, on making a more minute search of the room in which the body was found, on Saturday morning discovered in the fireplace....'
Mary Kelly's inquest opened and closed on the 12th of November, so it seems Abberline searched the ashes on the morning of the day of the inquest."
And he didn't find any pieces of clay pipe. Now why could that be?
Regards,
John |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 9:54 pm: | |
G'day Caz,
Why do you keep making fun of Barnett's suggested motive for killing prostitutes? Do you know what the Ripper's real motive was? Do you understand his warped mind? Barnett lost his mother - perhaps to prostitution!
LEANNE |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 16
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 11:24 pm: | |
Leanne,
Ooops! My mistake. I had forgotten the wording of my question and failed to double check. I thought I had asked if you thought it was impossible for Alice's killer to own the pipe, which would make your "no" a "yes". Same "gist", wrong "specific". That's what happens when you rely on memory.
Anyway, given that you don't think it's even possible for Alice's killer to have owned the pipe, there's not much of a chance I have to convince you. To be honest, I sort of thought that question was a "gimme", given how many things you suggest as possilbe that seem far more improbable to me.
Anyway, since the case you've presented for Joe's pipe isn't anything more than what I've responded to already, I won't waste time or space again on repeating it.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 17
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 - 11:55 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
Looking at all the testimony, it seems pretty clear that Dr. Phillips, at least, was the first person to enter the room after it was forced. This is in the inquest testimony, I believe. So, if we try to "pin the breaking" on him, Abberline must have searched after the pipe was broken. Unless, of course, some doctor went into the room after the police searched the fireplace and then broke the pipe. However, Anderson says the breaking happened before "we" got there. Using Leanne's strict criterion, the pipe breaking must have occured before
1) the police arrived at the scene of the crime (if "we" means the police in general; which is silly because the police fetch the doctor, not the other way round)
OR
2) a senior police official arrived at the scene of the crime (but Abberline, a senior police official was there when the door was forced)
OR
3) Anderson himself arrived (but he also uses the exact same "before we" phrase with the graffito, when he was out of town).
Anyway, the latest the breaking could have occured is before Anderson arrived and the testimony seems to indicate that the fireplace was searched after this point in time.
As Leanne has pointed out, there are other sources that indicate they searched the fireplace after the body was removed; apparently on the day of the inquest. So well after Anderson arrived, in fact.
This "time of search" also makes it really hard to suggest that it's Barnett's pipe Anderson is talking about because they must have at the very least asked Joe about the pipe in order for him to admit it was his.
But, if it was broken in the fireplace, and they didn't search the fireplace until the day of the inquest ... how did they know to ask Barnett about it? And they interviewed him for hours on the day of the murder.
Although I'm sure one could come up with a story to get around yet another piece of evidence that weighs against the "Barnett" conclusion, to me, however, one has to twist and turn far too many times to side-step all the evidence that goes against this conclusion.
I just can't see anything documented about Joe's pipe that even resembles what Anderson describes beyond 1) it's a clay pipe 2) doctor's were at the scene of the crime 3) a fireplace was at the scene of the crime.
The first two are hardly surprising, Eddowes had 2 clay pipes as well, and doctors were at all the Ripper crime scenes, so the only unusual thing that corresponds to Anderson's statement is the fireplace.
However, the events and documentation surrounding Alice's pipe shows far more unusual events that correspond to the gist of Anderson's statement, so it looks to be the better choice to me.
- Jeff |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 8:06 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I'm sorry if you thought I was 'making fun' of Barnett's suggested motive for killing prostitutes, or if you think I should come up with my own motive for Jack before I question your various observations.
If you reread my post, I wasn't in fact questioning the motive you give Joe. I was using that motive - the warped mind and perhaps a bad experience of prostitution in early life - to ask you if there is a particular reason why you wouldn't apply it to the murder of Alice McKenzie.
Alice was murdered, and whether Jack did it or not, and whether Jack was Joe or not, the police had to investigate. So I'll put my question another way. If in your opinion the police would have been wasting their time investigating whoever may have left a pipe with Alice, why do you think the opposite should have been the case with Joe's pipe, left with Mary?
I hope I'm wrong, but this sounds suspiciously like it's going to end in a circular argument - ie Joe's pipe was an important clue to Mary's murderer (because you believe the owner of the pipe killed Mary and was Jack, and would have been found out under longer and harder questioning), while Alice's pipe wasn't a clue at all to Alice's murderer (because you don't believe the owner of the pipe killed Alice or was Jack, and therefore it would have been a waste of time even investigating).
Love,
Caz |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 8:07 am: | |
G'day John,
If Abberline had've said that Joes pipe was found broken in the grate, that would've been recorded and investigators and public would have been mislead to believe the killer broke the pipe and burnt it.
Reading that report that was in the 'Times' again, police did their minute search on Saturday morning, which was the day after the discovery of her body. If the pipe was there and Abberline was aware of how it got there, he wouldn't have to include it in his testimony.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 8:34 am: | |
G'day Jeff,
Don't forget we're looking at two police forces here. The 'Daily Telegraph' of 10 November said that after the Court was cordonned off, Dr. Phillips was called and assistance was received from Dr. Gordon Browne and Dr. J. R. Gabe. So that's three doctors before the door was forced!
Then after the door was opened: 'Mr. Anderson, the recently-appointed Assistant Commissioner, had driven up in a cab at ten minutes to two o'clock, and he remained for some time.'
So if the pipe was dropped before Anderson rolled up, and Abberline searched the ashes the next morning, (knowing how the pipe got there), why would need to mention it as being burned by the killer with the clothes?
About the 'we' thing: Why would Anderson want to advertise to the critical public the fact that he was out of the country on both occasions?
Jeff, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence by questioning you theory. I'm trying to HELP you determine which pipe Anderson was referring to, because he never wrote exactly which case he was writing about.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 8:53 am: | |
G'day Caz,
I think that asking everyone in Alice's lodging house whether they gave her that pipe, would have been useless in determining her killer because it was a common occurance. Was it common for Mary Kelly to ask people for a pipe?
I'm not saying that the Miller's Court pipe was an important clue. I am saying that Anderson was using it as an example of lost evidence.
I's not important in the theory for Barnett as 'Jack', because we'll never know it's condition, (exactly where it was found, whether it had ash in it or not).
I am almost sick of arguing about it!!!!!
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 8:56 am: | |
Leanne,
"If Abberline had've said that Joes pipe was found broken in the grate, that would've been recorded and investigators and public would have been mislead to believe the killer broke the pipe and burnt it."
Um. No. That's simply silly. First off, I don't think they cared if they misled the public. Secondly, you've been suggesting all along that there was a cover up, which would certainly constitute misleading the public. Third, the phrase "Barnett's pipe was broken by a doctor and the pieces ended up in the grate" would have cleared up any confusion.
"Reading that report that was in the 'Times' again, police did their minute search on Saturday morning, which was the day after the discovery of her body. If the pipe was there and Abberline was aware of how it got there, he wouldn't have to include it in his testimony."
Yes he would have. If evidence was destroyed so that it couldn't be produced, that information would need to be brought up. The point of the inquest is for the investigating officers and witnesses to provide information to the Jury. If Abberline "knew" that, it would certainly have been relevant to mention.
But let's put this in perspective shall we.
In the MJK inquest there was one mention of Barnett's pipe. No other references to it were made.
In Alice Mckenzie inquest, the word pipe turns up 11 times. The coroner asked several specific questions regarding her smoking habits, the Foreman of the jury asked a pipe question. When Phillips was returned to the stand on the 3rd day of the inquest he immediately testified in regards to the broken pipe.
Now which case is it more likely that the pipe was an important clue... Hmmm..
And just to weigh in on your response to Jeff in regards to Andersons absence. Anderson WAS in town the day of MJK's murder.
"About the 'we' thing: Why would Anderson want to advertise to the critical public the fact that he was out of the country on both occasions?"
He was out of the country on the night of the double event, but he made no secret of that fact. In his book he maintains that he arrived in Paris on the night of the double event and recieved a summons from Mathews to return to London and that he complied with that request. In 1910, he wrote a letter to the papers saying he was already on his way back when the crimes occured. Not only are these stories inconsistent with each other, but neither one is correct. He didn't return to London until a week after the killings.
If he can't recall where he was on the night of the double event, I have a hard time assuming that he got the details correct regarding events he was not present for.
Regards,
John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 11:16 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
You write:
'I'm not saying that the Miller's Court pipe was an important clue. I am saying that Anderson was using it as an example of lost evidence.'
But I thought part of your argument was that Anderson must be describing the Miller's Court pipe as an important clue, because the pipe found with Alice wasn't an important clue. Yet you are now saying that Joe's pipe wasn't an important clue either.
So, once more for the record (and sorry folks, it's sounding like a broken one), why, in your opinion, did Anderson describe Joe Barnett's pipe as an important clue that might very easily have secured proof of the murderer's identity (had it not been smashed to pieces by a large primate)?
Love,
Caz
|
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 4:20 pm: | |
Hey! Anyone wanna share some salt-water taffy with me? (that's toffy to you Brits) |
Jeff Hamm
Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 5:12 pm: | |
Leanne,
No worries. I've never thought you were questioning my intellegence, just as I hope you don't get that impression from me. By not agreeing, you've forced me to do more research along the way. The information that I found when trying to address some of your questions, strengthened the case for Alice's pipe and weakened the case for Joe's pipe. I know you don't agree with this, but that's how the documents stack up.
You look and try and find any series of events that could also produce the evidence trial. That's not a bad thing in and of itself. But (and there's always a but), taken too far and our strength becomes our weakness.
Think of it this way. Events, what ever they may be, are like an animial walking along a beach. Now, we come along and see only the footprints, and from those footprints we have to figure out what animal walked by.
Unfortunately, some kids with fake "animal feet" have also been around and made false prints so we have to try and separate out the "real" animal from the "fake" animal.
Now, let's say we find two sets of prints, one being the prints of a "large monkey" (there's always monkeys' too!). Our beach is in Canada, which has no native monkeys, large or small. Although it's just possible that a monkey escaped from a zoo, these prints are the only signs of a monkey, there's no monkey hair, there's no bananas, there's no monkey droppings, etc, just this one set of monkey prints.
Now, let's say we also find seagull prints. We know seagulls are very common in the area, there are lots of seagull feather's around, there's seagull droppings on the beach, we can see seagull's nearby.
Based on the evidence, what would we conclude was the animal that really walked on the beach? The seagull, and the monkey prints we conclude are "fake".
Is it possible we're wrong? Of course it is, it's possible a monkey walked along the beach and left no other traces of itself but it's footprints, and it's possible that the kids left seagull prints. It's just
1) a monkey is very unlikely to begin with
2) if there was a monkey, we would expect to find other signs of it because it's so unusual (hair, droppings, banana's, people reporting seeing a monkey, etc)
3) seagull's are very common to the area
4) there is lots of other evidence to suggest a seagull was there
You're presentation of the case against Joe, was primarily focused on accepting Anderson's statement as 100% valid. This is like ignoring the fact that we know kids made some fake prints on our beach, and trying to based our conclusion only on the prints.
What we need to do is look for other signs of Anderson's statements. If we assume his statement has no "fake prints", then we still need to demonstrate that what he describes actually happened exactly the way he describes. So far, neither of us have been able to do that, which suggests there are some fake prints on our beach.
Now, if we allow for the possiblity that some of his statements are slightly wrong, then this is like separating out fake prints from real prints. We look for other signs of our "animals". We go looking to see if we can find an event that resembles his statement in many ways, even if it's not 100% correspondance.
I've listed before the amount of correspondance I've found between Anderson's statement and Alice's pipe. That's the sort of thing I was hoping to see in reference to Joe's pipe, becase I can only find 1) the pipe is clay 2) it was at the crime scene 3) a doctor was there 4) there was a fireplace. Since 1 through 3 also correspond to Alice's pipe, that only leaves the fireplace. Alice's, however, can be shown to be broken, this is done with reference to a doctor, etc. So, I think the fireplace is a fake print, and stateing the doctor rather than the doctor's assistent is a real print that's been smudged by time and tide.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 5:30 pm: | |
G'day John,
"I don't think they cared if they misled the public."
UM, Of course they cared what was read in the press by the public! Why do you think that they withheld the fact that Mary's heart was taken?
"If evidence was destroyed so that it couldn't be produced, that information would need to be brought up."
That's why Abberline said: 'A pipe was there and used by him.'
"The point of the inquest is for the investigating officers and witnesses to provide information to the jury."
YES! Information that would help them to determine her cause of death only! That's why the Coroner didn't call for an adjournment to hear further evidence: "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown". I agree that it was too short!
No juryman nor the coroner asked Abberline exactly where he found the pipe or if it was clean or just used!
"In Alice McKenzies inquest, the word pipe turns up 11 times."
No wonder, her nickname was 'Claypipe Alice'! If her pipe was discussed alot, how come no one asked if her pipe belonged to her killer? Hmmmm...!
And about my response to Jeff's 'We': You see, I am trying to help this research!
Now I'll try to help your research: I don't think that Anderson had trouble recalling where he was on the night of the 'Double Event'. I think he was just trying to ease the critical public by claiming that he was already on his way back when the crimes occurred. He may have been in Paris THINKING about returning to London!
LEANNE |
John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 6:30 pm: | |
Leanne,
"UM, Of course they cared what was read in the press by the public! Why do you think that they withheld the fact that Mary's heart was taken?"
Now your trying to have your cake and eat it too. Your initial argument was that Abberline didn't mention it's broken state because, "If Abberline had've said that Joes pipe was found broken in the grate, that would've been recorded and investigators and public would have been mislead to believe the killer broke the pipe and burnt it."
So he didn't mention the pipe was broken so the public wouldn't be misled, but then they intentionally mislead the public by supressing information regarding the heart. Could you possibly settle on a position as to why the pipe was never recorded as being broken? (Keeping in mind that if the doctor broke it, the fact that it was indeed broken was not significant to the kiler in any way.)
"YES! Information that would help them to determine her cause of death only!"
No. Read the inquest testimony again. There is considerable information there that doesn't pertain specifically to the cause of death. Nice try though.
"No juryman nor the coroner asked Abberline exactly where he found the pipe or if it was clean or just used!"
Probably because it wasn't considered relevant.
"If her pipe was discussed alot, how come no one asked if her pipe belonged to her killer? Hmmmm...!"
That's what they were trying to establish Leanne. Read through the testimony again. There is no way any of them could have said it belonged to the killer, but they could eliminate it as a possibility if someone could have ID'd it as hers.
"Now I'll try to help your research: I don't think that Anderson had trouble recalling where he was on the night of the 'Double Event'. I think he was just trying to ease the critical public by claiming that he was already on his way back when the crimes occurred. He may have been in Paris THINKING about returning to London!"
With all due respect Leanne, I've already done my homework on this one. What you're doing here is wild speculation, not reasearch. I hardly think he had cause to be concerned about the "critical public" 20 years after the murders!
The fact is that Anderson gave two different, incorrect stories regarding his whereabouts. Even if we assume (As you seem willing to do) that he was lying, then we still have essentially the same problem. He isn't a particularly reliable witness.
Regards,
John |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
