|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through January 10, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Primary sources:
Archive through January 10, 2000
Author: kemp
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 10:52 pm |        | Dear Jon and Viper,
I think Mac and yourselves do protest too much!Major rebuttal to follow. Thanks again for the replies.
Yours,
Kemp. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 06:23 am | | Dear Kemp,
The more you write the less clear you become.
In your posting of the 6th you ask 'Why don't you accept one of these two truths? .................' I fear you are missing the very valid point raised by Jon Bob et al, who says your two statements are truths? Apparently only you, and upon what basis we have no idea.
If you feel people 'protest too much' I fear it is only because you continue to write that which encourages protest.
If you have a theory, or a point to make then make it, lets get to it and stop all this rather silly 20 questions.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 08:39 am | | Kemp
One of your earlier questions....
"Kelly was found In Miller's Court,Dorset St.The Inquiry was held in Shoreditch Town hall. Why?Some jurors were not happy with this.
Coroner MacDonald said it happened in his area.(QUESTION...Isn't Dorset ST. in W/chapel?) Did Mac.. make a mistake. If so why did he also use the excuse that "..jurisdiction is where the body lies not found.." Which explanation did he mean?
Why would anybody want a murder not in their area of responsibility?If for some reason they did then why finish so quickly?"
There is really nothing amiss here, but as the authors of JtR, A-Z have explained the situation, which I assume is correct, then I will quote it for you:
The dispute arose over an administrative anomaly. Spitalfields, where both Chapman & Kelly died, was administered by Whitechapel for all purposes except Coroner's inquests, the newly created Coroner's division of Northeastern Middlesex (under MacDonald) having aquired it. MacDonald was right to say that both murders took place under his jurisdiction.
He was also correct to say that a coroner had to hold an inquest on a body lying within his division, and so Baxter had been correct to enquire into Chapman's death once her body had been taken to Whitechapel mortuary, and he himself (MacDonald)was right to enquire into Kelly's once her body had been taken to Shoreditch.
Does this answer your first question?
Regards, Jon |
Author: kemp
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 11:22 am | | Dear Jon and Bob,
Many thanks again for the replies. To answer the above point first. I would accept it as valid if the inquiry had been allowed to run a proper course;however as I stated earlier it was curtailed far too quickly.
As regards the reasoning for holding inquiries I obviously accept it is supposed to be about establishing the cause of death etc. This is what mystifies me about Mac..;he was so inept and seemed a bit keen to get things over with.
Jon, I 'd like to return to a much earlier question you posed as regards Victoria. We will have to agree to disagree as to the specific murder she was referring to. The salient factor being that whoever she was writing about,it does appear as if she was able to recognise a series before anybody else did.
Bob,I am sorry if you find some of the questions silly and I do accept Jon's comment that it is easier to ask questions than to provide answers.I should remind you of my intent here. Forget about me being a "Gullite" because here I have not really referred to the Sickert thing. I am trying to establish a basic premise that too many unauthorised coincidences were occuring around these murders. I do not want to find out that there was a "cover up" because the implications of that are far more frightening than that of a lone serial killer.
There have been too many recent miscarriages of justice to simply "fob" off my idea because it seems outrageous.Examples: Birmingham 6,Maguire 7, Guildford 4, Toxteth 2,Kapowski etc to name a few of the more public cases.These people were all innocent but were incarcerated with the full knowledge and cover up of the authorities.If GB still had the death penalty these people would now be dead. I know I am digressing here but I feel the reminder of possible government culpability is valid.
Later this evening I hope to be ready to furnish you with the main substance of my argument (based upon my reading and study of the primary source material).
I shall naturally offer a few of the answers to the questions I have offered earlier.
Sincerest regards,
Slain leat agus..,
Kemp. |
Author: kemp
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 11:50 am | | Dear Jon,
A quick note. Are you not contradicting yourself with your remarks about Hutch..?You say he may have been called if the police knew about him but his evidence could not have contributed to the cause of death.So why "may" he have been called then??Also are we expected to believe that it was normal behaviour at an inquiry to not call a person who might have seen a killing?I refer to Schwartz(more on him later).
Also Jon I can not accept a quote by Mac.. explaining his own brevity as an excuse for that brevity! :-)
Major article very close. CU,
Kemp. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 11:56 am | | Kemp.
I should have extended the previous quote, as the question of who called an end to the enquiry is made clear in the same address to the jury....
The above quote continues..
I do not want to take it out of your hands. It is for you to say whether at an adjournement you will hear minutae of the evidence, or whether you will think it is a matter to be dealt with in the police-courts later on, and that this woman having met with her death by the carotid artery being cut, you will be satisfied to return a verdict to that effect. From what I learn the police are content to take the future conduct of the case. It is for you to say whether you will close the the inquiry today; if not, we shall adjourn for a week or fortnight, to hear the evidence that you may desire.
The Foreman consulted with the jury and called an end to the enquiry.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob_C
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 12:09 pm | | Hi Kemp,
Your point on Hutch. Nowhere is he claimed to have seen a killing. He MAY have seen the killer of MJK.
Why do you think that Macdonald intentionally speeded up the proceedings? He had to get the jury to decide:
If the dead person were Mary Jane Kelly
What the probable cause of death was
If the dead person had been murdered
In Kelly's case, she was identified at least by Barnett.
Medical opinion was clear as to the cause of death.
The cause of death (throat cut) being indication of murder enough.
Having established that, what was he required to do more? Why should he take hours to discuss every pooping little nuance of the case, that was the matter of the police anyway and, if voiced abroad, could actively disturb police work. As is correctly stated, a coroner's inquest is no murder trial.
Your questions would have far more relevance if a trial of some suspect had been so carried out, but that is not the case.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: kemp
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 02:08 pm | | Dear Bob and Jon,
A few thoughts. I'd initialy like to focus more on Israel Schwartz. This witness implicates 2 men at the murder site of Liz Stride;the 2nd apparently following him.I accept Sugden's reasoning that maybe it was a "2nd" innocent or that S's timing was wrong. However he is a bit blase to say it "..was always on the cards.." a common row. Maybe so, maybe not. Stride would have been very unlucky to be attacked, see Schwartz "leg it", the 2nd man " leg it", the first attacker/ arguer then leave and then be attacked again in the space of a few moments.(Certainly not a good day out). No I feel S. did see a murder in process.Apart from my earlier remarks about S. missing the inqquiry/ no reopening etc,this statement does seriously challenge the lone serial killer idea.
This 2 man thing could be possibly extended to the mitre sq. killing as regards the possible sighting by James Blenkingsop.Star dated 1/10/88.
The body of Stride seemed to be placed down ,no struggle,cachous still inhand etc. Also mrs. Diem..,Morris Eagle and even Mrs.Mortimer heard nothing.
The implication of this is that either Stride was not a Ripper victim or possibly drugs were used. Again this challenges the traditionally thought mdus operandi of a "knife".. Added to this we have the Packer,Batchelor and Gr stuff.
Also nobody overheard a struggle in Mitre Square(Eddowes).Again no sign of a struggle and her throat was cut when she was on the ground. Given the weather etc it does seem plausible that some form of drug was used to induce initial silence.
Of course she may have been strangled but I still feel that there would have been some noise. None of the people in the area heard such a struggle.
Some of the discrepancies in descriptions of "suspects" could be explained by more than one killer.
More to come.Got to put the kids to bed. :-)
Kemp |
Author: kemp
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 02:35 pm | | Dear All,
Clarification as my editing was not up to scratch.(Blame the Kids!!).By the weather I am implying that Eddowes would not want to Go on the ground for the enactment of "services " to be endered.She was drugged fitst.
I want to comment on Abberline and follow an earlier theme of major irregularities within the police et al. During the C/St investigation Somerset and Hammond were allowed to escape. A warrant of extradition was not issued to France.
A lot of dialogue and pre-warning was going on with the powers that be. Why was this? I believe that PAV was involved in the affairs(excuse the pun)at C/St. As someone said earlier Eddy did have an eclectic approach to his sexuality. His business mind you as long as people were of age.Abberline as head of the investigation illustrates his willingness to "cover up" serious malpractices.
My next point will focus on the Goulston Street debacle. Pc Lang found the writing and Supt.Arnold wanted it sponged away. So did Warren.Why? A riot because of the Jewish thing. This is not credible as he could have ordered the offending word or line to be destroyed. Why remove it all? Inspec.McWilliam wanted it photographed.Why not wait the extra time until the morning. It was 5.30 when the possible clue was washed away.
Maybe it was not a proper clue? Warren knew there was a possibility that it was valid. He could have covered it.He could have drafted in extra help. He could have tried to keep the evidence. He chose not to?Detective Daniel Halse protested at the scene.McWilliam was later less than happy.(dito for Major Smith).
The answer I feel is because Warren either suspected something about the "juwes" or he knew for sure it was a masonic reference.
For a man so sure of his actions he spent a lot of time excusing himself later.
Conclusion so far: Too many deliberate irregularities by senior police etc
Cheers,
Kemp. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 04:50 pm | | Kemp
Contradicting?....Moi? .....let it never be said !!!
:-)
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, just on the unbelievable, remote, unlikely, outside chance that your right :-)
I'll try clarify.....
You wrote about Hutch:
Was Hutchinson's 12th Nov statement to the Met policenot important. If so why not call him to give evidence? If not then why did the police circulate his description to " all Stations"
My response was meant to explain that the Coroner did not hear the testimony from Hutch because the police did not summon him to appear at the inquest. This is not the Coroner's fault. The Police did not summon him because Hutch never came to the attention of the police until after the conclusion of the inquest, which I'm sure you now know.
However, if the police had taken his statement prior to the inquest he may have appeared on the summons, and given evidence, but, as I commented, his statement very likely would not have changed to outcome of the Coroners verdict.
So, in that respect is was not a conspiracy or fault of either the coroner nor the police. If anyone was at fault it was Hutch for not coming forward in time.
Are you suggesting Hutch was part of a conspiracy?
Eddowes:
I agree with you about the 'no struggle' 'no noise' and that not only Eddowes but many of the others appear to have laid down to have their throats cut, which we know is not likely, so what happened?
I have been through the medical records myself and cannot find any reference to bruises on the throat on any victims and yet some appear to have shown outside evidence of strangulation, clenched fist, protruding tongue, flushed face.
Dr. Gordon Brown had the contents of Eddowes stomach removed & analysed for drugs, the result was negative. But it is not clear if they considered if an aromatic drug was used and applied to a cloth then held over the victims nose/mouth until she passed out.
This would leave no trace in the stomach, but possibly a trace of a smell around the mouth area, which would likely pass in a few hours.
You also mentioned our previous discussion about the letter from Victoria, this has been mentioned by others but the likelyhood that she was refering to the murder of Smith, when she mentioned 'the first' was deduced after seeing a private entry in her journal, which made it clear that she had already heard of Emma Smith being the begining of the series, so there was never a time when she thought Nichols was the first.
As I said before, any reference prior to 1894, by anyone to 'the first victim' will always mean someone before Nichols, this will be either Smith, Tabram or another.
Up until 1894, the idea that Jack had only five victims had not been 'announced' by anyone in authority, it was Macnaghten who suggested Nichols was the first victim, 6 years after Queen Victoria's letter.
Regards, Jon |
Author: kemp
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 07:09 pm | | Dear Jon,
Lots of food for thought in your last reply.Thanks.Will consider same and get back to you.
Kemp.
Ps. I'd be interested to know your views on Warren and also on Cleveland St. CU |
Author: D. Radka
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 10:33 pm | | Kemp,
A punch in the solar plexus would have done for Stride instead of a drug, no? And isn't that implied in Scwartz' statement that she "cried out three times, but not very loudly"?
David |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 04:11 am | | Hi all.
DAVID: A stomach punch, eh? Quite an intriguing possibility ... Did any medicos mention evidence of bruising on Stride's stomach?
JON: You said, "But it is not clear if they considered if an aromatic drug was used and applied to a cloth then held over the victims nose/mouth until she passed out."
Cloriform would have left burn marks on Stride's mouth ... Did you have another aromatic drug in mind?
KEMP: I've found no evidence in the primary sources that any of JtR's victims were drugged, but plenty of indications that they were strangled ... Jon listed most of these strangulation signs above. BTW, I believe the evidence shows that Stride was killed by someone other than JtR ... most likely Michael Kidney.
Regards,
Janice |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 08:50 am | | Dear Kemp,
The reason I labelled your questions silly was that they didn't seem to be getting us anywhwere. I still have no clear idea of what it is you are trying to say.
You make the most amazing assumptions based on absolutely nothing. For example you write 'the implication is that some drugs were used' and later 'it does seem plausible that drugs were used'. What on earth do you base this on?
You then say that because of the weather Eddowes would hardly lay on the ground to (presumably) service a client. Who says Eddowes was there servicing a client? I assume, given the facts, she was there getting murdered.
You also make the common error of listing a number of modern cases where convictions have been quashed (although I can't for the life of me think who Kapowski is)and proclaim them all to be innocent. Upon what do you base this assertion? I'm assuming you are taking the meaning of 'innocent' as not having done that which they were supposed to have done.
When a conviction is quashed it does not mean the person is innocent, merely that the conviction is deemed to be unsafe, in other words their guilt has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: kemp
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 05:40 pm | | Dear Bob H,
Thanks for the reply. I don't think you have quite grasped my argument and reasoning on a couple of points. Let me clarify: My argument is essentially in 2 parts(a)I believe that Warren et al were trying to cover up some involvement by Masons. I am not specifically saying a la Sickert but it is my contention that the murders do show evidence of Masonic involvement.
Now let us assume that I am mistaken and the murders were the work of a sole killer(sexual dysfunction etc). Hey even I can make a mistake lol. Anyway part (b) of my hypothesis is that there is/was enough evidence to make certain powerful people believe that a maverick mason was behind the killings.They then proceeded to cover up evidence unrelated to the "S" thing. Far fetched? I respectfully ask you to look again at some of the evidence I have provided.I have always pointed to the long list of "irregularities" and asked the question WHY?I am not a great believer in endless amounts of coincidences.
I do feel you are being slightly unfair with your interpretation of my remarks about the weather.I am simply stating that coitus would not have taken place on the ground as a consequence of the mud etc.Thus any murderer could not have used this avenue to gain an advantage over a victim.
You are naturally entitled to your views about the Birmingham 6 etc;but I think you would be in a minority on these issues. Chris Mullin's book is both an excellent and depressing read.
I may have the name Kapowski mistaken. I am referring to the retarded man who was convicted of raping a child. DNA testing later proved 100% that he was innocent. After serving 12 years and receiving an official apology he sadly died 6 months after his release from prison.
Re-reasonable doubt. Apart from Scotland where they also have not proven,a definition of not proven beyond reasonable doubt always means not guilty.Not guilty =innocent in the eyes of the law.( I am specifically referring to the UK as I do not know the USA system).
As regards the plausability of drugs I mentioned the apparent lack of noise associated with the crimes etc...I may be incorrect but I do feel that it is a valid line of thought!
Thanks again for taking the time to read and reply.
Yours,
Kemp. |
Author: kemp
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 05:43 pm | | Dear David and Janice,
Thanks for answering. I shall address your thoughts asap.
Regards,
Kemp. |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 04:20 am | | Hi Kemp,
I thought the Mason connection had been long since shown as being 'a la diary'. There is absolutely no sort of solid evidence whatsoever to connect any 'masonic' killing, ritual or not, with the JtR victims. We have seen long-winded attempts over the years by numbers of persons to 'prove' such, without any sucess at all. Indeed, the results have mostly only disproved their efforts. (e.g. 'Juwes' be claimed to be a masonic word. It isn't, and never was, nowhere in the world. The rings from Chapman's hand, claimed to have been laid at her feet as symbol of the entrance pillars of Solomon's temple. There were no rings found anywhere by Chapman's body.. etc. etc. etc.)
Even if there were some connection, the killings themselves had nothing in common with any supposed masonic ritual killing, despite hysteric claims from some quarters. There are too many good authors who have written on this point for me to copy their words, read 'em is my advice.
I do agree with your interpretation of innocent/guilty. Any assumption that anyone who has been charged with some crime and found not guilty is still a criminal is fatuous. You are innocent until found to be guilty without any shadow of doubt. (At least in the U.K. and, I am sure, in the USA). To illustate this, you yourself charge Warren with the guilt of covering up some aspects of the JtR murders. Where is your proof, and where is your conviction?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caz
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 05:04 am | | Morning All,
Hi Kemp,
I know we can't rely on press reports but in The News of the World, London: Sunday, October 7, 1888 there is this:
'In these, the most recent of the murders which have taken place [ie Stride and Eddowes] almost in the midst of multitudes of convivial assemblages returning home and passing within a stone's throw of the murder spot, not a shriek nor a cry was heard.
Women were conducted to the slaughter, they were seen in conversation with their slaughterers who were slightly recognised [?], but were never recognised again; AND WE ARE TOLD THAT NO CHLOROFORM OR ANY OTHER SUBTLE AGENT HAS BEEN EMPLOYED TO STUPEFY THE VICTIMS PREPATORY TO THEIR MURDER. NO ONE VENTURES TO SAY, HOWEVER, IN WHAT MANNER THEY WERE SILENCED.'
I knew who you meant by Kapowski BTW, but I can't for the life of me spell his real name, I think it sounded something like Kosco? A very sad case, nonetheless. At least the 1888 police did not set up some poor feeble-minded foreigner as the ripper. They probably could have got away with it since the killings appeared to stop after MJK. I think this shows they had their hearts in the right place compared with some of the awful miscarriages of justice during the 20th century. I am thinking in particular of the cases of Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 06:08 am | | Dear Kemp,
You're absolutely correct I've understood very little of what you've been saying.
Now at least you've laid your cards on the table so to speak. You believe that the kilings were a part of a Masonic conspiracy - fine - what do you back your claims up with.
As I've mentioned merely asking questions isn't backing up your claim. And yet when I say that you seem get rather ruffled and lo and behold in your posting you again say 'and asked the question WHY?' Yes we know you keep asking questions what I would like is for you tell us where, what, who and when.
Yes you do have the name Kapowski wrong. I believe the name you are struggling for is Stefan Kisco (have I spelt that right) which leads me back to another point. For someone who has labelled his postings Primary Sources and endeavoured to act the role of a seeker after truth I think your views might carry a little more weight if you avoided basic mistakes such as these.
Kemp and Bob C
As regard to innocence or guilt I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. We are looking at two things here. Is the person Guilty or Not guilty under law (the verdict) or is the person innocent or guilty in fact, ie did they do that which they have been accused of doing. There is no verdict in the court of Innocent.
Bob C said 'any assumption that anyone who has been charged with some crime and found not guilty is still a criminal is fatuous' I beg to differ you are a criminal in fact if you have committed a crime, whether or not you have been covicted only alters your status as regards to the law. Otherwise unsolved murders have by this reasoning been committed by innocent people.
There have been many instances when someone has been acquitted then boasted of the crime afterwards.
Too many people make the mistake of misquoting 'the law says you are innocent until
proven guilty'. That is not what the law says. The law says that 'You are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty' which is an entirely different matter.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 07:32 am | | Hi Bob,
I agree with your comments to Kemp, with the addition that even proper questions, based on valid assumptions, can not be used everywhere to prove everything. A question must relate to the point of the questioner asking it.
Your point about guilt is fully correct when someone has committed a crime, but is found not guilty for some reason, which, alas, happens all to often. You would be completely wrong to suggest that the simple suspicion of guilt is enough to brand anyone as criminal, just because they can't prove themselves innocent. We are not all criminals, unpunished because we simply haven't yet been found out, but of course I don't suggest that you mean that. We must, however, loudly and clearly restate that even those who are wrongly found not guilty are presumed innocent in the eyes of the law, and must be so treated, even when it goes, at least by me, decidedly against the grain. The presumption demands the consideration, even when wrong.
For those who have been wrongly found guilty, and alas that has also occurred often enough, should we then in the same coin presume them innocent? As you say, there is no verdict of Innocent. It is not required, and would have no meaning. Therefore the law presumes innocence until proven otherwise, not presumes that a verdict of guilty must be found unless proven otherwise.
I ask therefore, is a Court there to establish guilt at all costs, only conceeding defeat when innocence is proven beyond doubt, or are they there to find the truth?
The answer is obvious.
Best regards
Bob |
|
|
|
|
