Archive through February 16, 2001

** 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 February 16, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy: The ripper and anti-semitism: Archive through February 16, 2001

Author: E Carter Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 05:32 am
Rosemary, if people are civil I will discuss the murders with them, if I appear big headed, and, or my spelling and grammar is a little difficult to understand at times, neither is intentional. The Stride murder was a set up,the killers were concerned about dogs before Warren even considered using them. They gave Liz the flower earlier in the day and put the sweets in her hand incase dogs had been made ready to follow them. Thus the clean up in Church Lane. The substance they used, is known to alchemists, it smells similar to chloroform and was used to render the women unconsious, it sometimes causes a minor convulsion, think of the lacerations found on the tongues of Polly and Annie. Think of the position of the marks on each of the victims faces, Chapman was taken from behind the back door as she entered the yard. The killers rid themselves of the substance just prior to leaving Marys room by burning it, again in case dogs had been made ready to follow them. They were indeed alchemists! Forget anything that dosen't make sense and throw the reference books out of the window. One of the killers arrive at Marys door, she welcomed him back wearing slippers and a lace gown, as he entered his accomplice rushed in and they rendered her unconsious, the chemical was carried in an oil cloth, because it stinks! They threw her on the right far corner of the bed before pulling her down to the left near corner, then pulled her up the bed ensuring a quick discovery when someone looked in the window. They burned the chemical just before leaving in case of dogs. Added before leaving; P.C Long did miss the rag, for one of several reasons. But the killers did not expect him to discover it, they expected a dog might, this is why they smothered it in faeces and blood. Chloroform; A limpid, mobile, coulourless volatile liquid with a characterisatic odour and strong sweetish taste. Cachou; a pill or lozenge of extract of liquorice, cachew-nut, or the like, used by some smokers in the hope of sweetening the breath. I am going away for 10 days I look forward to reading the board on my return. Best wishes. P. S. if you do not believe the killers left the message really study line three of the graffito that's the key to the message.
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 08:58 am
I've never really been able to believe that JtR wrote any letters or wrote the words on the doorway in Goulston street. It takes away from his mystery, made him more human,- and known, which I don't think he would have wanted. I can understand and accept that PC Long and DC Halse missed the scrap of apron and writing IN the doorway at 0:2.20am, but found it next time round at 0:2.55. Thats being human, cops or not cops. Was the night so light, were the streets so clean that things like this would have stood out like a sore thumb? There's no argument that JtR dropped the bloody rag there, but I'd argue as to whether he wrote those words, or noticed they were there! A man on the run from committing a horrible murder, all stressed up, and possibly shaking, stopping to chalk a readable message on a wall, in pitch darkness, with a stub of chalk he happened to have in his pocket?-- I can't see that. The word "JEWES" could easily be mistaken for the word "JUWES" if written in longhand, and the fist E in JEWES is closed up. Maybe the word JEWES was an acceptable way for a Jewish person to describe more than one, it would be an easy mistake to make, especialy if the person had had a basic education only. I think the words were written earlier in the afternoon or evening, by a Jewish tenant, a particularly religious one. She/He was feeling incenced enough by the anti-semetic feelings caused by JtR in the East End, that they wanted it known and understood, (in this small way) that the Jews were not responsible for some of the ill's that were attributed to them, such as,- the crucifixion of Christ. That deed was committed by the Romans
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 10:18 am
This should have been attached to the end of my last post, but for some reason it did not come out. If the Ripper was such a scribe that two or three letters and one postcard can be attributed to him, plus a chalked message on a wall. Where was the chalked message at Polly's scene of death,? he had big double doors to chalk on there!.Annie's death scene,- the back of the yard door!. Mary's room,--- one letter mentions keeping blood in a gingerbeer bottle to write with, but it went thick,(like glue) but in Mary's room, not a word written in blood on the walls--(not real words) when he had all the time and materials to do that. Doesn't it make you wonder, did he write anything at all? Rick
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 10:43 am
Hi, Rick: I often say that Jack's only "message" may have been in the murders themselves. Best regards Chris George
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 12 February 2001 - 02:47 pm
I think Mr Carter makes some very interesting points ( although I'm not sure about alchemists ) , they should certainly be looked into.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 12 February 2001 - 05:54 pm
Dear Simon, Methinks, tis a strong broth that brewth there? Jack, anti-semitism (?) and alchemy ? Sounds like Davidoz's cup of tea...or, dare I say, white rice! Love, Rosemary
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 12 February 2001 - 05:55 pm
Chloroform was first prepared in 1831 and was given to Queen Victoria by the Royal Physician John Snow to ease the birth of Prince Leopold , her eighth child , in 1853. It has a pleasant , ether-like odour. Thus , if a medical man was involved in the murders , I don't see why the idea of using the drug might not have come to him ; if not , its possible the killer could have used it. There was no obvious bruising to indicate strangulation on the necks of the victims : a chloroformed rag would allow a single person to quickly and quietly overcome the victim however , easier than using strangulation or a choke hold.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 12 February 2001 - 08:11 pm
Dear Simon, Fumbling in the dark with a bottle of chloroform? Would he not require an assistant for pre-prep i.e., hand him the chloroform-soaked linen. Its a pretty pungent smell hanging about Jack all the same. Love, Rosemary
Author: Jon Monday, 12 February 2001 - 08:38 pm
A medical man smelling of chloroform would hardly be unusual though would it. He wouldnt be fumbling in the dark either, the prostitute would turn her back to him anticipating a sexual act. Someone previously (Karoline?) suggested that chloroform might leave burn marks around the mouth that Doctors would be able to identify. I dont know if that is true, I just recall the statement. Jack didnt need to be a Doctor, just have access to medical supplies. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 01:25 am
Hi, Simon and Jon: Thanks for posting about John Snow. There is a good site about Snow (1813-1858) out of UCLA which includes information on his work on anesthesiology and epidemiology, his use of chloroform, his discoveries in regard to identifying cholera as an infectious disease at the Broad Street Pump, Soho, and also, of interest to us, maps of London and descriptions of the deplorable conditions in London in the mid-19th century. (No better in Whitechapel in 1888!) The John Snow site is at: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html The site also contains quotes from Snow about his use of chloroform in two of Queen Victoria's confinements in 1853 and 1857. Interestingly, the medical establishment frowned on his use of the drug, administration of which had previously been thought to have fatal consequences. Possibly, though, death could result if too much of the drug was administered. As we will see, it would seem that a few drops on a handkerchief was all that was used. The quotes by Snow about use of chloroform in the two Royal confinements are at: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/leopold.html http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/beatrice.html For our purposes, in seeing how the chloroform was administered (and could conceivably have been used by the Whitechapel murderer), in terms of the confinement for the birth of Prince Leopold on April 7, 1853, that Snow states, "I commenced to give a little chloroform with each pain, by pouring about 15 minims by measure on a folded handkerchief. The first stage of labor was nearly over when the chloroform commenced. Her Majesty expressed great relief from the application. . . . The effect of the chloroform was not at any time carried to the extent of quite removing consciousness. Dr. Locock thought that the chloroform prolonged intervals between the pains, and retarded the labor somewhat. The infant was born at 13 minutes past one by the clock in the room (which was 3 minutes before the right time); consequently the chloroform was inhaled for 53 minutes. . . ." At the birth of Princess Beatrice on April 14, 1857, where the Snow was again called in to administer chloroform, presumably at the Queen's express request, Snow says, "I poured about 10 minims of chloroform on a handkerchief, folded in a conical shape, for each pain. Her Majesty expressed great relief from the vapor." (Italics mine.) By the way, Simon, I believe Snow was not, as you state, "the Royal Physician" which makes him sound akin to Dr. William Withey Gull. Rather, Snow was just one of the physicians in attendance, assisting the attending physician, Dr. Charles Locock. In the first birth, we know that two other of Queen Victoria's physicians, Sir James Clark and Sir J. Clark Ferguson, were also involved. Jon, I do not recall that Karoline mentioned a burning around the mouth caused by administration of chloroform. Somehow I doubt it if the use of chlorform in these Royal confinements is anything to go by. I cannot see Snow being allowed to give Queen Victoria chloroform (or indeed her wanting it) if it burned her around the mouth. Best regards Chris George
Author: Ashling Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 04:08 am
Dear JON, CHRIS, et al. I brought up chloroform burning in chat with Stewart once ... can't recall if I posted on the boards or not. I doubt the conditions of administration by a doctor would match those employed by an attacker. The doctor might hold the mask or cloth near the patient's mouth without letting it directly touch the skin. An attacker would press the cloth against the victim's mouth to prevent them from squirming away--therefore the victim's mouth would be burned. The quote below is from a police academy manual, Homicide Investigation: Practical Information for Coroners, Police Officers and other Investigators by Lemoyne Snyder: "Chloroform is a heavy, colorless liquid with a characteristic odor and sweet taste. It is noninflammable. It is very irritating when applied to the mucous membranes or to the skin. As an anesthetic, its very rapid in its action; a few drops on a mask will produce unconsciousness. The margin of safety is small; it is a dangerous drug to use, and its use should be limited to those who have had extensive training and experience in this field. Due to its quick action, it has at times been employed to commit a murder. This is usually done by pouring a considerable quantity on a cloth and holding it over the victim's face. Under such conditions, the gas is so concentrated that the breath is shut off and death from asphyxiation takes place rapidly. From the Times Oct. 5, 1888 = Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown testifying at Eddowes' inquest: "By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach." If I find anything in the inquest testimonies that specifically mentions choloroform, I'll post it later. Hope this helps. Ashling
Author: alex chisholm Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:02 am
On the subject of possible drugging, etc., I thought the following might be of interest. Times 2 Oct. 1888: "TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES. Sir � Paying my daily visit to my church this afternoon I was surprised to find the caretaker in a semi-stupefied state. Asking her what was the matter, she told me that a man had just entered the church, and finding her all alone inquired whether I was in the vestry. On receiving a reply in the negative he said, �I see you are alone,� and immediately took out a pocket-handkerchief and dashed it in her face. The strong smell of whatever liquid it had been steeped in dazed and stupefied her, and she for a moment or two lost her consciousness. The noise of some of the workmen on the roof seemed to have alarmed this scoundrel, and he bolted out of the church. This incident, Sir, perhaps might afford a clue. At any rate, it will warn solitary women who are in charge of churches. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. M. S. BROOKE Vestry of St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolchurch Haw, Lombard-street, E.C." Daily Telegraph 4 Oct. 1888: "TO THE EDITOR OF "THE DAILY TELEGRAPH." SIR - A remarkable incident in connection with the above is that in no one instance has it been found that the victim made any noise or cry while being done to death. My assistant suggests a theory in reference to this very remarkable fact, which strikes me as having something in it, and as such ought to be made public. The theory is that the murderer goes about with a vial of rum or brandy in his pocket drugged with an opiate - such as a solution of morphia, which is almost if not quite tasteless - that he offers a swig of it to his victims (which they would all be likely to greedily accept) when he meets them; that in about ten to twenty minutes the poison begins to do its work on constitutions well soaked with alcohol, and that then they are easily dispatched without fear of making any noise or call for assistance. Having been out of town lately for my holidays, I have not closely followed the evidence at the inquests but there are two questions which would require clearing up, if there is anything in this theory - First, Have the stomachs of most of them been ripped open to do away with the evidence of poisoning in this manner; and, second, has any analysis of the contents of the stomachs been made? - Yours respectfully, R. MACDONALD, Coroner for North-East Middlesex. 65, West Ferry-road, Millwall, E. Oct. 3." Coverage of Dr. Phillips� evidence to Stride Inquest, carried in the Daily Telegraph 6 Oct. 1888, included the following: "Was there any appearance of an opiate or any smell of chloroform? - There was no perceptible trace of any anaesthetic or narcotic. The absence of noise is a difficult question under the circumstances of this case to account for, but it must not be taken for granted that there was not any noise. If there was an absence of noise I cannot account for it." Best Wishes alex
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:56 am
Hi All, The News of The World 7 Oct. 1888: 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 preparatory to their murder. No one ventures to say, however, in what manner they were silenced. Is there a doctor in the house, who can comment on whether 'any other subtle agent' - a solution of morphia perhaps - would be detectable at post mortem in 1888, presuming they would have been on the lookout for such substances? Interesting discussion BTW. Thanks guys. Love, Caz
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 09:14 am
Dear All, Ronald MacDonald! All this for one lousy cheese burger and fries...to go!? But it could explain the sudden onset of stupifaction. :-) Narco-killer, or skilled knife person? I go for the latter. Simplicity is the art of stealth? Love, Rosemary
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 02:09 pm
The board appears to be playing up, however maybe we could discuss this further when I get home. Chloroform does indeed burn if applied to the skin or the mucosa for too long, however a mask was employed, one of our men was a skilled shoemaker, Chapman and Kelly were also muffled, hence the initial cries. Chloroform can also be fortified if you know how to do it, the result is a very sweet tasting sweet smelling volatile clear liquid. If the administrators are unconcerned about a patient fitting, it will work quickly, but it stinks. The killers were concerned that some one might smell Liz and then touch her sampling the smell on their tounge (yuk). The killers also wanted to confuse bloodhounds in case dogs had been made ready to follow. A decoy took the cloth found in Batty Street in one direction, touching every brick between Berner and Batty Street. The killer later seen with Eddows, by Lawende, went the other way stopping in Church Lane cleaning to up ensure the dogs did not follow thus crashing in on the Eddows murder. Wynne Baxter asked Phillps if narcotic or chloroform had been used; Phillips stated 'I perceived neither'. But Phillips simply did not look for chloroform, he would have been absoultly loathed to admit this to Baxter as they were not on friendly terms. How did Brown smell the breath of a deceased? I work in the medical profession and believe me you can not take what every doctor states, to be true, the reputation comes first. Or am I misreading Ashling? Best wishes. The drawings of Eddows reveals her dress was almost behind her knees yet the killers had ripped the front open, giving them acess to the entire body. Then why was the dress up behind the knees? And why was her right hip flexed? Look at the drawings. By the way I have discovered what a chocolate poof is, how dare you! P>S I know of no other murders where chloroform has ever been used, the only case I am aware of the killer gave it to the victim orally.
Author: Joseph Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 02:44 pm
Hello Mr. Carter, So, what's a chocolate poof?
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 03:32 pm
I hope you never find out Joseph, particularly the hard way! Bye.
Author: Jon Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 06:58 pm
Sorry Ashling, I'll pay more attention next time :-) Psst.....You finished with Fishman yet?
Author: E Carter Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 01:49 pm
But can you prove it?
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 02:06 pm
Dear E. Carter, May I ask, what is your work in the medical profession? Should I be really asking this question in the first place...em, I wonder? Love, Rosemary
Author: E Carter Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 02:17 pm
I work with trauma, did you know Chloroform was also employed to fix photographs to newspaper. Look in Chambers under Bromoform. My names ED. BEST WISHES.
Author: E Carter Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 09:00 am
Do you go to these cloak and dagger meetings, I think there a bit radical! ED.
Author: E Carter Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 09:02 am
Sorry, I have been meaning to get back to you, but i'm under much pressure for time at the moment. Would a doctor look for chloroform if the victims throat had been obviously severed? Ask your self, would you arrive at scene to discover a huge laceration in Strides throat and then spontainiously decide to look for chloroform? Any way, I think the killers also added perfume to her clothing to further confuse the smell, Chloroform and Bromoform will also depress the blood pressure reducing systolic blood flow. Going back to something mentioned earlier, I think the question asked by the man noticed with Annie, by Mrs Long, i.e 'will you'? Was the first question he put to her on meeting her again in Hanbury Street! The hands and feet carry half the bones in the human body, careful observation will tell you a great deal. Chapman's feet were pointing down towards the wood shed at the bottom of the yard. This was interpreted by Wynne Baxter to the jury, this occurs when the legs are lifted up holding under the knee. I hope this is not too enigmatic, it's not supposed to be. Love Ed. Best wishes Jon.
Author: Jade Bakys Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 10:33 am
Hi Ed I have been following your train of thoughts for a while now, and you have made some interesting observations. Do you think there are two Killers? Do you have any names? Scuse my ignorance, I have not read all the postings on suspects. I haven't followed this board, just caught some of your observations from the day list. I love the way you write. You just stick to your point, and you have a kinetic way of writing that mesmerises me. All the best Jade
Author: Jon Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 07:26 pm
With regards to the legs & feet of Chapman & Eddowes. Picture Jack manouvering himself behind the victim (for whatever reason), he reaches one arm around the victims neck, and firmly clasps the other hand over her mouth, he hold her in a firm sleeper hold. Or, clasps a hand around her face holding a rag laced with chloroform(?), either way Jack is behind his victim and he holds her tight against her struggling. He holds her until her body goes limp, her feet basically stay on the ground as he lowers her body, her rear then touches the cobbles just behind her feet, he takes one step back and lays her out. In this fashion her feet stay close up to her behind and automatically the knees will angle out away from the body. This gives the impression that her legs were pulled up, but in actuality it may be that her body was lowered from behind, the body posture of the victim will appear the same. She is laid out flat on her back with her heels up close under her rear and knees bending out perpendicular to the alignment of the torso. This is how Chapman was found, and Eddowes had one leg hunched up, the other was out straight. The above scenario would explain the reason for the legs appearing to be pulled up, whereas Jack had no reason to pull up her legs, he was 'opperating from above the waistline anyway. If Jack had attacked his victim from the front he would have been open to all kinds of reaction, kicking, scratching, punching....and to lay her on her back would require some awkward manouvering and possibly stumbling with a limp body.....anyway, thats my 2c. on why their legs are positioned the way they are. Regards, Jon
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 04:59 am
Jade, thank's very much,I have two names but little interest in being know for discovering either of them, I would have been just as happy to have found no one, and been left clueless. I just love working from people like Sugden, Nick Warren and the records office, meticulous work! But in truth, someone like Ashling or Jon should actually discover the killers identity. I only enjoy the chase! I haven't given you all of the information concerning the Goulstone Street Graffitto, so trying to understand it at present would be very difficult, but honestly I can explain it! I would rise to any reasonable challenge. Jon, why were all these dresses all up so high? Tabram Nichols and Chapman, Strides dress was also up,the pressure marks under and over Elizabeth's collar bones occurred as she was carried down stairs, feet first and by two people. The dress was not as high on the legs here because it fell a little as her legs decended the stair case, (read Fanny's statement about Strides dress at Colindale newspaper library). I knew that dress would be up in spite of all the early evidence indicating it was down on her discovery! (Blow up the pictures of Eddows) you will see that the killer actually ripped the front of her dress open whilst it was up above the knees, therefore she landed on the groud with it up, why?. Chapmans feet were resting on their out steps and in planter extension,(pointing down), unless she went over on tip toes and with the instep upwards her legs were lifted up by someone standing between and holding under the knees.(it takes quite alot of gravity to achieve this position, It happened as they brought her out from behind the back door. Look at some of Wynne Baxters reports from unrelated cases, he makes mistakes, but he is meticulous about positioning, he grills the attending doctor. His report on Chapman is actually on this site, but not in the inquest reports, I will get back to you on the actual location. Why was Chapmans left arm on her chest? Explain why Stride still had cachous in her hand,and why her right arm was also on the chest. Put youself in the position you have described, would you grip the sweets or try to pinch scratch and gouge. Why were cachous scattered on the floor if they were double wrapped in tissue? Because they were put there to make it look like the sweets fell in quick murderous struggle! And again from Lamb's description the feet were in planter extension. Honestly, I could go on for ever! Believe me, there were two killers! I also want to think of the 'ripper' as a simple stealthy lone killer, but this was not the case! Jon, look at probate, High Holborn if you live near London.
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 16 February 2001 - 10:40 am
Hi, E. Carter: You state in regard to the Stride murder, "the pressure marks under and over Elizabeth's collar bones occurred as she was carried down stairs, feet first and by two people." I have to ask, what stairs? The assault on Elizabeth Stride was witnessed by Israel Schwartz, and according to Schwartz's statement, Stride and her attacker were standing up at that time, though he tried to drag her into the yard. She was killed inside the entrance to the yard at the side of the International Working Men's Club. There is no evidence that she was carried down any stairs. Chris George
Author: Diana Friday, 16 February 2001 - 11:36 am
With regard to the leg positioning, it may have occured in a number of ways, but any woman who has ever had a gynecological exam will tell you that if Jack wanted to get at the uterus (and he did) he would have had to place her legs in the position described (if they weren't already that way. My, what a run-on sentence that was! Pardon me!
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 11:56 am
This was a set up ('she screamed three times but not very loudly') Does this sound like a murderous attack?. Swarts saw what he was supposed to see! You simply could not give an East end prostitute this type of message if you were really going to attack her. Look at the modus of attack, does this sound like 'the Victorian master murderer'? A skilled knifeman who works by stealth, begining by drunkenly assaulting a prostitute in full view of a witness, but leaving her as if'she had been laid there'. I think he gave Stride the scarf she was wearing earlier in the day. In spite of Eddows and Kelly's behaviour I think he actually used something else to lure them to the place of attack. I also think he gave them some money or,and a present earlier and arranged to meet them again, thus they conveniently took themselves to a planned setting. I think he gave Mary a silk hanki earlier in the day, she was heard to say it had been lost outside Millers Court because she wanted another one; he obviously had a few on show. I also view Mary wanted money from Hutchinson for some sort of investment to entertain the killer in her room, for example to provide candles,because he had flattered her earlier. I think he was offering her something extra special compared with the usual customer! Please excuse my language, it's not me, i'm trying to think like Mary; I have to pay back rent, my friend won't give me a sixpence and i'v no money to eat, do I actually give a •••• about loosing my stupid hanki?
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 12:31 pm
Diane,it's cause and effect. Things happen for a reason, sometimes events occur in an unusual way, but if you have the patience to examine the result, over time and using the process of elimination, you will discover what happened. It's hard to explain my thoughts to Jon in a few lines because it took me four years to reach these conclusions, but these women were carried by two people. It also took four years to break the graffito, again using a process of elimination, there is nothing special, you can do it! The only difference between myself and several who have written on the murders is that I really don't care if they carried were or not, or who killed them. I am not an expert on gynecological procedure, but Jack would not have removed the uterus via the vaginal canal, the surgical procedure is called a hysterectomy. The position of the legs I think is the lithotomy.
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 12:35 pm
.
Author: Jack D. Killian Friday, 16 February 2001 - 01:44 pm
Hi E, You mentioned it took four years to break the graffito. What are you referring to....that it was deemed a ruse? Or, there was a code deciphered from the writing? Or both? Thanks, JD
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 02:44 pm
The graffito is written in irony! The killers thought a dog would lead directly to the cloth thus the message was written directly above. The killers saw themselves as Jubelo Jubelum and Jubelo. Each metal has it's own specific code, codes can be matched with one another,the codes can be found on the internet. I am happy to allow Mr Ryder or Mr Piper to examine my work on the graffito, or any one of their choice. (even Ashling, I'm a bit frightened of Ashling) Phillip Sugden would be a good choice! I understand the graffito! But there are issues, living family, to whom I have spoken. The number forty can only be hinted at, for example you can say thirty nine plus one, thus the u in Juwes gives it a more significant meaning in a way.
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Friday, 16 February 2001 - 02:57 pm
The bit about the cloth being used to throw any bloodhound off the track never occured to me before as I've never read it in any book. But forgive me for trying to debunk that theory, and I do really hate doing, why try throwing dogs of the scent if dogs hadn't been used before ? Even if they had been then they could have followed him by it to wherever he went from there. Sorry for throwing a spanner in the works (I'm sure you can do the same for any of my theories, in fact I invite you too.). If you can work around that part of the "false lead" theory to make it more plausible then please do so. Tris
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 03:15 pm
Sorry this is a misunderstanding, the cloth was used to lead the dogs to the graffito. ED. I believe only one person had suspicion of the real killers, in this respect a contemporary author is correct.
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Friday, 16 February 2001 - 03:32 pm
That's a better way of explaining it, just another thought that never occured to me before. Having put it that way it does sound very plausible. Tris
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 03:56 pm
Tris,you can only untangle the wool if you find the begining, always spend time looking for the begining. This episode began when Charles Warren used two legal points; The Queens Act of of 1844 and the sedulous meetings act of 1817 placing Trafalgar Square under control of the Home Office. Warren knew who the Juwes were!
Author: Triston Marc Bunker Friday, 16 February 2001 - 04:22 pm
Are you suggesting a Masonic affair by any chance ? If so do you have any reference to back it up with ? before and after the Masonic lodges opened up to the public they have always denied the use of the word. And spell out to me what the word "JUWES" had to do with that "bloody" charge ordered by Warren in Trafalger Square. Was it Masonic order by the priviledged above him ? And if you are telling me otherwise from the Masons' please correct me. Tris PS Is there a first name I can call you by ? It sounds all so formal just calling you E. Carter. Tris
Author: E Carter Friday, 16 February 2001 - 04:39 pm
Read the Hiram Key by Knight and Lomas, it's written by Freemasons, amongst other things this convinces me that Warren understood the word Juwes. But the killers were not Freemason's. Blaming the Whitechapel Jews rendered benefits for a certain few. Read all you can of Herman Adler! ED.
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Friday, 16 February 2001 - 05:38 pm
If, indeed, E Carter has spent four years in studying the Whitechapel murders, it would appear that those are four wasted years. Practically everything that you say is either wrong or confused in some way. Elizabeth Stride's feet were not in "planter extension", as you claim. Absolutely no one at the scene confirmed this. PC Lamb, in answer to Coroner Baxter's question, "Only her boots visible?", answered, "Yes, and only the soles of them". The Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, 3 October, 1888. I fail to see how this now means that her toes were pointed downwards. "Why were cachous scattered on the floor if they were double wrapped in tissue? Because they were put there to make it look like the sweets fell in quick murderous struggle! " Again, this is totally wrong. Upon being recalled to the witness stand, Dr. Blackwell stated, "I may add that I removed the cachous from the left hand of the deceased, which was nearly open. The packet was lodged between the thumb and the first finger, and was partially hidden from view. It was I who spilt them in removing them from the hand." The Daily Telegraph, Saturday, 6 October, 1888. Your observations on Mrs. Mortimer are also confused. You seem to be claiming that after hearing "the heavy stamp of a policeman", apparently at 1:10 a.m., Mrs. Mortimer stepped outside of her house. You stated, "no Policeman actually passed at 01.10, Smith patrolled at 1230 and 0100" Your claim is that this "heavy stamp" was obviously not of a policeman but of your two killers carrying the body. This is incorrect. PC Smith walked down Berner Street sometime around 12:30 a.m.. Mrs. Mortimer stated that she had gone outside shortly after hearing the "measured tread of a policeman", and that, "''I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past 12 and 1 o'clock..." the Times, 1 October, 1888. It is apparent, therefore, that Fanny Mortimer stepped outside at 12:30, or just after PC Smith had walked by on his beat. It was at 1:10 a.m., however, that she stepped outside for the second time, attracted by the noise coming from the assembling crowd over at the murder scene. Polly Nichols was not wearing flannel drawers. Her clothes were disarranged and her legs were uncovered. I fail to see why it is so hard to understand that once she was placed on the ground the killer simply threw her dress up exposing her lower abdomen and then proceeded with the mutilations, leaving the body in this position once he had finished. The government first started discussing the merits of utilizing bloodhounds on 3 October and this was in direct response to the "Double Event". There was not even a hint of using dogs to track the killer until this time so your "killers" went to an awful lot of trouble for nothing. If you are wrong on the basics, what hope is there for the rest of what you claim? Wolf.