|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
A Type of Hell: The Fall of Louis Diemschutz
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
A Type of Hell: The Fall of Louis Diemschutz
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 03:43 am |        | | I want the truth, I am not concerned with statements that fit my own ideas! ED |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 03:58 am | | David, my conclusions have been gained by my own deduction of the crime scene; actually standing in Berner Street, even though this was a hundred years after the murders took place!
Jack was a serial killer who used the Berner anarchists for his own aims.
PS. Let's get this straight, you view that, after Jack killed Stride, he moved away from the scene employing footsteps that sounded just like the 'heavy measure tramp of a policeman'. (good thinking, no doubt the man was a good counter psychologist!) When Fanny then suddenly opened her front door, surprising him, he employed a sort of 'quick darting mode' to ensure a continuity of movement, therefore; ensuring she would think he had absoulteley nothing to hide!
Yes, yes, yes why didn't I think of that?
By the way, it was 'you' that mentioned something about 'silly walks', was it not ? Best wishes ED. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 05:34 am | | The killer duped the anarchists into believing in his cause, until they actually became frightened of him.
He tried to carry on killing alone after they shie off, then he killed alone, before going to America where he killed Carrie Brown in 1991.
ED |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 06:17 am | | Ed,
If you say the marks on Stride's upper body was caused by the person holding her there,why were there no similar marks in the knee region.
Also do you think the yard was the intended place to kill her.
Wouldn't one man carrying the body over the shoulder have been a more convenient and easier way of moving Stride?.
Lastly what have we missed from Mortimer's information?.Was it the row,the thump and the stifled cry?.
Regards H.Mann. |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 12:53 pm | | I believe Ms Mortimer said she did not see the person who made the heavy measured tread. She did not see the person she thought was the policeman. If this person were the murderer, I don't believe he would have to dart as you say.
If I'm wrong on this, which is always possible, someone please correct me.
If I'm right, then this kind of thing is one of the reasons why posting here can be negative. You can't help yourself from getting into discussions with people who will use doublespeak to win, never mind what the impact on solving the case is. I've got a good idea who draws this type of poster here. Once in awhile there is an exception to this rule, a breath of fresh air.
David |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 02:06 pm | | ED
Sorry for leading you on, the article goes on to describe how her heart & liver was placed underneath her head. If I had included that it would have been a dead giveaway 
Any thoughts as to why these two men (presumably one at her head and one at her feet) would place her body in such a location as to make it difficult for the man at her head to get out from between the fence, steps & wall behind him. They sorta closed him in for no apparent reason, he cant easily lower her body without bumping his rear on the house wall.
They had a whole yard to use.....strange, don't you think?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 02:36 pm | | Hi, Jon:
Don't bring up inconvenient realities that don't fit with Ed's theory. Ed is obviously determined to keep promulgating his theory even though the facts are against him.
Chris |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 05:12 pm | | Hello Jon, Chris-George,
concerning the position of the body of Annie Chapman:
"The head was about 6 inches in front of the level of the bottom step..." (Daily Telegraph, 11.09.888, inquest-witness Doctor G.B.Philips)
"Her head was towards the back wall of the house, nearly two feet from the wall, at the bottom of the steps, but six or nine inches away from them..." (Daily Telegraph, 11.09.888, inquest-witness Insector Chandler)
It is enough to look at the picture of the yard in the Casebook to notice that this distance was enough for the man at the head to get out from between the fence, steps and wall behind him.
But it was just enough, and not much more.
Had it been a lonely killer, very likely the head would have been much nearer to the back wall of the house.
Let us not forget that the back room window of the ground floor was not threatening for the killers.
Nobody slept in this room (what a luck!).
But the upstairs back room were occupied.
As probably a large part of the back rooms of the 27 Hanbury street.
So undoubtedly the best location to place the body (with then the intention to cut it) was the nearest possible to the back wall of the 29 (to hide the most from the vision of the upstairs back room windows)
and contemporarily the nearest to the fence (to hide the most from the vision of the back room windows of the 27).
Had it been for a lonely killer he would surely not have left so much room (2 feet) between the back wall and the head.
Unless, of course, he was a lunatic and did not know the risks he was taking and was thus very lucky (second time).
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 05:39 pm | | Hello Jon, Chris-George,
I even wonder, but I must say I have not dug that out, if the one man who cut the body was not standing (more exactly crouching), once cut the throat, between the back wall and the head.
That could explain why the belly wall and the intestines were over the shoulder (he just pull them towards him once detached, or even for detaching better).
It could have given him also some protection from the vision of the back room windows of the 31 Hanbury street (but I must admit while I am writing I did not check if this one existed).
How ?
Well, with the back room door opened.
How, since it did not stay open alone and of course "the cutter" had necessity of his two hands to work ?
Someone else could have kept it open, for example sitting on the steps.
Did someone say at the inquest that he sat on the steps ?
Well, nevertheless, all that need checking.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 06:56 pm | | Ed
The door to the backyard would open clean back to the outside wall, 180 deg swing. There's a picture somewhere (1960's) showing this position.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 04:54 am | | Hello Jon,
if the killers wanted to bring the inanimated body in the yard, they would have first to open the door.
Then, being down the steps, not to incur in the situation that somebody could go in the passage (from the upper floors to the street or viceversa)and see that something was going on in the yard, they would have closed it, at least partially.
This would have allowed the man at the head to go the nearest possible to the wall to deposit the body.
At this moment they were as hidden as possible to the vision of the upstairs back windows of the 29 and, thank to the fence, also to the vision of the back windows of the 27.
To hide even better, not least from the vision of the back windows of the 31, it would have been very useful, while cutting, to keep the door opened at 90 deg.
The problem is that the door did not stay alone in this position.
It was a door that closed by itself (John Richardson at the inquest).
So, while the man at the head was cutting (crouching between the back wall and the head), the other had to keep the door open at 90 deg.
He could have been able to do that sitting on the steps.
I do not find anything wrong with all that and it tend to confirm the possibility that there were at least two men.
Why, if John Richardson was then present, had he to tell that he had been in the yard that morning at the inquest ? Couldn t have been it easier not to tell anything ?
As I already said in another board (aside from the fact that they simply could not have been sure that he was not seen or that they were not heard) someone had to say that the yard was very frequently used by prostitutes to avert suspicion on the persons who own or use the same yard.
Had it not been for him nobody would have.
Quite the opposite.
Interesting to notice that for the Dutfield s yard murder, William West seems to use the same stratagem auch even in a more moderate way.
Once again, against all other testimonies.
Now, an interesting detail with the Hanbury street murder is the statement of James Kent at the inquest.
He was one of the first to see the body and:
"Her face and hands were smeared with blood, as she had struggled.She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something...." (Eastern Post, 15.09.888, inquest).
I do not think that the murder urinated on her (it should have been noticed by the Doctor) and it did not rain that morning.
So, what was this water and where did it came from, and more important, what could have been the use and who brought it there ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 05:13 am | | Hello everybody,
could someone tell me why Annie Chapman did not grasp the balls of her assailant and why these same balls were not found in her hand ?
Believe me, I do not ask that for being gratuitously vulgar.
I consider it a very serious question.
Any response would be appreciated.
Thank you. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 09:03 am | | The male bodily organ to which you refer is not known to be easily detachable.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 01:06 pm | | Hello Jon,
well, sure.....I did not think about that.
 .
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Hello Jon,
but in a more serious way, my sentence was to be meant in a quite figurative way.
Since we were speaking about the possibility of more than one killer for Annie Chapman, my question was:
why, when she was grasped at the throat by her assailant (supposing he was a lonely one), from behind or from face, no matter, and supposing that she was not able to shout (likely if being strangled), didn't she use her hands.
First thing she could catch, and being used to fight no wonder that this should have been the first thought, of course the more sensitive parts of a human male body.
Well done, he could not have resisted more than 10/15 seconds.
Not enough to render her unconscious by strangulation (and I do not take in consideration the feet with the heavy boots).
The more he strangled her, the more tight and clenched the hands.
That's a characteristic often found in persons dead in this way.
Bye. Graziano.  (to be complete).
P.S.: Sorry to abuse of the cliparts but I just discovered them. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 02:56 pm | | Hello Jon,
and why did not she use her heavy boots at least to kick hardly against the fence, since following the classical theory she was attacked were she was found.
No doubt that the sound at that hour would have awaken or alarmed more than one.
Bye. Graziano.  |
Author: Jon
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:00 pm | | Graz
Eddowes had a bruise on the back of her hand, I have suggested as indicative of a struggle with an assailant behind her. Which is only a possibility, (didn't Chapman too?)
If Jack tried choking them from the front (assuming they were all choked) then he opened himself up to any action/re-action from his victims hands, knees & boots. Personally I favour him standing behind during the initial assault, but then murders rarely go as planned and who ever suggested common sense was part of any murderous act.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:16 pm | | Graz
Her ability to fight back could have been impeded by her being either too drunk, too tired or too ill, or a combination of either.
There's no point in asking why she didn't do something. Consider Eddowes, she had a knife in her pocket, you might ask why she didn't have a dual with him there and then.
Why something didn't happen is largely imaterial, its finding out the 'why' to what did that we should focus on.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:23 pm | | Hello Jon,
yes, I read your version in "crime scenes" and I subscribe entirely (even for the lashing hands, those of Eddowes could have lashed the pavement, because I think she was kept at the height of her assailant thigs, just for her not to be able to use her hands in self-defense)
Well, quite entirely, because there came Annie Chapman with her heavy boots and the fence just at some inches.
So I said to myself  (my god I am really a kid).
That for my third message.
I think that while one was grasping at least another one should have kept tight the feet.
Then instead of one and lunatic  or completely crazy  , at least two  and, for all what I have said concerning the Hanbury street murder, well prepared.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:37 pm | | Hello Jon,
since we are writing contemporarily to each other our messages cross.
I did not read your last one before sending my last one.
Yes, I agree.
So, what do you think was the cause of Annie Chapman seem like been sprinkled with water ?
I have my own idea, but since it's Friday 9.30 p.m. in Prague and I am alone I will tell you morgen and now I go to  and  .
No, no, she is in  .
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 04:46 am | | Hello Jon,
I am just a little late, I am coming back, but something struck me last night thinking to your (extremely) beautiful sentence : " Why something did not happen is largely immaterial, it's finding out the "why" to what did that we should focus on".
I agreed immediately.
But let us be fair, Why did not they ask Evans ?
Bye. Graziano.  |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 10:29 am | | Hi Graz.
Your question of water on her face....
Chapman's own bladder had been sliced through had it not?, I am trusting your quote is correct as I do not have it in front of me, so, couldn't it have been her urine?, assuming it was urine at all.
Sorry, I do not get your drift, "Ask Evans what?"
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 10:37 am | | Hello Jon,
something wrong here  ,
could it be that I choose the only grammatically incorrect one ?
I was doubtful between the three ( I am losing my latin here ):
Why didn't they ask Evans ?
Why did they not ask Evans ?
Why did not they ask Evans ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 10:41 am | | Hello Jon,
once again we cross and you are faster.
For Evans, from recollection, to sign as witness.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 10:52 am | | Evans testified at the inquest on the 10th of Sept.
Is that what you are referring to?
First one is preferred.
Second one is acceptable.
Third one was wrong.
Regards. Jon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 11:46 am | | Hello Jon,
my fault, I even did not remember an "Evans" at the Chapman inquest.
Following your message I had to go back to the papers.
All these very easy and common names in all the case and some very similar.
I'm losing myself in them.
Evans, Smith, Kelly, Carthy, Harvey......
Why we never find a Manelli, Bombacci or Papastratos.
Should be better for remembering who goes where.
The only foreigner are Kosminsky, Kaminsky, Klosowsky, ......not very helpful.
Well, no, I was referring to the book ( I thought it had been a best seller and that it immediately popped up to the eyes when referred to ) by Agatha Christie: "Why didn't they ask Evans ?".
From very far away recollection it related a crime where the key to the understanding was the fact that Evans ( I think she was the cook of a rich man who was passing away ) was not called to sign as witness the Will of the dying person.
It was only when the reason of this was answered that the crime got its logic.
What I meant was that apparently for Mrs Christie something that did not happen, even if immaterial, is not always worthless to be adressed.
And let us recognize that if there are certainly some persons who deserve the title of King on this Casebook (and you are not the least - without any misplaced rethoric) she was undoubtless the Queen in the yellow (is it black in english ?) literature.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: I come back with the water. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 12:10 pm | | Graz.
I have heard of that book, I considered that you might be referring to it but was not sure in what context as I have never read it. So, I just assumed you were talking about a witness.
While its true (the point you make), do not forget you are letting a work of fiction influence you. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 12:25 pm | | WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS? was made into a television movie (it appeared on Channel 5 in
New York City) back in the early 1980s. It had
been made in England, and one of the characters
(a red herring in the plot) was played by
Eric Porter.
Jeff |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 05:58 pm | | I have two or three questions, someone may think they are interesting enough to comment on. We are led to believe that JtR was quite strong, but was he really?. His victims were worn out "old women"-- for the times they lived in. Nichols was very small, very drunk, and not in particularly good health. Chapman was short, stout, and really quite ill. Eddowes, what can you say about poor Kate?, she was hung over from her afternoon/early evening drinking spree, and her empty stomach showed she was starving, as victims for a queer killer, they were a doddle, he could have killed the three in one night without much effort. But Mary, she was a different kettle of fish. If she was part of the "canonical five", he made sure she was not going to threaten him with free flying booted feet or fists. She was young, tall, well formed, and I think she made sure she was reasonably well fed,--(her stomach was not empty). He may have had a problem with Mary if he had tackled her in the same way as the others.
I think Mary was attacked while she was unawares, asleep or half asleep, and in the dark. She didn't know what was coming until there was movement on the bed, and she was hampered by the bedclothes, she had time to scream, "Oh murder", before the sheet was held tight across her mouth, or before she ducked her head under the bedclothes. If the room had been lit, and if she
had known who she was with, she wouldn't have been so afraid, less likely to be taken by surprise, would very likely have made more of a fight of it and made more noise. If JtR was so surgeonlike in his mutilations,- why did he cut into Annie's bladder, and Kate's intestine making a terrible mess of her body, and if he made such an expert job removing Kate's kidney, well,was the kidney unmarked? we don't know, do we?, he made a mess in cutting out the uterus, left part in, didn't he?.
Separate question!!, if Barnett didn't kill the previous victims, and he was such an ordinary, every day sort of bloke, why should he be suspected by some serious ripperologists of perhaps killing Mary!! and then over mutilating in trying to make it look like a Ripper killing, I would have thought he would have under mutilated,---a woman he had known and loved. I could not do it personally, and you would say, "of course not, you are not a killer"
but thats what makes a successful killer,--and have people say of you,---I would never have believed it of him!! You are a complete success, like Jack the Ripper.
Excuse my ramblings please,
Regards Rick. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 06:42 pm | | Hi Rick
In response to your first point, "did Jack need to be strong?",
NO, for the exact reasons you say, his victims were in a weakened state, ill, drunk, tired, etc.
Thats not to say a victim could not have put up a strong fight in the initial attack, I think instinct is enough to justify anyone giving it their all in response to an attempt to fight off a strangler. But, resistance would have been short.
I'll leave Kelly out as the argument you pose is justified.
Next, we can see enough in the medical evidence to at least suggest that Jack knew what he was doing. It's not just a matter of random cuts, there's more to it than that. The efficiency at cutting her throat, making sure the farthest artery is severed first, for reasons we all know.
The long cut from crotch to breastbone is a medical procedure, doctors at the time start out in their attempt to enter a patients abdomen by exactly such a procedure, I posted an extract on this a couple of months ago. There's nothing sexual about it, the procedure for entering a womans abdomen is exactly the same long abdominal cut.
The ability to locate the organs quickly and remove them, albiet not as neatly as we expect with our inexperienced armchair logic. The swiftness of the whole mutilation is indicative of someone who knew what he was doing, and had done it before.
All the lacerations and random cuts can easily be put down to haste and poor lighting rather than claim inexperience. As Dr. Phillips pointed out "There were indications of anatomical knowledge, which were only less indicated in consequence of haste".
I would not propose Jack had to be a doctor, to have some medical experience and a little anatomical knowledge would be sufficient.
I'll leave Barnett alone today
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 07:16 pm | | Thanks Jon,
you're very quick, but you disappoint me on your last sentence, can't I tempt you,
Regards, Rick |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 19 August 2001 - 09:44 pm | | Hi, Jon and Rick:
I still think that JtR must have possessed good upper body strength to be able to manhandle the women and lay them on the ground. Being diseased or drunk made them more compliant, but their bodies still were a certain weight, the weight of a full grown adult female. Moreover, the man had to be agile and fit to escape from the scenes of the crimes time and again.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 07:44 am | | Hello Rick,
may I pick out one point: " I think Mary was attacked while she was unawares, asleep or half asleep......".
Elisabeth Prater at the inquest (Daily Telegraph):
"I live at 20, Miller's court, above the shed,deceased occupied a room below, (not the room below).
A kitten disturbed me at about 3.30/3.45 a.m., as I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh, murder" in a faint voice.
It seemed to proceed from the court".
Sarah Lewis at the inquest (Daily Telegraph):
(From 2 Miller's court, the first house on the left, see the plan, quite in front of 13),
"...At nearly 4.00 a.m. I heard a female's voice shouting "Murder" loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. there was only one scream".
Conclusions (mine):
The two testimonies corroborates each other concerning:
- the hour of the cry (precisely enough),
- the quantity of it (only one),
Elisabeth Prater does not seem to indicate that it was shouted in a female's voice but she does not contradict Lewis even.
For me it is enough to say it was the same shout they heard.
They seem to agree also for the location where the sound is made: "from the court" for Prater, "at our door" (behind the door there was the court) for Lewis.
If the quality of the sound is different "faint" for Prater, "loud" for Lewis, this could be explained by the fact that Prater was further away from it than Lewis.
One only explanation:
The shout was not coming from inside 13 Miller's court.
Seems impossible ?
In fact, it is (impossible).
Had Mary Jane be assaulted in the court, Lewis would have heard I think more than just the noise of one shout (an assault make different kind of noises: e.g. boots kicking and tapping, hands against doors, walls......).
And even Mary Ann Cox (last house in the court but well awaken) should have heard something.
So, sound from the court but the person making it inside.
Possible ?
This time I think, yes.
I think that Mary Jane could have been indoor, and the door could have been open.
More likely she was standing at the door and she opened it.
To open the door at that time (since she was sleeping and not working anymore (wearing nightclothes) I think she knew who was knocking.
Was Mr Astrakhan still indoor and sleeping with her ? Possible.
Did Mr Astrakhan left before and come back ? Possible.
Did Mr Astrakhan left and another guy came ? I think it unlikely (for what reason would have she opened the door?).
Have I been clear in all that ? Big doubts. Hope not too difficult to read.
In any case, I do not think she was unawares when attacked.
And of course, difficult for me to believe she was attacked by only one assailant, but this is another story.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 07:56 am | | Hello Chris George,
"JtR must have possessed good upper body strength to be able to manhandle the women and lay them on the ground."
"He had to be agile and fit to escape from the scenes."
We might add that he had also to be particularly rapid and dexterous (invisible ?) not to be seen while performing the killing and the cutting.
Superman, Spiderman, Hulk ?
Bye. Graziano ( pathetically trying to catch up with Rosey ). |
Author: graziano
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 08:02 am | | Hello Rick and Harry,
don't you think that the part of Hutchinson statement in which he refers not to have seen any policeman (or only one passing in Commercial street) while he was standing there (three quarters of an hour) adds credibility to his whole statement.
How could he have known ?
Why should the police not have been able to check that point ?
Bye. Graziano.
By-side question: not even one policeman in three quarters of an hour in such a tough environment ? Is that serious from the police ? |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 11:03 am | | Hi, Graziano:
How about the mysterious Spring-heeled Jack? Victorian England's own Superhero-Demon? I think realistically that the Whitechapel murderer was a very real human being much like you or me, but it is curious that there were stories of a being with superhuman powers whose exploits preceded the advent of the killer we now call Jack the Ripper.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 03:59 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I don't think that Jack necessarily had to be strong, and equally, I don't believe his victims were as fragile as stated.
One thing we can discern is that all the victims were attacked whilst in motion, i.e. putting one foot in front of the other. Jack, with Judas like advances, attacked them from behind, incapacitated them in some manner then concluded his horrendous machinations.
An attack from behind, with an element of surprise, could disable many stalwarts. In point of fact a garroter, by the name of Max Roubaix, used his singular method of killing to despatch many poor souls to the pearly gates. Roubaix, strangely enough, was a weak man racked with consumption.
Thanking you and begging forgiveness if I'm repeating myself.
Jim Leen |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 04:55 am | | Hi Jim,
Like you, I've often wondered if the women - or some of them - were attacked from behind and incapacitated somehow before they could say Jack Robinson (a bit like some of Peter Sutcliffe's victims). But then, if we are talking about a lone killer, there would have been no question of Jack encountering and having to charm his Jill, before negotiating and sidling off to a suitable place to do business together. And there are the witness reports of couples seen standing and talking together (Chapman, Stride and Eddowes).
But couldn't one man have done the charming in the conventional way, engaging the proposed victim in face-to-face conversation, while another crept up from behind to do the disarming when the time was right? That way, the woman would be taken completely by surprise, more so than if she'd been all alone, and there would be two against one, in case she was a tougher old bird than either had anticipated. And between them, two men would have been able to keep a good lookout for passers-by, and judge whether it was safe for the attack to go ahead. If it wasn't, the woman would be none the wiser, with the first man either engaging her services in the normal way or making some excuse and walking away. The pals could join up afterwards, whatever the outcome of their encounter, having less fear of attracting unwanted attention or suspicion as a pair.
What do you think?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 06:49 am | | Graziano,
Hutchinson makes no mention of seeing any policeman pass,either in Dorset St or Commercial St.Also there is no recorded sighting of Hutchinson by any policeman.Hutchinson does not ,in his statement,refer to these facts.
It does not change the truthfullness or otherwise of his statement.Kelly and the stranger were not seen by any other person.
If Hutchinson is lying,there is no knowledge of Kelly being out of her room after about midnight.
If he is telling the truth,only one man was knowingly in her company,after two am.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 12:34 pm | | Hello,Graziano,
I can usually agree or have sympathy with your theories. But I've never had any thought that JtR could have been a pair, or more!!. No, that just don't work with me, to me he was -"one"- sinister, clever, on the "brink mad" man. Another thing I've always thought,-- and I wouldn't want anyone to think this is to do with Barnett,-- I've always thought JtR was either an Englishman or an Irishman, never Jewish, Polish, or Russian, I don't know why, just a fad of mine. Graziano, don't you think that if Mary had been aware and was attacked at her door, even if there was an accomplaice already in her room, there is every chance there would have been the mother and father of bust-ups in Miller's Court?, Dorset Street would have known of it!!!. My opinion, Graziano . I've never stopped to wonder about Elizabeth Praters room. Was it divided off from the front, the same as Mary's room downstairs?, I don't know!, but I suppose it would more than likely make a difference to Mrs Prater's hearing ability if she was in a room next to the street and not directly above Marys room, such as a "roaring fire"--if there was one, and a struggle, again, if there was one. Jon, as I've said before, my father was an ordinary, everyday coal miner, he could gut a rabbit or a chicken very cleanly and quickly, he would have smiled if someone had commented on his anatomical knowledge. Ordinary working people knew about such things in those days, if they kept a pig in those times for economical reasons, they didn't pay a butcher to slaughter it, they did it themselves. Even when I was a small child, small-farm animals like pigs did not go to the abattoir, they had their throats cut while strapped to a bench in the farmyard, that would be by the local butcher,-- and every one for miles around knew what was happening, they could hear the pig. So personally, I see nothing particularly strange about JtR being able to butcher a body,-- only in wanting to do it. As for knowing what he was doing,-- cutting their throats,--- if he was right handed, attacked from the rear with a stifling left hand across their nose and mouth, pulled them down onto their backs, how else would he cut their throats except drawing the knife
from the left?. I would certainly agree with you Jon, that the mutilations were done by someone who knew what he was doing, and had possibly done it before, but not surgically --especially if we are talking about Annie, and that scene must have
been a mess, but then surgery was a cruder business in those days, performed in a cruder way.
Regards, Rick |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 08:22 pm | | No matter Rick, there will always be opposing opinions on the anatomical/surgical issue.
I just think we are a world away form using fish gutting, rabbit gutting & chicken plucking as 'reasonable experience' in human anatomical mutilations.
I can't understand them being used in the same sentence (speaking as an ex-apprentice butcher).
And to be honest, I wonder how many dossers around the East End were fortunate enough to even see a pig, let alone have one in their back yard.
Still, regardless of any basis for argument the issue will never be resolved this easily.
I would take Dr. Phillips observations (first hand) over other contrary statements, eg; Dr. Bond, who only formed his opinion on the previous murders from medical notes.
What we must contend with are doctors opinions who were actually at the autopsies.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 05:55 am | | Jon,
a paragraph or two from "THE BITTER CRY OF OUTCAST LONDON", published 1883, Andrew Mearns drew heavily on Sims's seminal work in recounting scenes and episodes of poverty and degradation. He too described a typical slum courtyard reeking with poisonous and malodorous gasses arising from accumulations of sewage and refuse scattered in all directions. Of the flats therein, he found the average room to be about 8ft square, with walls and ceilings that are black with accretions of filth which have gathered upon them through long years of neglect. Mearns was horrified at how some of the inhabitants lived. "In one CELLAR, a sanitary inspector reports finding a father, mother, three children, and--FOUR PIGS!!.
Elsewhere is a poor widow with three children, and one who had been lying dead for 13 days, her husband had shortly before committed suicide.
I don't know how the pig family intended to despatch their pigs, but I bet they weren't going to pay a butcher to do it. Now I agree there is no comparison between a chicken and a human, but if it's idle curiosity about how it works, or the pleasure of taking a life, I suppose a chicken will do for someone too cowardly to tackle anything bigger.If as some people think, JtR showed anatomical knowledge, where did he get it,
did he go to the library and get a book "How to Kill and Dismember Prostitutes or did he torture and kill animals,--as we know most serial killers
do!! He had to get experience, so who did he practice on, if it wasn't animals. Maybe he knew nothing before he started killing prostitutes, maybe he was self taught and learned as he went along, (if that sort of thing can be learned)I don't believe it was an occupational hazard that brought this kill craving on,-- such as fish gutting, or being employed as a morticians helper,-- warm meat has a much nicer feel to it than cold hard meat.
Regards Rick. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 10:04 am | | Hi Rick.
Yes, thanks, I have read of an occational family keeping a pig, its about the only animal that is 'perfect?' for such squalor, meaning that they will eat anything, then when times really get tough, you eat them.
Quite a large proportion of the East End population was transient, dossers in doss houses or large family's crammed into a tiny room.
I take the 'pig farming' East Ender to be the exception rather than the rule.
Regards, Jon
P.S., Thanks for the extract, social studies are always of interest. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 12:00 pm | | Hi Rick,
I knew of a family who kept a three-legged pig as a pet. They must have really loved that little piggy - 'cause when I asked how it came to lose a leg, they explained that they couldn't bring themselves to eat him all at once. 
Love,
Caz
Bacon sarnie with Daddies Sauce, anyone? |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 01:51 pm | | Hello, Caz:
Are you pulling our legs again?
Chris |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 03:33 pm | | | Well, between Caz telling porkers and Chris hamming it up, we are in roasting form here. |
Author: Grailfinder
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 05:00 pm | | Hi'a
The words 'Caz'-'Pulling'-'Pork'
All in a decent-ish conversation!
"Brilliant" made my day.
Ger-on Gal, keep pulling.
Ps...with ya on the Daddies. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 08:44 pm | | Caz, I can see I need to take more Worcester Sauce with my bacon, it seems to reach places other sauces can't reach, I also need to watch my peas and--?s
Nighty night, loved one
Rick |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 05:36 am | | Morning All,
Ok Grail, I'll keep pulling - legs, I mean, legs.
But here are a couple of absolutely true stories for you. When my daughter was little she said if it weren't for sausages, she'd quite like to go vegetarian. But she was also under the impression that sausages could somehow be harvested from pigs without actually killing them. (The mind boggles!) And my ma-in-law fries up a mean and fat-spitting breakfast with 'em, and to this day calls them 'Widows' Memories' (she was widowed in 1989). This vision, combined with her 'Sod the poll tax' T-shirt, when my daughter was first able to read and comprehend such humour, was achingly funny to observe.
(Anyone share my penchant for black pudding, by the way? Yummy.)
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
