|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 20 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Abberline: What did he know?:
Archive through 20 October 2001
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 29 May 2000 - 07:18 pm |        | G'day Simon,
There's a photo of the first page of Inspector Abberline's report in Stephen Knight's book: 'The Final Solution'. Isn't that his own handwritting?
There's a sketch of 'Inspector Frederick George Abberline' in 'The Many Faces Of Jack The Ripper'!
Leanne! |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 07:40 am | | | "Mr Morland...was a charming man, fondly remembered by his many friends for his rather romantic disposition and excellent imaginative writing." (1st hardback and paperback editions) |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 09:56 am | | Ah, well, there it is, then. Thank you both,
Martin and Paul, for confirming my thoughts on Mr
Morland. This is what happens when I turn
immediately to the latest version of the A-Z to
buttress my waspish comments. . . |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 30 May 2000 - 01:07 pm | | WE'VE GOT FIDO! WE'VE GOT BEGG! NOW ALL WE NEED IS SKINNER AND WE'LL HAVE THE COMPLETE SET!!!
And Melvin Harris too, for dessert!
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 11:03 am | | In going through papers I returned to him,
Keith Skinner has just discovered and re-returned
to me some pencilled notes I made back in 1986,
(and filed in my infamous system 'the Black
Hole'). They include a most important Abberline
reference that escaped my listing of sources in
'The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the
Ripper'. (Lucky Begg, Sugden, Evans and Connell,
enjoying publishers who allowed them proper
footnotes so that they could document accurately
as they went along).
It was in 'the Globe' for 15 September 1888,
p.5, col.1, that Abberline said he hadn't been
told what organs were missing from Annie Chapman's
body. When I mentioned this to Don Rumbelow 12
years ago, he took the view that Abberline's
statement was probably untrue, and just a
brush-off to get rid of nuisance reporters. I
disagree because (i) all the other evidence
suggests that Abberline (and Thick) were only too
happy to see their names in the papers and
probably leaked to chosen rporters, (ii) I doubt
whether Abberline would have issued a casual false
statement that could throw responsibility on his
superiors for keeping the head of on-the-ground
investigation starved of information, and (iii)
although I think he was often very over-confident
in his assertions, I know of no reason to think
Abberline was untruthful.
Anyway, make of it what you like, there is a
major source for my repeated claim that Abberline
was NOT the best-informed officer on the case.
Martin Fido |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 12:26 pm | | Martin
Without the actual quote at hand I seem to recall reading that Abberline's remark was typically evasive in nature.
While not actually answering the question point blank, he evaded the answer by saying that he had not seen the medical report.
We are left to assume that he meant that he knew nothing, which is what the police do today, "we are still proceeding with our enquiries" is the euphamism used nowaday's.
If anyone is able to lay hands on that quote we may be able to discern from his reply, if he was being evasive or not.
Remember, prior to the murder of Chapman the police were being berated by everyone for being uncooperative.
I guess his answer is still open to question.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 01:03 pm | | Here's an afterthought.....
Correct me if I'm wrong, The police do not pursue a suspicious death as a murder inquiry until the findings of an inquiry has determined it to be either, natural death, suicide or murder.
So, if Dr Philips had his medical report in his posession following his post-mortem, would he pass it onto the police as a matter of course?
Or, does he hold onto it until the inquiry?
Abberline was present at the inquiry of Chapmans death, but the actual details of the missing organs was not made known until the 19th, this subject was postponed from the 13th. On the 19th the courtroom was cleared and the details were discussed.
So, here we have Abberline reported on the 15th to have said he had not seen the medical report....given the circumstances, is this so strange?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 05:48 pm | | For the benefit of anyone going looking usefully
for the original news item, my complete note
reads:
15.9.88
(p5, col 1) Abberline quoted saying hadn't
been told what organs missing.
To the best of my recollection (14 years later!)
the Abberline statement did say he hadn't been
shown the doctor's report, but I didn't spot
anything evasive about it (as my note above
indicates by omission). But it can be checked as
I've found my reference at last. I wonder where
you read about it, Jon? I've never, as far as I
can recall, come across anybody else who admitted
to having seen the item.
As for police treating a death as murder, or
more important, perhaps, having access to medical
reports before coroner's or magistrates decided
the case was murder, our locus classicus must be
Rose Mylett (only not 'Rose', as Bill Beadle's
very solid work has recently established that I
picked the wrong christian name when I traced the
multi-aliased original of the mysterious 'Lizzie
Davies' recorded on the police files). Much to
coroner Wynne Baxter's chagrin, Dr Robert Anderson
rejected divisional surgeon Brownfield's autopsy
report, and asked for A Division's surgeon Dr Bond
to examine the body, which resulted in Bond's
assistant McKellar and Bond himself (twice)
submitting reports which finally supported the
conclusion reached by the CID - and all these
medical offerings, together with Brownfield's
assistant's original pronouncement of death, were
being mulled over in Scotland Yard before Baxter
had the chance to overrule the police and insist
on another murder.
I would think that Swanson, directed to receive
all papers and be the Commisisoner's eyes and ears
in a memorandum which Stewart Evans believes to
have emanated from the Commissioner himself, would
certainly have been in possession of the medical
evidence before the inquest.
With all good wishes
Martin F |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 11 June 2000 - 08:37 pm | | Martin
We have had many usefull press extracts quoted verbatim on this site over the past couple of years, possibly it was here. But I also have a similar filing system to yours (black hole), albiet much smaller, I'm sure. Then of course there's the account reported in the 3rd edition of JtR, A-Z (page 10).
Also, back in '98? I discussed this very Abberline comment with Paul Begg,...in fact I pointed out this account (page 10) in response to something that Paul said, and I questioned the accuracy of the A-Z, which brought forth some amusing exchanges. It's possible that the article was quoted then.
It's a shame you no longer have the article to quote from as I would like to be reminded if Abberline was responding to a question or the comment was part of a general statement.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 04:46 am | | Martin,
Far be it from me to become engaged in discussion on any hypothetical point, but I do feel that I should correct some errors of fact here. I am sure that the reason for your errors regarding the Mylett investigation (above), result from you not having access to your notes.
There was, as you are aware, a lengthy exchange over this particular death as to whether or not it was a case of murder. This alleged murder occurred on Thursday, 20 December, 1888. The Divisional Surgeon, Dr. Brownfield, carried out the autopsy in the morning of the 21st and at the inquest stated that in his opinion it was a case of murder. He stated that "...the woman had been strangled with a four lag cord. (equal to packing-string of very moderate thickness! and that the marks of strangulation were plainly visible on the throat & neck."
This revelation astounded the police as this was the first intimation they had received that the case may be one of murder; until then they had assumed it to be death by "...suicide or sudden death from natural causes." As a result Assistant Commissioner Anderson was directed to make further enquiries, while Dr. Bond (The A Divisional Surgeon) was asked to assist the Divisional Surgeon in making a second examination. Dr. Bond was not available, so the Chief Surgeon, Mr. Alexander O. Mackellar (he ranked higher than Bond and was not his assistant) was asked to attend and give an opinion. Dr. Bond's assistant, Dr. Charles Hebbert, also attended.
On Mr. Mackellar's return he stated that he fully supported the Divisional Surgeon in his opinion that death was produced by strangulation. As a result the Chief Commissioner, James Monro, decided on 23 December that it was a case of murder.
Despite the fact that the coroner, Wynne Baxter, stated that "there is no evidence to show that death was the result of violence," as stated by Dr. Bond, the jury, oddly, returned a verdict of wilful murder by person or persons unknown. They were, apparently, swayed by the evidence of Doctors Brownfield, Harris (Brownfield's assistant), Hebbert, and Mackellar, all of whom were of the opinion that the woman was murdered by the use of a cord drawn tightly around her neck.
Anderson had investigated on 22 December and formed the opinion that it was a case of sudden death by natural causes and that he did not intend to take any further action in the matter. Much to Anderson's chagrin the doctor had carried out the autopsy on the morning of 21 December, but had not communicated his conclusions to the police. The first Anderson had heard of it being a case of murder was when he picked up a copy of the evening paper on the 22nd after a "surprise visit to Whitechapel." Anderson even went to the length of visiting the mortuary himself to examine the body, a task which he viewed as "distasteful." This confirmed his view that "...the death had not been caused by homicidal violence." In this view he was joined by Bond, Wontner and the Coroner, Wynne Baxter, himself. This of course shows that there was no question at all that Wynne Baxter overruled the police, nor did he "...insist on another murder" as stated by Martin above.
To further complicate matters Dr. Bond went to the mortuary "to verify Mr. Hibbert's [sic] notes" on the 23 December, and on the 24th reported to Anderson the contrary view of the Divisional Surgeon, and the Chief Surgeon. Anderson pressed his objections to Bond in a "long conference" and as a result Bond returned to Poplar the same afternoon to make yet another "more careful" examination. This time Bond "entirely altered his view of the case, and was satisfied that though death was due to strangulation, it was produced accidentally and not by homicidal violence." [!] All this had resulted in a complaint from Wynne Baxter to James Monro that "the Assistant Comr. sent down Doctor after Doctor without his sanction."
All this left Monro very angry with Dr. Brownfield for not at once bringing his opinion of a suspicious death immediately to the police before the inquest. Dr. Brownfield was tackled over this point by the Chief Surgeon, and he was advised not to pass any opinion to members of the press.
Thus the matter was left very much as a 'split decision' and remained as an unsolved murder, much to Anderson's annoyance. However, it was the Jury's verdict reached on hearing all the evidence, and most certainly not a case of Wynne Baxter 'insisting on another murder.' |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 06:32 am | | Stewart - you're too kind in putting all my
inaccuracies down to my separation from my files.
The McKellar error was simple misreading of the
A-Z when working in haste to post before AOL made
its customary splutter about 'too many requests
pending' and punted me. The other errors, like
that corrected by Bill Beadle, go back to 1986
when I had just 7 months and no usable financial
resources to complete my publishers' demand that I
find this Polish Jew described by Anderson and
apparently identified as Kosminsky by Macnaghten.
Most of my work on victims came from secondary
sources. Palmer's Index and 'The Times' led me to
the original of Lizzie Davis and her favoured name
Rose Mylett: I never did the additional work Bill
Beadle has done to correct that.
The Times also gave the inquest report where, if
memory serves me aright, Baxter repeated his
'doctor after doctor' fulmination, which strikes
me as coming very close to pushing the jury toward
the verdict he wanted.
But in any event, the answer to Jon's main
point remains: as far as we can tell from this
highly over-examined medical case, the AC C had
access to all the medical reports he wanted on a
suspicious death well before the coroner's court
had decided there was a murder to be investigated.
With all good wishes - (no need to check my
data on them, thank goodness!)
Martin |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 10:10 am | | Regarding the investigation of a suspected murder case police enquiries would (and did) begin immediately on the discovery of the body. This, of course, was when the case was obviously one of murder, such as Chapman. Enquiries did not have to wait upon the pronouncement of the coroner, at an inquest, to begin. The verdict of the coroner's court in such obvious cases is a formality, and reached in order to issue a certificate so that the body may be interred.
The Mylett case was different, of course, in that the police did not think it was a murder until the evidence of Dr. Brownfield was reported in the papers. This was obviously a total breakdown in communication.
Wynne Baxter's summing up was very fair and correct, and it was the evidence of four of the five doctors involved, (Brownfield, Harris, Hebbert, and MacKellar), that stated it was homicide by strangulation. The sole doctor with an alternative opinion was Bond, who stated that he agreed she had strangled, but that it was an accidental case! So the overwhelming body of medical evidence indicated that it was a case of murder. Bond, as the only dissentient, had not even seen the body until three days after the murder, and after all the other doctors had examined it. One has to say that all the cuts inflicted on the body at the autopsy must have affected any assessment Bond may have been able to make.
All in all the jury's verdict seems to be the correct one.
As for the correct Christian name of the victim, one needs to look no further than The Times of January 3, 1889, where it reports: -
"Mrs Margaret Millett, widow, of 16 Pelham-street, Whitechapel, stated that deceased was her daughter and was 26 years of age. Her name was Catherine Millett..." |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 12 June 2000 - 07:05 pm | | Thankyou both for a very informative & enlightning exchange.....
I seem to recall the issue that started this thread was "had Abberline seen the medical report?"......we all flew off on different tangents, but at the end of the day, are we any wiser?
Does anyone actually have a copy of that darn Globe article?
We should not waste time on a hypothetical scenario, but then to use his 'remark' as evidence that Abberline was not well informed is equally absurd. We do not know the reason for the remark.
(Pssst....Stewart, the dust jacket wont make a blind bit of difference to the sales, relax, it will be a milestone in Ripper literature)
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Magpie IX
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 07:25 am | | Hi everyone. Long time no see:)
Ashling dropped me a line about this topic--It really is quite fascinating. I will hopefully have a copy of the article on my webpage by the end of the week (not an iron-clad promise, but I'm going to seriously try....honest).
Magpie.
P.S. Nice timing Stewart!! I just managed to save up some cash and you go and publish another book;) *sigh* Oh well, I guess that's what it's there for, right? |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 07:38 am | | Jon, I think we are in fact the wiser. Not having
direct experience or evidence, I never dared
suggest what I suspected, and Stewart, as an
ex-policeman asserts: serious investigation would
start as soon as a body was found in suspicious
circumstances. And whatever the excellence or
inadequacy of my research fourteen years ago, the
answer to your main question is, 'Yes, medical
evidence would have been available to Scotland
Yard before the inquest.' We're all guessing at
exactly what Abberline meant until we can refresh
our minds with the original quotation - and then
we shall be down to interpretation which may quite
legitimately differ.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 13 June 2000 - 07:07 pm | | Yes Martin, thankyou
We all agree, I think, that police start investigating something like this straight away, but as what?...the subtle difference I was generally hinting at was, it isnt officially a murder inquiry until the Coroner says so.
What I was not clear about is what does the Doctor conducting the postmortem do with the report he has made out, until the day of the inquiry?, does he keep it?
I would not think he would pass it to someone else, where it could been viewed by too many 'others' and risk it being made public
knowledge prior to an inquest. So, I assumed he kept it to himself.
Especially in this case where Dr Phillips was very reluctant to share the findings with the public. Might we speculate that he did not share the findings at all? or only with a select few?
What occured to me in reading the Abberline article was, Abberline was saying he had not read the medical report in order to avoid any subsequent questions along the same line.
Or, he had not read the report because he had not had the time, or the Doctor had not shared the report with the police prior to the inquest. Or only shared it with Abberline's superior's.
There are many possibilities that prompted Abberline to make that remark, we can only speculate as to which is the most likely.
Thanks for your input, Martin
Best regards, Jon
Also, regardless of how police work is conducted now, I would have to believe that police procedures have changed a great deal in the 112 yrs since this series of murders. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 June 2000 - 12:04 pm | | Your postscript first. A wise caveat. I won't cite
misinformation based on current practice that I've
been given in relation to the Ripper, but note
that Keith and I when compiling The Official
Encyclopedia of Scotland Yard received the
erroneous information that the alphabetised
roughly borough-sized territorial compartments of
the Met were historically known as Districts. Our
informant had joined the police as the Waldren
reforms took effect when this became the case.
From 1829-1960, and again today, they have always
been known as Divisions.
But I don't think there's any such error in
Stewart's remarks. Note the rush of detective
activity the minute Catherine Eddowes' obviously
murdered body was found, and, as we've been
discussing, the AC C's sending waves of doctors to
the mortuary till he got the report he and the
uniformed branch wanted on Miss Mylett - all well
before the inquest had cried 'Murder!'
When we all see the Globe piece, however, we
may still wish to postulate that the autopsy
report was sitting in Abberline's in-tray, waiting
for him to get back to his office. I don't think
Bagster Phillips could have held it for the
coroner's eyes exclusively, even though he tried
to refuse to read it in open court.
When I first found the Globe item I was
impressed that it seemed to support my observation
that Dew contradicted and Macnaghten was
significantly silent about the claim that
Abberline was in charge of the case: received
popular wisdom in 1986, with the corollaries that
the file was probably closed because of his
retirement in 1892, and he knew more about it than
anyone else. We know for sure today that the
file's 'closure' date was assigned by archivists
in the 1950s. And Abberline's statements to the
Pall Mall Gazette after Chapman/Klosowski's
conviction don't suggest that he was the
best-informed police officer on the case.
Of course, I may well, as Philip Sugden
implies, have gone too far in redressing the
imbalance I perceived in popular wisdom fourteen
years ago. I personally think he has gone beyond
trimming the boat and renewed an imbalance,
however, with the sketchily argued suggestion that
Abberline's Chapman/Klosowski theory is the best
of a bad bunch. Any one wishing to join him on
that has got to refute Wolf Vanderlinden's
thorough and accurate critical analysis of
Abberline/Klosowski, posted on the boards on 5
April this year, and undertake an equally rigorous
and convincing critique of the Macnaghten/Druitt
and Anderson/unnamed Polish Jew theories, both of
which seem to me better founded from the
historian's point of view.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: Aid Lavin
Sunday, 16 July 2000 - 03:56 pm | | | Just re-read Paul Begg's and Martin Fido's books. One thing strikes me as extremely unusual. Exactly what was going on at the Kelly Inquest at Shoreditch Town Hall on Nov.12th? Why did the Coroner, MacDonald, claim jusidiction when he must have known the murder took place in Whitechapel (Baxter's district)? On another note are 35 Dorset Street and 'Crossingham's Lodging House' one and the same? |
Author: Jon
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 12:49 pm | | Aid
The answer is in the JtR, A-Z,....it was a jurisdictional despute.
Nothing special.
#35 = Crossinghams.
But Crossingham had another lodging house opposite #13 on the south side of Dorset St.
'Viper' can be more specific on this.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Aid Lavin
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 12:13 am | | Jon,
Thanks for the info re. Crossinghams. In fact, this address may have been actually facing or near to the entrance to Miller Court and, if I remember, was frequented by at least two of the victims. Re. the inquest, as an operational detective, with many inquests under my belt (admittedly late 20th Century!)The whole event as described by Paul Begg and Donald Rumbelow, from contemporary newspaper reports, strikes me as being more than a jurisdictional dispute. The Coroner must adjudicate on bodies found within his area. Why choose the Shoreditch coroner? I think at least two jurymen were unhappy about this. As I don't really subscribe to any of the wilder conspiracy theories, this event does make you think! Most of the medical evidence was not released at the inquest, which is highly unusual, even allowing for some of the evidence to be withheld for the police's purposes. The Coroner made some remark concerning the presence of women and children. Surely he should have asked them to leave if the evidence was 'not fit for their ears'. From the tone of the language as transcribed, it is apparent that MacDonald was having no argument and I believe, left to his own devices, wouldn't have had the police surgeons admitted! My impression of this coroner is like the story which once did the rounds about the Crown Court judge who wanted to hear the first witness before he found the accused guilty. Before I go, has anyone done any research about John McCarthy, landlord of 13 Millers Court and others? |
Author: Jon
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 10:38 pm | | Aid
Crossingham appears to have had premises opposite Millers Court, numbered 14 or 15 Dorset St.
(This is where Viper would come in handy)
#35 Dorset St. was not opposite the Court.
I'm not sure if it is recorded who chose to take the body to the Shoreditch location.
Who made the decision ?
There were a few top brass present at Millers Court that morning, it could have been anyone of them.
The release of evidence at the inquest may be due to better guidlines nowadays, but remember this was 112 yrs ago. Proceedures have much improved in the time that has passed.
I think you are confusing Kelly with the Chapman Inquest, medical details were held back in that case due to women and children being present.
At least I dont recall this being brought up in the Kelly case, I may be wrong though.
But isnt it sufficient to allow enough medical testimony to only astablish 'cause of death'?
Isnt that the prime function of a Coroners inquest?.
McDonalds proceedures have been question by others but nothing decisive has been proposed.
Some have questioned why he cut the inquest short. But it was only those who had not read the transcript...the jury cut it short, not McDonald.
Do you have any thoughts on McDonalds conduct?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Aid Lavin
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 11:19 pm | | Jon,
Thanks for that and I got a lot more from Viper. Even for 1888, the Kelly inquest was somewhat stilted, even in comparison with the others. I think in that period, the Coroner had much more influence and power than today and may have even acted in the role of an 'Examining Magistrate' in the French role. As Viper rightly pointed out, the police surgeon's facilities were virtually non-existent and yet we accept the police surgeon's evidence, after what surely must have been at best a cursory examination, that the murders were linked and done by the same hand.MacDonald was an MP and I can't figure out why he wanted to run an inquest on a murder which occurred outside of his jurisdiction. Forgetting about outlandish theories about the Royal Family or Fraternal organisations for a moment, a possible answer could be that MacDonald was pushing the idea that Kelly was a Ripper victim, when in fact, she may not. I am beginning to think there were several 'orrible murderers at large in Whitechapel that autumn; some may have been linked, possibly not. Were the Whitechapel police surgeons up to the job? Probably not, but I'll discuss that later.
Regards
Aid |
Author: Michael Lyden
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 12:23 am | | Hello everyone,
Has anyone managed to find a photograph of Abberline yet?Is anybody still searching?
The drawing in Stuart's book is a great improvement on anything we've had before but a photo'would be nice.
Regards
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 11:57 am | | Jon and Aid, was the jury responsible for cutting short the Mary Kelly inquest? Technically, I suppose. They reached a verdict of murder by person or persons unknown after specific prompting by the Coroner that this is what he wanted done. It's not as if they tied his hands in the matter.
In 1888, one of the duties of the Coroners Court was to examine, "all the injuries of the body, also all wounds ought to be viewed; and the length, breadth and deepness, with what weapon and in what part of the body the wound or hurt is; and how many wounds there be, and who gave the wounds, all which things must be enrolled in the roll of the coroner." it is clear that this was not done, in fact the medical evidence was suspiciously brief. At least the evidence heard in open court was brief. The Daily Telegraph states that the Coroner consulted Dr. Phillips in private and this is likely why the medical evidence didn't come up to legal standards.
In it's attack on Baxter's handling of the Chapman inquest, the Lancet pointed out that Dr. Phillips had attempted to give the jury, "only such facts as should enable the coroner's jury to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the cause of death; whilst he took care to inform the police authorities of all those facts which might give them any clue as to the object the murderer had in view, and thus lead to his detection." it was felt that through his dogged insistence, Baxter had allowed too much information to made known to the public, specifically that, "the mutilation of the body was of such a character as could only have been effected by a practiced hand."
The mortuary for Whitechapel was inadequate to say the least. It was merely a smallish shed without, I believe, running water. Shoreditch had much better facilities for which to perform the post mortem on a body as butchered as Kelly's. As that's where the body was, that's where the inquest could be held. It was therefor not illegal to move the inquest into Dr. Macdonald's district, just unusual and it is quite likely that the powers that be were also concerned with Baxter's over-zealousness and the effect it might have on the police's ability to do their job. Remember, the Eddowes inquest fell to Mr. S. F. Langham in the City, while the Stride inquest had little medical evidence to pay attention to. We also have Macdonald's words to the jury, "There is other evidence which I do not propose to call, for if we at once make public every fact brought forward in connection with this terrible murder, the end of justice might be retarded." The same concerns raised by Dr. Phillips and the Lancet over the Chapman inquest.
Aid, poor mortuary conditions should not lead one to the conclusion that the post mortem's were only a "cursory examination", they were not. And various other things link the murders to one killer not the least of which is that this type of sexual serial murderer, the ‘ripper/stabber' is not that common, in fact unheard of in Victorian Britain. It is even more difficult to believe that two or more such murderers could appear out of nowhere at the same time in the same small district of a city and choose the same type of victim, the same type of knife, kill and mutilate in the same way to the same areas of the body and in such a way as to appear to be only one man, and then disappear without a trace at the same time and never heard from again.
Wolf. |
Author: Aid Lavin
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 06:56 pm | | Wolf
Thanks for that. The point is, that even today, with such miracles as DNA, forensic science etc. the linking of murders takes some doing and only after considerable examination. I often wonder if there were more 'orrible murders occurring before the 1888 events, but which were not published because the average reader in 1888 either was not interested or could not be bothered about what happened in what for many, was akin to a foreign country. If memory serves me correctly, the initial police theory was that a gang known as 'High Rip' was responsible (any knowledge, Viper?) Why should they think this? If anyone has any research about previous murders, pre-Tabram, please let me know, because I think I will spend some time this summer researching it. Were such crimes a rarity in Victorian England? I don't think so. The British Journal of Criminology (Vol 39 Special Issue 1) has some graphic accounts of violent gang fighting in Manchester in the late Victorian era (P72) Re. the police surgeons: I wonder how competent and thorough they really were, when faced with the cut-up bodies of'low-life' One police surgeon who examined Kelly, stated in his report that the body was naked, when the photo clearly shows she was not. A minor point, perhaps, but think what a fuss a lawyer would make of this at a trial, when attempting to discredit an expert witness. In fact two of the surgeons could not agree whether the offender was left/right handed or displayed medical skill or not! The bottom line is that there was shoddy work done, for a large number of valid reasons.
Regards
Aid |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 10:45 pm | | Wolf
Responsible or not,...it was the decision of the jury, and not the Coroner.
The Coroner asked the jury if they would need an adjourment to continue, or had they heard enough.
The jury responded that they had heard enough, and they were able to return their verdict, effectively bringing the procedings to a close.
This idea that MacDonald terminated the inquest only add's fuel to speculation, quite unnecessarily. Their hands were hardly tied either.
Whether the jury (all 12) felt intimidated, or why MacDonald wanted things expeditiously handled, is more speculation.
The facts only relate what happened, not why it happened.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 10:54 pm | | I don't know if anyone has ever noticed this, but
here goes:
In 1903, former Inspector Frederick Abberline
reputedly said, upon hearing of the arrest of
George Chapman, "You finally have caught Jack the
Ripper." How nice and neat that Abberline was
able to settle an unsettled murder mystery just
15 years late, with the criminal ending on the
gallows.
He did it once before.
In 1885, England was surprised by a jewelry
burglary that turned bloody. The home of Sir
Francis Graham, Netherby Hall, was the scene of
a robbery attempted by a gang of four men. In
fleeing, the gang wounded two and killed one
constable, before three of them, Baker, Rudd,
and Martin were captured. Eventually they would
be tried, found guilty, and executed for the murder of Constable Byrnes. But shortly after
there arrest, Abberline turned up to announce
that John Martin was responsible for the murder
of Chief Inspector Simmons earlier in 1885 - a
murder for which another man named James Lee
was hanged.
Simmons had been shot when tangling with two men
who he had recognized as wanted criminals on the
road to Romford. Lee had been captured, and
(due to the rule about felony murder) was executed. But the actual murderer had not been
caught, although the description was given to
Abberline. He was supposed to look for the
fugitive in the East End. Instead he made the
"capture" when it was no longer necessary to do
so. Just like with Chapman in 1903.
Is there a pattern here? Of incompetence? |
Author: miriam
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 01:18 am | | | you people think you know who he is but you don't. I think i know. has any of you ever thought that jack could beshort for jaqueline?a she instead of a he?! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 09:49 am | | Dear Miriam,
A Jackline von Tripper was mentioned on these boards but unfortunely overdozed 1888. May she...
RIP
Rosemary |
Author: miriam
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 07:04 pm | | | if someone knew who jack was and told someone would the police have to get involved? just a little question! |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 08:21 pm | | What do you mean, Miriam? If the Shah of Persia told the Sultan of Dubai there wouldn't be any way the police could be involved unless some one went further and told the police.
If anyone told the police of any suspicion they were bound to either go through the motions of investigation, or record a reason why they didn't. (Of course, loony enough letters need only be kept and filed for inaction on their information to be self explanatory. Nor, as Lees's diary shows, wqs it necessary to make any record of barmy 'psychics' turning up and saying they knew who the Ripper was. Gerard Croiset and Uri Geller wouldn't have prospered to such a great extent in an age when robust good sense didn't accept any old tosh that had the Mystic Word 'alternative' attached to the front of it, and Browning had rightly dismised Daniel Dunglass Home as 'Mr Sludge the medium'). On receiving an anonymous accusation against Gen Sir Sam Browne, the police dutifully went to his Kensington home and asked him if he was the Ripper and where he'd been on Ripper nights.
When Det Sgt Thick, who was prominently involved in the case from the start, was accused in a letter, a note had to be attached to it pointing out that Thick's superiors thought it was rubbish. And the letter was kept and filed, not suppressed. (You will find it in Evans & Skinner mk 1)
Martin F |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 09:55 pm | | Dear Miriam,
You could write a book...or, someone can write a book for you, or you could tell a policeman...and
they could write the book, or...the world's your oyster, kid! You sound a pearl...miriam?
Rosemary |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:00 am | | Hi Martin, Everyone,
I have been informed by Det Sgt Skinny that a note has now been attached to Martin's own file, regarding the recent accusation made against him by a certain Marvin Harrison, in connection with the creation of the Marbrick Diary.
I have great pleasure in announcing that the note was signed (using Turkish ink with added sugar) by all Martin's friends and colleagues, who thought the accusation, while leaving them all shaking with helpless mirth, was - rubbish.
The accusation has been kept and filed by numerous delighted Casebook fans and their friends, not suppressed. (You will find it in Skinner's office too)
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:14 am | | 'Ello, 'ello, 'ello!
This reads like the gibberin' of some sort of Space Monkey. Wot's it doin' on my dear old master Inspector Abberline's pigeon-'ole? Sergeant Skinny's likely to find 'isself back on traffic with 'is stripes across the seat of 'is regulation blue serge pantaloons, takin' with 'im PC Cazamir Morris.
Detective Chef Superunattendant Fido |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 06 April 2001 - 08:10 am | | I've been called many things, Super, but PC (in both senses) is not the one that usually springs to mind.
PC Cazamir
(Full of Eastern promise, signifying a penchant for Fry's Turkish Delight.) |
Author: miriam
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 02:03 am | | | so, just say i know who jack is, if i tell you would the police have to get involved or would it be possible for only a very small minority be able to know the truth? |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 06:53 am | | What does your present tense mean, Miriam? If, today, you tell Scotland Yard you know who Jack the Ripper was they will write you a polite letter telling you that Keith Skinner or myself might be interested.
If in 1888 you told them you knew, they would file your letter with other silly letters; file it with a note explaining why it didn't deserve action; or follow up your information, depending on how serious it was. When Evans and Skinner's 'Letters from Hell' come out you'll see what sorts of information came in and what they did with it. (The more serious ones that were investigated have already been published in 'The Ultimate Source Book').
Martin F |
Author: miriam
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 11:46 pm | | | i didn't mean a thing. Its just a question. What, you think "I" would know who Jack is? Someone does know something but i'm not sure they want anyone else to know. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 11:34 am | | deer miriam,
i fink yuo or write :-)
Rasemory |
Author: Kandy Kane
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 05:08 pm | | | so i was wondering if there was a website with all of Frederick George Abberline information. i wanted to research him a little and i was having trouble finding a good site..........Please email me with any further info.....thx |
|
|
|
|
