Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - by ChrisGeorge 35 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by Mayerling 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - by Richard Patterson 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by GUT 4 hours ago.
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (26 posts)
General Discussion: Collaboration on Mitre Square and GSG? - (11 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (9 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #4061  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:40 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
With DNA unimagined in 1961, no one could have foreseen it assisting any frame up. So why would Dixie or anyone else have chosen to leave Hanratty's hanky there?
OR,

We assume that Dixie had supernatural powers, possibly as a result of his close friendship with the aforementioned Doris Stokes.

Dixie when he embarked on his evil plan to frame his friend must have known or have had reasonable grounds to believe; (1) that Jim would not be able to substantiate any alibi, whether in Rhyl or Liverpool;(2) that Trower and Skillett would identify Hanratty; (3) that Valerie Storie would identify Jim; (4) that Acott would discount the William Lee sighting in Matlock; (5) that Trower, Skillet, Blackhall, Doris Athoe, and Sidney Lawrence would support Acott in giving evidence which would controvert the otherwise incontrovertible evidence of William Lee and which would place 847BHN in Avondale Crescent at a time inconsistent with Lee's Matlock sighting;(6) that Acott would get the simple task of the car's odometer readings wrong; (7) that 40 years later the forensic scientists would make a pig's ear of the testing of the semen stained knicker fragment.

In view of the foregoing, I see no reason why Dixie should not have anticipated advances in forensic science and planted Jim's snotty handkerchief under the back seat of the upper deck of a No 36A bus.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4062  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:48 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 512
Default

Thinking on, if Dixie and others wanted to frame Hanratty, why did they didn't they leave something in 847 BHN which could be traced back to Jim. If I had wanted to frame Jim, I would have made sure that fibres from his suit were found in the car.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4063  
Old 03-02-2017, 03:16 PM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

Hi Spit - well, I tend to get the impression that you rather go along with my earlier view that Hanratty's DNA being on the hanky was ''pretty damaging'' for his camp.

I'll leave Del and others to challenge that if and as they wish.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4064  
Old 03-02-2017, 03:58 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 512
Default

Hello OR,

The used Hanratty hankie does point to Hanratty being the gunman, but obviously would not be sufficient on its own to justify a conviction, even if the hankie-wrapped gun was found in a location used by Jim for disposing of unwanted "stuff".

Why the putative framer, the egregious Dixie, would want to use a used hankie rather than a freshly laundered one does not make sense, as in 1961 and for many years thereafter, it was not possible to detect who was the owner of such an item by scientific analysis of the mucus deposited thereon.

I wonder how or when it is said Dixie got hold of his friend's used hankie. Did Jim ever complain that his laundry returned by Charlotte France was one hankie light? Was Charlotte implicated in this heinous act of treachery? There are so many dark deeds in this unfortunate saga that nothing, literally nothing, would surprise me.

Regards

S
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4065  
Old 03-02-2017, 04:32 PM
ansonman ansonman is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
Hello OR,

I wonder how or when it is said Dixie got hold of his friend's used hankie. Did Jim ever complain that his laundry returned by Charlotte France was one hankie light? Was Charlotte implicated in this heinous act of treachery? There are so many dark deeds in this unfortunate saga that nothing, literally nothing, would surprise me.

Regards

S
Perhaps Dixie did the laundry and ironing and the wife simply returned same.

As my old boss used to say, you never know what goes on behind closed doors. Or who irons the drawers (and hankies).

Ansonman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4066  
Old 03-02-2017, 04:41 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ansonman View Post
Perhaps Dixie did the laundry and ironing and the wife simply returned same.

As my old boss used to say, you never know what goes on behind closed doors. Or who irons the drawers (and hankies).

Ansonman

Good point. And this would provide a reason for Dixie to want to have Hanratty hanged in order to get out of doing Hanratty's laundry, particularly if Dixie was not being paid and Charlotte was. The plot thickens, if that were at all possible.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4067  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:55 PM
Dupplin Muir Dupplin Muir is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 94
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
With DNA unimagined in 1961, no one could have foreseen it assisting any frame up. So why would Dixie or anyone else have chosen to leave Hanratty's hanky there?
The handkerchief is one of the most intriguing aspects of the case. I would really like to :-

a) See a photo of it

and

b) Find out if Hanratty really did identify it as his

Recently I was speaking to an old lady who worked for an upmarket tailor back in the late 50's and early 60's, and she said that it was quite common to ask customers if they'd like their handkerchiefs monogrammed. Sometimes this would be just the first initial, in which case the shop would usually have them in stock (unless your name happened to be Xavier or Zachariah) and sometimes they would ask for both initials (in which case this lady would embroider the handkerchiefs). Since Hanratty dressed well, it's far from impossible that he would have had handkerchiefs with his initial on. Of course, just having the letter 'J' wouldn't be of much use to the prosecution given the number of male names beginning with that letter, but Hanratty might well have been able to identify it based on the colour of the thread and the font used.

Also, while DNA testing didn't exist at the time, it's not impossible that France (or someone else) knew that you could determine blood-group from mucus. A handkerchief with Hanratty's initial and with Hanratty's blood-group, would certainly help to cement the idea of his guilt.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4068  
Old 03-03-2017, 01:40 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

Hi Dupplin - as far as I am aware, Hanratty did not identify the handkerchief as his. I believe the view that he did is just an urban myth, particularly encouraged on this site a few years ago by Tony.

That said, I am always happy to learn and so be corrected if my belief is not the case. However, Nick recently researched press coverage of the trial; I am sure he would have mentioned coming across any admission concerning the handkerchief if it had been reported (which it surely would have been) at the time. Perhaps Nick would be so kind to confirm or advise otherwise.

I take your point about Hanratty liking to dress well but feel certain the prosecution would have sought to make use of any monogram possibly linking the handkerchief to him. Again, as far as I'm aware, they didn't.

I can't comment on what Dixie knew (or thought he knew) about determining blood group from mucus but personally don't buy into that idea.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4069  
Old 03-03-2017, 02:39 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Nick recently researched press coverage of the trial; I am sure he would have mentioned coming across any admission concerning the handkerchief if it had been reported (which it surely would have been) at the time. Perhaps Nick would be so kind to confirm or advise otherwise.
There is no mention of Hanratty identifying the handkerchief in the newspaper reports of the trial, and surely something of this significance would have been reported had it happened.

Incidentally I have been unable to upload cuttings because the forum only accepts pdf files up to 293kb. To illustrate how restricting this is, the file below is 194kb.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf SL1K_20170208144230.pdf (193.2 KB, 54 views)

Last edited by NickB : 03-03-2017 at 02:48 AM. Reason: Tried to get the file to display properly
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4070  
Old 03-03-2017, 02:54 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 403
Default

Nick - thanks for your post and the confirmation.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.