Jack the Ripper for dummies

[Crystal]

undecided about Hutch at present.

BB!

'Undecided'??

If the Hutch-obsessed Zealots with whom you are acquainted haven't yet succeeded in brainwashing you into compliance to the cause, I'm afraid we...Damn...

Ahem!

THEY - haven't been trying hard enough!

[babybird67]

hahaha

BB!

'Undecided'??

If the Hutch-obsessed Zealots with whom you are acquainted haven't yet succeeded in brainwashing you into compliance to the cause, I'm afraid we...Damn...

Ahem!

THEY - haven't been trying hard enough!

Oh no, my dreaded secret is out! I'm a traitor to the cause! I should be strung up immediately!

Maybe i am having so much fun in the act of being corrupted that i cannot bear to have the corruption over with and my position clear! hehe

xx

[John Bennett]

...the keyboard could be at fault, mine drops the S

Same here, as Chat room participants may confirm. At the moment it eem to be working plendidly.

Let's not judge those who post with erroneous grammar too harshly. Surely it's the content/intent that is important.

[perrymason]

undecided about Hutch at present.

Maybe I can help there BB. Hutch is a discredited witness who claimed to be a friend of the murdered woman and offered ridiculous sightings 3 full days after the murder and after the official Inquest had closed,.. Blotchy Face is the man who was witnessed entering Marys room in her company..and that last person seen with her alive. His departure time is unknown.

One is historically irrelevant....and the other is what should be the prime suspect for her murder...the last man seen with her entering her very room the night she is killed.

Hutch is still what he always was, and inexplicable excerpt in the cases of the Canonical victims. As Packer was and is. As Cadosche was and is... based on the creds given Mrs Long...as Schwartz was and is... based on his total absence in the Inquest records and Browns inclusion,.. and as Caroline Maxwell was and is. As Mrs Malcolm is.

Discredited witnesses do not necessarily make probable suspects.

All the best BB

[babybird67]

hi Michael



Thank you for your appraisal of the Hutch situation.

I do not think Hutch was the Ripper, despite several "sessions" of Chinese water torture, whippings, custard pie fights etc etc with Ben and his accomplices!

I am on the fence about Hutch as a witness in terms of his motivations: i.e, was he there, but fabricating a suspect to explain why he followed MJK back to her room, really having followed her back hoping to use her room (and/or her body) as he was locked out of his lodgings? Maybe he had procured someone for MJK and was waiting for him to finish to see Mary and get his "cut" (no pun intended). Was he pretending he was there and making everything up for his five minutes of fame?

I don't know...i'm therefore on the fence regarding Hutch.

One of the things i would like to explore more is the possibility that Hutch was not Hutch, but Fleming, as possibly suggested by the length of time he alleges he knew her, but i don't have enough information to make a decision right now.

I've asked JM if we could have a Fleming podcast and he has said he will add it to his list of subjects so hopefully hearing some more qualified people exploring the situation i may learn more/enough to have a better and clearer view on Hutch.

hope you are having a fab weekend Michael

tc

[Crystal]

BB

There's just no reasoning with some people. I really thought the custard pies would do the trick.

And you can quote me verbatim on that.

Kisses

C

[John Bennett]

This is turning (it seems) into a 'Hutchinson' thread and I don't think that was what Brad intended.

Is there going to be a repeat of the 'Yes it is - no it isn't- yes it is - no it isn't ' stuff on other threads? I hope not.

BRAD-

Is this a thread to examine the 'basics' of Ripperology?

[babybird67]

sorry John!

i'll try not to mention him again! But i was just answering a comment by Malcolm!

[Christine]

Tumblety also seems to have been in prison when MJK was killed. Plus I think if he were the ripper, the police would have been able to catch him, as he was watched.

Hutch is such a oddity that we can only speculate that the police knew something we don't, because he certainly would have jumped to the top of any suspect list based on what we do know of him.

I would probably add Bury to the short list; I'm still reading up on him. It also seems that the police had some unknown reason for excluding him, especially as he apparently told people he was Jack (probably as part of an attempt to get his death sentence deferred).

[perrymason]

Tumblety also seems to have been in prison when MJK was killed. Plus I think if he were the ripper, the police would have been able to catch him, as he was watched.

Hi Christine,

Just how sure are we that was the case?...(although still off topic, sorry)..but he could have been released pending his next court appearance, scheduled I believe for the 14th or 15th.

All the best Chris.

[Christine]

Hi Christine,

Just how sure are we that was the case?...(although still off topic, sorry)..but he could have been released pending his next court appearance, scheduled I believe for the 14th or 15th.

All the best Chris.

I'm no expert, so I'm not the right person to answer. I guess we don't know for certain. But I think it's fairly clear that the real reason they arrested him was because they thought he was the ripper, not because of the sex acts. Under the circumstances it seems very unlikely that he could get out and kill MJK without the police noticing.

[celee]

Brad,

I find it ironic that you want to make this thread for "Dummies", yet you have many grammar and spelling errors. Seriously though, isn't that what the introduction is for? It is written concisely and without apparent bias. The "Dummies" should be able to start there.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi,

Happy Mothers day to any moms out there. No one loves you like your mother. So everyone be nice to your mom today and every day.

Okay, here I go again. Although I explained why I used the word dummies. Read post number three. Mike comes along and attacks me for useing the word. See post five. Mike obviously has a problem with reading comprehension or he likes to mix things up for no reason. However, I will explain myself again for Mike.

Mike, there is a popular series of books. Self help books that are for novices that use the word dummies. Such as, Plumming for dummies or Spanish for dummies. I own Spanish for dummies. I am not calling anyone dumb. Unlike you I try to be as polite as possible on the boards. I was just trying to come up with a title that would be funny and catch the attention of the posters.

Brad

[celee]

Before posting anything, I think Brad should perhaps have taken lessons in basic written English, grammar and punctuation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not, elsewhere on this site, a good deal of basic information for those new to the Case? Or does Brad consider himself up there with the established expert Ripperologists?

Regards,

Graham

Yes, I am glad you posted. It is bullies like you who scare people away from the boards and people like you are the reason I started this thread. I want people to feel comfortable posting. I have read so many posts where the person posting will apologize for being dumb and it is because bullies like you join in, say nothing constructive, and blast the poster for leaving out a comma. Well I am not apologizing, you arrogant little man.

I went to FAU and I am capable of writing a paper. I have done so many times. However we are posting in an open forum I was not aware I was being graded. I have gone back and forth with obnoxious people like you who think they are auditioning for a publisher. I have news for you. The first thing a publisher would do is get your book edited. You show me a good writer, I wll show you a good editor.

I do not consider myself an established Ripperologist. I do not consider you an expert. It is to bad that you could not join in and say something constructive.

Regards,

Brad

[celee]

This is turning (it seems) into a 'Hutchinson' thread and I don't think that was what Brad intended.

Is there going to be a repeat of the 'Yes it is - no it isn't- yes it is - no it isn't ' stuff on other threads? I hope not.

BRAD-

Is this a thread to examine the 'basics' of Ripperology?

Hi,

Thanks for joining in. I am not too concerned about staying on any specific topic. This is a thread for people who wish to join in and discuss Jack the Ripper period. I am just interested in reading what people think about a wide range of topics. I am looking for some fresh views on the case.

Your friend, Brad

[celee]

i'll try not to mention him again! But i was just answering a comment by Malcolm!

Hi babbybird,

Thanks for joining in.