Tweet
Hello all,
If this is counted as a rant... then so be it.
They say things don't add up in this JTR case. No, they don't.
Apart from the facts that there are so many things wrong with each and every murder, the reports, the testimonies, the handling of inquests, the witness statements, the times of witnesses, the names of the dead, the policemen who dont blow whistles very much, the dragging in of "Irish/Fenian connected" policemen into the case, nobody knows anything, not even amongst the locals, apart from that lot...and there is masses more...
To me, one of the most striking things that occured was the testimony of George Hutchinson. It took him 3 days to come forward. According to Hutchinson himself, he did this after having first told a policeman what he had seen, and nothing was done, and then, after having talked to another lodger at the Victoria home, who advised him to go to the police station and give a statement, he did so.
His statement of the man he said he saw, matched closely with the description of Mary Ann Cox.
Mary Ann Cox.. Time...23.45/00.00... place entering 13 Miller's Court with
Kelly. Description... about 36 years old, 5ft 5" in height.
Hutchinson..... Time approx 02.00/02.08...place..entering Miller's Court with
Kelly. Description... about 35 years old, 5ft 6" in height.
In between times, on the very day of the murder, Caroline Maxwell has given a sworn statement that she saw Kelly, alive and well, at 08.45/09.00 the next morning. And another person, Maurice Lewis, saw Kelly drinking in the pub at 10.00 in the Britannia pub.
Now that means that if the statements of Maxwell and Lewis are taken as correct, for two whole days, the police, and the general public via the newspapers, had an impression that Kelly [I]may not have been[/I] the murdered woman. Remember, Maxwell, later, would not be shaken, even under oath. And Hutchinson was never called to testify under oath.
Looking at Hutchinson's statements to the police and the newspapers of account of his sightings, his description is very detailed indeed. Very observant, with slight variances between the two descriptions he gave to the above. Some say TOO observant, TOO detailed.
According to Chris Scott's excellent book, Will The Real Mary Kelly...? from 2005, there is a possibility of the time of death being as late as 08.00, because of the coldness of the morning and the openess of the body, the onset of rigor mortis can have been enhanced, in time.
Nobody came forward, at the time or afterwards, to having claim to know George Hutchinson. That in itself is strange because this man apparently wandered the streets at night, went in to pubs in the area, and was often hanging around the place. Only Kelly "recognised" Hutchinson, and that comes from Hutchinson's OWN statement.
And George Hutchinson cannot be found with certainty in the censuses before or after to being the George Hutchinson of the statement fame.
Infact, after the murder, in all reality, no one ever hears of him again.
So the questions that arise are...
1) Did anyone called George Hutchinson even exist?
2) Was he a planted witness by the police to out-weigh Maxwell's statement?
3) And if so...why?
Consider this lot on top..or as a background..
1)Maxwell is called at the inquest, refuses to recant, under pressure and under oath.
2)The inquest is closed very quickly, without the chief and main witness being called, Hutchinson.
3) Hutchinson himself is never heard of again.
4) 7-seven!! doctors are examining the body at Miller's court including the strange appearance of Dr.Gabe, a known childrens expert.
5) The time of death, is NOT stated by Phillips (one of the seven) at the inquest.
6) I am led to believe that Dorset street was sealed off at each end by policemen that morning of the 9th because of the Lord Mayor's parade?
7) Eddowes killer makes what one could only be descirbed as an incredible escape in the face of 4 current or ex policemen around his immediate viinty in the space of a 12-14 minute period having ravished with his knofe the poor lady's body.
8) Eddowes is known as Mary Kelly that night according to Bishopsgate Police station. And Mary Kelly, according to McCarthy, "works" Aldgate for customers.
8) Sir Robert Anderson, Walter Dew, McNaughten, Sims, amongst others, at the time and in the subsequent years, definately tried to lead the lay public down one line or another, and in some cases, away from known reality today.
That's called DISINFORMATION.
9) Dr Bond commits suicide by throwing himself out of a window.
Fast forward 99 years....
10) The Bond report doesn't turn up until 99 years later. Sent in anonymously from Croydon by a high ranking ex-policeman who apparently used these papers, with others pertaining to the Crippen case, for lecture purposes.
This Bond report, states that the heart was missing. Well, the newspapers CATAGORICALLY at the time said that all the organs were accounted for. (with certainty were the words used)
11) Given that the Kelly file is missing many of the official papers, taken BEFORE the great purloining of the 1970's, and that this Bond paper hasn't been seen since 1888, one asks the question... where is the rest of the Kelly material if ONE set of reports were in a high ranking policeman's hands in the 70's and 80's? Why did he have JUST those? Why not the others? And WHO HAD THAT REPORT BEFORE him? Because wherever, or WHOEVER HE got it from, there is a possibility that that is where the rest of the Kelly papers were/could be.
12) The 2nd known photo of MJK, known as MJK3, is returned WITH these papers.
MJK3 has all the hallmarks of a "touched up" photograph, and to my eye, is very suspicious indeed. To some, it looks like a fake. To some, with non medical items being seen in the photograph, the possibility of a hand that isn't correct, etc etc etc... More disinformation?
13) The famous memoranda turns up, with the famous addition, that could have been written in, in pencil, at a later date and by someone other than the proposed, original author, leads one to speculate if yet ANOTHER load of people/a person is leading people down the garden path with MORE disinformation.
13) The Irish connection with Eddowes and her ex, Kelly and her ex, and others littered throughout the case here and there, (Royal Irish Constabulary for ex), double murder the day of the Post Office raid, connections through that to Fenianism, and the fact that nobody is allowed near the Secret Dept files even now, 121 years after the crimes, because of names relating to families lying therein, even 4 or 5 genearations down the line....(!!!!), makes the eyebrows raise somewhat.
14) The files have been known to have been purloined since at least the 1970's. To get permission to see and inspect the files, I believe one had to apply in writing. Therefore the PRO has the names of all those having visited the place at the time of the purloining. Yet two things don't happen, the names of the people that visited the place are never known to us... and the people who did the purloining don't return the material they took. I'm sorry, but that stinks.All round. Given the fact that a high ranking policeman sat on the Bond Papers, the Crippen papers et al, it doesn't exactly lead one to think much of the system, or the people involved in running it.. does it?
This lot of disparate facts, leave no conclusion. Or do they? It could tell me that the remarkable possibility that the whole thing has nothing to do with a "Canonical 5"at all. McNaughten dreamt up that one...based on Bond's interpretation of the case... a man who only ever saw, with his own eyes, one of the victims.... that disinformation was spread about by the Police and the Press (Sims), and that there are people in recent times who have been dishonest and withholding of documents, including a high ranking policeman from Croydon. And that the Ripper bandwagon, with all it's money making, is a far cry away from the kernal of the case. To find out SOME truth once and for all. And we all sit here, day after day, disussing, fact after fact, minutæ after minutæ, arguing and agreeing, from England to Australia, via the American continent and back again.
You know, I get the impression that some people are sitting and wathcing us all and are laughing like crazy at us.
Now, this isn't going to please some people involved in Ripperology at all. There will be some who take o sentence or two written above and attack it, without acknowledging what is true, or seems to be true.
The usual thing will happen, that a few people will, whatever ANYONE says, or hints at, defend the "known" scenario at all costs, belittling any "stretched" possiblity, and at worst call it all coincidence, or say, "come up with some facts."
Either that or it will be ignored and will die a natural death by silence of response.
And it won't be long, I reckon, before we see yet another piece of "evidence" "suddenly uncovered" "presented to us" and "genuine" that will lead us away from getting any nearer the truth. Because it seems to me that seems to happen a lot. (The Diary is a well known example). And especially when there is a lull.
Most of us WANT to get somewhere with this. Most of us WANT the truth. Most of us don't care one iota if the most remarkable set up and con of all time has been performed by whoever, at whatever level, rich or poor, layman or Royal. We don't CARE if Jack was a mad Policeman, or a Policeman killing off Fenians, or Royal doing this and that... it makes not a JOT of difference.
It doesn't matter if Jack was Kosminski, Kaminsky or even Nijinsky!! Not if he/she was an Englishman, Russian, Pole or German Jewish immigrant with a hatred for prostitutes because of syphilis infections or having been robbed. Or if he was a misogonist deluxe. Nor if Jack was an insane Doctor, nor if the whole thing was a set up from start to finish and names were protected to save face or save the name of the politicians, or the powers that be. Nor even if it was Prince Eddy and a mate under the knowledge of the police. Today, it affects our view of today's Royalty not one tiny bit. IT DOESN'T matter WHO Jack the Ripper was. What happened happened.
What matters is what the phenoneman Jack the Ripper was. It is for our understanding, and future generation's understanding of history, that we must know the truth. Because the legacy WE leave them, is that at some point, someone said... the conning, the misinformation, the dishonesty, must stop. And THIS generation showed what straight forward honesty is.
Just think how much understanding of history, social, political and otherwise would be known. Future students of the case would not be researchers, but academic youngsters in English History at a University, writing papers showing their understanding of the times and it's people.
The truth? Perhaps some, or a lot of it, is in the above. I welcome all responses, and I wonder... will THIS little article prick a concience or two...
Would be lovely with a Christmas presentgiven for us all wouldn't it?
Merry Xmas all,
best wishes, respectfully,
Phil
PS Apologies for any toes trodden upon. Truly, I respect you all.
If this is counted as a rant... then so be it.
They say things don't add up in this JTR case. No, they don't.
Apart from the facts that there are so many things wrong with each and every murder, the reports, the testimonies, the handling of inquests, the witness statements, the times of witnesses, the names of the dead, the policemen who dont blow whistles very much, the dragging in of "Irish/Fenian connected" policemen into the case, nobody knows anything, not even amongst the locals, apart from that lot...and there is masses more...
To me, one of the most striking things that occured was the testimony of George Hutchinson. It took him 3 days to come forward. According to Hutchinson himself, he did this after having first told a policeman what he had seen, and nothing was done, and then, after having talked to another lodger at the Victoria home, who advised him to go to the police station and give a statement, he did so.
His statement of the man he said he saw, matched closely with the description of Mary Ann Cox.
Mary Ann Cox.. Time...23.45/00.00... place entering 13 Miller's Court with
Kelly. Description... about 36 years old, 5ft 5" in height.
Hutchinson..... Time approx 02.00/02.08...place..entering Miller's Court with
Kelly. Description... about 35 years old, 5ft 6" in height.
In between times, on the very day of the murder, Caroline Maxwell has given a sworn statement that she saw Kelly, alive and well, at 08.45/09.00 the next morning. And another person, Maurice Lewis, saw Kelly drinking in the pub at 10.00 in the Britannia pub.
Now that means that if the statements of Maxwell and Lewis are taken as correct, for two whole days, the police, and the general public via the newspapers, had an impression that Kelly [I]may not have been[/I] the murdered woman. Remember, Maxwell, later, would not be shaken, even under oath. And Hutchinson was never called to testify under oath.
Looking at Hutchinson's statements to the police and the newspapers of account of his sightings, his description is very detailed indeed. Very observant, with slight variances between the two descriptions he gave to the above. Some say TOO observant, TOO detailed.
According to Chris Scott's excellent book, Will The Real Mary Kelly...? from 2005, there is a possibility of the time of death being as late as 08.00, because of the coldness of the morning and the openess of the body, the onset of rigor mortis can have been enhanced, in time.
Nobody came forward, at the time or afterwards, to having claim to know George Hutchinson. That in itself is strange because this man apparently wandered the streets at night, went in to pubs in the area, and was often hanging around the place. Only Kelly "recognised" Hutchinson, and that comes from Hutchinson's OWN statement.
And George Hutchinson cannot be found with certainty in the censuses before or after to being the George Hutchinson of the statement fame.
Infact, after the murder, in all reality, no one ever hears of him again.
So the questions that arise are...
1) Did anyone called George Hutchinson even exist?
2) Was he a planted witness by the police to out-weigh Maxwell's statement?
3) And if so...why?
Consider this lot on top..or as a background..
1)Maxwell is called at the inquest, refuses to recant, under pressure and under oath.
2)The inquest is closed very quickly, without the chief and main witness being called, Hutchinson.
3) Hutchinson himself is never heard of again.
4) 7-seven!! doctors are examining the body at Miller's court including the strange appearance of Dr.Gabe, a known childrens expert.
5) The time of death, is NOT stated by Phillips (one of the seven) at the inquest.
6) I am led to believe that Dorset street was sealed off at each end by policemen that morning of the 9th because of the Lord Mayor's parade?
7) Eddowes killer makes what one could only be descirbed as an incredible escape in the face of 4 current or ex policemen around his immediate viinty in the space of a 12-14 minute period having ravished with his knofe the poor lady's body.
8) Eddowes is known as Mary Kelly that night according to Bishopsgate Police station. And Mary Kelly, according to McCarthy, "works" Aldgate for customers.
8) Sir Robert Anderson, Walter Dew, McNaughten, Sims, amongst others, at the time and in the subsequent years, definately tried to lead the lay public down one line or another, and in some cases, away from known reality today.
That's called DISINFORMATION.
9) Dr Bond commits suicide by throwing himself out of a window.
Fast forward 99 years....
10) The Bond report doesn't turn up until 99 years later. Sent in anonymously from Croydon by a high ranking ex-policeman who apparently used these papers, with others pertaining to the Crippen case, for lecture purposes.
This Bond report, states that the heart was missing. Well, the newspapers CATAGORICALLY at the time said that all the organs were accounted for. (with certainty were the words used)
11) Given that the Kelly file is missing many of the official papers, taken BEFORE the great purloining of the 1970's, and that this Bond paper hasn't been seen since 1888, one asks the question... where is the rest of the Kelly material if ONE set of reports were in a high ranking policeman's hands in the 70's and 80's? Why did he have JUST those? Why not the others? And WHO HAD THAT REPORT BEFORE him? Because wherever, or WHOEVER HE got it from, there is a possibility that that is where the rest of the Kelly papers were/could be.
12) The 2nd known photo of MJK, known as MJK3, is returned WITH these papers.
MJK3 has all the hallmarks of a "touched up" photograph, and to my eye, is very suspicious indeed. To some, it looks like a fake. To some, with non medical items being seen in the photograph, the possibility of a hand that isn't correct, etc etc etc... More disinformation?
13) The famous memoranda turns up, with the famous addition, that could have been written in, in pencil, at a later date and by someone other than the proposed, original author, leads one to speculate if yet ANOTHER load of people/a person is leading people down the garden path with MORE disinformation.
13) The Irish connection with Eddowes and her ex, Kelly and her ex, and others littered throughout the case here and there, (Royal Irish Constabulary for ex), double murder the day of the Post Office raid, connections through that to Fenianism, and the fact that nobody is allowed near the Secret Dept files even now, 121 years after the crimes, because of names relating to families lying therein, even 4 or 5 genearations down the line....(!!!!), makes the eyebrows raise somewhat.
14) The files have been known to have been purloined since at least the 1970's. To get permission to see and inspect the files, I believe one had to apply in writing. Therefore the PRO has the names of all those having visited the place at the time of the purloining. Yet two things don't happen, the names of the people that visited the place are never known to us... and the people who did the purloining don't return the material they took. I'm sorry, but that stinks.All round. Given the fact that a high ranking policeman sat on the Bond Papers, the Crippen papers et al, it doesn't exactly lead one to think much of the system, or the people involved in running it.. does it?
This lot of disparate facts, leave no conclusion. Or do they? It could tell me that the remarkable possibility that the whole thing has nothing to do with a "Canonical 5"at all. McNaughten dreamt up that one...based on Bond's interpretation of the case... a man who only ever saw, with his own eyes, one of the victims.... that disinformation was spread about by the Police and the Press (Sims), and that there are people in recent times who have been dishonest and withholding of documents, including a high ranking policeman from Croydon. And that the Ripper bandwagon, with all it's money making, is a far cry away from the kernal of the case. To find out SOME truth once and for all. And we all sit here, day after day, disussing, fact after fact, minutæ after minutæ, arguing and agreeing, from England to Australia, via the American continent and back again.
You know, I get the impression that some people are sitting and wathcing us all and are laughing like crazy at us.
Now, this isn't going to please some people involved in Ripperology at all. There will be some who take o sentence or two written above and attack it, without acknowledging what is true, or seems to be true.
The usual thing will happen, that a few people will, whatever ANYONE says, or hints at, defend the "known" scenario at all costs, belittling any "stretched" possiblity, and at worst call it all coincidence, or say, "come up with some facts."
Either that or it will be ignored and will die a natural death by silence of response.
And it won't be long, I reckon, before we see yet another piece of "evidence" "suddenly uncovered" "presented to us" and "genuine" that will lead us away from getting any nearer the truth. Because it seems to me that seems to happen a lot. (The Diary is a well known example). And especially when there is a lull.
Most of us WANT to get somewhere with this. Most of us WANT the truth. Most of us don't care one iota if the most remarkable set up and con of all time has been performed by whoever, at whatever level, rich or poor, layman or Royal. We don't CARE if Jack was a mad Policeman, or a Policeman killing off Fenians, or Royal doing this and that... it makes not a JOT of difference.
It doesn't matter if Jack was Kosminski, Kaminsky or even Nijinsky!! Not if he/she was an Englishman, Russian, Pole or German Jewish immigrant with a hatred for prostitutes because of syphilis infections or having been robbed. Or if he was a misogonist deluxe. Nor if Jack was an insane Doctor, nor if the whole thing was a set up from start to finish and names were protected to save face or save the name of the politicians, or the powers that be. Nor even if it was Prince Eddy and a mate under the knowledge of the police. Today, it affects our view of today's Royalty not one tiny bit. IT DOESN'T matter WHO Jack the Ripper was. What happened happened.
What matters is what the phenoneman Jack the Ripper was. It is for our understanding, and future generation's understanding of history, that we must know the truth. Because the legacy WE leave them, is that at some point, someone said... the conning, the misinformation, the dishonesty, must stop. And THIS generation showed what straight forward honesty is.
Just think how much understanding of history, social, political and otherwise would be known. Future students of the case would not be researchers, but academic youngsters in English History at a University, writing papers showing their understanding of the times and it's people.
The truth? Perhaps some, or a lot of it, is in the above. I welcome all responses, and I wonder... will THIS little article prick a concience or two...
Would be lovely with a Christmas presentgiven for us all wouldn't it?
Merry Xmas all,
best wishes, respectfully,
Phil
PS Apologies for any toes trodden upon. Truly, I respect you all.
Comment