Whether we like it or not

[Phil Carter]

Just a thought - and please no-one take this TOO seriously - but how dramatic (politically, I mean) do we think an investigation would have to be to be worth holding back evidence around a number of brutal murders (and I say 'a number' very carefully, as in 'a number anywhere between one and five, or even more')? To put it more simply, if Anderson et al had evidence that could have led them to the WM, or at least MJK's killer, but revealing it in court would have revealed other, more nefarious, activities, do we think they may have decided to save their own skins?

It certainly would have made those 'in the know' very jumpy when they realised how the publicity around the murders (which they hardly could have foreseen) was not going away. Perhaps jumpy enough to lock the unpalatable truths up in a special branch file....?

Hello tnb,

That is a very interesting angle. Having thought about it a little, I suppose it is possible, yes. The questions I would ask if your possible explanation was correct would be..

What sort of "happening" would cause such a response from Anderson. What would cause him to do that ( re. MJK's killer) in that fashion, and could that possibly be why those files are locked up in perpituity? It would certainly explain all the red herrings bandied about over the years by x amount of policemen. It would also certainly explain those who said "nobody knew" who the killer was. On a need to know basis only. The fewer the better. If your possible explanation is correct, then that "jumpiness" as you say, would have to be caused by a pretty "hot potato" indeed, would it not?

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

That he went missing is a point of contention. I believe that, given WHERE he was, and who he was actually talking with in Paris, and the result of that meeting, it is, imho, entirely obvious that he used the "public" excuse of illness to be away, whilst dealing with his Anti-Fenian work. Warren was politically disliked and certainly, Andersen didn't exactly extend himself to do Warren any favours. I believe that by the time of Mylett, his machinations in Whitechapel were long finished, and the last thing he needed was another "Ripper" situation...simply because he had already done what he needed to do there with "his" men. Imho that is.

Phil

That's exactly my point. He had other fish to fry, if you will, and considered the WM an incovenient distraction, so decided to make lemonade out of lemons by playing on the public clamour for more police and make a local move against whatever elements he considered a threat. I don't know if his machinations were done by the time of Mylett. May be, but I don't believe he ever suspected the murders and the public reaction to develop into a worldwide story with people expecting him to write the final chapter; and he couldn't.

Good thing for him that he had Warren to point the finger to; and it worked.

[Phil Carter]

Unless... you are looking at the tip of the iceberg and attempting to play it coy at first.

Cheers,

Mike

Hello Mike,

Coy? Me?.. Wouldn't know the meaning of the word...
Icebergs by definition always have greater depth than what one first sees...

One has to look closer, in depth, does one not?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Anderson

I'm not sure if it does go against the man and his behaviour. He starts out at the begining of the murders missing for several weeks, giving it little importance;then tries to play catch up later when the whole series blows up in his face. He never gets a handle on it and uses Warren as a scapegoat; which was convenient for him. At the end he appears dismissive and underplaying the whole thing to the point where he "rationalizes" that Mylett was never murdered.

Hello Hunter,

Thank you for the reply.

That he went missing is a point of contention. I believe that, given WHERE he was, and who he was actually talking with in Paris, and the result of that meeting, it is, imho, entirely obvious that he used the "public" excuse of illness to be away, whilst dealing with his Anti-Fenian work. Warren was politically disliked and certainly, Andersen didn't exactly extend himself to do Warren any favours. I believe that by the time of Mylett, his machinations in Whitechapel were long finished, and the last thing he needed was another "Ripper" situation...simply because he had already done what he needed to do there with "his" men. Imho that is.

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Curious,

No problem. At least you read it, for which i am grateful.

Don.

[curious]

Curious,

That same essay also suggests that Jack had visited Mary in the past.

Now I am, myself, quite curious because i do not recall saying anything of the sort in the article. Usually, people aver--erroneously--that I claimed McCarthy was her pimp. Sigh!


Don.

Hello,
My apologies. Apparently my memory was wrong. I did read that somewhere, but have no idea in which dissertation it was. I must be more careful.

However, on your other point. Your essay does seem to point somewhat in that direction with your suggestion that PERHAPS McCarthy had to enter her room to remove proof of his taking a portion of Mary's income from prostitution.

But since he didn't appear to be procuring clients for Mary Jane, then he wasn't her pimp.

If your suggestion was on target, McCarthy had garnished her wages without benefit of a court-ordered judgement.

or something similar to that.

I do apologize for my bad memory and for claiming you said something that essay does not say.

curious

[Supe]

Spyglass,

It has happened before and while it may not be kind to Don R. I find it a nice compliment. As it is, in some Ripperologist circles Don R. is known as "Don the Greater" and Don S. as "Don the Lesser." Still not a bad designation to be tagged in "the Greater's" shadow.

Have good night's sleep

Don (the Lesser).

[Hunter]

A bit of levity Stephan.

[Stephen Thomas]

I believe there's a conspiracy involved in debating Mary Kelly ; especially when Hutchinson is mentioned- people on these boards end up missing

Hi Hunter

Sorry, didn't quite get that. Please elaborate like as in what conspiracy?

[Hunter]

We need to be careful about deviating from Phil's original intent of this thread because I believe there's a conspiracy involved in debating Mary Kelly ; especially when Hutchinson is mentioned- people on these boards end up missing

[spyglass]

SUPE!
I seem to be having a bad day, and now i must apologise for getting you mixed up with Donald Rumbelow, although you you may have enjoyed being likened to the MASTER.
Im off to bed for an early night.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Don,

I need to reacquaint myself with the Dissertations section, because had I known (or remembered) that your essay was there, I would have included a link to the text for everyone to read. It's a good piece of work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Curious,

That same essay also suggests that Jack had visited Mary in the past.

Now I am, myself, quite curious because i do not recall saying anything of the sort in the article. Usually, people aver--erroneously--that I claimed McCarthy was her pimp. Sigh!

Anyway, the business about mcCarthy and the key was more pointed, based on some previously unnoted discrepancies between the police statements and inquest testimony of McCarthy and Bowyer.

In the police statements of both it is clear that McCarthy stayed behind before later joining Bowyer at the polifce station. I advanced several mundane possibilities for the behavior but also suggested that, horror show or no, McCarthy was compelled to retrieve something from the room (though nothing that would implicate him in the murder) and having done so may also inadvertently sprung the lock shut. In any case, to admit he had a key would have opened a can of worms he wanted left alone. Hence the change in testimony late.

As it is, anyone wanting the full essay can find it under "Time is on My Side" in the Casebook dissertations section.

Don.

[spyglass]

PS. I have just realised it was the Master himself who put me to shames, so once again my sincere apologies to you sir.

[spyglass]

I STAND VERY CORRECTED!

I was trusting my very old memory on MJK/Barnett conversation.

And my sincere apologies to the incorrect spelling of Mr Donald Rumbelow.
It will teach me not to try and do six different things at the same time whilst rushing about, but that is no excuse and have learnt my lesson.

Many thanks.