Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[Michael W Richards]

Even I awake at ten to midnight can recall instances, the main instance of the double event, when the police clearly co-operate across boundaries in terms of the day to day investigation. GSG being a good a place a any to start - cops from both forces were present. And it required Met Police to take the apron police into City Police territory before heading back with it to the Station

no?
Jenni

Hi Jenni,

Its not hard to imagine that the police on that night, from both jurisdictions, had some stake in what was found in the doorway, its still physical evidence, whatever its real value is as prosecutorial grade evidence.

Whats being suggested is that the Met and the City shared any information they obtained freely between each other, but we have larger fish than just City cops within those boundaries and they didnt have to share anything by law. If there was any overlap of a suspect in Ripper cases to investigations concerning "Fenian" terrorists clans then I suspect that no-one to this day would know about them.

Cheers

[Hunter]

Yes, that certainly was controversial and there's little doubt that City officials were perturbed about it. As a result, both departments determined to not let such an incident happen again and set processes in place to convey and share information with each other.

You might say that the fallout over the GSG controversy was an extra incentive for cooperation to some degree.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, except for that photo the City police wanted to take of the graffiti, but the Met wouldn't let them. The City felt the Met were complete idiots.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

Even I awake at ten to midnight can recall instances, the main instance of the double event, when the police clearly co-operate across boundaries in terms of the day to day investigation. GSG being a good a place a any to start - cops from both forces were present. And it required Met Police to take the apron police into City Police territory before heading back with it to the Station

no?
Jenni

Well... kinda.

The sequence of the apron piece went like this:

Police constable Alfred Long discovers a piece of bloody apron in a doorway. He takes it to the Commercial Street station and presents it to the duty inspector.

The duty inspector returns to Goulston Street with PC Long to assess the situation and determines to take the apron piece to the Leman Street station, where he gives it to Dr. Phillips at some time between 4 and 5 a.m.

Phillips, apprised of the murder in Mitre Square and aware of the significance of the evidence in his possession, decides to take the apron piece to the Golden Lane Mortuary and meet with the physicians involved with the Mitre Square murder investigation.

Phillips arrives at the Golden Lane Mortuary some time after 5:20 a.m. He hands the apron piece over to Dr. Brown, who places it with the piece found on the body of the Mitre Square victim to ascertain if it is possibly a part of the apron found with the victim at the scene.

He determines that it probably is, and the item is retained along with the piece found with the body to be produced as evidence at the inquest.

Still, your basic point is valid. Every bit of evidence in possession of Met authorities relating to the Eddowes murder was relayed to the City authorities. Swanson had the Lusk letter sent to McWilliam and Brown was allowed to examine the kidney piece. Both Met and City CID interrogated John Kelly at Cooney's and each corresponded with the other on their findings.

[Wickerman]

Even I awake at ten to midnight can recall instances, the main instance of the double event, when the police clearly co-operate across boundaries in terms of the day to day investigation. GSG being a good a place a any to start - cops from both forces were present. And it required Met Police to take the apron police into City Police territory before heading back with it to the Station

no?
Jenni

And, it was the City police who went through the tenement in Goulston St. door to door to help the Met.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jenni Shelden]

Even I awake at ten to midnight can recall instances, the main instance of the double event, when the police clearly co-operate across boundaries in terms of the day to day investigation. GSG being a good a place a any to start - cops from both forces were present. And it required Met Police to take the apron police into City Police territory before heading back with it to the Station

no?
Jenni

[Monty]

Ever the dramatic Phil,

Your contribution is to raise questions? That's it?

Mine is to provide answers.

However you fail to mention that you also are also dismissive and negative, the very traits you accuse me of Phil. So you are really in no position to assess my contributions on this site.

You offered me a cryptic suggestion that I follow up with John Bennett. I did the very week you suggested it as I met with John in the White hart in August. I must state he was as flummoxed as I was as to what exactly you were alluding to. And there we have it. This cloak and dagger style of yours which suggests something yet never actually delivers anything. I deal in straight talk, you do not.

The maps, plans etc have been sourced years ago by the way.

Critique? The field needs critique, YOU critique. However this myth that you perpertrate that all I do is constantly critique is unfair and unjust. However you are entitled to your opinion. It will not make a jot of difference to me. I care not what anyone thinks of me.

Yes, the presenters at York did a good job. The one you are mysteriously referring to is obviously Trevor. Out of respect for the delegates there, and to Trevor for having the balls to stand up and face the 'baying mob', I refrained from commenting on his talk. His talk, for those who did not attend, did not differ greatly from his stage show by all accounts nor hold the damming evidence he claimed it would. The only revelation was the suggestion that The Jurors were the men who would not be blamed for nothing. I leave others to make what they wish of that. So much for the constant critique huh?

Now I have contributed to this thread as I felt I had something to offer. I disagreed with Michael as I also felt he has misunderstood or does not hold enough knowledge. Now that is an assumption on my part true however I see nothing in his posts to contradict that. Now would you rather I keep quiet and let him post what I feel are misleading statements? As I have constantly said, we have an onus of responsibilty to the truth and evidence. And evidence supports the two forces did co-operate. However, for some obvious reason, you have taken it upon yourself to confuse the subject in hand with your own pet project and, in your own belittling tone, take about me. Fine, no issues, however if you are willing to brandish the sword then be prepared to use it.

The rest of your post is just bluff and hype to me. Means nothing. This myth about threatening my version of Ripperology gives me real fits. Again, its about being true to the facts. Facts that you either chose to dismiss or question as it threatends your own preconceived views of Ripperology. The hypocrasy is rampant with you.

You just carry one giving your opinions and I will mine, and keep the preaching to those you can convert.

I'm too long in the tooth to get caught up in your hyperbole.

Kindly and respectfully

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

The Home Office man was on the trail of one of his charges, the escaped lunatic/murderer James Kelly, so the doctor suggested a pardon for whoever was harboring him. Because by this point, I think they were a tad worried that he was Jack the Ripper.

Roy

Sure, thats one possible reason Roy, but Home Office was a busy place that Fall and they had LOTS of folks being watched that they might have had similar worries about. Why would you assume that a domestic issue was a focus for the Home Office and the impetus of the offer, there were plenty of regular City and Met force folks to handle the local scene and escaped lunatics.

Home Office concerns were a little broader and far more complicated than mere escaped lunatics and some sliced up whores in the East End.

Its only when Home Office business is perhaps drawn into the crimes that they become interested.

Cheers Roy

[Phil Carter]

A pig's ear?

I deliver very little informative learning to people on here?

Well I never set out to inform however if that's the general concensus then so be it.

I shall keep my information to the cabal. No more information on the street numbering of Bucks Row, providing of Whistle information, the Artizan dwelling writing, Watkins records, Harveys records, Gaslight research, the Beat rotas for the City force re Mitre Square....oh wait, I was about to provide that...however.

I await you contribution on HERE.

Monty

My contribution is to raise questions.. and you know that. It leads to alternatives. You know that too. It leads to discussion. You know that as well. It leads to possibilities being raised, aired, and considered. You know that too. It causes people to think on... and sideways. And on again.

Some of us are like that. That is how we contribute. I also contribute by helping others in many ways..in private. I insist on no credit for anything. As you know.

I offered you Monty, a possible source a few months back.. I offered it to many after a while, infact. All in private. No doubt you have been to the said library source and found something that pertains to Mitre Square? If not, have a chat with someone who did appreciate it when I gave it to him, in person, in London, earlier this year. The reason I didn't keep it to myself? I don't live there. I haven't the opportunity, nor do I want the credit for anything either.

For all who now wonder what that source is.. it is a library under a mile away from Mitre Square that has records of, and possibly sketches, pictures, maps and plans of, Mitre Square. This information was given to me by a source directly adjacent to Mitre Square, a long serving secretary of 25 years of the school next door.

So now anyone can hop along and find it. Just ask you for the name of the library.. you will find it in an email or pm somewhere, that you have forgotten about. I asked around. I used my mouth and brains, and asked questions face to face of people and got a surprise answer. Yes, I did legwork too!


Now. All I ask of you Monty, is cut out the critique..the constant critique at times, of others with a differing way of contributing, researching and presenting. From the feedback I have recieved ALL the presenters at York did a fine job. Many gave others much to mull over. One of those presenters was to be prepared for Lord knows what as a welcome when he presented his stuff, according to the threads I read. From what I have been told, by a complete neutral I hasten to add, his presentation and content were very fair, interesting and thought provoking..in a positive way.

In other words Monty, constant belittling isn't of any use except for those who wany to try and play little word games and deliberately wind people up and see how far their joke can be played out.

It might be an idea to stop telling people to "do their homework" too. It gives the wrong impression on the form of your expertise. And saying, "I was about to give you all.....but not now" is just childish. "Teachers" don't do that Monty. They present whatever, and ask for contrubution through feedback, opinion, positive and negative, discussion and questions of guidance further on the subject.

And you talk of making a "pig's ear" of things?

Look Monty. Some of the stuff you present is brilliant. Some of it is excellent. Some of it is educational. Some of it is inspirational. The work you do is individually or in a team superb, for the most part. But facts don't ALWAYS rule Monty. And this isn't mathematics. 2+2 doesn't always make 4 in JTR study. That's where non-ascertained facts fly out of the window. It includes written statements by Anderson, Swanson and Macnagthen. And if it doesnt fit in with known police procedure..then it WILL be pointed out...and compared. Whatever the thread.

So just take the plaudits as you do..acknowledge them (yes, try) and take note that all you try to teach "us" on here isn't written in stone and we don't all follow your every word. And if that threatens Ripperology as you know it... live with it. The genre develops in its own way. You me or Sooty can't stop it.
You may think it's the pits. So what? Change the balance with more found facts! Disprove with them!

But just take it is written and presented. Anderson, Swanson and Macnagthen did not give us ascertained facts. Too many people see the holes in the presentations and refuse to cover them up any more. That's why Ripperology has changed. Don't blame the readers. Blame the letter writers that started it. And I havent mentioned a cabal once. Dont like the word, actually.

Back to the thread.

The two forces worked together. At certain levels it wasn't Bonny and Clyde. In certain ways it didn't follow the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Rule book.
There has to be a reason for the critque raised both at the time and now?
Ipso facto....they worked together but with failings.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Good. So will I.


At times Monty, it certainly seems that way, and how you present your comments. But of course you already know that...




And at this point I ask you to present Swanson's "ascertained" facts in the marginalia please. That way, WE, not just I, can peruse over these "ascertained facts" that you are clearly aware of and we others aren't?




Ditto. What "ascertained facts"? He provides no proof or evidence for his theory, or should I call it "accusation"?. He also provides every reader on this planet with one clear idea. He makes his OWN mind up upon who is guilty and who isnt, DESPITE lack of conclusive evidence or proof. That, Monty, isn't procedural difference. It's individual opinion. Period.

Oh...DITTO Sir Melville Macnagthen and Donald Swanson re the Memoranda and marginalia.




It doesn't allow for individuals to brand people as "morally guilty" and tar them with the epithate of criminal without the procedure of an arrest, trial or verdict. Those same individuals who were at the forefront of running the WM investigation. Those same individuals who are pivotal in this mystery through their comments. Those same individuals who are responsible for ordering underlings around during investigation of criminal cases.

Yes, procedure is comparable if committed within the same force by the same people and yet lacks uniformity from individuals acting for the same goal in differing manner.



Perhaps you should qualify as a teacher before you start telling people to do their homework? Because as a "teacher", you do an awful lot of criticising, and deliver very little informative learning to others on here. (NOTE..on here)

Perhaps that is why you criticise instead of accepting other people's viewpoints that criticise members and former members of your previous profession? Achilles heal that both David, I and others have noted? You know better than I. But it isn't ascertained fact so it won't be accepted, will it?

Yes, Peace.

Now I have other fish to fry and cannot "Watch with Mother" further.

best wishes

Phil

I deliver very little informative learning to people on here?

Well I never set out to inform however if that's the general concensus then so be it.

I shall keep my information to the cabal. No more information on the street numbering of Bucks Row, providing of Whistle information, the Artizan dwelling writing, Watkins records, Harveys records, Gaslight research, the Beat rotas for the City force re Mitre Square....oh wait, I was about to provide that...however.

I await you contribution on HERE.

Monty

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Roy,

Thank you. Good to know that Prisoner 1167 is never far from our hearts.

You're welcome Simon. I couldn't lay off that softball.

Echo, 12th November 1888—

"It is asserted that the Home Secretary's offer of a pardon to any accomplice was mainly at the instigation of Dr. G. B. Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon of the H Division, who pointed out to the authorities at the Home Office the desirability of such a step being taken."

What was it about the circumstances of the Millers Court murder which led Dr. Phillips to suggest that the murderer probably had an accomplice?

It kinda kicks the idea of a lone "Jack" into touch.

The Home Office man was on the trail of one of his charges, the escaped lunatic/murderer James Kelly, so the doctor suggested a pardon for whoever was harboring him. Because by this point, I think they were a tad worried that he was Jack the Ripper.

Roy

[Phil Carter]

I'll be brief.

Good. So will I.

I've no score to settle.

At times Monty, it certainly seems that way, and how you present your comments. But of course you already know that...

As far as you are aware Swansons comments are not based on ascertained fact.

And at this point I ask you to present Swanson's "ascertained" facts in the marginalia please. That way, WE, not just I, can peruse over these "ascertained facts" that you are clearly aware of and we others aren't?

Ditto Anderson.

Ditto. What "ascertained facts"? He provides no proof or evidence for his theory, or should I call it "accusation"?. He also provides every reader on this planet with one clear idea. He makes his OWN mind up upon who is guilty and who isnt, DESPITE lack of conclusive evidence or proof. That, Monty, isn't procedural difference. It's individual opinion. Period.

Oh...DITTO Sir Melville Macnagthen and Donald Swanson re the Memoranda and marginalia.

I D procedure varies....but you knew that yeah? So what is the procedure?

It doesn't allow for individuals to brand people as "morally guilty" and tar them with the epithate of criminal without the procedure of an arrest, trial or verdict. Those same individuals who were at the forefront of running the WM investigation. Those same individuals who are pivotal in this mystery through their comments. Those same individuals who are responsible for ordering underlings around during investigation of criminal cases.

Yes, procedure is comparable if committed within the same force by the same people and yet lacks uniformity from individuals acting for the same goal in differing manner.

Do your homework before casting erronous opinion.

Perhaps you should qualify as a teacher before you start telling people to do their homework? Because as a "teacher", you do an awful lot of criticising, and deliver very little informative learning to others on here. (NOTE..on here)

Perhaps that is why you criticise instead of accepting other people's viewpoints that criticise members and former members of your previous profession? Achilles heal that both David, I and others have noted? You know better than I. But it isn't ascertained fact so it won't be accepted, will it?

Yes, Peace.

Now I have other fish to fry and cannot "Watch with Mother" further.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Thank you. Good to know that Prisoner 1167 is never far from our hearts.

Following on—

Echo, 12th November 1888—

"It is asserted that the Home Secretary's offer of a pardon to any accomplice was mainly at the instigation of Dr. G. B. Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon of the H Division, who pointed out to the authorities at the Home Office the desirability of such a step being taken."

What was it about the circumstances of the Millers Court murder which led Dr. Phillips to suggest that the murderer probably had an accomplice?

It kinda kicks the idea of a lone "Jack" into touch.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Phil,

You are making a right pigs ear of this and I really haven't got the inclanation to get into a never ending exchange. So I'll be brief.

I've no score to settle.

As far as you are aware Swansons comments are not based on ascertained fact.

Ditto Anderson.

Thread cop? Oh dear, oh deary dear.


Police you? It was you who addressed me. I merely responded.

Comment away, I will. Never said you couldn't.

I D procedure varies....but you knew that yeah? So what is the procedure?

When I said mislead, was I refering to you or the thread David and I were referring too? The one you obviously haven't seen. Do your homework before casting erronous opinion.

Peace out

Kindly

Monty

[Monty]

Tom.

No, I'm fully aware of the politics involved and the rivalry between the two forces.

However there's a world of difference between rivalry and rivalry to the detriment of the investigation.

Monty