Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[mpriestnall]

A little unfair Michael, considering he said the supporting research is being kept back for the book.

By the way, I wonder if anyone else is thinking along similar lines to Martyn's points 1, 2, or 3?

Anyway, I have a few beliefs without evidence, of my own.
For example, I believe Fanny Mortimer was having an affair with Sir Charles Warren.
You see, that's why she was waiting outside on her doorstep that night - it was so she could wave Warren on, if he came along at an inopportune moment.
She had the sick husband in bed in the front room, drugged-up to his eyeballs, and where she could keep a good eye and ear on him.
When Warren would come over - always after midnight - he and Fanny would retreat into a lodging room that Fanny kept vacant, to do the deed.
Word of the affair finally got out at Scotland Yard, and Sir Charles had to resign in disgrace, but the powers that be managed to keep things relatively quiet, and prevented it from becoming a full-blown scandal.

Some people only see what they want to see.

I have not been wasting my time for the last three years. I'm not the cowboy here!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Wild west in the Old LVP huh? Making this even more convoluted and using unsubstantiated subjective opinion isnt going to do the trick.

A little unfair Michael, considering he said the supporting research is being kept back for the book.

By the way, I wonder if anyone else is thinking along similar lines to Martyn's points 1, 2, or 3?

Anyway, I have a few beliefs without evidence, of my own.
For example, I believe Fanny Mortimer was having an affair with Sir Charles Warren.
You see, that's why she was waiting outside on her doorstep that night - it was so she could wave Warren on, if he came along at an inopportune moment.
She had the sick husband in bed in the front room, drugged-up to his eyeballs, and where she could keep a good eye and ear on him.
When Warren would come over - always after midnight - he and Fanny would retreat into a lodging room that Fanny kept vacant, to do the deed.
Word of the affair finally got out at Scotland Yard, and Sir Charles had to resign in disgrace, but the powers that be managed to keep things relatively quiet, and prevented it from becoming a full-blown scandal.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for you comments, Wick.

I admit I wasn't being very clear.

All the following is belief without supporting evidence but is based on my research into own my candidate, which I want to keep for my book.

1. I believe JTR was arrested post the double-event,

2. I believe Packer, Schwartz, Hutchinson were all deliberately omitted from the respective victim's inquests to protect BSM and Astrakhan.

3. I believe that Stride and Kelly were deliberately targeted.

My original comment was just me joining the dots from beliefs 1 and 2.

Martyn

Wild west in the Old LVP huh? Making this even more convoluted and using unsubstantiated subjective opinion isnt going to do the trick.

[Michael W Richards]

"Why no key witnesses".

No Packer, no Schwartz, no Hutchinson (MJK).

Hhhhmmm let me think...

Schwartz, Packer and Hutchinson might have been relevant and included in the Inquests respectively....but Schwartz lied, Packer lied and Hutchinson waited 4 days, then lied. The reason I said "key" is because so many people based their theories on these men, who were actually just distractions. If you really want to know what happened here, the truth, then I would recommend leaving all three of these men out of any theories.

[mpriestnall]

Astrakhan Man

1. Doesn't look like Randolph Churchill at all.

2. What is he pointing to? DJA's horse down under? Down under, get it?

[DJA]

Astrakhan horse.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Astrakhan Man

[mpriestnall]

Yes, but we also have no surviving paperwork from Scotland Yard that even deals with the subject.
A key witness is only of concern when a suspect is charged, no-one was ever charged.
Had the Duke St. suspect, BS-man, the Smith suspect or Astrachan been located and charged then presumably we would have our key witness.

Thanks for you comments, Wick.

I admit I wasn't being very clear.

All the following is belief without supporting evidence but is based on my research into own my candidate, which I want to keep for my book.

1. I believe JTR was arrested post the double-event,

2. I believe Packer, Schwartz, Hutchinson were all deliberately omitted from the respective victim's inquests to protect BSM and Astrakhan.

3. I believe that Stride and Kelly were deliberately targeted.

My original comment was just me joining the dots from beliefs 1 and 2.

Martyn

[DJA]

No-one was charged because of a gigantic cover up.

Eddowes' murder was not investigated.

Frederick Brown was either completely incompetent or lied his head off.
Keep in mind his brother in law / partner,Stephen Appleford specialized in gynaecology.
Kate's uterus was removed and her lymph nodes operated on. She had cancer.
A kidney and adrenal gland was removed.
Her eyes showed unmistakable signs of xanthelasma and some had been surgically removed.

Sequeira was just as bad.

Don't get me started on Inspector Newcomen/Major Henry Smith who takes the kidney to Mr Hyde/Henry Gawen Sutton.

If the police,led by Abberline,were incapable of linking at least three of the women by then ..... after Mary Kelly's slaughter it was damn obvious.
Her Inquest,conducted at the Town Hall and grounds under the Vestry Board where Sutton and Thomas Stevenson (toxicologist in four major murder cases) held sway remains unbelievable.

[Wickerman]

"Why no key witnesses".

No Packer, no Schwartz, no Hutchinson (MJK).

Hhhhmmm let me think...

Yes, but we also have no surviving paperwork from Scotland Yard that even deals with the subject.
A key witness is only of concern when a suspect is charged, no-one was ever charged.
Had the Duke St. suspect, BS-man, the Smith suspect or Astrachan been located and charged then presumably we would have our key witness.

[mpriestnall]

"Why no key witnesses".

No Packer, no Schwartz, no Hutchinson (MJK).

Hhhhmmm let me think...

[Michael W Richards]

I just posted something on another thread, but its potential for discussion here made me want to post it here also..."

Is this Inquest just a figurative erasure of graffiti? Did they believe the club bore some responsibility for the murder but couldn't prove it, and wanted to suppress any suggestion of Jewish immigrant involvement in the crime for the same reasons they erased the grafitti? " The time dedicated to Mary Malcolm is astonishing when one considers that the men running the Inquest already knew she was wrong and they knew the true identity of the victim. Why on earth did they give her time? Why no key witnesses...Fanny, Israel,..?Why have Louis be allowed to establish his arrival time as 1 when they had multiple witnesses who said he was there at 12:45? Why let James Brown establish a possible Stride sighting at 12:45, when its clear he saw the young couple, and for the same reasons I already mentioned.

[Michael W Richards]

As said, I generally agree. But let’s not get too far off topic.
No data about the Ripper cases is being withheld. All the still-existing case-files are available and have been published.

In fact, if one reads them, one learns exactly how much the police knew about the killer, since they actually wrote internal reports to each other and their superiors about it. So no need to theorize about whether they knew and suppressed the truth. They didn’t.

Correct me if Im wrong, but wasn't Trevor denied access to those files?Oh...I see he mentions that they told him they were destroyed.

[Kattrup]

The "long standing policy" stance isn't anything troublesome, its what can be hidden within that protective shell that is troublesome. In the course of their activities it appears that a large amount of data was collected about the Ripper cases, data we wont get to see...as per "policy". In this modern world, and with its desire for transparency from the bodies administrating their lives, secrets are like hives. Redact where needed, but they should allow access to that data at least for study by the Ripper Crimes alumni. Ban publication of specific names.

As said, I generally agree. But let’s not get too far off topic.
No data about the Ripper cases is being withheld. All the still-existing case-files are available and have been published.

In fact, if one reads them, one learns exactly how much the police knew about the killer, since they actually wrote internal reports to each other and their superiors about it. So no need to theorize about whether they knew and suppressed the truth. They didn’t.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, as far as I know, their interpretation of never is literal.
I’m not saying I agree but just pointed out that refusing access had nothing to do with Jack the Ripper. They just said no because they have a long-standing policy of not revealing agents or informants. So not a cover-up.

I think it’s exaggerated to keep a lid on after say 100 years, after all, other countries’ intelligence services are more relaxed and seem to continue unimpeded.

but personally I’ve never tried to recruit an afghan tribal chief, a Chinese officer or a Kremlin advisor to the cause of democracy. And the people who have claim their efforts are hindered if they cannot guarantee total anonymity.

If we’re trying to recruit Putin’s closest advisor and some historian publishes how his great grand father was a british spy, it could damage his career, lessening his value as an informant, and make him more reluctant to cooperate. Theoretical yes, but that’s the argument, as I understand it.

The "long standing policy" stance isn't anything troublesome, its what can be hidden within that protective shell that is troublesome. In the course of their activities it appears that a large amount of data was collected about the Ripper cases, data we wont get to see...as per "policy". In this modern world, and with its desire for transparency from the bodies administrating their lives, secrets are like hives. Redact where needed, but they should allow access to that data at least for study by the Ripper Crimes alumni. Ban publication of specific names.