Senior Investigators-Inside Knowledge

[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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Astrakhan Man

[DJA]

Astrakhan horse.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Wickerman]

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

Hi Martyn.
In response to the three points you chose to list, I think the best available evidence is consistent with:

1: There was one candidate responsible for at least five murders, and that person did not merely stop killing. In order to stop he must have been incarcerated or died. If he was incarcerated he will remain nameless, if he died the best candidate is Druitt.

2: I don't believe anyone was deliberately omitted from any inquest.
Packer was confused but did not intentionally lie.
Schwartz was not believed by the coroner, that is the only reason he was not called to the inquest. Those who are called to give evidence are chosen by the coroner, the decision is not Scotland Yards.
Hutchinson did not come forward on the day because she was reported murdered in the late morning, many hours after he saw Astrachan. It was only established on the Sunday that she had died overnight which caused him to come forward with his story.

3: I don't see any victim being deliberately targeted. They were all opportunistic victims.

Regards, Jon S.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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!

Sometimes I like to take a ride on the wild side.

A few of the crazier suggestions I have come across in this forum, have led me to see things in interesting new ways.

It's not always the best logic, that provides the breakthroughs.

Good luck with the book.

[DJA]

[NotBlamedForNothing]

1: There was one candidate responsible for at least five murders, and that person did not merely stop killing. In order to stop he must have been incarcerated or died. If he was incarcerated he will remain nameless, if he died the best candidate is Druitt.

Did JtR start and stop within the autumn, or was that period actually a spike in activity?
If that later, could there have been an external motivation at work, lasting just that period?

2: I don't believe anyone was deliberately omitted from any inquest.
Packer was confused but did not intentionally lie.
Schwartz was not believed by the coroner, that is the only reason he was not called to the inquest. Those who are called to give evidence are chosen by the coroner, the decision is not Scotland Yards.
Hutchinson did not come forward on the day because she was reported murdered in the late morning, many hours after he saw Astrachan. It was only established on the Sunday that she had died overnight which caused him to come forward with his story.

If the coroner does the choosing, what would 'deliberately omitted' actually mean, other than the coroner excluding an apparently important witness, for no obvious reason?

Do you suppose Schwartz was not believed by Baxter, because the police had had no luck in finding Schwartz' first or second man, or because he didn't believe his story?

Does the failure to call several specific witnesses, across the investigation, who are individually studied in depth by modern Ripperologists, suggest that the attitude back then was more discerning than now - perhaps due to the relative scarcity of information now available, that leads researchers to possibly take some witnesses of marginal value, too seriously?

3: I don't see any victim being deliberately targeted. They were all opportunistic victims.

Just a guess, but I think he may mean 'set up', more than specifically targeted by the Ripper.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Harsh

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Andrew

[DJA]