Name the Name with a short answer why please :D

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick,

Can you point me in the direction of some info on Bethnal Green man please

You will be aware of the testimony by Sarah Lewis....

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_kelly.html

Mrs Kennedy's story is all over the press that weekend, but where she identifies Kelly at 3:00 am with that same man outside the Britannia...
"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

Read the 6th paragraph down for her version of the encounter with the Bethnal Green Man - The Man with the Black Bag.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881110.html

Thats pretty much all there is. The other men seen by PC Smith, Packer, at the Bricklayers Arms, and by Bowyer could all be someone else. It's just that the Bethnal Green Man/Britannia Man had an awkward way of walking, and something wrong with his eyes.
The man seen by Bowyer, & the man seen at the Bricklayers Arms, also had something wrong with his eyes.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, I didn't make myself clear. I meant: why plant the book in the Maybrick home, if the motive wasn't to cause mischief?

I think the plan, whatever it was, went wrong because it was meant to have been found, probably with the watch, by the occupier at the time. If both were nicked and then sold separately - Mike Barrett had the diary by March 1992 and Albert Johnson bought the watch legitimately in July 1992 - there was no easy way to track either back to the house.

Just a hunch really.

Love,

Caz
X

I had to smile when I read that previous post, I kind of knew it was not what you meant, but I couldn't think of what you did mean. So, took it at face value.

I can see you've given the possibility some thought, I am not the slightest bit concerned how it went down, or what went wrong, there's too many "ifs" to plot a sequence of events. When people plot deception, things rarely go to plan so whether by good fortune, or misfortune, who cares really. You might, but I don't.

I concluded that after 2-3 years debating it back in the late '90's, I'd had enough, it was a deception, call it fraud or fabrication, it doesn't matter.
It's a fringe subject and, although this Casebook site was created specifically to discuss the Diary, in my view, it shouldn't play any role in serious Ripper studies.
Call me a party pooper.....

[Fiver]

Henry Gawen Sutton was being blackmailed as a homosexual by the five women.

That would require astounding levels of stupidity on the part of the victims. Only someone with the IQ of a plastic house plant would go to Mitre Square alone and unarmed to blackmail someone who had already butchered a couple other would-be blackmailers. Only someone who made the previous victim look like a supergenius would invite someone who had butchered four previous would-be blackmailers would invite the killer to where they lived for a spot of blackmail and expect to be rewarded with anything but messy death. Cartoon lemmings have more sense of self-preservation than the victims in this theory.

I also expect you will provide no evidence that Henry Gawen Sutton was a homosexual; let alone that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, or Kelly had any reason to think Sutton was a homosexual.

[Wickerman]

Absolutely fair enough, Jon.

Incidentally, Melvin Harris concluded that the Barretts did not create the diary [which I'm certain he got right], but were merely the handlers and placers of the hoax.

Yes, I'm good with that.

...They did handle the diary and they did place it with Rupert Crew, but at the time I am now certain that neither of them knew what Mike had.

Love,

Caz
X

That works too.

[Wickerman]

I can assure you Jon, no sarcasm was intended in my reply to your post here:



You implied that Shirley herself was stupid and had been deceptive with her book, which was what I was responding to.

I know you weren't claiming she forged the damned thing! She still believes it to be genuine, while others still believe the Barretts created it. I believe neither.

I remember the odd two or three posters who shared Shirley's belief in the diary, but for each one there were twenty who didn't.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah, lets be clear then, my take is the Diary is false, a fraud, a deception. Shirley Harrison was taken in by it and promoted a falsehood. Numerous posters, and this is back in 1998/9 and thereabouts, believed the nonsense hook, line & sinker, and some were quite abusive at the time in pushing it.

What was amusing, if anything was, is the beating Paul B. took for trying his best to be 'on the fence' about the whole situation. He was getting pummeled from both sides, it may have affected his health, if I recall.
But, anyway, you've been on the subject much longer than I have, so there's no doubt you know far more than I do.
When something is legitimate, it doesn't take decades of scientific investigation to confirm it. It's only when an artifact is suspicious, with suspicious provenance, and contrary test results, that it will turn out to be a hoax, or fraud, whatever.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You will be aware of the testimony by Sarah Lewis....

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_kelly.html

Mrs Kennedy's story is all over the press that weekend, but where she identifies Kelly at 3:00 am with that same man outside the Britannia...
"Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday."

Read the 6th paragraph down for her version of the encounter with the Bethnal Green Man - The Man with the Black Bag.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881110.html

Thats pretty much all there is. The other men seen by PC Smith, Packer, at the Bricklayers Arms, and by Bowyer could all be someone else. It's just that the Bethnal Green Man/Britannia Man had an awkward way of walking, and something wrong with his eyes.
The man seen by Bowyer, & the man seen at the Bricklayers Arms, also had something wrong with his eyes.

Cheers Wick,

I couldn't recall the details of BGM

[Aelric]

Anderson's suspect. I remain to be convinced that Aaron Kosminski is THE Kosminski, due to the time frame discrepancy where his incarceration to the asylum is concerned and the fact that he hardly seemed to be violent enough to fit the bill. I can't help but feel that David Cohen is a good fit given how and when he ended up in the asylum and how he did die not long afterwards, but the "City & Met getting the names mixed up" explanation for why Swanson wrote "Kosminski" in his marginalia is a difficult idea to swallow.

So, Anderson's Suspect, possibly [unknown forename] Kosminski.

[spyglass]

Druitt is probably the most likely, and way above Kosminski and Chapman......but even then I'm not totally convinced.

[Scott Nelson]

Aaron David Kozminski

[Wickerman]

Too young

[Scott Nelson]

Reported age 23 - but how old did he look? And why didn't he age at all when the death certificate was filed, January 1890?

[JeffHamm]

While it's probable that the police spoke to JtR, for us, I think we're looking at "person unknown."

- Jeff

[caz]

I don't know Caroline. Yes, Devereux died in 1991, but I'm not so sure about the rest. Chronology and events become confused once the Diary got into the hands of Mike Barrett.

Well, that's hardly surprising, Scotty. Mike Barrett had the strangest relationship with dates and chronology in general, right from the moment he put himself centre stage on March 9, 1992, by claiming to have JtR's diary. He was completely hopeless, whether he was telling obvious lies about when an event happened, or was genuinely trying to recall a date that was personal to him and getting it wildly wrong. The one date he didn't struggle to remember was Monday April 13, 1992, when he took the diary to London to be scrutinised for the first time.

Add to this Mike's ignorance about where the diary had been before he got hold of it, which meant he had to lie about it, using his dead pal for the purpose, and it's little wonder that the story would be plagued by confusion from day one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

And that date Caroline, March 9, 1992. Are we sure that was also when the diary came out of Battlecrease House?

[caz]

I am surer than ever, Scotty, based on my current understanding of the evidence, and what the people closest to the events know about what happened. But until the whole story can be made available for public scrutiny, I can see why others remain highly sceptical, and prefer to put the two established events on that date, both related to the Maybricks, down to an extraordinary quirk of fate.

What appears to be the sticking point for many people is the implication that if the diary was found in the Maybrick house it would somehow increase the likelihood of it being genuine, which to me seems rather illogical, as it would still be the same diary in every other respect. Where would one expect a hoaxer to place it, to be consistent with the final entries, if not in the room where Maybrick died? If I wanted to fake Jimmy Savile's diary, for instance, and sensibly chose to remain anonymous , I would make sure to leave it somewhere with a direct connection to the sick bastard, for maximum impact - regardless of whether it was an obvious spoof or faintly credible. I certainly wouldn't want anyone claiming its previous owner was some random dead bloke with no links to anything.

Love,

Caz
X