A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Don't know. Sounds like she and Hutch were fed the descriptions. Why? I am open to suggestions.

Cheers.
LC

Exactly, Lynn.

Why would anyone feed descriptions to witnesses? As a neighbor, Cox, was probably sure to be interviewed. So, what would be the timing on feeding her the description.

And why not get another witness as well instead of having to have a man insert himself into the case after the inquest?

I'm not sure I see any reason for this.

Velma

[Wickerman]

If the coroner had intended to close on the 12th, obviously Phillips would have been notified to attend so cause of death could be established.

Dave

Hi Dave.
I'd like to get your opinion on something. A few thoughts go through my mind about this brief inquest and the fact no time of death was established.

We are aware that Macdonald, Bond and Phillips were investigating Millers Court over the weekend, should we consider that between them they discussed the case in any detail?

Also, over the weekend, Dr. Bond in collaboration with Dr. Phillips, penned a report for Warren where he provides an estimate of the time of death. Somewhere around 1:00-2:00 am Friday morning.
Given they were all professionals from the same calling, do you think it likely that Macdonald new this estimated time of death from Dr. Bond before the Inquest was opened on the Monday?

I'm inclined to think "yes" to both questions, which leaves me wondering why Macdonald did not allow the Inquest to publicly arrive at this result on Monday.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

suggestions

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Don't know. Sounds like she and Hutch were fed the descriptions. Why? I am open to suggestions.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks. Not a problem.

My thinking on Blotchy is like my thinking on Astrakan--since he is merely a description of another, so is Blotchy.

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,

Interesting.

Any idea why Cox would be describing Red Jim McDermott?

Even under oath?

Thanks,

Velma

[Bridewell]

Fair enough.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi, Michael,

If, for some unfathomable reason, "the police" had wanted to kill Eddowes in a place to which only police officers had access, wouldn't Bishopsgate Police Station have been a better choice of venue than Mitre Square?

Not if they wanted to avoid being held responsible BW. But so youre not under a false impression, I didnt say that the cops killed Kate, I did say that of all the Canonical murders hers was rife with policemen, just a cry for help away. If I was looking at the potential for a policeman to be involved in any Canonical death, Kates would be the one most probable due to those factors.

Remember, It was mentioned in response to NH's suggestion that Marys killer, in his premise, is a cop but also the Ripper.

Cheers BW

[lynn cates]

inquisition

Hello Colin. But would that not provoke an inquiry?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

As to a policeman killer in and amongst the fray within these murders, I say look to Mitre Square if anywhere for a copper/killer. Ive never been able to come to grips with the amount of policemen in, very near to, or a few streets away from the murder scene that night. And the fact that its ONLY active or ex policemen nearby. But I digress big time.

Hi, Michael,

If, for some unfathomable reason, "the police" had wanted to kill Eddowes in a place to which only police officers had access, wouldn't Bishopsgate Police Station have been a better choice of venue than Mitre Square?

[lynn cates]

mere description

Hello Velma. Thanks. Not a problem.

My thinking on Blotchy is like my thinking on Astrakan--since he is merely a description of another, so is Blotchy.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

What would rule out Blotchy from being JTR and an undercover cop? I'm new here so I don't if the possibility that JTR was a cop has been discussed at length. If the police suspected one of their own then that could explain the hurried inquest, sweeping under the rug etc. I'd have to think about this some more, but let's say Blotchy sees MJK in a tavern, identifies himself to her as a cop and offers to walk her home for safety's sake. She invites him in because she believes she's safe with him (and he has beer...his "in" to the apartment). He bides his time while she sings and waits for her to pass out or exits and returns later.

Some good ideas in general in your post Nighthawks. So you understand where my philosophy differs from your own, I dont see the Mary Jane Kelly murder as one that is representative of the crimes committed by the man, or men, who killed the first 2 alleged victims. The killer that was nicknamed "Jack the Ripper" in a letter dated September 27th and based on those first 2 particular crimes. Or 3, if youre a Tabramite. So whether he was a policeman or a civilian I doubt very much this had anything to do with those first killings. Other than being portrayed as one in the same style perhaps.

As to a policeman killer in and amongst the fray within these murders, I say look to Mitre Square if anywhere for a copper/killer. Ive never been able to come to grips with the amount of policemen in, very near to, or a few streets away from the murder scene that night. And the fact that its ONLY active or ex policemen nearby. But I digress big time.

As for Blotchy, if hes a cop hes there either investigating or recreating...we cant know for sure his intentions, even if there is any surveillance on Kelly at that time. The singing for over an hour seems to rule out interrogations though.

All I can say with any conviction is that there is room for speculation that Blotchy's role that night was to get Mary hammered and home.

Keep up the broadminded approach.

Cheers

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Nighthawks's hypothesis was: "let's say Blotchy sees MJK in a tavern, identifies himself to her as a cop . . ."

Cheers.
LC

You're right, Lynn. Sorry. How quickly I forget.

I thought you were thinking Blotchy would have introduced himself as a cop.

So, Nighthawk, I guess that it doesn't make sense to me that an officer working undercover, and possibly in a very dangerous situation, would introduce himself as a policeman and blow his cover.

Maybe they had been drinking together and he offered to walk her home because of the danger. I can see that. Where I live, there are times people are pressed into undercover service who are not the best or most reliable of human beings, and who might have records.

sorry, Lynn.

Velma

[lynn cates]

hypothesis

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Nighthawks's hypothesis was: "let's say Blotchy sees MJK in a tavern, identifies himself to her as a cop . . ."

Cheers.
LC

[Dave O]

Yes, the idea of a police cover-up is a myth, as is the notion that the inquest was designed to last a single day. It's clear that the coroner didn't intend to cover any of the medical evidence on the 12th. He hadn't summoned his medical witness to testify, which shows an intention to adjourn. Phillips is only there on the 12th talking about cause of death because of his own initiative--he sent a note and his appearance was accommodated.

We also have a preliminary order of witnesses, but I want to be careful because the preliminary order only addresses the witnesses who were interviewed by the police. But it's worth considering.

If you ever look at copies of the police statements that are held with the inquest papers, you will see that prior to the inquest, the coroner had established, numbering the top left of each statement, a tentative order for the appearance of these witnesses, which in most cases corresponds with their appearances at the inquest.

This reveals a brief glimpse into Macdonald's thinking--you see him slightly shuffling the order of the police statements, pulling Joe Barnett out and making him the first witness (Bowyer's police statement, of course, was first in the order as Macdonald received them from Abberline). Since Macdonald was working off the statements, Ledger's not reflected in the preliminary order, nor Phillips, Beck, and Abberline. Neither is Maria Harvey, whose statement has no number. All the rest do.

So I can't say that exclusion from the preliminary order indicates a proposed exclusion from appearing at the inquest on the 12th. Ledger, Beck, and Abberline were of course, all there and testified. It simply shows that prior to the inquest, there was a rough intention that Julia Venturney would follow Sarah Lewis, not Dr. Phillips (Lewis is #7, Venturney #8), which corresponds to press accounts of Phillips communicating with Macdonald during the inquest and asking whether he should come, and that he was inserted into the order when he arrived.

If the coroner had intended to close on the 12th, obviously Phillips would have been notified to attend so cause of death could be established.

Dave

[Bridewell]

The Claim of A Cover-Up

If the police suspected one of their own then that could explain the hurried inquest, sweeping under the rug etc.

There's no evidence that the killer was a police officer and none to suppose that, if he had been, the police would have concealed the fact in preference to sending one of their own to the gallows. Any cover-up would also need to have involved both the coroner and, in all probability, the Home Secretary. Police officers can (and do!) bring prosecutions against each other for speeding and drink-driving. The suggestion that they would cover up for someone who was going round butchering women is as ludicrous as it is offensive.

[Wickerman]

As I've already said, Jon, it was stated by at least one newspaper that the Blotchy lookalike was an undercover policeman. For its part the Evening News declared that 'The police state that the man who aroused the suspicion of Mr. Galloway by frequently crossing and recrossing the road, is a respectable citizen, and that he was, as a matter of fact, acting in concert with them in his "mysterious movements."'

Draw your own conclusions.

Thankyou Garry, I do recall you offering that before. We never did see your "undercover policeman" article, it might help if it were found.

Alternately, if the police say it was a respectable citizen then who can contradict them by saying it was an undercover policeman?
Wouldn't you think the police are the preferred source in newspaper stories?, assuming the report is accurate of course.
And, if it is not accurate, then who was this character?

Regards, Jon S.