Local Knowledge

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post

    Also, Andrews didn't see Isaacs moments earlier prior to Andrews turning into Castle Alley, which he probably would have done if Isaacs had been leaving Castle Alley.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Hello, again Tom.

    They didn't run into each other because Andrews was already in the alley (at the body in fact) by the time Isaac Jacobs left his house heading to McCarthy's.

    Times (London)
    Thursday, 18 July 1889

    Isaac Lewis Jacobs said - I live at 12 Newcastle place, and am a boot maker. About ten minutes to 1 this morning I left home to buy some supper in M'Carthy's, in Dorset street. I had occasion to pass Newcastle place into Old Castle street. When I got to Cocoanut place a constable ran up to me; I stopped. He said, "Where have you been?" I replied, "I have been nowhere, I am just going on an errand and have just left my home." The constable then said, "Come with me; there has been a murder committed."

    EDIT: I wanted to correct a slight error in a previous post by calling Isaac Jacobs' residence on Newcastle Street. It should be Newcastle Place as stated in this news clip.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by jerryd View Post

    Hi Tom.

    What evidence points to this? IIRC there was one news report that got it wrong and stated Issac was headed home with supper. The evidence supports him walking from his home at 12, Newcastle Street, leaving about the same time Andrews arrives at the body (10:50ish), passes into Old Castle Street and up toward Wentworth Street to Cocoanut Place where he was intercepted by Andrews. That has him walking northwards, away from the body.
    You're probably right. I recall Andrews hearing footsteps, running out into the street, and running up towards Isaac to ask him where he was going. It made sense to me that Isaacs would have been walking in the direction of Andrews. Also, Andrews didn't see Isaacs moments earlier prior to Andrews turning into Castle Alley, which he probably would have done if Isaacs had been leaving Castle Alley.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post

    He was found by Andrews walking towards the crime scene, not away from it,
    Hi Tom.

    What evidence points to this? IIRC there was one news report that got it wrong and stated Issac was headed home with supper. The evidence supports him walking from his home at 12, Newcastle Street, leaving about the same time Andrews arrives at the body (10:50ish), passes into Old Castle Street and up toward Wentworth Street to Cocoanut Place where he was intercepted by Andrews. That has him walking northwards, away from the body.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi Tom,

    In your opinion, was this a ripper murder?

    What are your thoughts on Alice's killer being Isaac Jacobs, or Sgt Badham?

    Cheers, George
    Hi George. There's no chance she was killed by 19 year old Isaac. He was found by Andrews walking towards the crime scene, not away from it, and he was holding a plate, so his hands were not in his pockets and were therefore quite visible to Andrews and every single constable who entered Castle Alley (since he remained at the scene until after McKenzie's body was carted off). His hands were completely free of blood whereas McKenzie's killer left bloody handprints on her face and abdomen. Isaacs would not have had time to run away, wash his hands thoroughly, only to come sauntering back towards Andrews whom he (the killer) would have known was on his way towards finding the body. As for Badham, I'm not aware of any argument for his having killed McKenzie nor can I think of a reason to suppose he did or would have. Unless he showed up to the scene with bloody hands. I think there's a good chance she was a Ripper victim. Too many focus on the cuts which could be explained by an insufficient knife, or, as Rookie points out, some sort of injury. Everything else points towards the Ripper.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post

    Interesting ideas and I believe your thinking is in the right direction. However, it must be remembered that the killer of McKenzie (who was said to have had broad fingers) was able to squeeze her flesh with such strength that all five fingernails made embedded marks into the flesh of her abdomen. So his hand had strength. An injury to the arm or shoulder would therefore be more likely. Regarding the mutilations to the abdomen, I don't think he was able to get around to making any. McKenzie's clothing was so tight many of the cuts described are evidence of the killer attempting to get his blade under the stays in order to inflict the desired injuries. Which makes me wonder what sort of injury or organ he was going for, since the bottom part of the abdomen (bowels, etc) were exposed. This is one instance where I do feel that he was interrupted by the PC since there's no question he could have heard his footsteps from a distance.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott
    Hi Tom,

    In your opinion, was this a ripper murder?

    What are your thoughts on Alice's killer being Isaac Jacobs, or Sgt Badham?

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post

    Interesting ideas and I believe your thinking is in the right direction. However, it must be remembered that the killer of McKenzie (who was said to have had broad fingers) was able to squeeze her flesh with such strength that all five fingernails made embedded marks into the flesh of her abdomen. So his hand had strength. An injury to the arm or shoulder would therefore be more likely. Regarding the mutilations to the abdomen, I don't think he was able to get around to making any. McKenzie's clothing was so tight many of the cuts described are evidence of the killer attempting to get his blade under the stays in order to inflict the desired injuries. Which makes me wonder what sort of injury or organ he was going for, since the bottom part of the abdomen (bowels, etc) were exposed. This is one instance where I do feel that he was interrupted by the PC since there's no question he could have heard his footsteps from a distance.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Thank you kindly for your response Tom, and may I say it's one of the best posts I've ever read.

    Your way of thinking just takes it up to another level.

    Pure class as always.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    A potential life changing injury caused by a misplaced cut during the obliteration of MJK, may not only explain the reason why there was a distinct 8 month gap before McKenzie was murdered, but it may also explain why McKenzie's injuries were not even close to the severity inflicted on MJK and Eddowes.

    There is a scenario whereby the killer cut himself, was severely ill from an infection, and then after months of recovery finally took to re-commencing operations in July 1889 with McKenzie.

    Only this time he lacked the dexterity and physical capabilities required to inflict the level of injuries he had previously delivered upon his previous 2 victims.

    That may explain why McKenzie's wounds, body position etc.. were very similar to that of Nichols.

    Was the killer going back to basics?

    Perhaps the killer had intended to cut and eviscerate McKenzie exactly like he had done with Eddowes, but simply couldn't do what he wanted because of his previous rampage on MJK that all but put an end to his career as a killer of Unfortunates.

    What kind of wound could do that?

    The more obvious ones i would suggest;

    a cut to the tendon of the thumb
    a cut to the artery running through the thumb
    severance/partial severance of a finger
    a cut to the wrist/ lower forearm from a broken blade snapped from the hilt of his knife that unexpectedly rebounded (this may have occurred during the process of trying to decapitate MJK)


    One thing the killer almost certainly would never have admitted to; that he had made a botch job and had accidentally cut himself.

    Although the idea that a psychopath like the Ripper may also have been an overzealous moron who wasn't as skilled with a knife as he thought he was, makes me chuckle
    Interesting ideas and I believe your thinking is in the right direction. However, it must be remembered that the killer of McKenzie (who was said to have had broad fingers) was able to squeeze her flesh with such strength that all five fingernails made embedded marks into the flesh of her abdomen. So his hand had strength. An injury to the arm or shoulder would therefore be more likely. Regarding the mutilations to the abdomen, I don't think he was able to get around to making any. McKenzie's clothing was so tight many of the cuts described are evidence of the killer attempting to get his blade under the stays in order to inflict the desired injuries. Which makes me wonder what sort of injury or organ he was going for, since the bottom part of the abdomen (bowels, etc) were exposed. This is one instance where I do feel that he was interrupted by the PC since there's no question he could have heard his footsteps from a distance.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Don’t say that you’ve gone over to the dark side Fiver.


    It's an indication of how bad a suspect Charles Cross is. I favor a carman, but am baffled why anyone not profiting from it considers Charles Cross as a credible suspect. There is not one shred of evidence against him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    Or a Policeman.
    A policeman would know his beat well. It's not as wide of a knowledge as a posty or a carman would have. An experienced PC would know multiple beats, but there were few constables who worked for both the City of London and the Metropolitan Police.

    Leave a comment:


  • etenguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Hi Eten, I’d favour that it was the victims that were more aware of police beats though. I wouldn’t suggest that they were aware of all timings but it would make sense for them to watch a Constable pass by knowing that they were ‘safe’ for 20 or 30 minutes until he was due to pass again.
    Good point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Being injured, but escaping, further increases the chance that the victim was local and went to ground at home. I have favored the idea that the Ripper knew the area well - possibly a posty or a carman.
    Don’t say that you’ve gone over to the dark side Fiver.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    I have also considered that the Ripper may have injured himself during the Eddowes murder. And with the fecal matter on the apron piece, there likely would have been infection. Recovering could explain the gap between the Double Event and the Kelly Murder, though that could also be due to increased police presence or lack of opportunity. Likewise, if McKenzie was a Ripper victim, failing health could explain that gap as well.

    So the Ripper might have died of infection. Or he might have recovered, but was scared to risk another infection. Or after being able to fully indulge himself in the Kelly murder, the thrill might have been gone.

    Being injured, but escaping, further increases the chance that the victim was local and went to ground at home. I have favored the idea that the Ripper knew the area well - possibly a posty or a carman.
    Or a Policeman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Enigma View Post
    Until the development of penicillin, any infection had potentially fatal consequences. There are instances of patients who died from what were seemingly minor injuries such as being scratched by a rose bush.
    In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge's son Calvin, Jr got a blister on his foot from playing tennis without wearing socks. It became infected and he died of blood poisoning in less than a week/

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Hi HIB,

    It was actually a piece of her apron. I also put forward this theory some time ago, and supported it with the following:

    The Star, 12 October, 1888

    "A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.
    A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behavior their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance."

    Sheffield Evening Telegraph 12 October, 1888

    "... The police now have under close observation in connection with the Whitechapel murder a man now inmate of the East End infirmary who was admitted since the murder under suspicious circumstances."

    Hampshire Advertiser, 13 October, 1888

    "A report was current late last night that the police have good reasons to suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East End Infirmary. He was admitted since the commission of the last murder, and owing to his suspicious behaviour and other circumstances the attention of the authorities was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries relative to his actions before being admitted to the infirmary, and he is kept under constant and close surveillance."

    There is the possibility that he died from an infection and that the murders after that were by other hands.

    Cheers, George​
    I have also considered that the Ripper may have injured himself during the Eddowes murder. And with the fecal matter on the apron piece, there likely would have been infection. Recovering could explain the gap between the Double Event and the Kelly Murder, though that could also be due to increased police presence or lack of opportunity. Likewise, if McKenzie was a Ripper victim, failing health could explain that gap as well.

    So the Ripper might have died of infection. Or he might have recovered, but was scared to risk another infection. Or after being able to fully indulge himself in the Kelly murder, the thrill might have been gone.

    Being injured, but escaping, further increases the chance that the victim was local and went to ground at home. I have favored the idea that the Ripper knew the area well - possibly a posty or a carman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geddy2112
    replied
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
    I know it is veering off topic a little but chances of the murderer cutting himself in the pitch black, with all that clothing to get through and under some serious time pressure are pretty high I would imagine.
    Well in my humble opinion we must be talking about a really sharp knife here, like a razor. I injury myself just looking at a pair of scissors so I think it's highly possible. As an aside you know the heavily doctored photo of Charles Cross, the coloured version shows what looks like a scar on his left cheek, defensive wound innit...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X