Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Which is interesting in itself.

    Perhaps he said too much regarding Chapman's killer.

    Seeking a pardon for an accomplice, after Hutchinson came forward immediately after Mary Kelly's inquest, is worthy of investigation.
    I think this was more to do with Phillips being 'Old School', and a well respected member of an elite profession. Whereas the press are 'lesser' members of a continuously changing society.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      And at the time of making the list on one knew about the Gs piece because when the list was made up the Gs piece had not yet been found. So you have to say that all what went on at the mortuary regarding the lists can be taken as correct because there would have been no need for anyone to think anything untoward.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      In this, we are on the same page.

      At the time of her undressing a remnant of blood stained cloth was removed from around her neck. For want of a better term it was listed by Collard as a 'large white handkerchief'.
      No sign she had been wearing an apron.

      Some hours later Dr Phillips arrived with the GS piece (which he had been given at Leman St. station).
      Officials at the mortuary began looking through Eddowes pile of clothing to see if this GS piece came from this victim.
      They find this "Large white handkerchief" and see that it matched this newly arrived GS piece of apron.

      Now, they see Eddowes had been wearing an apron, so any subsequent mention of this remnant from around her neck is described by everyone (at the inquest) as 'an apron'.
      This is an anachronism, because the true identity of this remnant was only apparent hours after it had been removed off her body, and after it was listed as something else.

      Halse states at the inquest that he noticed a piece of her apron was missing. What he really noticed was this piece of remnant taken from around her neck, not that he recognised at the time, that it was part of an apron.
      Otherwise, we have to entertain the possibility that Collard & Halse are side by side, but neither spoke to each other, and Halse saw a piece of apron being removed, but Collard didn't.
      I don't think that works.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        The fact that there is other evidence which negates the 5 and 5 only theory.

        and the fact that all the 5 were not killed by the same hand, is even more interesting. all the way through this ripper mystery we have nothing but doubts, doubts and more doubts about the old accepted facts being safe to rely on

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        On the first point I agree Trevor, the physical and circumstantial evidence alone suggests that the Five were not all killed by the same man.

        Your second point seems to suggest that these may have been killings by more than one person, which is interesting, but to try and connect the five with even more murders based on the premise that a number of killers worked together seems implausible. for me its far more likely that unalike murders were not committed by the same lone killer. Strides and Kellys murders do not marry well with the other 3.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • I can understand the viewpoint that Stride might not have been killed by Jack but equally the suggestion that he was disturbed by Diemschutz is surely a reasonable one.
          I've never understood though the suggestion that Kelly wasn't. Apart from Stride, the murders escalated in the levels of mutilation. The fact that he picked up a prostitute who, by chance, had her own room afforded him more time and privacy. Are we to believe that there were 2 'disembowellers' in operation at the time. If the police were investigating this case today with 5 prostitutes, all with their throats cut (apart from Stride), all with mutilations to the abdomen and genitals (apart from....) and all in a relatively small area, they would surely face ridicule if they tried to tell the public that there wasn't a serial killer at large?
          Regards

          Herlock






          "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Are we to believe that there were 2 'disembowellers' in operation at the time.
            The figure is three, not two, Herlock - The Thames torso killer disembowelled his victims too.
            But on that score, you seem to have much less problems with accepting two disembowellers...?

            Myself, I go with the more economical and logical idea - that the disembowelled women in london 1887-89 were killed by the same hand. I like the kind of logic you suggest - it is not to be expected to have two (or three) such creatures operating simultaneously in the same town.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              The figure is three, not two, Herlock - The Thames torso killer disembowelled his victims too.
              But on that score, you seem to have much less problems with accepting two disembowellers...?

              Myself, I go with the more economical and logical idea - that the disembowelled women in london 1887-89 were killed by the same hand. I like the kind of logic you suggest - it is not to be expected to have two (or three) such creatures operating simultaneously in the same town.
              To be honest Fish, I hadn't considered the Torso Killer. I do have a book on the subject somewhere so, when I get chance, I need to read up on the case again as it's been a while since I did and the facts are very hazy in my ageing brain! I know that you feel that he and Jack (and a certain Carman ) were one and the same.
              I've never really understood the suggestion that the Kelly murder was more 'personal!' I assume that the suggestion is therefore Barnett? I've never been able to see him as the killer (largely due to the location.) Its difficult (for me at least) to see a person just continuing a normal life after such an atrocity? I tend toward thinking that 'something' ended his killing spree (usual suggestions like illness, incarceration or death.) Of course this can't be 'set in stone.' Killers can have extended periods of inaction (BTK is the obvious example.) Or of course, as I'm sure you would point out, it could be the case that further crimes could have been committed but remained undiscovered.
              I see Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as definates. Stride as very likely. I also don't think Mackenzie can definately be discounted. And if we accept Stride why not Coles (apart from the time gap?)
              Has Sweden developed a time machine yet Fish because we could do with one? This subject could drive you mad!
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                You are correct but your same statement would apply if she had not been wearing an apron, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point in time in the past had been cut or torn from a full apron. Because there is simply no evidence that the two pieces made up a full apron.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Sometimes Trevor, you are just impossible.
                Inquest testimony is evidence, whether you like it or not.

                PC Robinson identified the two pieces of apron produced at the inquest. No-one said, 'two out of three pieces', nor 'two pieces of an apron', nor 'most of an apron'. It was specifically stated that 'the apron was produced in two pieces'.

                Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.
                Times.

                When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).
                Morning Post.

                It was an apron, it was divided in two pieces. If it was not complete they would not have described it as whole.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • "Inquest testimony is evidence, whether you like it or not."

                  Yes it was legal evidence and an inspector/pc, and a doctor testifying ,hard to argue with.But still the most correct procedure was ask the witness as much questions as possible.details,let the jury,etc see objectively and decide for themselves whether she was wearing,for ex., it instead of relying on the PC's/etc statement(s)which could have been subjective.
                  Last edited by Varqm; 10-07-2017, 04:18 PM.
                  Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                  M. Pacana

                  Comment


                  • Elemana,
                    If you believe Long's testimony to be fact,then yes I have used facts.I have used them and commented on them.
                    Long's testimony is quite clear.He found a piece of cloth in Wentworth building.It had excrement and blood on it.Long believed a victim of crime but not the criminal could be in the building.He searched but found no evidence of a victim of crime.Another officer arrived at the scene.Long removed the soiled material and took it to a police station.In addition he had noticed and recorded words written in chalk on a wall of the building.
                    Now you or anyone tell me where I have not used that testimony as a basis for my comments.
                    At no time did he state he associated the writing or the cloth,with the Mitre Square killing.

                    Comment


                    • Happy to oblige
                      I cast doubt on Longs evidence,as it is not in accordance with what I would expect would be a diligent officer's approach to the circumstances,and if you have been following the thread you should know what those circumstances were.
                      That looks like personal opinion to me, based on how You feel he should have behaviours, and it appears to be unsupported by evidence.


                      Steve

                      Comment


                      • It may be personnel opinion,but it was based on Long's testimony,or facts if you prefer Elemana.
                        And I would be happy to oblige in replying to anything you claim is unsupported.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          The figure is three, not two, Herlock - The Thames torso killer disembowelled his victims too.
                          But on that score, you seem to have much less problems with accepting two disembowellers...?

                          Myself, I go with the more economical and logical idea - that the disembowelled women in london 1887-89 were killed by the same hand. I like the kind of logic you suggest - it is not to be expected to have two (or three) such creatures operating simultaneously in the same town.
                          There is no proof that any of the Torso Victims were killed-that's just a theory. There is no proof that any mutations carried out by The Torso perpetrator were for anything other than disposal of the body. Dismemberers do sometimes carry out eviscerations.
                          There are vast differences in MO and signature between the Whitechapel murders and The Torso crimes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                            "Inquest testimony is evidence, whether you like it or not."

                            Yes it was legal evidence and an inspector/pc, and a doctor testifying ,hard to argue with.But still the most correct procedure was ask the witness as much questions as possible.details,let the jury,etc see objectively and decide for themselves whether she was wearing,for ex., it instead of relying on the PC's/etc statement(s)which could have been subjective.
                            Exactly, there are questions which should have been asked to clear up the ambiguities, thats of course whether anyone spotted those ambiguities in the first instance back then. It would seem not, or if they did, they deliberately chose to ignore them, in favour of what they wanted the public to believe.

                            Sadly we cannot now ask those questions of the witnesses, but that doesn't mean to say that we have to readily accept their testimony as being safe to rely on, especially when there is other evidence to support the unreliability of that testimony.

                            If this same stand alone evidence regarding the apron pieces was used in a criminal trial today. would a jury be able to satisfy themselves as to whether it was safe to rely on or not?

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              To be honest Fish, I hadn't considered the Torso Killer. I do have a book on the subject somewhere so, when I get chance, I need to read up on the case again as it's been a while since I did and the facts are very hazy in my ageing brain! I know that you feel that he and Jack (and a certain Carman ) were one and the same.
                              I've never really understood the suggestion that the Kelly murder was more 'personal!' I assume that the suggestion is therefore Barnett? I've never been able to see him as the killer (largely due to the location.) Its difficult (for me at least) to see a person just continuing a normal life after such an atrocity? I tend toward thinking that 'something' ended his killing spree (usual suggestions like illness, incarceration or death.) Of course this can't be 'set in stone.' Killers can have extended periods of inaction (BTK is the obvious example.) Or of course, as I'm sure you would point out, it could be the case that further crimes could have been committed but remained undiscovered.
                              I see Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as definates. Stride as very likely. I also don't think Mackenzie can definately be discounted. And if we accept Stride why not Coles (apart from the time gap?)
                              Has Sweden developed a time machine yet Fish because we could do with one? This subject could drive you mad!
                              Now that the Torso killer has been brought up, what does that do to your former thoughts?
                              Do you stand by them, saying that two evisceration killers at the same time in the same place is not to be expected?
                              Or do you say that of course there can be eviscerators co-existing in the same town at the same time?

                              If you go for the latter option, then it must be pointed out that Jack and the Torso killer both:

                              -cut abdomens from ribcage to pubes

                              -took out organs of a sexual and non-sexual character

                              -preyed on prositutes, perhaps in all cases

                              -took rings from the fingers of their victims

                              -cut out parts of the colon on some victims

                              -seemed more interested in post-mortem mutilation than in killing
                              abstained from torture as far as we can tell - they were not sadists, they aquired bodies to cut into

                              -cut away the abdominal walls in panes from their victims in some cases

                              -were mistaken for people with surgical experience at some stage, apparently owing to how skilled they were with the knife

                              You need to read that book, Herlock! Which is it, by the way? Both Mei and Gordon make a number of mistakes.

                              Kelly was thought to be a personal deed on account of the combination of the overkill and the facial damage. It is a wise reflection to make, normally. But it does not apply here, if I am correct.

                              So there has to be an alternative reason for the overkill and face-cutting. And yes, as a I have hinted at many times, such a reason can be identified. Moreover, that reason is very clearly present in the torso murders too, sometimes less obvious, other times VERY obvious. The 1873 torso case is by far the clearest exponent, and the most obvious parallel to the Kelly murder in this respect. So if the killer is the same, we may reasonably forget about Barnett - he was 15 in 1873.

                              Like you say, I am convinced that Lechmere was Jack. But I am even more convinced that Jack was the Torso killer. It is an inevitable conclusion, going on the forensic evidence. So itīs no surprise to me when the Pinchin Street torso is found on the doorstep of Lechmeres childhood address in the same street.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 10-08-2017, 12:22 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                It was an apron, it was divided in two pieces. If it was not complete they would not have described it as whole.
                                But it wasn't described as a whole apron it was described as simply two pieces, and those two pieces could have come from any old apron. I am not saying that these two pieces are not the relevant pieces, But he was never asked how was he able to positively identity the two pieces as coming from the apron he saw her wearing, when all old white aprons worn at that time looked the same. He should have been asked what was identifiable about the apron he saw her wearing for him to positively identify what was put before him at the inquest.

                                Two week later he testify s that he remembers seeing her wearing an apron in the cell. A fleeting glimpse ? Identification is a major issue in criminal trials today. Is that officer being truthful in his testimony or simply going with the flow on what was believed by the time the inquest was opened.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-08-2017, 12:36 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X