Once you have eliminated the impossible

[packers stem]

Yes it does make replying a bit of a chore

Select what sentence you wish to place in quotes, then at the beginning place the word 'quote' inside squared brackets - like this... [ quote ]

Hope this works
Then at the end of the sentence write the same word preceded by a "/"
Like this [ /quote ]

Just omit the spaces - I included spaces to prevent them working.

Test 😁

If you click on the 'quote' box in the bottom right corner of your post, you should see the text of that post begin with to close out the quotation.

Hopefully this will work

[packers stem]

Obviously I'm getting something wrong

[Wickerman]

Obviously I'm getting something wrong

It looks like you did it right, what you have are selected quotes embedded inside the original quote.
Once you have selected what you want to reply to, delete the rest.
You need to delete the original beginning and ending quotes to isolate what you have selected to reply to.

[curious4]

Seem to have glided a little off-piste here. Or vice versa. Do people believe in superhuman Jack or did he have help?

As I see it this could give perhaps three scenarios. One: two (or three) men moving on to bigger (and as they saw it, better) things after their attack on Emma Smith and taking turns in the killing. This might be another explanation for the lack of mutilation with Stride - perhaps someone balked at the task. Or Two:Jack was alone in the killing and assisted by someone dependant on him (however reluctlantly). Three: two killers equally involved and enjoying it.

Or perhaps he was a lone killer with incredible night vision, no nerves and a good deal of luck, who for some reason of his own really hated prostitutes.

Best wishes
C4 (not C3 as in my last - long tiring day. So I wasn't all there)

[Wickerman]

Seem to have glided a little off-piste here. Or vice versa. Do people believe in superhuman Jack or did he have help?

Hi C4.
My take is, neither.

As I see it this could give perhaps three scenarios. One: two (or three) men moving on to bigger (and as they saw it, better) things after their attack on Emma Smith and taking turns in the killing. This might be another explanation for the lack of mutilation with Stride - perhaps someone balked at the task. Or Two:Jack was alone in the killing and assisted by someone dependant on him (however reluctlantly). Three: two killers equally involved and enjoying it.

Part of our problem is not knowing for sure which victims to include as by the same killer. I wouldn't include Emma Smith for example, and I'm not altogether sure about Stride.

Or perhaps he was a lone killer with incredible night vision, no nerves and a good deal of luck, who for some reason of his own really hated prostitutes.

I don't think he hated prostitutes, I see them as victims because they were available, weak, typically drunk, and more likely to comply with his need for isolation.
If you compare them with any other woman who may be going to work, or on an errand, or a man who even though drunk, is unlikely to want to accompany the killer to an isolated spot, the prostitute is the best allround victim.
He doesn't need to hate them, its just that they are the ideal victim.

Best wishes
C4 (not C3 as in my last - long tiring day. So I wasn't all there)

I thought perhaps it was an assistant of yours

[packers stem]

Seem to have glided a little off-piste here. Or vice versa. Do people believe in superhuman Jack or did he have help?

As I see it this could give perhaps three scenarios. One: two (or three) men moving on to bigger (and as they saw it, better) things after their attack on Emma Smith and taking turns in the killing. This might be another explanation for the lack of mutilation with Stride - perhaps someone balked at the task. Or Two:Jack was alone in the killing and assisted by someone dependant on him (however reluctlantly). Three: two killers equally involved and enjoying it.

Or perhaps he was a lone killer with incredible night vision, no nerves and a good deal of luck, who for some reason of his own really hated prostitutes.

Best wishes
C4 (not C3 as in my last - long tiring day. So I wasn't all there)

Hi C4
My apologies for leading us off track somewhat
I would go with scenario 2 personally....1 killer assisted by someone he had a certain degree of control over,a lookout if you like.
I think time constraint could explain the more rushed Mitre Square murder due to it being part of a regular beat and i've always suspected that Stride was a 'silence a witness' murder(liz long),so was different to the others.

Hi Wickerman and thanks for the pointers .I'll master the 'quotes' eventually i'm sure

[Wickerman]

He said he saw it...at the entrance to millers court.I am not saying he didn't see it but as he didn't say so it is obviously speculative to believe that he did.You would have to assume that the handkerchief was in view at the Queens head passing...it's not possible to know this although I'm of the opinion it's extremely unlikely to be sticking out of an overcoat pocket.If we are speculating on what Hutchinson failed to mention where will we end up?

Don't forget, the statement was written down by Badham, so he is also deciding what not to replicate in the statement, it isn't just Hutchinson. Although Hutchinson is certainly dictating the story but Badham is also trying to capture the essence without unnecessary duplication.

May be the basis of this argument but for me has no bearing... He didn't see Jack the ripper.This ever so careful killer would not have trapped himself in millers court knowing he was being watched by Kellys stalker.This of course is just my opinion, speculation if you like...

I don't believe Astrachan was the killer, if that is what you are implying.

The only issue with Kennedy is her story about the stranger the previous Wednesday as with Sarah Lewis
We can of course speculate that they were together on that day as it was mentioned with 'a friend' and that they are different people and both friends just happened to go down Dorset street that night and see something worth reporting...but I don't like bizarre coincidence.

Aren't coincidences bizarre by their very nature?
Are you saying there are normal coincidences and abnormal coincidences?
A coincidence is something that is not normal, that is why we call it a coincidence - we wouldn't normally expect it to happen, so its a coincidence.
And coincidences do happen all the time.
Do you think people drive around the same corner and collide head-on because they planned to be at that spot at the same time?

If they are not, as most suspect,then she went from between 3 and 3.30 to 2.30 as noted by the church clock..how did this 2.30 assurance occur? And obvious scene description differences

Lewis saw the loiterer, Kennedy did not.
The loiterer was there at 2:30 (per Lewis), he had gone by 3:00 (re: Kennedy).
This is consistent with Hutchinson's story.

For me the Maxwell and Maurice Lewis evidence is not contested by medical evidence at all.It's contested by Barnetts ID.... Just my opinion

But Barnet's ID does not confirm a time of death, it only confirms the identity of the victim. It is the medical evidence that provides a time of death, sadly in this case no specific ToD was established, apart from the fact that Kelly was dead long before Maxwell's sighting.
So in that respect the medical evidence contests Maxwell.

[curious4]

Hello Wickerman

We-ell he did write that he was "down on whores". And there is the letter to the Central News Agency purportedly in the same hand as the Dear Boss letter vehemently denying that he had killed "the woman in Whitehall" and saying that if she was an honest woman he would hunt down her killer. (It seems only the envelope and a transcription were sent to the police. Also the nurse who was called in late at night to the London Hospital and was escorted by a man who frightened her so much she fainted when she got there. She was vunerable but "respectable" apparently.

Hello Packers

Can't disagree with you on anything except that I believe Stride was a victim.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Don't forget, the statement was written down by Badham, so he is also deciding what not to replicate in the statement, it isn't just Hutchinson. Although Hutchinson is certainly dictating the story but Badham is also trying to capture the essence without unnecessary duplication.

Still can't accept what was not mentioned or not noted as being evidence i'm afraid.

I don't believe Astrachan was the killer, if that is what you are implying.

To be fair,i don't believe he even existed so i'm hardly going to imply he was the killer.I don't know who you believe the killer to be

Aren't coincidences bizarre by their very nature?
Are you saying there are normal coincidences and abnormal coincidences?
A coincidence is something that is not normal, that is why we call it a coincidence - we wouldn't normally expect it to happen, so its a coincidence.
And coincidences do happen all the time.
Do you think people drive around the same corner and collide head-on because they planned to be at that spot at the same time?

There are degrees of coincidence.If i bump into a friend walking into a shop 10 miles away...that is coincidence.If i travel to London the next day and bump into him again in an oxford street shop that would be an amazing coincidence and if i then flew to the other side of the world and bumped into him again well....There would be varying odds against different types of coincidence.Such as there only being 48 Mary Kellys in the whole of London,a city of millions in the 1891 sensus.So if 2,3 or 4 of them in the spitalfields area.Yet we are expected to accept as coincidence that the last two of te C5 were both using that name the day they met their fate...
So when i say i don't like bizarre coincidence this is what i mean

Lewis saw the loiterer, Kennedy did not.
The loiterer was there at 2:30 (per Lewis), he had gone by 3:00 (re: Kennedy).
This is consistent with Hutchinson's story.

True.But this predates Hutchinsons statement.He would know about the seen lookout
I suspect they are one and the same but that what was REALLY seen AND the correct time was Kennedy and not Lewis and it was time shifted ...like Packer and altered drastically like Darrell/Long.

But Barnet's ID does not confirm a time of death, it only confirms the identity of the victim. It is the medical evidence that provides a time of death, sadly in this case no specific ToD was established, apart from the fact that Kelly was dead long before Maxwell's sighting.
So in that respect the medical evidence contests Maxwell

You're totally missing my point here.I do not question time of death at all.But i do believe Maxwell and Lewis.
That leaves me to question Barnetts identification.McCarthy coudn't recognise the body,why do we have to believe that Barnett could.
Not expecting you to agree ,most don't, but we all have a viewpoint
If we doubt Barnett ,medical evidence no longer casts doubt upon 2 of our strongest eye witnesses
Reason i do not doubt the medical evidence is quite simply...fish and potatoes
Never been a breakfast,never will

[packers stem]

Hello Packers

Can't disagree with you on anything except that I believe Stride was a victim.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4
I do believe Stride was a ripper victim but mistaken identity.
He believed he was seen by Liz Long in Hanbury Street
He kills long liz in error.....it's a possibility
The real aim that night was a woman going by the name Mary Kelly who was happily drunk that evening and soon to be released.Find who bought her enough drink to think she was a fire engine and you find jack the ripper

[Errata]

Hi C4
My apologies for leading us off track somewhat
I would go with scenario 2 personally....1 killer assisted by someone he had a certain degree of control over,a lookout if you like.
I think time constraint could explain the more rushed Mitre Square murder due to it being part of a regular beat and i've always suspected that Stride was a 'silence a witness' murder(liz long),so was different to the others.

Hi Wickerman and thanks for the pointers .I'll master the 'quotes' eventually i'm sure

Why are two full partners out of the question?

and what kind of control would someone have to have over you in order to make you participate to any degree? Surely not an employer. Nor would money convince you unless you wanted to do it anyway.

[packers stem]

Why are two full partners out of the question?

and what kind of control would someone have to have over you in order to make you participate to any degree? Surely not an employer. Nor would money convince you unless you wanted to do it anyway.

Hi Errata
Don't suppose 2 full partners could be ruled out but it just seems unikely to me.
No not money or employer but love(adoration) or brainwashing with some great religious or political cause possibly?

[curious4]

Hi C4
I do believe Stride was a ripper victim but mistaken identity.
He believed he was seen by Liz Long in Hanbury Street
He kills long liz in error.....it's a possibility
The real aim that night was a woman going by the name Mary Kelly who was happily drunk that evening and soon to be released.Find who bought her enough drink to think she was a fire engine and you find jack the ripper

Hello Packers

My suspicion is that Kate was feigning intoxication. Her preoccupation with the time suggests to me that she had an appointment with someone. If the story that she knew who Jack was - or thought she knew - she could have arranged to meet someone who she thought would help her with the reward. Kelly would definitely not have liked her going out late and what safer place to wait than a police station. I believe she faked it.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Why are two full partners out of the question?

and what kind of control would someone have to have over you in order to make you participate to any degree? Surely not an employer. Nor would money convince you unless you wanted to do it anyway.

Hello Errata

I put my reasons for a servant being dragged in against his will earlier on in this thread.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Hello Packers

My suspicion is that Kate was feigning intoxication. Her preoccupation with the time suggests to me that she had an appointment with someone. If the story that she knew who Jack was - or thought she knew - she could have arranged to meet someone who she thought would help her with the reward. Kelly would definitely not have liked her going out late and what safer place to wait than a police station. I believe she faked it.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4
Like you,i've no doubt she was meeting someone.Why else would she have walked the opposite way to home after being released .It's the only sensible conclusion