Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hinting at something?

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

  • Hinting at something?

    Hi,
    When Abberline said " the ripper was never caught, but should have been" was he hinting at something that he had to hold back on?

    Regards

  • #2
    Or was he just referring to the amount of manpower and leg work spent on the case, that the Ripper should have been caught?

    I'm under the impression that the high ranking officials wildly differed in who the Ripper was and it was because of their bickering and in-fighting that the Ripper ended up being "free to go".

    Comment


    • #3
      Anderson said something similar if they had the same powers as the French had. I am not sure what that means, but it could be such a reduced view of what constitutes evidence as to arrest almost anybody for a crime.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
        Or was he just referring to the amount of manpower and leg work spent on the case, that the Ripper should have been caught?

        I'm under the impression that the high ranking officials wildly differed in who the Ripper was and it was because of their bickering and in-fighting that the Ripper ended up being "free to go".
        Having read all the interviews from various ranking policemen years later and especially those involved in the case at the time, I've always had this nagging thought of purposely laying down smoke screens and red herrings.

        Regards

        Comment


        • #5
          To say nothing of James Munro's "hot potato."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Batman View Post
            Anderson said something similar if they had the same powers as the French had. I am not sure what that means, but it could be such a reduced view of what constitutes evidence as to arrest almost anybody for a crime.
            Based on absolutely nothing I always assumed it meant if only we were permitted a few whacks to the kidneys we would get the answer we were looking for.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by spyglass View Post
              Hi,
              When Abberline said " the ripper was never caught, but should have been" was he hinting at something that he had to hold back on?

              Regards
              I would take it to mean given the massive efforts to catch him.

              c.d.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think it was because the people that protected him had him put away...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Powers of the French...

                  Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                  I think it was because the people that protected him had him put away...
                  Paul Begg in JtR: The Facts, says that Anderson's reference to the French can be gleaned elsewhere in his writings and it means being able to hold a suspect for a long period of time while they gather evidence against them and maybe from the suspect's own mouth.

                  That Anderson believed they could have obtained the evidence they needed to charge the suspect with the JtR crimes but that they had to let him go. That means they had what they thought was JtR in custody and by law had to release him.

                  Abberline though may not be suggesting this as per the OP and maybe just suggesting that the increase in police numbers should have caught him.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Daily News October 18th 1888

                    After the Double Event
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                      After the Double Event
                      That does sound like Kozminski.
                      Bona fide canonical and then some.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Or Tumblety, perhaps?
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I wonder if Vasiliev (Wassili) might also fit that reference. I believe he was caught in the act of strangling someone but held accountable for 7 unsolved murders in Paris as well. Could the reference indicate that French Authorities could hold the man without evidence, place him under psychiatric care, and then institutionalize him without his ever having a trial?
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Daily News October 18th 1888 was before the murder of Mary Jane Kelly.

                            This means that investigators knew about this person and were watching them.

                            How then does that allow for the murder of MJK which took place a few weeks later?
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                              After the Double Event
                              This is about the Lodger Story on Batty Street isn't it?
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X