I just heard a great quote the other day, there are apparently some arguments about the attribution...but "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I believe all the great researchers here...Im not among them Im afraid,...would use that kind of mantra or philosophy. If something cannot be found it does not mean it does not exist. I think most would agree that if there was some Ripper related observances in the Ledgers, and they overlapped with some of the other escapades these senior intelligence men were involved in, they would not be smoking gun revelations. Surely that kind of situation would be discussed off page.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Secret Special Branch Ledgers
Collapse
X
-
Sergeant Leonard [29H] suspected P. Johnson of being Jack the Ripper.
It is in an undated entry in the Special Branch ledgers.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
No I haven't. And I am listening but not finding anything of substance coming back. For the Fenians to have committed this crime(this is what I am taking from your posts) one must surely provide a link between the incident and Irish Independence.
Leave a comment:
-
I don't see a need to consider marking a snitch and disguising a murder to suggest a mad killer at large as opposing objectives Al. The disguise leads authorities to look for someone they were already looking for and knew diddly squat about, someone who seems to kill at random based on opportunity. Well, if my suggestions is correct, then they likely killed Kate because she was endangering them by threatening to expose them, or him, and whatever criminal activities they(he) were(was) engaged in....(maybe a Post Office Robbery that same weekend, right around the corner from Kates murder?). Making it appear as if it could be the killer at large killing at random is misdirection, the cutting of the nose serves another purpose.
When I state something like this...please not all detractors, its a premise for discussion, not something Ive accepted as factual. Seems I have to defend criticisms for even making "alternative" suggestions sometimes.Last edited by Michael W Richards; 07-15-2020, 01:11 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
The mutilations on Kate could be construed as someone attempting to suggest the same killer as Annie and Polly, diverting attention from the people really to blame and onto an unknown killer at large
Just in keeping with the Fenian connection, so, they silence Kate, a snitch, and cut off her nose so that people know she was targeted for that reason. Send a message to locals. But, they also disguise the killing as being in the vein of the recent murders by disemboweling her and taking bits out, just in case anyone cotton's on that they've silenced a snitch. Do these not rule each other out?
If the Fenians, or some such other group 'silenced' Kate but wanted to divert attention, why cut off her nose at all?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d. View PostEven if we assume for the sake of argument that the Fenians sent a message by cutting Kate's throat and cutting her nose off for being a snitch who was that message intended for? Wouldn't it only have been understood by those who knew she was a snitch? Is there any evidence at all that she told anyone that she knew for sure that the Fenians were behind the murders? And then there is also the question of the mutilations. Why engage in those? With the addition of the mutilations even those who knew that she was about to snitch on the Fenians couldn't be sure if the Fenians killed her or whether she was killed by a madman running around Whitechapel killing prostitutes. This would seem to defeat the whole idea of sending a message would it not?
c.d.
The mutilations on Kate could be construed as someone attempting to suggest the same killer as Annie and Polly, diverting attention from the people really to blame and onto an unknown killer at large.
Anyone sees a mutilated victim at that time...this "Jack" fellow is suspected. Not Fenians silencing a snitch, nor Radical socialists mistaking someone for a snitch. Not someone who had an intimate relationship with the deceased...as is indicated in Kellys case. the more you turn all unsolved murders over to "Jack" the less likely that you will solve even one of them. Because each new addition changes the profile of the killer if you want to marry victims under one umbrella, and the real motives for the killings are perhaps not even considered.
Leave a comment:
-
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Fenians sent a message by cutting Kate's throat and cutting her nose off for being a snitch who was that message intended for? Wouldn't it only have been understood by those who knew she was a snitch? Is there any evidence at all that she told anyone that she knew for sure that the Fenians were behind the murders? And then there is also the question of the mutilations. Why engage in those? With the addition of the mutilations even those who knew that she was about to snitch on the Fenians couldn't be sure if the Fenians killed her or whether she was killed by a madman running around Whitechapel killing prostitutes. This would seem to defeat the whole idea of sending a message would it not?
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jerryd View PostHere is another interesting one. The link is to my imgur page, sorry.
https://i.imgur.com/sTHAx7Y.jpg
Leave a comment:
-
Here is another interesting one. The link is to my imgur page, sorry.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Thanks Jerry, and that "nose" bit is very interesting when looking at Kates facial cuts.
Firstly you would have to prove any kind of link between Eddowes and Irish seperatists before we could even begin moving on to the mutilations carried out on the poor woman.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jerryd View Post
London Mid Surrey Times
Saturday, March 14, 1885, London, Middlesex
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
Hi Jerry and thanks for the post. In this 21st century it of course is quite feasible and even likely that this could happen- in regards a woman planting bombs. In the 19th century however following societal norms this was absolutely unthinkable. It would be akin to us suggesting a toddler take a suicide bomb. It was that unthinkable. Women were not sworn members of the IRB although there was a Womans Committee. Superficially the idea you suggest is not a bad one but when we consider other elements it strikes me as something without much foundation.
Saturday, March 14, 1885, London, Middlesex
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jerryd View PostHi Sunny Delight.
I think something along the lines of the Irish dynamiters hiring women to plant bombs at various locations (for money) or other various tasks and then killing them for not wanting the women to name names, is within the realm of possibility. Many don't believe the ripper had 5 women accounted to him. Eddowes is a good example of a possibility to carry out such a task and as Michael said, she may have been a nose for the police. Mitre Square was a previous location set up to facilitate the dynamiters and also a location that housed a board member for a newly formed explosives company in 1888.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Simon Wood View PostPut a different spin on events.
Hundreds of policemen were poured into the East End, told to be on the lookout for a totally fictitious Ripper who was allegedly cutting up the local sisterhood.
What else might these policemen have been trying to prevent?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jerryd View PostHi Sunny Delight.
I think something along the lines of the Irish dynamiters hiring women to plant bombs at various locations (for money) or other various tasks and then killing them for not wanting the women to name names, is within the realm of possibility. Many don't believe the ripper had 5 women accounted to him. Eddowes is a good example of a possibility to carry out such a task and as Michael said, she may have been a nose for the police. Mitre Square was a previous location set up to facilitate the dynamiters and also a location that housed a board member for a newly formed explosives company in 1888.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: