Tweet
Originally posted by mpriestnall
View Post
-
The Shining + My cat (HD) - YouTube -
-
I'd have thought that the dogs would have seen what was left of MJK as dinnerOriginally posted by Ms Diddles View Post
Good questions, to which I am afraid I don't know the answers!!!
I'm pretty confident that the police would have been aware of the limitations of using blood hounds in such an overcrowded and scent-laden area, but perhaps with little else to go on, it was a straw worth clutching at?!
Or perhaps it fulfilled a need to be seen by the public as doing SOMETHING / trying out new things, even if the actual chance of success was negligible?
I'm sure that I recall suspicions being raised somewhere regarding the delay in entering Millers Court / wait for bloodhounds who were likely already frolicking happily on Scarborough beach, although I can't for the life of me remember whether that was in a Casebook thread or in a book which I read.
It does seem somewhat remiss that word of the departure of the dogs had not filtered down to the officers on the frontline.
What are you thinking, Martyn?
The delay was manufactured to allow time for more senior officers to be present at the scene to "direct proceedings in a prescribed direction"?
Obfuscation re TOD?
Comment
-
Oh jeez! That's a macabre thought.Originally posted by Dickere View Post
I'd have thought that the dogs would have seen what was left of MJK as dinner
Comment
-
Interesting snippet from the Evening News, 13th nov 1888.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BLOODHOUNDS
In order to arrive at the truth of the conflicting statements which have appeared as to the use or non use of bloodhounds in the attempts to track the murderer of Marie Janet Kelly, the last Whitechapel victim, a representative of the Central News had an interview with Mr. K W Taunton on the subject yesterday evening. It will be remembered that at Sir Charles Warren's request Mr. Brough, the well known bloodhound breeder, of Scarborough, was communicated with shortly after the Mitre square and Berner street tragedies, and asked to bring a couple of trained hounds to London for the purpose of testing their capabilities in the way of following the scent of a man. The hounds were named Burgho and Barnaby, and in one of the trials Sir Charles Warren himself acted as the quarry, and expressed satisfaction at the result. Arrangements were made for the immediate conveyance of the animals to the spot in the event of another murder occurring, and in order to facilitate matters Mr. Brough, who was compelled to return to Scarborough, left the hounds in the care of Mr. Taunton of 8 Doughty street. Mr. Taunton said: After the trial in Regent's Park, Burgho was sent to Brighton, where he had been entered for the show, which lasted three days. In the meantime Barnaby remained in my care. Burgho would have been sent back to me, but as Brough could not get anything definite from the police he declined to send the dog, and wrote asking me to return Barnaby. I did not do so at first, but acting on my own responsibility, retained possession of the dog for some time longer. About a fortnight ago I received a telegram from Leman street Police station asking me to bring up the hounds. It was then shortly after noon, and I took Barnaby at once. On arriving at the station, I was told by the superintendent that a burglary had been committed about five o'clock that morning in Commercial street, and I was asked to attempt to track the thief by means of the dog. The police admitted that since the burglary they had been all over the premises. I pointed out the stupidity of expecting a dog to accomplish anything under such circumstances and after such a length of time had been allowed to elapse, and took the animal home. I wrote telling Mr. Brough of this, and he wired insisting that the dog should be sent back at once, as the danger of its being poisoned if it were known that the police were trying to trace burglars by its aid was very great, and Mr. Brough had no guarantee against any pecuniary loss in the event of the animal being maltreated. Therefore there has not been a "police bloodhound" - that is to say, a trained hound - in London for the past fortnight. The origin of the tale regarding the hounds being lost at Tooting whilst being practised in tracing a man I can only account for in the following way: I had arranged to take Barnaby out to Hemel Hempstead to give the hound some practice. The same day a sheep was maliciously killed on Tooting Common, and the police wired to London asking that the hounds might be sent down. I was then some miles away from London with Barnaby, and did not get the telegram until my return late in the evening. Somebody, doubtless, remarked that the hounds were missing, meaning that they did not arrive when sent for, and this was magnified into a report that they had been lost. At the time Burgho was at Scarborough. Under the circumstances in which the body of Marie Janet Kelly was found I don't think bloodhounds would have been of any use. It was then broad daylight and the streets crowded with people. The only chance the hounds would have would be in the event of a murdered body being discovered, as the others were, in the small hours of the morning and being put on the trail before many people were about.
Comment
-
Thanks for posting, MrTwibbs
...Therefore there has not been a "police bloodhound" - that is to say, a trained hound - in London for the past fortnight...
...Under the circumstances in which the body of Marie Janet Kelly was found I don't think bloodhounds would have been of any use...
So the police were waiting for non-existent dogs that were of no use anyway.
So what were they really up to then?Sapere AudeComment
-
-
It is not my intention to throw cold water on this thread but I keep seeing it pop up more and more in various guises. The gist is essentially this -- even though individuals have just discovered the brutally murdered body of a woman on their door step it is expected that they will all act in a rational, logical and reasonable manner throwing all emotion to the wind. And when they don't act in such a manner THE ONLY REASON can be a cover up or conspiracy. Sorry, I just can't get behind that line of thinking. It seems to turn human beings into robots.
c.d.Comment
-
c.d., hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure how your comments relate to anything specific on this thread.Originally posted by c.d. View PostSapere AudeComment
-
I was addressing comments like this -- "So what were they really up to then?" Maybe I am reading too much into it but it does seem to imply something suspicious on the part of the police. And to expand on that thought I see it in questions like" why didn't Schwartz testify at the inquest? What happened to the cart and pony? Why are witness times different in the Stride case? Was it actually Mary Kelly that Barnett identified etc.Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
Again, maybe it is just me but there seems to be a mind set among some who post that any unanswered question or unexplained action are by their very nature suspicious.
c.d.
Comment
-
I think this is human nature. Pattern seeking brain. When things don't make sense resort to conspiracy theories but the simplest explanation is like occams razor. Schwartz not testifying at the inquest probably due to police incompetenceComment
-
There is common sense, an assault before a murder has to be of utmost important unless you are out of your mind.Originally posted by MrTwibbs View Post
The police submitted Schwartz's statement to the Coroner. They were ready to put him in.Last edited by Varqm; 10-01-2021, 10:02 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,it started civil society).
M. PacanaComment
-
Thanks c.d.Originally posted by c.d. View Post
I can only answer for my own views and posts.
1. "So what were they really up to then?". This was in response to the source posted by MrTwibbs, which avers that the bloodhounds had gone "Jack Hargreaves" and was out of town and that they wouldn't be of much use anyway at Miller's court. I agree that my question was biased against and suspicious of the police in the waiting for non-existent dogs and perhaps, in interest of balance, I could have framed my question more neutrally. And I do see that every anomaly, or imprecise or missing data etc should not be used to automatically support conspiracy. And I don't believe that I do that. But if there are reasonable grounds to be found in one's interpretation of the sources, I think it is reasonable to ask questions that may imply suspicion of the "authorities" behavior.
2. "Was it actually Mary Kelly that Barnett identified". That sound like that's one of mine and I think that is fair question to ask, considering Maxwell's and Lewis's sightings, that fact that the Miller's Court victim had her face, to be put bluntly, removed.
I have made it clear where I sit on the cover-up / conspiracy debate but I do appreciate having the opportunity to debate with people of the opposite view, because it does help me to try justify my views, my use of the sources and the language I use to make the argument for the cover up. So cheers for that!
Last edited by mpriestnall; 10-02-2021, 09:02 AM.Sapere AudeComment
-
Varqm, Don't suppose you have the source for that (The police submitted Schwartz's statement to the Coroner.).Originally posted by Varqm View Post
I'm not questioning you, I just would like to research that.
Not probs if that's not to hand.
Cheers, anyway.Sapere AudeComment
Comment