Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conspiracy to suppress the identity of JTR?

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

  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Joshua,

    Pall Mall Gazette, Saturday 10th November 1888—

    “There is no disposition on the part of the police officers at Commercial Street police station to correct any of the conflicting statements which have been made by the newspapers, or to supply further particulars.”

    The Metropolitan Police maintained its silence, careful not to discourage the public from spreading the rumour that this murder was the work of the Whitechapel murderer, or more specifically "Jack the Ripper."

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hello Simon,

    What sort of statement would you expect the police to issue? "Let's not be hasty in jumping to conclusions just because the victim was a prostitute and had her throat cut and her internal organs ripped out?"

    And it is certainly possible that even if the police were able to somehow discourage the public from spreading rumors (and I don't know how you would do that) that it could backfire and just throw fuel on the flames of those rumors.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

    Which means, according to how polls / referendums work here in the UK, that the ayes have it.
    Oh God! Don't bring that into it please

    Leave a comment:


  • mpriestnall
    replied
    Poll results update:

    Currently the votes are as follows:

    Yes 2
    No 15
    Not sure, dont' know 3

    Which means, according to how polls / referendums work here in the UK, that the ayes have it. Yippee!

    Martyn

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Joshua,

    Pall Mall Gazette, Saturday 10th November 1888—

    “There is no disposition on the part of the police officers at Commercial Street police station to correct any of the conflicting statements which have been made by the newspapers, or to supply further particulars.”

    The Metropolitan Police maintained its silence, careful not to discourage the public from spreading the rumour that this murder was the work of the Whitechapel murderer, or more specifically "Jack the Ripper."

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    How did the press learn that Millers Court was a "Ripper" murder?

    Somebody must have told them.

    Morning Advertiser 10 Nov;
    While all this was going on inside the house, the excitement in the neighbourhood was spreading, and among the dwellers in the immediate locality amounted to a perfect frenzy. Women rushed about the streets telling their neighbours the news, and shouting in angry voices their rage and indignation. Notwithstanding the reticence of the police, the main facts of the crime soon became known, and a great concourse of people assembled on the scene.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Warren had already planned to resign on November 9th. Had he known that another Ripper victim would be killed on that day?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon,

    The press decided for themselves that Millers Court was a "Ripper" murder?

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon.

    I don't know where you are going with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Ginger,

    Why not?

    How would the public have known it was a "Ripper" crime unless the police had told them?

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hello Simon,

    The key word in your question is "known." Certainly once the grisly details of her murder and mutilation were reported in the papers it certainly wouldn't take a huge leap of faith for people to link her murders to previous ones in Whitechapel and conclude that the same murderer (i.e, the Ripper) had struck again.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    Originally posted by Ginger View Post

    I think "woman disembowelled" in that place and time was pretty much going to be assumed to be a Ripper murder, barring some feature of the crime which would have put it into a different category in the popular mind. I'm making no assertion about whether it was or wasn't (FWIW, I think it was), but I see little chance of it being seen as anything else by the public.
    Just want to throw my two cents in and agree with you. If the public could convince themselves that Liz Stride was a Ripper victim, no way was anyone convincing anyone that Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim.

    RE "put it in a different category" -- even then I doubt it, there were more than enough differences with the Eddowes slaying to claim a separate killer, but she instantly became a Ripper victim (well as soon as Baxter claimed her as such, anyway.)

    Hell I suspect that if both the police and newspapers claimed different the public still would have considered her a Ripper victim.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    Then there's the Dorset Street trio, Kelly, Ronan and Austin? Could they be linked? If not, and Kelly was a Ripper victim, who killed Ronan and Kelly
    I thought a labourer called Harold Hall was tried and convicted of Kitty's murder? One newspaper says he was sentenced to death but I don't know if that's been verified.

    Kitty was killed in the room directly above MJK, right? If it was the Ripper, maybe he returned to Miller's Court for old times sake? To the place where he committed his 'masterpiece'. I'm just speculating out of my ass here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Ginger,

    Why not?

    How would the public have known it was a "Ripper" crime unless the police had told them?

    Regards,

    Simon
    I think "woman disembowelled" in that place and time was pretty much going to be assumed to be a Ripper murder, barring some feature of the crime which would have put it into a different category in the popular mind. I'm making no assertion about whether it was or wasn't (FWIW, I think it was), but I see little chance of it being seen as anything else by the public.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Ginger,

    Why not?

    How would the public have known it was a "Ripper" crime unless the police had told them?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi John G,

    You bring up a very interesting matter.

    Allegedly, nobody knew the author of the Millers Court murder.

    Therefore, could the police have blamed the murder on someone other than the Ripper? Could they have got away with saying, "This murder is hideous, unprecedented in the annals of crime, and we can't imagine who might have committed such a dastardly deed?"

    Could they also have got away with saying, "This murder bears certain similarities to some of those committed in Whitechapel over a month ago, and we are working diligently to see if we can establish some sort of connection?"
    I don't think either of those would have gone over very well with the public. The police had some credibility issues already.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Jon,

    The press decided for themselves that Millers Court was a "Ripper" murder?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Hi Simon.

    My previous post answered that question - "no-one". The crime scene spoke for itself, as evidenced by three separate press accounts.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X