Mr Blotchy

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: couldn't disagree more.

Of course you could disagree more, Abby - don´t underestimate yourself!

unless they know him, hes just an anon description.
its usually not going to deter a serial killer whos got the urge when hes already got the fish on the hook.
you really think a killer who will take the risk of murdering and eviscerating victims in the street is really going to be deterred by being seen by a stranger?? no way.

Well, that is an interesting question per se - but it is actually not what I was discussing. I am saying that a person is no longer totally anonymous once he has been seen, and I am saying that beeing seen with the intended victim is something that can make somebody with murder on his mind abstain from killing.
Whether Jack would have been deterred (if he was Blotchy) by having been seen clearly with Kelly is something that cannot be commented on specificically with any degree of certainty before we know exactly what he was about. But I do think we can say with great certainty that total anonymity only applies to those unseen, whereas that total anonymity goes out of the window the second a person is spotted and can be described to some degree.

and I would add:
Long, pearly poll, PC smith, lawende (and company) Schwartz, marshall, best and gardner, hutch (if you believe him) cox, sarah lewis (if you believe hutch was the killer) etc. might have all seen the ripper. apparently none of them deterred him.

Once again, much as it interesting, it is really not what I was discussing with you, Abby.

sorry Fish were just gonna have to disagree on this one. :

Since we are not discussing the same thing, I can´t really tell. I do think that if the killer was certain that he would probably be identified, he would not have killed. Then again if he felt it carried only a minor risk to be seen, he may well have gone on to do what he came for, I guess. So it´s all about how he evaluated that particular risk, and how determined he was to give himself the best possible odds to be able to carry on killing.
And I´ll be damned if I can answer that one.

[RockySullivan]

Hi Robert

You provide some interesting new input - thank you .

I was just googling and found that Jacob Isenschmidt had been suggested as the person who Taylor saw. Jacob was ginger hair, and called "the mad pork butcher". Allegedly, Allerbeine thought Jacob was the person who Taylor saw.

Do you think Taylor saw Jack ?

Craig

Did Isenschmid have some connection to 29 Hanbury

[Wickerman]

Hi CD
I don’t think the police were idiots at all. They just weren’t used to dealing with serial killers and serial homicide at this point in time.

But Abby, don't you think that might be a bit of a cop-out?
Each murder was investigated separately, so the police either knew how to investigate a murder, or they didn't.

[Craig H]

Thanks Abby - I feel a bit discombobulated myself trying to get my head around it.

I call it the "Space Invaders Effect". This was the first computer game that I was addicted to because it seemed easy to play, but was always harder than it looked. Jack the Ripper is something you think you should be able to solve, but it always becomes a rabbit warren.

Robert, I'm interested in the previous sightings you mentioned. What ones are more realistic ? The only one I know is the Church Passage where a man was sitting on a step.

Yes, charting his movements using these sightings may provide some insights where he lived.Previous maps suggested he lived around Fashion or Thrawl street.

One option is he went home (somewhere near Prince Albert ??) and depositing the uterus and knife .

Craig

[Robert St Devil]

I want Taylor to have seen Jack just like I want this guy to be Blotchy. Then I could follow his course on a map in the hours after the Chapman murder. Other reports of "Jack" getting a drink at a pub or coffee stall around the times of the murders bolster the idea that he could have visited Fiddymont's. In the Star report, Mrs Fiddymont claims the shirt was ripped; isn't this the case where some clothes were left in a wastebin? Or someone buys a shirt??

However, if he's the man in Fiddymont's, there's another "goulston dilemma". What is Jack doing walking around Whitechapel an hour after the discovery of the murder? And, where is the uterus?

I'm dodging the question for now, big coward that I am.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Robert

You provide some interesting new input - thank you .

I was just googling and found that Jacob Isenschmidt had been suggested as the person who Taylor saw. Jacob was ginger hair, and called "the mad pork butcher". Allegedly, Allerbeine thought Jacob was the person who Taylor saw.

Do you think Taylor saw Jack ?

Craig

Sounds to me some bloke who got into a scuffle. And a little too discombobulated to be the ripper.

However, it is quite a coincidence and he does fit blotchys description, so I’m at about 30 percent it might have been the ripper.

[Craig H]

I'd like to add-on this piece from the Star, 10 Sep:

Fiddymont yesterday added to her previous statement the fact that the back of the man's head was grimy, as if it had been bloody, and had been dampened or spit upon in the endeavor to rub the blood off instead of washing it. The dried blood between the fingers was thus clear, though the back of the hand held only three or four small distinct spots. The man did not look in the least like a butcher, and no theory born of his appearance could account for his bloody hands at seven a.m.

It makes for an interesting sighting if it's him. I know the police took them seriously since Taylor, Mrs. Fiddymont's, and Ms Chappelle were called-in to view a lineup when Piggott was under investigation.

Hi Robert

You provide some interesting new input - thank you .

I was just googling and found that Jacob Isenschmidt had been suggested as the person who Taylor saw. Jacob was ginger hair, and called "the mad pork butcher". Allegedly, Allerbeine thought Jacob was the person who Taylor saw.

Do you think Taylor saw Jack ?

Craig

[Abby Normal]

Well there is a very fine line between witness and person of interest. It all goes back to the police being idiots and not realizing that a person who claimed to know the victim and was the last person to see her alive and had a rather dodgy story could somehow be her killer. That is very hard to accept.

Regardless of what term you want to use witness or suspect the questions would have been the same:

1. George, why did you wait till after the inquest to come forward?

2. How do you know Mary? How long have you known her?

3. Prior to that night, when was the last time you saw her?

4. What were you doing outside of her building?

Etc. Etc. It makes absolutely no difference whether he came forward as a witness or whether or not he was considered what we today would call a person of interest. He had to have some damn good answers to those questions. So it would seem that his answers satisfied the police so that he never became an "official" suspect.

c.d.

Hi CD
We’re just going in circles now and off topic so should probably stop.

I’ll just end by saying that I see your point, bit don’t agree with it. And as a matter of fact, I see hutch’s coming forward as actually a check mark against him being a ripper suspect, but not enough, compared to everything else, to discount him.

[Robert St Devil]

Sorry to go back several pages to the Joseph Taylor description of the man drinking at the Prince Albert pub.

I hadn't read this before and found it interesting. Do others think this was Jack ?

While I know there were many examples of people thinking they saw the Ripper, this makes sense for several reasons:

• Similar description to other witnesses (Lowende, PC Smith, Marshall)
• Blood stain on sleeve
• Agitated (after killing two people)
• Timing was right (likely to have walked around since the murders)
• Knew he was being followed and crossed Brushfield Street several times to lose the follower
• Appeared to be hiding something under his coat (a knife or blood stained shirt)

Craig

I'd like to add-on this piece from the Star, 10 Sep:

Fiddymont yesterday added to her previous statement the fact that the back of the man's head was grimy, as if it had been bloody, and had been dampened or spit upon in the endeavor to rub the blood off instead of washing it. The dried blood between the fingers was thus clear, though the back of the hand held only three or four small distinct spots. The man did not look in the least like a butcher, and no theory born of his appearance could account for his bloody hands at seven a.m.

It makes for an interesting sighting if it's him. I know the police took them seriously since Taylor, Mrs. Fiddymont's, and Ms Chappelle were called-in to view a lineup when Piggott was under investigation.

[c.d.]

Well there is a very fine line between witness and person of interest. It all goes back to the police being idiots and not realizing that a person who claimed to know the victim and was the last person to see her alive and had a rather dodgy story could somehow be her killer. That is very hard to accept.

Regardless of what term you want to use witness or suspect the questions would have been the same:

1. George, why did you wait till after the inquest to come forward?

2. How do you know Mary? How long have you known her?

3. Prior to that night, when was the last time you saw her?

4. What were you doing outside of her building?

Etc. Etc. It makes absolutely no difference whether he came forward as a witness or whether or not he was considered what we today would call a person of interest. He had to have some damn good answers to those questions. So it would seem that his answers satisfied the police so that he never became an "official" suspect.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

has anyone come up with a reason why Caroline Maxwell would lie about seeing Mary Kelly?

Fifteen minutes of fame? Simply mistook her for someone else?

[Abby Normal]

I said he would have been considered a person of interest.

c.d.

They didn’t even have that term back then, you were either a suspect or you weren’t. All the evidence is that he was a witness, none that he was a suspect, or if you prefer a person of interest.

[Abby Normal]

Thats what you prefer to believe.
Yet Lewis, also saw her out after 1:00. She watched this loiterer (Hutch?), while a couple walked up the court, the woman being hatless, and tipsy.
Then there's Hutchinson, followed by those residents at Millers Court.

You wouldn't believe she was out if she rose from the dead to tell you herself.
Hutch's story was confirmed by Sarah Lewis, with respect to the couple passing up the court - so she had to be out.

Funny that some believe Hutch came forward because he was seen with the victim. Then there's Blotchy, he was seen too, but he didn't come forward.
Odd that...

Oh god.... here we go. Another one with their own legendarium.
Lewis saw Mary Kelly? And saw her with Aman? Phantom witnesses named Kennedy? Lol!

[c.d.]

I said he would have been considered a person of interest.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

He may or may not have been a suspect but he almost certainly (and here is where the idiot thing comes in) would have been considered a person of interest. As such, he would have been questioned and his answers would have to make sense.

I agree that the police at the time were not used to dealing with serial killers but that didn't change the fact that they had routine investigative procedures which they followed.

c.d.

Show me any evidence that he was considered a suspect by the police and you might have a point.