Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mr Blotchy

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

  • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
    Morning Advertiser (London)
    12 November 1888


    Compton does not bear any personal resemblance to the published descriptions of the man who is supposed to be the murderer. The police telegraphed to the authorities at King David-lane station, Shadwell, and, finding Compton's statements to be true, released him.

    Not sure if this means the description from Hutchinson, Cox, Lawende or another person?
    True. Unknown. He potentially might have known some of the victims, they might feel safe in his presence if he did, would have known police movements and his past employment might get him a pass if hauled in. Not suggesting Compton is the killer, but he bears some further look since he came up in the press.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SuspectZero View Post
      True. Unknown. He potentially might have known some of the victims, they might feel safe in his presence if he did, would have known police movements and his past employment might get him a pass if hauled in. Not suggesting Compton is the killer, but he bears some further look since he came up in the press.
      Where in this....

      Morning Advertiser (London)
      12 November 1888

      While the police have been working zealously in the hope of making some discovery of value, the public themselves appear to have been conscious that the responsibility of the officers of the law is in a measure shared by them. This is seen by an incident which occurred yesterday, and which resulted in the arrest of a strange man at Bishopsgate-street police-station. Some men were drinking at a beer-house in Fish-street-hill. One of them began conversing about the Whitechapel murder, and a man named Brown, living at 9, Dorset-street, thought he detected a blood mark on the coat of a stranger. On the latter's attention being called to it he said the mark was merely paint, but Brown took out a pocketknife and rubbing the dried stain with the blade pronounced it to be blood. The coat being loose, similar stains were seen on the man's shirt, and he then admitted that they were blood stains. The man left the house at once, and Brown followed, and when the stranger had got opposite to Bishopsgate police-station, Brown gave him into the custody of an officer who was on duty there. The prisoner gave the name of George Compton. On being brought before the inspector on duty he protested against his arrest in the public street, observing that in the present state of public feeling, he might have been lynched. The man had been arrested at Shadwell on Saturday by a police-constable, who considered his behaviour suspicious, but he had been discharged, and had come on to London. Brown alleged that Compton, before he left the Fish-street-hill beer-house, had made contradictorary statements respecting his place of residence and the locality in which he worked. Compton does not bear any personal resemblance to the published descriptions of the man who is supposed to be the murderer. The police telegraphed to the authorities at King David-lane station, Shadwell, and, finding Compton's statements to be true, released him.

      ...can we draw the conclusion he was one and the same as PC George Compton? The name if fairly common. Does your November 11th news clip state differently, I guess is my question?

      I agree that being arrested twice is of some interest and yes a police officer as a potential suspect has crossed my mind more than once.
      Last edited by jerryd; 01-15-2018, 05:21 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
        Morning Advertiser (London)
        12 November 1888


        Compton does not bear any personal resemblance to the published descriptions of the man who is supposed to be the murderer. The police telegraphed to the authorities at King David-lane station, Shadwell, and, finding Compton's statements to be true, released him.

        Not sure if this means the description from Hutchinson, Cox, Lawende or another person?
        Hi Jerry
        I don't think Hutch gave his description until the evening of the 12th, did he?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SuspectZero View Post
          No Wickerman. Not busted. I see how you treat people on this board. I experienced it in a different post with you and your sarcasm. Immature and designed to shut people up. I won't play that game with you. You are on ignore. Find someone else to torment.
          Then don't make claims you can't support.

          There's nothing similar between Blotchy & Compton.
          Blotchy was never described as 5ft 7in, and Cox was the only one who described him. There was no official police description published of Blotchy - so where did you get your 5' 7" tall from?

          I always have my sources available, you want to see where Cox gave the 5' 5" height? - thats no problem.
          I'm asking you to show your sources, and your reply is to run away and hide behind the "ignore" button.

          You may fancy Compton as a viable suspect, but there's no need to use Blotchy as leverage for your theory, the descriptions are not even close.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
            Hi Jerry
            I don't think Hutch gave his description until the evening of the 12th, did he?
            Correct, the last published descriptions, by coincidence appeared the same date, but in the Daily Telegraph.


            The notice is headed: "Apprehensions sought. Murder. Metropolitan Police District"; and it proceeds:

            "The woodcut sketches, purporting to resemble the persons last seen with the murdered women, which have appeared in The Daily Telegraph, were not authorised by police. The following are the descriptions of the persons seen:

            "At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

            At 12.45 a.m., 30th, with same woman, in Berner-street, a man, aged about 30, height 5ft 5in, complexion fair, hair dark, small brown moustache, full face, broad shoulders; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak.

            "Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

            "At 1.35 a.m., 30th Sept., with Catherine Eddows, in Church-passage, leading to Mitre-square, where she was found murdered at 1.45 a.m., same date, a man, age 30, height 5ft 7 or 8in., complexion fair, moustache fair, medium build; dress, pepper-and-salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap, with peak of the same material, reddish neckerchief tied in knot; appearance of a sailor.

            "Information respecting this man to be forwarded to Inspector M'William, 26, Old Jewry, London, E.C."

            http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../dt881112.html
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Then don't make claims you can't support.

              There's nothing similar between Blotchy & Compton.
              Blotchy was never described as 5ft 7in, and Cox was the only one who described him. There was no official police description published of Blotchy - so where did you get your 5' 7" tall from?

              I always have my sources available, you want to see where Cox gave the 5' 5" height? - thats no problem.
              I'm asking you to show your sources, and your reply is to run away and hide behind the "ignore" button.

              You may fancy Compton as a viable suspect, but there's no need to use Blotchy as leverage for your theory, the descriptions are not even close.
              ah so the difference of two inches is something your going to rule someone out on?

              "nothing similar between Blotchy and Compton"??LOL.
              lets just ignore the obvious-Florid complection and the blotchy face. or how about-former police and military bearing?

              and where do you get that Blotchy had sandy hair?

              I know its hard to extract yourself from your well dressed man legendarium, but instead of constantly personally attacking posters who think otherwise and want to bring new ideas and research to the table, why don't you try to step outside your little self contructed box once in a while wick, you just might learn something.
              Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-16-2018, 06:52 AM.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                Where in this....

                Morning Advertiser (London)
                12 November 1888

                While the police have been working zealously in the hope of making some discovery of value, the public themselves appear to have been conscious that the responsibility of the officers of the law is in a measure shared by them. This is seen by an incident which occurred yesterday, and which resulted in the arrest of a strange man at Bishopsgate-street police-station. Some men were drinking at a beer-house in Fish-street-hill. One of them began conversing about the Whitechapel murder, and a man named Brown, living at 9, Dorset-street, thought he detected a blood mark on the coat of a stranger. On the latter's attention being called to it he said the mark was merely paint, but Brown took out a pocketknife and rubbing the dried stain with the blade pronounced it to be blood. The coat being loose, similar stains were seen on the man's shirt, and he then admitted that they were blood stains. The man left the house at once, and Brown followed, and when the stranger had got opposite to Bishopsgate police-station, Brown gave him into the custody of an officer who was on duty there. The prisoner gave the name of George Compton. On being brought before the inspector on duty he protested against his arrest in the public street, observing that in the present state of public feeling, he might have been lynched. The man had been arrested at Shadwell on Saturday by a police-constable, who considered his behaviour suspicious, but he had been discharged, and had come on to London. Brown alleged that Compton, before he left the Fish-street-hill beer-house, had made contradictorary statements respecting his place of residence and the locality in which he worked. Compton does not bear any personal resemblance to the published descriptions of the man who is supposed to be the murderer. The police telegraphed to the authorities at King David-lane station, Shadwell, and, finding Compton's statements to be true, released him.

                ...can we draw the conclusion he was one and the same as PC George Compton? The name if fairly common. Does your November 11th news clip state differently, I guess is my question?

                I agree that being arrested twice is of some interest and yes a police officer as a potential suspect has crossed my mind more than once.
                Good article,but this happened in Nov.11th,and that blood could not have been from a murder or at least Kelly's and his statement was checked.It's too tenuous.
                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, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  ah so the difference of two inches is something your going to rule someone out on?

                  "nothing similar between Blotchy and Compton"??LOL.
                  lets just ignore the obvious-Florid complection and the blotchy face. or how about-former police and military bearing?

                  and where do you get that Blotchy had sandy hair?

                  I know its hard to extract yourself from your well dressed man legendarium, but instead of constantly personally attacking posters who think otherwise and want to bring new ideas and research to the table, why don't you try to step outside your little self contructed box once in a while wick, you just might learn something.
                  Thanks for saying this, Abby. It's helpful for people like you to speak up so that a few individuals don't try to shutdown a conversation before it even gets started. We haven't learned everything in this case and there is still room for ideas to be surfaced and explored further.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                    Good article,but this happened in Nov.11th,and that blood could not have been from a murder or at least Kelly's and his statement was checked.It's too tenuous.
                    Why not? The article doesn't say it is fresh. Maybe his wardrobe was limited and he didn't have a lot of choices in shirts? Why would he say it wasn't blood and then after being confronted, admit it was blood. It's possible.

                    Comment


                    • I should know the man again, if I saw him.

                      https://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Mary_Ann_Cox.html

                      If for some reason investigators dropped Hutchinson as a witness, one would think that their next best witness would, therefore, be Cox, not Lewende or Schwartz.

                      Yet they skipped Cox and went for Lewende, which doesn't make sense if they dropped Hutchinson. They would drop him because they would feel he didn't see JtR for whatever reason, but why should impact Cox as a witness?
                      Bona fide canonical and then some.

                      Comment


                      • If the police had dropped Hutchinson, then that doesn't explain why Abberline was so excited in December at arresting a middle-aged Jew who fit the description of Astrachan.
                        And, why the statement given by Hutchinson was retained among the police files.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • I suspect Hutchinson was called to look at Isaacs, but couldn't be sure he was the man he saw with Kelly.

                          Comment


                          • Hi Jon,

                            There is absolutely no evidence that Abberline was interested in Issacs because of Hutchinson or his discredited Astrakhan description, nor is there any evidence that Abberline was particularly “excited” about Isaacs. That “we’ve found the ripper at last!” quote attributed to him was obviously nonsense.

                            Just a reminder.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                              Hi Jon,

                              That “we’ve found the ripper at last!” quote attributed to him was obviously nonsense.

                              Just a reminder.
                              https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../19030324.html

                              All one needs to do is to accept Adam simply got a date wrong and did make the statement to Godly. This was Philip Sugden's solution.

                              Sure they have lots of points on Chapman wrong, but when these are corrected it doesn't end up pointing away from him either.
                              Last edited by Batman; 10-01-2018, 03:28 PM.
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                                Hi Jon,

                                There is absolutely no evidence that Abberline was interested in Issacs because of Hutchinson or his discredited Astrakhan description, nor is there any evidence that Abberline was particularly “excited” about Isaacs. That “we’ve found the ripper at last!” quote attributed to him was obviously nonsense.

                                Just a reminder.
                                Ben, it's the same level of evidence as your "discredited" claim that you worship so much.
                                You don't get to play the double standard, sorry.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X