Jack the........ Police Officer??

[Wickerman]

What are you actually saying here, Jon?

I'm saying much the same as Christer has said, and what the police knew to be true. That streetwalkers are among the most unreliable of witnesses.
You might do well not to compare today's 'Politically Correct' society with the late Victorian 'Class-based' society.

I was suspicious of your failure to provide the sources for these quotes, and for good reason, because when I did some digging, I quickly discovered that they are two different versions of the same piece of inquest testimony

Might I suggest you equip yourself with the better shovel, or better still, go out and buy Stewart's, "Ultimate", at least there you will be able to read the original GLRO version of Mary Cox's testimony:

(GLRO) I remained a quarter of an hour in my room. Then went out she was still singing. I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing. I came in again at 3 o'clock. The light was out and there was no noise. I did not undress at all that night. I heard no noise, it was raining hard. I did not go to sleep at all. I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock. I heard men going in and out, several go in and out. I heard some go out at a quarter to six. I do not know what house he went out of. I heard no door shut, he did not pass my window.

Both comments in the same paragraph.

Simply because Prater and Lewis were both closer to Kelly's room. Nothing complicated here at all. Lewis's room was situated opposite Kelly's room, while Prater's was a floor above. Mary Cox's room, by contrast, was located as far away from Kelly's room as it was possible to be within the court.

The two broken windows faced the direction of Cox's room just three doors down at the end of the court.
Whatever she saw, or heard, one thing comes to mind, Cox appears to have got her times all wrong.

Well, I was trying to suggest a return to the topic, but people seem to prefer dredging up Hutchinson arguments again.

No, you were not.
Hutchinson's name will be used periodically in this case, but your sole intent is to jump right in there and make another issue about his credibility. This is what you enjoy, and it does not go unnoticed.

If you don't want to have the "Hutchinson-discredited" argument for the millionth time, don't pick the fight.

There is nothing to argue about, you have no argument.
What you choose to interpret is your business, but beyond having an opinion, you have nothing else.

[Bridewell]

So, Jack the police officer then - whadda we all reckon?

Whoops, false alarm. We're straight back to Hutchinson.

Hutchinson isn't, as you quite rightly point out, relevant to this thread, but I took issue with something you said - on this thread - about him.

The point is taken though, and I've placed myself on the naughty step.

Back to the matter in hand. I don't see any reason to suppose that a police officer was responsible for any of the murders. I certainly don't think that, had that been the case, his colleagues would have concealed the fact.

[Wickerman]

Yes, there have been a handful of distractions, but if you limited the thread to the central question it would have died long ago, which it did over three years ago.
Lets face it, what is there to say about the question, "was Jack a copper?"
With no reason, no evidence, no cause, what is left but to speculate?, or, drift off on a tangent, or two.

[Stewart P Evans]

Ram

General advice: once anybody - no matter who - has somebody special in mind that he or she wishes to criticize, donīt be shy - name them, make your case and give them a fair chance to reply.
All the best,
Fisherman

It's fair enough for anyone to make their case about anyone or anything - but to continue to ram it, repetitively, down people's throats ad infinitum gets a bit tedious.

[Fisherman]

It's fair enough for anyone to make their case about anyone or anything - but to continue to ram it, repetitively, down people's throats ad infinitum gets a bit tedious.

Iīm afraid that is not an answer to the point I made. Nor is your advice here comparable to your earlier ditto, to "Trekkie-like Ripperologists to get rid of their suspect and get a life".

Since you kindly allow for me to make my case (if I donīt make it too loud or too often, that is ... discretion, please!), I can only conclude that I am not one of the "Trekkie-like Ripperologists"; the ones advised to get rid of their suspects and "get a life".

These boards are open to anybody who wishes to discuss the case. As far as I know, there is no restriction imposed on suspect believers to promote their respective cases. No prohibition exists, if Iīm correct, against mentioning your suspect on a thread, when you think your point has a bearing.

There are 62 threads on Aaron Kosminski as a suspect on the boards. And he of course surfaces on hundreds of other threads too, where posters have found it relevant to discuss or mention him.
I fail to see that this has ever caused anybody to claim that this profusion is equivalent to ramming him down peopleīs throats.

The solution to this riddle could be relatively simple - it is either more comme il faut to discuss Kosminski than Lechmere (with easily recognizable implications), or those who wanted to stay away from the ramming closed their mouths by simply choosing not to read the threads.

We have differing perspectives on Lechmere, you and I. I think he was the killer, whereas you donīt agree. A fresh perspective on your behalf would be to ask yourself what you had thought about other posters asking you to get rid of your suspect if you did have one. Would you consider it a good idea to accept that advice?

In Ripperology, Lechmere has not been discussed too much - he has been discussed too little. I watched Begg and Bennetts "Jack the Ripper - the definitive story" yesterday on Youtube, and noticed that there was a bright gas lamp shining away directly opposite the murder spot, a spot that was very dark according to Neilīs evidence. I also saw how the Lechmere/Paul encounter was depicted - as Lechmere noticed Nichols and stepped out into the street, Paul was standing right behind him. The carmen arrived at the spot in company in the scene!!!

This is where we end up when we donīt pay attention to details. And this is how the myth of Lechmere and Paul finding Nichols together, as first described by Swanson himself (!) is perpetuated.

And THIS is what we get "rammed down our throats" - until the knowledge is spread about how things really went down.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. I actually liked "The Definitive Story" much otherwise - a very atmospheric effort, and well worth watching! DS.

[Trevor Marriott]

Advice to 'Trekkie-like' Ripperologists, get rid of your suspect and get a life.

Stewart
I 100% concur with you on that point.

[Ben]

I'm saying much the same as Christer has said, and what the police knew to be true. That streetwalkers are among the most unreliable of witnesses.

Look, the police took Cox seriously as a witness - this is an unarguable reality. For the Dew-gooders out there, reflect that old Walter gave her evidence the thumbs up, even going so far as to venture an opinion that her Blotchy suspect was the actual ripper. He had obviously remembered that while the Astrak-hunt was off (for reasons undisclosed to him), a sustained interest in Cox's evidence meant that Blotchy-bothering was still encouraged.

But I'm more interested in your reasons for dismissing her evidence. In addition to mentioning a couple of "contradictions" that were nothing of the sort, you've decided to throw out her evidence because you say she represents the "lowest of the low", but you didn't specify in what sense, and nor did you explain why having a lowly social status means we should trust her less.

Incidentally, unless we wish to engage in some rather silly pedantry, she was simply saying that she popped in and out of her home "around 1.00am" to warm her hands, but heard nothing afterwards because she wasn't there. Not a contradiction at all. Similarly, her failure to hear a cry that was heard by Prater and Lewis is perfectly explained by the other two being physically a lot closer to Kelly at the time.

Hutchinson's name will be used periodically in this case, but your sole intent is to jump right in there and make another issue about his credibility. This is what you enjoy, and it does not go unnoticed.

Busted!

Damn it, Jon, you got me there! Since you've clearly seen right through me, and figured out that I'm just a mad Hutchinson zealot, you'd better keep bickering with me then, and give me the excuse I crave to "make another issue about his credibility".

[Stewart P Evans]

Advice

I obviously touched a nerve. Advice here is free. Do you have to accept it? Of course you don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course they are, and I stated mine. Do people get worn down and tired of the constant and repetitive trailing out of the opinion of others? Of course they do. Do they have to read it? Of course they don't. And I rarely do, but when I find I am assailed by the repeat of exactly the same ideas and opinions I have read in the past, more than once, I can't resist making acerbic comments. Live with it.

[The Good Michael]

I obviously touched a nerve. Advice here is free. Do you have to accept it? Of course you don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course they are, and I stated mine. Do people get worn down and tired of the constant and repetitive trailing out of the opinion of others? Of course they do. Do they have to read it? Of course they don't. And I rarely do, but when I find I am assailed by the repeat of exactly the same ideas and opinions I have read in the past, more than once, I can't resist making acerbic comments. Live with it.

This is why I hardly post anymore... only when something irritates me. Inevitably, it is the folks always popping up to support their pet theories that drive me to that. Not their fault. Really it is mine for letting nonsense get the better of me.

Mike

[Robert]

Mike, did you see my PM?

[Wickerman]

Look, the police took Cox seriously as a witness - this is an unarguable reality.

Yes they did, along with Maxwell, Malcolm (Stride), Hutchinson, Kennedy, etc. Whomever offered their statement to the police, it was taken down. So long as they have no evidence to the contrary the police will treat all witnesses equally.

But I'm more interested in your reasons for dismissing her evidence.

I'm not dismissing her evidence. At this late date we are in no position to say whether Cox told the complete truth or, was confused as to the times. All we can do is compare what she said with the statements of others, and make note of contradictions.

The only reason we ended up talking about Cox was because it was claimed by Abby that Cox's evidence was more reliable.
As her claim to see Blotchy was not confirmed by anyone else, and, as her testimony conflicts with that given by Prater, and, that she actually contradicts herself within her own statement - clearly Cox's statement is nothing close to "reliable".

Damn it, Jon, you got me there! Since you've clearly seen right through me, and figured out that I'm just a mad Hutchinson zealot, you'd better keep bickering with me then, and give me the excuse I crave to "make another issue about his credibility".

Many a true word spoken in jest, eh?
How often have you tried to stifle a discussion by saying how you cannot tolerate what is being said (my last count was to three different members), that certain opinions expressed "drive you up the wall" (so to speak).

It might be worth pointing out that a message board like this is not the place for anyone who cannot control their emotions. The schoolyard bully attitude only serves to alienate members from the discussion. So if we could retire the Mad Anti-Hutchinson Zealot from future discussions and at the same time pay more attention to 'what' is being discussed rather than the 'why' it is being discussed (ie; not every argument has an agenda), then I'm sure the atmosphere on some Casebook threads would improve measurably.

Have a great weekend.

[The Good Michael]

Mike, did you see my PM?

Yes Robert. I'm not sure what it refers to. I will email Joe however. Thanks. I should have responded.

Mike

[Robert]

Hi Mike

It's this :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=278486#post278486

You are the lucky winner!

[Ben]

So long as they have no evidence to the contrary the police will treat all witnesses equally.

No, Jon.

That is not the case. That has never, ever been the case.

A competent investigator will assess evidence on other important factors besides the issue of corroboration, or lack thereof. Is it convincing? Does it add up? Was it provided in a statement form and/or at the inquest? You can't seriously be arguing that all evidence must be accorded an equal degree of believability regardless of content and provenance?

As her claim to see Blotchy was not confirmed by anyone else, and, as her testimony conflicts with that given by Prater, and, that she actually contradicts herself within her own statement - clearly Cox's statement is nothing close to "reliable".

But I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated any of that. What you've been calling "contradictions" are demonstrably nothing of the sort. No evidence that she "contradicts herself within her own statement". No reason to consider Prater's testimony more reliable, and certainly no reason to discard Blotchy simply because nobody else saw him enter Kelly's room. Abby's position is entirely sustained by the evidence.

As for your accusation that I'm "emotional" and the "schoolyard bully", I'd be grateful if you could direct me to "bullying" parts of my first post addressed to you on this thread - #85. All I did was stress the importance of other factors, besides the issue of "corroboration", that may determine the police treatment of witness accounts, and I did so politely. But you responded with:

"I hope you are not trying to take us down this dead-end path again. Your false premise is totally exposed."

Which, besides being wrong, is quite a haughtily dismissive and annoying thing to say.

Less of that, and I'm sure we can keep Hutchy hostilities down to a minimum.

Have a great weekend yourself.

[Fisherman]

I obviously touched a nerve. Advice here is free. Do you have to accept it? Of course you don't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course they are, and I stated mine. Do people get worn down and tired of the constant and repetitive trailing out of the opinion of others? Of course they do. Do they have to read it? Of course they don't. And I rarely do, but when I find I am assailed by the repeat of exactly the same ideas and opinions I have read in the past, more than once, I can't resist making acerbic comments. Live with it.

Touched a nerve? No really. I would rather say you surprised me a bit, since you normally donīt resort to these "acerbic comments".

"Get rid of your suspect and get a life". Thatīs not the kind of stuff you built your reputation on, exactly. And, as I said, you somehow manage to repress any urge to advice the same things to those who support Kosminski - although you have heard his name innumerably more times than you have heard Lechmereīs.

In conclusion, the latter name tires and annoys you very much more, and you find it called upon to advice those who research Lechmere to get rid of their suspect and get a life.
Kosminski, yes, Tumblety, of course, Grainger, by all means, Druitt, feel welcome, Lechmere, get a life.

I concur with much of what you otherwise say:
Nobody has to accept the advice handed out here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Nobody has to read the threads they dislike. And you rarely read the Lechmere threads, I concur with that too - it is obvious, even.

As for your advice to "live with it", regarding you "acerbic comments", that is precisely what I am doing. And that is because you force me to. If they were not there, that particular problem would not be there either. If it was as acceptable to promote Lechmere as Kosminski, Tumblety, Grainger, Druitt etcetera, you would probably not work up the gastric acid that results in the acerbic comments in the first place.

Thanks for the exchange,
Fisherman