Name your top 3 suspects with top 3 reasons why you think so...

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Hi Mike. Thanks for the compliments.

I have to agree with Hunter, though. Segments of the British press would not be easily muzzled especially when you consider left wing newspapers like the Star who were anti-police, to some extent, and certainly anti-establishment.

Hi Simon. I am very well thank you.

Yes, at this point, the 22nd – 23rd of November, the plan to send Andrews to Canada was already in full swing, as you know. Not accepting the handwriting would have probably made it into the North American papers.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Lynn.

Hello Adam. That's a good idea. I think it likely that Long heard 5:15, NOT 5:30.

Recall that she left her home in Church-row at about 5:00 AM. Why would it take 30 minutes to reach Hanbury? She would be a really slow walker if so.

Yes, she must have been a really slow walker. If she actually heard the clock chime 5:15 instead of 5:30, as Mrs. Long specifically said she’d heard (and was quite clear on the point), as you suggest, then it must have taken her 17 or 18 minutes to walk the short distance down Hanbury Street and arrive at the Market “a few minutes after half past five.”

Wolf.

[Tom_Wescott]

Surely the most likely explanation has to be that they were standing in the backyard talking, they were both less than 5'6 tall, and that's why Cadosch didn't see any heads poking over the top of the fence? But I know you'll disagree with that, because it damages the case against 6 foot Le Grand...

I'm afraid nothing you've said 'damages' any case made by anyone, because it's pure conjecture. You're assuming they were standing at this point, and you're assuming they were in the yard and not in the passage of 29. You also seem to think Jack was a total dumbass who would stand in complete view of a man walking back and forth three feet from him. Had the Ripper been standing in view, I'm sure it would have caught Cadosch's attention. We have to assume no one was in view, because that's what the evidence suggests, but it has no bearing on the height of the killer, victim, or witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello Wolf. That's correct--provided she got THAT time right. In other words, she would have to have not conflated a few minutes after half past with a few minutes after a quarter past.

Of course, as the saying goes, "In for a penny, in for a pound."

Ah, but I think I am off the thread topic. Sorry, MD!

Cheers.
LC

[Adam Went]

Lynn:

You're right about the possibility of her stopping off, but considering that she was heading to the Spitalfields market, there would no doubt have been coffee sellers amongst the dealers there and she just as easily could have done so upon her arrival there....

The thing that changing Mrs. Long's testimony to 5.15 does is it gels the testimony of all 3 witnesses (Richardson, Cadosch and Long) together, and surely has to be seen as the more likely hypothesis.

Thanks for the link!

Wolf:

Yes, she must have been a really slow walker. If she actually heard the clock chime 5:15 instead of 5:30, as Mrs. Long specifically said she’d heard (and was quite clear on the point), as you suggest, then it must have taken her 17 or 18 minutes to walk the short distance down Hanbury Street and arrive at the Market “a few minutes after half past five.”

Lynn has already answered this point well, but I'll just add that market day mornings were very, very busy, so no doubt her progress into the market would have been slowed by the traffic when she got there....we cannot expect these witnesses to be spot on correct to the exact minute, when they had no reason at the time to be doing so.

Tom:

I'm afraid nothing you've said 'damages' any case made by anyone, because it's pure conjecture. You're assuming they were standing at this point, and you're assuming they were in the yard and not in the passage of 29. You also seem to think Jack was a total dumbass who would stand in complete view of a man walking back and forth three feet from him. Had the Ripper been standing in view, I'm sure it would have caught Cadosch's attention. We have to assume no one was in view, because that's what the evidence suggests, but it has no bearing on the height of the killer, victim, or witness.

Well what else would they be doing when they were just talking than standing up? I can't imagine anybody wanting to be sitting down on a wet ground while holding a conversation? At best they might have been leaning against the fence or the wall or something, in which case that wouldn't have really lessened their height by any margin worth mentioning. Certainly not 6 inches. This is one of those moments where common sense needs to prevail, even it is technically "conjecture".

You seem to be forgetting the fence. JTR, if he was less than 5'6, was not standing in "complete view" of Cadosch. In any case he would only have been able to see the top of his head and was probably used to early morning activity in the backyard anyway.

As for them standing in the passageway....what? You are aware that there was a door there, right?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Rubyretro]

ok I'm going to bring the hounds of hell down on my head again now -or at least the hounds of Casebook

* deep breath*

I personally have only ever found one known suspect that I find totally convincing...and that is George Hutchinson, because :

1) He was unquestionably placed at the murder scene of Mary Kelly in the right time frame both by an independant witness, and his own admission.
That has to make him a major suspect in itself.

2) Although this was a highly publicised spate of murders, and everyone must have known about the inquest, he chose not to come forward to the police as a 'witness' until his accurate discrition had been given.

3) He gave a witness statement to the police as to a man he supposedly believed to be with Mary, whilst he was hanging about outside which is a) un confirmed by anyone else b) fantastic in itself given the location and hour and c) does have links to Hutchinson's own life (so is likely to have come out of his own imagination).

4) Although we know very little about this Hutchinson, we still know some things which are interesting to the case -for me the major one is the fact that he had been a groom who was now working in casual jobs as a labourer/
night watchman/ maybe in humping barrels in pubs.

I know little about the life of a groom at that time, but from documents that I've read (if you ask me then I will will give you the relevent links), then I know that :
a) Essex was a county that had the most amount of Stud Farms, due to it's proximity to Newmarket (just over the border) (as well as breeding horses for exportation for military uses in Europe -principally Germany and Belgium).
Hutchinson had family links to Essex -and it was an ideal place to find work as a groom. The horseshoe tiepin that Hutchinson describes on Astrakhan Man is a symbol of farriers in Essex (of course it could just be a good luck symbol).
b) George Topping Hutchinson, who identified himself to his son (and I can find no convincing reason to disbelieve him ) as the Hutchinson of the Kelly case, stated that he believed JtR to be " Lord Randolph Churchill...or someone very like him"; I do not believe for one second that Churchill was Jack ...but I do believe that he was ONE 'source' for the description of Astrakhan Man and that an Essex groom could easily have seen him, since he spent a great deal of time at Newmarket.
c) reading about victorian grooms I see that they are described as " not earning highly. skilled workmen, not members of the lower middle classes.." however " stud grooms needed basic literacy, because they needed to write to their masters and to customers" (so a groom could write/read graffiti or the papers).
b) part of the job description is that grooms sat up in stables to birth foals
"often carried out in poor light and at night"
c) grooms carried knives -mostly like a swiss knife with one long thin blade and one hooked blade (for curing hooves)
d) I used to farm sheep, so I know that animals die naturally and in accidents and need to

be 'put down' or their bodies disposed of. All farms have dogs -either as guard dogs or pets-and you don't buy pet food (could they ?) -you butcher dead animals to feed to your dogs if you can. Therefore a groom
(as I do) would have a rudimentary idea of anatomy of mammals and a practical experience of blood and guts. Infact animal farming would give a hardness to death which 'townies' don't have.
e) the murders of Stride and Eddowes might correspond to the 'Autumn Double" (Cambridgeshire and Cesarewitch races) at Newmarkt -a 'double event' held at the end of september/early October (they were killed on Sept 30th);
f) there's a sexual element to a groom's job in that they need to lead randy stallions to lots of mares.

I mean I am totally with Tom Westcott on the dangers of 'coincidences', and
if the women were all killed "near doors" etc ...but when the doors are all a shade of blue, and the locks are made by the same locksmith ? ( this is a metaphore). When do coincidences stop being coincidences ?

I am sure that we need to find out just where Hutchinson worked and in what circumstances he left his job, and why he left a "skilled" metier to be an
odd job man... (good grooms were sought after)

[Rubyretro]

ps -I just read the thread on Jtr's accent -I think that Hutch would have been used to being around 'posh' people, as a groom, and although he was working class, he could have got out a bit of accent/vocab which sounded a class above your average Whitechapel working class...maybe one thing which helped convince both those prostitutes & Abberline that he was OK

[Adam Went]

Poor Hutchy. If he had never bothered to come forward on his own accord, almost certainly nobody would have ever known he even existed. Because he tries to do the right thing and come forward and offer his assistance, he's been villified for it for ever since.....like Druitt, I genuinely feel sorry for the man. No wonder more witnesses didn't come forward, if this is the sort of treatment they knew they were going to get....

Cheers,
Adam.

[mklhawley]

Greetings all,

Part Two of Roger Palmer's latest article told of a San Francisco newspaper report that had never been posted before on the Internet. Joe Chetcuti has now provided us with that report:


San Francisco Examiner
December 4, 1888
Front Page


SHADOWED BY THE POLICE

Arrival in New York of the Notorious Dr. Tumblety.

(Special to the Examiner.) New York, December 3. - Dr. Francis Tumblety, who was suspected of having something to do with the Whitechapel murders, arrived in New York on Sunday. The doctor was held in $1,500 bail by the London authorities under a special law passed after the exposure of the Pall Mall Gazette. He jumped his bail, went to France and took passage on the La Bretagne at Havre.

Although he shipped under a false name, Chief Inspector Byrnes knew of his coming, and on the arrival of the French vessel the doctor was watched. A detective from England is also shadowing him.

Tumblety traveled a great deal in Europe. When arrested in London the English authorities telegraphed to San Francisco for samples of his handwriting to compare them with the supposed writings of "Jack the Ripper." He had always manifested a great dislike for women.

Inspector Byrnes said to-day that there was no charge upon which he could arrest Tumblety, but he wanted to know simply his whereabouts.



Joe mentioned to me that this newspaper report revealed the reason why Tumblety's handwriting was requested by the English authorities. To determine whether the correspondence was initiated by Crowley or Anderson, Joe recommends that people read Part Two of Roger's article. We will see that Crowley was not the only Police Chief in America who Anderson was in contact with during November 1888.


Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Well, after reviewing the newly discovered evidence expertly presented by Roger Palmer in part two of his article, it is now clear that Scotland Yard (at the highest levels) initiated the request to San Francisco's Police Chief Crowley for handwriting samples of Francis Tumblety and not the other way around.

Conclusion: Francis Tumblety was a serious Jack the Ripper suspect in the eyes of Scotland Yard at the apex of the JTR investigation.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, after reviewing the newly discovered evidence expertly presented by Roger Palmer in part two of his article, it is now clear that Scotland Yard (at the highest levels) initiated the request to San Francisco's Police Chief Crowley for handwriting samples of Francis Tumblety and not the other way around.

Conclusion: Francis Tumblety was a serious Jack the Ripper suspect in the eyes of Scotland Yard at the apex of the JTR investigation.

You might be right, but I'm not sure that's "clear'. The newspapers Roger quoted from state that there had been heavy correspondence - a statement he seems to take as fact, even though he demonstrates that the cable system was very slow and that in the space of only three days, heavy communication would have been impossible. Roger makes sense of this by suggesting the correspondence must have predated Nov. 19th by some time, although he offers no evidence of this. What he doesn't seem to consider is that the newspaper was wrong in how heavy the correspondence was. Three days was certainly enough time for Crowley to cable Anderson and for Anderson to respond, or vice versa. Seeing as how Anderson's wire was clearly a response, one might conclude that Crowley initiated the correspondence offering Tumblety's handwriting and info, and Anderson naturally accepted. Just a thought.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

You might be right, but I'm not sure that's "clear'. The newspapers Roger quoted from state that there had been heavy correspondence - a statement he seems to take as fact, even though he demonstrates that the cable system was very slow and that in the space of only three days, heavy communication would have been impossible. Roger makes sense of this by suggesting the correspondence must have predated Nov. 19th by some time, although he offers no evidence of this. What he doesn't seem to consider is that the newspaper was wrong in how heavy the correspondence was. Three days was certainly enough time for Crowley to cable Anderson and for Anderson to respond, or vice versa. Seeing as how Anderson's wire was clearly a response, one might conclude that Crowley initiated the correspondence offering Tumblety's handwriting and info, and Anderson naturally accepted. Just a thought.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I believe that wire was on Nov 22, which means it was a response to Crowley's Nov 19 wire, a probable response to Scotland Yard's request, at the same time they requested info from Brooklyn.

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe that wire was on Nov 22, which means it was a response to Crowley's Nov 19 wire, a probable response to Scotland Yard's request, at the same time they requested info from Brooklyn.

It's that 'probable' part that makes me wonder. We know Scotland Yard's response, and we know it was to an offer of information, but there's no proof of Scotland Yard initiating this. The Brooklyn link certainly supports your conclusion, so let's talk about that more. What is our evidence that Scotland Yard initiated contact with Brooklyn and requested info on Tumblety. And where, in all this mess, is the Ripper mentioned or hinted at?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

...Ripper mentioned by name?

San Francisco Examiner
December 4, 1888

When arrested in London the English authorities telegraphed to San Francisco for samples of Tumblety's handwriting to compare them with the supposed writings of "Jack the Ripper."


That is where the Ripper was mentioned by name. Here comes another one:


Brooklyn Citizen
November 23, 1888

Is He The Ripper?

...Tumblety was arrested in London some weeks ago as the supposed Whitechapel murderer. Since his incarceration in prison, he has boasted of how he succeeded in baffling the police. He also claimed he was a resident of Brooklyn, and this was what caused the Deputy Chief of Police (Anderson) to communicate with Superintendent Campbell. (Brooklyn's Police Chief.)


Now, be absolutely honest. Did Anderson contact Campbell because Tumblety was facing a misdemeanor charge of gross indecency? Or did Anderson contact Campbell because Tumblety was a Ripper suspect? For those who need more time to think, just read the Nov 23rd Brooklyn Citizen report once again.

Gratitude goes out to Roger Palmer for informing us of these two news items in his latest article on the Casebook Examiner. Roger did not present his material as a "mess." I for one, understood his writing perfectly.


Sincerely,

Mike

[c.d.]

I am completely confused here. It was my understanding that the only evidence for Tumblety being charged as a Ripper suspect came from a statement that he made to that effect. But I just looked at the suspect page and it said that he was charged and let out on bail before he fled the country. If that was the case, how could he have ever been let out on bail and most certainly he would have been followed would he not? And why did the New York police say that they couldn't extradite him because of the nature of his offense (which I take to mean the indecency charges)?

Somebody please help me out here.

c.d.