Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

"Maybe, it was never the case from the start."

Now you're getting the hang of things.

Regards,

Simon

Indeed, though the mistake has been to assume that Hutchinson made it up, all the while it may have been in consequence of how it was written up.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Prater could have stood inside the passage out of the rain, but then Cox couldn't have squeezed past her unknown to Prater.

Regards, Jon S.

Thanks, Jon,

But we're talking about two different things here. I read your post about the timing being off between the two women.

However, you had asked why Prater did not mention the rain . . . I was just providing thoughts about that.

[Malcolm X]

How's about you making an effort to provide less emotion and more substance, for a change.

the trouble is you just dont listen to others do you, you are running around quoting what you think are facts, from drunken prostitutes, assuming way too much without realising that over the years; that nobody else ever has !

what does this tell you about the garbage spoken after the 12th... obviously in your case nothing; but i think you're beginning to realise this...

[Malcolm X]

Hi Jon,

"Maybe, it was never the case from the start."

Now you're getting the hang of things.

Regards,

Simon

YUP, that's exactly what i thought years ago; when i was interested in G.Chapman.

``this description of him by GH looks way to accurate, in fact; this GH bloke looks a bit strange to me, lets take a closer look``

and ever since then it's been a confusing mess

[Wickerman]

nobody else ever saw LA DE DA fact.... only somebody that looks slightly similar, stop twisting things to suit you.

How's about you making an effort to provide less emotion and more substance, for a change.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"Maybe, it was never the case from the start."

Now you're getting the hang of things.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

would she have?

Was she asked about the weather? Would she have been answering questions?

Maybe it was something "everybody knew" or no reason to state the obvious.

If she were standing waiting in the rain, would she not likely have selected a protected area in order to stay dry?

Prater could have stood inside the passage out of the rain, but then Cox couldn't have squeezed past her unknown to Prater.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Here ya go.

[ATTACH]13378[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Very neatly done Simon.

So how much of that detail applies to Sunday morning, and how much only to Friday?


There is no doubt the formal proceedure both by the police & press at the time was to encapsulate a suspects description at the end of the story.
This works well enough 99.9 % of the time, even when the story has two suspects, example, the story by Schwartz.

When it does not work is on those rare occasions that the same suspect is seen on two different days, at different times of day, yet only one description is given.
It is highly improbable that any man of means in the 19th century would wear the same clothing on Sunday morning as he had on the previous Thursday night/Friday.

This 'fancy' description appearing so out of place in the dark streets of Whitechapel late at night has been a thorn in the side of researchers.
Maybe, it was never the case from the start.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

What I was meaning with Prater was that if some of her clothes were wet I would expect her to take those outer garments off while she slept.
But I don't think it was raining while Prater stood waiting or she would have said so.
.

would she have?

Was she asked about the weather? Would she have been answering questions?

Maybe it was something "everybody knew" or no reason to state the obvious.

If she were standing waiting in the rain, would she not likely have selected a protected area in order to stay dry?

[Malcolm X]

Yeah. Topping only told the truth about being across from the Court at about 2:15-3:00. he lied about absolutely everything else. Everything. But he was absolutely trustworthy enough that you believe the time and location and nothing else. hahahaha. So insane. Lewis, the drunken prostitute, told the absolute truth about going into the Court at the same time Topping was there. How do we know? Because she saw a stocky man in the vicinity of where Hutchinson said he was, though he lied about everything else. Hahaha. Great stuff. And he came forward because...he knew Lewis was testifying and...though she didn't mention him and didn't have description... and didn't really see anything....and though he was more clearly seen at other murder sites... this was the one he was concerned about. He waited until after the inquest, but he forgot (because he was stupid) to actually find out if he had been mentioned before going to the police. In effect, he could have been turning himself in for all he knew, but he boldly went. And, here's the good part, he stopped killing because Lewis saw a short stocky man and he thought that was too close of a call. Better to stop this little habit than get caught. Hahahah. Nuts!

Mike

if you're going to take the piss, make sure you know the theory first, because what i'm saying is totally different from this

e.g...... i very much doubt GH would have stopped killing just because he was seen by SL, and seen so badly too, no, it's being seen by at least 20 coppers over ther next 2 days that has finished off JTR.

PLUS, it's pretty damned obvious that he went to the police on purpose, that's why he killed MJK, so he could go to the police.

[curious]

The woman appears to have been airbrushed out of the scenario.

Regards,

Simon

Hi, Simon,
Any ideas why the airbrushing occurred?

[Malcolm X]

i quote :-

``What is also of slight interest is that the press releases on the 13th say that this description is consistent with the type of description already in possession of the police.

"This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police."

The description published by a half-dozen morning newspapers on the 13th is precisely the same as the original given to the police by Hutchinson the night before, but not published.
So this reference to a description "given by others" is another indication that several people saw Kelly in the company of a well-dressed man after midnight.
Even if it was nothing but gossip, this gossip preceeded Hutchinson so originated elsewhere``

no, nobody other than GH saw LA DE DA.... FACT, the description of the 13th is in reference to Hutch's original statement, simply because this 2nd description is way too close to the 1st, to be from someone else that didn't know.

the description given by others, is of this BG man and not LA DE DA.

nobody else ever saw LA DE DA fact.... only somebody that looks slightly similar, stop twisting things to suit you.

[curious]

Hi,
Questions.
Why did the police believe the velvet jacket, and bonnet were burnt because they were bloodstained.?
Why did the police believe the murder happened in daylight.?

Regards Richard.

You don't ask the foremost question, why were they bloodstained.

You already believe they were on the bed when the attack occurred. So, how do you see this playing out?

Mary undressed, scrambling up across the bed to the corner to get away from her attacker. Why is she not screaming her head off?

How could this have played out? what scenario are you seeing?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Here ya go.



Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

This is quite likely. Topping gave a composite description of the man he had seen twice. How could he NOT have detail?

Mike

Hello Mike.
If we look at both statements from Hutchinson, first to the police, then to the Star, in neither story does Hutchinson describe how this stranger looked at the time of sighting.
The subsequent description is always appended separate paragraph both to the police & the press.

All we can say with any certainty is that the man Hutchinson saw on Friday morning was wearing a hat & carried brown kid gloves, and a parcel.

If Hutchinson had actually included any details within his story like, "a man wearing a long coat trimmed with Astrachan walked towards me" then it would be abundantly clear how this stranger was dressed on Friday, but as his story is written no such detail is included.

What is also noticable is that a light grey waistcoat is morning-wear, or day-wear. Likewise the horseshoe tie-pin and the gold watch are more consistent with what a man would wear in daylight, more befitting a Sunday morning excursion than a Thursday night/Friday morning stroll through the dark streets.

The appended (composite) description appears to be compiled in such a way as to help police identify how the suspect looks in the daytime.
Abberline did say that Hutchinson had agreed to accompany police immediately after the interview (it was only about 6:00 pm).
On the 14th Hutchinson said to the Star, "I have been looking for the man all day." So this is how the stranger might have looked in daylight.
Precisely how he looked on Friday is not given in the story beyond the fact he wore a hat & carried gloves.

What is also of slight interest is that the press releases on the 13th say that this description is consistent with the type of description already in possession of the police.

"This description, which substantiates that given by others of the person seen in company with the deceased on the morning she was killed, is much fuller in detail than that hitherto in the possession of the police."

The description published by a half-dozen morning newspapers on the 13th is precisely the same as the original given to the police by Hutchinson the night before, but not published.
So this reference to a description "given by others" is another indication that several people saw Kelly in the company of a well-dressed man after midnight.
Even if it was nothing but gossip, this gossip preceeded Hutchinson so originated elsewhere.

Regards, Jon S.