Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Wickerman]

Oh, so you do like the Star after all, Jon?
But only when they're offering their own completely irrelevant opinion about the sort of person you want Jack the Ripper to have been -

Only when they are claiming to know police opinion and to have inside knowledge setting themselves above the competition.
Understandable tactics, but nevertheless, not entirely honest.

"a gentleman", ordinarily engaged in "stocks and shares". Really? I hadn't bothered to notice your signature before,

Which only serves to demonstrate that the "blinkers" you are wearing inhibit your ability to see the obvious.

but it appears to confirm what I've suspected all along; that you have an image of the killer - a very controversial, sensationalist and unlikely one - which you're anxious to defend.

Unlikely!, ....but Ben, this is your Star, your Bible, your Truth of all Truths, your Handbook 101 on the Ripper murders. How can it be controversial, sensational, or unlikely? Are you showing another side of your opinion on the Star?
Or, is this what you privately have come to realise?

You're certainly not the only poster around here who dismisses reliable evidence in favour of press tattle,

Excuse me, but if we dispense with all the newspaper stories, what happens to all "your" evidence about Hutchinson (press tattle) being dismissed as a liar?

I think you just put your foot in your mouth.

I have at least pointed out the one factual document, a police document, not a news story.
Whether the head of Scotland Yard would use Bond's estimate, since he requested guidance in the first place, and since his detective department had no direction with respect to Time of Death, will always remain conjecture.
However, conjecture based on common sense beats Newspaper (tittle-tattle) stories about Hutchinson being dismissed anyday.
Have yourself a great day.

Regards, Jon S.

[caz]

Hello Caroline.

"The awful thing is, it could well have been the ripper waiting 45 minutes for Hutch to push off before he could finally turn his attention to Mary Kelly's throat shortly after 3am."

Now here's a novel thought. Whilst Hutch is looking up the court waiting for knowledge of A-Man, A-Man is peering back at Hutch wondering when he will ever leave.

Interesting.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Did I mention A-Man? Whoever the killer was, he would have been wise not to go on the attack if he was aware of anyone lurking nearby at the time. Hutch would have had good reason to invent A-Man if he knew Kelly had company and was waiting for the man to leave, but hadn't seen him enter, or had perhaps seen only a vague outline in the darkness. What innocent excuse could he have given for waiting outside a known prostitute's room shortly before she was murdered in there? He had to claim he had seen the man very clearly if his explanation was going to be that his appearance had aroused his curiosity - enough to wait 45 minutes to see him again. It was probably a childish lie, told because the truth would have got him into bother one way or another:

"Well you see, I was waiting for her previous punter to come out so I could have a crack at it. But I gave up after 45 minutes and left him to it."

"Could you describe this man?"

"Er sorry, no."

"So that makes you the woman's last identifiable visitor."

"Oh Christ."

When the killer finally got stuck in, he was either confident that nobody was loitering thereabouts, or would come banging on the door while he was elbow deep in innards, or he was beyond caring by then. But the initial attack was always going to be risky with people coming and going at all hours, and he had to guarantee she wouldn't be able to scream her head off before he had the chance to overpower and silence her. This makes me think she had stripped down to her chemise for entertaining purposes (it wasn't exactly a warm night) and had no fear of her killer until he was well within striking distance and it was all too late.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If Hutchinson had not come forward we would not know anything about about Astrachan. All we would have is Sarah Lewis seeing a man outside in the street looking up the court. The fact she also claimed to then see this man stand outside Kelly's door would make for a very suspicious sighting.
Depending on Kelly's time of death, whoever this character was would certainly be high on the suspect list.

The principal flaw in this to my mind is Hutchinson coming forward. Anyone seriously intending to place an invented suspect in the hands of the police to distract from himself is not going to make him look so different from any of the previous killer descriptions given by Lawende, Schwartz, etc.

I mean, if you are late for work one morning, do you say you slept in, or that you spent the night with Miss World?
Anyone who expects to be taken seriously, especially if his freedom depends on it, is going to make every effort to be realistic.
Realistically, if Hutchinson had been the killer, he would have gone to ground, not to Commercial St.

Regards, Jon S.

Spot on, Jon. The lack of cctv would have given a guilty Hutch a free pass, without the need to face the cops with a cok and bull story featuring our panto villain. If Jack did this he was the kind of moron who by rights should never have got away with even one murder, and the police were even more moronic not to wheel out Long, Schwartz, Lawende and co, Cox and Lewis to take a quick butcher's at him. I strongly suspect that the flaws in Hutch's account would have become apparent to Abberline, who would then have satisfied himself that neither A-Man nor his star witness could assist any further with his enquiries. A storm in a teacup only.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hello Caroline

Spot on, Jon.

Is it ? Actually, Jon means Hutch can't be the killer cos the killer would have never come forward. Therefore, if "spot on", such things never happened in your opinion.

I strongly suspect that the flaws in Hutch's account would have become apparent to Abberline, who would then have satisfied himself that neither A-Man nor his star witness could assist any further with his enquiries.

Well, I'll let you discuss this with Jon, whose opinion is that Hutch has been dismissed by Bond's TOD.
Or should I say "TOM" ? (Time Of Meal)

[lynn cates]

cul-de-sac

Hello Caroline. Now I get it. Thanks.

Do you think the killer sought this place (cul-de-sac) or blundered into it?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Tom

Hello David. Taking Wescott's name in vain? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Only when they are claiming to know police opinion and to have inside knowledge setting themselves above the competition

So you cheerfully endorse the Star when they offer their own utterly inexpert and obviously valueless opinion, and yet when they report on actual events and accepted police wisdom on a given subject, you reject and heap scorn upon it? That's an interesting way round, Jon. There's nothing remotely unusual about some newspapers having superior information to that possessed by "the competition". We know full well this occurred in the Star's case, as they were the only press source to track down and interview Israel Schwartz.

Which only serves to demonstrate that the "blinkers" you are wearing inhibit your ability to see the obvious.

So it's "obvious" that the ripper was a "gentleman" who probably dabbled in "stocks and shares", is it?

Excuse me, but if we dispense with all the newspaper stories

I wasn't suggesting we should dispense with "all" the newspaper stories. I have merely encouraged a selective approach to the newspaper sources we read. For instance, if a paper cites a police source or references an opinion shared by the police as a collective, it carries rather more weight than the opinion of the newspaper itself. It also carries more weight that press-recorded interviews with decidedly dodgy witnesses of the type that were discredited pre-inquest.

since his detective department had no direction with respect to Time of Death

They didn't have "no direction". They had some pretty compelling direction from two Miller's Court witnesses both attesting to a "cry" of murder being heard in the small hours of the morning (albeit later than Bond's estimate), with one of them stating that it came from the direction of Kelly's room.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

We know full well this occurred in the Star's case, as they were the only press source to track down and interview Israel Schwartz.

I always wondered who put that knife in "Pipemans" hand. A little meddling with witness testimony, spicing up the story?

Jon

[caz]

Actually, Jon means Hutch can't be the killer cos the killer would have never come forward. Therefore, if "spot on", such things never happened in your opinion.

I'm not saying that killers have never come forward, David. I'm saying that I share Jon's opinion that Kelly's killer would never have come forward to place himself outside her door between 2.15 and 3am. He didn't need to come forward, any more than Blotchy needed to come forward after being seen by Cox at midnight. They can't seriously be compared with modern killers who did so - and paid the price - because they knew they'd be identified as prime suspects sooner or later. And it's a fine line between bravado and foolhardiness, so I doubt Hutch the ripper offered one bogus account to the cops, followed by a flowered up version to the papers, and was then content to slip off the radar forever, if his thing was drawing attention to himself and gloating about having got away with murder.

Well, I'll let you discuss this with Jon, whose opinion is that Hutch has been dismissed by Bond's TOD.
Or should I say "TOM" ? (Time Of Meal)

That's good of you, but I don't need to discuss Bond's TOD with Jon thanks. I'm happy with whatever reasons Abberline had for not going on to suspect Hutch of anything more dastardly than coming late to the party with useless information.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Now I get it. Thanks.

Do you think the killer sought this place (cul-de-sac) or blundered into it?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If just one in ten Spitalfields unfortunates was young enough to operate from a room of her own, I guess the killer was quite likely to have 'blundered into' one such as Kelly, and been taken back to her place, in the course of that autumn. But I suspect he could hardly believe his luck when this actually happened one nasty old November night. He certainly couldn't contain himself once he got her all to himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

obscure

Hello Caroline. Then you see her as bringing him there? That's certainly better than him finding her in such an obscure, out of the way, place.

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

If we shouldn,t compare killers in 1888 to those of today,(I do not ascribe to that)no reason not to compare victims.It is reported that at least Nicholls and Chapman had a pressing need of money to obtain a night's lodging,and supposedly went out into the streets to earn some.Kelly had no such need.She was assured of a room and bed,and there is no indication to suggest that situation was about to end at 2AM the night she was killed.

[The Good Michael]

If we shouldn,t compare killers in 1888 to those of today,(I do not ascribe to that)no reason not to compare victims.It is reported that at least Nicholls and Chapman had a pressing need of money to obtain a night's lodging,and supposedly went out into the streets to earn some.Kelly had no such need.She was assured of a room and bed,and there is no indication to suggest that situation was about to end at 2AM the night she was killed.

You absolutely don't know what Kelly was thinking about her living situation. This is a huge assumption, Harry. We know Bowyer came around in the morning to collect the rent. We don't know if this was an uncomfortable situation for her, believing she would be tossed out when she, yet again, had no money. Or, she had some money from her last customer. He situation was that she was desperate and needed money. The only difference between her and the others that we know for sure, was that the killer had more space in which to work.

Mike

[DVV]

You absolutely don't know what Kelly was thinking about her living situation. This is a huge assumption, Harry. We know Bowyer came around in the morning to collect the rent. We don't know if this was an uncomfortable situation for her, believing she would be tossed out when she, yet again, had no money.

That's true, Mike. Too bad McCarthy wasn't asked if he was about to toss her out.

Or, she had some money from her last customer.

She undoubtedly got some money from Blotchy. Not enough to pay what she (and Barnett ?) owed to McCarthy, though.

Her situation was that she was desperate and needed money.

Yes, but not as desperate as Chapman, I think. At least, she had three men that seemed ready to help her if they could. Or two.

The only difference between her and the others that we know for sure, was that the killer had more space in which to work.

I know for sure that she was also much younger than the others, Mike.

[harry]

Mike I was comparing needs.There is no assuming Kelly had a bed and room for the night of her death,unlike Nicholls and Chapman,it is fact.What I find unconvincing,as I would of a person today,Is that it would take uuntill 2AM in the morning before the need for money became overwhelming,but this appears so if Hutchinson is to be believed.