Tweet
Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
-
I could, but I won't. -
Jon
Helston doesn't say that enquiries were made with everyone in the locaility. Anyway his comment of 7th September is trumped by Spratling's comment of 17th September where he specifically admits that all the resident's at Bucks Row were not questioned.
(I think this isue has been done to death though).
Isenschmid (A-Z spelling) was firmly in the frame until the double event on 30th September. Abberline was still trying to get access to him at the Fairfielfd Road Asylum where he was incarcerated - and so cleared from being the Ripper (unless you have him as the culprit for the first two or three murders of course...)
In any case the significance is that by the time Paul testified (17th September) Iscenschmid was thought to be the most likely culprit and the police thought they had their man. Before Iscenschmid they though they had their man in Pizer!
Dave
The significance of this is not whether or not the residents at Bucks Row were ever questioned afterwards. l tend to doubt they were (as the police resources were stretched investigating new murders) but that is somewhat irrelevant. The point is the police investigation of the Nichols murder was faulty and so it is plausible (indeed likely) that Cross's residence was never checked and his wife was not questioned - a proposition which is backed up by the non discovery of his alias, and the specific knowledge we have that Paul was raided many days later as he had not pro-actively presented himself to a police station.
Other examples of the faulty investigation are the tampering with Polly's body and clothing by the mortuary attendants after the body was left unattended by the police, or the rapid washing away of the blood evidence, or the lack of control of the crime scene with passers by coming and going in the immediate aftermath of the discovery.
Also as pointed out above, the police thought they had their man, in succession, with Pizer and then Iscenschmid and so naturally will have taken their foot off the pedal.
Garry
"From the press report(s) which quoted Cross as having said, ‘I’m not going to touch her.’"
Errrr and the press reports that quote him as saying that he had touched her? This is getting a little stupid.
An example of a serial killer who kills while at work?
Dr Shipman - that took me one second to remember. Or Beverley Allit? And Gary Ridgeway may well have killed on his way to work.
And liars... If Hucthinson lied we can make him a suspect can't we? But that would be hypothesising wouldn't it? Conjouring something sinsister from an innocent event? Turning opinion into fact?Comment
-
article
Hello Lechmere.
"Isenschmid (A-Z spelling) was firmly in the frame until the double event on 30th September."
So, you too, place little confidence in the "Star" article of 21 September?
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Completely different scenario. We have corroboration of his being near the scene by at least one eye-witness (though there were hundreds of others nearby never mentioned), and we - yawn - know he was "discredited". Oh, and he came late to the hearing (though it was the shortest in the history of the civilized world), and, and, he said he knew Kelly (though he was a liar). I mean, add a lot of newspaper articles and information about all the victims, oh and a glossary and an appendix.... perhaps a few photos of everyone BUT Hutchinson, and there's a book in there somewhere... where was I? Oh, so it's completely different.Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
Mike
PS: Did I mention Romford? Because I meant to.huh?Comment
-
Irony, I trust, mikeComment
-
Garry:
"Anyone can hypothesize."
Yep. Some better. Some worse. And ...
" Anyone can conjure something sinister from perfectly innocent events."
Not really. It is a lot simpler to accept that what people tell you is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All you have to decide for yourself is whether you want to be called overinventive or naïve.
Over and out,
FishermanComment
-
I don't know. I just read an article written by a Brit that says Americans don't understand irony. I'd call it satire. I suppose. Bu the way, I like the way your arguments are shoring up the suspect. It makes me think... which I don't usually do.Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
Mikehuh?Comment
-
Hi Lechmereor the rapid washing away of the blood evidence, or the lack of control of the crime scene with passers by coming and going in the immediate aftermath of the discovery.
The above wouldn't have seemed defective to the police in the LVP - their imperative was to get the body away, clean up the crime scene and keep everything as low key as possible...thus, it was reasoned, keeping public order...and, after all, in an age before forensics, apart from a search for more obvious clues, what else was there to do?
The mortuary attendants washing the body were out of order - however, in doing so they were actually going against explicit instructions from Detective Sergeant Enright, and you can't really hold the police responsible for that...it would seem from this and the casual discarding of the clothing (which the police recovered) that Whitechapel Mortuary was a pretty slack old ship!
In other words I don't think the police investigation was quite as careless as you seem to be implying; they did, after all, track down Paul and follow up with him, and to me, this suggests they wouldn't have neglected to follow up on Cross either (notwithstanding his coming forward far more readily)...after all, other than hearsay stories, what other real clues were there to pursue?
All the best
DaveComment
-
He was vicious.
Hello Michael.
"I just read an article written by a Brit that says Americans don't understand irony. I'd call it satire."
Might also be puns, pathos or parody.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Maybe I always liked Dumas. Pathos was the underrated musketeer in my opinion.Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
Mikehuh?Comment
-
Dave
The Police were roundly criticised for their sloppy conduct of the Nichols case - including leaving Nichols's body alone and in the care of two semi-decrepid workhouse attendants.
They seemed to have taken some time to track down Paul despite knowing roughly where he lived, his name, the road where he worked (which is a small road) and the nature of his job.
There is nothing to suggest they would have visited Cross at his home and I would re-emphasise that his real name would certainly have come to light should they have done so.
Mike
Who are you caling a dumn ass?Comment
-
The police were roundly criticised by virtually everyone (politicians, the press, Wynne Baxter, Uncle Tom Cobley and all) throughout the ripper murders. However, the presence of criticism doesn't necessarily make it true...The Police were roundly criticised for their sloppy conduct of the Nichols case
It looks like we'll have to agree to differ!
All the very best
DaveComment
-
Lynn
I am a little annoyed at not being familiar with the Star report of 21st sept which seems to me exonerates Isenschmid prior to the double event (hence my delay in replying as I wanted to check other sources). It isn't a very big deal for my theory as Isenschmid was most certainly suspect no 1 fir about a week and shows how police prejudices worked (mad foreigner).
Out of interest do you disregard this report and if so why?Comment
-
But dave it is true that the police were neglectful in not guarding polly's corpse and were neglectful in not questioning all the residents in bucks row.
There can be no dispute about that.
We can of course disagree over what can be extrapolated from there.Comment
-
story
Hello Lechmere. Don't want to highjack, but the story contains several errors.
1. JI was not released until over a year later.
2. He had no brother in the country to vouch for him.
3. There is no corresponding MEPO report attesting to ANY of the story.
Your idea is shared by both Evans and Rumbelow on the one hand and Sugden on the other--JI was suspected UNTIL the "Double Event."
Cheers.
LCComment
Comment