where do you stand?

[Fisherman]

They named a whisky after a scottish ant?

C4

MacMyra, you mean? (Myra is Swedish for ant). Yes it would seem so. But donīt brood on it - have a glass and youīll forgive them!

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Mack the ant?

Hello Fisherman,

Just teasing. I'm sure it's delicious - I do enjoy a glass of whisky!

Cheers,
C4

[curious4]

Peculiar eyes

Hello,

I don't think Pc Stephen White's account of his encounter with the man "with eyes like glow worms" was fictitious, was it? And there are other references to a man with peculiar eyes.

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Hello,

I don't think Pc Stephen White's account of his encounter with the man "with eyes like glow worms" was fictitious, was it? And there are other references to a man with peculiar eyes.

Best wishes,
C4

Indeed, but there is no contemporary account of what PC White saw. The story handed down to us came by way of his recollections, many years later.

You are also thinking of the man seen with Stride at the Bricklayer's Arms (no eyelashes), or the man seen by Bowyer in the Court on Wednesday night (peculiar eyes).

If all these sightings are the same man, he appears to have flown under the radar.

Here is another account which tries to summarize the claims by Lewis, Kennedy and Paumier...

“Shortly afterwards, it is stated a respectably dressed man accosted Kelly and offered her money. The appearance of this man is far from definitely ascertainable. Some say he wore a high silk hat and brown overcoat; others that he was habited in dark mixture trousers, long, dark overcoat, and low-crowned, brown hat, and that he carried the now famous shiny, black bag in his hand. In stature he is variously described as of medium height and slight, short and thick set, and of awkward gait. Nearly all the accounts agree, however, as to his wearing a black moustache and having a very remarkable and unpleasant glare in his eyes."
Sunday Times, 11 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious4]

Hello Wickerman,

True, but so much paperwork is missing. Pc White may well have filed a report at the time. (Here I go again, speculating!)

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Hi C4
Agreed, and it has been speculated that PC White was the mysterious "City PC in Mitre Square". I just think some of us struggle with the question, why was he not called at the inquest?

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

White was actually a Sergeant, not a PC.

And had been since 1881. So wouldn't have been on a beat.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Thanks Neil.
I guess 'beat' is just assumed, if the PC was out on the street and working then....

Let me ask you, we read in the Chapman murder...
Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed: On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street.

Why is an Inspector on duty in Commercial St.? - I mean what duty would that have been, any ideas?

Regards, Jon S.

[mklhawley]

Since what I said was pretty much, "A stab to the abdomen of a live person can produce a huge gush of blood, if it happens, and there's a good chance of it doing so, to hit the aorta; therefore, it makes a lot of sense to kill the women by slitting their throats first, even though JTR had no special interest in the throat, and proceeded to go to work on the abdomen and genitals as soon as the victim was dead. As an added benefit, a woman stabbed in the abdomen might get in one pretty good scream before she died, even if getting stabbed in the aorta kills almost as quickly as getting one's carotid cut through."

I don't see where you think I misunderstood, so I guess I must not have been clear.

Yet a second added benefit to throat cutting is that it is, if anything, more effective if done from behind, giving the killer an element of surprise. There's going to be a moment of visual recognition, if he comes at the victim from the front with a knife, giving her more time to scream, or even pick up a rock, or something. One the other hand, attempting to stab someone, especially someone corpulent, in the abdomen, from behind, isn't easy. Either you hit the aorta right away, and make a mess, or miss, and she has time to scream, and even possibly get away and alert someone.

My apologies RivkahChaya. With six kids running around and me sneaking on the computer before the wife sees me, I read too fast.

Sincerely,

Mike

[RavenDarkendale]

@ Ben

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.

I never said anything except "fairly well off." This would fit the maps. As for 'toffs" not being comfortable in the East End they went, didn't they to enjoy a lifestyle they didn't dare to do in their own locale.

The murderer did not need anything other than audacity to commit these murders. Take Bundy for an example. He was very good at convincing girls that he was harmless, or their friend, or injured. He killed and dumped bodies all over the USA, staying in some areas even after reports that could implicate him, such as descriptions of his volkswagon. He didn't even bother to change cars.

Serial killers have been stopped with bodies in the car and cheerfully bluffed their way through. Caught in out of the way areas, near where bodies were dumped, they manage to convince police that they have good reason to be there. Dahlmer was so convincing the police returned a victim that had escaped to him. The serial killer knows no bounds.

[curious4]

I believe he was checking with under-cover policemen who were watching certain places which the police thought might be of interest, not walking the beat.

Best wishes,
C4

Oops, of course, sergeant!

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Your "tally" is a very immature argument, and only made worse by its total wrongness. For starters, you treat all alleged sightings as equal regardless of such issues as credibility, and the likelihood of them being of the actual ripper. We dispense straight away with the discredited "evidence" from the Kelly murder (bye-bye Mr. Astrakhan, zero points for you), leaving us only with Blotchy if we restrict ourselves to the reliable inquest evidence. So 1-0 goes to the argument that the killer apparently came from the labouring classes. Then working backwards to the Eddowes murder, we get double points for Lawende's sighting of a "rough, shabby" man in a peaked cap and red neckerchief. I say double points because it was evidently taken very seriously by the police, and was used in later identity attempts with suspects. It was also the closest in time to the actual murder, making it a near certainty that the man in question was the ripper. At the very least, it meets the non-discredited, inquest-presented criteria that reasonable standards demand. So 2-0.

Schwartz did not appear at the inquest, but we know from internal police commentary that his evidence was taken seriously. Swanson's report mentioned nothing about the man having a well-dressed appearance, and I reject the later press detail that the did, just as I reject the other embellishments, such as the claim that pipeman had a knife. As for Smith and Marshall, nothing remotely problematic about their evidence, except inasmuch as neither of them saw the likely ripper. They were observed with Stride earlier in the evening, and clearly neither was the intoxicated broad-shouldered man seen afterwards in the act of attacking Stride. Indeed, it is clear that she spent time in the company of several men on the night of her death. In addition, neither man could have been the shabby, red neckerchief man (i.e. the actual ripper) seen with Eddowes shortly before her body was discovered...unless he changed his clothes between the "double event".

So you have a tenuous case for the clerkly man being responsible for the Stride murder only, and a non-existent case for him being the ripper.

It was not a blue-collar worker seen by Mrs Long (1-0)

Ermmmm...no.

It could easily have been a blue collar worker, and probably was. You've probably misunderstood the "shabby genteel" reference, and took it to mean respectable, whereas actually it referred to shabby clothes that might have been good once. In other words, clothes that had been pawned several times over. Should there be any doubt over this, I would draw your attention to the very rough looking man from Mrs. Fiddymont's pub, who witnesses also described as "shabby genteel" and who gave no appearance of belonging to any class above the impoverished masses.

So you LOSE that tally, Jon, as the eyewitness evidence in favour of a Joe Average is far greater, and far more reliable than the "well-dressed" sightings which were either discredited or unrelated to the appearance of the real killer.

You should notice, the question about 'Wednesday' was posed by a Juror. Which was basically off-topic with respect to the immediate inquiry and why Bowyer was summoned.

I think you'll find the issue of when Kelly was last seen was very much ON-topic with respect to this particular inquiry, as was the question of men seen in her company. Why on earth would Bowyer use the expression "evening" to describe an earlier sighting of Kelly, but use "afternoon" to describe a later one? It makes no sense, and had he really seen Kelly with a man, it would certainly have come up at the inquest. The article is bogus.

And speaking of bogus, the description attributed to White is possibly the worst of the bunch. "Long tapering fingers", "eyes like luminous glow worms", pointy devil horns and pitchfork, diabolically evil laugh, a snake for a tongue...and so on. All a tinsy winsy bit implausible, and - surprise, surprise - appeared AFTER White's death.

Regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Thanks Neil.
I guess 'beat' is just assumed, if the PC was out on the street and working then....

Let me ask you, we read in the Chapman murder...
Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed: On Saturday morning, at ten minutes past six, I was on duty in Commercial-street.

Why is an Inspector on duty in Commercial St.? - I mean what duty would that have been, any ideas?

Regards, Jon S.

Re White. He must have been in plain clothes when conducting this alledged surveillence, also he was H division.

Commercial St was a station and a section house, therefore there would have been a mixture of men working (on the ground floor and basement) and resting/relaxing and sleeping (1st & 2nd floor). On duty means carrying out Police work and not off duty which is obviously relaxing/resting. Its not a sole reference to beatwork. He could have been filing reports, compliling order books etc.

So basically Chandler was coducting his duties.

Monty

[Ben]

But onto far more important, far more interesting matters:

And if itīs not a good and preferably peaty whisky, then thereīs no space in that cabinet for it. Ardbeg, Lagavulin, Caol Ila, Talisker ... love it.

All wonderful stuff, Fish.

Your cabinet warrants some serious raiding by the sound of it! I'd make room for Bowmore too, another delicious Islay malt. The Laphroaig is my favourite too. I only recently discovered the Quarter Cask version, and it's even better than the original (saying a great deal!).

I will certainly look out for Mackmyra!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

But onto far more important, far more interesting matters:



All wonderful stuff, Fish.

Your cabinet warrants some serious raiding by the sound of it! I'd make room for Bowmore too, another delicious Islay malt. The Laphroaig is my favourite too. I only recently discovered the Quarter Cask version, and it's even better than the original (saying a great deal!).

I will certainly look out for Mackmyra!

All the best,
Ben

Bowmore, yes - and, being interested in the Ripper case, I of course favour the "Enigma" ...

The best,
Fisherman