Social class of Jack the Ripper

[Ben]

Bowyer's Wednesday afternoon/evening encounter was not part of his police statement

Indeed Jon, but such an encounter would certainly have been "part of his police statement" had it involved a man of conspicuous appearance in the company of the victim; or else the police were grossly incompetent for failing to elicit such important information. In fact, if we accept the description as accurate, it would mean a potential Jack the Ripper sighting would have been concealed for eternity were it not for a single gimlet-eyed Welsh journalist.

I'm confident that the above was not the case; that the police and coroner were not incompetent, and that the description was an invention.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

If bowyer had seen any suspicious characters about near the time of Kelly's murder it would have definitely come out during the inquest.

Agreed Abby - as it would also have done in the police statement.

A very happy Thanksgiving to you too!

[RockySullivan]

This was not the night of the murder though Abby, different night.

Wait Wickerman, your claiming Bowyer was not in the court around 3:30 am on the night of the murder?

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;361384]Hi Pinkmoon

If you are still saying that you have no idea of the class of murderer it must be true that Grampton is not "the solution " some of your group have been suggesting.

Regard
Grampton will become a lot clearer shortly

[Elamarna]

Hi Pinkmoon

If you are still saying that you have no idea of the class of murderer it must be true that Grampton is not "the solution " some of your group have been suggesting.

Regards

[pinkmoon]

I have absolutley no idea what social class our killer was from but from anylizing the only hard evidence we have I'm pretty certain he didn't live in the area of the murders but visited the area to commit his crimes

[Wickerman]

... As I've already mentioned, MacDonald queried Sarah Lewis as to whether or not she had seen "suspicious persons in the district",..

Indeed you did Ben (I was slow to respond this time), but the difference is, Sarah Lewis mentioned this creep in her police statement, so naturally the coroner is using those police statements as a basis for his questions.
Bowyer's Wednesday afternoon/evening encounter was not part of his police statement, yet he did mention it when asked, but he was not asked to describe the man, nor whether he thought he looked or acted suspicious. Which is not the case with Lewis, her 'creep' (Britannia-man) did act and look suspicious, to her.

[Wickerman]

... As a matter of fact Debra Arif found a direct quote from bowyer saying he was in the court during the night of the murder in which he lamented the fact that he didn't see anyone.

This was not the night of the murder though Abby, different night.

[Abby Normal]

With respect, Pack, I would dispute even the possibility that Bowyer's sighting failed to receive a mention at the inquest, had such a sighting occurred. As I've already mentioned, MacDonald queried Sarah Lewis as to whether or not she had seen "suspicious persons in the district", thereby providing her with an opportunity to provide details of her experience involving the suspicious stranger from Wednesday 7th - about which the coroner was already fully conversant. His line of questioning was directly pertinent to the information the witnesses had already provided in their initial police statements, which is why it makes little sense to claim that sightings of potential murderers were deliberately withheld to accommodate supposedly more interesting matters; if it wasn't aired at the inquest, it would have been the failure of the police for not extracting this rather critical information.

Agree. If bowyer had seen any suspicious characters about near the time of Kelly's murder it would have definitely come out during the inquest. As a matter of fact Debra Arif found a direct quote from bowyer saying he was in the court during the night of the murder in which he lamented the fact that he didn't see anyone.

By the way Ben. Happy thanksgiving to you .

[Ben]

I'm still inclined to disagree and accept Bowyers sighting.
As the person who discovered the body he was the second most important witness after Barnett.

With respect, Pack, I would dispute even the possibility that Bowyer's sighting failed to receive a mention at the inquest, had such a sighting occurred. As I've already mentioned, MacDonald queried Sarah Lewis as to whether or not she had seen "suspicious persons in the district", thereby providing her with an opportunity to provide details of her experience involving the suspicious stranger from Wednesday 7th - about which the coroner was already fully conversant. His line of questioning was directly pertinent to the information the witnesses had already provided in their initial police statements, which is why it makes little sense to claim that sightings of potential murderers were deliberately withheld to accommodate supposedly more interesting matters; if it wasn't aired at the inquest, it would have been the failure of the police for not extracting this rather critical information.

[GUT]

No, I understood what you were saying alright, only it didn't match what you told us in your 'I think I have found him' thread. In that thread, at #58, you said:

'So what can I tell you about what I know about him?

1.He was extremely organized.
2.He was not a jew, not a “lunatic”, not a doctor.
3.The murder dates are connected to his own personal motive.
4.The methods he used are clearly connected to his own motive.
5.He wrote to the police.
6.He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.
7.If the police had understood his communications, they would have caught him.
8.He wasn´t interrupted efter killing Stride. He was just being very cautious.
9.With the murders he wanted to say something to society.'

It was point number 6 in your 'theory'. Only, we now learn that he did not give 'the exact address' to one of the murder sites.

And, furthermore, as you now seem to be denying any reliance on the letter, it means you you don't actually know that he wrote a letter to the editor in a paper. So that's one point down of the things you 'know', 8 more to go.

And the bolder part PROVES Pierre is full of it.

[JadenCollins]

We find him here, we find him there,
Pierre's sticky threads are everywhere.
Culled from Casebook, or a letter from Hell?
One thing's certain
Pierre won't tell.

C4

This actually made my day

[packers stem]

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the late reply.



As I've already mentioned, John Kelly might have assumed that Eddowes had been locked up earlier than she had been in reality, i.e. during the "afternoon" as opposed to the evening or night, as per conventional definitions.



But the coroner would unquestionably have "spoken to" the witness on the subject of a man observed in the victim's company had there been one, and had Bowyer made reference to such a man in his initial police statement. MacDonald, as we know, was familiar with the content of the witnesses' police statements prior to their appearance in court, and would, accordingly, have ensured that all the pertinent details were aired. He was aware, for instance, that Maxwell's evidence was "different to that given by anyone else" and for that reason cautioned her to be "careful" about it. He also asked Sarah Lewis if she had seen any other "suspicious persons in the district", obviously with the full expectation that she would then relate her encounter with the Bethnal Green Road stranger on Wednesday.

If a sighting of a male stranger (in this case a highly conspicuous one in the company of the victim, no less) appeared in a police statement, it would certainly have been divulged at the inquest, unless you would rather accept that the police were breathtakingly incompetent for failing to extract the information (not helped by Bowyer mysteriously withholding it simply because he wasn't asked?!), or that MacDonald was breathtaking incompetent for failing to ensure that critical eyewitness information was imparted at the inquest.

Personally, I opt for the rather more obvious explanation; that Bowyer never saw such a man, because he was a paint-by-numbers invented description that pandered to popular perceptions of the ripper's likely appearance.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben
I'm still inclined to disagree and accept Bowyers sighting.
As the person who discovered the body he was the second most important witness after Barnett.
There were far more questions directed at him surrounding the discovery,broken window etc.
His sighting of 2 days prior is not likely to have cropped up.Isn't there also a newspaper report of him entering the court in the early hours to check the water tap? I don't think that got a mention either even though it's highly likely that it was one of his jobs on a daily basis

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Sorry for the late reply.

It is sufficient to demonstrate that there was significant overlap between the terms; Afternoon, Evening, & Night, which is unconventional to us these days.

As I've already mentioned, John Kelly might have assumed that Eddowes had been locked up earlier than she had been in reality, i.e. during the "afternoon" as opposed to the evening or night, as per conventional definitions.

The witness is not there to give a running commentary of events that night. You've heard the expression, "only speak when you are spoken to"?, that applies to the witness.

But the coroner would unquestionably have "spoken to" the witness on the subject of a man observed in the victim's company had there been one, and had Bowyer made reference to such a man in his initial police statement. MacDonald, as we know, was familiar with the content of the witnesses' police statements prior to their appearance in court, and would, accordingly, have ensured that all the pertinent details were aired. He was aware, for instance, that Maxwell's evidence was "different to that given by anyone else" and for that reason cautioned her to be "careful" about it. He also asked Sarah Lewis if she had seen any other "suspicious persons in the district", obviously with the full expectation that she would then relate her encounter with the Bethnal Green Road stranger on Wednesday.

If a sighting of a male stranger (in this case a highly conspicuous one in the company of the victim, no less) appeared in a police statement, it would certainly have been divulged at the inquest, unless you would rather accept that the police were breathtakingly incompetent for failing to extract the information (not helped by Bowyer mysteriously withholding it simply because he wasn't asked?!), or that MacDonald was breathtaking incompetent for failing to ensure that critical eyewitness information was imparted at the inquest.

Personally, I opt for the rather more obvious explanation; that Bowyer never saw such a man, because he was a paint-by-numbers invented description that pandered to popular perceptions of the ripper's likely appearance.

Regards,
Ben

[Mayerling]

I find this odd because Mary Jane's discovery was not guaranteed from what I can discern. It was by chance that the gentleman turned up at the property to chase back rent. I suppose if he hadn't done that then it is possible that the body could have lain there for some time. Therefore it wasn't assured that her body would be found on the same day and therefore spoil any parade by the Mayor.

It seems it was just circumstance that lay outside the killers influence that she was found

Good point. Unless the killer knew the rent man would be coming around within a day or even at some hour.

Jeff