Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Agreed, and each one poisoned gradually over a long period of time.
    agree with you and Harry on this one, and Abberline said the same thing.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Prey need predators. Besides, if you think that the social backdrop that spawned concurrent serial killers like Bonin and Kraft is no different from the awful privation and endemic thuggishness of the Victorian East End slums, perhaps you should think again.
      That's not what I said though. I said this 3km^2 area in the East End, called Whitechapel, in 1888 isn't somehow unique in poverty, at the time, before it, nor after it and none of these places because of poverty and crime have spawned more than one serial killer operating at the same time.

      In short, to claim that there could be more than one serial killer because 'Whitechapel is unique' is just contradicted by the same poverty and crime being in numerous places throughout the world for the past century and a half. Most of this world still live in such poverty and plenty of those places have outrageous levels of violent crimes. Yet they don't produce two serial killers operating at the same time unless you have much bigger populations over vastly wider areas.

      Producing two serial killers or more at the same time does not seem to be remotely connected to poverty or the amount of crime a place has. It has to do with area sizes and population densities. Simply the bigger the area and the more people it has, the greater the chances of more than one person operating as serial homicidal maniac. These figures are 400,000+ or more and in areas spanning virtually dozens of times the size of Whitechapel. 3km^2 vs 400km^2 or 1000s km^2.

      Anyway, it's just a point to show that statistically, Chapman is a great candidate.
      Last edited by Batman; 09-26-2018, 06:37 AM.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
        That's not what I said though. I said this 3km^2 area in the East End, called Whitechapel, in 1888 isn't somehow unique in poverty, at the time, before it, nor after it and none of these places because of poverty and crime have spawned more than one serial killer operating at the same time.

        In short, to claim that there could be more than one serial killer because 'Whitechapel is unique' is just contradicted by the same poverty and crime being in numerous places throughout the world for the past century and a half. Most of this world still live in such poverty and plenty of those places have outrageous levels of violent crimes. Yet they don't produce two serial killers operating at the same time unless you have much bigger populations over vastly wider areas.

        Producing two serial killers or more at the same time does not seem to be remotely connected to poverty or the amount of crime a place has. It has to do with area sizes and population densities. Simply the bigger the area and the more people it has, the greater the chances of more than one person operating as serial homicidal maniac. These figures are 400,000+ or more and in areas spanning virtually dozens of times the size of Whitechapel. 3km^2 vs 400km^2 or 1000s km^2.

        Anyway, it's just a point to show that statistically, Chapman is a great candidate.
        What's your opinion on the Thames Torso series? After all, one of the victims was dumped in Whitechapel.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          Ben didn't say "police reports" he said police documents-which would include the MM. which was pretty extensive.
          Hi Abby. Here is the Macnaghten memo. 7 handwritten sheets:

          https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/memo.html

          Here is the total of Macnaghten’s remarks on witnesses in that document:

          “No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one.”

          That’s it.

          Those are Macnaghten’s extensive remarks on witnesses.

          From this you and Ben conclude there is a “glaring” omission of Hutchinson in the existing police documentation?

          Seeing your memory is better than mine, can you point to any other police documentation filed after November 1888 that shows a similar glaring omission in a discussion of witnesses?

          And should we similarly throw out Packer, Elizabeth Long, Joseph Lawende, and Israel Schwartz as witnesses because they are also not mentioned after November 1888? Or should we simply admit that the argument is a bad one no matter how many times it is repeated?


          All the best.

          [Macnaghten's only mention of a witness is the City PC in the Aberconway version, which was not an official police document. Swanson and Anderson allude to an unknown witness many years later, but this had to do with the identification of a specific suspect, Kosminski. Abberline mentions witnesses describing a peaked cap, because that is how Klosowski was represented at the time of his interview, 1903. Dew mentions Maxwell and Hutchinson, and thinks they were mistaken, but not dishonest. Not a heck of a lot of "glaring omissions" if you ask me].

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
            What's your opinion on the Thames Torso series? After all, one of the victims was dumped in Whitechapel.
            The thing about the Thames is that it was turning up Torsos going back as far as historical records of the Thames, through to 1888 and through to today. Torsos and body parts can drift and wash up anywhere as was the case in the recovery of all of Elizbeth Jackson over several days.

            Finding Torsos at sea and in major city rivers around the world happens. What is the general explanation? It seems that many criminals basically come across the same idea that if they want to dispose of someone and not have them identified, to remove the limbs and head and dump the torso is a way around it. Then you have predation on bodies in the river which end up removing the extremities.

            Gangs members have often confessed to such things. Which seems a good explanation.

            Out of all the Torso finds on the Thames/Whitechapel, four are most interesting. Rainham, Whitehall, Jackson and Pinchin. These were discounted as the work of JtR because of MO which we know today isn't a good reason to discount a connection. So the possibility remains it was JtR.

            Elizabeth Jackson's wounds closely resembled the one at Rainham.

            Whether the torso murders are connected or not remains to be seen, but given these cases are not unusual around the world, it's hard to ascribe one hand to them. The very nature of water being a place where bodies get dumped is nothing new and will still go on.

            Pinchin seems the most interesting in terms of JtR.
            Last edited by Batman; 09-26-2018, 08:30 AM.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Regarding "Toppy," it looks like Susan Iremonger is still around and doing document examination; I would think one could resubmit the signatures and see if there wasn't a mix-up. There might be a fee involved, but it would settle the matter once and for all.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                Regarding "Toppy," it looks like Susan Iremonger is still around and doing document examination; I would think one could resubmit the signatures and see if there wasn't a mix-up. There might be a fee involved, but it would settle the matter once and for all.
                I believe that Fisherman has already obtained the opinion of another expert, Frank Leander, whose views on the matter weren't exactly congruent with those of Sue Iremonger, if I recall correctly. Perhaps someone should get a third opinion but, personally, I think that the signatures speak for themselves.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • I sense which way the wind is blowing.
                  Hopefully not in the direction of an extremely tedious debate over what constitutes a “document”, RJ.

                  As Abby has already explained, the “MM” most assuredly qualifies on that score, and since it was written by a member of the police after November 1888, it serves as a perfect example of what I earlier described as a “police document on the subject of witnesses, written after the murders”; something you wrongly claimed I was “codding” about even existing!

                  It was inevitable and predictable that you would then change the goalposts and claim that while the Mac memo is permissible as evidence, the Aberconway version is not. Of course, it should be apparent to all that the only reason you would create such a meaningless distinction is because the latter includes the detail about the “City PC”, which proved so destructive to your thoroughly erroneous and now totally debunked notion that Mac was only referring to in flagrante delicto sightings when he stated that “nobody ever saw the Whitechapel murderer”.

                  What are you suggesting we ought to conclude from the presence of the “City PC” detail in the Aberconway version only - that he made it up for the sheer shytes and giggles of it?

                  I’ll try to make things easier: whenever the senior police officials from the ripper case wrote and said stuff about the witnesses after 1888, their comments conspicuously excluded Hutchinson, which is an extraordinary thing if he continued to be treated as a valuable witness. Without any “discrediting” having occurred, he would have been the obvious “go-to” witness for any suspect comparison that might crop up in the future, head and shoulders above the rest; whereas the silence on the subject wouldn’t be an extraordinary thing (but rather an inevitable and entirely to be expected thing) if Hutchinson did NOT continue to be treated as a valuable witnesses, and was instead discredited, as reported at the time.

                  You’re still fixated on the idea that Abberline only referenced Lawende out of some obsession with Klosowski’s peaked cap, but this continues to be nonsense. If Hutchinson was still considered a valuable witness, Abberline would have seized on the golden opportunity to infer similarities between his new star suspect and the man vividly described by his star witness.

                  The fact that he didn’t seize on this opportunity, and instead faffed about with incredibly tenuous comparisons with peaked cap-wearing men, serves as irrefutable evidence that Astrakhan man was no longer considered a potential suspect.

                  But now we have some brand new nonsense about Abberline supposedly saving the really juicy (i.e. Hutchinson-related) stuff for Macnaghten. What do you suppose the former would have said? “Gosh, I wonder why I forgot to mention the star witness Hutchinson when enthusing passionately to the PMG about the likelihood of Klosowski being the killer?”.

                  Or, far more likely: “Pity none of our witnesses from 1888 aid the Klosowski cause particularly well. It’s such a shame Astrakhan turned out to bogus - he would have been ideal!”.

                  And should we similarly throw out Packer, Elizabeth Long, Joseph Lawende, and Israel Schwartz as witnesses because they are also not mentioned after November 1888?
                  Packer was discredited, just as Hutchinson was, perfectly accounting for the non-mention in his case.

                  Elizabeth Long didn’t see her man’s face, perfectly accounting for the non-mention of her.

                  Lawende was mentioned quite extensively, albeit rarely by name, and was evidently used in attempts to identity suspects.

                  Schwartz is an alternative candidate for the Jewish witness referred to by Anderson (which is obviously an entirely separate discussion for another time and thread.)

                  No. In other words.

                  By all means make an entreaty to Sue Iremonger, but I suspect she would be rather insulted at the insinuation that there was the slightest question mark over her original 1993 analysis.

                  All the best,
                  Ben
                  Last edited by Ben; 09-26-2018, 10:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • If it were possible, how would a contemporary interested newspaper-reading Man on the Clapham Omnibus have interpreted the Macnaghten Memorandum?
                    Last edited by Simon Wood; 09-26-2018, 10:14 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Ben - The reason I keep challenging you on this is because you keep insinuating there is a great body of documentation where the police are discussing witnesses after November 1888. You frequently refer to "subsequent reports" (plural) and "police documents" (plural).

                      This may be your honest impression; I am just trying to ascertain on what it is based.

                      I imagine that most of the serious researchers here have either a fairly complete set of MEPO and HO files on the Ripper case, or at least access to Evans & Skinner's Ultimate Companion, that contain the cream of those reports.

                      Where are these discussion of witnesses that you are referring to?

                      I am looking; I am not seeing ANY discussion of Schwartz, Lawende, etc.


                      The only report you mention is the Macnaghten Memo. If you wish, by all means use the Abberconway version is well. You now have two versions of the same document. Is there any other report you have in mind?

                      And no, I don't accept your Abberline argument. You evidently believe Klosowski was a spitting image of Hutchinson's suspect and thus it a serious omission not to mention him in 1903. I demur. Klosowski was depicted as a man in a peaked cap; that's all that Abberline stated at the time, so no need to mention Hutch.

                      Further, Hutch's man was 35, spoke or at least understood English (with Kelly), and was dressed to the teeth.

                      Klosowski was 23, a newly arrived immigrant, impoverished and quite probably didn't even speak English, and certainly wouldn't have dressed in spats, etc.

                      So I see no reason why Abberline would have made the instant association. Further, even if I accepted this argument, I wouldn't state that this was proof that Hutchinson was discredited. There are other explanations. It could mean that, like Dew, Abberline believed Hutchinson was mistaken.

                      Because Dew does not state Astrachan did not exist; he states that he believes Hutchinson had the wrong night.

                      Let's face it, Ben; we are analyzing the same exact documentation. We disagree on its interpretation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        If it were possible, how would a contemporary interested newspaper-reading Man on the Clapham Omnibus have interpreted the Macnaghten Memorandum?
                        That the police kept a tight lid on their investigation, and we know very little about it. Sir Mel is mentioning suspects that your newspaper-reading man from Clapham has never heard of.

                        But tell me, Simon, have you dropped us a clue as to where you are headed? You earlier state that Abberline was gullible. You now state that Hutchinson did not exist. How does a gullible man interview a suspect that does not exist?

                        It's a puzzle with only one answer.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                          By all means make an entreaty to Sue Iremonger, but I suspect she would be rather insulted at the insinuation that there was the slightest question mark over her original 1993 analysis.
                          If she was mistakenly given the wrong version of the certificate rather than the original, it's hardly her fault.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Hi RJ,

                            Given that our Man on the Clapham Omnibus read everything, he would know that all three of MM's JtR suspects displayed definite multiple killer tendencies, having appeared in the press for committing suicide, failing to muzzle a dog, and theft from a jeweller.

                            With regard to your question, I would say that your answer is correct.

                            Regards,

                            Simon

                            Comment


                            • Hello Ben, I'll sidestep the repetitive grandstanding, entertaining though it is, informative it is not.

                              Originally posted by Ben View Post

                              You’re the one forever gassing on about proper police procedure, reminding everyone that detectives would typically ask “interrogating” questions of their witnesses after listening to their initial narratives. According to your oft-repeated dogma, therefore, it is clear that Abberline did ask Bowyer if he had seen any suspicious strangers that night, but because the latter clearly responded in the negative, there was absolutely no need to mention it in the police report.
                              As you have noted yourself, Hutchinson gave an initial statement to police in just the same way as Bowyer did on 9 Nov., and Hutchinson was asked if he saw anybody in Dorset street - a natural question to put to the witness. His well known response being that he didn't.

                              Which shows two things - that it is necessary to make a record of the response even if it was in the negative. And, therefore, the question was never put to Bowyer, as we have no response in the negative or the positive to such a question.

                              You really need to appear in a court to see how the process works. What is expected of the witness, and what is not permitted.


                              And what about those exceptionally rare instances in which a cry of “murder” is very shortly thereafter followed by an actual murder? Or more to the point, what policeman worthy of his rank (or sane human being worthy of his skin) would instinctively dismiss the two events as unrelated coincidence?
                              If the coroner 'knew' the murder took place around 3:00 am, there was no need to call Maxwell.
                              Macdonald was also a surgeon, unlike Baxter, so Bond & Phillips were his peers, and a professional relationship can be expected to have existed between the three gentlemen.
                              Which shows the cry of murder was not a deal breaker as a firm sign of when the murder took place.


                              You’re quite sure that this press release was authorised by the police?
                              I didn't say that.
                              I explained that the description was...:
                              "...an official police suspect release. It is taken from an internal police circular issued across all stations."

                              These releases are published by the press periodically throughout the series of murders, but they are not provided by the police.
                              As I also explained, it was an "internal police circular" which means not for publication. These releases end up in the papers because reporters hand copy the details from a police notice board in the station.


                              Quite right, they’re not, but they provide mutual corroboration of a cry of “murder”.
                              No-one has suggested that there was no cry of murder, what is at issue is whether the cry was legitimate, as many - provably, were not.


                              Maxwell and Maurice Lewis were not “duplicates” either, but they provide mutual corroboration for a later morning time of death. It was therefore essential to provide both witnesses at the inquest in order to demonstrate this corroborative element to the coroner, unless of course one of those witnesses was considered unworthy of inclusion at the inquest for whatever reason.
                              Corroboration is the responsibility of the police, not the coroner. No need to call witnesses to provide the same evidence. Neither M.Lewis nor Mrs Kennedy had anything to offer that wasn't already provided by Maxwell & S.Lewis, respectively.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                                No, it isn’t.

                                No, it definitely and most emphatically isn’t.

                                In the actual quoted section of the article, Bowyer gave no indication whatsoever that he had seen anyone - instead he expressed regret that he hadn’t. If he had known that a killer was lurking in the court, concealed from view inside Kelly’s room, he would have prevented his escape.

                                But in the suspiciously unquoted portion of the article - the hearsay bit - we’re suddenly being told about a man inside the court at that time; a man you bafflingly want to have been Astrakhan, despite the fact that he should have been indoors in a dark room with Kelly at that time.
                                Knowing how easy it is to misrepresent the meaning of an article, it is always best to provide the actual quote.

                                "Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer. Bowyer has, he says, described this man to Inspector Abberline and Inspector Reid. Bowyer, who is known as "Indian Harry" has travelled a great deal, and formerly lived in India. He said to an Echo reporter this morning. "The murderer couldn't have come to a worse place (for escaping) than this court. There is only this narrow entrance, and If I had known he was there when I went to the water tap at three o'clock, I reckon he wouldn't have got off."

                                Which makes it abundantly clear that Bowyer saw a man in the court, but he had no idea that the man he saw at 3:00 am on Friday morning was the long sought killer.
                                As he says to the report, if he had known HE (the killer) was THERE (in the court), he wouldn't have got away.
                                Just plain English Ben, without the twists.


                                It is one of the many crucial pieces of evidence indicating that Hutchinson was not believed...
                                It isn't crucial, and it certainly is not evidence.

                                ....which, while not insignificant in isolation, becomes considerably weightier when viewed in conjunction with the treatment of Hutchinson from mid-November 1888 onwards coupled with the subsequent reports and memoirs of senior police officials.
                                I think you mean "not significant in isolation", and what "treatment" would this be?
                                The police do not release articles to the press concerning witnesses after they have been interviewed, unless there are new revelations.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X