Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Hi RJ,

    Did Sutcliffe, Shawcross and Ridgeway inject themselves into the investigation?
    Gary Ridgway did so in 1984 when he approached the police as a helpful informat regarding a victim he claimed to have known.

    Comment


    • People outside chatting,or men idly standing around outside buildings,might have been a familier sight in Dorset street,in the warmer summer nights,,but on a cold inclement November morning between 2 and 3 am? Are you serious Jon?

      Many criminals,including killers,have been allowed to leave after an initial interview,some even leaving behind a feeling of suspicion among the interviewer,and as has been said,we do not know what the thoughts of Aberline might have been,or what verbal expressions of guilt or innocence were expressed afterwards.


      You Jon base almost all your arguements of a trustworthy Hutchinson on one word written by Aberline,opinion.A word that conveys a message that Aberline was not completely convinced.Then there is the other word,interogatted.I presume Aberline would have reread his(Aberline's) repoert before submitting it,but the word was left without any attempt at alteration.I wonder why?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ben View Post
        Hi RJ,
        Gary Ridgway did so in 1984 when he approached the police as a helpful informat regarding a victim he claimed to have known.
        Hi Ben. Thanks. I'm not trying to give you grief, but there appears to be something wrong with either your chronology or the published accounts of the Ridgway case. I've been doing a little reading in the archive and elsewhere you mentioned that Ridgway innocently approached the police with information in 1984. If you have time this weekend perhaps you could chase down your source?

        You see, in the accounts I've read, Ridgeway was already a suspect in May 1983 after the disappearance of a young woman named Marie Malvar. She was seen getting into his truck and arguing with Ridgway. Her boyfriend and Malvar's father were deeply concerned, did a search of the area, andsuccessfully traced Ridgway's truck to his house. He was then questioned by the police and his name entered their data base of suspects. This was in May 1983.

        See the New York Times account:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/u...-killings.html

        This makes your reference to him contacting the police in 1984 seems like an entirely different situation than someone who wasn't even on the radar yet. Perhaps there is an explanation? Thanks for the response.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
          Hi RJ,
          Gary Ridgway did so in 1984 when he approached the police as a helpful informat regarding a victim he claimed to have known.
          Hi Ben. Thanks. I'm not trying to give you grief, but there appears to be something wrong with either your chronology or the published accounts of the Ridgway case. I've been doing a little reading in the archive and elsewhere you mentioned that Ridgway innocently approached the police with information in 1984. If you have time this weekend perhaps you could chase down your source?

          You see, in the accounts I've read, Ridgeway was already a suspect in May 1983 after the disappearance of a young woman named Marie Malvar. She was seen getting into his truck and arguing. Her boyfriend and Malvar's father were deeply concerned, did a search of the area, and successfully traced Ridgway's truck to his house. He was then questioned by the police and his name entered into their data base of suspects. This was in May 1983.

          See the New York Times account:

          https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/u...-killings.html

          This makes your reference to him contacting the police in 1984 seems like an entirely different situation than someone who wasn't even on the radar yet. Perhaps there is an explanation? Are you sure this was 1984? The details might tell us something interesting. Thanks.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            If you don't mind me saying P.S., it seems to me you are aware that Bond reported mutilation of the ears. In fact press accounts actually say her ears were cut off. So identification by the ears is unlikely, if not impossible.
            Yet you insist this had to be the case, so you can call someone a liar?
            That the body was only identified as Kelly because this was her room?

            This argument just reads to me like a set-up.
            You dismiss the obvious (hair) in order to promote a conspiracy - that the body was not that of Mary Kelly.
            Jon
            Ripper theorists have been cherry picking their facts for far too long .
            With regards Kelly she was identified by 'eyes and ear' the idea that it was hair comes from theorists realising ,like you have just metioned , that identifying a partially severed ear is quite a ridiculous notion .
            I go into things looking at the facts ... this is what I've done for a number of years .
            I'm not interested in picking a theory and then twisting the known facts to fit the theory .
            Look at the facts and then see what likely possibilities remain , it's not rocket science.
            The facts we have suggest that the identification was unsound .Can you see the eyes on the photo ?
            IF the evidence leads to a conclusion that people were lying then so be it .... start looking for reasons why they would .... it's called investigation .
            It is clear to me that the body was identified by the room, and if she was found on a street half a mile away ,anyone on here would be fighting a losing battle trying to convince anybody because of Maxwell and Lewis .
            Stride incorrectly identified by Mrs Malcolm as her sister
            Eddowes incorrectly identified by the woman from Rotherhithe as her sister
            And yet with Kelly ,the only one of the three who really was unrecognizable you seem to have no hesitation in accepting Barnett's 'peep through the window' ..... not for me , sorry
            You can lead a horse to water.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
              The facts we have suggest that the identification was unsound .Can you see the eyes on the photo ?
              Barnett wasn't going by the photo, but would have performed the identification at the mortuary after Kelly had been cleaned, and possibly stitched up. As Bond doesn't state that the eyes were in any way damaged apart from the eyebrows, which had only been partially removed, then it's very likely that their shape, and certainly colour, would still have been recognisable. As has already been noted, Kelly's hair was one of her most striking features, so this would have been another obvious means by which Barnett could positively identify her.

              There were other parts or aspects of her body which were more-or-less intact as well, including her hands, feet and frame, all of which would have been enough in themselves to confirm her identity to a lover. Her breasts, whilst detached, had been removed more-or-less cleanly by circular incisions, and these would have been recognisable too, should the need have arisen to use them as a point of identification.

              These factors, coupled with the fact that the body was certainly found in Kelly's bed, would have made it pretty obvious that the victim was the woman known to Barnett as Mary Jane Kelly, and thus the identification was anything but unsound.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Barnett wasn't going by the photo, but would have performed the identification at the mortuary after Kelly had been cleaned, and possibly stitched up. As Bond doesn't state that the eyes were in any way damaged apart from the eyebrows, which had only been partially removed, then it's very likely that their shape, and certainly colour, would still have been recognisable. As has already been noted, Kelly's hair was one of her most striking features, so this would have been another obvious means by which Barnett could positively identify her.

                There were other parts or aspects of her body which were more-or-less intact as well, including her hands, feet and frame, all of which would have been enough in themselves to confirm her identity to a lover. Her breasts, whilst detached, had been removed more-or-less cleanly by circular incisions, and these would have been recognisable too, should the need have arisen to use them as a point of identification.

                These factors, coupled with the fact that the body was certainly found in Kelly's bed, would have made it pretty obvious that the victim was the woman known to Barnett as Mary Jane Kelly, and thus the identification was anything but unsound.
                So much supposition there it's difficult to know where to begin 😀

                There is no evidence to suggest that Barnett visited the mortuary at all other than a suggestion in the times where the reporter wasn't actually quoting .

                Barnett said
                I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise; but I am positive it is the same woman I knew. I lived with her in No. 13 room, at Miller's-court for eight months. I separated from her on Oct. 30.

                This is repeated time and again
                Telegraph , star , evening news and so on.... "I have seen the body" ....not a mortuary in sight
                And why would he , as he told the Star on the 10th

                He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.

                So the only evidence from Barnett was eyes and ear and that there was nothing else he could recognise , not hands , toe nails (including varnish) ,ankles or anything else anybody wants to suppose despite the fact that he said he couldn't recognise anything else

                The ONLY evidence of anybody visiting the mortuary other than doctors is the jury and the reporter from the Pall Mall Gazette .... nobody else .
                Nobody that knew her and nobody that could possibly have known her ..... including ,unbelievably , Caroline Maxwell

                As for detatched breasts being identifiable , it's too ridiculous a notion to contemplate
                You can lead a horse to water.....

                Comment


                • Not aman,but supposedly a Victorian style of dress.
                  Just thought if anyone wanted to do a memory test,invite someone to study the photo for about half a minute,close the photo,wait about fifteen minutes,then ask that someone how much they remember of the detail.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                    The ONLY evidence of anybody visiting the mortuary other than doctors is the jury and the reporter from the Pall Mall Gazette .... nobody else .
                    Nobody that knew her and nobody that could possibly have known her ..... including ,unbelievably , Caroline Maxwell
                    "I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning"

                    Hutchinson's press statement.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                      "I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning"

                      Hutchinson's press statement.
                      I'm not including anyone who's existence is actually unproven Joshua
                      Had Mrs Kennedy said it would you have mentioned it ?
                      You can lead a horse to water.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                        I'm not including anyone who's existence is actually unproven Joshua
                        Had Mrs Kennedy said it would you have mentioned it ?
                        Of course. Just because you personally refuse to accept it doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          Of course. Just because you personally refuse to accept it doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.
                          It was a statement by the press association
                          Same as the Kennedy one and the Elizabeth Foster one ....... doesn't class as evidence 😉
                          You can lead a horse to water.....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by packers stem View Post
                            It was a statement by the press association
                            Same as the Kennedy one and the Elizabeth Foster one ....... doesn't class as evidence 😉
                            A statement to the police signed by the police doesn't seem to be evidence to you either.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                              A statement to the police signed by the police doesn't seem to be evidence to you either.
                              With three completely different Hutchinson signatures on it ....
                              Too right I have issues with it
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • It's clear that whoever signed the individual sheets of the statement was not in the habit of signing the name 'George Hutchinson' although he was clearly well educated and comfortable with a pen
                                You can lead a horse to water.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X