Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

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

  • Hi Scott,

    Yes, there is.

    But a lot of ends need tidying up before the fickle finger of fate can be pointed at him.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Ehhh - from where did you get the notion that "the Lechmere Brethren" have a cartoonish vision of the 1880:s London?
      Fair enough, Fisherman; my criticism was misplaced. I do apologize for that.

      You see, I perhaps became a little carried away because I am more concerned with what might be regarded as an "aspect" of the underlying belief system: the insistence that the correct "profile" of the Ripper would be a chap like Hutchinson/Cohen/Lechmere/Barnett, etc. In other words, the 'local nobody' so popular among most 'Ripperologists.' But yes, you're quite right, unlike the Hutchinson theorists, the Lechmerean Brethren do not dispute the very existence of men like Astrakhan in the East End in order to hoist their theories onto the public. They just don't see them as "likely suspects." Is that a better way of putting it? Best wishes.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ben View Post
        Hi Varqm,



        My suspicion is that Hutchinson was quickly discredited as a probably publicity-seeker, as Packer and Violenia had been before him, but it appears that neither the press nor the police ever made the connection between Hutchinson and Lewisís wideawake man. Had they done so, it would have been trickier for them to lump him in the same category as the aforementioned bogus witnesses.
        I'd like to see where he was "lumped in" by any official source, as opposed to a modern-day fabricated hypothesis.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          But a lot of ends need tidying up before the fickle finger of fate can be pointed at him.
          Somehow I think I can guess which finger will be doing the pointing, and it won't be holding a Bell's pickle fork.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            Somehow I think I can guess which finger will be doing the pointing, and it won't be holding a Bell's pickle fork.
            Lol. You two are bothe pretty witty ill give you that!
            "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


            • Hi RJ,

              Evidence will be doing the pointing.

              And Lady Justice will be carrying a toasting fork.

              Regards,

              Simon
              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

              Comment


              • This is just for Harry.



                Note the last phrase - "can be identified".
                This was not Hutchinson talking.
                The description was produced by Scotland Yard after the attack on Annie Farmer on 21st Nov. 1888.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Why just for me Jon?
                  Does that prove that Hutchinson couldn't have used the phrase?I could give many examples of three word phrases used by the Victorians,at the beginning,the middle,and the end of paragraphs.That it was common for police to use the phrase,by no means confirms it was taboo for anyone else to do so.

                  Now here is a question much more essential to the Kelly crime.How would a person identify the room that Kelly occupied? Now a postman might have ben able to,who else?

                  Comment


                  • Jon,
                    I almost forgot the description.If you can tell me the originator of that description,I'll attempt to explain it.Scotland Yard,now that doesn't mean a great deal.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by harry View Post
                      Why just for me Jon?
                      Because, you're special Harry.

                      Does that prove that Hutchinson couldn't have used the phrase?I could give many examples of three word phrases used by the Victorians,at the beginning,the middle,and the end of paragraphs.That it was common for police to use the phrase,by no means confirms it was taboo for anyone else to do so.
                      I advised you some time ago the expression, the presentation & format were all standard for police to use in a Police Notice circular of the time.
                      You're "well, anyone could have said that", doesn't constitute a well reasoned response.

                      Now here is a question much more essential to the Kelly crime.How would a person identify the room that Kelly occupied? Now a postman might have ben able to,who else?
                      I seem to recall McCarthy once saying he got mail for Kelly from her family?
                      Those rental units likely had no postal address, any mail should come to No.27 being the proprietor of the premises.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        Jon,
                        I almost forgot the description.If you can tell me the originator of that description,I'll attempt to explain it.Scotland Yard,now that doesn't mean a great deal.
                        Annie Farmer, according to the Times.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Special in what way Jon?
                          I didn't say anyone could have said that.I questioned why Hutchinson couldn't have done so.
                          Perhaps any letters to Kelly were addressed NO9 C/O NO 27,but your answer appears to support a proposistion that few people actually knew no9 was occupied by Kelly.
                          Does it matter? It does to those that are of the opinion the killer went to that room of his own accord,and there were no banners or other such material proclaiming,Mary Kelly lives here.

                          Comment


                          • "Does it matter? It does to those that are of the opinion the killer went to that room of his own accord"

                            Which would mean that Jack was not the Killer of MJK, as he was random and did not go knocking on doors looking for his victims. If Jack did knock on the door of MJK and he was someone that she did not want to see at some un-godly hour then I'm pretty sure she would have woken the whole of London up with a pretty good scream.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
                              "Does it matter? It does to those that are of the opinion the killer went to that room of his own accord"

                              Which would mean that Jack was not the Killer of MJK, as he was random and did not go knocking on doors looking for his victims. If Jack did knock on the door of MJK and he was someone that she did not want to see at some un-godly hour then I'm pretty sure she would have woken the whole of London up with a pretty good scream.
                              According to the FBI profile of Jack. It is unlikely that he would have had steady relationships and most of his sexual encounters would have been with prostitutes. This makes sense in the respect that he knew how to put say Annie and Catherine at ease that they would go into a darkened secluded place with him. For what it's worth I feel that Jack was a client of Mary's. And decided to move indoors when the heat got too hot on the outside.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
                                "Does it matter? It does to those that are of the opinion the killer went to that room of his own accord"

                                Which would mean that Jack was not the Killer of MJK, as he was random and did not go knocking on doors looking for his victims. If Jack did knock on the door of MJK and he was someone that she did not want to see at some un-godly hour then I'm pretty sure she would have woken the whole of London up with a pretty good scream.
                                Its rare that I see a likeminded post here. The circumstantial evidence points to someone not randomly accessing actively working street women, as its obvious that the killer of both of the first 2 Canonicals did.

                                Ive mentioned many times that the cry of "murder" heard by 2 unconnected witnesses, who both gave approximately the same time for the scream, and the volume...relating the proximity of the cry to their location at that moment..., suggests strongly that some woman inside the courtyard was startled at approx. 3:45am. Mary sleepily answering her door and being startled at who was there...perhaps annoyed...groaned her disapproval using the often heard phrase "oh-murder", which was often used as something akin to "bloody-hell" today. Then it went quiet.

                                She let him in, he was no stranger...but nor was he expected to show up there that night it seems.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X