Questions for Fairclough

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
We really are getting this all wrong.
Fact...believe this or not, the same Reg tale was aired some 18 years prior to the publication of the Ripper and the Royals.
In defence of my post to Caz , I was merely giving an alternative view to possible events on the 8th/9th Nov suggesting at the end of my post, if indeed Hutch/Topping had any skeletons in the closet he would hardly have relayed anything about his shady past as the years of his live continued.
What is so annoying about the Ripper case is as 'Watt and Barlow' used ro frequently suggest ''Someone out there knows something''
We have somewhere out there , the solution to two major stumbling blocks.
Who was Mary Kelly..?
Who was Jack?
Not to mention a statement by the Topping family confirming he was indeed the witness that marched into the police station on that Monday evening.
And a full account of McCarthy's views on the murder , which happened right on his doorstep[ so to speak] which Fiona Kendall lane is fully aware of.
Personally I feel that anyone ''out there'' that is aware of any possible closure to this baffling series of murders should, regardless of personal involvement come forward, in the name of justice.
But no chance of that, so dream on Richard.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

Bbc

Hello Richard. For what little it's worth, I have been checking the BBC genome business about twice a week. Perhaps soon they can shed some light on this whole affair--or not.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn,
It would be great if that broadcast could be revealed, it would not prove that the tale was genuine on Toppings behalf, but it would give yours truly piece of mind, and my sanity confirmed.
Regards Richard.

[caz]

In which case, why did he not simply relate the truth to Abberline rather than the convoluted concatenation involving Astrakhan?

I don't know, Garry. Maybe he knew that the simple truth would leave him as the last man seen loitering near the dead woman's abode, and the position didn't appeal to him. Serving up a 'last man in' who would impress the cops may have seemed a better option than telling the whole truth or lying low.

Why would he have come forward at all if he realised he had been seen loitering before he had gone in and slaughtered the woman himself? That makes no sense to me and never will.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The two positions are far from being mutually exclusive in our opinion, Caroline, that's right, but not in Fairclough's.
The fact that Fairclough never alluded to Reg nor Toppy in 1999, and chose to support a completely different theory, speaks volumes, don't you think ?

But a 'theory' about the ripper's identity need have nothing to do with the identity of the witness who signed himself GH! How many more times?

Fairclough could claim the ripper was Queen Victoria and it would have no bearing whatsoever on who GH was, Toppy or not Toppy - only on the truth of his various stories. In fact it makes perfect sense that Fairclough would drop Toppy as a reliable witness, while still believing he was the GH who made the statement.

You are far too smart not to see this for yourself if you only take off those Flemingo goggles for a moment.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hello Richard. For what little it's worth, I have been checking the BBC genome business about twice a week. Perhaps soon they can shed some light on this whole affair--or not.
Cheers.
LC

Bonne initiative, Lynn.

[lynn cates]

A doctor and his patients.

Hello Richard, David. Thanks. Right now, my patience is required.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

I don't know, Garry. Maybe he knew that the simple truth would leave him as the last man seen loitering near the dead woman's abode, and the position didn't appeal to him. Serving up a 'last man in' who would impress the cops may have seemed a better option than telling the whole truth or lying low.

Why would he have come forward at all if he realised he had been seen loitering before he had gone in and slaughtered the woman himself? That makes no sense to me and never will.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Why would he have come forward at all if he realised he had been seen loitering before he had gone in and slaughtered the woman himself? That makes no sense to me and never will.

Perhaps because he found out that Sarah Lewis was at the inquest and spoke about the watching man (him) and was worried that she may have identified him (his name) to police. And it would be better to come forward as a witness than as be tracked down as a suspect.

People tend to be very paranoid and worried about things in there mind when it turns out that in actuality they have nothing to worry about. I could see a very careful, manipulative serial killer thinking along these lines, especially one who could orchestrate the double event and the GSG.

And another thing, since the double event, it seems like there were more and more witnesses getting a look at the suspect and in his mind maybe these witnesses were starting to get to him-draw him out so to speak. This may be evidenced by the number of People (Jews) which saw him during the double event-hence the GSG. And on the night of MKs murder, now its someone who may know his name. And what a coincidence that both the GSG and Hutch's description both reference Jews.

[DVV]

Hello Caroline

But a 'theory' about the ripper's identity need have nothing to do with the identity of the witness who signed himself GH! How many more times?

True.

Fairclough could claim the ripper was Queen Victoria and it would have no bearing whatsoever on who GH was, Toppy or not Toppy - only on the truth of his various stories. In fact it makes perfect sense that Fairclough would drop Toppy as a reliable witness, while still believing he was the GH who made the statement.

This is where we differ. This is not Toppy's reliability I'm questioning. It's Reg's. When Edwards and Feldman said they were not impressed with his story, it means they didn't believe he was the son of the Dorset-Street witness. The fact that Reg may have told them that his father got some money from the police, believed Jack was a toff, etc, is no big problem (could be, at worst, embellishments).
As for Fairclough having completely forgotten Reg in 1999, I still believe my point is valid. Finding the son of Hutch-the-witness was too great an achievement to pass over it in silence within a few years.

You are far too smart not to see this for yourself if you only take off those Flemingo goggles for a moment.

Thanks, but honestly, this has little to do with Fleming.
Here is a guy, Reg, that gives an interview in the heyday of Royal theories, then sinks into oblivion for about 15 years, appears again briefly in the most extravagant book ever between the Abberline diaries and PAV the Undead, for finally being discredited by the extravagant theorist himself, and seemingly rejected by the (very) few persons he has tried to contact.
How can I believe he was the son of the Dorset Street witness ?

[DVV]

Hello Richard, David. Thanks. Right now, my patience is required.

Cheers.
LC

Bäqa. Innïqwoyallän, sïlazzïh.

[caz]

And another thing, since the double event, it seems like there were more and more witnesses getting a look at the suspect and in his mind maybe these witnesses were starting to get to him-draw him out so to speak. This may be evidenced by the number of People (Jews) which saw him during the double event-hence the GSG. And on the night of MKs murder, now its someone who may know his name. And what a coincidence that both the GSG and Hutch's description both reference Jews.

Hi Abby,

Surely that would give him all the more reason not to draw himself in.

The more witnesses who had seen him, might recognise him again and may even know him by sight or by name, the more dangerous it would have been to risk coming forward - in any capacity - and putting himself so close to the latest victim and to the scene of her murder. Even if the ripper had considered this a bright idea I just don't think he'd have got away with it.

An innocent man had no need to worry about the witnesses from previous murders - he wasn't there to be seen. Not so the guilty one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Surely that would give him all the more reason not to draw himself in.

The more witnesses who had seen him, might recognise him again and may even know him by sight or by name, the more dangerous it would have been to risk coming forward - in any capacity - and putting himself so close to the latest victim and to the scene of her murder. Even if the ripper had considered this a bright idea I just don't think he'd have got away with it.

An innocent man had no need to worry about the witnesses from previous murders - he wasn't there to be seen. Not so the guilty one.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I totally see your point.

[DVV]

Even if the ripper had considered this a bright idea I just don't think he'd have got away with it.
X

Hi Caroline, I happen to think that the ripper would have got away with it if he had been named and spoken about at the inquest.

ps : my poor English is more broken than ever, I 'm afraid...

[Rubyretro]

Caz -you are assuming that The Ripper was seen by witnesses just before the previous murders ....but the witnesses may have seen other men entirely.

A different hypothosis could be that one or more of the witnesses DID see the Ripper...but got his/her description laughably wrong.

In either case, Hutchinson would have had nothing to fear from murders prior
to MJK. He may have rendered any ideas of murder immediately after MJK a no-no though....

[The Good Michael]

In either case, Hutchinson would have had nothing to fear from murders prior
to MJK. He may have rendered any ideas of murder immediately after MJK a no-no though....

Explain that. A man kills 4 women then creates a story about a 5th victim and then stops. There is no logical explanation. It's actually quite insane to argue such a thing.

Mike