Questions for Fairclough

[caz]

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.

I was only assuming that for the purpose of countering Abby's argument. He saw my point that it would have been insanely risky for the ripper to face the cops voluntarily if he thought that 'more and more' witnesses had been 'getting a look' at him.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

regrets

Hello All. It is with deep regret that I must inform you that, after making a direct query to those who know, I am told that the BBC genome project will not be finished until 2013. It seems they have bitten off a bit more than they can chew.

I am bitterly disappointed.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

FairCLUFF postponed...

Hello All. It is with deep regret that I must inform you that, after making a direct query to those who know, I am told that the BBC genome project will not be finished until 2013. It seems they have bitten off a bit more than they can chew.

I am bitterly disappointed.

Cheers.
LC

Darn Lynn, that's a bummer as they say over here in the states. Well, time flies so it'll be here before we know it. I just hope we're all here......



Greg

[lynn cates]

disappointment

Hello Greg. Yes, I am deeply disappointed. In the meantime, I suppose that list of questions for Fairclough is getting longer? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[David Knott]

I believe that it was Joseph Sickert and not Fairclough that first made contact with Reg Hutchinson.

[DVV]

So it seems, David.
Gorman and Fairclough... that's the kind of ripperologists Reg chose to associate with.
But Toppy was the witness, no question.

[DVV]

I believe that it was Joseph Sickert and not Fairclough that first made contact with Reg Hutchinson.

In 1999 Fairclough "confessed" that most of the names involved in his theory came from Gorman/Sickert, including Randolph Churchill.

[Roy Corduroy]

In 1999 Fairclough "confessed" that most of the names involved in his theory came from Gorman/Sickert, including Randolph Churchill.

If everyone confessed to just one thing, the world would be a better place.

Who wants to go next?

[DVV]

If everyone confessed to just one thing, the world would be a better place.

Agreed, and pleased to.

Who wants to go next?

Gorman and Reg.

[Wickerman]

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

Ruby.
That is not likely at all. Height's might differ by a couple of inches, the hat may be vague, type of coat unclear, but no-one described a "Danny Devito" in a black hat.

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....

There's still no reason for him to come forward in the first place.
Even Lewis seeing a man "short n stout", in a black hat, is absolutely no reason to cause concern.
Compare that with the detail given by Schwartz & Lawende.

Besides, Hutchinson already knew the best suspect was Blotchy. If Hutch was the killer he only needs sit back and smile, let justice take its course and say nowt!

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon

There's still no reason for him to come forward in the first place.

But he did. And other killers did.
There is still no reason for him to have come forward only after the inquest. No good reason, I mean. Richard Nunweek has an explanation of his own, which is the most reasonable scenario one can draw, but still it does not work.
According to Richard, Hutch delayed out of fear to be suspected. But then, why coming forward at all ? and worse : why coming forward on Monday evening, after the inquest ? It makes him look even more suspicious.
Anyway, he came forward, and still according to Richard, that was almost heroic - ie : he took the risk to be suspected because he wanted too much to help the police catch the ripper. Good boy.
Unfortunately, the interviews Hutch gave to the press at the very moment he was looking for Astrakhan with the police prove otherwise.

Even Lewis seeing a man "short n stout", in a black hat, is absolutely no reason to cause concern.

That is excessive, although that (old) objection makes some sense in my opinion.

If Hutch was the killer he only needs sit back and smile, let justice take its course and say nowt!

Depends who Hutch was. And how confident or how paranoiac he was.

[The Good Michael]

There are many possible reasons for Topping to have come forward when he did. The only two that don't require any convoluted theories are that he came forward to help, or that he saw a profit in coming forward. Neither theory requires and leap of faith. The idea that he came forward to get himself of the hook requires a person to go forward into the future to find the paltry few examples of this being done and to say, "See, here's my proof." This is well and fine, but Kelly's murder cannot be fairly compared to these exceedinly few examples because time and place are vastly different and so many details are unknown. So... too much needs to be surmised and added, not least of which is a preconceived notion of Hutchinson's guilt. These things, my friends, are irrefutable.

Mike

[DVV]

In 1999 Fairclough "confessed" that most of the names involved in his theory came from Gorman/Sickert, including Randolph Churchill.

...which makes me believe that Fairclough and Gorman used Reg as their puppet for a while, then decided, when the Maybrick buzz proved irresistible and the diary a greater joke than Toppy, that they did not need Reg anymore.

[DVV]

There are many possible reasons for Topping to have come forward when he did.
Mike

I don't think so, Mike. Moreover, I was saying there was no good reason.

[harry]

There was a reason for coming forward.that reason was not given?If there was no cause to fear anything that had been previously communicated to authorities,then it could be because of what might be brought to notice of the police at a later time.Perhaps a more intimate connection to Kelly than the giving of a shilling now and again?