If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

[David Orsam]

Yes, I know. It is terrible.

From that response, my conclusion would be that your refusal to identify your suspect has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics, as you have repeatedly claimed, but is rather due to a realisation that your case against him is so weak that it would not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

[Mayerling]

Yes, I know. It is terrible.

Regards, Pierre

Yes, it would be true - IF (AND ONLY IF) IT WAS TRUE!

Have a good day,

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Interesting find.

Do you have a copy of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle article?

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has a website, and I gave the date and page and column of the article. Interesting sometimes to read the Eagle, the only major New York City newspaper to be published outside of Manhattan from the middle 19th Century to the 1940s (when it went out of business).

Jeff

[Pierre]

Accusing three senior Police officials of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice WHILE IN OFFICE, and of literally allowing a brutal, sadistic killer to get off scott free =

Naming actual suspect who was enabled by the above conspiracy =

Some bizarre ethics going on there, I'm afraid.

Yes, I know. It is terrible.

Regards, Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

Whether you use the word "conspiracy" or not, that is exactly what you are suggesting happened.

Hence you said:

"My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect."

That's a conspiracy. An illegal one. Thus, you have made a very serious allegation against three named police officials.

Unfortunately, your must vaunted "source criticism" has let you down rather badly here because it's all nonsense.

Accusing three senior Police officials of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice WHILE IN OFFICE, and of literally allowing a brutal, sadistic killer to get off scott free =

Naming actual suspect who was enabled by the above conspiracy =

Some bizarre ethics going on there, I'm afraid.

[Ben]

Hi Jeff,

Interesting find.

Do you have a copy of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle article?

All the best,
Ben

[Mayerling]

But times are changing.

Regards, Pierre

That they are.

Have a nice day, Jeff

[Karl]

There is always the thought that he mentioned the loan of sixpence to cover himself, as he may have been married?

Pat.....

Indeed - even if she was soliciting him rather than the other way around, questions like "what were you doing consorting with prostitutes" could easily have arisen.

Even so, she probably just asked him for a 6-pence. A loan they'd both know she'd never pay back. People in need of money will seek them the easiest way possible, and simply asking for them is far easier than offering one's body for them. And not all of us are fortunate enough to enjoy our jobs, anyway.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

If i'm not wrong Abberline had access to most of the boloney the police gathered about Jack (letters, witness reports and so on), and since Hutchinson was questioned by Abberline himself, is generally believed that he was considered trustworthy exactly because Abberline judged him so.

Of course, as far as i know there's no indication that Abberline was indeed 100% sure about him, but still.

[David Orsam]

You know how the word "conspiracy" has been used in ripperology. It is a word I would never use.

Whether you use the word "conspiracy" or not, that is exactly what you are suggesting happened.

Hence you said:

"My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect."

That's a conspiracy. An illegal one. Thus, you have made a very serious allegation against three named police officials.

Unfortunately, your must vaunted "source criticism" has let you down rather badly here because it's all nonsense.

[Pierre]

I'm willing to go along with that comment of yours. At least Pierre did not suggest it was a man on a grassy knoll.

Jeff

But times are changing.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Actually I agree with you - but the idea is that if one accepts Pierre's theory, he too is saying that Hutchinson's testimony was made public but secretly rejected by the police. To me it was nice to see people (albeit in New York City, not the British Isles) who were contemporary to these events, and knowing how to handle testimony, questioning it.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Yes, in those days the Americans could do some autonomous thinking, certainly.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I understand that you wanted to mention the Brooklyn Daily Eagle story but Pierre is, I think, going much further than that because he says, "there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time." Pierre, in other words, thinks there was a major conspiracy going on here.

You know how the word "conspiracy" has been used in ripperology. It is a word I would never use.

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

I understand that you wanted to mention the Brooklyn Daily Eagle story but Pierre is, I think, going much further than that because he says, "there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time." Pierre, in other words, thinks there was a major conspiracy going on here.

I'm willing to go along with that comment of yours. At least Pierre did not suggest it was a man on a grassy knoll.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

A but the idea is that if one accepts Pierre's theory, he too is saying that Hutchinson's testimony was made public but secretly rejected by the police.

I understand that you wanted to mention the Brooklyn Daily Eagle story but Pierre is, I think, going much further than that because he says, "there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time." Pierre, in other words, thinks there was a major conspiracy going on here.