Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

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

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post

    Well he didn't squeal afterwards.
    But I heard it brought tears to his eyes......

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Apparently, it wasn't spelled wrong after all. The difference between Sequestration and Sequestered is an education in itself.
    Well he didn't squeal afterwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Well Stride was seen with two or more different men in the two hours before she died, and Chapman was apparently beckoned from a pub by a man shortly before she was found, and Kelly was reportedly seen with men at 23:45, 02:00 and even 10:00, which covers most possible ToDs. Also Tabram was last seen with a soldier and Frances Coles was seen to go off with a rough looking man 15 minutes before she was found.
    ​​​​​​
    But apart from those, you may be right.
    The point that was being made is about a last sighting in the company of a man just before their murder. Strides last legitimate sighting with a man is 12:35...the claim is she is found almost 1/2 hour later, I wasnt aware that Chapman was claimed to have been seen with a man by other than Long...which is provably incorrect by virtue of Cadosche and Davis.... Kelly was seen entering her room with a man at 11:45 Thursday night and she is murdered hours later...anyone could have come and gone during that time, and Tabram was seen with a solider hours before her murder...so, not germane.

    In the Mitre Square evidence, Lawendes sighting.. by virtue of the timing...if accurately Kate,...makes her company almost certainly her killer. Problem is that Lawende, despite the sequestering, was almost certain he could not recognize the man again...and he didnt get a good look at Kate, or whomever that was, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    others have suggested that Andersen may be misremembering an attempt to get a witness to identify of Pizer, but I can't now recall the details of that, sorry)
    Donald Rumbelow, 1975: The Complete Jack the Ripper, suggested Anderson's witness was Violena, and the suspect was Pizer.

    Mr. Rogan, like the great Leibnitz, discovered this calculus on his own, unaware of Newton's efforts. There might still be something to be said for the idea, but I think I recall that at least one of Violena's children was baptized (?) so not Jewish. But check my math.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Correct me if I am wrong but other than Eddowes no males were seen in company with the victims prior to their murders!
    Well Stride was seen with two or more different men in the two hours before she died, and Chapman was apparently beckoned from a pub by a man shortly before she was found, and Kelly was reportedly seen with men at 23:45, 02:00 and even 10:00, which covers most possible ToDs. Also Tabram was last seen with a soldier and Frances Coles was seen to go off with a rough looking man 15 minutes before she was found.
    ​​​​​​
    But apart from those, you may be right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    This took some finding...the word was spelled wrong "sequestrated" for sequestered.
    Apparently, it wasn't spelled wrong after all. The difference between Sequestration and Sequestered is an education in itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Correct me if I am wrong but other than Eddowes no males were seen in company with the victims prior to their murders!

    So all this discussion about witnesses is academic.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    lol. priceless

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    This took some finding...the word was spelled wrong "sequestrated" for sequestered.

    "...They have no doubt themselves that this was the murdered woman and her murderer. And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."
    https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881009.html

    So by Scotland Yard or City Police?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    ? That's a take on things I've not heard. So forgive me if the idea is more common than I realize, but upon what are you basing the idea the police put Lawende in isolation? That seems unlikely, given he's a witness, and I know of no contemporary suggestion of him being a suspect.
    It was reported that Lawende was sequestered, but the article does not say by whom. The reasonable supposition is by the City police.


    By which you must mean, the CPC is not, in your view, Eddowes and JtR? But we don't know if they were, or were not, so how can you make that claim?
    To be honest, I think Macnaghten erred with his "City PC", in my view he confused Mitre Square with Berner St. - PC Smith being the only constable who gave a suspect description in this case.

    Maybe you've assumed wrong? That happens a lot in life.

    - Jeff
    Tell me about it

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    That would be my theory, Jeff. I think I'm the only one who holds to it, so "others" is stretching it somewhat, but thanks for making it sound like it just might be widely acknowledged!
    ​​​​​​

    Correct me if I am wrong but other than Eddowes no males were seen in company with the victims prior to their murders!

    So all this discussion about witnesses is academic.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    others have suggested that Andersen may be misremembering an attempt to get a witness to identify of Pizer, but I can't now recall the details of that, sorry)
    That would be my theory, Jeff. I think I'm the only one who holds to it, so "others" is stretching it somewhat, but thanks for making it sound like it just might be widely acknowledged!
    ​​​​​​


    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    Yes, they would have to recall the witness at some point. That is, assuming they can find him.

    If the witness is of that importance and he disappears then the case folds

    Well that's a big assumption (not being identifiable).
    Supposing he couldn't be identified though, the only reason I can think of is that the murder has occurred too close to home, and by coming forward as an witness who was merely passing by the property at the time, he takes himself away from the crime spot.
    Why would a killer come forward and profess to be a witness because he might not know that police had other evidence in their hands to negate what he was saying, and then he is looked at as a suspect because he has openly placed himself in close proximity to the crime scene. The police do not always disclose to the press or public the full extent of their evidence.

    I am really not sure where you are going with what you are trying to suggest


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The witness testimony would have to be tested as some point and not readily accepted as being correct so what you suggest in reality would not happen.
    Yes, they would have to recall the witness at some point. That is, assuming they can find him.

    Why would the killer want to come forward as a witness if he knew he could not be identified. His actions in doing that would without a doubt draw needless attention to himself.
    Well that's a big assumption (not being identifiable).
    Supposing he couldn't be identified though, the only reason I can think of is that the murder has occurred too close to home, and by coming forward as an witness who was merely passing by the property at the time, he takes himself away from the crime spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
    As a thought experiment, imagine that Anderson's witness is actually the Ripper (and the suspect therefore innocent).
    What would be the most rational strategy for this 'witness', if the confrontation occurs at an ID parade?
    I would suggest there would be two things that would maximise the false witness's prospects for freedom:
    1. unhesitatingly identify the 'suspect' the instant he is confronted with him
    2. subsequently refuse to give evidence against him

    The point is; the murderer could come forward as a witness, and then easily game the system.
    The witness testimony would have to be tested as some point and not readily accepted as being correct so what you suggest in reality would not happen.

    Why would the killer want to come forward as a witness if he knew he could not be identified. His actions in doing that would without a doubt draw needless attention to himself.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    As a thought experiment, imagine that Anderson's witness is actually the Ripper (and the suspect therefore innocent).
    What would be the most rational strategy for this 'witness', if the confrontation occurs at an ID parade?
    I would suggest there would be two things that would maximise the false witness's prospects for freedom:
    1. unhesitatingly identify the 'suspect' the instant he is confronted with him
    2. subsequently refuse to give evidence against him

    The point is; the murderer could come forward as a witness, and then easily game the system.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X