Did Jack only kill 3?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

But now you do.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

I did before

Monty

[Jon Guy]

Hi Simon

"Ozymandias" tells of the inevitable decline of leaders and their empires, however mighty they may once have been.

But still, centuries later, the pedestal and the words upon it, still remain.

[Bridewell]

5 Minutes

By not stopping to think that could a killer really kill and mutilate someone remove a uterus and a kidney all in 5 minutes.

Hi Trevor,

We don't actually know that the killer only had 5 minutes though, do we? Kate Eddowes left Bishopsgate Street Police Station at 1am. She was found dead at 1.45am. There is a possible sighting by Joseph Lawende at 1.35am:

"I saw a woman. She was standing with her face towards a man. I only saw her back. She had her hand on his chest. The man was taller than she was. She had a black jacket and a black bonnet. I have seen the articles which it was stated belonged to her at the police station. My belief is that they were the same clothes which I had seen upon the Deceased."

Lawende only saw the woman's back. His identification of Eddowes was based on a black bonnet and a black jacket which were shown to him and which he believed were the same as those worn by the woman he had seen. Are you saying that it is certain that the woman seen by Lawende was Eddowes? If so, on what evidential basis? If Lawende was mistaken Kate could have been attacked at any time between Watkins' patrols and 5 minutes doesn't come into the equation.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Paul Begg:

"Whether or not there was “proof” doesn’t alter the fact that Macnaghten believed Druitt was the murderer"

Of course not. But since Druitt was dead since long and no case could be brought against him, it could be argued that Mac had something on him that would have held up in court. Clearly, though, he did not - not a shred of proof was ever dug up. And, in spite of the lack of a potential culprit to convict, I think the police would have dug deep to find any sort of confirmation for Druitt´s guilt. And going by Macnaghten´s own words, he would have gained his information from private sources, quite probably from a relative, and that information would have been - as far as we can tell - presented after Druitts´suicide. Therefore, it would reasonably not have been physical evidence, but instead some sort of story told about the man. Either "he confessed to me that..." or "he came home bloody after having done the Hanbury Street tour" or something along them lines - information given in trust about something that was not possible to check. And we can mull over what that something was forever, but we will never know.
And as long as I don´t know, I think it is wise to accept that the best bids of the bunch were regarded as the best bids because the rest were worse. Wherever THAT puts us. And whatever significance it lends to the fact that Macnaghten thought that Druitt was a bid for the killer´s role.

"The absence of proof explains why the police continued to investigate, and quite rightly too!"

Very much agreed!

" it is questionable whether the police really would have devoted resources to dig something up that would strengthen their suspicions about a dead man or a man incarcerated in a secure mental institution?"

I think they would have wanted closure on this one. And the different bids inbetween the different men responsible for catching the killer puts it beyond doubt that there was ever any police solution. If there had been, then I would agree that it would put an end to the efforts. But there was never any consensus on that score, that is very obvious.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon. I suppose you're aware that Inspector Reid didn't think that Abberline was personally involved with that well-known 'Chapman-was-Ripper' article. But then, Reid was borderline Alzheimers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

George Chapman was no more the Ripper than my Aunt Dorothy.

Reid borderline alzheimers? Get outta here. He was the only cop who talked any sense.

Explain please.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

According to one press report, his daughter statedly he did not believe Druitt was the Ripper, but was his story for public consumption so people would leave him alone about it. But, of course, who knows how accurate this press report was, as it contradicts other press interviews with Mac's daughter.

What press interviews, what daughter, what year?

[Bridewell]

Alzheimers

Hi Simon. I suppose you're aware that Inspector Reid didn't think that Abberline was personally involved with that well-known 'Chapman-was-Ripper' article. But then, Reid was borderline Alzheimers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Borderline Alzheimers? There's no mention of it in Nicholas Connell & Stewart Evans' excellent book, "The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper". Furthermore Reid was still an active correspondent with the Herne Bay press a year before his death.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

You guys are a bunch of nerds. I simply mean that Reid had a remarkably poor memory of the Whitechapel murders, even by the rather lax standards of London police in the LVP. I wasn't saying that he actually had Alzheimers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

We don't actually know that the killer only had 5 minutes though, do we? Kate Eddowes left Bishopsgate Street Police Station at 1am. She was found dead at 1.45am. There is a possible sighting by Joseph Lawende at 1.35am:

"I saw a woman. She was standing with her face towards a man. I only saw her back. She had her hand on his chest. The man was taller than she was. She had a black jacket and a black bonnet. I have seen the articles which it was stated belonged to her at the police station. My belief is that they were the same clothes which I had seen upon the Deceased."

Lawende only saw the woman's back. His identification of Eddowes was based on a black bonnet and a black jacket which were shown to him and which he believed were the same as those worn by the woman he had seen. Are you saying that it is certain that the woman seen by Lawende was Eddowes? If so, on what evidential basis? If Lawende was mistaken Kate could have been attacked at any time between Watkins' patrols and 5 minutes doesn't come into the equation.

Regards, Bridewell.

From Dr Browns official statement

"I was called shortly after 2 I reached, shortly after 18 minutes past 2."

"She must have been dead most likely within the half hour"

Dr Sequeira`s official statement

"I was called on 30th September at 5 to 2 and was the first medical man to arrive life had not been extinct more than one quarter of an hour"

I would suggest that puts the time of death as near to 1.35-1.40 as you are going to get it.

[Tom_Wescott]

What press interviews, what daughter, what year?

'In the Sunday Express, 24 May 1992, Michael Thornton recalled her (Lady Aberconway) saying mischievously in 1972 that the memoranda gave 'the official line' and the truth could 'cause the Throne to totter'. On the other hand, in the Daily Mail, 2 December 2006, he reported her as merely saying her father was convinced the Ripper was Druitt.' From Jack the Ripper A-Z

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

From Dr Browns official statement

"I was called shortly after 2 I reached, shortly after 18 minutes past 2."

"She must have been dead most likely within the half hour"

Dr Sequeira`s official statement

"I was called on 30th September at 5 to 2 and was the first medical man to arrive life had not been extinct more than one quarter of an hour"

I would suggest that puts the time of death as near to 1.35-1.40 as you are going to get it.

Hello Trevor,

When I raised this very point a while ago the following comments came back-


'Time of Death estimates are notoriously difficult'
'we cannot be sure that the Doctors knew the correct and precise time'

My point was that comparing the times given by Watkins and Morris, at about 1.45, 15mins from Sequiera would make t.o.d at about 1.40 and Brown at about 1.48.

So we have an 8min window. If Sequiera is correct the the attack started at 1.35. If Brown be correct the the attack started at 1.43. Given that the attack took 5mins, guess the problem. If it started at 1.35 then Lawende is wrong, and a policeman patrolling the alley is following the 2 int6 the square.
If Brown is correct, (the senior man?) then Watkins walked in and found the body with still 3mins of the attack to be done and Morris ran over with his lamp with 2mins of the attack left.

so when did the attack start, when did it stop and who cant tell the right time?

for my OWN satisfaction I asked a crime scene doctor here in Norway about time of death problems.
he opined that time of death under half an hour from arrival at the scene was more or less precise. Due to blood flow and temperature of the body. He also said that cold evenings enhanced the coldness of the body, meaning that the time of death estimate became lengthened due to the relatively rapid cooling of the body. The more exposed, the faster the body cooled. Finally I asked him two things- when time of death estimation became more difficult to ascertain in such a case as the Eddowes demise. He said that had they arrived an hour afterwards and upwards, then margins of error would creep in.
How precise would a doctor want to be about t.o.d.? Very, he said.
He then read through the report of all the injuries etc to the body and said that given the detail and manner of precise work done by the doctor in his examination, it indicates Browns time of death to be precise.
It was just an opinion- and Id love to see two or three CS doctors opine independantly.

He sincerely doubted it could be done, the mutilations et al in 5 mins unless the person had anatomical knowledge and or skill because of the kidney removal from the front.

I didnt get this written down apart from my noting his answers.


make of that what you will.
For me it made me look at the timing statements of the police involved.

I respect the doctors opinions.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

'In the Sunday Express, 24 May 1992, Michael Thornton recalled her (Lady Aberconway) saying mischievously in 1972 that the memoranda gave 'the official line' and the truth could 'cause the Throne to totter'. On the other hand, in the Daily Mail, 2 December 2006, he reported her as merely saying her father was convinced the Ripper was Druitt.' From Jack the Ripper A-Z

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

So on the one hand Lady A is making a precise statement about the murders that goes in the face of her dealings with another journalist, Farson, in 1959, and on the other hand we question the reliability of the journalist.

1972 was the time of the PAV mention. And Lady A Was very much alive.
in 2006 she had been dead 32years and the first report was 18years after her death. What was doing the rounds by May 1992? Hmmm

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

I assume Michael Thornton is a mere journalist vs. a Ripperologist? And what's "PAV"? "P-something Aberconway version"?