Mary Jane Kelly (Another) New Theory

[Roy Corduroy]

Graham, last night was the 4th of July, the celebration of Independence Day here in America. My wife and I travelled to a relative's home in a nearby county where fireworks are perfectly legal and sold in big tents. At the gathering we ate and drank much and shot off many fireworks. You might say We let the dogs out.

Here's another roman candle to shoot off:

So if this Fleming was named by Barnett, and Julia said Mary Jane told her he was misusing her, and if, according to the Sam-o-Meter, we calibrate his abode as being nearby, then where was he? Did he just melt into the woodwork?

Roy

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

You're missing the point, Sam.
The people in 1888 were not used to this in the same way we are today. because they didn't have alot of tv channels an certainly not the Internet. If the Ripper murders happened today they would hardly fill a column and would most likely not even reach the international papers.


All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Graham, last night was the 4th of July, the celebration of Independence Day here in America. My wife and I travelled to a relative's home in a nearby county where fireworks are perfectly legal and sold in big tents. At the gathering we ate and drank much and shot off many fireworks. You might say We let the dogs out.

Here's another roman candle to shoot off:

So if this Fleming was named by Barnett, and Julia said Mary Jane told her he was misusing her, and if, according to the Sam-o-Meter, we calibrate his abode as being nearby, then where was he? Did he just melt into the woodwork?

Roy

Wasn't it Ben once who suggested that he might have been Hutchinson with another phony name - and that they in fact may have been one and the same? I don't know what to think, but hey - I've heard worse, and apparently Fleming doesn't seem to have have any problems with using other aliases.

Besides that, I think you have to ask Abberline & Co that question since they apparently never bothered to track him down and question him. Or esle they just didnt find him.

All the best

[Graham]

Graham, last night was the 4th of July, the celebration of Independence Day here in America. My wife and I travelled to a relative's home in a nearby county where fireworks are perfectly legal and sold in big tents. At the gathering we ate and drank much and shot off many fireworks. You might say We let the dogs out.

Here's another roman candle to shoot off:

So if this Fleming was named by Barnett, and Julia said Mary Jane told her he was misusing her, and if, according to the Sam-o-Meter, we calibrate his abode as being nearby, then where was he? Did he just melt into the woodwork?

Roy

Roy,

Oh, right. Here in the UK we call 4th July 'Thanksgiving'...........

Here in England fireworks are perfectly legal and sold the year round by the IRA.

Re: Fleming, I rather think that once he saw that Barnett had replaced Kelly in her affections, he did just that...give it best and melt into the woodwork to find someone else.

Cheers,

Graham

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn

Wh... what?

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Re: Fleming, I rather think that once he saw that Barnett had replaced Kelly in her affections, he did just that...give it best and melt into the woodwork to find someone else.

Well, that's certainly not what the witness testimonies say.
But hey - that's your interpretation.

What? Fireworks sold by the IRA???

All the best

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

You're missing the point, Sam.
The people in 1888 were not used to this in the same way we are today. because they didn't have alot of tv channels an certainly not the Internet. If the Ripper murders happened today they would hardly fill a column and would most likely not even reach the international papers.


All the best

With respect, that's absolute tosh. The recent Murder's in Norfolk were hardly out of the newspapers, and occupied hours of television coverage.

By the way what of my question as put to you in post #65

all the best

Observer

[Graham]

Well, that's certainly not what the witness testimonies say.
But hey - that's your interpretation.

What? Fireworks sold by the IRA???

All the best

So where was Joe Fleming after his former girl-friend was brutally killed?

Re: fireworks and the IRA. Glenn - please!!!

Cheers,

Graham

[Ben]

Wasn't it Ben once who suggested that he might have been Hutchinson with another phony name - and that they in fact may have been one and the same? I don't know what to think, but hey - I've heard worse, and apparently Fleming doesn't seem to have have any problems with using other aliases.

Besides that, I think you have to ask Abberline & Co that question since they apparently never bothered to track him down and question him. Or esle they just didnt find him

Absolutely right, Glenn. No evidence that Fleming was ever traced by contemporary police at all.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Glenn,

There can be no doubt that people in those days didn't live in the same media climate as we do today and therefore also were affected more strongly by such news.

They lived in almost precisely the media climate in which we live today - the 1880s practically invented it!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

Yes, the modern media was invented in the 1880s!

But... I guess Glenn meant, that there wasn't any radio, tv- or net-coverage at the time!

All the best
Jukka

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hello Sam!

Yes, the modern media was invented in the 1880s!

But... I guess Glenn meant, that there wasn't any radio, tv- or net-coverage at the time!

All the best
Jukka

That's exactly what I meant and it baffles me that Sam can't get this very simple historical fact into his head.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hello Glenn,
The reference to a man named Lawrence, comes from a interview shown in The Star November 9th, from a Mrs Hewitt who resided at 25, Dorset Street.
Note the reference to a 'Drover' [ thought to have been a possible occupation for the killer].
There is also the strange coincidence that the surname Hewitt was relevant to the discovery of what many of us believe to have been 'Jacks ' first attempt, ie. Tabram , as the Hewitts lived just a couple of feet from where the body lay.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

You are one tough nut, Ben, I´ll give you that.
A good listener, though; well, I for one am not sure of that...

You write:
"You've agreed in one breath to settle for "in all probability bogus", but then you decide to keep on at it anyway."

It is not about "keeping on at it", Ben, and it never was. It is about trying to avoid to disregard a possibility that is and remains there.
"Bogus" is bogus, and "in all probability bogus" is in all probability bogus, and I´m afraid there is a difference. And if you want to state that it can be proven that Hutch´s story cannot have been true, you are mistaken, for true it could be, although there is so much speaking aginst it that it remains wiser to believe in it being - that´s right: bogus.

Next up:
"Claiming that maybe he was one of those extra-specially amazingly gifted people who have that brilliant capacity is a exceptionally pointless argument. It's like me saying it's "not totally impossible" that a hippo lives somewhere under my house".

This is a usual semantic method of trying to make my argument worthless. Let me show you why it won´t work:

Let´s assume you live in a house with some space under it, for example a basement of some sort. If you do, then there is one more thing needed to fulfill the prerogative given: a hippo.
Are there hippos in this world? Yes there are. And therefore, the next time you go down your basement stairs, there actually IS a possibility that you may find a hippo there, Ben. It is all very simple, really.

If you had spoken of a unicorn, it would have been a different thing. Then it would have been impossible. Also, if there is NO space under your house, it would have been an impossibility to find a hippo there - at least a living one.

So your argument is worthless, as you can see. And actually, no matter what animal you had chosen, it would have been the same story, the only difference would have been that you would find yourself with different levels of possibilities depending on the animal. A hippo? Most probably not. A horse? Well, if there was a stable nearby. A spider? Quite probably.

Moving on to the subject of the colur red and it´s visibility on the conditions offered on that november night back in 1888, you state that there would not have been the possibility to discern such a colour in the light given.

To some extent you would be right. Here in Sweden there is a proverb stating that all cats are grey in the dark.
But that is in the dark, is it not? And what I am saying is that Astrakhan man and Hutch supposedly were the fewest of feet from each other as they met in the street and Hutch allegedly stooped down to look at him.

Now, there were points of light even in them dark dreary streets. There were lamps, and there were lit windows, offering at least some light. And if that meeting took place close to such a light, then there´s your answer, Ben.

Once and for all, I have no trouble admitting that the points about the exact description of Astrakhan man and the difficulty to discern colours on a dark november night must be raised, just as I have no objections to those who say that it renders Hutchs testimony utterly improbable. But that is as far as we can go! To rule it all out with a hundred percent certainty is to disregard the fact that both things actually and obviously CAN be explained.

And there we are: If you feel that the facts given allows you to dismiss Hutch totally, be my guest. I will only offer two pieces of advice, if I may be so bold:

1. Do not call improbailities impossibilities, for statistically it will lead you on the wrong path sooner or later.
2. Don´t forget to feed your hippo - it´s lunchtime

All the best,

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

That's exactly what I meant and it baffles me that Sam can't get this very simple historical fact into his head.

Sam does have it in his head, thanks. What baffles me is why I've yet to have an explanation for my observation that there seems to have been not one instance of a domestic killer going hog-wild with a hammer and screwdriver when Sutcliffe's evil gripped the public imagination.

The simple historical fact to take on board here is that the (multi-)media coverage of the Yorkshire Ripper case reached far more people than his namesake's in 1888, and covered a much longer time-span (years instead of months). Yet in all that time we have not one instance of a "domestic copycat" being inspired by Sutcliffe, never mind taking things even further than he had done.