Definitely canonical

[Nothing to see]

That means you buy into Bond and others theories...despite the fact that less than a year later Bond suggests Alice McKenzie didnt belong to Jack because her killer lacked skill and knowledge...the very observations he suggested Jack the Ripper victims did not display the previous Fall...disagreeing with the Senior Medical opinion of the men that actually examined the victims personally...Bond only did one Canonical autopsy.

The murder in room 13 was likely committed by someone that knew Mary based on the circumstantial evidence...and that potential connection could address much of the violent and angry components seen in her murder and no others. Perhaps even spiteful acts, like sticking organs around her and under her head.

I would think a crime of passion and a murder with clinical disposition make 2 entirely different crime scenes....like Marys was compared with the more clinical murder-extractions done outdoors.

Best regards

Hi. I don't buy into any theories except one. There was a sexually motivated serial killer prowling Whitechapel in 1888 and he killed 5 women. The doctors squabbled among themselves and let's face it, they couldn't even differentiate between human and animal blood until 1902? I think, so I tend to believe that's professional rivalry raising it's head.

You say based on circumstantial evidence and you're right. You look at MJK's crime scene and see passion and jealousy. I look at MJK's crime scene and see a serial killer with the greatest luxury he'd ever had - time on his hands. And he used it.

No-one saw Jack go into Mitre Sq with Eddowes and no-one saw Jack go into Miller's Ct with Kelly. I see Jack as disorganised, a risk taker and he was. I don't see anything clinical about Jack's murders but then I don't buy into doctor theories. I see Jack becoming more and more disturbed, pushing the boundaries every time (except of course for Stride, where he was disturbed). H'm, hope I haven't gone off topic.

Anyway, MJK Jack's last canonical victim. IMO.

[Malcolm X]

He really hasn't looked any more or less innocent than he did 120 years ago, Mal.

yea' i suppose so (shrug)

even so, i'm not as convinced as i once was.....he's too young at only 22 and it looks like he's the real Hutch as well.......but S.Lewis mentions no age of the man she saw outside....so i've no idea what to say...but S.Lewis could've easily have identified HUTCH later, so it's a huge risk for H to come forward if he wasn't the man outside.

Abberline dismissed him for a good reason and a reason we dont know

did Hutch see the Ripper or did he make it all up.......too soon to say, but i very much doubt that he's Jack the Ripper...because only a bloody fool would go to the police if he was the Ripper...way too risky.

the ripper was probably Blotchy face, because he's a close match for Broadshoulders and maybe Lawende too ( but he'd definitely need to change his clothes for this to work, the Lawende suspect is too slim as well)

but it's too early to say yet, i'm just thinking aloud right now

[Nothing to see]

Sorry. I don't believe Blotchy Face and I don't believe Hutchinson as suspects. Someone else again. Jack.

[Malcolm X]

Sorry. I don't believe Blotchy Face and I don't believe Hutchinson as suspects. Someone else again. Jack.

yes maybe.... we just dont have enough to go on do we

because all you're likely to get is another Maybrick in 3 years time, thus any evidence to be believed by us lot has to be ``concrete proof``
and there isn't any; or it would've been discovered 50 years ago!

[Nothing to see]

yes maybe.... we just dont have enough to go on do we

because all you're likely to get is another Maybrick in 3 years time, thus any evidence to be believed by us lot has to be ``concrete proof``
and there isn't any; or it would've been discovered 50 years ago!

What pity CCTV didn't in 1888! You can't move around central London without having your photo snapped every few mins.

[DVV]

Abberline dismissed him for a good reason and a reason we dont know

Hi Malcolm,
if we don't know the reason, we don't know that it was a good one.

Amitiés,
David

[Nothing to see]

Abberline dismissed Hutchinson. What's good reason, besides the fact Hutchinson wasn't Jack?

[halomanuk]

What pity CCTV didn't in 1888! You can't move around central London without having your photo snapped every few mins.

Well the CCTV should have been the police from both the City and the Met working and co-operating together instead of trying to outdo eachother all the time !
The simple fact that detained drunks would be kept overnight in the Met district no matter how drunk they were compared to the City police who only held them until the Sergeant deemed them sober enough to leave show the opposite thinking between the 2 forces.

[DVV]

Abberline dismissed Hutchinson. What's good reason, besides the fact Hutchinson wasn't Jack?

Maybe Hutch was Jack, maybe he wasn't.
But Hutch's account, and Hutch's behaviour during several days, raise many other questions.

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
What unusual behaviour?
To have reservations about going to the police, when you realize that you may have been seen ,albeit innocently standing opposite the crime scene, at a time when a bloody murder, of a woman was taking place, and proberly committed by the Whitechapel fiend.
To have serious reservations ,of informing the police of a man he saw with the victim, which would not only place him in the frame, but also make it known to the most frightning killer of all time , that he could reconize him, i feel would be enough for him to have serious doubts upon being a good citizen.
But the fact is, he did muster enough courage to enter Commercial street police station at 6pm on monday 12th, and according to my beliefs , i feel he showed immense character in doing so.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Richard,
in my opinion, a very strange behaviour.
On the murder night, Hutch is bold enough to watch the man in the eyes, and concerned enough to loiter almost one hour. But on the morrow, having heard of the murder of his "friend" Mary, he seems no more interested in the matter.
Strange behaviour also on Sunday morning. The man who had waited around Miller's Court 45 minutes is now unable to warn a constable, or to follow the suspect. And what an extraordinary meeting!
Strange also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, to go the police station at 6pm.

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

!
Strange also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, to go the police station at 6pm.

Hi David

Turning up at the cop shop at 18.00 ensured he would not appear, that day anyway, at the inquest. the poor man may have been hanging around Shoreditch all day absolutley sh##ing it.

His plan may have been to give his statement and then walk out and begin "dining out" on his celebrity status.

He may have been aware of Barnett been asked to leave Bullers boarding house due to all the attention he was receiving from the press and like, and was holding court in a nearby pub.

[DVV]

Hi Jon,
I don't believe in an undecided and fearful Hutch. His actions (walking alone all night in the worst streets of London), his "straightforward" statement, his "military appearance", rather suggest a self-confident person.
But I'm afraid we're a bit off-thread, my friend!

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

But the fact is, he did muster enough courage to enter Commercial street police station at 6pm on monday 12th

Yep, and it's a funny ol' coincidence that he just happened to muster that courage around the time that the inquest details - including Lewis' sighting of a man loitering outside Miller's Court - first entered into the public domain.

[Malcolm X]

yea' CCTV would've got the Ripper that's for sure......that and his DNA/ fingerprints............good grief, you can even see his fingerprints in the KELLY photos..........look at her right lower leg.

what the police needed were those Bloodhounds and bloody quick too...as soon as she was discovered