Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Walter Dew's comments on the Kelly murder

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

  • #16
    Trevor,

    Obsessed with Druitt ..??

    How about this is a Jack the Ripper Message Board and so I am writing about the man who was probably Jack the Ripper, eg. Montague John Druitt.

    Of course Druitt was on file at Scotland Yard as a suicide. What I was arguing was that Druitt was nothing to do with the Ripper investigation until years later, probably in 1891, and then not officially.

    I was answering Natalie's point about police who over-reached in their later claims. Perhaps they all did.

    I was just counter-arguing that Walter Dew could not have known anything about Druitt as he was never officially investigated as the Ripper, alive and dead.

    In your confused, biased, apoplectic way, you argue that this somehow weakens Macnaghten's opinion. But this admission comes from Macnaghten himself in 1914.

    To DVV

    The hunt for Tom Sadler is one of the biggest pieces in the jigsaw puzzle.

    For what it is worth, Macnaghten claimed to believe that Sadler was the killer of Coles.

    Just imagine, in Feb/March 1891, what Macnaghten must have thought of the way Anderson handled the Coles inquiry if he already knew about Druitt from Farquharson?

    Macnaghten pounces on the MP story, believes he has found the fiend -- though an excruciatingly inconvenient suspect who does the Yard's rep no good -- and then, a day or so later, another prostitute is murdered in Whietechapel. This would seem to disprove an hysterical Dorset family's fears, or so Anderson initially believed. It did not turn out that way, re: Sadler.

    Or, Mac had simply read Lawende's description of the man seen with Eddowes and was aghast that they were bringing in this witness to 'confront' Sadler who was hardly a good match -- except that he was a Gentile sailor.

    God, how desperate!? Not even a line-up.

    In the cold war between Macnaghten's and Anderson's personalities you can see how Kosminski may have evolved as a suspect. The former warned his boss that Druitt was probably the Ripper, therefore to only go after Sadler for Coles. Ignoring this advice Anderson sabotaged the murder inquiry, at least in the press, by over-reaching.

    Years later, Anderson's vain, fading memory resurrected this sequence of events to recast them as a triumph; this time with Lawende 'confronting' an institutionalized lunatic whose name had been one of dozens on the house-to-house list of 1888.

    Anything but admit that his despised subordinate had been correct in 1891, about a suspect who had been dead since 1888.

    Comment


    • #17
      Trevor, the sequence of events and the timeline are very uncertain.
      According to Sadler, for example, he was with Coles when she ate at Mrs Shuttleworths. What time was it ? 1:30, according to some...

      Jonathan,

      the point you are making about the Sadler case and its consequences in Anderson's mind is fascinating. I don't necessarily agree, but I find it very stimulating.
      Everything is in your article, and as you know, I think it would deserve more discussions.

      Amitiés,
      David

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by DVV View Post
        Trevor, the sequence of events and the timeline are very uncertain.
        According to Sadler, for example, he was with Coles when she ate at Mrs Shuttleworths. What time was it ? 1:30, according to some...

        Jonathan,

        the point you are making about the Sadler case and its consequences in Anderson's mind is fascinating. I don't necessarily agree, but I find it very stimulating.
        Everything is in your article, and as you know, I think it would deserve more discussions.

        Amitiés,
        David
        But what is there to discuss the witnesses ere either corrcet of telling lies if the latter why and for what purposes. In this case none had any reason to do either so we have to accept their evidence as being correct.

        Your point was that you think Sadler killed and as we know the police initially did as well Coles but as i have stated there is no evidnce to corroboate either your beleif or that of the offficers at the time. And if you look at what i have documented about the movemnets of sadlet etc. Clearly any suspicion about him is is at best weak.

        I really think it is time for the list of so called Ripper suspects to be scaled down and some of the names totally removed from the list.

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi DVV
          Further commnets

          But what is there to discuss the witnesses are either correct or telling lies if the latter why and for what purposes. In this case none had any reason to do either so we have to accept their evidence as being correct.

          To pick up on one of your points sadler was drunk for most of that evening that has been fully documented. The Witnesses were sober and are more likley to be correct when recounting their statement than a drunk man.In any event the point your refer to relates to 1.30am. We are not concerned with that time of the morning its what happened within the following 60 mins that counts.

          I have to be honest and say that I havent checked the distance between where Coles was found dead and where Pc Edwards last saw sadler in a drunken state. perhaps you or someone could enlighten me.?

          Your are adamant that you think Sadler killed Coles and as we know the police initially did as well, but as i have stated there is no evidence to corroboate either your beleif or that of the offficers at the time. And if you look at what i have documented about the movemnets of sadler etc. Clearly any suspicion about him is is at best weak.

          I really think it is time for the list of so called Ripper suspects to be scaled down and some of the names totally removed from the list.
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-05-2010, 11:14 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by anna
            Hi Trevor,


            I hope you are not referring to Druitt here...

            I did a search,reading through the local papers of the time...a very lengthy job if you need to read everything you possibly can do,just in case something lay hidden that might be important.

            I found a link amidst a small snippet of info..enough of a link to say..I wouldn't be too hasty to omit him just yet.
            Hi Anna
            The topic of discusussion was about the murder of Frances Coles and Sadler my lattter comment was about other so called supsects. I have to say Druitt is one who should be removed from the list along with Kosminski, Ostrogg,Chapman, Tumblety, Maybrick and The Prince.

            Over the years many people including myself have investaigated the above and it is fair to day there is not a scrap of direct evidence to suggest any of them were in any way responsible.

            But of course thats just my opinion and as we know in the Ripper case there are countless opinions througout the whole mystery some give food for thought others are not worth the paper they have been written on.

            Anything found in newspaper articles must be looked at closely. The power of the press is immense as it still is today. ordinary people automatically beleive what they read because its there in front of them. But others like myself are more sceptical and choose to look at what is written more closely.

            Comment


            • #21
              My post went again...damn computer..having it looked at and cleaned up today....getting red hot and about to crash out again...

              Anyway before it does....

              I think Druitt was being discussed before you moved onto Druitt,Trevor,sorry if I got anything wrong.

              Actually,the snippet of info I found wasn't anything to do with the Ripper case,and was a local report on an unrelated incident...but as you say...everything has to be looked at carefully.

              ANNA.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Trevor,

                I have to be honest and say that I havent checked the distance between where Coles was found dead and where Pc Edwards last saw sadler in a drunken state. perhaps you or someone could enlighten me.?
                Excellent question. There is still work to be done on this murder.

                Your are adamant that you think Sadler killed Coles and as we know the police initially did as well, but as i have stated there is no evidence to corroboate either your beleif or that of the offficers at the time.
                Yes, because he has a motive and made conflicting or false statements. Such as "I never carry a knife". Once he said : "I quarrelled with Frances because I think she could have helped me". Then : "I had a row with her because she saw me knocked down about and I think it was through her."
                Again : "I forgot to mention that Frances and I had some food at Mrs Shuttleworths in Wentworth Street."

                And if you look at what i have documented about the movemnets of sadler etc. Clearly any suspicion about him is is at best weak.
                As you've pointed out, Trevor, there is still work to be done on this case. Sadler has saved by a good lawyer (took this from The Grave Maurice). He was given the benefit of the doubt, but has not been cleared.
                What fell apart is the case of "Sadler the Ripper". This helped him greatly in the Coles murder...

                Amitiés,
                David

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hi DVV

                  Originally posted by DVV View Post
                  Hi Trevor,

                  Excellent question. There is still work to be done on this murder.

                  i dont agree what work still needs to be done ?

                  I am sure the distance referred to has been measure by someone on here and its only a matter of time before someone replies.

                  It didnt need a sharp eyed lawyer to get him off you or i could have stood up in court and said "Your honour i ask that the case against my client be dismissed due to insufficient evidence" thats a polite way of saying "NONE"



                  Yes, because he has a motive and made conflicting or false statements. Such as "I never carry a knife". Once he said : "I quarrelled with Frances because I think she could have helped me". Then : "I had a row with her because she saw me knocked down about and I think it was through her."
                  Again : "I forgot to mention that Frances and I had some food at Mrs Shuttleworths in Wentworth Street."

                  I dont see a motive there

                  As you've pointed out, Trevor, there is still work to be done on this case. Sadler has saved by a good lawyer (took this from The Grave Maurice). He was given the benefit of the doubt, but has not been cleared.

                  The burder of proof in any criminal case if for the prosecution to prove someone guilty not for the defendant to prove his innocence. If a jury is unsure they have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt but we dont know if the jury were unsure or they were all in agreement that there simply was no evidence

                  What fell apart is the case of "Sadler the Ripper". This helped him greatly in the Coles murder...

                  It fell apart for the reasons i have stated above
                  Amitiés,
                  David

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You don't see a motive ?
                    Waow.

                    And you think all is neat and clear regarding Sadler whereabouts that night ?
                    Waow again.

                    Amitiés,
                    David

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DVV View Post
                      You don't see a motive ?
                      Waow.

                      And you think all is neat and clear regarding Sadler whereabouts that night ?
                      Waow again.

                      Amitiés,
                      David
                      If he was that angry with her to the extent you make out why didnt he make any attempt to hit or injure here the next time he saw her after he had been robbed, or for that matter make any threats towards her ?

                      Did she say to any other witnesses that night she was fearful of him ?

                      If you are saying he killed her later he must have been real lucky to have bumped into her at that time of the morning shortky after Pc Edwards saw him.

                      Again until we know the distance between where he was seen and where the murder took place cant comment further.

                      What about the man she was seen going off with at 1.45am isnt he a more likely suspect ?
                      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-05-2010, 02:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        These are fair objections, Trevor.
                        Still, he had a motive - according to his own words.
                        Knowing how abusive he has been that night on various occasions, I'm sure he was pretty infuriated with Coles. He just felt as she had robbed him, and was responsible for him being homeless, penniless and beaten several times.
                        So yes, the motive is real.

                        Amitiés,
                        David

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DVV View Post
                          These are fair objections, Trevor.
                          Still, he had a motive - according to his own words.
                          Knowing how abusive he has been that night on various occasions, I'm sure he was pretty infuriated with Coles. He just felt as she had robbed him, and was responsible for him being homeless, penniless and beaten several times.
                          So yes, the motive is real.

                          Amitiés,
                          David
                          But the above facts you see to rely on are not true they are what you believe

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            David,
                            Are you aware that Sadler was falling down drunk that night and owned only a very blunt knife ?
                            Cheers
                            Norma

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
                              David,
                              Are you aware that Sadler was falling down drunk that night and owned only a very blunt knife ?
                              Cheers
                              Norma
                              Hi Norma,

                              yes I am, but at the same time, many crimes are committed by completetely drunk men.
                              Note also that he was able to walk a lot that night.

                              edit : as to the knife, I find the subject rather incriminating, for Sadler lied saying : "I do not carry a knife for years."

                              Amitiés,
                              David
                              Last edited by DVV; 04-05-2010, 04:34 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I hadnt really taken much notice of Dew's writings on the case. One thing that did strike me was his mention of Hutchinson. Dew obviously wasnt of the opinion that Hutchinson was a discredited witness.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X