When was the estimation of when Mary took her last meal of fish and potatoes?

[lynn cates]

possible

Hello John. Thanks.

Entirely possible.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

That flush (permanent in adults) is called blotchy--British usage. It resulted from excessive food/drink.

Went to school with a lad 100 pounds over weight. He was the same.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn

Aha! A beefy boy! Rosacea?

Best wishes
Gwyneth

[John G]

Hello, John G.

Obviously, the chances of ALL those aforementioned murders being carried out by one person are unlikely. However, within the 'main' series of murders, it seems that people are never quite satisfied that it was a serial killer. If it wasn't a political conspiracy, which I'm failing to recognise the agenda of, then we have numerous murderers running around Whitechapel chopping up women. No, history has taught us that when a group of victims are all killed with distinctive signature elements in a particular locality, it's more often than not the work of a serial killer. Yes, it's strange that two witnesses claimed to see Mary Kelly after her estimated death, and it's intriguing that the 'final' victim is such an enigma, but that does not a conspiracy make.

Hi Harry,

Yes, I agree that some of these murders must be connected, the difficulty is: which ones? For example, Lynn would argue Nicholls and Chapman. But then Simon Wood has suggested that "the murder of Annie Chapman bears all the hallmarks of a stand-alone event, with no serial connection.": see Ripperologist, 133.

And, as I suggested earlier, I wouldn't rule out a local conspiracy. For example, the Austin murder in many ways resembles the Whitechapel murders- in terms of injuries inflicted, more so than Stride or Tabram, and like Emma Smith she probably had an object thrust inside of her.

Moreover, like Kelly she was murdered in Dorset Street. And there seems to be plenty of evidence of a cover-up-her body was moved to a different floor after death, for example- with the strong possibility that an important local figure was involved.

Thus, Inspector Divall's Report into the case concluded: "It, however, seems very clear that her assailant is some well-known local character, otherwise the Deputy and the lodgers (the house being full) would not be so anxious to shield him, if he had been a stranger which they are evidently doing"

And, at the inquest, both Sullivan and the Deputy were caught out in lies, and both individuals were extremely evasive when questioned by the coroner.

[Wickerman]

...
As for a cold, I think the handerchief was more of a neckerchief, worn round the neck as an ornament, much bigger than say a lady's hanky.

Strange how these neckerchiefs/hankerchiefs are a continual theme throughout the murders.

Joseph Isaacs was described as likely belonging to that light-fingered fraternity (pickpockets) as well as small time thief & confidence trickster.

A red handkerchief is more befitting a woman than a man.
I have to wonder (assuming Astrachan was Isaacs), if Isaacs had not lifted that handkerchief out of Kelly's pocket as they walked as a bit of a come-on, teasing her. She then noticed her handkerchief was missing (''Oh I have lost my handkerchief''), and hey presto, Astrachan produces the red handkerchief out of nowhere.
Just a bit of light-fingered levity on his part.

[richardnunweek]

Hi jon,,
A fair point that, and very unique,
Richard.

[Harry D]

Hi Harry,

Yes, I agree that some of these murders must be connected, the difficulty is: which ones? For example, Lynn would argue Nicholls and Chapman. But then Simon Wood has suggested that "the murder of Annie Chapman bears all the hallmarks of a stand-alone event, with no serial connection.": see Ripperologist, 133.

And, as I suggested earlier, I wouldn't rule out a local conspiracy. For example, the Austin murder in many ways resembles the Whitechapel murders- in terms of injuries inflicted, more so than Stride or Tabram, and like Emma Smith she probably had an object thrust inside of her.

Moreover, like Kelly she was murdered in Dorset Street. And there seems to be plenty of evidence of a cover-up-her body was moved to a different floor after death, for example- with the strong possibility that an important local figure was involved.

Thus, Inspector Divall's Report into the case concluded: "It, however, seems very clear that her assailant is some well-known local character, otherwise the Deputy and the lodgers (the house being full) would not be so anxious to shield him, if he had been a stranger which they are evidently doing"

And, at the inquest, both Sullivan and the Deputy were caught out in lies, and both individuals were extremely evasive when questioned by the coroner.

Hello, John G.

I've only glanced at the Mary Ann Austin case and so I can't really comment on that. I'll have to add it to my ever increasing reading list.

As for what murders are connected, that comes to interpretation. Personally, I'm happy to take the 'canonical five' as read, give or take the likes of Stride & McKenzie. The vast majority of them were subdued, had their throats cut left-to-right whilst positioned on the ground to avoid blood flow, with abdominal mutilations/organ removal. All occurring in a localized area over a relatively short period of activity.

What is the skinny of Simon Woods' argument for Chapman being a standalone murder? Doesn't it centre around Col Hughes-Hallett and some kind of cover-up?

[lynn cates]

B P

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Well, not being particularly adept at medicine, I would have thought it related to blood pressure?

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello, John G.

I've only glanced at the Mary Ann Austin case and so I can't really comment on that. I'll have to add it to my ever increasing reading list.

As for what murders are connected, that comes to interpretation. Personally, I'm happy to take the 'canonical five' as read, give or take the likes of Stride & McKenzie. The vast majority of them were subdued, had their throats cut left-to-right whilst positioned on the ground to avoid blood flow, with abdominal mutilations/organ removal. All occurring in a localized area over a relatively short period of activity.

What is the skinny of Simon Woods' argument for Chapman being a standalone murder? Doesn't it centre around Col Hughes-Hallett and some kind of cover-up?

Hello Harry,

I'm not completely sure what Simon Wood's argument is in respect of Annie Chapman's murder: apparently it was all explained in three parts, covering three Ripperologist issues, and I've only looked at the middle one (Rip, 133).

However, the gist of it seems to be that she was murdered by Hughes- Hallett MP, the motive, from what I can gather, the covering up of a scandal. Thus, apparently whilst slumming it in the East End, Hughes-Hallet formed a relationship with Annie Chapman and, in doing so, impersonated the pensioner Ted Stanley! (apparently they were similar height, age and build, and Hughes-Hallett was the commanding officer of the pensioner Ted Stanley's militia regiment, only Stanley wasn't really in the regiment- the real Ted Stanley- because he was too old, thus negating his alibi for the murders of Nichols and Tabram). Phew!

Oh, and Hughes Hallett also impersonated the real Ted Stanley at the inquest, because Timothy Donovan could identify him, and he "fled" to America 15 days after the murder, which presumably confirms his guilt. Well, you did ask!

The Austin murder case, however, is definitely worth looking at; details are available on this site. Injuries included several small stab wounds around the margin of the anus and a penetrating wound of the vaginal (front) passage extending into the abdominal cavity (similar, of course, to Emma Smith). And she was murdered in Dorset Street which, of course, provides a connection to both Kelly and Chapman.

The inquest descended into complete farce: it became apparent that the victim has been moved from the room where her injuries were inflicted, and virtually all the witnesses were unreliable: at one point the clearly frustrated coroner, Wynne Baxter, remarked to the deputy of the lodgings:" Well, you are about the stupidest and most innocent witness I have ever met."

Inspector Divall remarked in his report: "Although we never despair I fear nothing can be done to elucidate this mystery and the perpetrator of this crime unfortunately goes unpunished as a result of the scandalous conduct of nearly the whole of the witnesses in this case."

[curious4]

Joseph Isaacs was described as likely belonging to that light-fingered fraternity (pickpockets) as well as small time thief & confidence trickster.

A red handkerchief is more befitting a woman than a man.
I have to wonder (assuming Astrachan was Isaacs), if Isaacs had not lifted that handkerchief out of Kelly's pocket as they walked as a bit of a come-on, teasing her. She then noticed her handkerchief was missing (''Oh I have lost my handkerchief''), and hey presto, Astrachan produces the red handkerchief out of nowhere.
Just a bit of light-fingered levity on his part.

Hello Wickerman

There were apparently a whole range of messages which could be sent with a handkerchief - holding it to the eyes, for example meant "you have made me cry". Not just fans and flowers.

"As we know, the Victorians had rather strict ideas of etiquette, particularly where the behaviour of men and women was concerned, and in polite society, any outward signs of flirtation were simply not allowed. However, much could be accomplished with the discreet manipulation of a fan or handkerchief. The Royal Victorian Society has published a list of the “language of the handkerchief,” which, if nothing else, makes for very amusing reading. Apparently, if a young woman twisted her handkerchief in her left hand, it meant “Go away” and the same gesture with her right hand meant “I’m thinking of you.” If she held her handkerchief to her left cheek, she was saying “Yes” and to her right cheek, “No.” One can only imagine the mixed messages that were possible or if, in fact, anyone actually understood what was being said."

http://www.orilliapacket.com/2013/03/01/the-language-of-handkerchiefs

Best wishes
C4

[Ben]

Hi Abby and Simon,

Apologies for the late reply.

Mrs. Kennedy was almost certainly not a genuine witness, but rather one of the "half dozen" women mentioned by a Star journalist, who tried to pass off Sarah Lewis's genuine evidence as their own - presumably after hearing it first or second hand in one of the lodging houses in the locality, where gossip ran rampant. Fortunately, her antics were cottoned onto fairly early, as she would otherwise have appeared at the inquest had she been treated as genuine; her alleged sighting of Kelly at 3.00am would have made her the most valuable witness if the claim was true. But alas, she was a mere "Chinese Whisperer" of Lewis's genuine account.

Hope this helps,
Ben

[Ben]

I have to wonder (assuming Astrachan was Isaacs), if Isaacs had not lifted that handkerchief out of Kelly's pocket as they walked as a bit of a come-on, teasing her. She then noticed her handkerchief was missing (''Oh I have lost my handkerchief''), and hey presto, Astrachan produces the red handkerchief out of nowhere.
Just a bit of light-fingered levity on his part.

Isaacs being locked up in prison at the time presenting just a slight problem to the above, I would have thought...well, that and the likelihood of Hutchinson's hanky sighting being a fabrication, of course.

[curious4]

Hello Wickerman

There were apparently a whole range of messages which could be sent with a handkerchief - holding it to the eyes, for example meant "you have made me cry". Not just fans and flowers.

"As we know, the Victorians had rather strict ideas of etiquette, particularly where the behaviour of men and women was concerned, and in polite society, any outward signs of flirtation were simply not allowed. However, much could be accomplished with the discreet manipulation of a fan or handkerchief. The Royal Victorian Society has published a list of the “language of the handkerchief,” which, if nothing else, makes for very amusing reading. Apparently, if a young woman twisted her handkerchief in her left hand, it meant “Go away” and the same gesture with her right hand meant “I’m thinking of you.” If she held her handkerchief to her left cheek, she was saying “Yes” and to her right cheek, “No.” One can only imagine the mixed messages that were possible or if, in fact, anyone actually understood what was being said."

http://www.orilliapacket.com/2013/03/01/the-language-of-handkerchiefs

Best wishes
C4

Sorry about this, completely off-thread but I do get over-excited when I find something I didn't know. (And which everyone else probably did).

C4

[Wickerman]

Sorry about this, completely off-thread but I do get over-excited when I find something I didn't know. (And which everyone else probably did).

C4

Not at all, that link was quite interesting and entertaining.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby and Simon,

Apologies for the late reply.

Mrs. Kennedy was almost certainly not a genuine witness, but rather one of the "half dozen" women mentioned by a Star journalist, who tried to pass off Sarah Lewis's genuine evidence as their own - presumably after hearing it first or second hand in one of the lodging houses in the locality, where gossip ran rampant. Fortunately, her antics were cottoned onto fairly early, as she would otherwise have appeared at the inquest had she been treated as genuine; her alleged sighting of Kelly at 3.00am would have made her the most valuable witness if the claim was true. But alas, she was a mere "Chinese Whisperer" of Lewis's genuine account.

Hope this helps,
Ben

Thanks Ben
That's what I thought. Another phantom for losers trying to push there pathetic theories .,.,.,!,,,,!

[GUT]

Sorry about this, completely off-thread but I do get over-excited when I find something I didn't know. (And which everyone else probably did).

C4

Thanks good stuff.

I'm young enough, or is it old enough, to remember when girls wore a corsair on certain sides and if a guy had an earing it mattered what ear and all sorts of other junk that was supposed to show you were available.