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

[Wickerman]

But Cox wasn’t returning home to her parents, as you implausibly insist Mrs. Kennedy would have been. If a boyfriend such Barnett drew the line at co-habiting with a prostitute, one cannot help but wonder what Mrs. Kennedy’s parents must have made of her daughter crashing their tiny pad at 3.00am every night, fresh from the streets.

Needs-must, as they say.
This wasn't Downton Abbey.

I was quoting from Sarah Lewis’s police statement, actually, and I’d thank you to familiarise yourself with the relevant sources before accusing me of having “goofed” by relying on sources that I had previously rejected as unreliable, which I demonstrably was not. Unless you’re now seriously suggesting – and it wouldn’t surprise me, considering it’s you – that a police statement such as the one signed by Lewis is valueless because it wasn’t provided on oath?

Duck and weave all you like, you goofed. A police statement is not sworn to, but you just had to over-ice the cake by claiming Lewis swore on oath, to try make your argument superior.

In which case that’s Hutchinson’s police statement somewhat bollocksed, isn’t it?

Now who's raising the spectre of Hutchinson on an unrelated thread..

It's about time you realized that police statements are not sworn on oath, only you and the Echo don't seem to grasp this.
Hutchinson's statement did not require to be sworn to be accepted.

Where do you propose she was, then, at the time of her exchange of stroppy "words" with her husband, if not in the overwhelmingly logical and likely location – her home on Great Pearl Street, where her husband presumably also lived? It’s a mere “coincidence”, I suppose, that her route into Dorset Street would make sense for a person heading there from Great Pearl Street?

It's not my concern to speculate where she might have been. It is sufficient for me to point out to you that Lewis did not say she just left home. She indicated that she choose not to go home.
There is a difference.

The Echo.

(Thanks for coming, but this isn’t a Hutchinson thread)

Then why did you mention him above?

And no, the Echo said no such thing, as has been shown to you time after time. One isolated erroneous press report, rather like the Weekly News guffaw you've been championing - how you are drawn to these fringe press releases...
If it isn't fringe, its misrepresentation or exaggerations. I'll give you this Ben, it is entertaining.

I happened to be abroad – in several different countries, in fact – between the 4th August and the 11th September, and during that time I had neither the time nor the inclination to go round and round in repetitive circles with you.

Yet that is precisely what you do.
After being away weeks on end you do a search of every post I wrote and step through all the Hutchinson debates to resurrect old debates, whether they were with you or not.

I love Hutchinson debates – they’re my favourite thing - and when time permits I address all outstanding points, just as I’m doing now. Show me a single Hutchinson debate where you’ve been permitted to have the last word unchallenged, and I’ll redress the issue. You speak of taking breaks from the message board as though it’s a cardinal sin – a sure sign that you’re due one; a break, that is.

Oh, I see, you think having the last word is crucial.
Actually no, it is being accurate that is crucial, it matters nothing that you fail to address the point being made and repeat some well worn "opinion", only to have to last word.

Anyhow, lets return to the subject of the thread.

[John G]

yeah but that's pretty specific, and pretty much what happened. Did he write either poem Before any of the ripper murders?

Hi Abby,

I believe the witch babies poem was written in late 1888 and the story about the man stabbing the women in the autumn of 1889.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

In his writings Thompson certainly used violent imagery. For example, in one poem he wrote of a knight hunting down women and cutting open their stomachs to look for "witch-babies." He also wrote a story about a man stabbing a women to death for fame.

Nonetheless, we can't of course, assume that what is expressed in literature represents the authors own views. And it's worth noting that Robert Browning also wrote a poem about a man strangling a women with her own hair and toying with her corpse. And then we have Walter Sickert painting "Jack the Ripper's bedroom". Mind you, some say that represents proof that he was JtR!

yeah but that's pretty specific, and pretty much what happened. Did he write either poem Before any of the ripper murders?

[John G]

Not bad johnG. Not bad at all.
I like the probability he lived close at the time, was local. The fact that he was homeless would also explain why the murders happened out in the street.

You've also already alleviated my wasn't he in rags concern. I could definitely see being described as shabby gentile then if people were buying him clothes.

And that he had training as a surgeon of course.

His being sent to an asylum in November would explain the cessation of the crimes after MK. However, I think mckenzie was probably a ripper victim.

The break up with the prostitute right before the killings started I find highly intriguing.

Also please expound on his writings.

Hi Abby,

In his writings Thompson certainly used violent imagery. For example, in one poem he wrote of a knight hunting down women and cutting open their stomachs to look for "witch-babies." He also wrote a story about a man stabbing a women to death for fame.

Nonetheless, we can't of course, assume that what is expressed in literature represents the authors own views. And it's worth noting that Robert Browning also wrote a poem about a man strangling a women with her own hair and toying with her corpse. And then we have Walter Sickert painting "Jack the Ripper's bedroom". Mind you, some say that represents proof that he was JtR!

[Ben]

“If you are out most nights, clientele might dry up around that time.
That is the time Cox came back too, her night was also over about 3:00.”

But Cox wasn’t returning home to her parents, as you implausibly insist Mrs. Kennedy would have been. If a boyfriend such Barnett drew the line at co-habiting with a prostitute, one cannot help but wonder what Mrs. Kennedy’s parents must have made of her daughter crashing their tiny pad at 3.00am every night, fresh from the streets.

“There was no cause for her to mention the subject”

There was no cause for her to mention being in company with “another female” on Wednesday night, but she mentioned it nonetheless.

“Your least favourite newspapers, the Daily News & Morning Advertiser are the only two London papers which recorded that detail from the inquest.
So now you choose to quote from the very sources you normally ridicule, how two-faced that appears to be.
More likely you just goofed, eh?”

I was quoting from Sarah Lewis’s police statement, actually, and I’d thank you to familiarise yourself with the relevant sources before accusing me of having “goofed” by relying on sources that I had previously rejected as unreliable, which I demonstrably was not. Unless you’re now seriously suggesting – and it wouldn’t surprise me, considering it’s you – that a police statement such as the one signed by Lewis is valueless because it wasn’t provided on oath? In which case that’s Hutchinson’s police statement somewhat bollocksed, isn’t it?

“What Lewis tells the court is why she went to the Keylors, rather than going home. Not that she left home to go to the Keylors.”

Where do you propose she was, then, at the time of her exchange of stroppy "words" with her husband, if not in the overwhelmingly logical and likely location – her home on Great Pearl Street, where her husband presumably also lived? It’s a mere “coincidence”, I suppose, that her route into Dorset Street would make sense for a person heading there from Great Pearl Street?

“If you remember, you tried to ridicule the fact that Lewis had not said "my sister heard it too", implying that she would have said this if her sister was present.”

No, I succeeded in ridiculing the argument that Lewis would have mysteriously concealed the fact that she had a female companion in her room, had one been present there in the early morning of the 9th, and I did so on the basis that we know she made reference to a female companion when one was present on Wednesday, when she encountered her Bethnal Green botherer.

“What a load of hogwash. Do you actually understand what 'proof' is?
Oh yes, silly me, this is Ben who decides for himself what 'proven' means.”

You continue to champion a definite press error as gospel; nobody else is doing that (massive clue there).

“Remind me, which other newspaper said Hutchinson was discredited?”

The Echo.

(Thanks for coming, but this isn’t a Hutchinson thread)

“If I'm not mistaken, rather than "finish" anything, you have a habit of running away when the pressure gets too much, and for weeks at a time.”

Otherwise known as doing my job of work, Jon.

It’s my work that takes me away from online serial killer discussions, not the big scary “pressure” you poignantly imagine you’re exerting.

I happened to be abroad – in several different countries, in fact – between the 4th August and the 11th September, and during that time I had neither the time nor the inclination to go round and round in repetitive circles with you. I love Hutchinson debates – they’re my favourite thing - and when time permits I address all outstanding points, just as I’m doing now. Show me a single Hutchinson debate where you’ve been permitted to have the last word unchallenged, and I’ll redress the issue. You speak of taking breaks from the message board as though it’s a cardinal sin – a sure sign that you’re due one; a break, that is.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Thanks, I'll do my best to be convincing!

Firstly, the fact that the Whitechapel murders took place within a relatively small geographical area suggest to me that there is an overwhelming probability the killer was a local. However, with a population of around 75000 that still leaves a large number of potentially viable suspects, i.e. suspects not excluded on grounds of age, gender, infirmity etc.

But, as I noted in my earlier post, if the killer had a degree of medical or surgical knowledge, even as a medical student, then the viable suspect list must be greatly reduced. Moreover, age range needs to be considered. According to Hickey's 1997 database the average age of a serial killer at the time of first killing is 27.5 years. Although there are obvious exceptions, Ray Copeland was 72, I think it reasonable to conclude that the Ripper is unlikely to be, say, over 40: this also accords with witness statements, with only Mrs Long describing an older suspect.

On that basis I would have thought we would be left with very few viable candidates. However, does Thompson meet this criteria. Well, he was 28 at the time of the Tabram and Nichols murders, so age is not a problem. And, as noted earlier, he trained for six years as a surgeon, during which time, according to Richard Patterson he cut up hundreds of cadavers. He therefore, comfortably meets the medical knowledge criteria.

Was Thompson living in Whitechapel at the time? Well, between 1885 and 1888 he was mainly living as a homeless person in the East End. However, according to his biographer, John Walsh, the Catholic Refuge in Providence Row, located a hundred metres from Dorset Street, was one of the places he sought refuge: Thompson himself gives a vivid description of the place in his writings. Moreover, the shelter only opened between November and May, and he was sent to a private sanitarium around mid November, so in the whole of 1888 it is likely he could only have been there during the first half of November, i.e during the period Kelly was killed. (guests also required two references and had to dress respectfully: it is therefore questionable that he could have met this criteria prior to November 1888, as he was dressed in rags until given money to buy a new suit and had lost contact with friends and family.)

Thompson also admitted to spending nights on Mile End Road, which ended where it met the Whitechapel Road, about 100 metres from Bucks Row.

John Douglas' profile also stated that JtR would have started fires when he was younger (research also indicates that 56% of serial killers have a history of starting fires.) Thompson appears to be a serial arsonist. He was responsible for five fires, two in his youth. He left his landlady to die in one of these fires, and then when asked why he hadn't attempted to rouse her he jested: "a house on fire is no place for tarrying."

Douglas' profile also states that JtR may only have had relationships with prostitutes. Thompson's only known relationship was with a prostitute, which ended abruptly in June 1888 after she left him. Could this incident have acted as a catalyst for the subsequent murders?

However, Thompson couldn't have murdered McKenzie because in 1889 he was recuperating, firstly in a sanatorium and then at a priory. Nonetheless, there is, of course, significant doubt as to whether McKenzie was a Ripper victim and the period of recuperation would at least explain why the murders abruptly ended.

Not bad johnG. Not bad at all.
I like the probability he lived close at the time, was local. The fact that he was homeless would also explain why the murders happened out in the street.

You've also already alleviated my wasn't he in rags concern. I could definitely see being described as shabby gentile then if people were buying him clothes.

And that he had training as a surgeon of course.

His being sent to an asylum in November would explain the cessation of the crimes after MK. However, I think mckenzie was probably a ripper victim.

The break up with the prostitute right before the killings started I find highly intriguing.

Also please expound on his writings.

[John G]

Thanks JohnG
If you can place FT definitively living in providence Row at the time of the murders than yes that would be hugely significant IMHO.
I think he also probably would have had the medical background to commit the murders.
His writings are similar(reference?) the murders.
He was actually someone I had on my short list of viable candidates when I first got into the case, but fell off once I really got into and realized how many candidates had absolutely no connection to the case.

If Mckenzie was killed by the ripper ( I think she was)-does that exclude him?

Does his handwriting match Dear Boss or From Hell?

Did he have any kind o police record? Violence toward people/women in his background?

He was a strange dude, that's for sure and still a possibility. As far as I know nothing excludes him.

But Im open-Go ahead-try to convince me. Make a list with points that you think make him a good suspect. Im all ears.

Hi Abby,

Thanks, I'll do my best to be convincing!

Firstly, the fact that the Whitechapel murders took place within a relatively small geographical area suggest to me that there is an overwhelming probability the killer was a local. However, with a population of around 75000 that still leaves a large number of potentially viable suspects, i.e. suspects not excluded on grounds of age, gender, infirmity etc.

But, as I noted in my earlier post, if the killer had a degree of medical or surgical knowledge, even as a medical student, then the viable suspect list must be greatly reduced. Moreover, age range needs to be considered. According to Hickey's 1997 database the average age of a serial killer at the time of first killing is 27.5 years. Although there are obvious exceptions, Ray Copeland was 72, I think it reasonable to conclude that the Ripper is unlikely to be, say, over 40: this also accords with witness statements, with only Mrs Long describing an older suspect.

On that basis I would have thought we would be left with very few viable candidates. However, does Thompson meet this criteria. Well, he was 28 at the time of the Tabram and Nichols murders, so age is not a problem. And, as noted earlier, he trained for six years as a surgeon, during which time, according to Richard Patterson he cut up hundreds of cadavers. He therefore, comfortably meets the medical knowledge criteria.

Was Thompson living in Whitechapel at the time? Well, between 1885 and 1888 he was mainly living as a homeless person in the East End. However, according to his biographer, John Walsh, the Catholic Refuge in Providence Row, located a hundred metres from Dorset Street, was one of the places he sought refuge: Thompson himself gives a vivid description of the place in his writings. Moreover, the shelter only opened between November and May, and he was sent to a private sanitarium around mid November, so in the whole of 1888 it is likely he could only have been there during the first half of November, i.e during the period Kelly was killed. (guests also required two references and had to dress respectfully: it is therefore questionable that he could have met this criteria prior to November 1888, as he was dressed in rags until given money to buy a new suit and had lost contact with friends and family.)

Thompson also admitted to spending nights on Mile End Road, which ended where it met the Whitechapel Road, about 100 metres from Bucks Row.

John Douglas' profile also stated that JtR would have started fires when he was younger (research also indicates that 56% of serial killers have a history of starting fires.) Thompson appears to be a serial arsonist. He was responsible for five fires, two in his youth. He left his landlady to die in one of these fires, and then when asked why he hadn't attempted to rouse her he jested: "a house on fire is no place for tarrying."

Douglas' profile also states that JtR may only have had relationships with prostitutes. Thompson's only known relationship was with a prostitute, which ended abruptly in June 1888 after she left him. Could this incident have acted as a catalyst for the subsequent murders?

However, Thompson couldn't have murdered McKenzie because in 1889 he was recuperating, firstly in a sanatorium and then at a priory. Nonetheless, there is, of course, significant doubt as to whether McKenzie was a Ripper victim and the period of recuperation would at least explain why the murders abruptly ended.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Regarding Lewis, of course a reward-seeking phony witness wouldn't necessarily need proof of a reward, just a belief in the possibility. In fact, wasn't the possibility of offering a reward considered seriously by the authorities? And didn't the news media argue strongly, and persistently, in favour of a reward being offered?

Nonetheless, I accept that evidence of Lewis lying, or even embellishing her evidence, is circumstantial at best so it's obviously important not to get too carried away!

In respect of medical expertise, if the killer did have a degree of surgical skill then that must narrow down the suspect list immensely. I mean, I think it highly likely that the killer was living in Whitechapel and, apart from the local GPs, how many of Whitechapel's 75000 residents would have received even basic medical training? Of course, the killer could have been a local GP, but somehow I don't see Dr Phillips as a likely suspect! Dr Llewellyn on the other hand...

You're correct in saying that nothing ties Thompson to the case, but at least we can say he was living in Whitechapel- that fact alone should elevate him over most suspects! Moreover, he was probably living at the Providence Row refuge, opposite the Western end of Dorset Street at the time of the murders, which of course provides a basic link to Kelly's murder. Richard Patterson also suggests another link to the Kelly murder: Thompson was taught the new and rare Virchow method for heart removal; apparently Dr Bond said such a method had been used to remove Kelly's heart.

Furthermore, although homeless he did receive money intermittently. For instance, in September 1888 his publisher gave him funds to buy a suit, which he used to buy a new suit, a long dark overcoat and a wide felt hat. He also received further money from his publisher, Mynell, during the period of the murders, I.e in respect of an advance for an essay.

And, of course, as a poet he was the one suspect we can be reasonably sure had the ability to appear non-threatening, even charming. I doubt, therefore, that luring prostitutes into a trap would have posed much of a problem; in fact, to most of the local women he would surely have come across as somewhat sophisticated, the very antithesis of most locals perception of the monstrous Ripper.

Thanks JohnG
If you can place FT definitively living in providence Row at the time of the murders than yes that would be hugely significant IMHO.
I think he also probably would have had the medical background to commit the murders.
His writings are similar(reference?) the murders.
He was actually someone I had on my short list of viable candidates when I first got into the case, but fell off once I really got into and realized how many candidates had absolutely no connection to the case.

If Mckenzie was killed by the ripper ( I think she was)-does that exclude him?

Does his handwriting match Dear Boss or From Hell?

Did he have any kind o police record? Violence toward people/women in his background?

He was a strange dude, that's for sure and still a possibility. As far as I know nothing excludes him.

But Im open-Go ahead-try to convince me. Make a list with points that you think make him a good suspect. Im all ears.

[John G]

Hi JohnG

thnx!



Good points.
However, there is no indication-NONE-that sarah lewis was an attention seeker, or doing this for any monetary gain.
She didn't go to the press, there was no reward being offered, and she didn't receive money from the police for aiding them (unlike, cough, cough some have claimed, cough, that a certain "witness" cough, cough, hutch, cough, did). : )



Most medical experts then and now seem to agree he had some kind of medical skill. And of the drs then that insisted he didn't-well in light of Baxters story of the American Dr. looking for uterus specimans and the subsequent harrumphing by the medical field in response-I cant help to think that they might have been tainted in their analysis that of course no DR could do this for Gods sake! LOL

The only problem being that nothing ties him to the case, unles of course he was BG man! ; )

also, from what I understand about him at that time-he was basically homeless in fall of 1888 and basically in rags? no suspect was described as being that bad off?

Hi Abby,

Regarding Lewis, of course a reward-seeking phony witness wouldn't necessarily need proof of a reward, just a belief in the possibility. In fact, wasn't the possibility of offering a reward considered seriously by the authorities? And didn't the news media argue strongly, and persistently, in favour of a reward being offered?

Nonetheless, I accept that evidence of Lewis lying, or even embellishing her evidence, is circumstantial at best so it's obviously important not to get too carried away!

In respect of medical expertise, if the killer did have a degree of surgical skill then that must narrow down the suspect list immensely. I mean, I think it highly likely that the killer was living in Whitechapel and, apart from the local GPs, how many of Whitechapel's 75000 residents would have received even basic medical training? Of course, the killer could have been a local GP, but somehow I don't see Dr Phillips as a likely suspect! Dr Llewellyn on the other hand...

You're correct in saying that nothing ties Thompson to the case, but at least we can say he was living in Whitechapel- that fact alone should elevate him over most suspects! Moreover, he was probably living at the Providence Row refuge, opposite the Western end of Dorset Street at the time of the murders, which of course provides a basic link to Kelly's murder. Richard Patterson also suggests another link to the Kelly murder: Thompson was taught the new and rare Virchow method for heart removal; apparently Dr Bond said such a method had been used to remove Kelly's heart.

Furthermore, although homeless he did receive money intermittently. For instance, in September 1888 his publisher gave him funds to buy a suit, which he used to buy a new suit, a long dark overcoat and a wide felt hat. He also received further money from his publisher, Mynell, during the period of the murders, I.e in respect of an advance for an essay.

And, of course, as a poet he was the one suspect we can be reasonably sure had the ability to appear non-threatening, even charming. I doubt, therefore, that luring prostitutes into a trap would have posed much of a problem; in fact, to most of the local women he would surely have come across as somewhat sophisticated, the very antithesis of most locals perception of the monstrous Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Thank you, a very good reply.

I'm far from convinced myself that Lewis actually did lie, however, I think that it's important to keep an open mind. One thing that does seem to be clear is that social and cultural norms were fundamentally different during this period than today. Thus, if a witness lied in a modern investigation they would undoubtedly be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and would probably face imprisonment. However, contrastingly, clearly a number of witnessed gave highly questionable evidence throughout the Whitechapel investigations, but nobody was actually prosecuted.

And, as I've mentioned before, the Austin murder inquest descended into farce, with a number of witnesses apparently lying under oath, but again I don't believe any charges were brought against them.

Therefore with the risk of prosecution very low, and lying to the authorities possibly seen as more socially acceptable than today, it's probably not surprising that the investigation was inundated with numerous attention and reward seekers. In fact, if you were hoping to claim a share in a reward, i.e. on the basis that if the killer was caught he might be some resemblance to your "suspect", assigning to the suspect an archetypal black bag might have seemed like a good idea!

I agree that if Bethnal Green man was genuine, and assuming the second sighting outside the Ringers wasn't a case of mistaken identification, then he makes a very good suspect. And as you suggest, he doesn't seem to be totally dissimilar to Astrachan man! However, I believe Lewis says he was about 40, and of course only Mrs Long refers to a suspect as old as that.

I also agree that there is some force to the argument that the killer probably had some degree of medical or surgical skill, although expert opinion seems divided on this: not only amongst the Victorian doctors, but also modern experts: Prosector seemed to think he did, but Trevor's experts are divided: Dr Biggs, who as a forensic pathologist is arguably qualified in the most relevant discipline, didn't seem to think the killer had any expertise.

Nonetheless, as you know Francis Thompson is one of my favoured suspects, and he trained for six years as a surgeon, so possibility I should start giving unequivocal support to the argument that the killer exhibited a significant amount of surgical skill!

I also find him an intriguing character: almost "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".

Hi JohnG

Thank you, a very good reply.

thnx!

I'm far from convinced myself that Lewis actually did lie, however, I think that it's important to keep an open mind. One thing that does seem to be clear is that social and cultural norms were fundamentally different during this period than today. Thus, if a witness lied in a modern investigation they would undoubtedly be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and would probably face imprisonment. However, contrastingly, clearly a number of witnessed gave highly questionable evidence throughout the Whitechapel investigations, but nobody was actually prosecuted.

And, as I've mentioned before, the Austin murder inquest descended into farce, with a number of witnesses apparently lying under oath, but again I don't believe any charges were brought against them.

Therefore with the risk of prosecution very low, and lying to the authorities possibly seen as more socially acceptable than today, it's probably not surprising that the investigation was inundated with numerous attention and reward seekers. In fact, if you were hoping to claim a share in a reward, i.e. on the basis that if the killer was caught he might be some resemblance to your "suspect", assigning to the suspect an archetypal black bag might have seemed like a good idea!

Good points.
However, there is no indication-NONE-that sarah lewis was an attention seeker, or doing this for any monetary gain.
She didn't go to the press, there was no reward being offered, and she didn't receive money from the police for aiding them (unlike, cough, cough some have claimed, cough, that a certain "witness" cough, cough, hutch, cough, did). : )

I also agree that there is some force to the argument that the killer probably had some degree of medical or surgical skill, although expert opinion seems divided on this: not only amongst the Victorian doctors, but also modern experts: Prosector seemed to think he did, but Trevor's experts are divided: Dr Biggs, who as a forensic pathologist is arguably qualified in the most relevant discipline, didn't seem to think the killer had any expertise.

Most medical experts then and now seem to agree he had some kind of medical skill. And of the drs then that insisted he didn't-well in light of Baxters story of the American Dr. looking for uterus specimans and the subsequent harrumphing by the medical field in response-I cant help to think that they might have been tainted in their analysis that of course no DR could do this for Gods sake! LOL

Nonetheless, as you know Francis Thompson is one of my favoured suspects, and he trained for six years as a surgeon, so possibility I should start giving unequivocal support to the argument that the killer exhibited a significant amount of surgical skill!

The only problem being that nothing ties him to the case, unles of course he was BG man! ; )

also, from what I understand about him at that time-he was basically homeless in fall of 1888 and basically in rags? no suspect was described as being that bad off?

[John G]

Hi JohnG
Good post.
And I will concede that lewis seeing the Bethnel green man twice does seem unlikely. However, since she was frightened by him once that would make him stick out in her mind-giving more reason why she would even recognize him again. And I think you need to look at all witnesses on a case by case basis, look at everything, and make an decision on truthfulness-if not, then the whole thing is a house of cards and nothing can be made sense of.

I find her credible, for all the resons I mentioned before.

And since shes credible IMHO-I believe her whole story, including BG man- just has a ring of truth to it for me.

It seems that this guy is a slightly eccentric punter, or even the ripper, and that if hes in the habit of solicitating women/prostitutes then no wonder he is out and about on the streets at night.

To me The Bethnel Green man seems to fit the general description and personality of the ripper. Slightly above the destitutes in class. manner of speech-eccentric yet "gentle speech" ,charming-disarming, perhaps half joking.

"you would say anything but your prayers"-Marshalls man
"something the ladies don't like"-BG man
"will you?" Longs man
Eddowes hand on chest of suspect-Lawende
Asking to treat them-BG man
Walking around with victim, buying them things-strides man

Heck, he even jibes with A-man somewhat (not that I believe Hutch for a second on that score).

Like I said if MK wasn't already dead or passed out, I could definitely see her running into him (he was close that night).

And of course, I think the ripper had must have had some kind of anatomical/medical/surgical background-which also jibes with BG man somewhat.

I find him a VERY intriguing character.

(and yes-one of the few things that me and BEN definitely disagree on).LOL.

Hi Abby,

Thank you, a very good reply.

I'm far from convinced myself that Lewis actually did lie, however, I think that it's important to keep an open mind. One thing that does seem to be clear is that social and cultural norms were fundamentally different during this period than today. Thus, if a witness lied in a modern investigation they would undoubtedly be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice and would probably face imprisonment. However, contrastingly, clearly a number of witnessed gave highly questionable evidence throughout the Whitechapel investigations, but nobody was actually prosecuted.

And, as I've mentioned before, the Austin murder inquest descended into farce, with a number of witnesses apparently lying under oath, but again I don't believe any charges were brought against them.

Therefore with the risk of prosecution very low, and lying to the authorities possibly seen as more socially acceptable than today, it's probably not surprising that the investigation was inundated with numerous attention and reward seekers. In fact, if you were hoping to claim a share in a reward, i.e. on the basis that if the killer was caught he might be some resemblance to your "suspect", assigning to the suspect an archetypal black bag might have seemed like a good idea!

I agree that if Bethnal Green man was genuine, and assuming the second sighting outside the Ringers wasn't a case of mistaken identification, then he makes a very good suspect. And as you suggest, he doesn't seem to be totally dissimilar to Astrachan man! However, I believe Lewis says he was about 40, and of course only Mrs Long refers to a suspect as old as that.

I also agree that there is some force to the argument that the killer probably had some degree of medical or surgical skill, although expert opinion seems divided on this: not only amongst the Victorian doctors, but also modern experts: Prosector seemed to think he did, but Trevor's experts are divided: Dr Biggs, who as a forensic pathologist is arguably qualified in the most relevant discipline, didn't seem to think the killer had any expertise.

Nonetheless, as you know Francis Thompson is one of my favoured suspects, and he trained for six years as a surgeon, so possibility I should start giving unequivocal support to the argument that the killer exhibited a significant amount of surgical skill!

I also find him an intriguing character: almost "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".

[Wickerman]

"That hour" being 3.00 in the morning – a totally normal time to visit one’s parents on a regular basis!

If you are out most nights, clientele might dry up around that time.
That is the time Cox came back too, her night was also over about 3:00.

Sarah Lewis gave not the slightest indication that her departure from Great Pearl Street was planned to coincide with her “sister’s” regular visit to her parents in the wee hours.

There was no cause for her to mention the subject.

She left at that time because, as she stated on oath, she had exchanged “words” with her husband.

Wow, that must have stuck in your throat to admit to that.

Your least favourite newspapers, the Daily News & Morning Advertiser are the only two London papers which recorded that detail from the inquest.
So now you choose to quote from the very sources you normally ridicule, how two-faced that appears to be.
More likely you just goofed, eh?

Sarah L. only mentioned that detail in her police statement, and that was not taken under oath.

This actually makes sense as a plausible motivation for leaving the marital home in the middle of night and heading, in the cold November rain, for Miller’s Court;...

But she doesn't say that though.
What Lewis tells the court is why she went to the Keylors, rather than going home. Not that she left home to go to the Keylors.
Do you see a difference?

Possibly, the reason they had 'words' had something to do with her being out too often for too long.

She stated, entirely without prompting, that she was in the company of “another female” when accosted by Mr. Bethnal Green Road. She used the words “we” and “us” to describe what happened to them in the context of their experience with this man.

You are losing track of your previous point.
If you remember, you tried to ridicule the fact that Lewis had not said "my sister heard it too", implying that she would have said this if her sister was present.
A witness does not tell the court what someone else saw or heard.
The above quote does not change that fact.

It has been utterly proven wrong – time and time again, and it is only you who champions it as accurate. Nothing in Hutchinson's statement even remotely correlates with the Daily News’s proven error on the subject of Lewis’s “couple”.

What a load of hogwash. Do you actually understand what 'proof' is?
Oh yes, silly me, this is Ben who decides for himself what 'proven' means.
Yes, I remember that post.

It wasn’t solitary at all. It corresponded perfectly with both the Echo’s proven communication with the police and the ultimate treatment accorded to Hutchinson, as reflected in the reports, interviews and memoirs of the police seniority involved with case.

Remind me, which other newspaper said Hutchinson was discredited?

You pick these fights in the middle of nowhere, resulting in almost verbatim regurgitation of previous debates, and I always finish them. If you think this thread’s going to be any different, I’m afraid you’re the one in need of a “refresher course”.

If I'm not mistaken, rather than "finish" anything, you have a habit of running away when the pressure gets too much, and for weeks at a time.

While you've been gone this time Ben, the subject of Hutchinson has rarely surfaced. And when it did it was brief, and there was no butting-of-heads. The exchanges were quite amiable.

Here's a suggestion - if YOU do not want to talk about Hutchinson & related topics, then DON'T talk about Hutchinson!

[Abby Normal]

What I find interesting about the Kelly case is how many witnesses gave questionable evidence. Thus, apart from George Hutchinson, we have Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis. And Mary Ann Cox's evidence isn't without problems: she states that Kelly was so drunk she was barely able to walk, and her companion, Blotchy, was carrying a quart of ale. This all suggests that they'd been drinking for some time, however, despite extensive inquiries the police were unable to find a single pub were anyone remembered serving Kelly or her Blotchy friend.

As I've noted, Sarah Lewis' claim to have re-encountered the mysterious suspect, described by Chris Scott as "the sinister man with the shiny black bag", just before entering Dorset Street, where she immediately encounters another suspicious looking character, seems almost ludicrous.

And she did amend an important part of her evidence: she told the police that she arrived at Miller's Court between 2:00am and 3:00am. However, at the inquest she said the time was 2:30, which more closely corresponds with Hutchinson's evidence- he claimed to have left by 2:45am.

I accept the police didn't doubt her evidence, however, initially at least, they also believed George Hutchinson. And there only reason for doubting Maxwell seems to have been the lateness of the sighting.

Of course, none of this remotely proves that Lewis lied, however, I consider it important to keep an open mind. It's, not impossible that she was an attention seeker, and that is clearly something the police considered, and dismissed, in respect of Caroline Maxwell.

A local conspiracy is also a possibility, particularly in light of the later Austin case (this has also been suggested on the basis that Kelly has never been identified).However, it's clearly important to remain objective. In the Austin case it's quite obvious that numerous witnesses lied, or were involved in a cover-up, as Inspector Divall's Report clearly demonstrates: the inquest virtually degenerated into complete farce. Whereas evidence of a conspiracy in the Kelly case is circumstantial at best.

Hi JohnG
Good post.
And I will concede that lewis seeing the Bethnel green man twice does seem unlikely. However, since she was frightened by him once that would make him stick out in her mind-giving more reason why she would even recognize him again. And I think you need to look at all witnesses on a case by case basis, look at everything, and make an decision on truthfulness-if not, then the whole thing is a house of cards and nothing can be made sense of.

I find her credible, for all the resons I mentioned before.

And since shes credible IMHO-I believe her whole story, including BG man- just has a ring of truth to it for me.

It seems that this guy is a slightly eccentric punter, or even the ripper, and that if hes in the habit of solicitating women/prostitutes then no wonder he is out and about on the streets at night.

To me The Bethnel Green man seems to fit the general description and personality of the ripper. Slightly above the destitutes in class. manner of speech-eccentric yet "gentle speech" ,charming-disarming, perhaps half joking.

"you would say anything but your prayers"-Marshalls man
"something the ladies don't like"-BG man
"will you?" Longs man
Eddowes hand on chest of suspect-Lawende
Asking to treat them-BG man
Walking around with victim, buying them things-strides man

Heck, he even jibes with A-man somewhat (not that I believe Hutch for a second on that score).

Like I said if MK wasn't already dead or passed out, I could definitely see her running into him (he was close that night).

And of course, I think the ripper had must have had some kind of anatomical/medical/surgical background-which also jibes with BG man somewhat.

I find him a VERY intriguing character.

(and yes-one of the few things that me and BEN definitely disagree on).LOL.

[John G]

What I find interesting about the Kelly case is how many witnesses gave questionable evidence. Thus, apart from George Hutchinson, we have Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis. And Mary Ann Cox's evidence isn't without problems: she states that Kelly was so drunk she was barely able to walk, and her companion, Blotchy, was carrying a quart of ale. This all suggests that they'd been drinking for some time, however, despite extensive inquiries the police were unable to find a single pub were anyone remembered serving Kelly or her Blotchy friend.

As I've noted, Sarah Lewis' claim to have re-encountered the mysterious suspect, described by Chris Scott as "the sinister man with the shiny black bag", just before entering Dorset Street, where she immediately encounters another suspicious looking character, seems almost ludicrous.

And she did amend an important part of her evidence: she told the police that she arrived at Miller's Court between 2:00am and 3:00am. However, at the inquest she said the time was 2:30, which more closely corresponds with Hutchinson's evidence- he claimed to have left by 2:45am.

I accept the police didn't doubt her evidence, however, initially at least, they also believed George Hutchinson. And there only reason for doubting Maxwell seems to have been the lateness of the sighting.

Of course, none of this remotely proves that Lewis lied, however, I consider it important to keep an open mind. It's, not impossible that she was an attention seeker, and that is clearly something the police considered, and dismissed, in respect of Caroline Maxwell.

A local conspiracy is also a possibility, particularly in light of the later Austin case (this has also been suggested on the basis that Kelly has never been identified).However, it's clearly important to remain objective. In the Austin case it's quite obvious that numerous witnesses lied, or were involved in a cover-up, as Inspector Divall's Report clearly demonstrates: the inquest virtually degenerated into complete farce. Whereas evidence of a conspiracy in the Kelly case is circumstantial at best.

[Ben]

While we're here, did you read Chris Scott's article on Lewis in Ripperologist? There was a lot of information there about Lewis which came directly from her family.

Indeed I did, Sally, although it was a while ago and I may be in need of a re-read, or even a "refresher course".

From what I recall there was a lot of interesting stuff there, albeit very little that screamed Lying Prostitute.

All the best,
Ben