Circumstances

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

But what if the motivation was the same?

Regards, Pierre

One would need to know why the "need" for want of a better word stopped and then started again, just too assume the same motivation is not enough.

In the case of some serial killers, where there are large gaps, it would work, but given what you have said on this case, even if sent away, I fail to see why he would stop and start as soon as he came back.

Until you feel able to explain that, I can go no further at present.

steve

[Robert St Devil]

Blood seemed to be established in the Jack the Ripper murders by the time of Mary Jane Kelly. He should have been quite as bloody after his murder of Annie Chapman. In No. 13 Miller,s Court, there is impossibly no trace of Jack the Ripper (other than her corpse) or an accomplice. There aren,t a pair of bloody footprints trailing away from the crime scene. I don,t remember report of his bloody handprint on a wall or piece of furniture... or better yet, on the doorknob.


Re: your thread Pierre, my question would be: did Mr. Hunter know of an accomplice from an earlier murder who needed a pardon? If i,m Mr. Matthews, i might ask him off to side why he keeps bringing it up.

[Rosella]

Would the Ripper's feet necessarily be splodging about in blood, though? I suppose he could have kept his boots near the door, though if he'd been disturbed he might have had to scamper off in bare feet. In an age before fingerprint bureaus 13 Millers Court could have been decorated with ten thousand handprints of Jack's and it wouldn't have been any use to the police at all, though I agree it's strange that none were mentioned in reports.

[Michael W Richards]

Blood seemed to be established in the Jack the Ripper murders by the time of Mary Jane Kelly. He should have been quite as bloody after his murder of Annie Chapman. In No. 13 Miller,s Court, there is impossibly no trace of Jack the Ripper (other than her corpse) or an accomplice. There aren,t a pair of bloody footprints trailing away from the crime scene. I don,t remember report of his bloody handprint on a wall or piece of furniture... or better yet, on the doorknob.


Re: your thread Pierre, my question would be: did Mr. Hunter know of an accomplice from an earlier murder who needed a pardon? If i,m Mr. Matthews, i might ask him off to side why he keeps bringing it up.

Early in this thread the most obvious, and substantiated within known evidence, answer is that the loitering man in the Wideawake Hat hinted at an accomplice..the after the fact might have alluded to a presumption that the loitering man was waiting and watching for the killer to exit Marys room. Since we have the lights doused before 1:30am and no sighting of Blotchy after 11:45pm, it would seem that its possible the killer was indeed in the room at the time that loitering man was watching.

[David Orsam]

my question would be: did Mr. Hunter know of an accomplice from an earlier murder who needed a pardon?

As I mentioned in #74, he noted that Emma Smith had said that she had been attacked by a group of men

[Robert St Devil]

As I mentioned in #74, he noted that Emma Smith had said that she had been attacked by a group of men

Yes, David, i read your post. Wouldn,t the group of men be perpetrarors without accomplice?

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, i read your post. Wouldn,t the group of men be perpetrarors without accomplice?

Not necessarily.

And not necessarily for the subsequent murders either, which is no doubt why Hunter was pressing for such a pardon in order to encourage any such accomplice to come forward.

[curious4]

As I mentioned in #74, he noted that Emma Smith had said that she had been attacked by a group of men

Two or three men to be exact.

C4

[David Orsam]

Two or three men to be exact.

Two or three is not exact! And according to Chief Inspector West's report she said "there were three of them".

But the exact number is not important here, only what was in Mr Hunter's mind. He used the expression "several persons" in the House of Commons, although he wasn't fully on top of the facts because he referred to the murder having taken place "last Christmas" so he was getting confused with the supposed murder of Fairy Fay.

[curious4]

Two or three is not exact! And according to Chief Inspector West's report she said "there were three of them".

But the exact number is not important here, only what was in Mr Hunter's mind. He used the expression "several persons" in the House of Commons, although he wasn't fully on top of the facts because he referred to the murder having taken place "last Christmas" so he was getting confused with the supposed murder of Fairy Fay.

The Times and the Sourcebook, (quoting Chief Inspector West), give the number as three men. Sometimes she is quoted as saying two or three men. How many men make a group of men? Not two, anyway. I feel it is important to make this clear. Many of the newer members could get the idea that Emma was attacked by a gang. It is not surprising that she was vague, badly injured and ill as she was. I think it is important to get what facts there are clear. And to quote sources so as to avoid the accusation of having made things up as one goes.

So once again: how many men constitute a group or a gang? Or a "number of men".

C4

[David Orsam]

how many men constitute a group or a gang?

Three (hence the famous phrase "Gang of Three"), or any number which can be expressed as "several persons".

[Michael W Richards]

Is this discussion about who killed Emma Smith or what the "certain circumstances" were that made a Pardon for Accomplice the day after Kellys murder warranted? Just wondering since its clear the there is no relationship at all between Emma Smith and the Pardon offer issued Nov 10th. Nor is there between Emma and women who were attacked by one person in the Fall for the purposes of murder and post mortem mutilation...but I realize thats never stopped anyone from imagining one.

[David Orsam]

Just wondering since its clear the there is no relationship at all between Emma Smith and the Pardon offer issued Nov 10th.

The relationship is that a Member of Parliament asked the Home Secretary why no pardon was offered in the case of Emma Smith (and the other murders) where it was believed by him to be equally if not more likely that there was an accomplice or accomplices. See my post #48.

[Robert St Devil]

Not necessarily.

And not necessarily for the subsequent murders either, which is no doubt why Hunter was pressing for such a pardon in order to encourage any such accomplice to come forward.

Is this Parliament,s broadstroke (re)action to assuming some direction over the method of investigation, David, and an indication of their desire to undermine Warren, s policies in lieu of his resignation?

Aside: Hi Ros. I know that fingerprinting wasn't yet a forensic practice in 1888, but I believe that Det. Adderline smart enough to make some account of prints if there were any (ie. A measurement, location, comparative). It is peculiar that no traces or tracks were discovered in her apaetment considering his hands must have been dripping after reaching into her chest cavity. It puts me at odds whether he was operating surgically or clinically.

[David Orsam]

Is this Parliament,s broadstroke (re)action to assuming some direction over the method of investigation, David, and an indication of their desire to undermine Warren, s policies in lieu of his resignation?

I think he wanted to know why there hadn't been a pardon offered for any of the earlier murders.