Romford

[jason_c]

Stephen,

I agree. Some omit arguments and some bring up arguments against their suspects in a very superficial way in order to dismiss them. In books and articles, that is expected. In this forum, it is is somewhat insulting to be dismissed outright. We see that with Hutchinson a lot where there are so many possibilities and absolutely no one says it's impossible that Hutch was the ripper, yet the refutations are on such a nitpicky and intellectually retarded level that soon there is no point to any of it. It is reduced to absurdity at an unamusing level.

Mike

Mike

Off topic slightly. But you have hit a nerve for me with this. There is one line of arguement about Kelly's murder that is often mentioned on these boards and annoys me greatly. That is the theory that Kelly was bedded for the night once Blotchy face left her.

Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London. It is middle class posters unable to comprehend the mind of an addict, or an ulterior motive from such posters.

[The Good Michael]

Yes, Mike, but many people do exactly that. I call it Mad Scientist Syndrome in which facts are moulded to fit the theory, Of course there are loads of not too bright people here who do just that, but also some accepted experts do it as well, albeit in a more sophisticated manner.

Stephen,

I agree. Some omit arguments and some bring up arguments against their suspects in a very superficial way in order to dismiss them. In books and articles, that is expected. In this forum, it is is somewhat insulting to be dismissed outright. We see that with Hutchinson a lot where there are so many possibilities and absolutely no one says it's impossible that Hutch was the ripper, yet the refutations are on such a nitpicky and intellectually retarded level that soon there is no point to any of it. It is reduced to absurdity at an unamusing level.

Mike

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

I do find it appalling how people can just push off everything as nonsense that doesn't fit their suspects. It disgusts me totally.

Yes, Mike, but many people do exactly that. I call it Mad Scientist Syndrome in which facts are moulded to fit the theory, Of course there are loads of not too bright people here who do just that, but also some accepted experts do it as well, albeit in a more sophisticated manner.

[The Good Michael]

Thanks Jason. I do find it appalling how people can just push off everything as nonsense that doesn't fit their suspects. It disgusts me totally.

Mike

[jason_c]

"That's right miss. And I usually wear my horseshoe pin so's yer could see it right above me vest, but I've misplaced it you see, going down to Romford."

"But, But, But."

Excellent find.


So much for all our experts opinion on men's vintage clothing in this thread.

[babybird67]

I'm sorry but I don't get the point of these inane posts...

to demonstrate a watch could be displayed.

Nobody disputes that it could be displayed.

The trick comes in explaining what a gentleman wealthy enough to be wearing one would be doing with an unfortunate like Mary Kelly in that district at that time of night, and WHY he would be displaying it? Displays occurred where there were rivals to impress. During social occasions where men would be competing for partners. Not in the dead of night down one of the worst streets in the London where there was nobody (bar Hutchinson, of course) to be impressed by it.

Oh yes, I forgot, he was stupid wasn't he. He went out to murder someone complete with recognisable knife shaped parcel, dressed so conspicuously in case anyone should fail to notice him and he should fail to be caught and hanged ( oh wait a minute, said conspicuous gentleman was only noticed by one person...hmmm...strange...and he wasn't caught or hanged so his method of disguise paid off) so obviously he was stupid enough to be displaying his finery in area where there were poor people and theives to rob him.

Silly me.

[Fisherman]

Stephen Thomas:

"Here's the link but I can't think what it proves."

Scroll down and you will find a number of watch-chaindisplaying gentlemen, Stephen. And just like you say - that´s to be expected.

Better still, write the strain "watch chain" and then add "overcoat" - and there you are. Even Hercule Poirot is represented - and he would know ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Archaic:

"Just another Saturday night in Seattle. "

Yeah, I know, Archaic! Actually, much the same goes for small Helsingborg, where I live too.

It is hard to come up with a useful comparison to what Hutch´s man would have represented. Maybe I should have spoken of a orangutang dressed the same way ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

Write www.google.com, enter the site, click "images" and write "watch chain" in the search field, have a look at the results - and then think again.

Hi Fisherman

Here's the link but I can't think what it proves. However I do know, as I sometimes wear a traditional overcoat over a suit, that an unbuttoned overcoat over an unbuttoned jacket would certainly show the tie-pin and watch chain.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=i...1g-m9&aql=&oq=

[babybird67]

lmao Archaic!

you always make me smile xxx

[The Good Michael]

For starters, Mike, yes. And then there are all the rest.

I was only adding the horseshoe pin. Everything else that was described can be plainly seen in that photo, and why? The guy's standing with his weight shifted onto one foot and he has his thumb tucked into his trousers. Another funny thing in that photo and one that is seen in many contemporary photos in the Old West in America, is how the man's jacket doesn't fit closely and the vest is so plainly visible. We wear our jackets today much bigger than they did. I seem to remember a similar photo of Lusk with the same (to modern eyes) ill-fitting coat.

Mike

[Archaic]

Imagine, Miss Marple, if you will, that you on Regent Street among all ordinary people meet a man clothed in a pair of bright orange shorts with suspenders, a white t-shirt with the text "SATAN" in capital letters all over it, a large propeller attached to it´s back, between the mans shoulders, bright red facial painting, a screwdriver thrust through both cheeks and coconut shells on his feet.

Just another Saturday night in Seattle.

Cheers,
Archaic

[The Good Michael]

Why would I be able to see a man's watch chaiin and vest if he was wearing a coat and an overcoat?

1. he looked at the time
2. He pulled out some tobacco from his vest
3. He reached under his shirt and squeezed a pimple
4. He reached down the back of his pants and scratched his a$$
5. He reached down the front of his pants to adjust his testicles
6. He leaned rakishly against a lamp post which exposed everything
7. It was too hot when the rain stopped so he opened up his overcoat to unbutton the jacket underneath
8. He opened his coat to put one side around a poor girl's cold shoulders
9. He liked the way it looked to have all things showing. His fashion statement.
10.He kept a mouse in his inside pocket and wanted it to be able to breath, so he opened it periodically.
11. He knew that 120 years later, he would be considered a non-entity if he allowed Hutchinson to see much of what he was wearing and we'd never catch the ripper because of it.

What? No way. It is never possible to have an overcoat open so that you can see what's beneath it. It would be stupid to think that could happen.

Mike

[Fisherman]

For starters, Mike, yes. And then there are all the rest.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

"That's right miss. And I usually wear my horseshoe pin so's yer could see it right above me vest, but I've misplaced it you see, going down to Romford."

"But, But, But."