Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Hi there,
My original post on this thread was to ascertain whether witnesses are any use in the JtR case. The last few posts have gone way off message.
Is there any chance you guys could post here in a spirit of friendship and debate which is on message? A few of the earlier post-ers had very relevant points to help develop the topic but no-one recently.
Just a thought. Thanks.

[harry]

I am not too sure that anyone posting on these boards in recent times,have claimed Hutchinson to be the ripper,or to have killed Kelly,and this is in no way splitting hairs or retreating.The thrust of the arguements have been that Hutchinson could have killed Kelly,that she could have been a Ripper victim,so therefor both were possible.Yes I know the probability factor has been mentioned,but that alludes to only a few incidents , and not the whole.For instance it is probable that the person seen standing outside Crossinghams by Lewis was Hutchinson,and that it was the morning of the killing.The evidence was self forthcoming on the part of Hutchinson,and could be substanciated in part by Lewis.From that one element other judgements could be considered.That is all Ben,Garry,Judy and others have done,and while their arguements might at times be considered as forceful,they have never,in my opinion,been conceited,or offens ive.

[Stewart P Evans]

In fairness...

...
Yes, but not by me, Stewart, and by any of the other people you’ve insulted. Your name was referenced by the people who would undoubtedly team up with you in criticising and insulting me, probably in effort to get you to join in. Obviously and misguidedly, you swallowed the bait.
...

In fairness to those whose thought processes you have read and concluded that my name was, probably, invoked by them in order to 'get me to join in' I would say the following.

I have had no contact whatsoever with anyone about any Hutchinson debate or theory. I also normally do not even bother to read Hutchinson threads as I have found them utterly tedious and repetitive. It's almost as if the Pro-Hutchinson debaters have the idea that if they keep repeating themselves long enough they will either convince others they are right or bore them into submission. It was in a moment of boredom that I did look at this thread a few days ago and noticed my name mentioned as well some long-held beliefs being trailed out as facts.

So it was by sheer chance that I made the mistake of posting here. However, if any who mention me do so with the darker and unstated motive of drawing me in you will have to ascertain that from them. But I credit them with more intellgence than that and the ability to fight their own fights. You really are arrogant, aren't you?

I do not consider myself as anything other than a person with a like interest to others and I know that there are many, such as yourself, who dismiss what I say as wrong. That's fine, that's your opinion and who knows, you may be right. After all, unlike you I do make mistakes. I wish my knowledge and experience was a fraction of your own formidable prowess. I wish I had your stamina. But it isn't, and I don't so I shall have to accept that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Great

It’s interesting that when some people threaten to leave the thread after tossing out a whole load of unwarranted personal insults, it very quickly emerges they don’t actually have any intention of following through with that swan-song. And really, if people want to have lovely acrimonious and frosty-spirited, please keep calling me a “know-it-all”, and we’ll see what transpires.
...

Great, at least you recognise the fact that you are a 'know-it-all'.

I wish I was, but I make too many mistakes to think that. In fact I must be a slow learner because you are telling me things that I didn't know, and surely I've been at this Ripper business a lot longer than you?

[Stewart P Evans]

Let's...

Let's get a few things straight here.

I know Abberline may have been wrong, I have never stated differently. However, I do regard his observations on Hutchinson as valid and of more value than the ruminations of some modern self-styled expert who has convinced himself that Hutchinson was the Ripper and proceeds to dismiss any alternative views to his own out of hand and in a pompous manner.

I also know that it is possible that Hutchinson was Kelly's murderer (even if he was not the Ripper) but, personally, I very much doubt this. Again I have never gainsaid this.

I have no problem with others believing what they wish and convincing themselves that Hutchinson was 'Jack the Ripper'. Indeed, many years ago I actually assisted Stephen Wright with his Hutchinson-based book and, earlier than that, had a pleasant exchange with Brian Marriner who also held a Hutchinson theory.

I guess what really gets up my nostrils is the attitude of certain pro-Hutchinson posters on these boards whose ramblings present just about everything they say as fact and they dismiss anyone else who does not agree with them as some sort of dimwit who has got it all wrong. As long as twenty years ago one of the leading proponents of the Hutchinson theory was stating that his own work was going to destroy other people's theories. That, to me, smacks of one huge ego - and self delusion.

So, I don't have a problem with anyone having a theory that Hutchinson was the Ripper. As I have stated before, I do have a problem with attitudes, self-righteous commentary and arrogant dismissal of what others think.

[Monty]

I haven't read any posts that blamed the police for murdering the victims, only for failing in their duty to protect the victims and catch a killer.

Me neither, then again I didn't state that.

Yes Chris,

Opinions seem to have more sway that facts. That and experience.

Monty

[Heinrich]

Heinrich, you're not a lawyer, are you? You do know that it's too late for the women to sue?

No, Robert, I'm not a lawyer, just someone naive enough to want that the Metropolitan Police had done their job better.

[Robert]

Heinrich, you're not a lawyer, are you? You do know that it's too late for the women to sue?

[Chris]

To blame the Police for the fact these women were murdered smacks of ignorance and a lack of a firm grip of reality.

I have an awful feeling that someone is about to tell us that the ignorant - and those who have lost touch with reality - have just as much right to their opinions as anyone else ...

[Heinrich]

....
To blame the Police for the fact these women were murdered smacks of ignorance and a lack of a firm grip of reality.

I haven't read any posts that blamed the police for murdering the victims, only for failing in their duty to protect the victims and catch a killer.

[Monty]

Ok, to clarify.

The responsibility of the Police is the prevention and detection of crme.

That's it.

They maintain order on the Queens Highways and Byways and they cannot enter privately owned property unless the feel a crime has, or is about to take place OR is specifically requested to do so by the property owner.

The simple reality is there were not enough resources then, as there isn't now (I cite the resent Norway atrocities) to protect everyone.

To blame the Police for the fact these women were murdered smacks of ignorance and a lack of a firm grip of reality.

Monty

[Heinrich]

Something tells me you are in for a bit of a surprise when you actually look up the responsibilities of the police force. Have you ever bothered to check how many beat constables were available in the Met. as opposed to just how many prostitutes were in the east end alone, those that they new about that is.
All the numbers are out there, it just takes a little study.

Everyone knows the responsibility of the police included the protection of the public using Her Majesty's streets, regardless of the numbers. Everyone, including prostitutes, were entitled to protection from maniacs.

[Wickerman]

It is the job of the police to make sure no one evades them in public places.

Something tells me you are in for a bit of a surprise when you actually look up the responsibilities of the police force.
Have you ever bothered to check how many beat constables were available in the Met. as opposed to just how many prostitutes were in the east end alone, those that they new about that is.
All the numbers are out there, it just takes a little study.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

Maybe you could entertain the readers here with your wisdom on how you would have protected women who evaded police in the course of their actions if you were in charge back then?

It is the job of the police to make sure no one evades them in public places.

And how do you know that there wasn't some tactic used by police that caused this relatively short series of murders to stop?

After Joseph Barnett was interviewed by the police, the murders stopped. You might be onto something there, Hunter.

[Hunter]

Since when did it become police policy to neglect their duty because members of the public did not universally hold them in high regard?

Maybe you could entertain the readers here with your wisdom on how you would have protected women who evaded police in the course of their actions if you were in charge back then?

And how do you know that there wasn't some tactic used by police that caused this relatively short series of murders to stop?