Chapman’s death.

[DJA]

Hi Jeff,

Reckon half of "Whitechapel" knew.

You would be aware of the trainee nun's interview.

Doubt Jack's identity was a big secret on the other side of London.

Thanks,

Dave.

[JeffHamm]

Hi DJA,

It seems to me that if the victims all knew each other there would have been a high probability that in at least one case, Mary Kelly's in particular, that the victim would have talked about this with people who knew her, and that would have come out. I suggest Mary Kelly because Barnett does testify that she would ask him to read about the murders to her, and if all these people she knew were getting killed, she would have said something to him at that time. I'm sure the other victims would have likewise made some comment to their partners as well (Nichols would have had no opportunity, her being the first, Chapman possibly to the pensioner if she knew Nichols and they saw each other in the available time, but from Stride onwards, the probability just increases).

The fact that we have no evidence for that, really seems to make it unlikely any of the victims knew each other, even in passing. I accept, absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence, but interviews were with people who knew the victims and it seems highly improbable to me that such information would not have come out, just as it seems highly improbable that from Nichols onwards, the later victims would not have mentioned knowing all the previous victims - even if they only knew one of the previous victims that would come out.

Sorry to hear of your illness. Take care.

- Jeff

[DJA]

I don't recall the theory ever being met with puerile reactions, but most people are naturally somewhat to reluctant to accept such unsubstantiated claims.

The "substantiation" is patently obvious.

We know that a chronically ill Chapman had been missing for days suffering from TB.
We know where she wasn't.
Given that Jack tried to take her diseased head off ..... where might she have been.
Maybea 150 meters from where Nichols was killed?

Cashous/Catechu is an astringent used to treat Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.
Have a look at Hip Lip Liz's bottom lip.
Ripperologists just see breath fresheners.
Stride had just picked hers out of Jack's hand when he attacked.

Examine the facts.
There are many,many clues.

Best we not get too far off topic.

There are other threads that are still operating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Sutton treated two women with the same Christian names as ripper victims plus some Pierre-like nudge nudge wink wink, I know more but can’t tell, stuff. Add an imaginary blackmail plot and it’s game over.

[Kattrup]

G'day.

As you might be aware,it has been scattered on the Internet,particularly on this forum over the last 4 years or so.

Seems I've been given the OK to go off topic,so here is my story.

Always had an interest in Jack the Ripper,going back to second grade.
From that time I read a lot of Victorian literature.Doyle,Stevenson,Verne,Wells,Melville,et c.
Also a movie fan. Just watched a ripper actually,To Die For.

Circa 1985 a radio broadcast by a Ripperologist piqued my interest.

Up until June/July 2008 a fair bit of time was spent researching events around Jerusalem 2000 years ago for a screenplay, when I came across Warren's Shaft.
Rekindled my interest in Jack and pursued an old working hypothesis.
Turned out to be correct and had my first meeting with a screenwriter second half of August.

Honestly the case is not that difficult ..... swore I'd never say that. Meh.

Once you isolate Sutton from the ludicrous "competition" the cards fall into place like a game of patience.
His obituary reveals/confirms important details.
"Remarks on the Natural History of Rheumatic Fever" I believe, reveals Nichols and Eddowes (Conway) as his inpatients. The puerile reactions to that on this forum were pathetic.

This is not the first time it has been suggested a thread be initiated.

Reckon what has been given out has repaid Casebook for easy access to inquest testimony.

I'm not here for self promotion.
This gets done properly,or not at all.
Possibly born out by my search for a suitable screenwriter.
Not short on producers.

Do you people realize what the screenplay is worth?
C'mon Dave,let's give it all away for free while enduring the mind numbing remarks evidenced in the 108 pages of this thread alone.

If someone wants to start a thread, I'll most likely join in.
This can be moved if required.
Quite happy to answer reasonable questions,however I'm not prepared for a shambles like this mess.

I'm chronically ill and typing from bed.
Might not be around for much longer,so make the most of it.

Ciao for Now,

And Thanks Abby.

For those interested in DJA's theory, I'd direct your attention to this post, where he lifts the veil a bit:https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...676#post645676

I don't recall the theory ever being met with puerile reactions, but most people are naturally somewhat to reluctant to accept such unsubstantiated claims.
Unfortunately, it seems the notion that the idea/theory has some kind of monetary value as a moviescript has prevented it being discussed further. Hopefully that will change some day.

[John G]

Name one!

I respect the fact that you are currently not in a position to discuss your suspect, or research you have accumulated, in any detail for the reasons that you have given. It would therefore be inappropriate for me, at this stage, to discuss this matter further.

Good luck with your further reaearch and, as Abby says, I hope you get well soon.

[DJA]

hi DJA
thanks! and sorry about your illness. hope you get well soon.

Thank you!

Same thing Sutton hospitalized D'Onston for. Fibromyalgia.

Strep infection picked up in November 1982.

Also advanced skin cancer.

[Abby Normal]

G'day.

As you might be aware,it has been scattered on the Internet,particularly on this forum over the last 4 years or so.

Seems I've been given the OK to go off topic,so here is my story.

Always had an interest in Jack the Ripper,going back to second grade.
From that time I read a lot of Victorian literature.Doyle,Stevenson,Verne,Wells,Melville,et c.
Also a movie fan. Just watched a ripper actually,To Die For.

Circa 1985 a radio broadcast by a Ripperologist piqued my interest.

Up until June/July 2008 a fair bit of time was spent researching events around Jerusalem 2000 years ago for a screenplay, when I came across Warren's Shaft.
Rekindled my interest in Jack and pursued an old working hypothesis.
Turned out to be correct and had my first meeting with a screenwriter second half of August.

Honestly the case is not that difficult ..... swore I'd never say that. Meh.

Once you isolate Sutton from the ludicrous "competition" the cards fall into place like a game of patience.
His obituary reveals/confirms important details.
"Remarks on the Natural History of Rheumatic Fever" I believe, reveals Nichols and Eddowes (Conway) as his inpatients. The puerile reactions to that on this forum were pathetic.

This is not the first time it has been suggested a thread be initiated.

Reckon what has been given out has repaid Casebook for easy access to inquest testimony.

I'm not here for self promotion.
This gets done properly,or not at all.
Possibly born out by my search for a suitable screenwriter.
Not short on producers.

Do you people realize what the screenplay is worth?
C'mon Dave,let's give it all away for free while enduring the mind numbing remarks evidenced in the 108 pages of this thread alone.

If someone wants to start a thread, I'll most likely join in.
This can be moved if required.
Quite happy to answer reasonable questions,however I'm not prepared for a shambles like this mess.

I'm chronically ill and typing from bed.
Might not be around for much longer,so make the most of it.

Ciao for Now,

And Thanks Abby.

hi DJA
thanks! and sorry about your illness. hope you get well soon.

[DJA]

I agree with the points you've made, Herlock. A suspect has been introduced, who we can't really evaluate. For instance, arguing that a victim once lived next door to another victim isn't decisive, particularly as some of the Whitechapel tenements were hugely overcrowded, with up to 80 people in a single room.

Name one!

[DJA]

DJA
Do you have an article or anything you've written up on your suspect? would love to see your theory/evidence all written up in one place. seriously.

G'day.

As you might be aware,it has been scattered on the Internet,particularly on this forum over the last 4 years or so.

Seems I've been given the OK to go off topic,so here is my story.

Always had an interest in Jack the Ripper,going back to second grade.
From that time I read a lot of Victorian literature.Doyle,Stevenson,Verne,Wells,Melville,et c.
Also a movie fan. Just watched a ripper actually,To Die For.

Circa 1985 a radio broadcast by a Ripperologist piqued my interest.

Up until June/July 2008 a fair bit of time was spent researching events around Jerusalem 2000 years ago for a screenplay, when I came across Warren's Shaft.
Rekindled my interest in Jack and pursued an old working hypothesis.
Turned out to be correct and had my first meeting with a screenwriter second half of August.

Honestly the case is not that difficult ..... swore I'd never say that. Meh.

Once you isolate Sutton from the ludicrous "competition" the cards fall into place like a game of patience.
His obituary reveals/confirms important details.
"Remarks on the Natural History of Rheumatic Fever" I believe, reveals Nichols and Eddowes (Conway) as his inpatients. The puerile reactions to that on this forum were pathetic.

This is not the first time it has been suggested a thread be initiated.

Reckon what has been given out has repaid Casebook for easy access to inquest testimony.

I'm not here for self promotion.
This gets done properly,or not at all.
Possibly born out by my search for a suitable screenwriter.
Not short on producers.

Do you people realize what the screenplay is worth?
C'mon Dave,let's give it all away for free while enduring the mind numbing remarks evidenced in the 108 pages of this thread alone.

If someone wants to start a thread, I'll most likely join in.
This can be moved if required.
Quite happy to answer reasonable questions,however I'm not prepared for a shambles like this mess.

I'm chronically ill and typing from bed.
Might not be around for much longer,so make the most of it.

Ciao for Now,

And Thanks Abby.

[John G]

Theres a lot of it going on John.

Id like to ask Dave if he’s published the results of his research? Is there a dissertation for example on Sutton as a suspect) Or is there anywhere that we can view the case against him as a whole? This might very well exist but can a link be provided to it as I’m unaware of its location? It’s impossible to evaluate a suspect from fragments. So far we appear to have the suggestion that Sutton treated Eddowes (this may well have been true) and the suggestion that a blackmail plan can be deduced from “”””will you”””” and ““””yes.”””” I’m not suggesting that Dave has built a case solely around these two things but the case for Sutton would have to be viewed as a whole for anyone to form an opinion. Is this too much to ask?

I agree with the points you've made, Herlock. A suspect has been introduced, who we can't really evaluate. For instance, arguing that a victim once lived next door to another victim isn't decisive, particularly as some of the Whitechapel tenements were hugely overcrowded, with up to 80 people in a single room.

And this doctor, from the limited information offered, seems to have been a bit of a Jack of all trades, so arguing on that basis that he must have treated all of the victims, simply because they all had health conditions, isn't very convincing. I mean, by the same logic you could argue that he probably treated virtually the entire population of Whitechapel, just on the basis that most people, in this over crowded area, seemed to be suffering from at least one ailment!

[Abby Normal]

Theres a lot of it going on John.

Id like to ask Dave if he’s published the results of his research? Is there a dissertation for example on Sutton as a suspect) Or is there anywhere that we can view the case against him as a whole? This might very well exist but can a link be provided to it as I’m unaware of its location? It’s impossible to evaluate a suspect from fragments. So far we appear to have the suggestion that Sutton treated Eddowes (this may well have been true) and the suggestion that a blackmail plan can be deduced from “”””will you”””” and ““””yes.”””” I’m not suggesting that Dave has built a case solely around these two things but the case for Sutton would have to be viewed as a whole for anyone to form an opinion. Is this too much to ask?

yes HS
I wondering about this too.

DJA
Do you have an article or anything you've written up on your suspect? would love to see your theory/evidence all written up in one place. seriously.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm wasting your time? Are you winding me up? It's not for me to act as your researcher! You're the one who introduced the suspect, and then offered only flimsy evidence to support your argument. And the fact that he may have treated Eddowes hardly makes him a serial killer. Unbelievable nonsense!

Theres a lot of it going on John.

Id like to ask Dave if he’s published the results of his research? Is there a dissertation for example on Sutton as a suspect) Or is there anywhere that we can view the case against him as a whole? This might very well exist but can a link be provided to it as I’m unaware of its location? It’s impossible to evaluate a suspect from fragments. So far we appear to have the suggestion that Sutton treated Eddowes (this may well have been true) and the suggestion that a blackmail plan can be deduced from “”””will you”””” and ““””yes.”””” I’m not suggesting that Dave has built a case solely around these two things but the case for Sutton would have to be viewed as a whole for anyone to form an opinion. Is this too much to ask?

[John G]

Actually,I replied to your comment that the women were ill and vulnerable.

They were.

And Henry Gawen Sutton had been assisting some of them for decades.

In fact Eddowes was his star patient,as far as I'm concerned. Heart and kidneys!

Do your own research.

Spent over 11 years doing mine.

Crikey I had a girlfriend like you that asked questions to waste my time and start arguments.

I'm wasting your time? Are you winding me up? It's not for me to act as your researcher! You're the one who introduced the suspect, and then offered only flimsy evidence to support your argument. And the fact that he may have treated Eddowes hardly makes him a serial killer. Unbelievable nonsense!

[Herlock Sholmes]

BUT YOU DO SAY THAT THE THUD WAS PROBABLY THE MURDERER HITTING THE FENCE , AND IVE SHOWED YOU THAT THIS IDEA IS MORE LIKELY WRONG . NOW PAY ATTENTION HERE , ITS NOT MY WORDS THERE FROM GAVIN BROMLEY HIS ARTICLE ''CODOSCH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE'' SO LETS NOT LISTEN TO HIM EITHER SHALL WE. LET ME KNOW WHAT HE SAYS WHEN YOU TELL HIM THE SAME THING ,ILL BE WAITING

Ill let you what’s very obvious Fishy. You’ve done what you seem to do regularly. You’ve read something that you like (whether it’s Bromley or Vanderlinden) and decided that this is fact. This is just a piece of writing by a Ripperologists. I’m not condemning it by sayin that but it’s simply an opinion. He appears to not have taken two other possibilities into consideration. 1) That the noise against the fence might have been made by the murderer himself rather than Annie’s body, and 2) That Cadosch might have got his time wrong and that he may have gone into the yard later.

[/B]

HERLOCK , IVE TAKEN NEARLY EVERYTHING IVE POSTED ON THE CHAPMAN MURDER FROM THE WOLF VANDERLINDEN ARTICLE, WHICH IF YOU BOTHER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SOURCE OF HIS INFORMATION IT HAS JUST AS MANY EXPERTS AND MEDICAL AUTHORITY, FORENSIC OPINIONS BOOKS, ETC ETC THAN ALL THE ONES YOU LOVE TO QUOTE FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS

This is a gross exaggeration of course. In actual fact the article mentions only two Forensic experts who add one sentence each purely on digestion. Giving average times of 1-1.5 hrs and 2-3 hrs respectively. This adds little to the debate because they don’t appear to have taken into consideration of any of Annie’s specific physical conditions. He also doesn’t consider the obvious possibility that Annie might have eaten again. Let’s face it, eating isn’t always a public event, and someone at Annie’s level of poverty would hardy have. turned down food had it been offered. Then of course we can add Payne-James and others who tell us that digestion is unreliable.

And so this hardly compares with a situation where all experts in a particular field tell us the same thing ie. that Phillips could not have accurately estimated Annie’s TOD. This isn’t opinion. This isn’t just one viewpoint. This is a fact. A fact that you choose to disregard because it’s inconvenient to your theory.

SO IF YOU PERSIST ON ATTACKING MY HONESTY AND INTEGRITY AND CALLING ME A LIAR FOR POSTING MY OPINION, WHICH IS LARGELY BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES WORK AND RESPECTED RIPPEROLIGIST, I WILL REPORT YOU . SO JUST BEHAVE YOURSELF AND SHOW SOME GOD DAME RESTRAINT .

Respect is earned. You have not earned it. I do not enjoy questioning someone’s integrity but it’s impossible not to when faced with your claims.

• No matter how many times I have told you, you persist in posting that I believe that the noise was Annie falling against the fence. This is untrue. I’ve no doubt at all that some time in the future you will post this lie again.
• No matter how many times I’ve asked you about Phillips saying that Chapman was definitely killed where she was found out completely ignore it or change the subject because you know that it’s inconvenient to your theory.
• You persist in claiming (along with The Baron) that you know better than the entire Forensic Science establishment on TOD estimations. You even make the entirely laughable suggestion that this is proved because other TOD’s appear to have been correct. Do you honestly think that if you made this point to an authority he would say “ oh wow. We never considered that. Thank you Fishy we will change all of our textbooks.” Yet you persist with this obvious nonsense.
• You've made the logic-defying claim that if a person states two things, let’s call them A and B, but he admits to being uncertain about A then we should dismiss B!!! You can you stand by this piece of drivel.
• In a previous post you claimed that there was a gap of a metre between Annie and the fence. A preposterous and demonstrably impossible claim.
• You claim that the killer would have been on Annie’s right without any basis for this except that you think that it might disprove a suggestion of mine.
• You have mocked something that every single person interested in the case and the era couldn’t fail to know. That timings have to be given an element of leeway due to that fact that the vast majority didn’t own watches or clocks. You dispute and mock this very obvious fact.
• You have repeatedly claimed that I’ve said that the 5.30 TOD is 100%. Ive never said that, I’ve said - beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore you told a falsehood. What else can I call it?
• You ask me to show some restraint. Rich coming from the man that called me a moron!

I could certainly go on but I’ll leave it at that. All of my points can be checked by anyone. You persist in posting demonstrable falsehoods purely and simply because you have a theory and you seek to shape everything to fit that theory. How else can I describe someone that does this? Differences of opinion are fine and debate is the purpose of these threads but the 9 points that I’ve made are not opinions. They are facts. If you stop making false claims about what I’ve said or what I believe; if you stop claiming to know more that Forensic experts; if you stop pulling and stretching logic way past breaking point and if you ever decide to view the case without the wearing the Stephen Knight Goggles then you might get a little respect.