Witness/Killer?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I worried about Cadosch for quite a while because his evidence just doesn't fit. I'm now of the view that he just wanted his 15 minutes (132 years & counting?) of fame & made the whole thing up. Barnett is technically a witness but has to be seen as a suspect, especially for the Kelly Murder. I'm amazed that Schwartz has never become suspect - he describes an attack on a woman (clearly Stride) following which a bystander shouted 'Lipski' and a man fled the scene (Schwartz himself).

I think a good strategy is to frame witnesses with any sort of viability as suspects, in one's mind. Then try to confirm them as the killer - both internally and in public - until the case falls apart, or at least weakens to the point that doubts take over. Just beware that the confirmation bias doesn't run rampant!

I think Cadosch is worth a try, and Barnett definitively so. If Joe can find a ½ minute to duck into the court and into Mary's room when no one is around, he's a big chance to be Mary's killer. Over a period of several hours, that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. Hutchinson I guess, but not keen. Richardson no, he's there to protect the reputation of the place, not ruin it. Robert Paul is an interesting one, as he seems to fiddle with and state times, in a manner very similar to Louis Diemschitz.

Ultimately though, I think Schwartz is the one. The fact that he is never heard from again after his interview with the Star, is incredibly suspicious.
The problem with Schwartz for many people though, is that giving him suspect status is going to go against decades of training, and as it would likely link him to the IWMEC, it would probably rub them up the wrong way, politically speaking. I'm free of these constraints and hang-ups.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The Times, Oct 24:

The Coroner, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time. The first difficulty which presented itself was the identification of the deceased. That was not an unimportant matter. Their trouble was principally occasioned by Mrs. Malcolm...

So who principally occasioned the second difficulty?
Could it have been the same person whose ongoing absence could conceivably have resulted in another long adjournment of the inquest?

I appreciate Wynne's subtle hint to posterity.

[DJA]

The Times, Oct 24:

The Coroner, in summing up, said the jury would probably agree with him that it would be unreasonable to adjourn this inquiry again on the chance of something further being ascertained to elucidate the mysterious case on which they had devoted so much time. The first difficulty which presented itself was the identification of the deceased. That was not an unimportant matter. Their trouble was principally occasioned by Mrs. Malcolm...

So who principally occasioned the second difficulty?
Could it have been the same person whose ongoing absence could conceivably have resulted in another long adjournment of the inquest?

I appreciate Wynne's subtle hint to posterity.

If you had listed that full section of the Inquest,there would be no stupid question.

Again,you are wasting our time with another useless bizarre post.

You and the countless replies,like this one,are clogging the board.
That seems to be your aim.
People with a genuine interest are dropping off.

Hopefully posters stop feeding you and will find others elsewhere to annoy.

[DJA]

I've always been curious about Barnett's echolalia. I've never seen it outside of more profound autism and to a degree in acquired brain injury, and in any case I've seen it, the idea of questioning someone on record with echolalia is absurd. It's not just repetition of the last word said, it's far more complex, and detrimental to the person with it.

The manner in which the Coroner thanked him for "giving his evidence very well indeed" suggests Barnett struggled somewhat.

[Prosector]

I agree with Not Blamed for Nothing that it is a good strategy to examine suspects in detail until they can be excluded. That's more or less what happened with Patricia Cornwell's suspect Walter Sickert who few people now regard as a serious suspect. The trouble is that excluding them as being the killer does not make them entirely innocent. In Sickert's case, I believe that he knew a great deal more than he said (he told my uncle as much in the 1920s or 30s) and I also believe that there was something of an official cover up (moving MJK's inquest to the jurisdiction of Roderick Macdonald being a case in point) so many of the witnesses already named may not have been the killer but may have been implicated in distorting or covering up the truth for various motives including pecuniary.

[DJA]

I also believe that there was something of an official cover up (moving MJK's inquest to the jurisdiction of Roderick Macdonald being a case in point) so many of the witnesses already named may not have been the killer but may have been implicated in distorting or covering up the truth for various motives including pecuniary.

I believe Mary Ann Kelly was a local girl who was baptized at St Leonards 29 years earlier.



Sutton was the Vestry Board medical officer from 1868,so Mary was ~ 9 when he took the position.
That tallies with the young girl "trampled" in RLS's novella.
Gull was obviously Dr J (Henry G kill) and Sutton was Mr Hyde (MB,not MD).
They had resided at 8 and 9 Finsbury Square.

A second Inquest was avoided by the sexton burying Kelly.

Can you imagine the uproar at the professional partner of one of the Queen's Physicians in Ordinary being convicted?
Especially with an obvious cover up by the police!

Perhaps the damage to Mary's face was to ensure no one from the congregation would recognize her.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Prospector,
I agree with that qualification, although I was referring more to letting go of possible suspects, in one's own mind, rather than from some semi-official list. You probably knew I meant that anyway.

[DJA]

Gold!!!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It is gold. Now cut your losses and dump Sutton.

[Michael W Richards]

I know what you’re thinking. This is Herlock looking for a Lechmere based debate with Fish. It’s not.

We have witnesses in the case who have become suspects. The two that have caused the most discussion of course are Lechmere and Hutchinson. We can add Mann, Bachert, Hardiman And now, I believe, Maxwell.

So....is there anyone else in the case for whom a case might be made? Whether a witness or an official (Police/Doctor)

Im just looking those that don’t have a book proposing them. I know that Lechmere doesn’t have a book proposing him yet but I’ll discount him as there are plenty of Lechmere threads.

Any possibles?

If your asking who should be looked at closely Herlock...Louis Diemshitz and Richardson for 2 more. Both almost on the spot where a murder occurs... around the time it does.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe Mary Ann Kelly was a local girl who was baptized at St Leonards 29 years earlier.



Sutton was the Vestry Board medical officer from 1868,so Mary was ~ 9 when he took the position.
That tallies with the young girl "trampled" in RLS's novella.
Gull was obviously Dr J (Henry G kill) and Sutton was Mr Hyde (MB,not MD).
They had resided at 8 and 9 Finsbury Square.

A second Inquest was avoided by the sexton burying Kelly.

Can you imagine the uproar at the professional partner of one of the Queen's Physicians in Ordinary being convicted?
Especially with an obvious cover up by the police!

Perhaps the damage to Mary's face was to ensure no one from the congregation would recognize her.

That last line with the emphasis I put on is about the only valuable thing in that post. Mary, or whomever was in that bed, may have been overkilled to prevent an id...it almost worked too. If you count Barnetts 2 feature id.

[DJA]

That last line with the emphasis I put on is about the only valuable thing in that post. Mary, or whomever was in that bed, may have been overkilled to prevent an id...it almost worked too. If you count Barnetts 2 feature id.

With your proven factual failure rate over the years,I find that comment very encouraging.

Thank you.

[Michael W Richards]

With your proven factual failure rate over the years,I find that comment very encouraging.

Thank you.

Sorry if my posts dont suggest the utter nonsense like you obviously prefer. Hunted women wasnt it? Specifically because they were all co-blackmailing someone or other, is that about it? The rubble pile grows with your every post.

Im not in politics, so I dont like having to deal with Trumpesque "truths" as counter points.

[Bridewell]

If your asking who should be looked at closely Herlock...Louis Diemshitz and Richardson for 2 more. Both almost on the spot where a murder occurs... around the time it does.

Cadosch (if you accept his account) was probably a matter of no more than 4 or 5 feet away from Chapman - it's just that there was that 5' fence in between!

[Michael W Richards]

Cadosch (if you accept his account) was probably a matter of no more than 4 or 5 feet away from Chapman - it's just that there was that 5' fence in between!

Hes very valuable for what he hears though Bridewell.