One on one with Stephen Senise

[Abby Normal]

Hi Joshua.
One can argue That Mrs Cox elaborated the truth full stop,
When she saw Kelly with Blotchy, she described her wearing vastly different clothing to which Mrs Prater saw her less then three hours before.
She is the type to mislead an investigation.
We have no evidence that Hutchinson ever did so
She allegedly told the posh gent description to her niece, who then relayed to Dan Farson,[which may have been true] , but on a previous night, when Kelly was not in possession of Mrs Harvey's bonnet.
We know that Kelly apparently did not own a bonnet.
We know that Mrs Harvey told her ''I am leaving my bonnet for you''
Mrs Prater explained she spoke to Kelly at 9.pm, she was then wearing a jacket and bonnet, so apparently had not mistaken the day,as Mary had not had that bonnet another night.
So how come , less then three hours later, Mrs Cox describes her in vastly different attire,?
Regards Richard.

Because she took the hat off?
Cox has corroboration from other witnesses RE Mary singing. Cox sighting is innocuous like all the others, except the elaborate story told by hutch who has no corroboration to his story except his stalking behaviour.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Abby
Took her bonnet, and ''jacket'' off?
May have heard her singing without sighting her.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Lord Randolph Churchill was in his early 30s in 1888

Sorry, late 30s. Only just spotted that.

[cnr]

just an observation intended in the most general sense...

"what radio interview?"

The obvious answer to that question is: Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of 'War Of The Worlds'.

Now there's a lesson in being careful of the myriad of potential and unintended interpretations listeners might be liable to make of what they're hearing on radio. (No disrespect to Richard).

But if we're talking of historical irony, I find it almost amusing that the hotel in Manhattan where Welles was staying in those days, and retired to that night after the broadcast, was, wait for it.....

...the St Regis.


Stephen

https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Senise/e/B071HCHW3N/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

[cnr]

re Richard's post n.55 etc...

Hi Stephen.
Just to clarify one point.
The Radio broadcast was not heard whilst I was a child,I was around 28 years old at the time.
As for Topping never leaving a legacy...

My apologies Richard.

And to be sure, I did put a question mark in parentheses because it was hard to tell your age at the time of the broadcast from reading the posts on this thread.

To be clear, I'm not proposing Toppy was seeking or would have naturally left a "legacy" as such - just something, anything, in the public domain (not even on the public record, necessarily) in the fifty years between coming forward to claim one of the most extraordinary occurrences in the annals of this extraordinary tale (that he'd got a good look at JTR), and passing away in 1938.

And there's nothing tangible in the public domain before Reg and Joseph Sickert sat down for a nice chat one fine day in 1992 - a red flag BTW if you ask me, in and of itself. Personally, I don't think Reg does Toppy's candidacy too many favours by what he has to say, when he finally does start putting things on the record, but that's just me. I've tried to highlight some of the more glaring issues here and there on this thread, but it's alright not to agree, and it's been interesting enough discussing the matter more generally.

As Gareth says a few posts previously, this discussion has been had and re-had, and - as I have more or less said elsewhere, for what it may be worth - I do get the impression there's a very genuine desire on your part to share this anecdote, recognising a potential to generate interest in the broader Hutchinson question. I can't fault you on that score...

If it's any consolation, look at all the records we're still coming to terms with in various ways from 1888. New things do pop up. Maybe we'll be able to know more about this radio program, when it's ready to reveal itself, in its own good time. In the meantime, I think you've done as much as might be expected to put it on the radar for consideration.


Stephen

https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Senise/e/B071HCHW3N/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

[cnr]

Lord Randolph

This bears all the hallmarks of a retrospective embellishment, and one which was quite probably "suggested" to Reg by Fairclough himself. After all - let's face it - this would not have been the only dodgy "fact" contained in The Ripper and the Royals.

Hi Gareth,

I think it may be a bit of an assumption to single out the interviewers. And it's not particularly fair on Reg, or safe from an evidentiary point of view, to speak for him.

The heavy editorial hand which you see by way of potential embellishment, might just as easily rest the other way, by way of potential censorship. For all we know the interviewers may actually have been responsible for editing Reg's testimony down to a palatable level of coherence and that it was even more of an extravagant shambles beforehand.

Your proposition is a two-edged sword, and makes for a hypothetical of potentially Pythonesque proportions (expanded, 2nd version):

Present-day researchers (for argument's sake, let's call them Gareth and Stephen):

'It's our sad duty to inform you that you may have been quoted out of context, Reg.'

Reg:

'No I wasn't !'

Gareth & Stephen:

'We're sorry, Reg, but that's indeed what we fear.'

Reg:

'But I haven't even told you about the really interesting stuff which never made it into the book for some reason.'

All we can do, is allow Reg his voice - or maybe to try and discover if he felt, belatedly, uncomfortable in any way with what was recorded for posterity.


Stephen

https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Senise/e/B071HCHW3N/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

[cnr]

the inconsistencies...

We have no evidence that Hutchinson ever did so ...mislead an investigation.

Not until he opened his mouth, anyway.

For all that Hutchinson "didn't elaborate on anything" (Reg 1992), "it wasn't in his nature", Hutchinson lists a catalogue of minutae that really makes you wonder what Reg was talking about when he said, "dad... knew more than he told though, but he kept it close to his chest".

Just as well. Or we'd be trawling through an epic of 'War And Peace' like proportions instead of the screen play we've already got to deal with.


Stephen

https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Senise/e/B071HCHW3N/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
Took her bonnet, and ''jacket'' off?
May have heard her singing without sighting her.
Regards Richard.

Yup. No. Heard her say she was going to sing and saw her.And others heard her also sing.
Unlike your phantom radio show. Sorry chief if your going to get snarky I’m going to throw it right back.

[Sam Flynn]

To be fair, I've never known Richard Nunweek to get "snarky" in all the years he's posted here.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Abby,
It was not my intention to be 'Snarky'.
I like to put across ideas in a genuine , respectful manner.
I am simply putting across alternative suggestions that are plausible.
My main point was We have two ladies claiming to have seen Mary Kelly on the evening of the 8th.
Mrs Prater at 8.pm
Mrs Cox near midnight.
The former mentions seeing Mary in Jacket and Bonnet.
The later completely different clothing.
We know Mary Kelly had a velvet jacket
We know Kelly did not normally wear a hat.
We know that Mrs Harvey left her bonnet with Mary that very evening.
I therefore suggest that Mrs Praters sighting has truth written all over .
Making it likely that either Mrs Cox mistook the night, yet did hear her sing,
Or wanted five minutes of fame.
I am simply giving food for thought., even if some of Casebook do not enjoy the taste.
Regards Richard.

[packers stem]

Sorry to disappoint everyone but all the talk of broad shoulders and powerfully built etc ....
The word 'stout' in the LVP meant nothing more than fat or overweight .
This is perfectly demonstrated in a conversation between the coroner and Bond at the Whitehall case ; telegraph October 9th
Sarah Lewis (who's testimony should be dismissed by anyone serious, as taking her two Kennedy attempts in the press into account, made the inquest her FOURTH completely different statement ) claims to have spotted a rather short fat guy .
Irrespective of what people perceive 'stout' to mean today , back then it was no more than a polite word for fat .
Hopefully broad shouldered man can now disappear into the large collection of ripperology myths that have built up over the years 😉

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,
It was not my intention to be 'Snarky'.
I like to put across ideas in a genuine , respectful manner.
I am simply putting across alternative suggestions that are plausible.
My main point was We have two ladies claiming to have seen Mary Kelly on the evening of the 8th.
Mrs Prater at 8.pm
Mrs Cox near midnight.
The former mentions seeing Mary in Jacket and Bonnet.
The later completely different clothing.
We know Mary Kelly had a velvet jacket
We know Kelly did not normally wear a hat.
We know that Mrs Harvey left her bonnet with Mary that very evening.
I therefore suggest that Mrs Praters sighting has truth written all over .
Making it likely that either Mrs Cox mistook the night, yet did hear her sing,
Or wanted five minutes of fame.
I am simply giving food for thought., even if some of Casebook do not enjoy the taste.
Regards Richard.

aww so a discrepancy between two witnesses about what the victim was wearing means one is mistaken about the night or that shes lying for her "five minutes of fame"??

I see. yeah ill pass on that dish.

how about mary changed/took of the clothes? or simply, as happens all the time, two witnesses see the same person but get there clothes wrong?

Cox saw Mary, spoke to her, knew her, saw her with a potential suspect, and her story is corroberatted by Mary singing. There is no evidence Cox was wrong or lying for any reason. her story is innocous witness sighting like all the others in this case.

and yet youre going to elevate a dodgy witness like Hutch whos story has more red flags than a communist convention over a completely reliable and corroberated witness like Cox?

Its lunacy here sometimes.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry to disappoint everyone but all the talk of broad shoulders and powerfully built etc ....
The word 'stout' in the LVP meant nothing more than fat or overweight .
This is perfectly demonstrated in a conversation between the coroner and Bond at the Whitehall case ; telegraph October 9th
Sarah Lewis (who's testimony should be dismissed by anyone serious, as taking her two Kennedy attempts in the press into account, made the inquest her FOURTH completely different statement ) claims to have spotted a rather short fat guy .
Irrespective of what people perceive 'stout' to mean today , back then it was no more than a polite word for fat .
Hopefully broad shouldered man can now disappear into the large collection of ripperology myths that have built up over the years 😉

you cant be fat and have broad shoulders too?

LOL!

[packers stem]

Who's got broad shoulders ?
I've yet to see a contemporary report of anyone having broad shoulders being seen at all lol

[Wickerman]

Because she took the hat off?
Cox has corroboration from other witnesses RE Mary singing. Cox sighting is innocuous like all the others, except the elaborate story told by hutch who has no corroboration to his story except his stalking behaviour.

It was deemed improper for a young woman to be seen out at night without a head cover, typically hat or bonnet.
Something derived from the bible about loose women enticing men with their hair.
In Victorian times the young hatless girl out at night was recognise as prostituting herself. I came across a press article some years ago where a citizen was charged with accosting women, in his defense he claimed it was obvious what the two girls were up to as neither wore a hat.

Kelly, when out in the early evening with a female friend wore a hat, she was apparently 'not available' - not looking for male company.
Later, she was seen without the hat so this would indicate she was 'open for business', in the Victorian view.