One on one with Stephen Senise

[Wickerman]

Unfortunately in her two Kennedy press statements there was no lurker .
In her statement there was a man talking to a woman (which then got crossed out 😀 ) and she couldn't describe him.
It was only when she hit the bright lights of the coutroom she started singing like a canary , she could now describe the little fat guy .... and his hat even down to the colour 😂
It's ridiculous
These serious researchers you mention should take a serious look
Compare her nonsense with the rock solid testimony of Caroline Maxwell and well ..... there's no comparison

You're argument is based on a false premise.
It doesn't matter that you 'think' Lewis & Kennedy were the same, that's an opinion, and you're argument is based on an opinion not yet established - false premise.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon.
Polly Nichols ''Look what a jolly Bonnet I have got''
Annie Chapman bonnet .
Eddowes Bonnet.
Liz Stride Bonnet.
So that points surely to the reverse, they all had a Bonnet. and they were all accosted by the killer.
Regards Richard.

I said "young women", this cultural sensitivity didn't apply to the older set.
There's plenty of background on this, it's not like I'm drawing attention to something unique.

[packers stem]

Unfortunately in her two Kennedy press statements there was no lurker .
In her statement there was a man talking to a woman (which then got crossed out 😀 ) and she couldn't describe him.
It was only when she hit the bright lights of the coutroom she started singing like a canary , she could now describe the little fat guy .... and his hat even down to the colour 😂
It's ridiculous
These serious researchers you mention should take a serious look
Compare her nonsense with the rock solid testimony of Caroline Maxwell and well ..... there's no comparison

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon.
Polly Nichols ''Look what a jolly Bonnet I have got''
Annie Chapman bonnet .
Eddowes Bonnet.
Liz Stride Bonnet.
So that points surely to the reverse, they all had a Bonnet. and they were all accosted by the killer.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

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 .

I don't know of any serious researcher who has dismissed the testimony of Sarah Lewis.
As it happens, and I think rightly so, the Coroner was more interested in the man Lewis saw outside the Britannia that night/morning, as opposed to the 'lurker' she saw in Dorset St.
That was a missed opportunity, in my opinion.

[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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[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 😉

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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.

[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

[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