The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[GUT]

One poster (I don't remember who but maybe it was Gut) a while back tried to make the eccentric point that the abdominal wounds were on show and Paul somehow missed them and didn't get bloody when he pulled the dress down over them. The various accounts make it clear the dress was up to her hips but not showing her abdomen.

And again [and I may have missed it] where is the evidence that the dress was up to the hips, all I can recall ever having read is Paul saying that he pulled it down.

[Lechmere]

GUT
I didn't say the name means nothing.
For someone who pettifogs over the slightest thing you selectively are very loose with your claims.

And in a similar vein I have never said standing over the body - I have often explained how that expression comes into parlance - I have countless times explained that if he was in the middle of the street he still very close to the body.
You're a barrister - right?
You take and listen to evidence in court - right?
I hope you pay more attention when you do that - if you are a practising barrister.

[Lechmere]

Gut
Check through that stuff Stewart Evans spammed the page with - it may be there. Otherwise search away.

[GUT]

Gut
Check through that stuff Stewart Evans spammed the page with - it may be there. Otherwise search away.

Interestingly I have been and will continue to do so, indeed Paul told the times that it was to the stomach.

Bus as it is your assertion that it was only to the hips I assumed you had some evidence for that.

[Bitsie]

And again [and I may have missed it] where is the evidence that the dress was up to the hips, all I can recall ever having read is Paul saying that he pulled it down.

Stewart kindly posted the witness reports further back in the thread.

Friday 31 August 1888
P.C. 97J Neil, reports at 3.45 on 31st inst. he found the dead body of a woman lying on her back with her clothes a little above her knees… - Inspector Spratling, MEPO 3/140 f239, Friday, 31 August 1888..

Monday 17 September 1888 Inquest resumed in the morning
Robert Baul [sic – Paul], a carman of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett’s-court, Spitalfield. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Buck’s-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, “Come and look at this woman here.” Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and
epteng away. – The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 18 September 1888.

I don't think you did miss them...

Thanks for posting those compilations Stewart, I note that in a couple of the reports Mizen makes no mention of a Policeman merely "You are wanted down there."

[Bitsie]

Interestingly I have been and will continue to do so, indeed Paul told the times that it was to the stomach.

Bus as it is your assertion that it was only to the hips I assumed you had some evidence for that.

I don't know about yours but my hips are just below my stomach

[GUT]

And did you happen to read the one of The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 18 September 1888 where it says Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach?

That was the report of the inquest by Paul the report by Neil [who came along after Paul had rearranged her clothes] says to the knees.

[Bitsie]

And did you happen to read the one of The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 18 September 1888 where it says Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach?

That was the report of the inquest by Paul the report by Neil [who came along after Paul had rearranged her clothes] says to the knees.

I think you're being a little deliberately distracting over where her dress fell to considering the point is that either way in all reports it's mostly mentioned that they tried to cover or covered her legs not the horrific gaping wounds on her abdomen - I think at least one of them might have mentioned that in passing, it's one of those details that sticks in ones mind is it not? - though I'm no barrister.

[Chris]

I see it's still being suggested in "another place" that Cross could have avoided giving his address at the inquest. Even setting aside the fact that the Star's report of the inquest included his address, that's just not credible.

For example, here's what Richard Clarke Sewell's "Treatise on the Law of Coroner" (1843) has to say on the procedure for examining witnesses in a coroner's court:

[Fisherman]

I see it's still being suggested in "another place" that Cross could have avoided giving his address at the inquest. Even setting aside the fact that the Star's report of the inquest included his address, that's just not credible.

For example, here's what Richard Clarke Sewell's "Treatise on the Law of Coroner" (1843) has to say on the procedure for examining witnesses in a coroner's court:

[ATTACH]16445[/ATTACH]

Yes, it is SUPPOSED do be done - but there are examples when people omitted it. Fontain Smith is seemingly such an example.

Why would all the papers have omitted his specific address if he gave it...?

"Just not credible" is not good enough when we have the reality on record. And saying that if there is a rule, people will follow it, no exceptions, is not true either.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi David, you will note that when I posted about the feeling that some have about making the case for a Ripper suspect it was -

a. My listing was of reactions that others (actually not I) have previously posted on the boards.

b. I also stated that this related to suspects 'conjured up', and not on record as mentioned by contemporary police sources. Ergo it does not relate to suspects named as such by the police such as Druitt named by Macnaghten and Tumblety named by Littlechild.

I appreciate also that some find it amusing that an ancestor may have been the Ripper, whilst others definitely do not appreciate it, or the attention it brings.

I think the best way to go about it is to call as many as possible of the relatives to a gathering and put the issue to them there. I hope you agree.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Who has suggested?

In principle the suggestion that it is only legitimate to investigate suspects named by the police at the time is farcical, given that most policemen intimately involved in the case believed they had no serious clue who did it.
It is also ridiculous to claim that it is illegitimate to investigate a suspect without the permission of the living descendants. In a case this old there will potentially be scores of living descendants living all over the place.
Putting these false parameters in place shows a basic misunderstanding of criminology - but Ripperology isn't part of criminology really.

What a strange post, then we should be used to such strange posts by now.

First, who has suggested that 'it is only legitimate to investigate suspects named by the police at the time'?
Answer - no one as far as I can see.

Secondly, Who has suggested that it is 'illegitimate to investigate a suspect without the permission of the living descendants'?
Answer - no one as far as I can see.

Thirdly, 'Putting these false parameters in place shows a basic misunderstanding of criminology...'
What false parameters?

I do wish that this poster would read, understand and then internalize the posts of others before leaping into print.

[Chris]

Fisherman

If you really have evidence that a witness failed to give his address in court, that would be worth seeing.

But if you just mean there's someone whose address wasn't reported by the newspapers, that's no good at all. In fact the more witnesses whose addresses weren't reported by the newspapers, the weaker your argument that the non-reporting of Cross's address (except by the Star) is significant.

[Fisherman]

Obviously it depends what the relevant bullet point said. If it said he was "standing over" the victim, or even "leaning over" the victim, then accurate information would alter things very much.

Actually, no. It is similar to a situation where you find a murdered person and a living person with that dead person locked into a room together. The distance between the two when the door is opened is irrelevant to the suggestion of guilt on behalf of the living man.

The same goes for Lechmere - if he stood over the victim, it could be interpreted as an act of wanting to assess the situation and possibly help, and if he stood two yards away, it could be interpreted as an act of wanting to evade the coupling being made.

Lechmere was found standing close by a freshly murdered woman, and unless we can move him halfways down to brady Street, it won´t matter. And actually, even if we DID move him halfway down to Brady Street, he would STILL look suspicious if the kill was a very fresh one.

It is a non-issue in that respect. But I will open up a long needed thrad on matters like these under Suspects: General discussion, and we will be able to settle many of these matters to everybody´s contention, I hope!

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

No Hard Opinion

I think the best way to go about it is to call as many as possible of the relatives to a gathering and put the issue to them there. I hope you agree.
The best,
Fisherman

I really have no hard opinion on what should be done, as each case should be judged on its own merits.

I should think that it would be nigh on impossible to trace all known descendants of every named suspect. But, as I have stated, it is not I who have raised the issue in the past, several others have made comment though.

Obviously nothing stops anyone at all being investigated as a suspect whether named or not. So there can be no objection to anyone conducting whatever investigation they wish.

However, the objections that have been raised have usually come, in the past, when the theory naming a new suspect is publicly aired, appears in a new book or in a television documentary.

In the past this has been particularly mentioned in connection with the 'blackening' of the names of Sir William Withey Gull and Walter Sickert. A little research should locate past posts with this theme.

In the case of police named suspects, or even contemporaneously named press suspects - these are already in the public domain, or have been for many years so naming them again doesn't quite raise the same objection as a name that has never previously been tainted with suspicion.

I might also add that if a new suspect is aired along with some hard and valid reason for suspecting him, other than personal opinion, then the case for that being valid could also be made.