Ripperologist 133: August 2013

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon Wood.

Are your articles going to available in the dissertations section here in the future? I've been eagerly awaiting what you have to present, but am just a po' Tennessee boy and have no subscription to any of these ripper related magazines yet. Cue violins, and the growings of hearts.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dig

I hear what you say...I too had initially good financial reasons for not subscribing...but fortunately I got a small pay rise and then...(etc)

I would honestly suggest that if you have to forgo anything ripperological then sacrifice a subscription to this mag last of all....

Every good wish

Dave

[Robert]

I believe it is possible to purchase individual issues.

[RavenDarkendale]

Why is it that no matter what I post, people seem to think I have some sort of bleeding heart motive? For people who claim to be "open minded" I seem to always get whacked.

I have NEVER insisted that I was right on anything. I like to explore possibilities. More than one victim of crime has been misidentified and later proven to be alive. In Mary Kelly's case, this never happened.

Cases where one person only is suspected as in the Lizzie Borden case and therefore when they are found not guilty or the evidence breaks down the case goes unsolved are sadly common. There have been people executed that were proven innocent after it was too late.

I reiterate:

1) A possibility exists that Kelly survived, but the likelihood is small. Possible never should be confused with probable.
2) Lizzie Borden lied about many things. She could actually be not guilty, but she at least had to know who was. The police declined further investigation.
3) OJ Simpson is guilty as a witch. The Prosecution lost this case due to incompetence.
4) Evidence has been produced that throws questions about the MacDonald murders. This DOES NOT make Dr. Jeffery McDonald innocent by any stretch.
5) Dr. Sam Shepard had a very weak story, which should be treated with suspicion. Murder weapon is the question that haunts this case, not really his guilt or innocence.
6) Any other cases I may have discussed are only opinions and possibilities. On a site where people argue the Maybrick diary and a member postulates anagrams proving Lewis Carroll guilty; suspects people like Thomas Neil Cream who was in prison in Illinois at the time, and delves into the meaning of Walter Sickertt's paintings, can you please cut me some slack for my opinions? Please?

God Bless anyway

Darkendale

[Lechmere]

The part-time Army was drastically re-organised in 1908 when the Volunteers, Militia and Yeomanry as part of the Haldane reforms were abolished and replaced by the Special Reserve (purely for home service and as a recruitment base in emergencies) and the Territorials.
Of these three types of military organisations, the militia had the lowest status.

The previous attempt to make the part time army more efficient was known as the Childers reform of 1881. Under these measures the previously independent local units were brought under administrative control of parent regular army unit, in this case the Royal Artillery.

However until the Haldane reforms, the part time volunteer army was run in a fairly lax manner. Despite what the official rules and regulations may have said I doubt ages (or proper names) were checked at all rigorously nor the exact place of residence, so long as the person turned up and looked sufficiently fit. Particularly in a unit that was struggling to keep up to strength – such as was the case with the 2nd Brigade, Southern Division, Royal Artillery.

Moreover if Abberline said it was clearly established that Stanley was at Gosport with the 2nd Brigade, Southern Division Hants Militia up to the 30th August and was in his lodgings at 1 Osborn Place on the night of the 7th and 8th September, then that is good enough for me.
It is impossible to think Abberline was involved in a cover up.
The only grounds for doubting Abberline are if you prefer the word of the lodging house keeper, Mr Argent. Mr Argent said he had known Stanley for 12 years and thought he served in the militia in Barnet (rather than Hampshire).

Why did the coroner readily accept Stanley’s account of his movements?
No doubt because he had already read the police account given to Abberline. At the inquest the coroner was getting the witness to go through his account for the benefit of the jury.

If Stanley was really Hughes-Hallett, the rather obvious question is why did he reappear in his Stanley guise?
That would have been one hell of an unnecessary risk to take.
Why flee to America and then tell a tall story unnecessarily linking himself to Hanbury Street?
Also being into amateur dramatics does not make someone a master of disguise – an archetypal dandy and toff who could simultaneously pass himself off as a labourer for days on end, nay even 12 years! That is taking ’slumming it’ to new extremes.

Why was ‘Leather Apron’ dropped after the exoneration of Pizer?
Well he wasn’t entirely as there was a belief that Isenschmid was called Leather Apron and he was reportedly exonerated by his brother a few days before the double event (rather than by his incarceration at the time of the double event). I would suggest ‘Leather Apron’ was thereafter not mentioned as the better JtR name then came to the fore and the whole ‘Leather Apron’ fiasco was regarded as a false trail.
Serial killer investigations frequently are punctuated by false trails – think of Wearside Jack.

As for how Annie Chapman became the second victim rather than the fourth, it depends on who you rely on for your information. There clearly was no unanimity in the ranks of the police of this subject.

Rather than a ‘higher up’ Police desire to manufacture the Ripper scare I think we actually see an attempt to minimise it and restrict victim numbers to put an end to the hysteria. I think this can be seen with the way the Mylett and Mackenzie cases were dealt with.

It is one thing for the Conservative Party to tolerate an utter bounder and cad as a back bencher and massage his exit from Parliament to obtain a by-election at a time of their choosing. It is quite another to be complicit in murder.
A murder which fits all too neatly into a series that recognisably conforms to a serial killing spree.

[Cogidubnus]

Well bugger me Ed, (not a literal invitation by the way...my piles are bad enough as they are), I finally find a post of yours I can agree with 100% (as opposed to a lesser fraction)...please don't do this too often...my poor old ticker won't stand it!

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Cog, I can only suggest you re-read all my other posts...

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry, can't do that mate...for reasons already stated...nonetheless I DO agree with this one 100%

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Darkendale.

Why is it that no matter what I post, people seem to think I have some sort of bleeding heart motive? For people who claim to be "open minded" I seem to always get whacked.

All I can suggest is, don't take things to heart.
I hadn't actually noticed, not that I read everything, I don't. But then again, speaking from experience it is easy to present a tone in a post that was not intended. I'm sure no-one intends to slam you, I don't recall you ever making a 'challenging' post.

You had asked:

Just as a curiosity, I'd like everyone to think just a minute about their favorite suspect in this case.

I might be a rare case but the question of "who was JtR?" is not of special interest to me. I am far more interested in the details of the case, what the witnesses saw, and how to interpret the medical evidence.

I don't think the killer will ever be identified so I don't bother thinking about who it was - to me it is a fruitless exercise, we don't know enough about anyone to promote them as a suspect.

One small point, in your next post you made a spelling mistake, you wrote; "...it isn't sediment." when you meant sentiment, which prompted a couple of amusing responses, but there was no intention to upset you, if you were upset then I apologize, but when I make a spelling mistake I always smile about it.

When presenting your case do you:

1) Proceed from a solid stand on facts known
2) Build on the shifting sands of possibilities
3) Throw out everything to the contrary as irrelevant or mistaken.

No. 1, Yes, always.
But factual information is rare, like stepping stones in a pond. It is then necessary to introduce press articles to help fill in the gaps. Thats when the controversy begins.
In many cases we have only press articles to work with, no official records exist, so that is when the 'you-know-what" hits the fan.

Then we have the next bone of contention, witness statements.
I prefer to accept them as written, giving the witness the benefit of the doubt. Other are not so readily inclined.

Then we have press articles which give unsourced opinion on what is happening in the murder case, as if the police have told the press.
Thats another bone of contention, when the press are quite openly complaining that the police will tell them nothing, why would anyone choose to believe an unsourced article has any merit?

Then you ask:

For example, based on reported facts, I have questioned whether it was Mary Kelly or not in Miller's Court.

Although, on face value, the question appears valid, it is not a question that can be asked in isolation. The members are raising other issues which must be taken into consideration.

However, in support of your question, you perhaps know that one very prime candidate for Mary Kelly exists, who was in her early 20's, and found in Wales, and she did have a sister and seven brothers, and was born in Ireland - but she is alive in 1891, so no-one has accepted her as the Millers Court resident.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Darkendale.

One small point, in your next post you made a spelling mistake, you wrote; "...it isn't sediment." when you meant sentiment, which prompted a couple of amusing responses, but there was no intention to upset you, if you were upset then I apologize, but when I make a spelling mistake I always smile about it.

Hey, Wickerman

Yes, a mistaken word, not a misspelling. Hee-Hee, although as I am sometimes suspected of brain blockage when it comes to certain points of the cases I like to discuss, perhaps sediment was the right word after all!


God Bless

Darkendale

[HelenaWojtczak]

Have I missed something?

I have been searching casebook for any mention of Larry Wilson and his "Poipat", and am astonished at finding nothing about him or it, his book or his system, even on this thread about the Ripperologist of August 2013, which carries a review of the book - called Criminal Major Case Management: Persons of Interest Priority Assessment Tool (POIPAT).

Wilson's system places Kosminski as top suspect and Chapman as runner up.

Helena

[Wickerman]

The very fact that Sickert (3), Stephenson (5), and Gull (8), are on the list at all speaks volumes about the value of the process.
Pizer (4), had an alibi for Nichols. Ostrog (10) was in Paris at the time.

If people who clearly had nothing to do with the murders make the list, there's no wonder about the lack of interest.

[HelenaWojtczak]

The very fact that Sickert (3), Stephenson (5), and Gull (8), are on the list at all speaks volumes about the value of the process.
Pizer (4), had an alibi for Nichols. Ostrog (10) was in Paris at the time.

If people who clearly had nothing to do with the murders make the list, there's no wonder about the lack of interest.

Nevertheless, I am still surprised to find nothing on here about it, if only to criticise and reject it.

I believe that Cornwell's solution to the JtR mystery was also rated lowly by most on here, and yet don't I recall it generated a very long thread (or threads)?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Helen

I dare say that Patricia Cornwell's theory became the subject of lengthy debate because she is a rich female fiction writer with a theory that didn't seem to hold much water and that, moreover, her book was written with much animus toward Walter Sickert. In claiming Sickert was in England at the time of the murders rather than in France where Sickert's biographers placed him that raised the ire of art historians. As far as I know Larry Wilson has not raised his head above the parapet nor is in any such comparable league as to his standing in the writing world. I have not read his book but from what I gather it seems to be a dry suspects book looking at the likelihood of various suspects.

Best regards

Chris

[RavenDarkendale]

Chris

From what I understand she did get a valuable collection of Sickert's original paintings out of her research. Maybe that was what she was after in the first place!