Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

****A Detective's Views : Post Pinchin Street***

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    He died there on 8 May, the cause of death being "Exhaustion from Mania and diffuse abscess of leg."
    Betcha he was chained by the leg.....Sounds mad, bad and dangerous to know.

    Comment


    • #17
      Sounds that way to me too Bob...and I am appreciative, as I know you are as well, that people have researched this fairly unsung character as much as they have.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

      Comment


      • #18
        I came across this Solomon character when I was looking into the vivisectionists and he popped up under animal cruelty

        The suspect does sound a bit like Klosowski in parts

        It also reminds me of James Hardiman

        He was the son of a cobbler who may have had a shop, he sold cat's meat and horse flesh, had butcher-type skills and his mother had a shop

        If you link the first article with the suspect in Deb's link, with a hatred for prostitutes and a syphilis problem, it fits Hardiman a bit who's family were infected, by himself or possibly his wife caught it from someone else. His daughter died in June 1888 from a syphilis related condition and the finding of the torso being only a few days before the first anniversary of his wife's death in September 1888, who also had syphilis (the daughter contracted it from her mother)

        He died from TB though and wasn't in an asylum as far as I know, and obviously his family was dead by 1889, though a few stories may have been mixed in some way

        Comment


        • #19
          Neems:

          Good of you to provide those extra comments. Someone might want to tell Stan Reid about this thread.
          I was thinking about this De Leeuw ( It sounds as if he was a Sephardic Jew, Dutch perhaps...) today.
          An issue I can see surfacing in regard to De Leeuw as being a viable suspect ( Not as the man who the policeman is referring to in the article...thats a different issue altogether ) is that if he had theoretically been the Ripper, we then find him abusing sheep in 1892. It seems very much like Cutbush in that sense....of De Leeuw once being a murderer and then in a matter of three years...being cruel to livestock.

          If anyone else sees an issue with this in either direction, pro or con...if so, please share your views.
          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

          Comment


          • #20
            There's no indication Solomon was physically cruel to the sheep, only that he kept them locked in a yard - probably not fed or cleaned out and so an offence of neglect

            Comment


            • #21
              ...but there's every indication, my dear Nemo, that I leaped to the conclusion that he had physically abused the beasts.. Good eye as usual Nemo.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                I asked Chris Phillips if he recalled any discussion of this article, or of one similar, and he kindly sent me this link to a post made by R. J. Palmer, which seems to refer to the same suspect.

                http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=107
                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                Chris also sent me the link to this article and thread on casebook, which he feels could also be related and possibly the discussion remembered by Caz.

                http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3405
                Yep, Debs, these are the very posts that came to my mind.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                Comment


                • #23
                  Interesting that this suspect is described as 'rambling' through Whitechapel late at night, now who, and what, does that put me in mind of?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                    Debs:

                    I'm hoping that it won't be the last article with information about the person in question. I'm keeping my eyes and fingers crossed hoping that we can.

                    XXX
                    How
                    How,

                    The detective mentions 3 men being watched. Two of the men are mentioned in my Guzzling Jim clip below. The two are Guzzling Jim and the unknown businessman. http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?...light=guzzling

                    Guzzling Jim is the man R J Palmer hints at in his post that Debs linked to on this thread. He calls him "Jim". From my clip above, "He is known in the district by a certain sobriquet. That is the only name by which he is known. We will call it 'Guzzling Jim". "We will call it....." In other words, we will call the sobriquet Guzzling Jim but that's not what it really is. I have told you about my suspicions of Guzzling Jim being the man we know as Charles LeGrand. LeGrand was also known around town by a certain sobriquet, "the French Colonel".

                    We know the first man mentioned in your original post here is John Arnold and we also know John Arnold lived in practically the same building as LeGrand's PI office in Agar Street in 1889. Funny he is mentioned in this same article and this detective puts some importance to him.

                    By the way, the detective is Donald Swanson working with another detective named Partridge. (Off topic a bit but a SY detective tracked Charles Hammond to Seattle to try to obtain his incriminating letters. His name was Partridge)


                    The three watched men:

                    1) John Arnold
                    2) Guzzling Jim aka LeGrand, a member of the WVC
                    3) Unknown businessman

                    And if I may be bold enough to say this, The first two and add in Dennis Lynch and possibly a few patsies acting as lunatics to take the blame off them (Brodie), they were able to pull off carting torso's around town and murdering unfortunates in Whitechapel.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jerry Dunlop View Post
                      How,

                      The detective mentions 3 men being watched. Two of the men are mentioned in my Guzzling Jim clip below. The two are Guzzling Jim and the unknown businessman. http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?...light=guzzling
                      Hi Jerry

                      There seems to be more information in this article than came out in the inquest. But what can we deduce from the article in the light of what Dr Briggs has told us about the guesswork by Victorian Doctors and us using common sense.

                      The article states that the perpetrator must have been left handed that is guess work.

                      The time of death again is guess work.

                      The Constable being able to say the body wasn't there previous because he couldn't smell it ! need i saymore on this?

                      The homeless say they saw or heard nothing, but due to it being dark would they have seen it in any event? unless it was in close proximity as to where they were

                      So the body could have been there for several days

                      Hoaxes and body parts -The Lusk Kidney ? Could the slash to the abdomen have been part of a hoax to show a similarity to the Ripper murders ?

                      How could the age of the victim be determined accurately from just the trunk- again guesswork.

                      The article inferred that the cuts used to dissect the body were those of someone with anatomical knowledge. Now if you were a killer and wanted to get rid of a body, would you not cut it up in the quickest and simplest way. So the dissector was someone with some anatomical knowledeg

                      Was the victim murdered, we cant say that can we?

                      If the victim was murdered, was it a domestic murder a possibility ?

                      So again as i have said before this torso must remain as one of The Whitehall Torso Mysteries and not one of The Whitechapel Murders.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        Hi Jerry

                        There seems to be more information in this article than came out in the inquest. But what can we deduce from the article in the light of what Dr Briggs has told us about the guesswork by Victorian Doctors and us using common sense.

                        The article states that the perpetrator must have been left handed that is guess work.

                        The time of death again is guess work.

                        The Constable being able to say the body wasn't there previous because he couldn't smell it ! need i saymore on this?

                        The homeless say they saw or heard nothing, but due to it being dark would they have seen it in any event? unless it was in close proximity as to where they were

                        So the body could have been there for several days

                        Hoaxes and body parts -The Lusk Kidney ? Could the slash to the abdomen have been part of a hoax to show a similarity to the Ripper murders ?

                        How could the age of the victim be determined accurately from just the trunk- again guesswork.

                        The article inferred that the cuts used to dissect the body were those of someone with anatomical knowledge. Now if you were a killer and wanted to get rid of a body, would you not cut it up in the quickest and simplest way. So the dissector was someone with some anatomical knowledeg

                        Was the victim murdered, we cant say that can we?

                        If the victim was murdered, was it a domestic murder a possibility ?

                        So again as i have said before this torso must remain as one of The Whitehall Torso Mysteries and not one of The Whitechapel Murders.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Thanks for the reply, Trevor.

                        I think you read the wrong article in my link. I was referring to the article about Guzzling Jim a few posts down from the one you referred to here.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X