Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Jerry Dunlop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry Dunlop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    ...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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    The Casebook Wiki has this info on this De Leeuw character.
    Interesting that he was found guilty of abusing animals...in 1892. However, he may have engaged in this sort of behavior prior to this time, even before 1889...but was not charged as in 1892.

    Tenant of 59 Aldgate High Street in 1888. Described as a meat salesman. Between 28 November 1889 and 20 June 1890 he was succeeded as tenant by Gabriel Horwitz, and then before 3 December 1890 by George Louisson [poor and tithe rate assessments].
    On 19 November 1890, described as a meat salesman of 59 Aldgate High Street, he petitioned for bankruptcy and a receiving order was issued [London Gazette, 21 November 1890]. First meeting, 12 December 1890; public examination, 14 January, 1891; hearing concerning application for discharge, 5 March 1891 [London Gazette, 2 December 1890; Morning Post, 14 January 1891; London Gazette, 6 February 1891].
    At the date of the 1891 census, a butcher, employed, he was living with his wife, children and a servant at 59 Aldgate High Street.
    He was fined at the Guildhall for cruelty to 38 sheep, which he had ordered to be confined in Harrow Alley on 15 February 1892 [Times, 29 February 1892].
    On 22 April 1895 he was admitted to Bow Road Infirmary from 59 Aldgate High Street [creed register; admission and discharge register]. He was discharged to the City of London Asylum at Stone on 25 April. He was found to be suffering from acute mania, supposed to be caused by business worry. On admission his height was recorded as 5 feet, 4 inches, and his weight as 9 stones, 13 pounds. He was described as "violent, incoherent and destructive of clothing, has well marked delusions regarding his great strength and powers of endurance." He died there on 8 May, the cause of death being "Exhaustion from Mania and diffuse abscess of leg." [City of London Board of Guardians, Lunatic Admissions 1894-5, no 2587; Stone Asylum Male Case Books nos 12, p. 50, and 8, p. 67; Stone Asylum Register of Removals, Discharges and Deaths]
    Death registered at Dartford in the second quarter of 1895. Buried at West Ham United Synagogue Cemetery, 28 May 1895. Death notice in the Jewish Chronicle, 31 May 1895.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Chris Phillips had started a thread on a local by the name of Solomon De Leeuw, here:

    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=146180

    Chris also noted that De Leeuw had a 13 year old daughter which the police official mentioned the man under suspicion had...within the article which kicked off this thread.

    Interesting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    How, the article you found and posted here adds additional details that weren't mentioned in the other articles already found/discussed.
    A step closer to identifying who it refers to hopefully?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X