|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 3:34 am: |       |
Hi Leanne,
I was not implying, that the statement, was directed at Millers court, Dorset street had other passage ways or off the street sinks, at least I would imagine so.I would imagine the police interviewed a lot of people from that road the following day, asking them if they saw anybody suspicious, or heard anything, Barnett, and Mary may have been questioned, that is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Barnett as we are suggesting was the Ripper' obviously would not wash right outside his door at 2am in the morning, that would be extremely foolish, unless of course, he believed he had emptied the contents of the sink to his satisfaction.
Therefore I Would suggest that the killer of Eddowes, washed his hands in that street, but not millers court.
I find it a coincedence ,that after leaving Mitre square, he made no attempt to wash his hands at the very first opportunety, and waited till he reached Dorset street to do this, out of all the streets in spitalfields, he picked the very one , that was to make headlines all over the world less then six weeks later.
Questions.
Was the killer deliberatly giving a clue to where the next blood would be spilt?.
Or was he simply making sure his hands were clean, before reaching home?.
By the way in the UK, Today is November 9th,
Rich. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 3:39 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I should state, that the above post, is written if Smith was refering to the Eddowes murder, not Millers court.
Rich. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
G'day Rich, everyone,
I should have put: 'After the MILLERS COURT MUIRDER he caredully washed...' Read my short post again. I don't believe Joe & Mary or any Dorset Street residents would have been interviewed after the Eddowes murder, because the job was just to trace the killers most likely route from Goulston Street.
Why would the killer obviously not wash right outside his door? it was very private and if he was carrying away Kate's organs, he would not have felt safe going back out onto the streets with bloodstains to wash. The risk would have been the same, if he'd have washed at the very first opportunity after fleeing Mitre Square. Especially if he was carrying away the organs.
'He picked the very one that was to make headines all over the world less than six weeks later'. How did he know this at the time? I don't believe Mary Kelly's murder was planned at all. I don't believe he knew who the next victim was going to be, after any murder.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
I do not believe that Joe, after the Eddowes murder, would have washed his hands right outside his door. I believe when this came up before you suggested that maybe he washed his hands at a sink or pump somewhere else in the street, but it still sounds too close to home for comfort.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 23
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 5:38 pm: | |
Please, try to remember that all this parsing of phrases is being done to memoirs written long after the events to which they refer. As a result, any such exegesis is likely to be futile.
Look, I have mentioned previously that my professional training was as a historian. That doesn't make you any better at the game and often it actually works the other way. Still, if you take the craft seriously, you can more quickly learn from your mistakes and those of others if only because of stringent peer review.
One thing you soon learn, often to your embarrassment, is that accounts of an event written years later can be quite unreliable. The memory becomes muddled, discrete occurrences are often conflated into a single jumble, and later revelations are sometimes incorporated into a description of what happened at the moment. Moreover, initial bare-boned accounts are recast so as to be more entertaining (at the expense of of strict veracity), old mistakes and wrong-headed ideas are glossed over or just forgotten and old scores are sometimes settled in a way that is counter-factual.
A quick, modern, example. A couple years ago I was asked to write a book on local sports history. There was one pivotal basketball game in hometown history that occurred some 40 years ago and I looked at contemporary news articles and then interviewed players and spectators. No one of the accounts agreed and it was illustrative that when I reinterviwed several participants,their stories today were invariably richer and more exciting (as well as more muddled) than when they had been interviewed right after the game.
Then, as if by magic, an old movie of that game was discovered in a basement. It was grainy and faded, but nonetheless clearly showed that none of the accounts of the game -- including those in contemporary newspaper articles -- was wholly accurate. And, the further one was removed in time from the game, the less accurate and more contrived were his recollections of the event.
The point I'm trying to make is that theorizing and speculating about the Ripper crimes can be lots of fun and we occasionally turn up really new nuggets of information (never, alas, a film in someone's basement), but to get too tied up in parsing the words of Smith, Anderson, et al. is probably not going to be productive.
|
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 144
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 6:32 pm: | |
Hi All
I have always been a bit dubious about Major Smith's claim about the bloodstained sink in Dorset Street. It would have been stupid of Jack to wash his hands in either New court or Millers Court as they were dead ends and I should think all the houses in the courts would have been searched. If there was aa sink in Little Paternoster Row it wouldn't mean he lived there as he could have gone through the exit at the north end and into Brushfield Street. Also I have seen maps of the area between Mitre Square and Goulston Street and I found several pumps in the locality, so why wait till he got to Dorset Street. I had thought about the possibillity of washing his hands in a horse's trough, but the bloodied water would have been noticed.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 09, 2003 - 11:49 pm: | |
G'day,
I can't understand how people are thinking here! The Ripper was almost caught red-handed, (or red-knifed), killing Catharine Eddowes, as everyone's attention was on the atrocity in Berner Street and Elizabeth Stride's body. Police were scouring the neighbourhood for suspicious looking men. Why would he risk stopping to wash before he got to the privacy of Miller's Court, where he could at least shut the gate?
Once in the yard, he would have washed before he went inside room 13, or perhaps he couldn't go back inside because Mary thought he was out looking for work, so he went back out again!
DON: I notice in your last post you used the words: 'often', 'sometimes' and 'likely',, I bet you're into horse-racing and follow odds like Richard, who just tipped the horse than ran last in the Melbourne Cup!
Then you compare the memories of basketballers to detectives! It's just an opinion until someone can honestly say: '100%', 'all of the time' and 'definately'!
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 09, 2003) |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 234
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:51 am: | |
Leanne: "Why would he risk stopping to wash before he got to the privacy of Miller's Court..."
Leanne, because he didn't want to get caught with the evidence while on his way home. My guess is that is the same reason he tossed the bloody apron piece into the building in Goulston Street. He had already disposed of or hidden the organs, wiped his hands with the apron and now he needed to pitch it when no one was looking so that he could make it back to Miller's Court and not be stopped along the way.
He would have washed up at the first place he could that afforded him any privacy. I personally don't see him using the sink in Dorset Street for much the same reason. Would have been better of to check under any of the drain spouts in the back alleys where water would have collected from the rain that fell that night.
Shannon |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 145
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 3:26 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Millers Court didn't have a gate, and he would have been in veiw of at least a couple of tennents.
I don't think it would have taken more than a few seconds to have given his hands a quick rinse in any public sink.
Rob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 3:38 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
The point about it being to risky , washing his hands after Eddowes, in Dorset street is true.
If the killer was not our Barnett, why wait till he arrived in Dorset street, surely he would have cleaned himself up at the first opportunety, and if he was our Barnett, why would he risk leaving bloody water, right on his doorstep?.
If smith meant, the removal of the apron, and the bloody sink where on the same night, of which I am still not convinced was accurate. then one of two possibilitys comes to mind.
a] The killer was not Barnett, and washed his hands in the very street, that he planned to committ his next murder, he may have even singled out Mary, as his next victim.
b] That Barnett was the killer, and deliberatly, washed his hands in dorset street, to bring to Marys attention, how close the killer was getting, although I would doubt it was actually in Millers court, for surely every room in the immediate vacinity of the sink ,would have been searched for possible clues.
Each of them two explanations is plausible, that is if the bloody sink was found on the 30th sept.
I Believe it would be more likely , if the actual sinks contents were found when they discovered Kellys body, for it would make sense for the killer, if there was a pump in the court to rid himself of obvious blood, before he departed, and as i believe if was daylight when this happened, even more so.
If the bloody sink was found when the police arrived at Millers court, and the contents had not fully drained, then I would suspect the killer had not long left, for surely if this murder was comitted several hours earlier, then all contents of the sink , would have dispersed, also I would have thought also that other residents of the court,would have surely used the pump between 7am-10am, but they did not report to the police any messy sink. so for in order for the sink to have been found after the murder at Millers court, the killer proberly had not been gone long, so that would go a long way in suggesting that kelly was killed after 9am on the morning of the 9th.
I would suspect we all agree, that a bloody sink in Dorset street did exist, and I Believe it is possible that one of the theorys put forward in this post is likely.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 4:26 am: | |
G'day everyone,
Why would it matter where he was on the way to if he got caught? I have ideas about when he left the apron at Goulston Street, but I'm keeping them to myself for now.
Then we can start this debate again!
Do you have any idea of how busy and active the area was at this time?
ROBERT: I know Miller's Court didn't have a see-through iron gate! I meant a solid, wooden fence/door thing, that made him invisable to anyone passing outside.
Remember at Kelly's inquest, someone said she heard someone leaving the court at 6:00a.m., but it was too late for the markets? The market's started about 5:00a.m., there was one man in the court who worked at the markets. I think the odds of being seen on the streets, were greater than being seen by a resident at that time.
Catharines's body was found at 1:45a.m. and the apron was found at 2:55a.m. It wasn't there at 2:20 a.m. Now can you guess what I don't want to say?
LEANNE |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:51 am: | |
Leanne,
You are definitely wrong about one thing -- I don't play the ponies. As with Richard's "great" tip, nothing is sure and I'd be chary of laying a wager on a one-horse race on a merry-go-round. Now, do I occasionally take a flutter on life's greatest gamble -- falling in love ... well that is not a subject for these boards. Or any others if I can help it.
Don. |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 147
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Miller's Court didn't have a gate/door of any sort. Anyone using the sink or tap would be invisible to someone standing at the entrance to Millers Court, but not to some of the residents. Elizabeth Prater, Sarah Lewis and even Mary kelly could see the tap/sink from there windows.
I think the apron was there at 2:20 but P.C Long just didn't see it, but if you are saying he went to Millers Court, washed his hands, and then went to Goulston Street to dump the apron. He would be running a very big risk as he would still have Catherine Eddowes organs still on him, unless he had a secret hiding place at Millers Court where he could hide them.
Rob |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 354
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Robert, LEANNE
If it was there, why would a rag raise Longs suspicions at 2.20am ?...thats the question.
I cannot help but think that the answer is it wouldnt.
But lets say that after 2.20am Long was informed of any of the murders that night, well, would you double check anything on you beat ?
Then you come across the apron at 2.55am. Would you admit to it being there at 2.20am ? Especially as you are part of the biggest murder hunt in history. "Yeah Guv, it were there earlier but I just didnt fink it meant anyfing to no one".
Now how would that go down?
I guess it depends on the person....what did ever happend to Long ?
Monty
 |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 28
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:11 pm: | |
According to A to Z Long was dismissed from the force in July 1889 for being drunk on duty. He was also one of the policemen brought in from other districts (Westminster in his case) and the night of the double event was his first on duty on that beat. Interesting all round. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:21 pm: | |
Hi all
There is in the 1901 census a Sgt Alfred Long in the Met Police, age 39. I'm sure that this has all been researched and found to be coincidence. The alternative would be that Long was fired and then reinstated.
I think there was another Sgt Alfred Long up in Yorkshire too.
Robert |
Jason Scott Mullins
Police Constable
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
I agree with you Monty.. the human aspect seems to be the one that has left us with incomplete or inconclusive evidence.. I mean really, in the middle of such a crime spree, who would like to admit that they were wrong? Especially if it ment their job or going down in history as the guy who let JTR get away?
crix0r |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 7:06 am: | |
G'day,
MONTY: 'If it was there, why would a rag raise Longs suspicions?'....'would you admit to it being there?'
Are you saying here that PC Long could have seen an apron with recent blood stains on it lying in a passage to a staircase, while an unidentified butcher was on the loose, deliberately ignored it, then saw it as worthy of picking up when he passed the spot again?
LEANNE |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 357
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 7:57 am: | |
LEANNE,
Given the lighting situation in Goulston st I doubt Long would have noted the blood until the arpon was in is hands.
At 2.20am, to him, it was just a rag.
Just my views anyway.
Monty
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 885
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 3:14 pm: | |
G'day Monty,
This is only a very minor detail, not worth arguing about, but a white apron?
LEANNE |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 6:08 pm: | |
Ah Leanne, how white was it really? I'd wager it was more of a grey. That's what happens to my supposedly white handkerchiefs after a few washes and I use biolical powder.
Chears, Mark (who washes greyer than grey) |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 365
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:22 am: | |
LEANNE,
Wasnt white. It was filthy.
But You're right, we shant argue.
Monty
|
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Kate is such an easy target Monty.I bet loads of people had discoloured clothing by the end of his reign of terror-including himself if other such crimes are anything to go by.Natalie. |
Vladimir
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
Hello all,
I am a bit confused here, how did we get to JTR using the sink on Dorset after the Eddowes killing form the quotes above. I do not see that at all. I see one person was not mutilated, after Mitre Square the killer had a rag, and after the Kelly murder there was a sink. If he had used the sink on all three or two of them, why mention the rag. It would read more like "On Berner Street he did not mutilate the body and after Mitre Sq and Miller Court he used a sink on Dorsett street. I know you are writing a book and I am eagerly awaiting it, and I know you are saying it is Barnett but it looks as though you are looking at this quote with Barnett glasses on, so to say.
Just me up at work (it is late here, or really early) thinking baout this.
Vlad |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 573
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Hi, all:
First I believe the story of the possible washing of the killer's hands in Dorset Street comes from the memoirs of Major Smith of the City Police, does it not, not from a contemporary police report? It thus may or may not be reliable. I think quite possibly Smith years afterward confused the murders and nights on which these occurrences took place. Second, I don't believe there was any gate, wooden, iron, or otherwise at the entrance to Miller's Court. I believe it was an open passageway. I refer you to the photograph in the Matters book which appears to show no door to the arched opening to the passage. See below.
Best regards
Chris George
 |
Punctuation Pedant
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
Richard, could you ease back on the excessive comma usage? It makes your posts, although interesting, rather difficult to read.
Thanks
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 790
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
Sorry punctuation pedant.
I tend to ramble on through my posts, depending on the amount of packs of beer, I have consumed.
However, I am glad you found the posts somewhat intresting.
Regards Richard. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page