|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:19 am: |       |
Thanks for that, Richard.
Robert |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 103
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
Hi Robert,
In addition to Richard's post - in case you might want to know - a photograph of the bottom of Miller's Court is to be found in Andy & Sue Parlour's book 'The JtR Whitechapel Murders' on page 54.
Frank |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
Thanks Frank
I don't have that book, but I think Andy said there'd be a revised edition some time soon, possibly with a photo of Lawende, or one of his descendants, so I'll get it then.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 518
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
I believe that picture, showing the inside of the court, is the most atmospheric picture, of the whole of the ripper collection, it shows the sordid living conditions, that these poor people endured, also really conjures up a presence, which rejuvinates ones imagination.
You must obtain a copy,
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Yep, most definitely!
Robert |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 811
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
The map below, on a larger scale, shows the key points connected to the Eddowes murder which helps to get the topography clear. I have calculated the position of sites not named on the map from the enumerator's cobvering sheets for 1891.
The key is as follows:
Blue circle - 29 Aldagte High Street where Eddowes was arrested
Red Circle - Bishopsgate Police Station where she was taken when drunk
Orange circle - murder site in Mitre square
Green Circle - the Goulston Street graffito
PC Hutt testified that she left Bishopsgate Police station and turned left towards Houndsditch. Whether she turned into Houndsditch or took a more circuitous route is speculation.
Chris
 |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 8:30 am: | |
Your map gave me a new insight. Apparently she was not far from St. Botolph's when arrested. When she was released, she went right back to where she had been, presumably so she could go right back to what she had been doing. |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Dear Robert Frank and Richard
Ref: The Picture of Millers Court Andy and Sue Parlour Page 54.
Hi guys many thanks for map info etc. I have been doing considrable research into Millers Court for a 3D model we are currently creating. Although the picture on Page 54 is most intriguing I have it on some authority that 'It is not a picture of Millers Court' although it does appear to be very similar in some ways. This is a shame as it does show some very interesting features and details and we have extrapalated some details from the photo to fill the blanks, like washing lines and steps, how acurate the shutters are I'm not so sure. Millers Court was white washed to a height of 15 feet. (which again doesn't look as good as the London brick) we're trying to be as accurate as possible but. somethings have to be guessed at.
I would however like to recommend Andy and Sues book as one of the best I have read. Full of facinating photo's that have been most useful in our research and a damn good read to boot.
If you come accross any details about the Water Pump or the Picture in Kellys room (the fishermans Widow) I would be very interested to hear.
Many thanks
Jeff Leahy |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 326
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 5:12 am: | |
Mark/Chris
The pub was on the corner next door to Matthew Packer's shop and was called Nelson's Beer Shop. There is an earlier map in Ivor Edwards' book where this building is clearly marked PH. It may have closed down before 1894 and so not been marked on this one. |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 181
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Hi all
Further to what Alan has said, I looked at the 1881 census and 46 Berner Street is listed as "Nelson Beer House" and John Bishopp is listed at that address as Beer Retailer. I couldn't find 46 Berner Street on the 1891 census, it is on the 1901 census, but no business is mentioned.
Rob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
If the picture on page 54 of Andys and sues book, is not infact a picture of inside Millers court , I would be surprised, can you elaborate, on having good authority that it is not!.
If it is not authentic, then I would be dissapointed in claims that it was.
Richard. |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
Whatho Pub Crawlers,
Thanks for the information.
Cheers, Mark |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 577
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Chris,
Again, excellent stuff. Man, you got a lot to live up to and you rarely fail.
Re Hutchinson. He was returning from Romford that evening/morning. He could have took various route depending on how well he knew the area. But I think, as Frank points out, that him stating he was passing Thrawl st indicates a passing bye rather than passing through. Maybe en route to his lodgings.
Monty
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 127
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
"Maybe en route to his lodgings."
If you mean 'on his way to his lodgings' by this, that would've been very strange, since his lodgings (The Victoria Home) were already behind him when he passed by Thrawl Street and he was walking further away from it in a northern direction.
By the way, if you haven't read it before, the London Times of November 14 carries an interesting article about George Hutchinson, in which he states among other things that ‘at 2 o'clock on Friday morning I came down Whitechapel-road into Commercial-street’ and that he was ‘able to fix the time, as it was between 10 and 5 minutes to 2 o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church,’ which was sited roughly opposite the Osborn and Whitechapel High Streets junction.
Although it's not without a doubt, Hutchinson seems to be saying here that he continued his route to Commercial Street at the point where Whitechapel Road becomes Whitechapel High Street. Assuming the journalist responsible for this article didn’t make anything up, it seems to support the idea that Hutchinson passed the Victoria Home walking along Commercial Street in a northern direction.
All the best,
Frank
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 579
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 7:11 am: | |
Frank,
Not got my books with me but yes, you are right, but thats...
....providing he was lodging there that evening/morning (they may have been full).
....providing he was going straight 'to bed'.
....providing he was not looking out for a free 'un !
These are the only reasons I can think of for missing his usual lodgings.
Was the Victoria Home a permenent deal ?
Monty
|
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 4:38 pm: | |
Hi Richard
As I stated I have been studying Millers Court in some detail for a 3D model I'm working on and was very excited about the Picture as it is the only known veiw looking up the Ally way. The court shown in the picture must by very similar to millers court.
I made a phone call to Paul Begg who has been advising me on historical accuracy. At the time he was at lunch with the Met Police force and I gather with a number of other Ripper Experts. A debate ensued about the picture and I was informed that they did not beleive it to be Millers Court. for me that was good enough, I'm afriad I'm not an expert. I can however see why you might beleive that it is, as I say if you study the buildings they are in a very similar design. However I understand that Millers Court was by no means unique. It would probably have been very similar to this picture.
As I say if my expert advise says its NOT then I felt it best not to use it as factual reference but to extract information to fill in some gaps.
I don't wish to through the baby out with the bath water and as I stated Andy and Sue's book is one of the best sources of information I have come accross so I can only give the book praise. I think it right however to double check the facts and if Paul say's it is Not Millers Court I am inclined to go with his advice.
Hopefully this is of help. If you have any information that you think might be useful in completing my model I'd appriciate your help.
Thanks Again
Jeff |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 581
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 5:25 am: | |
Frank,
Did a bit of reading and thinking last night. Came up with this...and yes, its only a scenario.
When Hutchinson made his statement he gave his address as Victoria Home. This may have been so at the time of making the statement but not at the time of Marys murder. The home was for working men and I assume they would only admit men that are in work. I also assume that they would admit those that pay….like most lodgings.
By his own admittance he was out of work. As Bob Hinton suggests in his book this maybe the reason he went to Romford, to look for employment.
He his statement Hutchinson said that Mary asked him for money but he couldn’t give her any because he hadn’t any. This may be the reason he couldn’t stay at the home. He may be on the look out to beg, borrow or steal….which brings me on to Georges loitering outside Millers court.
Its not too far fetched of me to think that Hutchinson may have followed Mary and her client with mind of mugging him as he left the court is it ? It could be the reason for his hanging around? Could it be the reason for him having to make a statement due to the fact he was spotted?
Again, I must emphasise that this is just me playing around and not claiming this to be the case.
But does it work ?
Monty
|
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
Hi All,
Jeff, Richard, regarding the picture alleged to be of Miller's Court, this was discussed on the old boards about the time the Parlour's book was published. I recall there were two primary objections to the picture's authenticity.
First, the buildings in the background are not tall enough. Someone, I think it was Viper, pointed out that Miller's Court abutted Brushfield Street, and that the buildings along Brushfield St. that would have comprised the back of the court were known to be four or five stories tall. I believe the buildings in the photo are only two stories tall.
Second, the editor of Ripper Notes, Christopher DiGrazia, a gentleman known for his sartorial splendor, pointed out that the fashions worn by the women in the photo were popular in the late '30s and early '40s. As you both are probably aware, Miller's Court was demolished in the late '20s as part of the expansion of Spitalfields Market. So, there is an anachronistic problem with the fashions worn in the photo.
All of this is from memory and I could easily have some of the details wrong, but that's the discussion as I recall it.
Monty - perfectly reasonable and plausible suggestion, that Hutchinson was waiting to mug Mary's client. It makes more sense to me than the explanation that he was concerned for Mary's safety.
Cheers,
Jim |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 552
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Jim.
I must disagree on the two points, dress, and tenements height.
One can quite plainly see , that this picture was taken before the late 1930s-early 40s. I am not an expert, but I Would say, the two men were dressed mid 20s style, and the women also.
Regarding the background buidings on show, I Would suggest they are at least four storeys high, and I albeit just my point of view , that this picture was taken just before millers court closure in 1928.
Richard. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 130
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
Your scenario makes sense and could be one of the explanations for George hanging around. But if we are to believe the newspaper article of November 14th in the London Times, then George must have mugged Mary's client for if he hadn't, then he wouldn't have had any money nor a reason to go back to the Victoria Home to see if it was (still) open.
All the best,
Frank |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 829
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
The map below puts into context the sightings of Mary Nicholls in the hours before here death. There is a reference in the A-Z to a sighting in the Whitechapel Road at 110:30 pm but I have not narrowed down as to where this was.
Red Circle: The Frying Pan - she left here at 12:30 am
Blue Circle - 18 Thrawl Street - she was here from 1:20 to 1:40 am
Green Circle - sighting by Emily Holland at 2:30 am. She walked off northeast along the Whitechapel Road in the direction of Buck's Row.
In the process of some other research I have found details of the managers and staff of two public houses in this area in 1891. These are as follows:
33 Church Street - The Ten Bells
Alfred H Graiger - Manager - aged 25 - born Braintree, Essex
Staff:
Herbert Strawbridge - Barman - aged 21 - born Watford, Staffordshire
M Horsey - Housekeeper - aged 58 - born London City
William Smith -Barman - aged 18 - born Brixton, Surrey
Arthur Cross - Barman - aged 16 - born Norwood, Surrey
Fred Gooch - Porter - aged 17 - born Stowmarket, Suffolk
13 Brick Lane
Frying Pan Inn
Samuel Bass - Publican and manager - aged 37 - born Abbots Bothney, Essex
Elizabeth Bass - Wife - aged 35 - born Rotherhithe, Surrey
Charlotte Bass - Daughter - aged 2 - born Spitalfields
Alice Bass - daughter - aged 1 - born Spitalfields
William Hadsley - Barman - aged 21 - born Ongar, Essex
Henry Foster - Barman - aged 18 - born Stepney
Anne Hibbitt - General servant - aged 14 - born Islington
Chris |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 131
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 1:16 am: | |
Hi Monty,
Another thing, if GH followed Mary and her client with the intent of mugging the man and later made up his statement with the intention of clearing himself of any suspicious activity, the fact that he gave his address as the Victoria Home would still not be a big help. Whether he actually did stay or sleep there that night wouldn't have mattered, the fact that he passed his home after a long trip on a cold and wet night would still have been strange and could still have been regarded as suspicious.
All the best,
Frank
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 587
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 3:23 am: | |
Frank,
Yes absolutely, I agree.
Like I said, the idea is just me and my thoughts.
But there must have been a reason for him to do so. Him openly admitting he had no money (maybe a fib, true) is a fairly decent reason for missing out on kipping at the home.
Perhaps the giving of his address as Victoria Home is due to George hinting that he would recognise the man again. A sort of contact point for the rossers when they wanted to escort him around the area, on the look out for this man. Which is what happened.
Cheers
Monty
PS Im not saying he made up the statement (well, maybe part). What I am hinting at is that he HAD to make a statement due to Lewis's evidence given that day. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 9:49 am: | |
Hi all
In the "Times" of Nov 14th GH is reported as saying that he walked about all night, as the place where he normally slept was closed. That makes it sound as if he had money to pay for a bed there, but as it was closed he couldn't stay there. So when Kelly asked him for sixpence he declined, either because he didn't want sex or, if the sixpence was a loan, because he knew he'd never get it back, or maybe because he needed it for a doss somewhere else.
Would GH have thought that if the Victoria Home was closed, everywhere else would be? Or did he make himself too late to get a doss anywhere else by hanging around in Dorset St?
And if he had money for a doss, why not doss somewhere en route from Romford, on a cold and wet night?
Robert |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
Hi all,
Regarding the photo of Miller's Court:
I don't know if I refer to the one you all mention here, but the court in mine is surrounded by higher buildings than Miller's Court allegedly was.
This is a quote from Viper's essay (see here on the casebook):
"Along the left-hand side of Miller' s Court the passage extended beyond the yard for a further forty feet, here being about ten feet wide. It was flanked by lines of two-story, 'one up, one down' slum houses, built of brick.
Now I know of the different ways to count floors (US/GB) but this is quite clear imo: A ground floor + one floor upstairs and that was it.
Please correct me if I misunderstood somthing here!
The picture I refer to shows clearly that the buildings to the left have (at least) 2 floors on top of ground floor.
As I haven't got Andy and Sue's book I don't know if we're talking about the same pic.
In the one I'm talking about, there are two gents dressed in blackish suits, one girl (?) looking out of the door and one rather old, heavier woman standing in the court looking towards the camera.
Is this the one you mean?
If yes, and if I understood Viper's description correctly than there's another point against it being Miller's Court.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken!
Christian
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
