|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1522
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | 
|
Eric
I have a cleaned up version of the Mitre Square plan. I'm attaching at 600 size (the largest the boards can take) but this is reduced from 2000x2254, so the detail is reasonable good
Let me know if you want me to send you the full size one
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on November 11, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3421
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 4:45 pm: |
|
How can you find that so quickly, Chris!?
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
Ah - I have my ways of finding things:-)
C |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Hi Monty/Chris G.
"I had my lantern alight and on - fixed to my belt. According to my usual practice, I looked at the different passages and corners."
Here we go again 
So, two interpretations, depending on punctuation, his usual practice was to either:
- Look in the different passages and corners (with a lit lamp), or
- Walk around with my lamp lit and attached to my belt.
However!!!
That quote is not what is actually written in the PRO records, I provide a copy of that portion of the text..
"passed through Mitre Square about 1.30 on Sunday morning I had my lantern freed in my belt and on. I looked into the different passages - at half past one nothing excited my..."
I confirmed the reading with the Ultimate and so I guess we are left once again to wonder.
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by jon on November 11, 2004)
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:30 am: |
|
Hi Jon
Many thanks for clarifying the wording. I take it thought that this may be one of those instances in which the coroner's clerk's version differs from a reporter's transcription of the same testimony? In any case, I think the operative word here is "on." That is, he is making a special point of saying his lamp was "on" which implies he didn't always have it on while on the beat.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1414
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:38 am: |
|
Chris,
In any case, I think the operative word here is "on." That is, he is making a special point of saying his lamp was "on" which implies he didn't always have it on while on the beat.
Was he? On was he confirming a procedure ?
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi
ahhhh!!
this is doing my brain in (no doubt it is just me).
Why was he saying it was on? because it should have been on and he was making a point as in 'of course i had my lamp on you muppet!!' or was it unusual as in 'i had my lamp on - imagine that!!'
or are we reading way way way too much into it.
??
Jenni |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 369
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:43 am: |
|
Hi Jenni, Chris, Monty.
Yes Chris I did not mean that what Monty first quoted was wrong, we have other examples with the Kelly inquest - the newspapers give us more dialogue than the inquest records.
I was initially looking to see exactly where the punctuation was, as that appeared to be an issue - lo and behold the entire sentence is different.
So we are still left wondering whether the P.C.'s walked around for their 8 hr shift with a lantern lit or only occationally lit.
How come neither of you asked "what does 'freed' mean"?.
I initially thought it said 'fired' but no, I think not, besides there would be no need to include 'on' at the end if it was.
So, does 'freed' mean the lens was open to give off light (I believe there was a shutter over the lens), or does that word have another meaning, do you even agree it is "freed"?.
Who paid for the lamp oil?
You remember Mulshaw, the nightwatchman who had to find his own coke? - it crossed my mind that because the police would have no control on whether a P.C. had his lamp on or not then possibly the cost of the oil was deducted from their pay?
I'm just thinking out loud here.
If that were true, therin would be a valid reason for the P.C. to only light it when necessary.
Regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:53 am: |
|
Jon,
I always thought freed meaning off (freed from) his belt and in his hand, but it reads freed in my belt
Id assume the force payed for its on oil. The lamps had a candle holder as well which I thought would be a sort of back up source of light.
I shall ask my source this weekend.
Monty
PS Just had a thought. Could freed in my belt mean it wasnt locked/attached into his belt thus enabling him to slide the lamp free at any moment....like I said...just a thought.
(Message edited by monty on November 12, 2004)
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Hi all
Here is an alternate reading, playmates.
"I had my lantern fixed on my belt and on."
Look at the "x" in "excited" further on in the handwritten passage that Jon kindly posted and you will see that there is a word formation in the mystery word similar to the "x" in "excited."
Ain't this fun? 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
I am sure you are right and that the passage in the section posted reads "I had my lantern fixed in my belt and on."
Chris |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
Thanks for agreeing with my reading of the word. Now we can fight over whether it says "fixed on" or "fixed in" -- I think "fixed on" makes more sense but then it does look more like an "i" than an "e" and albeit that the dot over the "i" is missing both in "fixed" and "in". Elsewhere in the passage the dot is also missing (e.g., no dot over the "i" in "Mitre Square" at the beginning of the passage) or appears some distance from the vowel it belongs to.
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on November 12, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Chris, you clever sod...dammit, I think you're right. 'Fixed in' or 'fixed on' is only a matter of usage, the meaning remains the same.
Thanks Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey.
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 294
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 5:56 am: |
|
Evening All,
While we still have a clutch of clever Mitre Square enthusiasts gathered around this thread, I was wondering if I might raise a question dealing with something on Surveyor Frederick Foster's Mitre Square sketch?
My concern might cast be as a tad obsessive because I have previously raised this same querie on a Steve White thread in April last year.
A couple of kindly experts tolerantly told me my
concern was misplaced and there was nothing in what I was pursuing.From memory long-standing people like Jon Smyth and Robert Clack doubted my assumptions.And Robert Linford.
Even the luminary, Stewart P Evans told me there was nothing in the Steve White Dundee article .
Well, after re-reading last years thread and all of the above I want to have another go: doubts linger.
My querie is: was Surveyor Frederick Foster unaware of the possible need to keep secret the presence of undercover police in Mitre Square on the night/morning of the Eddowes murder.
Resulting in him placing on his " Plan of Mitre Square and its surroundings" and indiscreet piece of information?
I refer to a dotted line from in front of PC Peirce/Pearce's house(omitted from Nina Thomas' excellent map above), a spot marked "B", over to the southern corner where the body of Eddowes was found - a spot marked "A".
Now, last year, I was reassured this was nothing. That the line merely indicated the line from the spot where Foster drew his sketch so as to give the Coroner an idea of the location.
If this is so, why is the spot where the body was found called location "A"? Surely, the aim of the line is to show Fosters viewing area? Why then, is Foster's position not annotated as "A"?
My theory is that if the square was under secret surveillance, the ideal spot to spy from would be
from the house of a trusted serving police constable.(apparently this modus was used elsewhere in policing).This would help explain the almost inexplicable claim that the PC in that house (point "B")was not aroused from his slumbers by the amazing activity outside.
I suggest that,in fact, the real purpose of the dotted line on the plan is to show the location of the two detectives in hiding, who on coming out of PC Pierce's door to the cold night air,said: "Hello what's this?".
And maybe this would tie in with the Steve White story....
After all, wouldn't you think one object of a sketch for the Coroner would be to show the view from the point where the first person on the scene made the gruesome discovery? And another should have been made looking from Church Passage?
Does the Inquest transcript make any mention of the Coroner seeking to clarify identifying points on Surveyor Foster's sketch with the sketcher?
What do you think? Something mysterious was going on in Mitre Square- and I'm not referring to the murder itself. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 8:49 am: |
|
John, I agree it's a bit odd that, according to PC Pearce, he wasn't awakened by the police in the Square until 2.20. Didn't they know that there was a City PC living in the Square? I think I'm right in saying (though I can't remember where on the Boards this info is to be found) that there was a bit of a tradition of police living in the Square. And yet they either don't know that Pearce is there, or wait half an hour to knock on his door. For instance, Watkins could easily have stepped over to Pearce's place to awaken him while Morris summoned help, and still kept an eye on the body.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 359
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:58 am: |
|
I'm not sure on which is supposed to be labeled A and which labeled B when these things are made, but the point labeled B very definitely corresponds with the point of view of the person drawing the inquest sketch that showed the body and surrounding buildings.
As far as White's story goes, I don't see how it could be matched up to the facts in this instance. White said they were watching a building, and any PCs at point B surely wouldn't have any building in sight that would fit that storyline? And point B doesn't really look like it would line up to a door in the PC's building, as it's basically at the point where that meets the empty building. At that scale if it were meant to mark a door it would have to be moved over a bit I would think.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1085
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:54 am: |
|
Hi John
I am not sure anything should be read into the "A" and "B" that you see on the plan of Mitre Square. It merely shows where the artist (Frederick Foster) stood (at "B") who did the sketch showing the elevation of Mitre Square with the body in situ (at "A"). Such designations, using letters, are common on period plans and elevations. The point of doing such a plan and elevation is to put everything in perspective so it can be used at the coroner's inquest, or later in court should an arrest be made. To do that, you need to designate the perspective of the artist doing the drawing.
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 358
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 11:16 am: |
|
Hi John
I don't think there is anything sinister in why Foster chose point 'B' as the position to make his sketch. To me, it would be a ideal position to make his sketch of the position of Catherine Eddowes body and surrounding buildings.
I am surprised he had to make a sketch in the first place, as I would have thought he would have had a photograph taken instead.
I don't think it matters why Foster chose 'A' for Eddowes and 'B' for his position, it was just something he decided on.
Whether Foster would have been aware of any secret surveillance in the Square I would doubt, and I wouldn't have thought secret surveillance would have been brought up at the inquest, it would have been on a need to know bases until it was completed. Anyway I don't think it was the Square itself that was under surveillance.
Also as Robert said it is a bit odd P.C Pearce wasn't awakened. Even Morris must have known there was a P.C. living there.
Still, like you, I do think something mysterious was going on in Mitre Square and the surrounding streets that night, and it may hold the key to the mystery.
All the best
Rob |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 295
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 6:33 am: |
|
Hello All,
Well, once again much cooler heads have logically explained why spots "A" and "B" are thus marked on Frederick Foster's Plan sketch of Mitre Square.
Perhaps I am relying on a "gut" feeling...More hot instinct than cool reasoning.
But, I suppose this is gained from the overall picture -the wider picture we have the luxury of viewing, which sleuths in those days,(1888), did not.
Firstly, I think Donald Rumbelow set the thoughts abrewing with his throw away line about the PC on the beat sneaking in for a cup of hot something with the watchman/retired PC, Morris.(To expain the fact PC Watkins saw nothing suspicious minutes prior to the bodies discovery).
Secondly, the mentions in the press and by Henry Smith that the courts and alleys were crowded with uniformed and plain clothes police by October 1888.
Thirdly, Commissioner Munro's reference to a "hot potato" and Henry Smith's alluding to police failure to stick to the spirit/letter of his injuction for every prostitute seen with a man to be followed. Suggesting Eddowes was one who wasn't and one who should have been.
Fourthly, the secrecy surrounding witnesses and evidence at the Eddowes Inquest. Why was Dr Brown not questioned about the detail in his On-The-Spot sketches? Why was Coroner Langham so strict. Cutting the Inquest short?
Fifthly, some Casebook posters have suggested undercover police were active in the area near Mitre Square (political policemen like Steve White, whilst not Special Branch per se,were obviously involved in surveillance of East End Anarchist Clubs like the Jubilee Club, the Imperial Club.Perhaps the meetings at the Synagogue near Mitre Square).If they were active in that area, then observation of comings and goings in and near Church Passage were logical.
Sixthly,whilst I should join the cool thinkers who say there is nothing in the PEOPLES JOURNAL article about the late Steve White, I suspect I am not alone in thinking there is something disconcertingly uncanny in the atmosphere conjured up by the writer (who claims to cite Steve White's contemporary report about the Ripper sighting).
Seventhly, another policeman, mentioned elsewhere on this site recently, stopped two men of whom he was suspicious in Wentworth Street(?) just after the discovery of Eddowes body.The Steve White account gives as White's reason for wanting to find an excuse to stop his suspect was that he might be an accomplice of the murderer.
The previously mentioned policeman suspected the
murderer might have had an accomplice.
Eighthly, there is still the unexplained comatose state of PC Pearce, who resided with his family in Mitre Square. Robert Clack too, seems to think it odd Watchman Morris (himself a retired PC) did
not go to Pearce's house for assistance.
Might this be because he knew the slack ways of PC Watkins and perhaps that he (W) was already ensconced in Pearce's house? (Once again White has the surveillance team he was de-briefing temporarily absent in a building near the murder
spot.When they re-emerged they see a body).
Ninethly, whilst Catherine Eddowes might not have been aware Mitre Square and its environs could have been the target for police surveillance she appears to have gathered (no doubt from other working girls) that the PC who patrolled Mitre Square was a bit slack.Thus making it a safe spot for her to lead her client.
After all, watchman Morris was used to hearing the measured foot-fall of the patrolling PC on his rounds. But that night, he did not.Hmmmmm. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 8:47 am: |
|
Hi John
To address a couple of your questions:
".... the secrecy surrounding witnesses and evidence at the Eddowes Inquest. Why was Dr Brown not questioned about the detail in his On-The-Spot sketches? Why was Coroner Langham so strict. Cutting the Inquest short?"
I think one reason why the Eddowes inquest was cut short was that the authorities wanted to avoid the circus atmosphere of the Chapman inquest over coroner Wynn Baxter's revelation of the possible procurement of Chapman's uterus for sale or use by the supposed American doctor to promote a book. Also the mutilations to Eddowes were such that it might have been felt to dwell on them too much might case a sensation and fan unrest in the community (similarly in the case of the murder and major mutilation of Mary Jane Kelly).
".... some Casebook posters have suggested undercover police were active in the area near Mitre Square (political policemen like Steve White, whilst not Special Branch per se,were obviously involved in surveillance of East End Anarchist Clubs like the Jubilee Club, the Imperial Club. Perhaps the meetings at the Synagogue near Mitre Square)."
I am not sure why police would watch the Imperial Club since it was a gentleman's club frequented by middle class Jews such as Lawende, Harris, and Levy, i.e., upstanding Jewish businessmen, and it was not a socialist club like the International Working Men's club in Berner Street (note that the Jubilee Club was the successor to the Berner Street club so they were not concurrent). You mention the nearby synagogue. The Great Synagogue in Aldgate itself would not have been a venue for anarchist meetings, unless they were held outside its premises (sometimes the Berner Street activists would march to the synagogue). Rather, the Great Synagogue was a pillar of conservative British Judaism, i.e., the Anglo-Jewish establishment, that was opposed to the radical fringe.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1423
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 10:13 am: |
|
John,
To operate the kind of covert surveillance you, or rather White was indicating raises more problems than solutions.
The idea that Watkins stopped for a fly cuppa is not new and indeed plausible. As part of his beat duty he would have had to know and liased with the Nightwatchmen on his beat. Fly cuppas are still part of todays community liaisons and is very important. The contact between the two is confirmed in the Star report of 1/10/88 when Morris’s response to the reporters’ question of “do you always take a look out into the square?” was
“Every night in the week, barring Saturday night (which is why he didn’t hear Watkins measured foot fall, he was working that night), I stand at this door and smoke my pipe from one till two o’clock in the morning. It is a habit with me, and the police on the beat know it well but on Saturday nights I have some work to do inside that interferes with it.”
So we can assume Watkins and Morris knew of each others existence. Morris states that he smokes his pipe for a whole hour between 1am and 2am. If Kate were murdered at that time any other day then Morris would have spotted her attack without doubt.
I cannot believe that if this square was under obs then it was under obs for one night only. If I am correct then the surveillance team watching the square not only evaded Morris’s eye but also Blenkinsopp in St James square. And if it is suggested that the team not only operated outside the square but failed to cover St James square (where Blenkinsopp was situated) then that smacks of incompetence.
The idea that Pearces home was used to watch the square is a decent one. Unfortunately Pearces first floor front window (facing into the square) had a ‘light burning’ and ‘could hardly have escaped the notice of anyone entering the square’ puts perspective on this idea. Whilst I acknowledge that the light didn’t distract the killer I feel that this light would have been extinguished if the square were being watched from this house. There is no need to draw attention to you position.
Halse stopped searched two men after the discovery of Eddowes. This was a regular procedure intensified during the murder scare. These two men were together and Halse let them on their way. If he had any doubt he would have held them. I would assume that he searched their persons and checked their clothing for blood etc. Anything incriminating. The fact that these guys were coming towards the murder site also indicates Halse was happy enough to free them.
Watkins act of raising the alarm with Morris rather than Pearce is, in my view, a act of superb thinking. In 1888 City Police were not issued with whistles (unlike their Met brothers). Morris had a whistle. Watkins must have known this and rather than waking a fellow City PC (with NO whistle) he thought raising the alarm with Morris would have been a more successful venture in terms of gaining assistance rapidly. And it seems Morris agreed. Slack ways of Watkins? Watkins acted swiftly and within regulations.
Im just trying to raise some points here and in no way am I trying to demolish the White story. I just don’t think Mitre Square is the place. Its too awkward and would need at lot of people. And a lot of people in a quiet square would draw the attention of the residents and workers around the area.
That’s my view anyhoo.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:51 am: |
|
Interesting reading Monty.I have always understood though that it was Mitre Square White was referring to because he states it was just behind the Whitechapel road which it is/was whereas Berner Street is way down towards Cable Street for example.
Also I understood him to write that this "certain passage" had been under observation for five nights.I can"t find where I read it but I did read that this was because of undercover activities to do with keeping a watchful eye on
the many radical clubs to which the majority of
politically active workers belonged.It may well have been the case that the Imperial Club was not one of these but there may have been others near Mitre square that undercover agents had been directed to watch.Lots of stuff was going on in the East End in 1888 that had the authorities worried.
This doesnt need to be counterposed to your arguement.It could all have been happening at the same time.
Natalie
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Nats,
Mitre square is not behind the Whitechapel Road. The closest main thoroughfare is Aldgate High Street.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Hi Nat and Monty
Because a "passage" is mentioned that should not automatically denote Mitre Square and its passages. There were plenty of other passages throughout the East End. In fact, of course, one of the problems of the police was that the Ripper, particularly if he was a local man, would have been very conversant with all the different passageways in order to make a quick escape from any murder scene.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3470
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Hi Monty
Any idea why the City police didn't carry whistles?
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 4:15 am: |
|
Robert,
No idea. I spoke to Paul Begg regarding this issue and he mentioned that the whistle was an established piece of kit for the Met in 1888.
The rattle was the precursor to the whistle and they were around in the 1860s. Obviously the whistle was easier to carry, lasted longer (the rattles were wooden and wore out over time) and were far louder. Why the City didnt have any in 1888 I do not know. Maybe funding or maybe a reluctence to accept modern methods/technology, I just dont know. I do know that by the 1890s Policemen carried whistles.....maybe Jack was the reason.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 297
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 5:31 am: |
|
Thanks Robert, Dan, Jon, Chris T,Natalie & Monty,
I appreciate the feedback.
Incidentally, you might have been able to tell that the last of my posts was written as an early rising shift-worker, at 11 o'clock at night,
completely from memory...Well, the last bit was probably patently obvious....
All of the careful comments contributed lead me to more questions:-
Has anyone done a thorough check on George Morris the ex Metropolitan policeman turned Night Watchman?
a) Why did he leave the service ?
b) Was he pals with, or an ex fellow PC with, other Ripper policemen?
c)Might Morris (like the "Watchboy" possibly engaged in surveillance at the Railway Station)have been himself enlisted to do a bit of watching outside his wharehouse?
d)And most terrible of all:Was George Morris the Mitre Square murderer?
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3473
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 6:51 am: |
|
Hi John
On the last point, the obvious problems would be, how did Morris get himself cleaned up in time for Watkins's knock, and how would he have got the apron to Goulston St? I should think you'd need an accomplice for him, certainly as far as getting the apron to Goulston St is concerned.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3474
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 7:45 am: |
|
John, in Ripperologist No. 46 Rob Hills has an article pointing the finger at Morris. His Morris was born in 1834 in Teddington and had a wife Jane. This seems to be him in 1891 ;
(12 Addison Rd, Bromley, Kent)
Robert
(Message edited by Robert on November 17, 2004) |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 299
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 4:49 am: |
|
Thanks Robert,
I was not aware someone had canvassed Morris' possible guilt before. I agree about the apron..
(So THATS where PC Pearce was)....
It looks as if George Watson left the Met Police
before reaching his Sixties. At what age did PCs normally retire from the Force? |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 300
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 4:50 am: |
|
Thanks Robert,
I was not aware someone had canvassed Morris' possible guilt before. I agree about the apron..
(So THATS where PC Pearce was)....
It looks as if George Morris left the Met Police
before reaching his Sixties. At what age did PCs normally retire from the Force? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3490
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hi John
I don't know enough about police history to answer that one, but I get the impression that they sometimes did 25 years, collected their pension, and then tried to earn money at something else for the remainder of their working lives.
Rob Hills contacted the Metropolitan Police Museum, who gave him some info about Morris. He joined the Met in 1856 aged 22, and retired in 1882 aged 47 owing to stomach disease. Rob Hills says he retired after 24 years service, but presumably there's a mistake here, as the figures don't add up. His conduct was "generally good" and he received a pension of £43 13s 8d per year.
Later in the article Mr Hills ropes in William Turner (of Martha Tabram fame), Cutbush, and Hutchinson to assist Morris in his "gang". It gets a little like "Murder on the Orient Express" and one expects to see Sir John Gielgud turning up at a crowded 13 Room, sticking the knife into Kelly, and uttering the immortal line : "For my gentleman."
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1560
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
Guys,
Not wanting to waste space on a little question I have Im posting here.
Its something which has been bugging me lately.
Taken from The Star LONDON. MONDAY, 1 OCTOBER, 1888.
A quote from watkins to a reporter who followed the PC on beat.
"Well, I can tell you it didn't take me a moment to see that the Whitechapel
murderer had been our way. Her head lay here on this coal-hole," said he,
throwing the light of his lantern on it, "and her clothes were thrown up
breast-high. But the first thing I noticed was that she was ripped up like a
pig in the market. There was the big gash up the stomach, the entrails torn
out and flung in a heap about her neck; some of them appeared to be lying in
the ugly cut at the throat, and the face - well, there was no face. Anyone
who knew the woman alive would never recognise her by her face. I have been
in the force a long while, but I never saw such a sight. I went at once to
Dr. Sequeira and some of the others rushed off to the station house."
Also, Watkins at the inquest...
..."I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when
I discovered the body lying on the right as I entered the square. The woman
was on her back, with her feet towards the square. Her clothes were thrown
up. I saw her throat was cut and the stomach ripped open. She was lying in a
pool of blood. I did not touch the body. I ran across to Kearley and Long's
warehouse. The door was ajar, and I pushed it open, and called on the
watchman Morris, who was inside. He came out. I remained with the body until
the arrival of Police-constable Holland. No one else was there before that"
Is it me or does that indicate that the position Foster puts her body is at almost right angles to how Watkins (incidently, Watkins was backed up by the Doctors present) tells it?
This would indicate that Foster never saw the body in situ......is Old Monty thinking correctly or has he gone ga ga again??
Your views please.
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
somewhere i vaguely recollect reading that he didnt see the body in situ as it would have been at the mortuar by the time he got there. probably on here or the forums somewhere!
man,i'm helpful! |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Jenn,
Maybe. Infact I remember something on the same lines, cheers.
However this would mean I need to reassess Jacks positioning around the body and the implications of that worries me slightly.
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
I can't spell!
Yes i had a quick look but i cant find the thread. perhaps whoever said it will notice this thread if we drag it out for long enough!! |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:46 am: |
|
Good point Monty but it's probably a journalist's assumption and elaboration. The Watkins statement is very careful, I would take his word for it. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1564
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:48 am: |
|
Joan,
I see your point but it was written by a Reporter who accompanied Watkin on his beat and got it from the horses mouth so to speak. So I cant see how its a Journalists assumption.
Anyhoos, this report only states that the head of Eddowes laid on the coalhole, this could be at any angle. Yet when you tie this in with the far more weighty inquest statement Watkins gives saying that her feet were towards the square* and look at Fosters positioning (with Eddowes feet pointing towards Mitre St junction) I think its reasonable to assume that a) Foster did not draw Eddowes in situ and b) he got her positioning wrong when he did fill her into the drawing.
*Also please bare in mind that Doctors Sequeria and Brown verified Watkins statement re the position of the body.
Thats my take.
Cheers,
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
hope you got my email on this subject?
anyway,
i think it is probably true that Foster (who I keep wanting to call Forster!! sad isn't it?) didnt see the body in situ. but why he positioned it where he did therefore i don't know.
and also doesn't the plan show Fosters position?
Anyway
Cheers
Jenni |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1945
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
something occurs to me.
even if Foster was there from where he was supposedly standing, would he have been able to see much anyway? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4133
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Folks, re Foster and the body - i think it was on this thread, archive through Nov 11th.
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1949
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
thanks very much
Jenni
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
|
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