| Author |
Message |
    
Arthur Louis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 11:39 pm: | 
|
I'm new to this site, so forgive me if I raise a question that has been raised before and perhaps resolved: Why was Annie Chapman out on the streets so long? She went out with the express purpose of buying herself a bed for the night, which would have cost her the proceeds of perhaps one trick. Not until three or four hours later did she die in the back yard at 29 Hanbury Street. Could it be that JTR took her for a feast somewhere after picking her up? There were traces of food left in her stomach, which means she probably ate during the two to four hours before her death. If she and Jack went to a restaurant, it's a pity that no other customer remembered the lady and came forward to describe her companion. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 9:16 pm: |
|
G'day,
Annie Chapman ate a baked potato at least at Crossingham's Lodging House on Dorset Street at about 1:35a.m., then left heading towards Spitalfields Markets when she had finished, saying: "See that Tim keeps a bed for me!"
She may have earned enough money to purchase some more food over the next four hours, but as it wasn't uncommon for people to 'walk the streets all night', I'd say say that's what she was doing and she had her heart set not on that nights money, but the next.
Four hours after she was eating at Crossingham's Elizabeth Long spotted her talking to a man that everyone claims was likely the Ripper.
Elizabeth Long wasn't on her way to work, as someone else thought. She never started her testimony at the inquest by giving her occupation but that of her husband. As she told the Coroner, she was on her way to Spitalfields Markets, I'd say she was on her way there to get the best bargains that were available just after the markets opened.
That was most likely where Chapman had just been, in fact she probably bummed around there for four hours as it would have provided the most warmth, and probably provided somewhere to lean against and rest.
As Long saw her at 5:30a.m. with her back towards the market and the suspect was facing the other way, I think that tells us that he hadn't just taken her to a feast or anywhere, but was probably on his way to Spitalfields Market to hire a costermongers cart or to earn some money himself. He wasn't a prince or a famous artist, he was a nobody trying to be a somebody!....trying to leave an impression behind himself in the sand!
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hi,
The question is not only 'What Chapman had been doing since 130am, but what was her killer doing walking the streets at 5am?.
I would have thought that he would have given up his hunt for a likely victim long before that hour, unless of course he was of no fixed abode.
Of course we should remember that Nichols body was found at 340am [ not long dead].
This indicates that 'Jack' could well have been a dosser that roamed the streets at night, but the question would then arise'How did he avoid capture, with almost certain splashes of blood on his person?.
This case never ceases to amaze me.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 4:10 pm: |
|
G'day Rich,
Mate, I'd say that by 5:00a.m. she would have given up her search for a bed that night!!! And as for what her killer was doing up that early, read up about the lifestyle of a costermonger back then, and also read about the frantic activity near Spitafields Market on a Saturday morning, as the goods were being brought in and bargained for by the sellers at the market, and bargained for by the street sellers, who also had to worry about hiring a cart.
Start with this piece written by Henry Mayhew in 1862 from his: 'London Labour and the London Poor': http://www.victorianlondon.org/publications/mayhew1-1.htm#Spitalfields
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne,
I Appreciate that most enterprising males of normal mentality were up at the crack of dawn to either go to their place of work or seek a days work.
However in this case we are talking about a homicidal maniac who obviously decided that murdering a prostitute was better then any financial incentive.
Richard. |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 69
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 9:06 pm: |
|
I Appreciate that most enterprising males of normal mentality were up at the crack of dawn to either go to their place of work or seek a days work.
However in this case we are talking about a homicidal maniac who obviously decided that murdering a prostitute was better then any financial incentive.
Richard,
What you have said makes quite a bit of sense. (I'm not of the belief that Barnett was the Ripper, by the way). But I am curious about why the Ripper (whoever he was) hadn't found a victim by 5:00 am. I'm sure that there is someone out there who can enlighten me in this case! I suspect that there were prostitutes, and indeed destitutes, out walking the streets at all hours, so why wait until 5:00 am?
Just curious, is all...
Bestest,
Lyn |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 10:28 pm: |
|
G'day
RICHARD: "I Appreciate that most enterprising males of normal mentality were up at the crack of dawn to either go to their place of work or seek a days work. However in this case we are talking about a homicidal maniac who obviously decided that murdering a prostitute was better then any financial incentive."
So what are you saying here, that Jack the Ripper couldn't have murdered Chapman because he didn't have the mental capacity to be out of the mental ward?
" But I am curious about why the Ripper (whoever he was) hadn't found a victim by 5:00 am."
Lyn it was perfect for him to wait until everyone was busy doing something else. People were too busy to look over the fence to see what fell against it, people were too busy to stop and memorise faces so that they could identify them later.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 4:47 pm: |
|
G'day,
Jack the Ripper was 'homicidal maniac' enough to do it, but he was smart enough to choose a busy location and time of day to do it, he was intelligent enough to strangle or cut the throat of his victims first to prevent a scream, and he was crafty enough to plan his escape.
I believe he was also smart enough to have a reason for being there at that time...a handy alibi in case he needed it!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3538
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 5:36 pm: |
|
But Leanne, if it was such a good idea to kill during the hours of hustle and bustle, why didn't he do this every time?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1591
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 6:34 pm: |
|
G'day Robert,
POLLY NICHOLS: 'Buck's Row is ten minutes walk from Osborn Street. The only illumination is from a single gas lamp at the far end of the street.'
'the busy main artery of the Whitechapel area can be reached from the relatively secluded Buck's Row.'
At her inquest, CORONER: "Whitechapel Road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?"
P.C. NEIL: "Oh Yes Sir"
CATHARINE EDDOWES was killed at about 1:40a.m. near St. James Place Orange Market just before the 'hustle and bustle'!
I must go now,
LEANNE |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 170
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Interesting thoughts,
I personally doubt the time is any more significant than that it was simply when the opportunity arose.
In reading some reports of attacks similar to those of JtR in the time after the murders, it seems apparent that to succeed as Jack did he must have had the ability to decide when to strike. If that meant several aborted attempts before finally striking than that was what it had to be. I believe Jack would have been searching for a victim since about midnight. At the time we know the only real way for Jack to be convicted was for him to be caught in the act. This means that if he thought that a situation was too risky it was in his interest to pull out, another opportunity would come along which was better.
I think we all get this image of Jack with a full head of steam charging out and commiting these crimes. In reality I think whilst it was important to satisfy his bloodlust, all of the indications are that he was still acting rationally and reasonably in his choice of victims and in particular murder sites.
Scotty.
|
YvonneShepherd
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Hello
I'm also new to this site. I was reading the Scottish Daily Mail a couple of hours ago and in it there was an article about Jack.
So why do you did he kill them in such horrific ways? Do you think it was because of what happened between Sarah Maybrick and him that turned him into a serial killer or do you think there was an element of alcohol added to make him go mad.
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 4:05 am: |
|
G'day Yvonne,
Welcome to this site! It wont take long before you realise how little James Maybrick had to do with this case. Dont worry, when I first came here over five years ago, I too thought this case was solved!
LEANNE |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 7:18 am: |
|
It is possible that Jack walked the streets for sometime to find his victims. I still find it hard to believe that he just went out, spotted a girl, convinved her to offer her services and murdered her.
I think he must have watched the girl for some time and by doing this also worked out precisly when the polce would be around next on their beat. This is why he always just avoided the police patrol, he knew how long he had.
Best Wishes,
Lee
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 370
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Hi Lee,
“It is possible that Jack walked the streets for sometime to find his victims. I still find it hard to believe that he just went out, spotted a girl, convinced her to offer her services and murdered her.”
I think that’s quite possible. I don’t believe that he just went out, spotted a girl, went with her to the crime spot, killed her and got the hell out of there. I think he may have made long walks around the district on several nights, just watching prostitutes or also using them without killing. On other nights he may have gone out for a walk with a sort of vague idea of murder on his mind, an idea that may have built once he saw possible victims. He may have waited for the right prostitute to come along at the right location and at the right time.
However, I don’t believe he was necessarily in charge of the closing of the deals. It was common practise for the women to accost their clients and as they more or less needed money to survive they didn’t need to be convinced. The accosting or the asking for money may very well have been what triggered the Ripper into actually killing his victims.
”I think he must have watched the girl for some time and by doing this also worked out precisely when the police would be around next on their beat. This is why he always just avoided the police patrol, he knew how long he had.”
Again, he may have done that, but something to keep in mind here is that the prostitutes wanted to avoid the police too and therefore needed to know when and for how long the coast would be clear as well. The Ripper may have been counting on his victims in that regard.
All the best,
Frank
 |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 313
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Frank,
A very good observation. I think we often forget that up until the moment Jack pulled his knife, he and his victim were both quite chary of the police. Moreover, what information we have indicates that many of the prostitues had beats as regular as that of the police and thus would be aware not only of safe places to consummate the act, but of the periodicity of police beats.
They victim might well have imparted this information to Jack ("We'll be safe 'ere. 'E won't be back for 10 minutes.") and that in turn could suggest Jack was not necessarily an East End resident (as with the recently discussed sailor). As for the escape, the most important thing for leaving any crime scene is not so much knowing where you are going as looking as if you belong.
Again, a good point Frank.
Don. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1245
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 4:50 pm: |
|
When Polly Nichols was murdered it was still very dark-but he managed to mutilate her to a certain extent.Its just possible that the lightening of dawn was what he had wanted here-not too many people about and those that were mostly minding their own business-off to work,looking neither "right or left particularly-very few out "strolling"for want of a better word at that time except prostitutes .
Natalie |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 5:04 am: |
|
Hi Yvonne,
I second Leanne's welcome. But what she ought to have written was:
It wont take long before you realise how little many here believe James Maybrick had to do with this case.
It also won't take long before you realise how little anyone here really knows about who dunnit or who couldn't have dunnit, despite certain claims to the contrary.
Leanne told you not to worry, because when she first came here over five years ago, she too thought this case was solved.
I agree with her that it isn't solved, and it almost certainly never will be to the satisfaction of anyone who has expressed strong views in public for and against the various suspects - unless the solution matches their own opinion.
Leanne's favourite suspect, for example, is Joe Barnett these days. No solution that makes him innocent is likely to do nicely thank you for the Barnett hunters. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 128
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 8:20 am: |
|
As for how Jack looked after the murders-- remember a photo that was posted a while ago of people in the fish market? I was surprised how many of the men had white coats or aprons and how dirty most of them were.
People didn't change their clothes every day, and some probably didn't even have a change of clothes. All Jack had to do was look like (or be) a fish porter, slaughterman, butcher or anyone else working in a trade that would get them dirty and bloody and he could certainly have blended in with the people in that picture.
If he wandered around a lot on the nights of the murders and other nights- and I think he must have to know the area so well- he could have the routes of the women and the police down pat. We are creatures of habit.He would strike give the opportunity and his mood . We know that serials go through a cycle of fantasy that builds up to the final imperative to kill. He must have been someone who could blend in and undoubtedly many people saw him going away from the crime scenes but just didn't remark on him because he was so non-memorable.
Mags
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 2:37 pm: |
|
G'day Mags,
Thanks for describing this killers 'Comfort Zone'.
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 673
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 7:38 pm: |
|
G'day Leanne
Your explanation as to what Annie was doing that night, and of what Liz Long saw both seem quite likely. However I just wanted to ask a hypothetical question about this hypothetical costermonger.
Let's say this chap lives, oh I dunno, say in a little court just off Dorset Street. How do you think his "reason for being there" would hold up to an inquisitive policeman asking how he came to be passing westward on Hanbury Street on his way to work, and wondering if that was not something of a circuitous route?
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 3:22 am: |
|
G'day Caz,
"No solution that makes him innocent is likely to do nicely thank you for the Barnett hunters."
Any solution that proves him innocent doesn't exist or hasn't yet been presented to me! I am willing to consider any suggestion and if someone ever does present a solution that makes him innocent, it would just be an opinion too.
I've only ever read comments in his defence from people who can't believe or don't want to believe what I feel is the truth that has to be faced!
People say that no one ever gave a bad comment about his character or the couples relationship, but reading the facts reveals that he himself said they lived comfortably and that doesn't count in my book!
Mary's friend Julia said: "...she frequently got drunk Joe Barnett would not let her go on the streets - Deceased said she was fond of another man named Joe...." and her landlord John MacCarthy said: "I very often saw deceased worse for drink..." Joe Barnett himself insisted that she was never drunk in his presence and to me that just doesn't add up to 'comfortable'!!
MAGS: "All Jack had to do was look like (or be) a fish porter, slaughterman, butcher or anyone else working in a trade that would get them dirty and bloody and he could certainly have blended in with the people in that picture."
You forgot to mention that he could have walked around in an artist's apron, with a wet paintbush in one hand and a can of red paint in the other! 
ALAN: "How do you think his "reason for being there" would hold up to an inquisitive policeman asking how he came to be passing westward on Hanbury Street on his way to work, and wondering if that was not something of a circuitous route?"
Mate, a costermonger, (a street seller or hawker), wouldn't have even raised the eyebrow of a patrolling constable or a common prostitute!
LEANNE
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 674
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 3:32 am: |
|
Sorry Leanne that's not an answer. You yourself said I believe he was also smart enough to have a reason for being there at that time...a handy alibi in case he needed it! You can't suddenly decide that because that handy alibi wouldn't hold up, that what you really meant was that he wouldn't need one in the first place.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 5:48 am: |
|
G'day,
ALAN: No need to appologise mate! I didn't realise it was a serious question.
Lets see...Albert Cadosch heard "No" at 5:25a.m. That was too late for a costermonger to be ON HIS WAY TO work at Spitalfields Market.
Looking at a map reveals that Dorset Street was SouthWest of where Chapman was murdered, so he could have said that he was on his way HOME FROM hawking in the streets!
That could be the reason why Stride and Eddowes were killed at a much earlier time. It could be a matter of 'ON THE WAY TO' and 'ON THE WAY FROM'.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 26, 2004) |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 675
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:49 am: |
|
Look at that map again. The main thoroughfares were either South or West of Hanbury Street. The direction he would have had to have been coming from was full of small residential streets and alleys. Where exactly was he supposed to have been doing this hawking? Basically your scenario fits very well, only not for a killer who lived in Dorset Street.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 2:28 pm: |
|
G'day Alan,
I was using the map shown in the 'Ultimate Companion'. I'd have to find an extremely detailed map to follow you. Any suggestions?
Anyway why does it have to be in a direct path to his residence? Wasn't he capable of crossing the street or turning the other way to approach a prostitute?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Hi,
My main worry over accusing Joseph Barnett as being Jack' is how he returned to Millers court after the murders with a obvious amount of blood on his person, and his explanation to Mary why he was soiled.
A possible explanation is that he picked the nights to venture out when Kelly was not on the scene ie. Did not the resident of number 27 Dorset street[ name escapes me] state that the 'Dead woman often went to live with the man called Lawrence but after a while tired of the life and returned to room 13?.
If true then Barnett would have had a room to return to with no explanation needed.
Just a thought .
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 4:35 pm: |
|
G'day Rich,
Maria Wrote: "As for how Jack looked after the murders-- remember a photo that was posted a while ago of people in the fish market? I was surprised how many of the men had white coats or aprons and how dirty most of them were."
And I spose it all depends on how blood-soiled we think the Ripper got!
There were taps and places that he could have washed his hands at, one right outside his room!
LEANNE |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 371
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 9:27 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
“People say that no one ever gave a bad comment about his character or the couples relationship, but reading the facts reveals that he himself said they lived comfortably and that doesn't count in my book!”
First off, I haven’t been able to find any bad comments on Barnett’s character, so I think that if people say that no one ever gave a bad comment about his character, they are right.
Furthermore, there are 3 people who are known to have given a good comment on the relationship.
In the statement taken by the police Julia Venturney said: “… he (Barnett) was very kind to her, …“ Maria Harvey said in her official statement: “I left then they seemed on the best of terms.” At the inquest John McCarthy deposed: “They lived comfortably together …”
So, clearly Barnett himself wasn’t the only one to make positive a comment about their relationship.
“Joe Barnett himself insisted that she was never drunk in his presence and to me that just doesn't add up to 'comfortable'!!”
In answer to a Coroner’s question Barnett replied: “When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence.”
Not that I’m saying this add’s up to ‘comfortable’, all I’m saying here is that he didn’t insist Mary Jane was never drunk in his presence.
All the best,
Frank
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3562
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Hi all
As far as I can see, Joe was of very good character. The only doubt that surrounds his character, is that he was sacked from Billingsgate, possibly for stealing.
He was obviously never violent to Kelly. If there's one person in the whole case who wouldn't have put up with that, it's Kelly. In fact, I occasionally wonder whether she beat him up.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1598
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 3:20 am: |
|
G'day Robert,
"The only doubt that surrounds his character, is that he was sacked from Billingsgate, possibly for stealing."
As you've said that he was sacked 'possibly for stealing', Robert, I feel that you believe that could have been the case.
Lets look at that for a moment. I've quoted this on the boards before, but I'll repeat it for those who didn't hear:
Billingsgate Market bylaws- 'If any porter..shall be guilty of dishonesty or drunkeness, or shall be guilty of any obscene, filthy or abusive language, or otherwise misconduct himself in the market or its immediate neighbourhood, it shall be lawful for the Committee forthwith to revoke his licence.' ('Simple Truth')
Now Bruce Paley wanted everyone to believe that he lost his licence for stealing fish for Mary, (the 'Mr. Nice Guy' approach), and everyone jumped up and shouted "THERE IS NO PROOF! THERE IS NO PROOF!"
I'd like to offer another reason for the loss of his licence: Drunkeness. But there's no proof that he was a frequent drinker, in fact he down-played Mary's drinking habit and stated at her inquest: "she was quite sober, she was as long as she was with me of sober habits." And after working at Billingsgate for over ten years, I'd say that it would have taken him turning up to work hungover more than once to anger the Committee.
The final reason given by the bylaws for the loss of a licence was using filthy or abusive language or behaviour, but that doesn't fit the image of someone of a 'very good character'! It doesn't fit the image that he presented to friends and neighbours!
So what's it to be? Which one of those three do people want to believe?
LEANNE
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3565
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 5:54 am: |
|
Hi Leanne
Well, I don't "want" to believe any particular scenario. I simply don't know which is right.
I feel that foul language is the least likely one. Wasn't Billingsgate porters' language legendary? He'd have had to be pretty foul-mouthed!
I have a theory that he was stealing fish, possibly for Mary, but mainly for McCarthy. But I can't prove it.
I think that drunkenness would be your best bet vis-a-vis Joe being the Ripper, since it's a bit of a jump from thief or foul-mouthed to murderer, whereas drink....
I remember suggesting that Joe might not have been the goody two shoes everyone seemed to be making out (the image of a sanctimonious bore whom Mary couldn't wait to get shot of). I mentioned some press article or remark by Paley that they were both evicted from previous lodgings for going on a drunk. But you said then that you thought it was only Mary who got drunk.
Anyway, as I said, I can't see much against his character. The main point against his character which people seem to make, is that he was too kind to Mary! This goes to "Joe loved Mary". Next stop is "Joe was obsessed". Next stop : Joe was the Ripper!
Poor old Joe!
Robert |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 130
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 9:42 am: |
|
I think it's very understandable that Joe would have lied about Mary's drinking habits in the "don't speak ill of the dead" school of thought.
As for how bloody the
Ripper would have been, after endless speculation we can only say "maybe not very".If the women were dead before their throats were cut the spray from the severed arteries would be minimized and if not, he could have positioned himself so that the arterial blood flow was away from him.
Mags
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Returning to Arthur Louis" original question:
I have begun to believe that Annie had gone to 29 Hanbury Street to kip there on the upstairs landing which is where Mrs Richardson"s son said he often found prostitutes.He added that vagrants used the downstairs hall to sleep in from time to time and that couples used the back yard "for business".He added that this was because both doors were left open [back and front] all night and all day.When asked what he did when he found such trespassers he said he used to shift them.
Its interesting in many respects this.
If indeed Annie was kipping on the landing that night its a bit like Martha Tabram in that its also possible that she too was off to doss on the first floor landing[others did as witnesses pointed out].
If this was the case its possible the ripper had cased some of these joints for women sleeping rough.
Not forgetting either that there was an outside loo in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street that Annie might have been visiting when she chanced to meet the ripper. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Hi Natalie.
Fair point about chapman having a rest inside number 29, however around the time of her death she was reported inside a nearby pub[ unconfirmed] also we have to take Mrs longs testomony into account in that she was outside number 29 at 515 am.
I must admit the question arises' What was Annie doing for several hours?.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1498
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Thanks Richard,
Yes I was aware of the point made about her being seen in a pub but the police didnt call a witness for this so I assumed it was a bit doubtful.
Regarding the sighting by Mrs Long,alias Mrs Darrell[?].It has had me wondering.What sounds slightly amiss is that she didnt turn to look at him.If she "noticed" the couple why not?What we dont know is why she looked, what it was about them that drew her attention.She didnt describe either of them in any detail at all---didnt even mention the white and red knotted neck scarf that would have shown up against Annie"s black jacket and black skirt.OK she did say he wore a brown deer-stalker type cap---I wonder though why she noticed this?Maybe she just "sensed" something like animals do when something strange is going on.But her sighting is so vague it has me wondering what exactly she did see.
Natalie |
