|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 165
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:54 am: | 
|
Tommy,
I wasnt picking on you. Im sorry if it seemed that way.
Your right of course, it couldnt have been Kates kidney Lusk recieved if a dog had already ate it.
I was just trying to put forward that we cannot dismiss Lusks letter on the possibility of the kidney being anything but Eddowes.
That said, it does dimminish the authenticity of the correspondence...so I shall give you that ! 
Sorry again,
Monty
 |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 166
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:03 am: |
|
Dave,
I do not dimiss Aldgate completely. You have given real reasons on why it could be pulled off. See, thats what makes this a real ponderer. Its all down to individual choice. You'd prefer to go Aldgate where as I would take St James Passage.
Maybe you're right about police beats. If thats true then man, he was a lucky fellow. Also re stop searches, didnt Halse do a stop out Wentworth st way after news of the murder broke ?
Wonder why these chaps were allowed to carry on ??
Take care,
Monty
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 104
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:21 am: |
|
Cheers, Monty
I didn't mean to start a debate after asking for your opinion For the record, I don't think there's any reason to prefer Aldgate over your route. Since a lot of educated people believe JtR had an extensive knowledge of the area, I just tried to come up with a reasonable scenario on how it could have been otherwise. And you have been to the area many times, and I haven't been once. So that's how much my idea is worth (laugh).
Have a great weekend,
Dave |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 168
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:38 am: |
|
Dave,
Debate is good...no..no, Im sorry that was greed wasnt it ?
I agree, there is no really good reason to prefer one over the other.
Your idea is worth more than you realise. Yeah, I know the area pretty well. Thats because I use to live there. But when I first moved there I had no idea what the area was like both in topography and in people. Like anyone who is new to an area you pick out certain sites that stick out, like pubs, MacDonalds, certain road features. The other thing is to look like you know where your going...even if you have no idea. All roads lead to somewhere. Just blag it.
Take Mitre sq. Some say if he knew how well it was policed (and despite what happened it was well policed) he wouldnt have followed Kate there.
You idea is worth something, dont dismiss it so easily.
Monty
|
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:42 am: |
|
No need to be sorry Monty, i wasn't offended believe me, as most of the time i'm very light hearted. But will it ever be really possible to put a name to the feind of the East End? |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 9:39 am: |
|
Tommy,
Sorry Ive been awol for a couple of weeks. Of course we all have differing opinions that is how it should be. That is how debate is stimulated. Disagree by all means but it just drives me loopy when self opinionated people confuse fact with opinion. (Not that I categorize you as such)
Personally I think that Jack was a blood thirsty homicidal maniac, but then again maybe he was just misunderstood.
Alan |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:37 pm: |
|
I dont know if this has already been discussed, but does the address where the apron was found indicate whether JTR turned left or right after he reached Goulston Street?
The red line on the attached map indicates what I assume to have been his route after leaving Mitre Square. (I realize this map is earlier than 1888, so some of the streets may not be entirely accurate to the period) |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 391
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:08 am: |
|
Robert,
The dwellings are situated just where the top of the letter 'G' is of 'Goulston st' on the map you have put up above.
As he came out of New Goulston St he turn left, and headed north (towards Wentworth)a few paces then crossed the road to the dwellings.
Monty
PS For what its worth I agree with your route....and Ive walked it. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:11 am: |
|
Some have opined that he went up Middlesex to Wentworth and tossed the apron into the doorway as
he passed the intersection of Wentworth and Goulston. Personally I like your red line better. What is the scale on your map? |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 33
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:22 am: |
|
Monty and Diana,
Thanks for the input. This is from Dr. John Snow's Map of London in 1859.... quite a few of the streets had physically changed by 1888, and also many street names. When I compare it with Charles Booth's 1889 Poverty Map the street layouts look quite different, but I cannot find an online version of that map that is as clear as the Snow map. I would love to find a clear, easy to read map from 1888 with all the street names and the crime scenes marked out.
Rob
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 393
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 11:46 am: |
|
Rob,
Ive sent you a private mail.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 64
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:23 am: |
|
I just wanted to point something out which is in reference to some earlier posts on this thread. You were all talking about a dog eating Kate's kidney? Where does this come from? Also, if a dog did eat it and the one sent was a hoax, what was the likelihood that the person who sent it, be it the ripper or someone else, would find a kidney with Bright's disease which was what Kate was suffering from. The only way I can see this happening is if Jack was a medical man and could tell Kate had this disease and so when he obtained another kidney he had the same disease. The problem with this though is that Kate was killed in a very dark square with no lighting, so even if he did know what a kidney with Bright's disease looked like, he probably wouldn't have seen it. All very confusing stuff.
Sarah |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 400
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 10:45 am: |
|
Sarah,
The dog eating Kates kidney was just a senario that cropped up.
The square had lighting but not that corner. So yes, it would have been dark.
But not that dark by obviously.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 66
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:03 am: |
|
Monty,
There is a video I have at home called, surprisingly, "Jack the Ripper". I can't remember who was the narrator off hand, but he said that Mitre Square was not lit anywhere. We have been often mislead into thinking it was lit in films and such but in fact there was no lighting in the square. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 404
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:18 am: |
|
Sarah,
They were wrong. There was a lamp above the Church passage, one outside the Kearly & Tongue building (north side of the square) and one at the junction of Mitre st and the square.
Having measured the distances the beams could reach (this entailed actually being there with a tape measure and plotting it on Foster map drawing)I found that on a good night the only part of the square that would not be lit by these lamps is the place where they found Kates body.
True, that corner was in darkness (not to be confused with pitch black. You could still see) but untrue that there were NO lamps in the square.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 69
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:36 am: |
|
Monty,
I'll have to watch it again. Maybe they meant it wasn't lit where her body was found. Could you just tell me how you know there were lamps there in 1888?
Sarah  |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 182
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Sarah - from Lloyd's Weekly, 30th September 1888
A curious little circumstance was mentioned by the wife of a caretaker living directly opposite the spot where the murdered woman was found. As she went home with her little girl on Friday night she noticed that the lamp in the north-west corner of the square was so dull that she could scarcely see her way. This must have thrown the pavement on which the body was found into comparative darkness |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 406
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:31 am: |
|
Sarah,
Surveyor Foster drew a detailed plan of the Square after Kates murder. He included everything in the square including the lamps and Kates body.
Measurements was taken (including measurements of distance from the square to the Wentworth dwellings in Goulston st).
A copy of this plan is in most JtR books. I also have a copy from Evans and Skinners PRO pack. For me its the best reproduction. You can even see the pencil marks made on it during Eddowes inquest.
Monty
PS For interest, the lamps are marked as a circle with a cross inside. |
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 87
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 11:44 am: |
|
Thank you Monty, will have to get my books out again. I have a feeling the video said it was dark where her body was or something like that. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
(Continued from another thread)
Hi Robert,
Well, how crazy it was depends on where he was going, right? If his destination was north-east of Mitre Square, then taking a north-east route makes perfect sense. If he's taking a direct route (say Foster's route), then he's following the less risky option (since a zig-zagging route would be longer, it would be riskier).
But I don't know anything for sure; I guess I favor Foster's route right now, but I'm probably still misinformed enough to entertain his going south down Duke Street, east down Aldgate High Street and then north onto Goulston, as bold as you please. Depends on how acquainted with Whitechapel you think he was. He may or may not have been; I don't know. I think it also depends on what kind of man you think he was, too.
What would a theoretical lookout be doing with Jack the Ripper's clean-up rag? Why do you think the apron was taken out of Mitre Square to begin with? I'd submit it was because the Ripper was unable to clean up there.
Dave |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1633
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
Dave and others,
OK, let break this up.
My own belief is that the killer did not escape via Mitre Street to Aldgate as Watkins was approaching from that direction. Watkins does not report passing any persons. There is the possibility that Watkins approach may have triggered his departure.
This leaves us with one of three remaining 'escapes'.
1) Again via Mitre Street, except north this time and turning right towards Houndsditch and the Gravel lane route. Again, Watkins doesnt report seeing or hearing people as he made his way up Mitre Street, despite looking up the street just prior to entering the square. For me this 'escape' is highly unlikely.
2) Church passage, towards Aldgate then left along the main road is a more plausible route. Yet this route is not the shortest and therefore would mean the killer would be out in the open slightly longer. Whilst this is may not seem a preferred option the route would take you onto a busy main road with more chance to blend in. However, what must be considered is the murder of Stride. Some do not think Stride as a victim of Jack. This may be true so this route is fine. That said, if Stride was one of his do you think he would double back towards a murder scene he had vacated an hour before? I know he would still be some distance away but word would be spreading, and him with a piece of the victims (albeit a different victim) apron in his hand.
3) St James passage, Houndsditch, Gravel Lane route is the shortest and quickest. A quieter route true, not so easy to blend in, however no word of any murder in this area yet (even Long hadnt heard of a murder 35 minutes after Eddowes body was found). Plenty of nooks and courts to hide in. Open entrances providing cover, Wentworth Model Dwelling in Goulston Street was an excellent spot.
To be honest I cannot see the need to Zig zag. It just means more time in the open. Halse stopped/searched two men almost straight after leaving Eddowes body in Mitre Square. This is an indicator of the Police procedures at that time an Eddowes killer would have known this. The need to be off the streets ASAP is vital is he didnt want to get caught.
As my old man says, "Son, why pi$$ around?"
I feel in this case, my old man is right.
Cheers,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Hi,
given the timing would Jack have had much choice about which way he left? I mean, what was it 14 minutes or so to do the deed from start to finish? That's not leaving much time to chose an exit is it? That said Watkins would have come into the sq from the nearest exit, is that right the one behind Jack? And wouldn't Harvey be at the Church passage exit? at least he patrolled up to there right?
That only leaves one exit that wouldnt have a PC near it, doesn't it?
Or have i got that wrong?
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on May 13, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 537
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
I have always felt that a clue exists in that the rag was being used by Jack to clean himself up as he walked. Once his hands were clean, he discarded the rag in the first open doorway he passed. An experiment with timings to do this, and how natural it feels might be useful.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 83
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
I believe Brad was correct as to where the Ripper was heading after the Eddowe's murder.
To me a focul point is Commercial St.Most of the incidents in the series of murders was commited within a few minutes of that thoroughfare,and all of the victims lived in it's vicinity.
Even Stride's murder location was,in time,no more than ten minutes walk away,and although a detour through Mitre Square added extra minutes,an organised hunt for the killer was always going to take longer than the time needed to reach cover. If that cover was itself near Commercial St. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1634
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Harry,
It seems that the Met agreed with both you and Brad.
Their search area of the 19th October supports this view.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
Umm, just read the rest of this board you already said what i mentioned before. umm that'll teach me (to do my revision or come n the boards not a half a** version of both!)
Sorry
Jenni |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Phil,
Ive walked the quicker route, or rather the nearest to the quickest route as some roads and lanes have altered since 1888. The doorway is just minutes away. Its suprising how quick you get there.
Obviously buildings have altered since that time also but one thing did hit me. As you leave New Goulston st on to Goulston street, the dwellings struck me as an impressive structure. As they were new at the time they must have been quite a sight, equivalent impact that high rise blocks had.
Just an add on thought.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2391
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:25 am: |
|
Ok ,
1.35 Lawnde et al saw Eddowes
1.40 Harvey was in Church passage
1.45 Watkins found the body -he entered the sq via Mitre St(?)
How did he leave the Sq at all?
I mean surely he wouldnt have been able to kill Eddowes then leave via Church passage either before Harvey got there (surely not enough time? 4 minutes?) or without Harvey seeing him? (because Harvey was in the passage at 1.40)
If he left via Mitre St, then Watkins would have seen him. He'd have walked into him. Else again, he wouldnt have had enough time, would he?
While I do agree with you Monty that he probably left via St James' passage, I still wonder how he managed that without being seen? If jack left the square at say 1.45 wouldn't Watkins have seen him leaving?
Yet, I must be wrong (which isn't uncommon) as we know that Jack wasnt in the Sq when Watkins found the body. Don't we?
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 539
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
I think we need to be careful with believing that these timings are precise. Even a one minute error could have provided a practical window for a murderer to leave the Square.
Look at escapes from prisoner of war camps in WWII. There, Servicemen dodged sentries WHO WERE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THEM, by using shadows etc.
Jack might simply have walked out of the Square without anyone seeing him, or seeing anyone. Equally he could have merged with shadows, watched a cop go by and flitted off while the policeman's back was turned. We'll never know how, precisely. But he did it.
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
Jenn,
Ok, firstly Lewande saw a woman wearing similar clothes to Eddowes.
Secondly, try timing 4 minutes. Its takes ages. Harvey, Watkins and Morris were not all in the square at the same time.
Thirdly, who says he wasnt seen. Jack wasnt invisible. Its just that no one can remember seeing him. People take no notice of other people unless they are memorable. Yellow and blue mohican hair, naked people, these things usually get noticed. Regular Joe Blow would not be given a second glance as he slowly slipped out of St James or Church Passage.
Cheers
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
Hi,
Ok, and he was a man so what does 'similar' mean? Just kidding! (but i do take it you mean it wasn't necessarily her?)Even so Watkins passed through the Sq at 1.30 right?
When was Morris in the sq?
I should naked people would be pretty noticable! But anyway, ok point taken
Jenni
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Hi all,
Monty, thanks very much for those different routes. Although the area's changed a lot, I think walking the ground there must really make a difference so you've got a great advantage. I like your third option; the only problem with it is that temporary fire station that the Daily News mentions, the one that was just past St. James passage. It was manned by two guys who didn't see anyone coming through.
Hope you don't mind my saying so, but I think I'd like your dad.
Phil, that's what I imagine as well. He had to wipe off as he walked away; it sounds audacious I guess, but I feel he wouldn't have attracted attention if he kept his movements toned down and made a big production out of it. Either he heard Watkins coming down Mitre Street or he heard Morris sweeping around near the warehouse door, which wasn't pulled to.
With respect to Don on the other thread, it sounds like the zig-zag idea might come from the 2.55 discovery and that time gap. Now maybe it happened that way, but I lean towards the possibility that the time gap is a misperception caused by Long failing to see the apron on his 2:20 pass. Halse said he could have missed it because it was off the street.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1637
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Dave,
Depends on if the men at the Fire Station, and Blenkinsopp for that matter, were vigilant people....and if the News report is correct.
Ive said it many times before so sorry if I bore but I feel it was Morris opening the door at 12.45am that tiggered Jacks departure.
Just supposing.
Yeah, youd like my Dad. Most people do. Says what he sees. Still, comes from a decendant who told the Prince of Wales to f*** off.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
Monty,
and if JTR was sporting yellow hair?
Anyway, assuming morris opened the door at 1.45, then as you say Jack would think he was coming out and have fled. That would probably scare him a little bit, right? Do you suppose the body was left in a rush/'unfinished' in this case?
Hi Dave,
like you say maybe the apron was there and Long didn't see it. else where was JTR for forty minutes at least?
Jenni
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 552
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Dave,
I don't necessarily endorse the zig-zag route (RJ may have), all I keep saying is that because we don't know how the apron-half got from Mitre Square to Goulston Street there are, alas, many possibilities and even several good probabilities.
But, as I said elsewhere, I am quite interested in DC Halse and PC Long, whose statements (especially Long's) are contradictory and make it very difficult to construct a probable timeline from the moment JtR left the Square.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:36 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Thanks; I understand you're only exploring other ideas and I agree that after a century, certainty can't enter into it. But I think one thing we can do is balance likelihoods against one another.
Let me ask you, realistically, what other ways do you think the apron could have got where it was? Do you entertain the idea of it being passed off to an accomplice or blown about by the wind? A dog? What about Trevor Marriott's sanitary napkin/toilet paper idea (Eddowes leaves it there herself, I presume after being let out of jail, since the police remembered her by her apron and no one talked about it being torn. I'm not sure the timeline allows her a visit to Goulston street)? And of course, there's the possibility that Long was right which means the Ripper wandered about for awhile with apron, uterus, and kidney on him. Or there's the bolthole idea--the Ripper ducks inside someplace, cleans up a little, and then tosses the apron aside as he resumes his journey. Or he's rented a private bolthole and just holes up there, for some unexplained reason he must venture back out to dispose of the apron while apparently still keeping the equally-incriminating uterus and kidney inside.
Most are theoretically possible, I guess. But are they more likely than this: the Ripper dropped the apron in Goulston street right about 2 a.m., straight shot from Mitre Square. Long simply missed seeing it and his mistake has distorted our view of what really happened.
I missed RJ's post and will have to go back and find it; he makes some pretty good ones.
I think Long and Halse are interesting, too. They seem to miss one another, don't they? I used to come down a little harder on Long (incompetent), but now when I read that inquest, he just seems a trifle overwhelmed to me. Anybody know how old he was? I picture him as a young man. Halse on the other hand seems to have known what he was about; if he had firmly stated it wasn't there at 2.20, I'd be inclined to listen to him. But Halse was intent on going from the mortuary to Mitre Square; he wasn't looking at the ground.
Cheers,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Hi all
You mean Jack was not wearing a cape that said "Jack the Ripper" on the back? You folks do disappoint me! 
Monty remarked in his post of Friday, May 13, 2005 - 7:23 am in regard to the distance from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, where the piece of apron was found, "The doorway is just minutes away. It's surprising how quick you get there."
And yet, the apron was not found for some considerable time after the murder if we acknowledge that the Eddowes murder took place shortly before P.C. Watkins found the body in Mitre Square at around 1:45 am, and that the apron was found by P.C. Long in the doorway of Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street at 2:55 am, per his inquest testimony -- if we agree with his statement that he had not seen the apron or the graffito in the doorway when he passed by earlier.
This long hour and ten minutes gap between the murder and the finding of the apron would seem to me to indicate that the apron was not taken away by the murderer, as Dave and others have speculated, simply to wipe his hands, but to purposely deposit it in the doorway. Jon Smyth has previously speculated that he might have had lodgings in which to lie low between 1:45 am and 2:55 am. If that was so, when he came out again, he most certainly brought the apron out with the intent to plant it where it was found.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on May 13, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Hi guys,
I don't much like the sanitary towel idea i confess. I don't really know why it just seems, odd!
I don't why long didn't see the apron. Maybe he wasn't looking. Maybe it wasn't there. I mean I'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't there. But that's a long time (no pun intended)for the Ripper to be, for want of a better expression pottering about, isn't it?
Jenni
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
ps like you say as he still had the kidney probably wasnt getting rid of the evidence as such? |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 554
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Dave,
Well, let's start with something relatively straightforward. Long was born in 1854 and so was likely 34 years old. He joined the Met in 1884 after 12 years with the 9th Lancers as a baker. He was forced out of the Met in July 1889 for being drunk while on duty.
He had been drafted into Whitechapel from A Division in order to beef up the patrol force and 29/30 September was his first night on that particular beat. As a result, one might well be willing to cut him some slack. Still, there is that dismissal for drunkeness and while I don't know how the Met was run, in the military if a unit is asked to transfer some of its personnel it always looks upon that as an opportunity to get rid of any screw-ups it has around, so perhaps Long fit into that category as well.
Halse was born in 1839, so was likely 49, and had been with the City force since 1863. If nothing else, he was by far the more experienced.
What is interesting is that they both averred to have passed the site where the apron was found at about 2:20 a.m. If that is indeed true then it would seem to have required the split-second timing of a French bedroom farce for them not to have been within haling distance sometime around then. After all, the streets were quite empty, their footfalls should have been audible for some distance and Halse, at least, was quite alert to seeing or hearing anyone else abroad that evening -- especially a fellow policeman who might have seen someone.
That then presents the possibility that one or the other (or, to be sure, both) was not entirely forthcoming in his testimony. Since Halse's actions are more easily accounted for, the onus more readily falls upon Long I suppose, whether he was cooping, dawdling or just lost.
In any case, that the apron-half was not discovered until 2:55 a.m. need in no way mean it was not at the same spot at approximately 2:20 a.m. -- or even earlier. Pretty much a "you pays your money and takes your choice" sort of thing in terms of when you want to believe the apron was deposited.
Mr. Marriot's suggestion? Sheer nonsense. If he was serious, I would suspect he knows little about LVP feminine hygiene, clothing or the cost of same. As for the apron-half being moved by agencies other than JtR, it is possible he deposited it somewhere closer to Mitre Square and someone else (this was something of a scrounger society) saw a sizeable piece of cloth, snaffled it and then soon got a good look and sniff and dropped it at once. That could have happened one or more times and it might even have been worried along a bit by a dog -- possibilities, but not nearly as likely as JtR depositing it where found sometime between 1:50 and 2:55.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Thanks for the background on Long and Halse, that's much appreciated.
I don't think much of Marriott's idea either. For her to make use of her clothing when she's got plenty of rags on her doesn't seem right. Maybe she was using pound notes and that's why she didn't have any money, eh?
Dave |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Lets not forget that Eddowes was killed near a "hoarding". Research reveals that a hoarding is a fence. He could have killed her, hidden behind the fence when he heard Watkins coming, and exited while Watkins was inside K&T. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Hi All
I think Trevor Marriott's idea that the piece of apron was used as a sanitary napkin by Eddowes can be readily dismissed for three reasons. First, the piece of apron found in Goulston Street had on it fecal matter and not just blood, which indicates the blood was from the murder and was not menstrual blood, with the fecal matter having come most probably from the injuries to her intestines. Second, the inquest testimony appears to indicate, as I interpret it, that the apron appears to have had a regular long cut down it, leaving half the apron on Eddowes body, consistent with the murderer having cut it off. Third, possibly Mr. Marriott does not realize, as do a lot of people appear not to know, the large size of the piece of apron, some several feet square, more than would be needed for a sanitary napkin! See below, once more, the famous view of women in Dorset Street wearing such aprons.
All the best
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on May 14, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Plus, if I understand the inventory right, she wasn't wearing any knickers, just underslips.
Dave |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Guys,
you really want to talk about women's cycles?
Dave,
I understand the inventory to mean she had not got on pants, and yes I would expect her to have on pants if she was on her period. Else frankly what was holding her apron up?
Still I have not read Marriots book. Maybe he has a theory about pants. Or what she used after the apron and where it was, and
Really i will stop there.
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 548
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Victorian women (yes even the Queen) did not wear drawers or pantaloons of the sort usually imagined, until quite late in the reign. If they wore anything at all, their drawers had separate legs, which were not joined at the crotch.
The sort of pantaloons that came in later would have been fashion garments and hardly likely to be worn by woman of the class of Eddowes. I doubt they had even heard of such a thing!!
Willett & Cunnington in "The History of Underclothes" (reprinted by Dover) say that by the end of the 1830's the use of drawers had become generally accepted by women of any social pretension, but were "not, of course, to be worn by the lower orders.
The book suggests that legs ceased to be entirely separate in the 1870s. "Combinations" for women appear to have appeared in the 1880s.
As most of the clothing worn by women like eddowes would have been second hard (more like ninth hand I suspect, in reality) I doubt whether they would ever have possessed underclothing beyond the layers of petticoats.
How they managed the hygiene business, I have no idea. But I assume there were techniques used throughout earlier periods which survived.
Phil |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 387
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:55 am: |
|
In addition to all of this,none of us are even aware if Mrs. Eddowes could get her menstrual cycle,as she was 46 years old.
I was thinking about writing an article on this entire LVP hygeine business,as it is probably the major reason I would have difficulty living back then. I don't know how these people got through life.
I'd put a couple of shekels down that the Ripper arrived at Goulston, via New Goulston Street.
C.G. hit the nail on the head,for me at least,regarding the size and absolutely unfeminine concept that this woman would walk around,after ripping her apron, looking like that. I know Mr. Marriott didn't intend it that way, but it sure makes Kate look like an idiot. A new apron would cut into that barroom money...or rent money.
Ain't I right,ladies?
P.S. Respectful of other views, aren't some people forgetting that it had rained previously that night [ Sept. 29-30 ] ? Its hard enough for a wet article of that size to blow anywhere....and when we factor in a wet street/streets....nodamine?
(Message edited by howard on May 15, 2005) |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 390
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
Half of that apron would be WAY too much.
Why would she ever cut her one and only apron up when she realistically had no hope of getting another soon?
If she was still menstruating at 46 (and I don't know if that was considered "old" then or not) she must have had some kind of provision for her period each month. She couldn't be cutting up her clothes every time.
Fecal matter isn't entirely inconsistant with the idea though and if anyone wants to email me I'll go into more details.
I think we have to talk more about two ideas:
Jack may have hidden in the shadows
Long (at least) may not have been completely accurate in his testimony--giving him the kindest possible spin.
Mags
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Howard,
Yes, you are right. There is something very wrong with the concept that Mr. Marriott put forward. It is very disgusting and not only does it make Kate look like an idiot,it reduces her down to the lowest of the low. It is very degrading. Not only would she not use a piece of apron that large, she had rags with her when she was killed. Doesn't make sense to me.
I know you were asking for "ladies", but I thought I would answer you anyway.
Cheers,
Carolyn  |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 388
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Carolyn,..I'm always asking for ladies...this time wasn't an exception ! I just wondered if Mr. Marriott realized what this scenario looked like from a female's perspective....such as yourself and Mags...and all the ladies what frequent these here boards...I'm getting in touch with the my feminine side, I guess...Ouch ! Was that a cramp I just felt?
Mags....I think I know,without even reading,what you are going to imply. Is it that the Ripper already had soiled himself?
If thats the case, then that trip to Goulston from Mitre Square was really a rough ride for the Ripper in retrospect..
I have heard that menopause usually begins around the age of 45 in most women.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
