|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 4:23 pm: | 
|
Gareth - I don't think we can be quite so picky. It's right to be cautious, but I detect a case of special pleading in your arguments and wish to discredit the report - do i not?
Phil |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 898
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hello Gareth,
It's hardly a sensational detail though, is it? And the Times reporter was not in the position of having to make details up since he was reporting testimony he was hearing first-hand (this is not the impression of a reporter). The Daily News (5 Oct) also reported the same detail from Brown: "It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."
Brown isn't relying on his memory at the inquest. The apron was produced ("Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street" Times 5 Oct); Brown was looking directly at it as he made the observation.
Cheers,
Dave |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 570
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Gareth,
Dave is right and I will add that the St. James Gazette of October 5, 1888, also reported that Brown referred to blood smears. To be fair, the Daily Telegraph for the same date does not report that aspect of the testimony.
Thus, rather than It is therefore wrong to state with any confidence should perhaps be amended to some confidence. With three newspapers reporting "smearing/wiping" the liklihood Brown said something to that effect is much greater.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3470
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Furthermore, as I usually pay little credit to newspaper reports in general, we must remember that these words were uttered at the inquest, and a witness at an inquest has to -- as far as I know (we've never had inquests in Sweden) -- swear an oath. Had it been an ordinary interview, I would have treated it with a larger amount of caution.
Sure, the notes were taken down by a reporter, but in contrast to ordinary articles, the coverage of inquests and trials were, in my experience, usually quite accurate and relatively free of the sensationalism and elaborations we see in other kinds of newspaper accounts. As Dave correctly states, we are not dealing with personal impressions and free journalistic elaborations here, but of detailed notes taken down at a court event where an oath was sworn.
Like anything else produced by a paper, those type of accounts are not bullet proof, but they are certainly -- in my view -- in another league than an interview with Matthew Packer, especially if severals of them corroborates each other.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 89
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 5:04 am: |
|
There was certainly more blood on the killers person to cause just smears.He had by all accounts delved into the body of a freshly killed human being,and also taken away body parts.
How then did the killer get away with just leaving smears on one piece of material?.
Had he not used some other means to clean the blood from his hands and sleeves,he would sureley have left some trail of blood,if only for a few yards,and that would have given an indication of the direction he left the square.
This continuing parror squaking,'there is no evidence' is getting a bit tiresome.What happened to educated reasoning?.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1773
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
Hi All,
I'm wondering if the whole thing - victim's bloody apron piece lying by the entrance, chalked message above - was intended to send police arriving at the scene straight into the Dwellings to keep them occupied searching the premises and questioning all the residents, and well away from where Jack was lodging (possibly quite nearby), for as long as possible during the immediate aftermath.
If the message was connected in this way, it has a rather naive and childlike logic to it, as if a passer-by is supposed to have noticed the cloth, recognised it as the work of the murderer, but left it there, chalking a message above it, as if to say: "Look at this - the Jews who live here won't be blamed for nothing".
Jack may have hoped that all the fuss caused would give him extra breathing space, and time to clean up properly, stash the bodily trophies and calm down a bit, before the cops might come sniffing round his own door.
Love,
Caz
X
PS I seem to change my mind about this daily.  |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 19
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
Caz:
I think the idea is very C20th TV "cops"-related. My conception of the Victorian mind would not include them thinking like that for a moment.
I don't think a vocabulary or any reference points for that sort of thinking would have existed in 1888. Though maybe those more immersed in crime of the period (AP etc) might be able to confirm or reject my view from an informed position.
In addition there is no evidence or even suggestion that Jack tried anything similar in any of the other murders usually or even remotely linked to him, is there?
I frankly see no reason to elaborate any of this. pron apart there is no proof that Jack wrote the graffito, and if the apron had not been found at that spot, I don't think anything would have led us to be interested in the writing on the wall.
Chances are Jack used the cloth to clean up and discarded it casually in the first convenient opening. No other agenda needed.
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1774
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
...if the apron had not been found at that spot, I don't think anything would have led us to be interested in the writing on the wall.
Trouble is, it was found at that spot, and everyone quickly knew about it, even though the writing was erased. If it wasn't designed to intensify the Jewish crisis the police were already facing as a result of the Leather Apron scare, it did so anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with you that people thought of the cops that much differently in 1888 from today. Look at all the hoax letters taunting the efforts of the police in one way or another.
I am quite sure that if the cops in 1888 could drag up and act as decoys to try and trap Jack, the criminals of the day would have been more than capable of thinking up ways to send the cops in the wrong direction.
'Catch me when you can' may not have been written by Jack, but it was written in 1888.
Or have I misunderstood what you meant by 20th century tv cop shows?
Nothing new under the sun, as far as I can see.
Chances are Jack did use the cloth to clean up, as you say. But if that was all, surely the first convenient opening would have been much nearer Mitre Square. A second longer than necessary carrying that cloth was a huge risk to his own neck. So maybe the risk was a calculated one.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 26, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
I can only say that my reading of the Victorian mind is different to yours, Caz.
The "jazziness" (if I can call it that) of some of the Ripper correspondence is probably explained by its having been composed by journalists (as the police suspected at the time) or pranksters.
We might laugh at it now, but the idea of dressing coppers up in drag (like the use of bloodhounds) was probably regarded as innovative and cutting edge in 1888 - but I doubt that the average east Ender was au fait with every development (notwithstanding newspapers) in the way people today could be assumed to be. I don't think they would have been accustomed to thinking in that dramatic, tricksterish, way.
I no longer (I might have once0 perceive jack as being an educated man who was killing, planning and engaging in a joker-like relation with the police all at once. This is reminisent of Harrison's conception of J K Stephen as the Ripper, or of a man like D'Onston Stephenson.
My more likely candidates these days are someone like Kosminski (who may have been cunning but was probably illerate and unlikely to be engage in tricks) or Druitt (or someone of his kind) who was probably focused intense and lucky.
But if it fits YOUR vision of 1888 and your perception of Jack; who am I to deny you.
Phil
Edited for clarification
(Message edited by Phil on May 26, 2005) |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I think I've made it clear that none of what we call "the quality dailies" in the UK definitively and unambiguously puts these words in the witness's (i.e. Dr Brown's) mouth.
The only one that arguably does so is the Daily News and whilst Dr Brown may have been under oath, none of the journalists were and they were free to shape their accounts of proceedings as they saw fit. As with any account (certain passages of the Bible, for instance) the process of redaction may introduce inadvertent embellishments and accidental juxtapositions. This is quite different, I agree, to the clearly opportunistic lies of Matthew Packer, but almost as unhelpful.
One thing that distinguishes the "quality dailies" (i.e. the Daily Telegraph and the Times) is that their reportage is distinctly "drier" than the others, concentrating less on narrative and more on the dull facts. I don't wish to disregard the other reports entirely, but if my life depended on it I know which of these accounts I'd trust the most. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Phil,
Point taken on "special pleading"!
However I don't think it's picky to point out that the words "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears..." in the Times report were NOT actually a verbatim quote of Dr Brown's utterances at the inquest. This is no more picky than pointing out that the words "Exit pursued by a bear" are not actually uttered by Antigonus in The Winter's Tale.
All we can be certain of, as far as I understand it, is that there was "some blood and faecal matter" on the Goulston fragment and "spots of blood" on the remainder of the apron found on the corpse. This much was written at the morgue on the morning of the murder by Dr Brown concurrent with his autopsy report.
As it is the only mention of "smears" seem to crop up in the newspaper reports of the inquest, some days after Dr Brown's fresh and empirical examination of the body and the pieces of apron.
If the only surviving police and autopsy reports - as opposed to second or third hand news agency accounts of the inquest - could disambiguate this beyond any doubt I'd be happy, whatever the outcome.
I will be wary of special pleading in future, but hope that the foregoing clarifies that there was a genuine reason for pickiness in my argument.
Cheers! |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
David,
I'm sorry to disagree, but your statement "Brown was looking directly at it as he made the observation" is incorrect in that Dr Brown made no such observation, as reported by the Times.
The Daily News differs from the Times report in that it does seem to attribute a similar observation to Dr Brown, but this appears in no other newspaper report that I have found and in the context of a serious inquest the words "It looks as if it had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped on it" sounds a tad Hammer Horror to me. The tenor of some of the other Daily News reports in relation to this and the other murders might suggest, if not quite fabrication, then at least some degree of "populist" writing.
There are clearly parts of the Daily News report that are "narrated" by its writer. Witness the following sizeable excerpt:
"The witness then went on at great length to describe the shocking further mutilations to which the deceased had been subjected, but the details were too horrible for publication. One of the most important points in this part of the evidence was that the injuries to the lower part of the body having been inflicted after death, the murderer would probably get but little blood upon his hands. The left kidney had been carefully taken out in such as manner as to show that it had been done by somebody who not only knew its anatomical position, but knew how to remove it..."
The Times (then as now) is much pithier (and clearly more accurate in some places, even down to its spelling) than the Daily News. It seems clear to me that the observation of "smears" is purely down to the Times journalist's description of the scene. The Times emphatically does not attribute any such words to Dr Brown.
No special pleading here, by the way, but even Victorian Britain had its colourful press and its sober press. We should at least keep an open mind. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Donald,
"With three newspapers reporting "smearing/wiping" the liklihood Brown said something to that effect is much greater."
Quite possibly, but how many more papers do not make any such an attribution to Dr Brown himself? Only one - the Daily News - *seems* to put these words in Brown's mouth. The other two appear to be written in such a way as to suggest more the journalist's description or narration of what he/she saw at the inquest.
Thanks for pointing me towards the Telegraph (another "sober" paper) by the way. Just to add to the confusion/fun you'll note that the Telegraph's report of the inquest clearly and unambiguously has Dr Brown saying that the Goulston Street apron fragment was *spotted* with blood. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Hi Gareth,
Isn't your assessment on which testimony is correct really just based on your own impressions on what sounds Hammer Horror to you?
It doesn't sound that way at all to me; in fact, it seems a minor, unsensational detail, which I think is the reason why some people don't accept it. Maybe they think there must be more to it than that because it doesn't fit in with what they think their suspect would have done, or their general idea of what the Ripper was like. Maybe they think it can't be that simple. The guy who has outwitted the world for over a century must have been following some design. And maybe he was, but one thing's for sure--he can't have simply got some **** on his hands unexpectedly.
The Times certainly records Phillips producing the apron for Brown's examination (and Brown mentions this in the official inquest deposition, Ultimate bottom of p. 231). It's evident to anyone reading the Times, whose reporter was sitting right there watching, that Brown was looking at the apron as he testified. If we are so far apart on that, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, which is fine.
Take care,
Dave |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 618
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
"Chances are Jack did use the cloth to clean up, as you say. But if that was all, surely the first convenient opening would have been much nearer Mitre Square. A second longer than necessary carrying that cloth was a huge risk to his own neck. So maybe the risk was a calculated one."
Although Jack's first priority may have been to put some distance between himself and the crime scene like Phil suggested, what you say here is pretty much how I see things. However, I don't believe there was more to dropping the piece of cloth in the entrance than just getting rid of it. I think it had served its purpose (bag or bandage seem feasible alternatives to the towel) and accidentally the Ripper got rid of it where he did.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Anyone would think the dwellings are miles away.
As Frank states, its more important to leave the scene of crime ASAP than to clean himself. Once he felt he was at a safe distance then he could concentrate on cleaning himself, take stock and move on.
Again, I see nothing sinister in this. And I cant understand why people feel that the Police were on his scent, so much so that a distraction was called for.
Where is the evidence for this?
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
I'm with you Monty. Spot-on post as far as I am concerned.
phil |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 445
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Caz...
Switch the word "policeman" for passerby in your post above and that may be a bit more plausible,if you don't mind me saying...not to be rude.
Only a policeman would associate the apron piece to Eddowes at that time and had some citizen seen the half-apron and decided to pick it up to examine it...he or she would have more likely than not dropped it in a New York minute being in that condition.
I think that the apron and message IF left by the Ripper would be more for the police to peruse. A bit like an "inside joke".
Do you agree ?
HowBrown
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Hi How,
I do see what you mean. But I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. It's not easy to explain this but I'll have a go.
My theory-for-the-day was that the killer did all this, pretending that the message was written by a passer-by who noticed the apron piece. It's all totally illogical and mad, of course. As you rightly say, no passer-by would really have recognised that the cloth was associated with a murder and chalked a message blaming the Jews for it.
But in the childlike, self-obsessed, somewhat autistic mind of a serial killer, it's more black and white. He knows the significance of the cloth; he can't wipe out that knowledge as he writes the message, posing as a passer-by, and cannot appreciate that another person wouldn't have that knowledge, and would never act in such a way whether he did or not.
This is just thinking aloud, and I don't pretend to know how Jack would have been thinking at that point after killing Eddowes.
But I do know his thoughts were very unlikely to have been anything like yours or mine - I hope!
Love,
Caz
X |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 450
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
On that you can rest assure, gorgeous. The last sentence of the above is correct-o
There are more than a few ways of approaching the apron-message and yours is certainly one to consider.
Air fare to the States has never been lower...Baltimore is just one measly paycheck away...just a reminder....
Thanks Caz !
HowBrown
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
David,
"It's evident to anyone reading the Times, whose reporter was sitting right there watching, that Brown was looking at the apron as he testified."
He may have been looking at it, but the Times patently doesn't attribute these words to Brown, nor make any claim that he testified as such. No other account of the inquest does so apart from the Daily News.
The Daily News goes one step further than "smears" in its use of the words "a bloody hand or a bloody knife". It goes steps further in giving those words to Dr Brown himself, which is more than any other newspaper does. That much seems abundantly evident to me at least.
Having read and re-read the various newspaper reports I can only reaffirm my views.
As to whether there were smears, smudges or hieroglyphics formed out of the blood and **** is almost irrelevant to my argument on this specific point.
Happy to agree to differ. Cheers!
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Hi How,
I think the main thing about the message is that it was a message, written by someone who evidently wanted to convey something to anyone who read it.
The writer (whoever he was) presumably knew what he was trying to say, and what effect he was aiming for. It may not have occurred to him that his words were so ambiguous to everyone but himself that the message behind them would fail to come across loud and clear.
Whether the apron piece was dropped on purpose to underline the message, or discarded there coincidentally, it didn't help us interpret what the graffiti artist was trying to communicate to his public. But knowing that Jack was right there on the spot, shortly before the message was discovered, makes it worth trying IMHO.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
"Whether the apron piece was dropped on purpose to underline the message, or discarded there coincidentally, it didn't help us interpret what the graffiti artist was trying to communicate to his public. But knowing that Jack was right there on the spot, shortly before the message was discovered, makes it worth trying IMHO."
Well, the apron is really the only thing that provides an alleged link between the killer and the message. So therefore the purpose of the apron has its relevancy.
However, I personally think the Goulston Street message is a red herring with nothing whatsoever to do with the case, and I believe it's a "clue" that's been over-empathized and been given too much weight as far as Jack the Ripper is concerned.
Sure, the police had to record it and treat it as a piece of evidence, since it appeared close to an item deriving from a murder scene, but that is pretty much in corroboration with good and normal police investigation procedure; it doesn't necessarily mean that it must be a very vital one.
Fact remains, that even if the Ripper DID write it (which I certainly don't believe) the message is of little use to us, because we will never find out what it really means anyway. And since we have no code to crack it, it is pretty worthless as a clue in a 117 year old case.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 591
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
Monty,
You seem to have the best handle on questions like this so I am asking you directly (and anyone else as well).
Anyway, it came to me last night that while we know that men (like PC Long) were sent to H Division from other divisions, do we know how this extra manpower was actually used?
That is, were normal beats shortened so that more feet would be on the ground at any given time, did two men share a beat, or what?
I am still puzzled by Long's seemingly lengthy beat and how PC 190 just happened to show up.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1683
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Don.
"You seem to have the best handle on questions like this so I am asking you directly (and anyone else as well)."
Thanks Don ! Im sure others are just as capable.
I must stress that the answers Im about to give are my own opinions and not me stating this is what happend.
"Anyway, it came to me last night that while we know that men (like PC Long) were sent to H Division from other divisions, do we know how this extra manpower was actually used?"
Due to the increased public awareness of the murders and the clamour for something to be done, H division recieved a number PCs drafted in from other divisions. Obviously taken from the 'quieter' divisions, these men would have been introduced to release other PCs from other duties such as desk duties for example. Some, such as Long, would have been placed out on the beat, some would have been drafted in to do house to house and some may have been on standby
"That is, were normal beats shortened so that more feet would be on the ground at any given time, did two men share a beat, or what?"
Shorten beats? I would think so but to be honest Ive no idea. Neils and Longs (who was a new bloke) beats seem long to me. Im talking in terms of time rather than distance here and some beats would have been more complex than others, hence the larger length of time.
For a while two men would share a beat. This would have been done because one of the officers were new to the beat and needed to be shown his duties and route. So Yeah, two could have patrolled a beat together.
"I am still puzzled by Long's seemingly lengthy beat and how PC 190 just happened to show up."
Long was new and may have been on this beat for the first time by himself. He would have had to check doors, windows, gas lamps and coalholes as well as moving wasters and drunkards. These acts may have taken Long a while on this particular beat. As for PC190H arriving, its a problem that has dogged me also. Reading Longs statement it seems as if 190H just turns up doesnt it? Either he knew that 190H wasnt far off (which Long would be required to know), possibly after just meeting him or Long called him. The Met officers had whistles (unlike the City police) and I think this may have been used to attract 190H who responded.
Im sorry for not being helpful Don,
Cheers
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 598
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Monty,
Thanks.
As for PC190H arriving, its a problem that has dogged me also.
Amen to that. I have considered that he used his whistle to attract PC190H, but in other instances of that happening it was always mentioned -- which doesn't mean it didn't happen that way anyhow.
People often talk about JtR's "luck" and for sometime now I am left with the sense that perhaps his greatest bit of luck was that PC Long was given that beat that night.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Passing through I noticed that The Times reported that Eddowes was released that night on the word of a certain Sergeant - I lost the reference which had the name - but also stated that normal procedure required the duty inspector of the station to sanction such a release.
The implication being that the duty inspector was not there, and the Sergeant acted on his behalf.
But the duty inspector was there.
For the police report of the night in question has Inspector Collard on duty at BPS that night. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.,
That was Sgt. James Byfield. He testified at the inquest. Also see Hutt: "The Foreman: Is it left to you to decide when a prisoner is sober enough to be released or not? - Not to me, but to the inspector or acting (my emphasis) inspector on duty." Chandler must not have been around, or was busy.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on September 09, 2005)
(Message edited by oberlin on September 09, 2005) |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2490
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Thanks for that, Dave.
Am I getting the name of the inspector wrong, or are you?
I read 'Collard' for the inspector on duty that night at BPS; you seem to be reading 'Chandler'.
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Ooph! You're right, it was Collard. Wasn't Chandler at the Chapman crime scene. I have mixed up my inspectors--possibly I have had too many pipes of Cairo and Haunted Bookshop today.
So Collard must not have been around, or was busy
Dave |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
No worries, Dave.
I'll have a look at Collard's career then.
It does worry me though that Collard allowed another policeman to carry out his duties that night, when he was quick enough to respond to the actual murder... later.
A little bit of distance, perhaps? |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
Oh, I think it's interesting and rewarding to look at the lives and careers of the people on the periphery. My own opinion is that I don't think it was a big deal to let out the drunks. I don't know more than the next person, but maybe this was a tedious nightly chore at every police station in London. Maybe Collard was busy doing something else and just didn't want to be bothered with it. Look how even Byfield passes the chore off to Hutt. I suspect that if there had been someone under Hutt, that's who would have decided who was sober or not. It just doesn't seem like a big deal, kind of a low man on the totem pole kind of thing.
Just an opinion though.
Cheers,
Dave |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
You may well be right, Dave, but the East Ender is a funny bloke, a stickler for routine and custom.
I'll see if I can find some comparable cases and get back to you.
When Collard was a mere PC he had some problems, in a case where he attempted to portray that he been attacked by some East End thugs - where his leg was broken - the judge threw him out of court for infringing the civil liberties of the men who attacked him... it seems that he attacked them.
Anyways, I'll look at the compassion of police officers in the LVP when it comes to drunks in their cells. |
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
I can never decide whether they were very busy that night at Bishopsgate station, or if it was very slow and Byfield was just looking for things that Hutt could do. I wonder if there there could be such a thing as a slow Saturday night in the East End. I would be interested to know what official procedure was.
Best of luck with your Collard research; I look forward to hearing more about him. Sourcebook says he got bumped up to Chief Inspector before he died in 1892.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4963
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
Unfortunately the question isn't dealt with at http://www.victorianlondon.org/publications3/catechism.htm, that I can see.
Robert |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Something is wrong here...
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
1 large white pocket handkerchief
1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
1 piece course linen, white
1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
Question is.....with all those choices why cut a piece of her apron off IF it's only to wipe his hands?
Because he wanted people to know the writing on the wall was not from another crank like the letters were? So our killer smears the piece of apron with blood and drops it......
To stengthen his claim he also sends her kidney to Lusk...again with evidence that this is not just another crank.....
Are these signs that our killer was just a little bit miffed that someone was stealing his thunder with the 'Jack the Ripper' letters?
Maybe this is our killers ego coming into play and he is re-asserting his authority.
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 183
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 5:29 am: |
|
Steve,
Perhaps it was because the other items were not in evidence,but out of sight in the pockets,while the apron was not. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 888
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Hi Steve,
The Jack the Ripper letters hadn't been mentioned in the press yet at the time of the Eddowes murder, so he couldn't have been worried about anyone stealing his thunder that way on that night... but perhaps with the kidney later, if the kidney did come from Eddowes.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
Steve,
Its the assumption that the apron was taken as a cloth to wipe the hands, isnt it?
There are other reasons.
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 8:19 am: |
|
Hi Steve,
It's a good argument for the graffito being written by JTR. I for one, believe that he did write those words on the wall. However you said:-
"with all those choices why cut a piece of her apron off IF it's only to wipe his hands?"
What if he cut it off accidently whilst cutting her open? Then he could have just picked it up as opposed to untying or taking off those other options. My point is that if he cut it accidently, then it would have become the easiest choice. Of course if he didn't, then it is the hardest. What's most probable? I've no idea, but if I were to guess then I'd say he might have cut it accidently.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
Might JTR have used the apron to wrap up the exposed viscera so as not to arrouse suspicion should he be spotted on his return journey?
This, I feel, represents the most likely scenaro. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 959
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Ben:
Thats a good idea : "Might JTR have used the apron to wrap up the exposed viscera.."
But then he drops the apron at the Wentworth.....
Which could mean one or more of the following:
He didn't carry the kidney and other parts in the first place in the apron [ which,from gauging the size of that apron piece,would have done the trick...]. He therefore had pockets..
He did carry the articles in the apron, but for some reason discards it [ the apron ] at the Wentworth. Might he have lived nearby,close enough to carry them openly ?
He didn't carry the organs at all. He disposed of them prior to the apron-drop. Maybe in the trash or a loo [ which negates the Lusk letter's contents...].
He didn't carry the organs in totality. He cut off half as part of a future package to Lusk. The other half ? Lots of possibilities there...trashed it...pocketed it due to its truncated size..even ate it... |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 960
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Hey Steve Swift !
That was a good idea,but as Dan pointed out,the letters came after the GSG.
Your points in your post:
"1 piece of red gauze silk
1 large white pocket handkerchief
1 large white cotton handkerchief
1 piece course linen,
1 piece of blue and white shirting"
are damned good....real damned good.
Kate had 52 items on her person that were mentioned at her inquest...many were possible 'wiping" items. If the Ripper had rifled her pockets and used one or two to clean his blade,hands,etc.. they might have been taken with him as he made off into the night and discarded elsewhere...or he used them there: dropped them there: which would have probably turned up in the Police report.
Either way, good thinking Steve ! |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 13
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 9:23 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
He did carry the articles in the apron, but for some reason discards it [ the apron ] at the Wentworth. Might he have lived nearby,close enough to carry them openly?
Of the above outlined theories, I'd be inclined to go with this one. Not only would the concealing apron negate the problem of seeping fluids, it would also remove any onerous necessity, on the part of the ripper, to sully his pockets with the stuff.
It seems entirely plausible that the ripper diposited the apron at a point close to home, thus decreasing the likelihood of the exposed viscera being noticed about his person on the brief journey between Wentworth and home.
It is also worth entertaining the possibilty that JTR returned home *before* dipositing the apron. But even this limits JTR's potential "dwelling" to the immediate locality.
I don't buy the "hand-wiping" theory for the simple reason that he could have done that at Mitre Sq.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Ben,
I don't buy the "hand-wiping" theory for the simple reason that he could have done that at Mitre Sq.
Mitre Square and no where else?
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 257
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 10:41 am: |
|
Just one minor point.
Take a piece of cloth. Say a piece of apron.. Substitute something for a fresh uterus and a kidney (or by all means, go all the way..but get those pieces of viscera by legal means!) Wrap those bodyparts or the substitutes in the piece of cloth.
Where will the stain(s) be?
Helge,
now the Riddler.
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:25 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,Monty,Dan,Harry - first let me apologise for taking time to reply because I'm housebound and have no printer I cant register so it takes a while.
I dont think the apron was an accident,he lifted her clothes to mutilate but more than that,it would be difficult to cut off a strip of cloth with a knife that way.
I realised that the letters had not been published as soon as I posted but couldnt change the post by that time, but I still think our lad was miffed.
Sarah....what I was hinting at was maybe he had it in mind all along...maybe he only smeared blood on it to get it noticed yes? I mean, a piece of rag on the floor....nobody cares,but a piece of rag with blood on it...bingo!
Dropping that cloth was not a mistake, our boy does not make mistakes.He dropped that piece of apron for a reason,I'm not saying it was the writing, maybe the writing actually took everyones attention from the real reason he left it there....but he did leave it there.
I dont think it was to carry body parts either, he had his pockets or something else for that as he had before, plus, and forgive me for this but to quote Hannibal Lector 'did you ever see blood in the moonlight Will,it appears quite black' and it does too. I think if our boy kept to the shadows he wouldnt have a problem with bloodstains.
I have a question for more capable researchers than I, does anyone know if there was a 'yard' near Goulston Street? Like somewhere you would leave a pony and trap maybe?
|
N. Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:52 am: |
|
Howard,
Can you produce a list of the 52 items or tell me where to find it. It was not on the inquest reports on this site.
Faithfully, N. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Steve,
It is my understanding that the apron had already been cut in the course of the attack and it might have been a simple matter to simply cut it off completely so that he had a large surface area with which to wipe his hands and the knife.
As for the GSG, if you believe that none of the Ripper letters were genuine, but believe that Jack was the author of the GSG, then the conclusion that we are left with is that the one single time that Jack decided to communicate in this case was when he was escaping a murder scene,and most likely had blood on him as well as the organs of the woman he had just killed. Knowing the police were after him, he decides to stop and write an enigmatic message on bricks under poor lighting conditions with a piece of chalk that he just happened to have with him. Why not simply write a letter to the police (or make some other communication)once he got safely home? |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Sarah,
I think some factors militate against accidental cutting being the most probable option:
1. The cut-off piece of apron appears to have been rather large (hardly a small corner that had been snicked off) and it would be difficult to cut off such a large piece accidentally;
2. The apron, like the rest of Eddowes' lower garments, were presumably thrown up over her chest to expose the abdomen before the mutilations began;
3. The major abdominal incision was longitudinal and had the apron still been in place it would have hampered the progress of the knife;
4. That same incision commenced just under the xiphoid cartilage of the sternum and then jagged downwards - this would have cut the apron string neatly in half and I'm sure this would have been remarked upon. It wasn't - in fact the "strung" piece was still apparently attached to Kate's body;
5. The surgeons matched the pieces of apron by juxtaposing a divided piece of patched material common to both "halves". This suggests a clean cut, as it would have been hardly necessary to recombine the patch if there had been zig-zag "mirror images" that clearly fitted each other;
6. Other undergarments would have been cut in the process - the apron would have been one of the topmost of several layers of clothing;
7. Jack needed something purpose-made (or improvised) to carry away his stash of organs.
OK, ignore the last one if you like (don't want to start that all over again, do we?) but piecing everything else together strongly suggests to me that the killer deliberately cut himself a piece of apron after the bulk of his work was finished.
Of course, it doesn't rule out an accidental cut, but the balance of probabilities makes it very unlikely. I just wish the police had photographed (or at least described better) the fragment of apron in question.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
