|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:36 pm: | 
|
G'day.
JULIE: 'Leanne
I don't remember the newspaper that reported this, but unless I am mistaken the guy was Richardson.'
The 'AtoZ' gives the names of three Richardsons: *RICHARDSON, MRS AMELIA (Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest),
*RICHARDSON, JOHN (Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest),
and *RICHARDSON, JOSEPH HALL (Journalist working on the Daily Telegraph). Which Richardson do you mean?
The report was from the 'Star' newspaper of October 1 and here is the passage: "From two different sources we have the story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone is on the look-out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and sailor's hat."
The 'Star' newspapers 'Two different sources' couldn't have copied the description of a 'sailor's hat' from a report on the man seen wearing a sailor's hat in Berner Street by P.C.Smith, because no newspaper had published the description yet.
Was this man spotted wiping his hands in Church Passage, Jack the Ripper on his way to Mitre Square?
LEANNE |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 747
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Leanne,
This story was discussed in the latest issue of Ripper Notes, but one correction should be noted here. It was not two different people who saw the man in a sailor's hat; it was one man who saw the fellow wiping a knife and who supposedly passed that story on to two different people who passed the story on to the Star.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 876
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
It might have been Kidney. He would not necessarily have hastened off anywhere - certainly not to Mitre Square - and could have been in shock if he had just killed his lover in an unpremeditated attack.
Cleaning the knife might have been almost a reflex reaction. To be honest, I don't really see Jack as pausing in so open and flagrant a way, if he was en route to find a second victim.
I don't, of course, really know if it was kidney, but since I first read the account (in Sugden, I think) I have often wondered. It has the feel of an honest sighting, but as I say (to me) not of Jack.
Phil |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 1:57 am: |
|
G'day,
DON: I haven't set eyes on the latest issue of 'Ripper Notes'. Does the article shed any further light on the story? I can understand how two people would have approached the 'Star' with a story told to them by the same man. I don't think it should have been ignored.
That street would have been the first 'quiet' street the murderer would have encountered, while everyone was searching the surrounding streets. It wasn't so 'open and flagrant'.And I don't think anyone would innocently clean blood of his hands at 1:30 a.m.-ish in the morning, especially if he lived nearby and could go indoors.
If it was Jack the Ripper, who's to say that he knew he was going to find a second victim that night? I believe he headed towards Mitre Square and Dukes Place market, not specifically to find another victim, but to begin to establish an alibi by being seen in an area that he frequented.
It is not hard to believe that this single paragraph in one newspaper was overlooked by the police.
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1882
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:03 am: |
|
LEANNE
I believe he headed towards Mitre Square and Dukes Place market, not specifically to find another victim, but to begin to establish an alibi by being seen in an area that he frequented.
Someone ballsed up that plan then, eh?
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
G'day Monty,
Please explain?
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1884
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
LEANNE,
Well, if he didn’t set out specifically to find a victim, to build an alibi, the murder in Mitre Square could have worked against him. If it wasn’t him that despatched Eddowes.
If it was him (that killed Eddowes), and he was trying to establish an Alibi, why balls it up (or risk ballsing it up) by killing someone in the area?
I don’t get the logic, sorry.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 893
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I believe he headed towards Mitre Square and Dukes Place market, not specifically to find another victim, but to begin to establish an alibi by being seen in an area that he frequented.
So we are back to BELIEF - no reasoning attached, no logic, no reference to any published basis or previous discussion - just someone's belief!!
Very interesting, but unless we believe in some sort of psychic link with Jack - worthless. We haven't a clue what Jack's motivation was, or even whether the same person struck down Stride and Eddowes, so what purpose is served by haring off down this avenue.
Not even worth discussing, other than to dismiss.
Phil
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
What better purpose is served by you haring off down Kidney Avenue and stating your belief (and it remains just a belief with zero evidence, despite all the arguments put forward so far) that he 'probably' killed Stride?
Is nothing worth discussing in your view unless it happens to match your own unevidenced beliefs?
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 933
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
But I don't HAVE a theory, or anything that i try to promote - as i have explained to you a dozen times at least, I play with ideas.
It's like a jigsaw puzzle. I am seeking to identify the pieces. In only a few cases do I remotely believe that one can put any together.
So when I discuss the Kidney-as-killer idea it is as a possibility. I do not string it - as your post did - into a pattern of movement, or anything at all really. But given what seem to me to be strong arguments for him as killer, I do now question the canonical construct (5 victims).
Now it seems to me that you NEVER move away from the "C5" - you will never entertain a single idea that challenges that assumption. Whether it is because you know that, if the C5 were shown to be a misunderstanding of the facts of the case it would instantly discredit the "Diary"; or because you lack that sort of imagination, I do not know.
But the main thing I challenge in your "belief" post is that you do not base your belief upon anything that can be discussed or analysed - no references, citations or even stated reasoning. Look at what you wrote, once again:
I believe he headed towards Mitre Square and Dukes Place market...
On what evidence or references do you posit this statement? IF there were a double event, he MIGHT have done so - but indirectly. I do not challenge your right to the view, simply question the value of stating it.
... not specifically to find another victim, but to begin to establish an alibi...
So how do we get inside the killer's mind, even assuming that Jack was responsible for both murders? On what basis is this assertion made? Is there any evidence (read indication) of his seeking an alibi in the case of any other murder connected with the JtR case? I see none in the cases of Tabram, Nichols, Chapmen or Kelly (assuming MJK a Ripper victim).
Indeed, how would we know if he had? How would we know in the case of the Eddowes murder? In fact, the drew attention to himself if anything by leaving the apron scrap which showeed where he had been. If he wrote, as some (not me) believe he did, the graffito, then he drew attention to himself even more. How do either collate with the idea of Jack seeking an alibi?
...by being seen in an area that he frequented.
How do you reach this conclusion? There is nothing given to support it - we cannot see your reasoning to discuss it. Thus, the statement has NO VALUE except as a simple statement of your belief. But I thought you a deeper student than to be satisfied with that - and it disappoints me, given your usually more pugnacious style of discussion and debate.
But how would we know Jack was seeking for people to see him. His behaviour with Eddowes suggests the opposite - Hyam Levy MIGHT have known him, but none of the three Jews got a good enough view. Surely a man seeking an alibi would have made sure they saw him, especially if he was known to one of them!!
I could go on - on what basis do you hypothesise that Jack decided against alibis and decided to kill again (as you see it).
But of course, the whole elaborate belief system breaks down if Jack did not kill Stride.
Let's leave it at that shall we?
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1899
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:15 am: |
|
Erm Phil,
Dont shoot me but....
....the idea that Jack headed to Orange market to establish an alibi was Leannes and not Cazs.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 938
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Monty you are right!! Thank you.
Profuse apologies to Caz - over to Leanne for a response.
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 3:22 am: |
|
Phil,
Done it myself many a time and no doubt will do again.
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
G'day,
Sorry It's taken me this long to respond but I have been having heaps of computer problems and I've been waiting for a response from more people.
Monty, to believe that Jack the Ripper went from one busy location, (Dutfield's Yard), straight to another, (the area surrounding Mitre Square), soley to find another victim, (with absolutely no other reason), is trying to read a serial killer's mind too!
I believe he 'ballsed up' his plan to be in a place that was usual for him to be in that morning, at that time, by butchering another woman, because his evil personality, his anger at his failure to 'finish the job', plus his killer instinct got in the way.
I've been trying to find proof, a police report or something that proves beyond doubt that police acted on this and every single paragraph that appeared in every single newspaper, located at least one of these unidentified witnesses who spoke to the 'Star' or the man who saw the suspect wearing an uncommon sailors cap.
I have also been trying to find proof and think of a reason why anyone would be innocently wiping blood off his hands, outside, at 1:30-ish in the morning!
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1906
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 7:13 am: |
|
Leanne,
1.30 ish in the morning?
A man wiping blood from his hands?
I suggest you spend a night with a local large Police force. I wonder how many men you see wiping blood from their hands.
Innocently no, I agree.
I believe he 'ballsed up' his plan to be in a place that was usual for him to be in that morning, at that time, by butchering another woman, because his evil personality, his anger at his failure to 'finish the job', plus his killer instinct got in the way.
So its just a case of “darn it….one more wont hurt?”
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 8:55 am: |
|
"....and I don't even care if she's not a regular prostitute!"
LEANNE |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 761
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Please, this thread was beyond its sell-buy date before it began, but as an example of how stories get changed it is useful.
Consider: I have also been trying to find proof and think of a reason why anyone would be innocently wiping blood off his hands, outside, at 1:30-ish in the morning!
Re-read the small item from the Star -- there is no mention of blood, he was merely "wiping his hands."
You have an unattributed story in a single newspaper that says someone (unidentified) was seen wiping his hands and looking "suspicious" by another person (unidentified) who passed this tale on to two other people (unidentified). As it is, the reporter worked for the Star, which had been enterprising enough to track down Israel Schwartz so we might assume that in this case they tried and failed -- if they even thought it worth pursuing.
Moreover, you should never read any newspaper stories about the Ripper (like this one) in isolation. If you go through the newspapers for the period you are quickly struck by how many similar items you will find: people were forever telling the police and newspapers about suspicious neighbors and strangers. It was a great game.
Finally, even if the unidentified person really saw all that he claimed, what did he see? He saw a man sitting on a stoop wiping his hands at 1:30 a.m. on a weekend morning. Oh, and he looked suspicious and tried to hide his face. So what?
We have to stop looking at things from our finely focused perspective and realize that even at the height of the scare Whitechapel was NOT a 24/7 Ripper reality show. People had lives and they lived them. Surely, given even a moment for reflection, we could come up with several dozen innocent reasons why someone would be wiping their hands and resent being stared at.
And that "uncommon" sailor's cap -- if it were really that uncommon (and it wasn't) then the newspaper would have described it rather than call it a sailor's cap and expect all its readers to understand what was meant.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
So its just a case of “darn it….one more wont hurt?”
I doubt it Monty,very much. In fact,if you consider the murder of Eddowes first, then it looks unlikely that the same man killed Stride too.
Kate Eddowes was killed BETWEEN two PC's beats which gave him a very short space of time,ten minutes tops, to mutilate & escape.Now we have to ask ourselves a question, was that LUCK or PLANNING?
If it is planning then we would have reach the conclusion he did not kill Liz Stride, because a plan requires a calm & level head, not a man running for his life after almost getting caught.
On the other hand....
If our man is riding his LUCK then it's possible that after his escape he was actually heading for home when he ran into the luckless Eddowes,just released from a cell and looking for doss money?
I'll tell you why I think he killed both women. Annie Chapmans mutilations show a modicum of control and skill,with Kate Eddowes we see a lot more anger....or was it because,for the first time,our killer had capture on his mind? He slices into her rectum,botches removing her womb - I think these we're signs of panic/fear.
From the post mortem, it looks to me like he was out of control for most of his attack,unlike the killing of Annie Chapman. I think poor Kate Eddowes paid the price for the disturbance at Dutfields Yard.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Steve,
You doubt it? Me also.
Im not being picky here Steve but….
Killed between 2 PC beats? Eddowes was murdered on Watkins beat. Harveys beat did not include the Square and therefore he had no reason to 'check’ the square as he walked along Church Passage (Ripperologist No 57, some lame guy called Neil Bell).....ah Sod it....I am being picky, sorry.
The window does seem a small one yet in even 5 minutes it is surprising how much one can accomplish. Murder and mutilate? I do not know exactly but I have mimed it out. Again lame but I had to in order for me to grasp the timing. Finished far sooner than 10 mins but that’s just me. Jack may had, more likely would have had, far more problems than I.
I think the lighting situation rather than fear of capture contributed to the mistakes, if indeed they were mistakes. I also feel he was in the ‘zone’ so to speak. Nothing mattered except Eddowes body. That’s no to say he wasn’t aware of his surroundings but his main focus, for that window of time, was Eddowes.
Chapman, IMHO, shows more signs of this fear of capture than Eddowes. You see control and I see a more reserved killing. Her SOC is far more restricted in terms of escape and also operation. This may be why she was not mutilated to the same extent. Especially when you take on board the time of Chapmans murder. People were on the move.
Eddowes may seem a restricted site also but it was far more open than the yard. You are able to hear most oncoming persons early and have 3 escape routes to chose from. If you wanted to pick an out in the open murder site in the east end, you’d wont be challenged hard to pick a better one.
Again, sorry to disagree, but I see control in Eddowes mutilations. The ‘^’ and eye nicks, precise and controlled. No rush. Now I don’t now if these cuts were done at the beginning of the mutilating act or the end. If the end, which is the general consensus, then our boy had far more time than some think.
Regards,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
No worries - apology accepted. 
Hi Steve,
I think poor Kate Eddowes paid the price for the disturbance at Dutfields Yard.
My instincts - plus the double event in Croydon in 2003, and a probable one here just the other week - tell me you may well be right.
Love,
Caz
X |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
