|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 802
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 11:29 am: | 
|
Monty,
Thanks for the information. It would be great to know what the beat assigned to Long encompassed, but that seems lost to history.
an excellently maintained gas lamp gives out the same light as you refrigerator light.
In that regard it may be worth noting that at the Eddowes inquest Joseph Hyam Levy is reported to have said: "He thought the spot was very badly lighted. It was now much better lighted than it was the night of the murder."
He was refering only to Duke Street and, as you wrote, each light was different. Still, it suggests the lights in the area were not well maintained and that the authorities brought them up to snuff after the murder. So, it is possible things were even murkier in Mitre Square than they might have been.
Finally, how do you know so much about my refrigerator? Are you the one who has been stealing snacks when I'm asleep?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
"To be alone was to be without your pimp and protector."
Absolutely. Let's talk about this for a moment.
You're Jack.
You pick up Kelly, and you notice Hutchinson following you, and waiting outside.
Do you assume voyeur or pimp ? And if pimp, how safe do you feel ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 736
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Although this has been mentioned before, the lamps at the various entrances would ruin the night vision of anyone near them. For exmaple, when Harvey walked up the alley to Mitre Square (but not into the Square), he's walking "into the light", therefore, his night vision would be destroyed making it impossible for him to see "into the dark".
Jack has every oppertunity to know this because presumably he walked up that very alley as well. That gives him the oppertunity to notice how you cannot see into the square from the alley.
So, it's not just how dark the corner was that is important, it's really "how much darker the corner was compared to the lighted areas". The lights make the corner darker, so to speak; after all, as Einstein tells us "It's all relative".
- Jeff |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2762
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
And Monty, who was responsible for drawing up and regulating the beat of every single Metropolitan PC in the east End of London in 1888?
Good point, Sir Robert
One that I labour with.
But what I thought about lately was the whore and pimp trick where the pimp climbs through the window and chucks a bucket of water over the trick when he is naked, and whore runs out of door with trick's loot.
Imagine climbing through that window and chucking your bucket of water on that mess.
And nobody moved.
Whatever, Hutchinson's interest is not healthy.
I did find some stuff on him, but I forget now what it was. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 592
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
"Good point, Sir Robert
One that I labour with."
I have a fundamental problem with the notion that Kelly's room was a place where Jack would have felt safe hunkering down for a few hours' work.
What that should lead us to conclude, I haven't the foggiest. I will say that the Torso Dude obviously felt he would be undisturbed for the time needed to sculpt his masterpieces.
Perhaps Jack was a Dadaist.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3079
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Monty,
which brings me to wonder -
what about the circumstances re Chapman? Any luck involved?
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say,That life it ain't easy"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Don, AP and all,
Don,
See how I said on average? See what I did there? Crafty. Paul Begg put me on to a news report which is an excellent insight in to the lighting of the area. Note the date of the report.
Daily News
United Kingdom
5 October 1888
STREET LIGHTING IN THE EAST END
“Resolved, that this Board regards with horror and alarm the several atrocious murders recently perpetrated within the district of Whitechapel and its vicinity, and calls upon Sir Charles Warren so to regulate and strengthen the police force in the neighbourhood as to guard against any repetition of such atrocities.”
“Go to,” adroitly replies Sir Charles Warren. “Look to your lamps. The purlieus about Whitechapel are very imperfectly lighted, and the darkness is an important assistant to crime.” There can be no doubt in the mind of anybody who knows the purlieus of Whitechapel that the Commissioner has fairly scored one against the Whitechapel District Board of Works. “You are decidedly of opinion, then,” was a question addressed to Chief Inspector West, “that if your division were generally better lighted it would tend materially to render many forms of crime more difficult and the capture of criminals more easy?” “Most certainly,” was the ready rejoinder. “Look even at this Commercial street. It has always appeared to me to be very insufficiently lighted - a broad and important thoroughfare like this. It is none too brilliant now. Lying just off it there are some of the lowest of lodging houses, and you can see how easy it must be for rough characters to snatch from the persons passing along and rush off into their dens in the darkness with very little chance of their being identified or followed. But wait until the few shops are closed, and the public house lights are put out, and see then how wretchedly the street is lighted, and what opportunities there are for all sorts of mischief to go on.”
Looking up this main thoroughfare it is impossible to deny that there is much force in what the officer says, and turning into the minor streets and lanes in the neighbourhood the opportunities afforded by the murky condition of the streets for the perpetration of crimes of violence are very apparent. Put out the public house lamps at twelve o’clock, and shut up one or two little shops, and you have - for instance, in Fleur de Lys street - a dismal little lane suggestive of almost anything bad. Obscure thoroughfares like Elder street, Quaker street, Blossom street are all of them open to the same criticism, and a very little exploration will convince anybody that that in most of them there are deeper depths of gloom, affording really startling facilities for vice and crime. “Look here, sir,” said an anxious and despondent woman to the officer who was looking round one of these murky lanes last evening. “We may all be murdered here any night. This door’s open all night long. People may get down in the cellar or out in the back yard, or up the staircases, and none of us can prevent ‘em.” The house passage widened out into a sort of washhouse, and behind this was a very nasty yard, all in utter darkness. The District Board of Works saw, and reasonably enough of course, that they cannot be held responsible for this. It is the landlord’s affair. But as a matter of notorious fact, in all the poorer quarters of London, the landlords do not look to the security of their tenement passages and back yards, and cannot be made to do so. And it is a fact which certainly seems to afford a strong reason why at least the actual streets should be well lighted. In many cases, however, not only is the lighting of the streets very insufficient either for comfort or security, but yards for which the authorities are certainly responsible are entirely neglected. Take as an illustration of this Pope’s Head court in Quaker street. It opens from the street by a public passage, and the yard itself is in utter darkness. The lodgers in an adjacent public house have a way to it by a back gate. Seen at any rate by night it has the appearance of a place specially planned for deeds of crime and vice; and the unfortunate people who have to grope their way to their rooms through the dirt and darkness are loud in their complaints. “Been here six years,” said a rough looking occupant of a room in the court, “and never had no key, and never had the front door locked. Look at that staircase leading up to that place there - anybody may get up them, and do just what they like. I have begged the landlord to give us a lock on the door, and a key. But not he; he takes no notice of us, and don’t care a curse whether we gets murdered or not.” The lighting and cleansing at least of this court seem to be the work of the District Board, and the circumstances under which this nasty little retreat was found - quite incidentally in the course of an inspection of the street - certainly suggested the probability that many others of a similar character might have been found by further search in the same neighbourhood. Some of the courts and streets inspected in this poor neighbourhood are very fairly lighted, but every here and there one was found in which apparently the greatest economy of lamp lighting had been practised, in consideration of the fact that the flaring lights of public houses sufficiently supplemented the street lamps up till midnight. After midnight, however, such streets are terribly gloomy. Let any one go down Spital street, for instance, after twelve o’clock at night and say whether throat cutting and “snatching” and general vice are not suggested by the murky darkness of the locality. From there go on to Buxton street and thence into Code street - not only wretchedly lighted, but ankle deep in mud, by the way. These are in the immediate neighbourhood of Hanbury street, which is itself for the most part very poorly lighted. In this street, it will be remembered, it has already been shown that large numbers of the houses are let out tenements, and the street doors and passages are open all night long. The terror of many of the people at the time that murder was found out in one of these houses was intense. Said one woman, “There are unlocked cellars down under these houses, and the yards are all open, and we may any of us be murdered in our beds.” Last night as a small party of inspectors moved about the neighbourhood there were abundant indications that this terror had by no means subsided. Again and again appeal was made that something should be done for their greater safety, and the general anxiety and sense of insecurity must unquestionably have been greatly intensified by the unsatisfactory lighting in the streets. “When this public house is shut up,” said the police inspector, “how could I possibly make out anything going on a few yards off.” The lamps, it may be, are not too far apart, but they are feeble flickerings wholly behind the times.
Now it must not be supposed that we are singling out the Whitechapel district for especial censure. Much of the evil character of Whitechapel as a region of slums and filth and squalor is purely a matter of tradition. It may have been true of it a generation ago, but it is true no longer, as regards by far the greater part of the district at least. In lighting and cleansing and general management Whitechapel is at least on an equality with localities in the south and north, and even in many parts of the west. But there are 70,000 people here, and among them a police sergeant observed last night that he had in the district assigned to him no less than 6,000 residents in common lodging houses. Of course they will include a serious proportion of the criminal and cadger class, and lighting and patrolling that might be sufficient elsewhere may very well be wholly insufficient among a population like this. Having regard to the character of the population, Sir Charles Warren says unequivocally that the neighbourhood is imperfectly lighted, and that the darkness is an important assistant to crime. The District Board of Works will we understand shortly have the Commissioner’s letter under consideration, and the reply they may be expected to make is that they do not increase their lamps for precisely the same reason that Sir Charles Warren does not increase the number of his men. Lamps, like policemen, cost money, and the lighting of Whitechapel cannot be rendered more brilliant without a serious addition to the rates. Roughly speaking, every street lamp represents a hundred pounds capitalised. That is to say, the annual maintenance of a lamp costs about the interest of £100, and altogether the lighting of the entire district costs in round figures £5,000 a year. It is a good round sum no doubt but if it is really true that an increase of light would tend decidedly to the suppression of crime it seems very probable that the addition of even another £5,000 and the doubling of the light would be a good investment. But a good deal less then this would effect a great improvement in the safety and comfort of thousands of people, and very much the same may be said of many other large districts of London. At no very distant date it may be science and public spirit may combine to banish darkness altogether. Science, indeed, is quite ready to undertake the business offhand, and to pour over any section of London such a blaze of light that slums and passages and back yards can no longer give shelter to deeds of darkness. But funds, alas, are not yet forthcoming. As yet we prefer to spend our money in providing plunder for thieves, and in maintaining them when we have caught them in spite of all the difficulties of darkness. No doubt we shall be wiser some day, but an intelligent comprehension of these matters is like the revolution of electric lighting - a matter of slow and gradual progress.”
AP,
And Monty, who was responsible for drawing up and regulating the beat of every single Metropolitan PC in the east End of London in 1888?
I do not know the answer to that one, let me look it up...
...the Inspector will visit the sub-division at differing points day and night with the Superintendent also monitoring the running of the divi....hey, wouldnt be the Supe would it??
Mmmmmm, would you know who that was??
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3080
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:25 am: |
|
Wait a minute! (lol)
How did the left handed thing affected when the PCs were in the square i assume it must have even if this wasnt significantly?
"Don't you know it's true what they say,That life it ain't easy"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3082
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
me again,
i've been thinking (i know ring it on the calender! )
if he hadn't picked that time and day he would have been spotted, right? that was the only ten minute interval available?
Jenni
"Don't you know it's true what they say,That life it ain't easy"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2764
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Sir Robert
I have long struggled with the alien concept of the Whitechapel Murderer being responsible for the slaughter of Mary Jane Kelly, and the murder of Elizabeth Stride.
Too quick-quick and then too slow-slow.
Each of the Whitechapel Murders appears to be distinguished and distinctive simply because of the rapid speed of events.
As the film starts we peer at a screen that shows us a perfectly normal Whitechapel night scene, then suddenly the frame freezes for a brief minute, and when it starts again we are suddenly looking at a splattered corpse with its innards all over the place, and we haven’t got a single clue of where that corpse came from or what happened to it.
The film shows a long period of calm, freezes for a brief minute and it is in that brief pause that there is a massive and explosive amount of bloody action, and we return to the film to find something that was not there in the film when it froze.
Freeze frame… It is that quick.
Surely this is the hallmark of the Whitechapel Murderer?
The drama of Long Liz Stride is really more suitable as a storyline in an episode of East-Enders, for we have many actors, a full stage in fact; and an audience watching every move the actors make.
We can follow the development of the plot right through the long night, right up to the very moment in time when Stride is thrown to the ground and murdered.
We have each frame of that film available for close scrutiny, we have the dialogue, we have a sound track and we know the names of almost every actor on the stage.
No freeze frame murder here then.
No magically revealed mangled corpse to fill our screen with a suddenness that makes us sit up in our seats.
Just a normal Whitechapel street scene with all the actors playing their roles.
And then we come to the slaughter of Mary Jane Kelly.
We can’t set-up our movie camera in the room because we are not supposed to see what goes on in the room. That is private; that is a secret, not a public display of brutality and savagery designed to make our hair stand on end. So we must set up the camera in the court and train it directly at the lower floor window, switch it on… and wait.
One hour? Two hours?
Three hours?
…….
Four hours?
………
………
Five hours?
That should do it.
Let’s rewind and see what we got.
Nothing, not a blasted thing.
Now, how different is that to the freeze frame murders we have been watching all night? |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 523
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Jack was much less likely to be discovered doing what he was doing to Kelly in her room than if he'd been doing the same thing out on the street. That was the point here. If he'd anatomized Nichols in the street, he'd have been caught right there and never have gotten the chance to become a serial killer. Of course, no place is 100% safe to do that sort of thing.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 217
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Stan,
Is that what you believe, or are you saying that's the point of the thread? I think it is very possible that he was a serial killer by chance rather than design. I'm open to other thoughts, however.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 525
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hi Mike et. al,
Yes, I'm sure he became a serial killer because he couldn't help himself or, at least, found no compelling need to do so.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of the thread was to point out his progression from less to more secluded. If anyone wants to argue that a locked room is less secluded than a wide open street then "You got some 'splainin' to do Lucy".
Best regards,
Stan |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 594
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
"If anyone wants to argue that a locked room is less secluded than a wide open street then "You got some 'splainin' to do Lucy". "
1) You're not talking about a "wide open street", you're talking about byways and alleyways.
2) If you want to call a room where you can reach in through the window and unlock the door, a "locked room", go for it. I don't think we've got a John Dickson Carr mystery here.
3) How 'secluded' is a room with Hutchinson standing outside it ???
4) The specific issue I raise is whether or not Jack was justified in believing he would be undisturbed and able to settle in for a couple of hours of surgery. I think he took more chances with Kelly than with the other murders, with the exception of Stride.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 526
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
If you want to believe that Buck's Row or even a fenced yard is more secluded than a closed room, go right ahead. Tell me he wouldn't have been caught if he'd done a "Kelly" on Nichols. Like I said, no place is 100% safe. It's silly to even argue the point so I shall leave it at that.
Stan |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 219
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Stan,
That was, indeed the purpose of the thread.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 69
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Hello AP
We can follow the development of the plot right through the long night, right up to the very moment in time when Stride is thrown to the ground and murdered.
IF she was killed then. It is by no means unheard of for a killer to 'rescue' his victim and then go on to take their life.
I think Millers Court was a very public display to be honest,even though it was behind closed doors so to speak.
I like this thread, it intrigues me because it is not all simple black or white. When we consider the location of these killings we would do well to think of the killers mind set at the time.
Now do we think this man was cold and calculating or do we believe he was blind in his lust? In that mad moment was he focused on his victim or was he in two minds do you think?
Nichols,Stride and Eddowes are all cut down in the street. Now I realise what Mitre Square was but it WAS a thoroughfare yes?
Chapman and Kelly died in what could be described as 'places of business'.
So when Nichols,Stride & Eddowes died was he thinking of WHERE he was killing them or was he just focused on the actual act? If you believe he was thinking then we would have to assume this man was incredibly stupid because the location of these three murders are very public indeed. Personally I think these three killings were opportunist acts with no planning at all, the 'lust' just took him.
With Chapman & Kelly we see him thinking it through.Personally I attribute this to him actually entering into some kind of conversation with these two victims, basically Annie & Mary led the killer to the locations...and to their own doom.
1) You're not talking about a "wide open street", you're talking about byways and alleyways.
Irrelevant - the only thing that matters is these places were public,anyone could have walked round the corner.
2) If you want to call a room where you can reach in through the window and unlock the door, a "locked room", go for it. I don't think we've got a John Dickson Carr mystery here.
Who would have known that Robert? Because the landlord sure as hell didnt.
3) How 'secluded' is a room with Hutchinson standing outside it ???
IF he was there at all,he was not at any time standing outside the room.
To argue that Millers Court was not the most secluded location is just arguing for arguments sake really.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:42 pm: |
|
To debate seclusion, you've got to include purpose...Kelly's room might well have been ideal for a quick rip...or an Eddowes' style mutilation...but wholesale dismantling of a woman ? Ground floor cubicle with potential roommates, other Johns, Hutchinson, no real lock...not to mention you're trapped the minute someone else enters...
I think not, and therefore I don't see any evidence of a pattern vis a vis seclusion. I can also see some of this arguing against Kelly being a Ripper victim, a point I am loathe to concede.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 53
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
The conditions were the same regardless of whether the killer was Jack, Barnett or someone else. I don't see how this is an argument against Kelly being a Ripper victim.
c.d. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 597
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
"I think Millers Court was a very public display to be honest,even though it was behind closed doors so to speak. "
"To argue that Millers Court was not the most secluded location is just arguing for arguments sake really."
So which is it, Steve ? Public display or secluded ?
It all depends on what you intend to do in the room. It ain't that private for extended surgery.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 73
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:32 pm: |
|
I'll go into detail if I must.
The room is locked AFTER the killer leaves so I think it is very fair to think it was locked during the crime.
Even the landlord of the property does not know the door can be unlocked via the window so I think it is fair to say it was not common knowledge,one of Kellys friends knocks that morning to borrow a shawl and leaves upon getting no answer.
There may well be only one way out of Millers Court but that means there is also only one way in.
It was a public display Robert because the killer knew that at some point someone would find her the way he intended, so while the killing was indeed secluded the act was intended to be a very public one.
And I am debating purpose.He did to Mary Kelly what he would have liked to have done to all the others but did not have the luxury of SECLUSION.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 222
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
I think Jack either made sure he found a victim that had an apartment, or else he was absolutely pleased when Kelly asked him if he wanted to go back to her place. This was his chance to do what he had wanted to do to the others. I think, upon completion of his butchery, he knew what ever it was he was looking for he'd found or realized its finding was unattainable. Regardless, he had no need to kill again. Kelly's room was far better to do his work in than upon any of the streets. He could positoon candles the precise way he wanted them. He could lock the room. He was virtually assured in his own mind that he would not be disturbed for quite a while. If Hutchinson was about, there's no reason to believe that Jacky knew it. If people came and went at all hours of the night into Kelly's apartment, there's no reason to believ that he knew this either. In his mind, the setting was perfect for what he'd been wanting to do 4 times previously.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
"He did to Mary Kelly what he would have liked to have done to all the others but did not have the luxury of SECLUSION."
"In his mind, the setting was perfect for what he'd been wanting to do 4 times previously."
Mike & Steve - You could search far and wide in the Casebook to find folks confident about what Jack "wanted to do" with the C5. Somehow you've both figured it out. Congrats.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 223
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:52 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Is that the drip of sarcasm I hear?
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
trudylynndavis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:05 pm: |
|
I think Jack the ripper is very interresting}} |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Monty,
Extremely grateful for your offer to lobby the editors for the article, and indeed for your informative and comprehensive responses otherwise. I think we're broadly in agreement, anyway!
Don,
"how [does Monty] know so much about my refrigerator?"
Interesting challenge. While he's at it, perhaps Monty can corroborate Terry Waite's assertion that the 'fridge light definitely goes off when the door is shut ;o) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1983
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Gareth,
Yes, I think we are in braod agreement with regards the lighting situation.
Yes the light does turn of when you close the fridge door.
Also to be considered is that Bears do $hite in the woods.
The Pope is indeed Catholic.
And Don Soudens beer is cheap and tasteless.......unlike the man himself.
Monty
PS Gareth. Lobbying the editors? Seeing as I wrote the damn article the editors will dance to my finger clicking tune....whoo-ha-haaa!
(Message edited by monty on November 07, 2005)
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Yo Monty,
how do you know that the light is off when the door is closed?
Prove it!!!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 815
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Monty is a renowned gourmand and for that reason doubtless has a walk-in fridge. Thus, I deduce he tested it once by walking in and closing the door. Voila! The light went out in the refrigerator and went on in his brain.
Another triumph for British empiricism -- or is this the wrong thread for that argument. 
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 1:13 pm: |
|
But he was on about when gareth closed the door not when he did.
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 817
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Aha, an "anti-semantic" (just ask Helge) battle looms.
Yes the light does turn off when you close the fridge door.
The operative word here is "you." I read Monty's usage as being the all-inclusive plural refering to everyone and you read it as the particular singular refering only to Gareth and his fridge.
If we lived in the American South we'd know what he meant because the plural would be rendered as "y'all" (yawl).
And Monty? He ain't saying nothing (which is worthy of the GSG).
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Barnaby
Police Constable
Username: Barnaby
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 12:42 am: |
|
Perhaps we are overestimating the time JTR took with Kelly. Surely it needn't be "a few hours." |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1989
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Y'all Guys,
Oh brudder !
Monty
It begins.....
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Don,
"The light went out in the refrigerator and went on in his brain. Another triumph for British empiricism"
Don't know about Empiricism - that sounds more like Utilitarianism to me, as propounded by John Stuart Chill of course. |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Seclusion to me means the abscence of witnesses so we have: most secluded - Kelly; next - Mitre Sq.; then - Bucks Row; then - Hanbury St.; then - Berner St., with Martha Tabram inbetween Eddowes and the Nichols' murders.
Actual witnesses (material) and the possibility of them. Dorset St. - closed room ; Mitre Sq. - secluded square (apparently) ; Bucks Row - out of town ; Hanbury St. - closed yard but with possibility of traffic ; Berner St - side yard but opening on to busy area ; George Buildings - secluded building and street but may have been seen by policeman.
Material witnesses, 1: George Hutchinson would be possible if a perceived threat.
2: Lawende and others - no threat.
3:Bucks Row - nobody about, though potential of being seen.
4:Hanbury St. - Cadosche and Davies and possibly Liz Long.
5:Berner St. - Pipeman, Schwartz and others.
(6 George Buildings) Policeman possibly.(inbetween 1 & 2 or 2 & 3))
Away from people whether intentional or unintentional. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 238
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Barnaby,
You are right, of course. He may have known exactly what he was doing, or had a plan of action, and therefore, was able to be methodical and efficient in his butchery.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
monty,
what does that mean? I'll venture a bet. It means you can't prove it, doesn't it?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
monty,
what does that mean? I'll venture a bet. It means you can't prove it, doesn't it?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 825
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Yep, Monty will probably have to put this investigation into the "cold case" file.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1994
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
Jenn,
Climb inside your fridge, then tell me if I am right or not.
Until you've conducted your own research do not cast rash statements about mine.
Good day.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3161
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 5:10 am: |
|
Monty,
how can you be sure i have not done this already?
Why don't you tell me what proof you have?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page